# Implications for the rest of us if Scotland votes yes



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

It's getting quite close yet there seems very little discussion about the effect of a yes vote on what's being called rUK.  Even that name is wrong, it will no longer be a united kingdom, just a single kingdom (well, queendom), untidily united with a principality, six counties and a few odd bits.  As for the 'Great' in GB, well who knows.

We English have accepted, without demur, that enormous constitutional changes can be made to what we call 'our' nation without us getting any sort of say in the matter.  Not just constitutional but more or less everything else significant is potentially being thrown up in the air, economic, defence, energy, diplomatic, political, boundaries and so on will all necessarily change.

That someone else can decide to alter such things for us is a very peculiar state of affairs, which we accept as being reasonable because they, the Scots, have the right to self determination. Personally I've heard very, very little in the way of challenges to that, which is fair enough though slightly surprising. I expected much more reactionary noise from the Little Englander right,  especially about symbolic irrelevancies like the flag, the name of the nation, the coronation stone.

It's odd, there's a vacuum where discussion of what happens here, south of the border, if they vote yes should be.  All we've really been told is that they'll put Trident in the home counties and we'll be blessed with a tory government forever.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

It's a kingdom it's united. It will still be the UK quite accurately.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2014)

life will continue as normal.


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

the name derives from the act of union.


----------



## brixtonscot (Sep 7, 2014)

I think part of the reason is Westminster-centric mainstream media usually ignores Scotland , doesn't understand what's going on and NEVER expected YES could win.
There will probably be more reactionary noise from the littleEnglander right in response to a YES vote - and they do have a bit of a popular base to build on. 
The Left in England really need to get their act together with the prospect of a Johnson-Farage coalition at Westminster


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> the name derives from the act of union.



As far as I know, there is no international law  that requires the names of nations to be accurate.  I guess England, Wales & NI would continue to use the name UK for simplicity sake.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2014)

> ith the prospect of a Johnson-Farage coalition at Westminster



lol if that ever happens I'll eat my hat


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2014)

> We English have accepted, without demur, that enormous constitutional changes can be made to what we call 'our' nation without us getting any sort of say in the matter



aint that big of us


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> As far as I know, there is no international law  that requires the names of nations to be accurate.  I guess England, Wales & NI would continue to use the name UK for simplicity sake.



I like the idea of taking the DPRK to Ofcom


----------



## Chick Webb (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> I expected much more reactionary noise from the Little Englander right,  especially about symbolic irrelevancies like the flag, the name of the nation, the coronation stone.


I'd imagine a lot of those types don't believe it will really happen, and if it does, then they will start freaking out in earnest.
ETA: Whoops, Brixtonscot just said the same thing before me.


----------



## albionism (Sep 7, 2014)

We would have to put news/issues about Scotland in the "
*"world politics, current affairs and news" *


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

brixtonscot said:


> I think part of the reason is Westminster-centric mainstream media usually ignores Scotland , doesn't understand what's going on and NEVER expected YES could win.
> There will probably be more reactionary noise from the littleEnglander right in response to a YES vote - and they do have a bit of a popular base to build on.
> The Left in England really need to get their act together with the prospect of a Johnson-Farage coalition at Westminster


I agree with all of that, especially the last line, but while .c may be correct in the short term, life will probably continue much as normal both north and south of the border, as time passes the implications and consequences will affect all of us. 

For instance, there's been no discussion that I've noticed on whether sterling can survive as an independent currency when stripped of oil and its other Scottish components. I'll bet Mr Buffet is studying this, I wonder what preparations the Treasury has made .


----------



## Chick Webb (Sep 7, 2014)

Does a yes vote automatically mean it will actually happen?  I say this as an Irish person with experience of having had referendums put to me repeatedly until the "correct" answer is given.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> I agree with all of that, especially the last line, but while .c may be correct in the short term, life will probably continue much as normal both north and south of the border, as time passes the implications and consequences will affect all of us.
> 
> For instance, there's been no discussion that I've noticed on whether sterling can survive as an independent currency when stripped of oil and its other Scottish components. I'll bet Mr Buffet is studying this, I wonder what preparations the Treasury has made .





> The City clearly believes Scotland is necessary to prop up the economic status quo. But this isn’t just a question of yes or no – the Scottish referendum is an opportunity for the whole UK to force open a debate about our hideously imbalanced economy: its failure to create decent jobs, its hopeless dependency on debt, and above all the damaging impact of the City of London.



http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> As far as I know, there is no international law  that requires the names of nations to be accurate.  I guess England, Wales & NI would continue to use the name UK for simplicity sake.


it is guesswork though, isn't it, because none of the politicians have put down markers or offered opinions. rUK isn't really plausible longterm, yet something to differentiate before and after seems necessary, otherwise the Scots will (rightly) feel slighted that the ever imperialist English are still making a notional claim on them. 

