51 Yes 49 No - Rumoured Yougov Poll Tomorrow

[AThirdWay]

You're assuming they'll do it properly. Very dangerous.

So you prefer the status quo.... out of fear?

[stormymonday_2011]

Well, that's very much open to question as DevoMax is "Federalism" where you raise your own taxes to pay for what you want, you don't get the £30 Billion from Westminster as well. After all, that is the proposition from the Tories, give Holyrood more tax raising power but take the sum raised off of the block grant given now.

So Salmond only gets the money he can raise through taxation, he has to pay for all his fanciful scams from that and not with the aid of RoUK. Given that Holyrood managed to run up a £12 Billion deficit on a £59 Billion revenue stream including the oil money (GERS 2012-2013) WITHOUT all the responsibilities of being a country in your own right and WITHOUT the extra costs, etc, of DevoMax, then it isn't going to end well for Scotland under SNP control at all.

I know what the proposition is from the Tories but they rather foolishly failed to get it spelled out by having Devo Max as an option on the ballot paper so no one is voting on it.

This means Salmond and the SNP have lots of wriggle room in negotiation whichever way the referendum vote goes.

Moreover, since the Westminster government is now apparently is rushing to lay fresh proposals on the table because the way the polls are going they are not the ones dictating the terms. Whatever the politicians claims ,the implicit understanding about any future federal UK state is that the bigger entity England will be underwriting the spending of the smaller federal elements such as Scotland Northern, Ireland and Wales. This will particularly be the case if the Bank of England remains the lender of last resort and it will certainly be what the financial markets will expect. Even if England gets regional asemblies (something I am sceptical about since they were rejected the last time the concept was put to a popular vote) I don't expect that to change. Westminster will want to retain as much power and money at the centre as it can (ie preserving as much as possible of the status quo). Federalism is really only viable with a written constitution setting out the terms but since that will cramp the politicians style enormously and make fudging issues difficult I expect that to be resisted. Salmond clearly has his eyes on more power and a bigger slice of the current UK national pie. Labour for certain will give it to him just so they can keep winning UK elections. They want regional assemblies in England but not an English parliament (heaven forbid England and the English should be recognised as a nation) The Tories are a Conservative and Unionist not an English nationalist party so they will also probably be more than happy to dish out more cash from English taxpayers pockets to keep the Union intact. UKIP may have different ideas but their name gives away their problem when it comes to devolution of powers within the UK rather than from the EU. It is going to be a mess which the rest of us will have to pay to clear up, So no change there then.

Edited September 7, 2014 by stormymonday_2011

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

My only reservation is the demand by the SNP for a currency union which has come across as presumptous and arrogant. I fail to see why the RUk should be on the hook for the debts of a foreign country without any referendum saying they agree to it. Scots should go their own way, a true independent country must have its own currency and not be beholden to diktats from London or Brussels. I hope the Scots will do themselves proud and go for true independence.

Best of luck!

PS I cannot stand Salmond, smug little *****.

[geezer466]

If the SNP (Scots Nationalists) achieve independence isn't that turkeys voting for Xmas occasion?

Will the first election post independence return politics to the time honoured traditional perspectives?

Churchill won a long and bitter war for the UK but when it was won he was seen as superfluous and the electorate moved him on...... (He did achieve power again but the 1945 election was the real end of his power)

[stormymonday_2011]

So you prefer the status quo.... out of fear?

I think the fear is that what replaces the status quo will be worse if the Westminster politicians draw up the terms.

The form book shows they look at their personal and sectional interests first and the rest of the populations last.

Since they created the current set up which the Scots are unhappy about why should anyone have any confidence that the replacement will be better.

More pertinently will that settlement be put to a referendum so that the whole population can vote on the terms not just the Scots or will it be stitched up behind closed doors and imposed by the political class

As I see the process unravelling I am more and more inclined to think that the UK can not be saved so it might be better to just give the Scots full independence and let them get on with it. The rest of the UK will then have to sort out its own settlement.

After all from all your comments on this board that is what you in particular want is it not ?

Or like Meg Ryan are you only feigning Yes ?

Edited September 7, 2014 by stormymonday_2011

[Billy soy]

My thoughts exactly. He thought he'd hitch an easy ride on a winning team and look what happens!

Of course, the thought has crossed my mind this is simply a sneaky attempt to invigorate the Yes vote to actually get out and cast their votes. Remember - their entire modus operandi is to motivate people thru' FEAR. (Including attacking other countries I hasten to add.)

I love that cameron and his Tory party are so toxic to the people of Scotland that they are willing to hit the ejection seat on an historic 307 year old union only 4 years into his government!

Hopefully this will spark a new wave of independence movements, especially if we can see Scotland make a success of it.

