Miss Cyclefree, for once I must disagree with you, regarding the Irish comparison.
First off, it was a different era. Nowadays there's real fear around both financial sector instability and currency unions. Moreover, the eurozone sovereign debt crisis is rumbling on and will rear its ugly head again, which will affect economies and financial markets. It is not the sort of circumstance in which we want English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers responsible for independent Scottish financial institutions.
Of course, if Yes wins, we must hope Scotland is successful. But if it does hurl itself lemming-like off a cliff then tethering Britannia to Caledonia may not rescue the Scottish maiden but lead to a double suicide instead.
I'm very surprised TSE hasn't spotted the main attraction of a yes vote - and that is the more we can be split up in to independent bits, perhaps Wales next, then Yorkshire, then the peoples republic of Bercow-land... the better
That way we'll be in with a chance of a top 10 finish in eurovision in perhaps a decade's time.
Someone neutral (ish): how good are the YES canvass returns compared to the NO? I.e. Do YES have a much better idea of where their supporters are over NO?
Reason I ask is DavidL pointed out here a day or two ago that NO simply didn't have the time or resources to do a full canvass of their support, so are just going to knock up their good areas instead.
I wouldn't be surprised if YES had better data on their core base, the 40%, but not the late swingers who've swung to YES in the last 2-3 weeks. They won't have had time either.
Therefore, is it possible, that when it comes to turning out that deciding margin, both sides will be fumbling in the dark?
YES still need to click 51%+ on the day IMHO to overcome their likely postal vote handicap.
The only polling that has been done on Orkeny/Shetland intentions post independence had the choice between staying with an independent Scotland or forming a fully independent country of their own. Sticking with Scotland was 80%+.
Alistair seems to be accurate. But what would be the point of rejoining the UK? The enclave issue would occur, and they'd end up paying lots of taxes to London.
One other possible factor - no idea how important it is - is the complete collapse of the uniformed services in and over Scottish waters. No Nimrods*, rescue helicopters reducing to contractor services, no serious warships routinely based there (other than Trident boats). Coastguard reduced, attempts to cut emergency tugs, etc. Important not just for defence but also for safety and pollution control. And this has happened under the UK. Hardly unique to those waters, of course, but they are particularly affected.
*Precious little action on replacement as far as I can see.
Am I alone in thinking of staying up to watch the results come in, even though I have no real stake in whether Scotland is independence or not ?
I live 400 miles away from Scotland and have no real connection with it. If it goes independent, it is not really going to affect me, unless the stock market and other financial markets go into meltdown.
But the stupid thing is that I do care about it. It is a 307 year old union and I think if separation happens, it might not be a good thing for the UK's reputation.
Yes, it affects you. It really really does.
It will be BAD for us economically, it will probably be really BAD for Scotland, and it could be a potential CATASTROPHE for all.
My guess is somewhere between really bad and catastrophe, in the medium term.
Simon Jenkins was recently interviewed on independence and he said he was not sure what the fuss was about. He seemed to think that Scotland could go independent without any real affect on Scotland or the rUK.
Is he still at the Guardian? V funny.
Of course Scotland can be independent. But there will be a cost. An actual dollar (sterling) cost to this which will likely not work itself out for several decades.
There will be an immediate fiscal contraction together with likely higher borrowing costs and uncertainty about the currency which might also play into capital and human flight.
Seriously. Watch this. It's long, detailed, but blood-chilling.
Scotland would have to move from 5% deficit to 5% surplus. Or face default. Savage austerity would ensue, possibly hyperinflation and mass unemployment.
Britain - or north Britain - may be about to do the stupidest thing in the history of capitalism.
The thing that I've found most striking about the whole independence question is that there are many organisations saying it is economically a bad idea, and some saying it is in the balance, but there doesn't seem to be any credible* organisation, business, or economist, saying "it's a great idea, Scotland will soon be filthy rich". Nobody.
Even the Euro had some seriously heavy weight fans. Scottish independence seems to have got the thumbs down from every serious economic commentator.
* I say credible because there are some incredible commentators and organisations closely tied to YES saying stuff that frankly makes them look stupid.
How long before an independent Scotland, goes completely and utterly tits up, and gets out the begging bowl?
I don't think that will happen, because ultimately the Scottish government will have to deal with reality, but I expect to see them come down to Earth quite quickly.
The only polling that has been done on Orkeny/Shetland intentions post independence had the choice between staying with an independent Scotland or forming a fully independent country of their own. Sticking with Scotland was 80%+.
Alistair seems to be accurate. But what would be the point of rejoining the UK? The enclave issue would occur, and they'd end up paying lots of taxes to London.
At the end of the day those area which are heavily No may be very unhappy, but that's democracy for you, you don't always get what you personally voted for, and they'd make the best of the situation in which they found themselves.
Or, conversely, those which voted Yes f the vote went the other way.
The only polling that has been done on Orkeny/Shetland intentions post independence had the choice between staying with an independent Scotland or forming a fully independent country of their own. Sticking with Scotland was 80%+.
Alistair seems to be accurate. But what would be the point of rejoining the UK? The enclave issue would occur, and they'd end up paying lots of taxes to London.
Maybe they'd like to throw off the Scottish yoke and return to their Norwegian brethren.
"Shetland could opt to leave an independent Scotland, Carmichael says Oil-rich Shetland could opt to leave Scotland if it votes for independence, Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish secretary says. He’s been speaking to my colleague Esther Addley, and she’s filed this.
In an interview with the Guardian, Carmichael said if the islands were to vote strongly “no” but the Scottish national vote was a narrow yes, then a “conversation about Shetland’s position and the options that might be open to it” would begin.