Obviously nothing can be settled prior to the result, or the horsetrading that will follow, and we don't know what serious demands for further referendums will follow a yes result.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2014)

Chick Webb said:


> Does a yes vote automatically mean it will actually happen?  I say this as an Irish person with experience of having had referendums put to me repeatedly until the "correct" answer is given.




that was for EU membership wasn't it? a different question. Both countries have repeatedly agreed to honour the results here.


----------



## nogojones (Sep 7, 2014)

I'd like to hope the Scots would be up for a Welsh / Scots union


----------



## Chick Webb (Sep 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> that was for EU membership wasn't it? a different question. Both countries have repeatedly agreed to honour the results here.


The Lisbon Treaty.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 7, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> As far as I know, there is no international law  that requires the names of nations to be accurate.  I guess England, Wales & NI would continue to use the name UK for simplicity sake.


Indeed.

- "Great Britain" is the name of the largest island of this archipelago (in contrast with "Lesser Britain", which is Brittany).  The rUK will still have its capital on Great Britain.  
- Ancient kingdoms united to create England.  


The name will still make sense, even if it has to be redefined.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> it is guesswork though, isn't it, because none of the politicians have put down markers or offered opinions. rUK isn't really plausible longterm, yet something to differentiate before and after seems necessary, otherwise the Scots will (rightly) feel slighted that the ever imperialist English are still making a notional claim on them.
> 
> Obviously nothing can be settled prior to the result, or the horsetrading that will follow, and we don't know what serious demands for further referendums will follow a yes result.



It's going to be quite hard to continue this discussion if you refuse to accept that the UK will continue to be called the UK with or without Scotland.


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

Frankie Jack said:


> http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency


interesting and timely article, but the thread that follows illustrates my point, because it's pretty much about a post-yes Scottish economy despite the wider, UK/rUK focus of what they were responding to.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> more or less everything else significant is potentially being thrown up in the air, economic, defence, energy, diplomatic, political, boundaries and so on will all necessarily change.


_Exactly._

And: you're welcome.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 7, 2014)

Or not.


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's going to be quite hard to continue this discussion if you refuse to accept that the UK will continue to be called the UK with or without Scotland.


I'm not refusing to accept anything, though I don't see anything as a foregone conclusion. The name though symbolic (like the flag, what happens to that?) is an irrelevance compared to the economy.


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> _Exactly._
> 
> And: you're welcome.


cheers mate


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> I'm not refusing to accept anything, though I don't see anything as a foregone conclusion. The name though symbolic (like the flag, what happens to that?) is an irrelevance compared to the economy.


Who gives a fuck about flags?

The main thing is, if we vote Yes, you get a major earthquake right amongst your ossified establishment.  Great holes will be riven in its ramparts.  Breach those ramparts, people of England; storm them.  This is our gift to you.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> rUK isn't really plausible longterm, yet something to differentiate before and after seems necessary, otherwise the Scots will (rightly) feel slighted that the ever imperialist English are still making a notional claim on them.
> 
> <snip>



If Scotland decides to become independent, then it would really be none of its business what England, Wales & NI decide as a name.  And if they felt slighted, then tough.  

By the way, the Scots played their part in imperialist games in the past, and were fully involved in the Empire.  So they're not the only imperialistic ones.


----------



## Chick Webb (Sep 7, 2014)

I don't know what will happen about the economy here.  I presume that the English economy will take a bit a bit of a wobble, but that the Scots would be better off in the long run managing their own affairs and natural resources etc.  But I don't actually have any idea how independence for Scotland would affect the economies of there or here, so economic factors aren't really informing my opinion on being pro a yes vote.  You'd think I'd try to find out more about the economic implications and base my opinions on that, since I live in England and am having a baby, but I can't help feeling emotionally pro-yes for the sake of Scotland, hopefully trying to forge a better country for itself, and also strategically pro-yes from an Irish point of view.   An independent Scotland would certainly have major implications for the six counties.


----------



## Chick Webb (Sep 7, 2014)

Chick Webb said:


> I presume that the English economy *will* take a bit a bit of a wobble, .


Whoops, getting a bit ahead of myself there.  I meant "would".


----------



## Libertad (Sep 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> lol if that ever happens I'll eat my hat



I'd like to see this hat Dottie, your hat may be a very small hat in which case your forfeit might not be too difficult to ingest. On the other hand if your hat is a very large hat, say a fedora,a topper or a diving helmet, then you would be faced with a greater problem. Of course this would be dependant upon the unlikely conjunction of a toff/man of the people parliamentary farrago necessitating a suspension of all accepted headwear conventions brought about by...		  

*trails off incoherently*


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2014)

nogojones said:


> I'd like to hope the Scots would be up for a Welsh / Scots union



Have Plaid ever floated that as an idea?