[FreeTrader]

It's interesting to consider what might happen politically if the Scots vote for independence.

The May 2015 election will occur almost a year before the actual break, so newly elected Scottish MPs will sit at Westminster until March 2016, when they will stand down. If Labour is in power by a narrow majority, that majority will likely disappear, potentially resulting in a vote of no confidence and another election thereafter.

Another possibility is that the general election could be delayed by a year - this is something that a growing number of Tory MPs are now arguing for according to the Guardian. I understand that this approach was also suggested by the SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson.

Edit: for clarity

Edited September 7, 2014 by FreeTrader

[porca misèria]

The Union Jack is going to look crap without the blue ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017

Oh, splendid. Subliminal message: no Kernow in that.

[StainlessSteelCat]

I love that cameron and his Tory party are so toxic to the people of Scotland that they are willing to hit the ejection seat on an historic 307 year old union only 4 years into his government!

Hopefully this will spark a new wave of independence movements, especially if we can see Scotland make a success of it.

And that unpopular has-beens like Gordon Brown think their contribution will help save it.

All we need now is for Blair to come out from under his rock, pronounce Yes is best, and that'll be it.

I would be quite interested in seeing Wales try and make a go of independence, as well as an England minus London.

Edited September 7, 2014 by StainlessSteelCat

[choox]

It's interesting to consider what might happen politically if the Scots vote for independence.

The May 2015 election will occur almost a year before the actual break, so newly elected Scottish MPs will sit at Westminster until March 2016, when they will stand down. If Labour is in power by a narrow majority, that majority will likely disappear, potentially resulting in a vote of no confidence and another election thereafter.

Another possibility is that the general election could be delayed by a year - this is something that a growing number of Tory MPs are now arguing for according to the Guardian. I understand that this approach was also suggested by the SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson.

Edit: for clarity

Surely neither of these things are possible, since we now have fixed 5 year terms?

It seems to me that in the event of a Yes vote, the most likely outcome is a narrow Labour majority in 2015 which completely evaporates when the Scottish MPs leave in 2016, leaving a useless minority government in 'power' probably propped up by what remains of the lib dems (assuming they are not totally wiped out in 2015). Then, while Labour in England collapses, UKIP will be tearing chunks off the Tories - a massive dislocation in English politics in other words...

[porca misèria]

This is no longer Salmond's campaign, although he is a figurehead, this is the people of Scotland's campaign.

You go for it, Jock! You speak for all of us south of the border who are denied a vote!

Far rather a good friendship than a bad marriage. Our shared constitution is hopelessly broken since Blair, and "better together" are offering absolutely nothing to fix it. Your choice now is between some short-term turbulence to clear the air (and no doubt give us a much-needed shake-up too) and a chronic mess.

Hopefully the vote itself - regardless of outcome - will serve to draw the line under short-term bribes. Afterwards you'll have nothing left to be bribed or patronised for, just honest trade.

[Dorkins]

Surely neither of these things are possible, since we now have fixed 5 year terms?

Parliament is sovereign. As long as they can get royal assent, they can pass whatever laws they like. Next week they could legislate for the 2015 general election to be postponed until the year 2100 so long as Queenie agreed to sign.

[porca misèria]

Hmm, the most fervent anti-English 'Welsh' nats I have met have been English people who have moved to Wales and learnt the language.

Serious hatred of the motherland is naturally overrepresented amongst expats.

At least the English and Welsh aren't about to go to war. For a nastier contrast, look at the vox populi they dig up from a "community" like Iran, Syria or now even Russia when TPTB want to demonise its government and support a bunch of terrorists.

[porca misèria]

I considered moving some cash out of sterling a few weeks back but wasn't sure what to put it into, another currency, gold/silver?

What would you recommend, or is it too late to make the move?

Real assets.

Doesn't matter so much what currency they're denominated in.

[R K]

And that unpopular has-beens like Gordon Brown think their contribution will help save it.

All we need now is for Blair to come out from under his rock, pronounce Yes is best, and that'll be it.

I would be quite interested in seeing Wales try and make a go of independence, as well as an England minus London.

Would have been simpler if the Rest of UK kicked City of London/Westminster out of the Onion

Edited September 7, 2014 by R K

[porca misèria]

The NO campaign has produced some football "legends" to further their cause in the press today.

"Hey Jock, you're so mindless you'll vote for us just 'cos some celeb says so."

[FreeTrader]

Surely neither of these things are possible, since we now have fixed 5 year terms?

The former case is possible because a vote of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government is a sufficient condition for an immediate election under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, unless a new resolution expressing confidence in the Government is passed within 14 days.

And as Dorkins points out, delaying the election is possible if an Act of Parliament is passed which overturns FTPA 2011. The biggest hurdle would be getting it through the House of Lords.