The Lib Dem MP, who represents Orkney and Shetland in Westminster and has been secretary of state or Scotland in the coalition government since last October, said those options might include the islands modelling themselves on the Isle of Man, which is a self-governing Crown dependency, or on the Faroe Islands, which are an autonomous country within the Danish realm.
Asked if he was suggesting that Alex Salmond should not necessarily take for granted that oilfields off Shetland will belong to Scotland in the event of a yes vote, he said: “That would be one of the things that we would want to discuss. I wouldn’t like to predict at this stage where the discussions would go.”
This has been speculated about in the media & indeed on this site. But this is a semi-official comment from a government minister. I fear it may backfire very badly.
This is talked about quite frequently. Shetland is that far North to boot, it often feels little connection to the mainland.
Carmichael, is not "bluffing".
Ps; "bluffing" added to the list.
Watch that video I linked. It makes a very convincing case that Scotland will be completely fucked by independence, thanks to the currency problems, inherited debt, deficits, etc
Why would the oil rich Shetland islands want to be shackled to this madness?
Because they get a few miles of water if they are not and so would be unshackled and skint , eating grass in a few months.
No, they'd get the same ocean floor rights as every other North Sea state. It'd be rScotland who'd be stuffed.
Am I alone in thinking of staying up to watch the results come in, even though I have no real stake in whether Scotland is independence or not ?
I live 400 miles away from Scotland and have no real connection with it. If it goes independent, it is not really going to affect me, unless the stock market and other financial markets go into meltdown.
But the stupid thing is that I do care about it. It is a 307 year old union and I think if separation happens, it might not be a good thing for the UK's reputation.
Yes, it affects you. It really really does.
It will be BAD for us economically, it will probably be really BAD for Scotland, and it could be a potential CATASTROPHE for all.
My guess is somewhere between really bad and catastrophe, in the medium term.
Simon Jenkins was recently interviewed on independence and he said he was not sure what the fuss was about. He seemed to think that Scotland could go independent without any real affect on Scotland or the rUK.
There will be an immediate fiscal contraction together with likely higher borrowing costs and uncertainty about the currency which might also play into capital and human flight.
The only polling that has been done on Orkeny/Shetland intentions post independence had the choice between staying with an independent Scotland or forming a fully independent country of their own. Sticking with Scotland was 80%+.
Alistair seems to be accurate. But what would be the point of rejoining the UK? The enclave issue would occur, and they'd end up paying lots of taxes to London.
One other possible factor - no idea how important it is - is the complete collapse of the uniformed services in and over Scottish waters. No Nimrods*, rescue helicopters reducing to contractor services, no serious warships routinely based there (other than Trident boats). Coastguard reduced, attempts to cut emergency tugs, etc. Important not just for defence but also for safety and pollution control. And this has happened under the UK. Hardly unique to those waters, of course, but they are particularly affected.
*Precious little action on replacement as far as I can see.
That's not going to change if Scotland is independent - the economic and financial reality will see to that.
The only polling that has been done on Orkeny/Shetland intentions post independence had the choice between staying with an independent Scotland or forming a fully independent country of their own. Sticking with Scotland was 80%+.
Alistair seems to be accurate. But what would be the point of rejoining the UK? The enclave issue would occur, and they'd end up paying lots of taxes to London.
At the end of the day those area which are heavily No may be very unhappy, but that's democracy for you, you don't always get what you personally voted for, and they'd make the best of the situation in which they found themselves.
Or, conversely, those which voted Yes f the vote went the other way.
Partly, but unlike with a Yes win, in the event of a No win the Yes voters know they will get another chance in 10-25 years at least, particularly given how close it will be, which should prevent too much initial moping.
Miss Cyclefree, for once I must disagree with you, regarding the Irish comparison.
First off, it was a different era. Nowadays there's real fear around both financial sector instability and currency unions. Moreover, the eurozone sovereign debt crisis is rumbling on and will rear its ugly head again, which will affect economies and financial markets. It is not the sort of circumstance in which we want English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers responsible for independent Scottish financial institutions.
Of course, if Yes wins, we must hope Scotland is successful. But if it does hurl itself lemming-like off a cliff then tethering Britannia to Caledonia may not rescue the Scottish maiden but lead to a double suicide instead.
Well if Scotland votes yes, all those Scottish financial institutions will head south (we're told) so we'll be responsible for them anyway.
All I'm saying is that if Scotland votes yes, we'll need to keep calm and calm the markets which may require us to have transitional arrangements in place much like now. If there are runs on Scottish banks there could easily be runs on English banks so it would be in our interests to say that we are standing behind them all, for instance.
I may well be wrong and a Sean T Apocalypse End-of-Days Scenario is what happens. But some sober calm from our leaders is needed not the kind of Corporal Jones "Don't Panic" we've been seeing.
Scotland may not end up rich. But being rich is not for all of us the be-all and end-all of life. Self-respect matters and being in control of your own destiny may matter even more. Not being ruled by others also matters. That's certainly one Irish lesson we should have learnt by now.
Seriously. Watch this. It's long, detailed, but blood-chilling.
Scotland would have to move from 5% deficit to 5% surplus. Or face default. Savage austerity would ensue, possibly hyperinflation and mass unemployment.
Britain - or north Britain - may be about to do the stupidest thing in the history of capitalism.
The thing that I've found most striking about the whole independence question is that there are many organisations saying it is economically a bad idea, and some saying it is in the balance, but there doesn't seem to be any credible* organisation, business, or economist, saying "it's a great idea, Scotland will soon be filthy rich". Nobody.