----------



## pogofish (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> It's getting quite close yet there seems very little discussion about the effect of a yes vote on what's being called rUK.  Even that name is wrong, it will no longer be a united kingdom, just a single kingdom (well, queendom), untidily united with a principality, six counties and a few odd bits.  As for the 'Great' in GB, well who knows.



What....  like this 37-pager? Last active only a few weeks ago

www.urban75.net/forums/threads/scottish-independence-as-an-englishman-am-i-wrong-not-to-give-a-crap.319994/

And mybe four or five others back to 2009!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> interesting and timely article, but the thread that follows illustrates my point, because it's pretty much about a post-yes Scottish economy despite the wider, UK/rUK focus of what they were responding to.


(I know this post will have the same problems as you outline above but this seems to be the only thread on this without fixed positions now - have a read of this piece next to the one Frankie linked to).


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> What....  like this 37-pager?
> 
> www.urban75.net/forums/threads/scottish-independence-as-an-englishman-am-i-wrong-not-to-give-a-crap.319994/
> 
> And mybe four or five others back to 2009!


That one barely touched on the questions tbh


----------



## pogofish (Sep 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That one barely touched on the questions tbh



It seems to be touching them on every page I'm dipping into just now - although I've no great desire to read all of it again


----------



## catinthehat (Sep 7, 2014)

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/06/noam-chomsky-on-scottish-independence-statehood-and-power/

Noam says..........


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> It seems to be touching them on every page I'm dipping into just now - although I've no great desire to read all of it again




it was the also ran twat cousin to the main indy thread. I think there might be two decent pages in there but signal/noise


----------



## pogofish (Sep 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it was the also ran twat cousin to the main indy thread. I think there might be two decent pages in there but signal/noise



Just like most of the rest of the "what will we poor English do" discussion then - which seems to belie a complete failure to understand how they contributed to or take any responability for the English state's fairly major contribution to the desire for independance in many Scots.


----------



## dessiato (Sep 7, 2014)

Apropos the name, isn't the United Kingdom from "the united kingdoms of Great Britain an Northern Ireland"? In which case the the name doesn't need to change. IMO of course.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2014)

We should go for something with an A because then it'd save time scrolling to the bottom when choosing country whenever you fill in an online form


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

dessiato said:


> Apropos the name, isn't the United Kingdom from "the united kingdoms of Great Britain an Northern Ireland"?.



no


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> We should go for something with an A because then it'd save time scrolling to the bottom when choosing country whenever you fill in an online form


no it needs to be UK so we remain next to the US at the UN General Assembly


----------



## The Boy (Sep 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> no it needs to be UK so we remain next to the US at the UN General Assembly



United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Reformed)?


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 7, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> As far as I know, there is no international law  that requires the names of nations to be accurate.  I guess England, Wales & NI would continue to use the name UK for simplicity sake.



Thank heavens for that I was sweating that we might have broken the law


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> We should go for something with an A because then it'd save time scrolling to the bottom when choosing country whenever you fill in an online form



I vote Æthelstan


----------



## Sue (Sep 7, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> If Scotland decides to become independent, then it would really be none of its business what England, Wales & NI decide as a name.  And if they felt slighted, then tough.
> 
> By the way, the Scots played their part in imperialist games in the past, and were fully involved in the Empire.  So they're not the only imperialistic ones.


Why would Scottish people feel 'slighted' about what rUK calls itself, if independence happens?


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 7, 2014)

Scotland attempts to keep the pound. It is thus - since it lacks a central bank - barred from joining the EU. There is a Daily Mail/UKIP-style campaign for the government to "get tough" on immigration. Government - eager to appease the swivel-eyed backwoodsmen - clamp down on "non-EU" immigration. Scots are not allowed in.


----------



## Coolfonz (Sep 7, 2014)

It is the worst possible outcome to have a very tight vote though. Didn't go down very well in Quebec, ethnic minorities were blamed for voting this way or that. Whichever way you dress it up, nationalism is ugly. 'Ooh look at my majestic fluttering flag' you McSchmucks.


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's a kingdom it's united. It will still be the UK quite accurately.



When the Republic of Ireland seceded in 1921, it was still the UK. It will still be if the Scots do a bunk.


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Who gives a fuck about flags?
> 
> The main thing is, if we vote Yes, you get a major earthquake right amongst your ossified establishment.  Great holes will be riven in its ramparts.  Breach those ramparts, people of England; storm them.  This is our gift to you.


