Scottish Independence.....

Desert Orchid said:
Alex is saying it's a 'once in a generation' decision. In other words, if he doesn't get his way on Thursday he's not going to let this bone go.
Click to expand...

Have you only just worked that out?

It's why i said independence is all but inevitable at some point in the future. Salmond will know from his own left wing schooling that it often takes a few failed attempts before the eventual breakthrough

There are three major factors at play

1: A global trend towards more small states (about 150 were formed in the last century)
2: There is a drift towards right wing agendas which will herald more conservative governments (possibly with UKIP as a partner). It'll only require a dynasty of the type we saw '79 to '92 to push Scotland
3: The Labour party is closer now to the SDP allowing the SNP to push onto Scotland's natural socialist agenda. This will ensure that SNP governments aren't a flash in the pan

At some point in the future the stars will align again. An overall assembly majority will coincide with a run of conservatiev governments in London. All it requires than is a charismatic leader to fulfil the final piece in the jigsaw.

The SNP will keep asking for a mandate until one day they get it
 
Grasshopper said:
If there is a No vote, the Fat Man can be expected to try and boom-boom-shake-the-room, but he will be a loser in the eyes of all - not least those in his own party, who will seek to metaphorically plop his napper on a stick.
Click to expand...

I'm far from certain

If he gets 45% of the vote, that is a truly massive endorsement in the context. It's a significantly bigger percentage than any UK government has managed in my living memory. David Cameron is Prime Minister on something like 36%

I'm trying to recall what the original polling mark was for independence? something like 25% wasn't it? Salmond will argue he's put something like 20% on the idea in the space of 18 months. In most other FPTP systems he'd be heralded as a campaigning genius under these circumstances. It's a remarkable achievement considering the whole range of forces aligned against him.

He stepped down before as a leader and SNP support collapsed without him. The same might happen again. The SNP would be foolish to scapegoat him for an idea that they were never likely to carry on their first attempt, but if he manages to get convert 20% to the fold who broke the taboo and voted for independence who didn't intend doing 18 months ago, I wouldn't look to poo poo the significance of that. It's been proven before in elections that if you can persuade a voter to do something once for the first time, your chances of persuading them to do it again increase significantly

Whatever the numerical result, the moral winner already is the SNP, as out of this Scotland has to patch itself back up somehow. Well it gets devo max now (something which Salmond was telling Californian students only a couple of years ago was the best option available)

The SNP could have been humilitated in this referendum, I certainly spoke to enough people at the outset who thought they would be. Quite a few of them even went so far as to suggest that Salmond would conjure up an excuse not to hold it so damaging the result might appear

The landscape in Scotland has changed already i suspect, and the journey looks like a fait accompli now, the only remaining issue is when? 5 years,
10 years, 25 years?

The only missing ingredient I see is a charismatic leader in Salmonds absence
 
And Quebec. Dead there and yet vote was extremely close years back

Catalonia, Basque country. No real movement there either.

The scottish commentator in the Times is adamant that fatty doesnt truly want independence but was fighting for devo max
 
These extra powers that have been promised to Scotland in the event of a No vote are by no means guaranteed as they will have to be voted through by the Westminster parliament. Can't see that happening.

Perhaps, eventually, a severely diluted package will emerge.
 
I used to believe that Labour party spin but I'm just not sure the evidence backs up the hope

1979 didn't settle it, neither did 1999

Each time the nationalists regather themselves and with every little bit they can get they become emboldened before coming back for more. I think there was a time when we tended to listen to these Labour voices who advocated concessions, but anyone who now says that Devo Max would settle the deal is guessing. The history of establishment concession has been one of managed retreat as expendable morsals are cast from the high table in the hope of pacifying a baying populace below. It's reasonably well established pattern that the people get angry and protest, faced with the threat of this protest turning revolutionary those who have the most lose will cast down a concession to the minimum they can get away with. The evolution of democracy in the UK is the best example of it stretching from the 1832 Great Reform Act, the acceptance of organised labour unions, the adoption into the mainstream of a politicised labour party, lowering of the age at which people can vote and the widening of participation to include those who didn't own property, womens universal sufferage, and to some extent we're seeing the latest version of that play out with criminals (quite a few of whom also represent us too)

Having said that, it would be very much more difficult to win independence from a position of Devo Max imho, but, that's all it is, my humble opinion. I could easily see that if Scotland ran her own affairs successfully for 20 years under this regime, then it would only be a matter of time before someone said, "you know what, why don't we do this properly, we've all but proved we can". In this case it would be harder to use the scare tactics of the great unknown, as the debate would come down more to things like national security

It's ironic actually in that they could have put this on the ballot in the first place and saved a lot of the angst in between. At the time though the polls were something like 25/75 so Cameron thought he'd adopt a tough line and hope to humiliate the SNP and squash Scottish nationalism with it. That hasn't happened.