Even the Euro had some seriously heavy weight fans. Scottish independence seems to have got the thumbs down from every serious economic commentator.
* I say credible because there are some incredible commentators and organisations closely tied to YES saying stuff that frankly makes them look stupid.
How long before an independent Scotland, goes completely and utterly tits up, and gets out the begging bowl?
I don't think that will happen, because ultimately the Scottish government will have to deal with reality, but I expect to see them come down to Earth quite quickly.
We could call it Darien the second.
Once again it would not suit us to have an unstable bankrupt country on our border allied to France.
I would suggest re-Union, and a small clean up campaign led by Marshall Wade...
Am I alone in thinking of staying up to watch the results come in, even though I have no real stake in whether Scotland is independence or not ?
I live 400 miles away from Scotland and have no real connection with it. If it goes independent, it is not really going to affect me, unless the stock market and other financial markets go into meltdown.
But the stupid thing is that I do care about it. It is a 307 year old union and I think if separation happens, it might not be a good thing for the UK's reputation.
Well it will affect you. It will probably affect you badly, just as it will affect Scotland badly. leaving aside all the inevitable costs and consequences of break up i think that for some people this seems not to be so much about Scottish independence but about the excuse to destroy Britain because they do not like British values and british historic policies and Britains place and influence in the world. You nwill be affected by all than - not least in what we would all have to do to minimise this effect.
If (if) Scotland vote for indepedence it will be quite worrying - worrying because despite all the evidence that it is a plain silly and bad thing they will have gone and done it - and done it because of a snake oil salesman's smoke and mirror's dissembling campaign. If that can happen once it can happen again and one wonders about how rationally people are thinking and how irrationally they can be persuaded to act. By the time all of the people relise they have been fooled all of the time - it may be too late.
As I've said before, I don't get dew-eyed over "the Union". The LD hierarchy have deluged me with requests of money (refused), requests to contact Scottish voters (ignored) and requests to sign e-letters supporting the Union (rejected).
As others have said, YES plunges us all into a strange new world but given humanity's infinite ability to adapt, the novelty will probably soon wear off and those who have been kicking Alex Salmond will go back to kicking Ed Milliband.
Oddly enough, NO worries me more - the federal genie is out of the bottle quite apart from watching the Conservatives find another reason to tear themselves apart. The arguments for greater powers for London, Wiltshire and Southampton (and elsewhere) aren't going to be easy to ignore.
We're already in a currency union with Scotland and the UK is not in danger
I would have thought that the experience of the eurozone shows us that without political union and fiscal transfer, currency union does not work.
LIke many countries in the eurozone, Scotland would fall foul of the rules. Big time,. You only need to hear the strident rhetoric of yes to realise that in an instant.
Scotland wants the best of both worlds - independence, and the chance to max out the UK's credit card into the bargain.
No way. Currency union is a non-starter. I would far rather give them the oil, and take all the debt.
Miss Cyclefree, for once I must disagree with you, regarding the Irish comparison.
First off, it was a different era. Nowadays there's real fear around both financial sector instability and currency unions. Moreover, the eurozone sovereign debt crisis is rumbling on and will rear its ugly head again, which will affect economies and financial markets. It is not the sort of circumstance in which we want English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers responsible for independent Scottish financial institutions.
Of course, if Yes wins, we must hope Scotland is successful. But if it does hurl itself lemming-like off a cliff then tethering Britannia to Caledonia may not rescue the Scottish maiden but lead to a double suicide instead.
Well if Scotland votes yes, all those Scottish financial institutions will head south (we're told) so we'll be responsible for them anyway.
All I'm saying is that if Scotland votes yes, we'll need to keep calm and calm the markets which may require us to have transitional arrangements in place much like now. If there are runs on Scottish banks there could easily be runs on English banks so it would be in our interests to say that we are standing behind them all, for instance.
I may well be wrong and a Sean T Apocalypse End-of-Days Scenario is what happens. But some sober calm from our leaders is needed not the kind of Corporal Jones "Don't Panic" we've been seeing.
Scotland may not end up rich. But being rich is not for all of us the be-all and end-all of life. Self-respect matters and being in control of your own destiny may matter even more. Not being ruled by others also matters. That's certainly one Irish lesson we should have learnt by now.
The Currency Union would last until Independence day, so there should be no run on the banks until then, and plenty of time for Scots to shift their assets elsewhere.
What happens after Independence day? well, that would be up to Alex Salmond...
Plus I hate all this talk of decisions being irreversible. Nothing in politics is irreversible. The EU says that an ever-closer union is irreversible and some of us here are trying to change that. The Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe thought Communism was irreversible. And so on.
Countries are being created and swallowed up all the time. It may take time and a few generations but nothing is irreversible.
As I've said before, I don't get dew-eyed over "the Union". The LD hierarchy have deluged me with requests of money (refused), requests to contact Scottish voters (ignored) and requests to sign e-letters supporting the Union (rejected).
As others have said, YES plunges us all into a strange new world but given humanity's infinite ability to adapt, the novelty will probably soon wear off and those who have been kicking Alex Salmond will go back to kicking Ed Milliband.
Oddly enough, NO worries me more - the federal genie is out of the bottle quite apart from watching the Conservatives find another reason to tear themselves apart. The arguments for greater powers for London, Wiltshire and Southampton (and elsewhere) aren't going to be easy to ignore.
Am I alone in thinking of staying up to watch the results come in, even though I have no real stake in whether Scotland is independence or not ?