We agree on the main thing, particularly as the proportion of (land but also etc) ownership in rUK will be somewhat less concentrated than at present. I've seen analysis of Scotland, eg the article ba linked _"land ownership is the most concentrated in the developed world (half of Scotland’s land is owned by just 500 people)"_ but not what that implies for post-yes rUK- the figure in my mind is 7% own 84% but that's decades old and includes Scotland.  i don't know what a modern figure is and a brief google hasn't turned one up). 

as for the flag, it's a symbol, nothing more, but like all important symbols it has a meaning beyond its own tawdry appearance.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 7, 2014)

This shows my ignorance and that I haven't been following the ref till it got interesting in the last couple of weeks: what is the state of play on the split up of assets that still exist on a UK wide basis i.e. are not under the Scots Parliament already?  Were there outline agreements at the time or is it all 'to be negotiated'?  I'm aware of all the stuff on the debt, banks, currency and stuff, but I was thinking about things like the BBC. There's already the Glasgow production centre, but a lot of this 'national' org is still in London.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 7, 2014)

It's all to be negotiated, which makes sense as the Scottish Government's position is weak until a favourable result comes in.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 7, 2014)

MAD-T-REX said:


> It's all to be negotiated, which makes sense as the Scottish Government's position is weak until a favourable result comes in.


Unless that's all completely resolved by May next year (if the vote goes Yes of course) it would create a dilemma for Labour. They would have to promise Scotland a good deal to get enough seats to win a majority in Westminster, but wouldn't want to inflame English nationalism by doing exactly that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 7, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I vote Æthelstan




I'm lobbying for Angmar


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> Just like most of the rest of the "what will we poor English do" discussion then - which seems to belie a complete failure to understand how they contributed to or take any responability for the English state's fairly major contribution to the desire for independance in many Scots.



I think we understand that well enough just as I think we're entitled to a conversation about what we'll do if/when our circumstances change. A conversation which, and I mean no disrespect, doesn't really involve those who want little further to do with us.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2014)

What about 111aaaland? If we name ourselves like an entrepreneurial taxi firm we will be in a great position to win the global race!


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 7, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Unless that's all completely resolved by May next year (if the vote goes Yes of course) it would create a dilemma for Labour. They would have to promise Scotland a good deal to get enough seats to win a majority in Westminster, but wouldn't want to inflame English nationalism by doing exactly that.


Related to this thread, the next Government is going to be short-lived if there's a Yes vote. All of the Scottish MPs leaving in 2016 should prompt a General Election and Labour would be foolish to pander to Scottish voters for a year in Government (or two years at the most if, as is rumoured, Tory MPs will demand that Cameron and the Cabinet resign following a Yes vote).


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

catinthehat said:


> http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/06/noam-chomsky-on-scottish-independence-statehood-and-power/
> 
> Noam says..........


I'm not great at watching half hour videos, does he have anything useful to say about post-yes rUK?


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Unless that's all completely resolved by May next year (if the vote goes Yes of course) it would create a dilemma for Labour. They would have to promise Scotland a good deal to get enough seats to win a majority in Westminster, but wouldn't want to inflame English nationalism by doing exactly that.


there's a proposal to (change the law and) delay the 2015 election till after they've left.  tbh it's hard to see how any result in 2015 could make sense- Tam's East Lothian question writ large.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> there's a proposal to (change the law and) delay the 2015 election till after they've left.  tbh it's hard to see how any result in 2015 could make sense- Tam's East Lothian question writ large.


West Lothian.


----------



## 8den (Sep 7, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> When the Republic of Ireland seceded in 1921, it was still the UK. It will still be if the Scots do a bunk.



Seceded is a nice term for violent bloody revolution.


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

weepiper said:


> West Lothian.


oops, bad memory,


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> oops, bad memory,


Why what happened there?


----------



## A380 (Sep 7, 2014)

I still don't see why, if the Scots do become independent they feel they can just leave Northern Ireland to us...


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

I'm not sure if you're asking about the West Lothian question or about my East/West error? If the latter, well, I have no excuse


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> We agree on the main thing, particularly as the proportion of (land but also etc) ownership in rUK will be somewhat less concentrated than at present. I've seen analysis of Scotland, eg the article ba linked _"land ownership is the most concentrated in the developed world (half of Scotland’s land is owned by just 500 people)"_ but not what that implies for post-yes rUK- the figure in my mind is 7% own 84% but that's decades old and includes Scotland.  i don't know what a modern figure is and a brief google hasn't turned one up).


I don't really want to butt in on a thread which is about "the implications for the rest of us", but seeing as the media, the establishment, and many people in the rest of the UK simply _aren't getting_ the referendum, I feel justified in doing so.

First, it isn't about our feelings towards_ English people_.  Not even a little bit.

There was a comedy programme on TV last night, Kevin Bridges Live at the Referendum. English & Scottish stand ups doing their take on the referendum.

The two English stand ups didn't get it all at.  They thought it was about Scots wanting to distance themselves from English people.  It isn't.  It's about us wanting to distance ourselves from _Westminster_. We understand that there are many people in England who want to do that, too.  But we have to do what is possible at the time.  History has given this a tool, and if we don't use it, we'd have squandered an opportunity.