[@contradevian]

Excellent news. I hope the Scots go for it. I don't think its about Scottish nationalism strangely. Everyone has had enough of London and the whole country hostage to a Westminster/City elite and its 'hedge fund' economy.

[porca misèria]

My only reservation is the demand by the SNP for a currency union which has come across as presumptous and arrogant.

Indeed. Hard to judge from here how that comes across to a Jock. I wouldn't blame them in the least for crying "Plague on both your houses" on that question.

In reality, if there's a yes vote, I expect they'll haggle at length over currency, and a price will be set for Jockland keeping the pound. Price will be something along the lines of BoE having some supervisory power/oversight and even veto over Jock economy. How that might work long term, I couldn't say.

[choox]

The former case is possible because a vote of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government is a sufficient condition for an immediate election under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, unless a new resolution expressing confidence in the Government is passed within 14 days.

And as Dorkins points out, delaying the election is possible if an Act of Parliament is passed which overturns FTPA 2011. The biggest hurdle would be getting it through the House of Lords.

Interesting, thanks.

In any case, I struggle to believe the general election will be delayed - it will look so much like cowardice by the Tories (who will already be under massive pressure if the Yes campaign succeeds) that it will just amplify the backlash when the vote eventually comes.

The collapse of a Labour government headed by the barely electable Ed M, however, is all too plausible.

[geezer466]

Parliament is sovereign. As long as they can get royal assent, they can pass whatever laws they like. Next week they could legislate for the 2015 general election to be postponed until the year 2100 so long as Queenie agreed to sign.

Sign What?

Take a step back and look again at what you have written.....

[Doesn't Commute Anymore]

I'm a Scot living in England and not entitled to a vote.

I find that offensive, and will simply become English if independence goes ahead.

The "Yes" vote appears based heavily on ignorance on how the harsh world works globally and outside local Scottish life. Its pitched for people who haven't traveled around the world and noticed how jobs and monetary systems work (i.e. stop house price crashes), or how oil companies negotiate oil contracts.

+ Belgium, Spain and a few other EU countries with separatist-seeking regions will not recognize Scotland when they seek EU membership.

+ Scotland will not fare better from the US either - they dont want the destiny of the island's nuclear deterrent to change in any way. Same for NATO countries.

+ From my time on here, I know that a currency union for the £ simply would not work - without a central bank a country has no destiny over its monetary policy and is a slave to the country with one.

+ The quality of many Scottish local politicians is woeful.

+ Big business will be really turned off by the border controls, closure of workplaces to relocate down south, brain drain - watch a decline in people visiting Scotland. The trains will stop at Carlisle/Newcastle. Driving holiday in Scotland? nah, cant be bothered getting little baby Johnny a passport.

+ England will bully Scotland so badly. That's an armyless, currency-less, international airport-less Scotland heavily reliant on suppliers and companies based around the UK for its raw materials, expertise and enterprise.

+ Lastly oil. Its actually owned by the companies with exploration and drilling rights, who have mostly paid the UK already for it (and continued payment though taxation on what comes out). The remaining fields are not so accessible. The continued payments are not so huge, and they will be contested.

[Dorkins]

Sign What?

Take a step back and look again at what you have written.....

Sign a law saying the next general election will be in the year 2100.

[geezer466]

The big 'win' so far for the SNP is a fib of such outrageous proportion that it defies belief. This is the 'It's our pound as much as it's England's pound' mantra.

It isn't Scotland's pound, it isn't England's pound, it's the UK's pound. Scotland can certainly leave the UK, it cannot take any UK institutions with it.

That the SNP have been able to peddle this without effective rebuttal is amazing but that's besides the point. It worked.

Whichever way it goes, it might not end very nicely. It might have been better if there was a landslide or at least a substantial victory by one side or the other. It looks like the 'victors' are probably going to sneak in under the wire.

There could well be recriminations, bitterness and an uncomfortable future north of the border.

Not really a historical parallel, but there was a bitter civil war in Ireland straight after independence in 1921. Unfinished business that still needs to be sorted out says some......

[geezer466]

Sign a law saying the next general election will be in the year 2100.

Such an act would require primary legislation.

Effectively cancelling General Elections which is what you are proposing is anti constitutional and will not carry the support of MP's. Erto the bill would not cross the first hurdle.

It may come as a bit of surprise to you but MP's do not always do the bidding of their masters. Particularly when there is a good chance their constituents would string them up for supporting such a radical measure as this.

So what is the Government to do send the army in and make them vote yes under gunpoint? Again another surprise Army commanders up and down the chain of command have opinions too and would not follow the bidding of Government.

More likely there would be a Military coup (to remove stupid Government) with free and fair elections to follow soon after.

The British Parliament is still not the Third Reich, not just yet anyway..............