I live 400 miles away from Scotland and have no real connection with it. If it goes independent, it is not really going to affect me, unless the stock market and other financial markets go into meltdown.
But the stupid thing is that I do care about it. It is a 307 year old union and I think if separation happens, it might not be a good thing for the UK's reputation.
Yes, it affects you. It really really does.
It will be BAD for us economically, it will probably be really BAD for Scotland, and it could be a potential CATASTROPHE for all.
My guess is somewhere between really bad and catastrophe, in the medium term.
Simon Jenkins was recently interviewed on independence and he said he was not sure what the fuss was about. He seemed to think that Scotland could go independent without any real affect on Scotland or the rUK.
There will be an immediate fiscal contraction together with likely higher borrowing costs and uncertainty about the currency which might also play into capital and human flight.
But those are no longer the arguments.
They never were.
No I agree. It is a shame ASalmond didn't admit that earlier. He would be five points ahead.
"Upon a Yes vote the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and I will sit down and ensure that there is an equitable, generous, sensible settlement between our countries. We will do this in a spirit of great goodwill. We will do the same with the EU which we hope to join as soon as is practicably possible."
But no, he went off half-ar$ed, not to say disingenuously about currency unions, debt repudiations, and the like.
Put this on previous thread and then noticed a new one had just started.
If there is a "Yes" win I'll offer a bet to anyone who wants to take it - I will bet £50 that
1) within 20 years there will be
You're on a foremost betting site asking someone to tie up a £50 stake over 20 years …? Erm where to begin …?
It's a political betting site, and although Harold Wilson said that a week is a long time in politics, people with an intelligent and responsible attitude to politics think in terms of decades.
If people want a quick return on a bet there are plenty of things to bet one both inside and outside politics. But some of the most interesting issues are long-term.
One of the argments put forward in the referendum is "No more Tory governments, Ever."
For ever is a long time. Since governments are elected every four or five years, and you need to allow four or five elections to allow for the sort of change I was talking about, you need a couple of decades to test how confident people really are that such a thing won't "ever" happen.
Am I alone in thinking of staying up to watch the results come in, even though I have no real stake in whether Scotland is independence or not ?
I live 400 miles away from Scotland and have no real connection with it. If it goes independent, it is not really going to affect me, unless the stock market and other financial markets go into meltdown.
But the stupid thing is that I do care about it. It is a 307 year old union and I think if separation happens, it might not be a good thing for the UK's reputation.
Yes, it affects you. It really really does.
It will be BAD for us economically, it will probably be really BAD for Scotland, and it could be a potential CATASTROPHE for all.
My guess is somewhere between really bad and catastrophe, in the medium term.
Simon Jenkins was recently interviewed on independence and he said he was not sure what the fuss was about. He seemed to think that Scotland could go independent without any real affect on Scotland or the rUK.
There will be an immediate fiscal contraction together with likely higher borrowing costs and uncertainty about the currency which might also play into capital and human flight.
But those are no longer the arguments.
They never were.
No I agree. It is a shame ASalmond didn't admit that earlier. He would be five points ahead.
"Upon a Yes vote the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and I will sit down and ensure that there is an equitable, generous, sensible settlement between our countries. We will do this in a spirit of great goodwill. We will do the same with the EU which we hope to join as soon as is practicably possible."
But no, he went off half-ar$ed, not to say disingenuously about currency unions, debt repudiations, and the like.
For all the criticisms, well earned, about the No campaign, it need not follow as sometimes seem to be implied, that the Yes campaign has been flawless - as you say, they need not have focused so heavy on the detail at times, they'd laid out their white paper and all that, and could just hammer home the emotional points the whole time.
A question for PB which is probably stupid - if there is a YES vote, do the Scottish MPs in Westminster no longer "count" at the GE2015?
Many people might not wish them to, but my understanding is they would. Until formal independence is declared in 2016, the people of Scotland are deserving of representation at Westminster.
Thanks for the answer - so MPs would canvas for a one-year term an MP from 2015-16? It seems pointless - may as well carry over votes from 2010 for 1-year?
Nobody knows. There has been talk of emergency legislation to extend this parliament, or legislation to exclude Scottish MPs from Westminster, or a 'gentlemans agreement' whereby they would not vote on England-only matters.
What I don't get is who agreed that Scotland would become independent in 2016 in the event of a yes event. I would be saying you are out of the door in May 2015
I think this has been gone through often enough. It strikes me it would be remarkable if it were done within 18 months and the more pressure to do it quickly would be to the benefit of the SNP. If the election were to be postponed then I can only see it being done with a govt of 'national unity' to deal with the SNP. I leave it to others to say how that might work out. I would have thought Labour would be very reluctant, to say the least, to lose dozens of MPs. And of course in terms of dealing with the SNP after 2015 again I would have thought there would be every incentive for Scottish voters to vote in SNP MPs to disrupt the 'English' Parliament.
Perhaps the current Scottish MPs should stay pro tem and Scotland be exempt from the 2015 GE? Has that been suggested anywhere??
With the DK's all but having disappeared by now, I had mistakenly assumed, my feeling was that by eve of poll, the N0's would have established a 5%-6% and effectively unassailable lead in the polls. So far this has certainly not happened and those 11/2 odds available for a 50% - 55% Yes vote suddenly look quite attractive at least as a bit of insurance. DYOR.
Put this on previous thread and then noticed a new one had just started.
If there is a "Yes" win I'll offer a bet to anyone who wants to take it - I will bet £50 that
1) within 20 years there will be
You're on a foremost betting site asking someone to tie up a £50 stake over 20 years …? Erm where to begin …?