Jack Dee did a song all about what the Scots feel about the English.  It was embarrassing.  I like Jack Dee, by the way.  I find him funny.  But not here. He was trying his best; he was trying to understand, but he'd missed the point completely.  I don't blame him - watching events from 300 miles away, you are reliant on what it being reported.  But what's being reported is bollocks.  This isn't even about Salmond versus Darling.  Those debates are not the campaign; the real debate is going on in homes, pubs, bus stops, work places, cafes, house parties, barber shops, all over Scotland.  You can't go anywhere that doesn't discuss it.

I dropped in on a friend on Friday who'd just had an operation, to see if she needed anything.  She and her son immediately launched into their views on the referendum.  Both former Nos, they are now voting Yes, and they wanted to run their thinking past me. And it was all about the opportunities - which they knew very well the limits of - that this offers.

There are many anarchist purists who want nothing to do with this.  But I think they're wrong.  The opportunity for full revolution is not here now, and sitting awaiting it is something I'll leave to dusty eggheads and pettifoggers like the SPGB.  We are not going to get a socialist utopia, but we are able to do some real, practical, and immediately instrumental things.  And create the moment where we may be able to do more.

But it isn't about identity.  The SNP may have a stream of that in their civic nationalism, but this isn't about the SNP.  The movement is far wider than that, and the SNP doesn't lead it, even if it wanted to.  They just lit the touchpaper in terms of providing the moment (which, incidentally, I don't think they were ready for; they didn't expect to win the Holyrood elections in 2011 with a majority of seats.  Their hand was forced).

So conflating "Scotland" into a homogeneous mass won't do. That isn't what a Yes vote is doing.  And those landowners you talk about: Dan Snow's in-laws, all those people - the "Proud Scotbuts" - they're all voting No.  Why?  Because the current establishment suits them.  They understand only too well that an upset in that can be used by the people, if we're clever about it.  That's why it's them playing the nationalist hand rather than the Yes side.

So, over to you.  Should we vote Yes, what can you do with it?


----------



## chilango (Sep 7, 2014)

J Ed said:


> What about 111aaaland? If we name ourselves like an entrepreneurial taxi firm we will be in a great position to win the global race!



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Åland_Islands


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 7, 2014)

I know fuck all about the issues, but the Scots would be mad to vote no. When you see them politicos various pleading then threatening, it's bleeding obvious that Yes would be in the best interests of the normal people.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 7, 2014)

Sue said:


> Why would Scottish people feel 'slighted' about what rUK calls itself, if independence happens?



My post was in response to one by newbie upthread, who raised the issue of continuing to call ourselves the UK may cause the Scots to feel slighted.


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 7, 2014)

I am so looking forward to watching the post-yes chaos as the Westminster village wakes up to the consequences of their actions for the past few decades. That is potentially explosive and could bring great positive changes for England too, even here in the north. I have Labour-supporting friends who just see this through the prism of Westminster politics and wring their hands about the lost Scottish Labour MPs, complaining about the evil nationalist Salmond, utterly missing the point...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

It's true there will be a period of chaotic readjustment across Britain - how ever nothing progressive can or will come of it in England because there is no groundswell of progressive ideas or a movement capable of encouraging them


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's true there will be a period of chaotic readjustment across Britain - how ever nothing progressive can or will come of it in England because there is no groundswell of progressive ideas or a movement capable of encouraging them


Make one, then. 

(I think you're wrong, btw, there are plenty of ideas that have popular support in England that just aren't reflected by the Westminster parties).


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't really want to butt in on a thread which is about "the implications for the rest of us", but seeing as the media, the establishment, and many people in the rest of the UK simply _aren't getting_ the referendum, I feel justified in doing so.
> 
> First, it isn't about our feelings towards_ English people_.  Not even a little bit.


thanks Danny, and obviously you're not butting in, though I'd prefer this thread to not be distracted into talking about Scotland.  Personally I don't care about about Scottish feelings towards the English and I largely agree with much of the analysis I've seen you put forward.  About opportunity to break the status quo and so on.  Please don't take my response to pogo's snippy post about '_we poor English'_ as anything more generally applicable.

You are right though, down here people are not getting the referendum, it's not (IME) being discussed much, and where it is the discussion focusses on Scotland not on what might or could or will happen here.  hence this thread.

if you don't mind I'll skip your views about a comedy show on TV as I know zilch about either.



> So conflating "Scotland" into a homogeneous mass won't do.


ok, but from this distance Scotland is a bit like France or Spain... reasonably familiar and with similarities to here and while I know full well there are regional, cultural and class differences I can't really differentiate bits of it in the way I can between say Herne Hill and Norwood.  

Scotland is obviously not homogenous because on the main existential question there's a neat 50:50 split.  Who knows where nationalistic  deepening of that split may lead, possibilities from elsewhere include Quebec (referenced further up), positive examples like Czech Republic and Slovakia or where it's all gone horribly, horribly awry- like South Sudan, ex-Yugoslavia or, more recently, Ukraine.  You're giving a genie some oxygen, like you I hope there are positive outcomes.	   