I get the impression that there are similarities in the maths of this with the AV campaign in the both started from unpromising positions, but two campaigns were fought with much greater energy and vigour set against two comparatively languid campaigns. Both relied on misinformation (although that number Nick Robinson did on Salmond the other day was pretty poor).

If memory serves me right the AV 'switchers' were something like 2 in every 7 from first polls to vote, and this figure might be similar in the referendum yet. It possibly points to wider human condition in terms of the percentage of population who are open to manipulation
 
michael_o said:
These extra powers that have been promised to Scotland in the event of a No vote are by no means guaranteed as they will have to be voted through by the Westminster parliament. Can't see that happening.

Perhaps, eventually, a severely diluted package will emerge.
Click to expand...

Devo Max will happen, and happen quickly......mainly because there would be revolution on Scottish streets, if it was denied to us in the event if a No vote.
 
clivex said:
And Quebec. Dead there and yet vote was extremely close years back

Catalonia, Basque country. No real movement there either.

The scottish commentator in the Times is adamant that fatty doesnt truly want independence but was fighting for devo max
Click to expand...

Catalonia is holding it's own referendum shortly, which they're expecting to win (whether they do is another issue). That the referendum has no legal status means that it's going to function as a glorified opinion poll, so it's likely to generate a Yes vote I'd have thought. The issue with Catalonia is different in that they're the powerhouse of Spain. It would be more akin to London and South East voting to the leave the UK. Basque is more equivalent to Wales

Quebec will come back but the over-riding issue there was that the vote was close (Scottish proportions) and that the government is currently more acceptable to Quebec than Canadian traditions

Venice recently voted in another non legally binding poll to return to being a city state pre-1871

Like I said, at the start of 1900 there were something like 98 countries in the world, by the end of the century this had grown to 253 I think. If you can't see the trend then I worry for you if you think clinging onto a temporary position in a few outlying cases prove your point

All that's required is for someone to give life to decades of enmity and then for the stars to align in such a way that a popularist vote can be carried
 
clivex said:
Devo max = Max tax
Click to expand...

Much the lesser of the two evils, Clive......and they probably won't get to influence Corp Tax, for the obvious reason.

As in most things, it will be the accountants and lawyers who clean-up regardless!
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Devo max = Max tax
Click to expand...

That might be the deal they're happy to do Clive, aka Norway

I personally think Scotland could operate perfectly happily as a sovereign country ..... but ..... but, it comes at a cost. If they're prepared to accept that cost though, then fair enough. What I think is disingenuous is to suggest that it will be cheaper, but equally I'm not sure why supermarket prices should rise either, so both sides are at it

Still, we've got all this to go through again in a few years when Cameron tries to get an in / out referendum on EU membership
 
The reason goods cost more in Scotland, is due to the dissipation of a small population over a large and difficult-to-access geography.

Currently, the UK Government affords a degree of protection, by either subsidising, or constraining how much companies can 'overcharge' for deliveries to remote locations. This form of defence would evaporate in an independent Scotland, resulting in higher costs vis-a-vis distribution.

Unless the Scottish Government plans to either subside things themselves (bottomless-pit-syndrome in action again), or increase the taxes of these companies direct - which would simply see them withdraw from an unprofitable market, impacting the lives of everyone who lives in a rural community.
 
Norway has massively high incomes to start with. Oslo is only city in world ahead of London on individual GDP. Not really a good example
 
Grasshopper said:
Currently, the UK Government affords a degree of protection, by either subsidising, or constraining how much companies can 'overcharge' for deliveries to remote locations.
Click to expand...