One of the argments put forward in the referendum is "No more Tory governments, Ever." .
Hell, sometimes it's shortened to just being 'getting the Tories out of Scotland' or some such, which rather overlooks how many people, even now, still do vote Tory in Scotland.
Seriously. Watch this. It's long, detailed, but blood-chilling.
Scotland would have to move from 5% deficit to 5% surplus. Or face default. Savage austerity would ensue, possibly hyperinflation and mass unemployment.
Britain - or north Britain - may be about to do the stupidest thing in the history of capitalism.
The thing that I've found most striking about the whole independence question is that there are many organisations saying it is economically a bad idea, and some saying it is in the balance, but there doesn't seem to be any credible* organisation, business, or economist, saying "it's a great idea, Scotland will soon be filthy rich". Nobody.
Even the Euro had some seriously heavy weight fans. Scottish independence seems to have got the thumbs down from every serious economic commentator.
* I say credible because there are some incredible commentators and organisations closely tied to YES saying stuff that frankly makes them look stupid.
How long before an independent Scotland, goes completely and utterly tits up, and gets out the begging bowl?
With the DK's all but having disappeared by now, I had mistakenly assumed, my feeling was that by eve of poll, the N0's would have established a 5%-6% and effectively unassailable lead in the polls. So far this has certainly not happened and those 11/2 odds available for a 50% - 55% Yes vote suddenly look quite attractive at least as a bit of insurance. DYOR.
I've joined the squeaky bum brigade and gone "all in" on NO. I may regret it.
Plus I hate all this talk of decisions being irreversible. Nothing in politics is irreversible. The EU says that an ever-closer union is irreversible and some of us here are trying to change that. The Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe thought Communism was irreversible. And so on.
Countries are being created and swallowed up all the time. It may take time and a few generations but nothing is irreversible.
Very good point. I wonder if a 51-49 yes-no result really would end up with Scotland becoming independent. I can see negotiations becoming bogged down, uncertainty dragging on for years and years and at the end of it all some kind of British federation emerging.
Plus I hate all this talk of decisions being irreversible. Nothing in politics is irreversible. The EU says that an ever-closer union is irreversible and some of us here are trying to change that. The Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe thought Communism was irreversible. And so on.
Countries are being created and swallowed up all the time. It may take time and a few generations but nothing is irreversible.
Very good point. I wonder if a 51-49 yes-no result really would end up with Scotland becoming independent. I can see negotiations becoming bogged down, uncertainty dragging on for years and years and at the end of it all some kind of British federation emerging.
Curiously, the SNP's campaign has been: "Vote for Independence (but there'll be no real change because you'll keep the £, Queen, BBC etc)" and the No campaign has been (at least in recent days) - "No does not mean No Change".
Entertaining and enjoyable speech from Gordon. He got a bit flustered at times, saying the devolution referendum was 10 years ago when it was nearer 20. The converted loved it, but I'm not sure it will have any effect on undecided voters.
It's very, very unlikely that the SNP will be able to negotiate an opt out from the standard EU fisheries policy. This would be a disaster for Shetland's economy. So after a yes vote, Shetland has 3 options:
1. Stay with Scotland. Lose the Fishing industry to the EU. 2. Go independent from EU/UK. Uncertain how much fishing territory or oil territory they'd keep. 3. Vote to stay with the UK. This would keep the UK's opt-out for fishing for them, and as a bonus, the UK would have lots of claim to lots of the oil off Shetland. Goodbye 'geographic share of the oil', and Scotland's economy. I'm sure Shetland would be rewarded with a mother-of-all Barnett-type agreement.
I know which way I'd vote if I was Shetland...
Funnily, I was talking about the importance of fishing to Shetland with someone the other day.
I can't recall why it was relevant but, I felt the need to bring it up nonetheless.
Has anyone been counting how many times the words Shetland and Islands passed through Salmond's lips in the last 3 weeks?
Put this on previous thread and then noticed a new one had just started.
If there is a "Yes" win I'll offer a bet to anyone who wants to take it - I will bet £50 that
1) within 20 years there will be
You're on a foremost betting site asking someone to tie up a £50 stake over 20 years …? Erm where to begin …?
It's a political betting site, and although Harold Wilson said that a week is a long time in politics, people with an intelligent and responsible attitude to politics think in terms of decades.
If people want a quick return on a bet there are plenty of things to bet one both inside and outside politics. But some of the most interesting issues are long-term.
One of the argments put forward in the referendum is "No more Tory governments, Ever."
For ever is a long time. Since governments are elected every four or five years, and you need to allow four or five elections to allow for the sort of change I was talking about, you need a couple of decades to test how confident people really are that such a thing won't "ever" happen.
I'm currently a member of the Scottish Conservatives. (joined 7 years ago at 23).
If Scotland does go independent, I'll certainly look to be a part of any centre-right movement that I am truly confident would rise again in Scotland in the following years.
Once the bills start coming in, Scotland will need people to raise the money to pay for them.
Looking at the last thread - and predictions of YES vote, http://www.nojam.com/demo/pbindycomp/chart_yes.php The point, from left to right, at which the red line crosses the 50 pc axis, indicates how many of us are predicting no v yes. currently, we're around 2/3 no to 1/3 yes.