> And those landowners you talk about: Dan Snow's in-laws, all those people - the "Proud Scotbuts" - they're all voting No.  Why?  Because the current establishment suits them.  They understand only too well that an upset in that can be used by the people, if we're clever about it.  That's why it's them playing the nationalist hand rather than the Yes side.


the establishment favours the status quo?  that doesn't come as a huge surprise, and I very much hope you can dislodge them if you get the majority.  or indeed if you don't, iykwim.




> So, over to you.  Should we vote Yes, what can you do with it?



well we won't know that until we start to talk it through, which we've not even started yet.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 7, 2014)

What are the implications for the left and the anarchist scene in England if there is a yes vote ? Are there any or is it just a question about getting the right line?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 7, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed.
> 
> - "Great Britain" is the name of the largest island of this archipelago (in contrast with "Lesser Britain", which is Brittany).  The rUK will still have its capital on Great Britain.
> - Ancient kingdoms united to create England.
> ...


Yes, but before the Act of Union, wasn't that state of united kingdoms called England?

The name of "New" country, subsequent to the union dissolvinhg, obviously can't include any reference to GB, and can only really reflect the remaining ragbag of a kingdom, principality and a province. Maybe "EWNI" pronounced 'uni'?


----------



## cantsin (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> It's getting quite close yet there seems very little discussion about the effect of a yes vote on what's being called rUK.  Even that name is wrong, it will no longer be a united kingdom, just a single kingdom (well, queendom), untidily united with a principality, six counties and a few odd bits.  As for the 'Great' in GB, well who knows.
> 
> We English have accepted, without demur, that enormous constitutional changes can be made to what we call 'our' nation without us getting any sort of say in the matter.  Not just constitutional but more or less everything else significant is potentially being thrown up in the air, economic, defence, energy, diplomatic, political, boundaries and so on will all necessarily change.
> 
> ...



fellow Celts, Wales, and then us Cornish-Devonians,  next


----------



## andysays (Sep 7, 2014)

MAD-T-REX said:


> Related to this thread, *the next Government is going to be short-lived if there's a Yes vote. All of the Scottish MPs leaving in 2016 should prompt a General Election* and Labour would be foolish to pander to Scottish voters for a year in Government (or two years at the most if, as is rumoured, Tory MPs will demand that Cameron and the Cabinet resign following a Yes vote).



Not necessarily. It obviously depends on who wins the GE, and whether they're dependent on Scottish MPs for their majority.

Here's part of a post I made yesterday on the thread you linked to



> This site currently predicts a Labour majority of 30 at the next GE
> 
> Party2010 Votes2010 SeatsPred VotesPred Seats
> CON36.97%30731.82%*258*
> ...



Clearly there's still time for voting intentions to change, not least as a result of the referendum result. The much touted idea that Scottish independence will lead to a permanent Tory majority at Westminster (I realise this isn't what you're saying) isn't borne out either by history, or by the current state of opinion polls.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Make one, then.
> 
> (I think you're wrong, btw, there are plenty of ideas that have popular support in England that just aren't reflected by the Westminster parties).


Why I wasn't making a values statement I don't care

Eta as was out earlier: I know peoples appetite for progressive ideas is no weaker in England than it is in Scotland (in fact England is probably less reactionary than Scotland on the whole) but there is no real insurgent meaningful and believable force promoting a plausible expression of them.


----------



## treelover (Sep 7, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Who gives a fuck about flags?
> 
> The main thing is, if we vote Yes, you get a major earthquake right amongst your ossified establishment.  Great holes will be riven in its ramparts.  Breach those ramparts, people of England; storm them.  This is our gift to you.



Wow!


----------



## treelover (Sep 7, 2014)

Great thread, personally I worry we will be come even more insular and the political centre will shift even more to the right, as spanky says, there is no great social movement ready to inspire people.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/07/scotland-decides-union-tories

Owen Jones(in an unusually angry piece) thinks it may have a seismic effect here though and is even shaking up die hard Blairites like John McTernan(former Blair adviser) who recently had a Guardian piece on "how disabled people were fighting back on benefit cuts"


----------



## krink (Sep 7, 2014)

Who are these 'anarchist purists'? Every anarchist I know and (afaik) the anarchists on here are very much in favour of the Jocks voting Yes. I know I am. 

If the Scots don't vote Yes it will be a crying shame. Independence might not work but they'd be fucking mad not to give it a go.