I suspect overcharge is very much the correct word here. A significantly large percentage of the Scottish population actually lives within a 90 minute isochrone of each other meaning that it shouldn't be that difficult to service them. What I suspect they're doing is top slicing a margin based on something like 2% of the population. Even places like the Ayrshire coast or Dumfries and Galloway or no less peripheral than Devon

There is another issue of course concerning Scottish operational overheads, certainly labour, being less expensive. OK I realise there's a limit to how much Scottish farming can produce in the tundra, but it's constantly telling us that it has an agricultural industry (sheep I suspect).

The other thing that is worth trying as an experiement next time you're shopping is to pick up 10 'fresh' produce items and look for the country of destination on them. You'd get a shock. About half of it will have come in from thousands of miles away. The idea that importing lamb from New Zealand becomes prohibitively expensive because of the final 200 miles it has to complete to get to Ullapool doesn't seem right

It would be interesting to know how many haulage operators are English based travelling up the M6 / A1 to deliver in the first place?

I note that for every supermarket who predicted that there would be inflation there was another who were less certain
 
Civilisation stops at the central belt.

If you want to deliver anywhere North of Perth, it's going to cost. Those living on the islands would get it even deeper in the ass.
 
Last edited:
Its market driven. Supermarkets and chains keep the costs the same across the country across similar size stores. That is policy. it is driven by competition and in effect by where the competition is fiercest. That will be exacerbated if there is a currency issue by chains pulling out, which they will do.

In a smaller independent market the pressure is released. Especially where the market is notorious for lack of enterprise. No only that they will be incurring extra administration costs and almost certainly much higher borrowing costs
 
Last edited:
A genuine question, if I may ......................
What negative effects would result -- what would be the downside for the remainder of the U.K. if Scotland were to vote Yes?
There must be a downside seeing as the entire London political establishment is so desirous for a No vote, isn't that so?
 
It's wholly economic and depends on negotiations if there's a 'yes' vote'.

If there's no currency union then Scotland's f*cked. If there's a currency union and the rest of the UK doesn't have proper safeguards against a Scottish bankruptcy then the UK is f*cked.
How anyone can vote without the answers to basic issues is beyond me. Mind you, how anyone could allow an independence movement the use of the word 'yes' in an election campaign also beggars belief.
 
But could Westminster not just remove any possibility of a currency union with the stroke of a pen and thus pre-empt any fallout to UK from a potential independent Scottish bankruptcy?

I guess what I am asking is does Scotland need London more than London needs Scotland?
Okay, from the majority of postings on here, it would appear that Scotland needs London more than vice versa ................... but if so, why is there such anxiety in London over any possible Yes vote?
 
Because its a lose lose in many ways, especially short term

Cost and administration

Potential bail out

Mass immigration

Building another wall
 
I note that 31% of the English think the Scots should cut and run (that's a significant rise)

I'd be interested to know what the figure would be if you were somehow able to take their labour votes out

I think the major loss is that of prestige to the political classes (most of us don't give a fig) but Britian would be diminished (only in the imagination of those who think its relevant anyway)

Cameron seems to be behaving like a wife batterer today who doesn't really get it that perhaps the abused partner might want to leave

"yeah I know I'm violent, I know I drink too much, and scream at the kids, and gamble the housekeeping away, but don't leave me, I can change - honest I will"
 
aren't you all fed up with this yet?..its all over the media..same thing over and over again

human nature decrees it will be a no vote..its called fear of the unknown...all this other stuff won't influence anyone..fear of starving due to having no pension to live on will be enough ...just on its own ...to guarantee a NO
 
The Queen was in Glasgow when she formally met Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister.

EIIR: "How nice to see you Mr. Salmond."

AS: "Nice to see you Your Majesty. Now, what are we going
to call Scotland when we win Independence?

EIIR: "Oh dear, one hasn't considered that yet!"

AS: "How about calling it a 'Kingdom' and then I will be
King?

EIIR: "Near! One doesn't think that is appropriate."

AS: "How about 'Empire' then I can be an Emperor?

EIIR: "Near! In one's dreams!"

AS: "All right! So how about calling it a 'Principality' and
then I can be a Prince?"

EIIR: "Near, Mr. Salmond! I think we will let it remain a
'country' and you can carry on as you are."
 
Back
Top