I went in Low on my "Yes" prediction. 43 point something I think I put. No particular science or inside knowledge - Considerations - I think "Shy No" are likely to be more numerous than "Shy Yes". Cautious people are more shy, and more likely to be No. - Self-perception - I think "Yes" might be over-reported in the polls - Lot's of people might like to see themselves as nice, positive, "Yes" type people, and report that they are - Without actually, when it comes to the crunch, voting Yes. - We've heard on here before about how formidable Labour's GOTV operation is. And it's working for No. Is it as formidable as we've been lead to believe? And if it is in general, will it be specifically, tomorrow, in Scotland? - I've gone at the extreme of my own expectation range, to occupy the least crowded space and thus increase my chances of the 50 quid.
In reality, I haven't a scoobie, so I may have got it all wrong.
If Brown had found that in 2010 he might still be PM - I hope he stands as an MSP and forces them all to raise their game.....
Maybe part of the difference was that as Prime Minister, he submitted to the image gurus who tried to turn him into Tony Blair.
He did go round like that - speaking to shore up his own constituency hard core 'Labour' and predicting the end of civilisation. I bet he was not thinking about fear of a total Labour meltdown in Scotland though. Brown' s rhetoric has always been effective; its his logic that has been in question. His words make me nervous.
Plus I hate all this talk of decisions being irreversible. Nothing in politics is irreversible. The EU says that an ever-closer union is irreversible and some of us here are trying to change that. The Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe thought Communism was irreversible. And so on.
Countries are being created and swallowed up all the time. It may take time and a few generations but nothing is irreversible.
Very good point. I wonder if a 51-49 yes-no result really would end up with Scotland becoming independent. I can see negotiations becoming bogged down, uncertainty dragging on for years and years and at the end of it all some kind of British federation emerging.
Has there been any discussion to date of the idea of holding another Yes No vote on the basis of the final divorce package actually negotiated. Sentiments could change considerably from a 50.x% yes vote tomorrow and 18 months hence, particularly if the divorce package wasn't very attractive.
Looking at the last thread - and predictions of YES vote, http://www.nojam.com/demo/pbindycomp/chart_yes.php The point, from left to right, at which the red line crosses the 50 pc axis, indicates how many of us are predicting no v yes. currently, we're around 2/3 no to 1/3 yes.
I went in Low on my "Yes" prediction. 43 point something I think I put. No particular science or inside knowledge - Considerations - I think "Shy No" are likely to be more numerous than "Shy Yes". Cautious people are more shy, and more likely to be No. - Self-perception - I think "Yes" might be over-reported in the polls - Lot's of people might like to see themselves as nice, positive, "Yes" type people, and report that they are - Without actually, when it comes to the crunch, voting Yes. - We've heard on here before about how formidable Labour's GOTV operation is. And it's working for No. Is it as formidable as we've been lead to believe? And if it is in general, will it be specifically, tomorrow, in Scotland? - I've gone at the extreme of my own expectation range, to occupy the least crowded space and thus increase my chances of the 50 quid.
In reality, I haven't a scoobie, so I may have got it all wrong.
Fat Steve - our predictions are very close together and our reasoning almost identical.
What a day. If Glasgow isn't Yes I'll eat the trainers I've been wearing to pound the streets.
It's a joy to see PB Tories bigging up Gordon. As ever, they might consider if he's pressing their buttons he may be fumbling for the more relevant ones.
Plus I hate all this talk of decisions being irreversible. Nothing in politics is irreversible. The EU says that an ever-closer union is irreversible and some of us here are trying to change that. The Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe thought Communism was irreversible. And so on.
Countries are being created and swallowed up all the time. It may take time and a few generations but nothing is irreversible.
Very good point. I wonder if a 51-49 yes-no result really would end up with Scotland becoming independent. I can see negotiations becoming bogged down, uncertainty dragging on for years and years and at the end of it all some kind of British federation emerging.
Has there been any discussion to date of the idea of holding another Yes No vote on the basis of the final divorce package actually negotiated. Sentiments could change considerably from a 50.x% yes vote tomorrow and 18 months hence, particularly if the divorce package wasn't very attractive.
rUK wouldn't accept it. Unless they had a vote too.
What a day. If Glasgow isn't Yes I'll eat the trainers I've been wearing to pound the streets.
It's a joy to see PB Tories bigging up Gordon. As ever, they might consider if he's pressing their buttons he may be fumbling for the more relevant ones.
Do you concur with me that Yes only wins if Glasgow votes Yes?
What a day. If Glasgow isn't Yes I'll eat the trainers I've been wearing to pound the streets.
It's a joy to see PB Tories bigging up Gordon. As ever, they might consider if he's pressing their buttons he may be fumbling for the more relevant ones.
Do you concur with me that Yes only wins if Glasgow votes Yes?
According the the BBC Police Scotland have confirmed they are investigating a complaint that an electoral counting officer in Edinburgh has made public details of the postal ballots cast in the council area.
It'll be Yes by between 2% and 3%. The Union is coming to a sad, unnecessary end.
Westminster came too late to the party and allowed Yes to set the agenda. The Devomax move was a sign of total panic.
Scotland will be an angry place for a long, long time. The SNP's lies will be exposed at home, while abroad the warm welcome that many lefty Yessers expect from their "progressive brothers and sisters" will not be forthcoming. Nationalists everywhere, though, will be delighted.
'Devomax' whatever it may entail has always been on the cards. It was put forward right from the start provided there was a NO vote. Furthermore the Tory Manifesto said - ''The Scottish Parliament should have more responsibility for raising the money it spends. '' It also said - ''Labour have refused to address the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’: the unfair situation of Scottish MPs voting on matters which are devolved. A Conservative government will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries'' The libdems have stood in the way of that and the inevitable referendum following the SNP majority as well. But the tory position was clearly set out.