----------



## kenny g (Sep 7, 2014)

It shows the state of the "left" in Britain when people seriously think nationalism is progressive. For all Danny's sneers at the SPGB, one hundred years ago its members analysis and rejection of nationalism (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/...121-september-1914/war-and-socialist-position) led to them being imprisoned rather than take sides with capital, whilst many leftists were propounding the war as a step towards Socialism.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

kenny g said:


> It shows the state of the "left" in Britain when people seriously think nationalism is progressive. For all Danny's sneers at the SPGB, one hundred years ago its members analysis and rejection of nationalism (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/...121-september-1914/war-and-socialist-position) led to them being imprisoned rather than take sides with capital, whilst many leftists were propounding the war as a step towards Socialism.


And look at them now eh? What a successful movement


----------



## kenny g (Sep 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And look at them now eh? What a successful movement



Well, look at the leftist nationalist's achievements since 1914 and tell me when you stop counting the corpses.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

kenny g said:


> Well, look at the leftist nationalist's achievements since 1914 and tell me when you stop counting the corpses.


Yes got to count the pile of corpses left by the SNP or ERC or Plaid


----------



## krink (Sep 7, 2014)

i want Scotland to be an anarchist-communist society but a Yes on the 18th will do as a start


----------



## weepiper (Sep 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes got to count the pile of corpses left by the SNP or ERC or Plaid








Worse than Stalin.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

krink said:


> i want Scotland to be an anarchist-communist society but a Yes on the 18th will do as a start


I don't think the Scots workers will be any better off independent they'll get screwed by capital just the same - and as I've said elsewhere the SNP who will win very convincingly in the first election will become a truly neoliberal centre right government and start trashing what's left of the welfare state - but a yes vote will piss off the Tories and possibly cost them the next general election (combined with UKIP) so fuck it I support Yes


----------



## krink (Sep 7, 2014)

Sorry, to the op...one implication for me would be seriously considering moving to Scotland. It's only 70 miles to the border but I'd like to live a little further up in Edinburgh. Love the place. An implication for the rest of the UK would be....erm...I can't really think of any. Scottish fivers will be gone?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

krink said:


> Scottish fivers will be gone?


Don't get many of them outside of the Far north anyway


----------



## kenny g (Sep 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I don't think the Scots workers will be any better off independent they'll get screwed by capital just the same - and as I've said elsewhere the SNP who will win very convincingly in the first election will become a truly neoliberal centre right government and start trashing what's left of the welfare state - but a yes vote will piss off the Tories and possibly cost them the next general election (combined with UKIP) so fuck it I support Yes



So whilst you sneer at the SPGB, your own politics consist of "pissing off the Tories".


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 7, 2014)

kenny g said:


> So whilst you sneer at the SPGB, your own politics consist of "pissing off the Tories".


Lol

Actually they consist of a fair bit more none of which you would like, but in a vote where neither option will lead to anything beneficial for my class - I'll take the comedy option cheers


----------



## Wilf (Sep 7, 2014)

krink said:


> Sorry, to the op...one implication for me would be seriously considering moving to Scotland. It's only 70 miles to the border but I'd like to live a little further up in Edinburgh. Love the place. An implication for the rest of the UK would be....erm...I can't really think of any. Scottish fivers will be gone?


John Terry will never get a chance to get an Olympic Gold medal for the UK team.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 7, 2014)

A large opportunity cost where an enormous amount of time and treasure in spent by all the numerous departments involved  to divide the assets. A bonanza for consulants and 'task forces' who will be deployed for months if not years to push this forward. A chance that a vindictive Westminster estabishment will try to screw the Scots on the way out and try to engineer a 'fail' out of spite. Tory goverments in England bolstered by a UKIP coalition stretching into the forseeable. Everything that aint nailed down that can be sold off to be sold off and privatised at an accelarted pace. Cameron replaced by Boris in a two fingers we don't give a fuck anymore time for English Tories to partyyyyy....


----------



## krink (Sep 7, 2014)

an indie scotland will not result in a tory/ukip coalition. 

an indie scotland yesterday


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 7, 2014)

One immediate consequence - a lot more panic across all of Fleet Street tomorrow than usual:


----------



## Cpatain Rbubish (Sep 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> It's getting quite close yet there seems very little discussion about the effect of a yes vote on what's being called rUK.  Even that name is wrong, it will no longer be a united kingdom, just a single kingdom (well, queendom), untidily united with a principality, six counties and a few odd bits.  As for the 'Great' in GB, well who knows.
> 
> We English have accepted, without demur, that enormous constitutional changes can be made to what we call 'our' nation without us getting any sort of say in the matter.  Not just constitutional but more or less everything else significant is potentially being thrown up in the air, economic, defence, energy, diplomatic, political, boundaries and so on will all necessarily change.
> 
> ...