I still would not trust a Labour govt to sort out the WLQ.
It's very, very unlikely that the SNP will be able to negotiate an opt out from the standard EU fisheries policy. This would be a disaster for Shetland's economy. So after a yes vote, Shetland has 3 options:
1. Stay with Scotland. Lose the Fishing industry to the EU. 2. Go independent from EU/UK. Uncertain how much fishing territory or oil territory they'd keep. 3. Vote to stay with the UK. This would keep the UK's opt-out for fishing for them, and as a bonus, the UK would have lots of claim to lots of the oil off Shetland. Goodbye 'geographic share of the oil', and Scotland's economy. I'm sure Shetland would be rewarded with a mother-of-all Barnett-type agreement.
I know which way I'd vote if I was Shetland...
Funnily, I was talking about the importance of fishing to Shetland with someone the other day.
I can't recall why it was relevant but, I felt the need to bring it up nonetheless.
The Shetland Islanders must be protected from danger like the Falkland Islanders.
The largest calibre oif weapon carried by any RN vessel deployed in Scotish waters is the 30mm DS30M Mark 2 Automated Small Calibre Gun. I understand slightly more firepower is available in the Falklands.
It's very, very unlikely that the SNP will be able to negotiate an opt out from the standard EU fisheries policy. This would be a disaster for Shetland's economy. So after a yes vote, Shetland has 3 options:
1. Stay with Scotland. Lose the Fishing industry to the EU. 2. Go independent from EU/UK. Uncertain how much fishing territory or oil territory they'd keep. 3. Vote to stay with the UK. This would keep the UK's opt-out for fishing for them, and as a bonus, the UK would have lots of claim to lots of the oil off Shetland. Goodbye 'geographic share of the oil', and Scotland's economy. I'm sure Shetland would be rewarded with a mother-of-all Barnett-type agreement.
I know which way I'd vote if I was Shetland...
Funnily, I was talking about the importance of fishing to Shetland with someone the other day.
I can't recall why it was relevant but, I felt the need to bring it up nonetheless.
The Shetland Islanders must be protected from danger like the Falkland Islanders.
The largest calibre oif weapon carried by any RN vessel deployed in Scotish waters is the 30mm DS30M Mark 2 Automated Small Calibre Gun. I understand slightly more firepower is available in the Falklands.
We're already in a currency union with Scotland...
No we are not. Sterling is freely accepted as tender within the borders of Scotland, but that is not the same thing. Scotland cannot print GBP - what it does do is print banknotes which are accepted within the UK as if they are GBP, but that accommodation breaks down outside the UK, as you'll know if you've ever tried to change a Scottish pound note in Dallas. Additionally, there is currently no sovereign state called "Scotland" with which we can be in a currency union.
The Currency Union would last until Independence day, so there should be no run on the banks until then, and plenty of time for Scots to shift their assets elsewhere. What happens after Independence day? well, that would be up to Alex Salmond...
A currency union should certainly not exist from S-day on. A currency peg, sterlingisation, freely circulating GBP, iScotland can have all those (it can't be stopped) but it will not be allowed to print GBP, either to replace old banknotes or pay debts incurred by iScotland.
According the the BBC Police Scotland have confirmed they are investigating a complaint that an electoral counting officer in Edinburgh has made public details of the postal ballots cast in the council area.
"If Scotland does go independent, I'll certainly look to be a part of any centre-right movement that I am truly confident would rise again in Scotland in the following years.
Once the bills start coming in, Scotland will need people to raise the money to pay for them."
Exactly. Things change, and nothing is more mortal than a particular balance of political support.
Comments
First off, it was a different era. Nowadays there's real fear around both financial sector instability and currency unions. Moreover, the eurozone sovereign debt crisis is rumbling on and will rear its ugly head again, which will affect economies and financial markets. It is not the sort of circumstance in which we want English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers responsible for independent Scottish financial institutions.
Of course, if Yes wins, we must hope Scotland is successful. But if it does hurl itself lemming-like off a cliff then tethering Britannia to Caledonia may not rescue the Scottish maiden but lead to a double suicide instead.
That way we'll be in with a chance of a top 10 finish in eurovision in perhaps a decade's time.
Reason I ask is DavidL pointed out here a day or two ago that NO simply didn't have the time or resources to do a full canvass of their support, so are just going to knock up their good areas instead.
I wouldn't be surprised if YES had better data on their core base, the 40%, but not the late swingers who've swung to YES in the last 2-3 weeks. They won't have had time either.
Therefore, is it possible, that when it comes to turning out that deciding margin, both sides will be fumbling in the dark?
YES still need to click 51%+ on the day IMHO to overcome their likely postal vote handicap.
*Precious little action on replacement as far as I can see.
Of course Scotland can be independent. But there will be a cost. An actual dollar (sterling) cost to this which will likely not work itself out for several decades.
There will be an immediate fiscal contraction together with likely higher borrowing costs and uncertainty about the currency which might also play into capital and human flight.
But those are no longer the arguments.
The arguments are: FREEDOM
All I'm saying is that if Scotland votes yes, we'll need to keep calm and calm the markets which may require us to have transitional arrangements in place much like now. If there are runs on Scottish banks there could easily be runs on English banks so it would be in our interests to say that we are standing behind them all, for instance.
I may well be wrong and a Sean T Apocalypse End-of-Days Scenario is what happens. But some sober calm from our leaders is needed not the kind of Corporal Jones "Don't Panic" we've been seeing.
Scotland may not end up rich. But being rich is not for all of us the be-all and end-all of life. Self-respect matters and being in control of your own destiny may matter even more. Not being ruled by others also matters. That's certainly one Irish lesson we should have learnt by now.
Once again it would not suit us to have an unstable bankrupt country on our border allied to France.
I would suggest re-Union, and a small clean up campaign led by Marshall Wade...
If (if) Scotland vote for indepedence it will be quite worrying - worrying because despite all the evidence that it is a plain silly and bad thing they will have gone and done it - and done it because of a snake oil salesman's smoke and mirror's dissembling campaign. If that can happen once it can happen again and one wonders about how rationally people are thinking and how irrationally they can be persuaded to act.
By the time all of the people relise they have been fooled all of the time - it may be too late.
As I've said before, I don't get dew-eyed over "the Union". The LD hierarchy have deluged me with requests of money (refused), requests to contact Scottish voters (ignored) and requests to sign e-letters supporting the Union (rejected).
As others have said, YES plunges us all into a strange new world but given humanity's infinite ability to adapt, the novelty will probably soon wear off and those who have been kicking Alex Salmond will go back to kicking Ed Milliband.
Oddly enough, NO worries me more - the federal genie is out of the bottle quite apart from watching the Conservatives find another reason to tear themselves apart. The arguments for greater powers for London, Wiltshire and Southampton (and elsewhere) aren't going to be easy to ignore.
I would have thought that the experience of the eurozone shows us that without political union and fiscal transfer, currency union does not work.
LIke many countries in the eurozone, Scotland would fall foul of the rules. Big time,. You only need to hear the strident rhetoric of yes to realise that in an instant.
Scotland wants the best of both worlds - independence, and the chance to max out the UK's credit card into the bargain.
No way. Currency union is a non-starter. I would far rather give them the oil, and take all the debt.
What happens after Independence day? well, that would be up to Alex Salmond...
Countries are being created and swallowed up all the time. It may take time and a few generations but nothing is irreversible.
"Upon a Yes vote the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and I will sit down and ensure that there is an equitable, generous, sensible settlement between our countries. We will do this in a spirit of great goodwill. We will do the same with the EU which we hope to join as soon as is practicably possible."
But no, he went off half-ar$ed, not to say disingenuously about currency unions, debt repudiations, and the like.
If people want a quick return on a bet there are plenty of things to bet one both inside and outside politics. But some of the most interesting issues are long-term.
One of the argments put forward in the referendum is "No more Tory governments, Ever."
For ever is a long time. Since governments are elected every four or five years, and you need to allow four or five elections to allow for the sort of change I was talking about, you need a couple of decades to test how confident people really are that such a thing won't "ever" happen.
It strikes me it would be remarkable if it were done within 18 months and the more pressure to do it quickly would be to the benefit of the SNP.
If the election were to be postponed then I can only see it being done with a govt of 'national unity' to deal with the SNP. I leave it to others to say how that might work out. I would have thought Labour would be very reluctant, to say the least, to lose dozens of MPs. And of course in terms of dealing with the SNP after 2015 again I would have thought there would be every incentive for Scottish voters to vote in SNP MPs to disrupt the 'English' Parliament.
Perhaps the current Scottish MPs should stay pro tem and Scotland be exempt from the 2015 GE? Has that been suggested anywhere??
DYOR.
If Scotland does go independent, I'll certainly look to be a part of any centre-right movement that I am truly confident would rise again in Scotland in the following years.
Once the bills start coming in, Scotland will need people to raise the money to pay for them.
http://www.nojam.com/demo/pbindycomp/chart_yes.php
The point, from left to right, at which the red line crosses the 50 pc axis, indicates how many of us are predicting no v yes.
currently, we're around 2/3 no to 1/3 yes.
I went in Low on my "Yes" prediction. 43 point something I think I put.
No particular science or inside knowledge - Considerations
- I think "Shy No" are likely to be more numerous than "Shy Yes". Cautious people are more shy, and more likely to be No.
- Self-perception - I think "Yes" might be over-reported in the polls - Lot's of people might like to see themselves as nice, positive, "Yes" type people, and report that they are - Without actually, when it comes to the crunch, voting Yes.
- We've heard on here before about how formidable Labour's GOTV operation is. And it's working for No. Is it as formidable as we've been lead to believe? And if it is in general, will it be specifically, tomorrow, in Scotland?
- I've gone at the extreme of my own expectation range, to occupy the least crowded space and thus increase my chances of the 50 quid.
In reality, I haven't a scoobie, so I may have got it all wrong.
Brown' s rhetoric has always been effective; its his logic that has been in question. His words make me nervous.
It's a joy to see PB Tories bigging up Gordon. As ever, they might consider if he's pressing their buttons he may be fumbling for the more relevant ones.
The genie is out of the bottle.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-29233956 at 1942.
Doesn't say what the figures are though. Anyone know?
Furthermore the Tory Manifesto said - ''The Scottish Parliament should have more responsibility for raising the money it spends. ''
It also said - ''Labour have refused to address the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’: the unfair situation of Scottish MPs voting on matters which are devolved.
A Conservative government will introduce new rules so that legislation referring
specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent
of MPs representing constituencies of those countries''
The libdems have stood in the way of that and the inevitable referendum following the SNP majority as well. But the tory position was clearly set out.
I still would not trust a Labour govt to sort out the WLQ.
"If Scotland does go independent, I'll certainly look to be a part of any centre-right movement that I am truly confident would rise again in Scotland in the following years.
Once the bills start coming in, Scotland will need people to raise the money to pay for them."
Exactly. Things change, and nothing is more mortal than a particular balance of political support.