Shhh, we are quietly amassing our forces (non Scottish regiments) on the border and arming all the English currently residing in the secessionist state


----------



## N_igma (Sep 7, 2014)

Has anyone please thought of the children yet?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> A large opportunity cost where an enormous amount of time and treasure in spent by all the numerous departments involved  to divide the assets. A bonanza for consulants and 'task forces' who will be deployed for months if not years to push this forward. A chance that a vindictive Westminster estabishment will try to screw the Scots on the way out and try to engineer a 'fail' out of spite. Tory goverments in England bolstered by a UKIP coalition stretching into the forseeable. Everything that aint nailed down that can be sold off to be sold off and privatised at an accelarted pace. Cameron replaced by Boris in a two fingers we don't give a fuck anymore time for English Tories to partyyyyy....



You mental


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 8, 2014)

They are really getting scared now eh?

_Excellent..._


----------



## Wilf (Sep 8, 2014)

Living in  Middlesbrough I'll be close enough to the border to think it will become some wild frontier, bandit territory. Oh, hang on...


----------



## N_igma (Sep 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> They are really getting scared now eh?
> 
> _Excellent..._



Who are 'they'?


----------



## N_igma (Sep 8, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> A large opportunity cost where an enormous amount of time and treasure in spent by all the numerous departments involved  to divide the assets. A bonanza for consulants and 'task forces' who will be deployed for months if not years to push this forward. A chance that a vindictive Westminster estabishment will try to screw the Scots on the way out and try to engineer a 'fail' out of spite. Tory goverments in England bolstered by a UKIP coalition stretching into the forseeable. Everything that aint nailed down that can be sold off to be sold off and privatised at an accelarted pace. Cameron replaced by Boris in a two fingers we don't give a fuck anymore time for English Tories to partyyyyy....



I'll have what she's having!


----------



## free spirit (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't really want to butt in on a thread which is about "the implications for the rest of us", but seeing as the media, the establishment, and many people in the rest of the UK simply _aren't getting_ the referendum, I feel justified in doing so.


good post, and I'm coming round to the idea that an independent scotland could benefit the rest of us by being able to really give the lie to the failing neoliberalist experiment Westminster is conducting.

And possibly the north of england would benefit if the scottish economy really took off.

Still can't quite escape the feeling that it could well go the other way though, and push the rUK parties even further to the right, and the UK press would simply ignore whatever was going on in scotland.

I also reckon we should be given the option on which parliament to stick with. Edinburgh was once part of the same northumberland kingdom as Yorkshire, I reckon we could well prefer some sort of federal link up with scotland than continued centralised rule from westminster... if you'd have us.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> They are really getting scared now eh?
> 
> _Excellent..._




invoking the fears of dear brenda nonetheless!

Surely everyone will call the whole thing off now.

anyway, i thought we'd be still sharing a monarchy, but in a titular fashion. Like how the aussies still have the queen only not.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 8, 2014)

N_igma said:


> Who are 'they'?



Labor and the Tories.  And the Queen.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Labor and the Tories.  And the Queen.



Lol god forbid what happens to Balmoral!


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 8, 2014)

N_igma said:


> Lol god forbid what happens to Balmoral!



Can she choose where she wants to be Queen of?  I think she would prefer Scotland.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 8, 2014)

Oh yes, yes, yes, yes, oh yeeeesssss.	  whadda you mean no Darling?


----------



## N_igma (Sep 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Can she choose where she wants to be Queen of?  I think she would prefer Scotland.



Ask the crown estate they'll tell you.


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 8, 2014)

8den said:


> Seceded is a nice term for violent bloody revolution.



a) Cause: what you call "violent bloody revolution".
b) Effect: Ireland splitting from the UK, aka secession.

The context of this thread - Scottish independence - means we are discussing (b).


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Can she choose where she wants to be Queen of?  I think she would prefer Scotland.



She'll be queen of Scotland separately. The tabs are stirring up imaginary shock/horror shite.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

Here's an implication already: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ce-pound-slumps-to-lowest-level-for-10-months

*pound slumps to lowest level for 10 months*

Why is there "uncertainty" over the Pound?  It's because of the No camp's currency union bluff.  The market isn't repricing an independent Scotland's economy - that doesn't exist yet.  It's repricing the UK economy.

Osborne will either have to ride out Sterling volatility until after 18th, when negotiations being if there's a Yes, or he'll have to declare it was a bluff and there will be currency union after all.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Here's an implication already: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ce-pound-slumps-to-lowest-level-for-10-months
> 
> *pound slumps to lowest level for 10 months*
> 
> ...



Exactly. And if I was an undecided, I'd certainly take note that (financial) capital sees independence as against its own interests.


----------



## MrSki (Sep 8, 2014)

The football results will take half the time they do now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> The football results will take half the time they do now.



might be scope for an inter-islands trophy come the day. Scotland could pick 11 of the best from its two teams, england could scour its PL for actual english players who aren't injured old warhorses or raw boys. Dunno what wales would want to do- field a welsh team maybe. Then we rope in NI for a team. Maybe a joint Roi/NI team, to make the numbers up.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> might be scope for an inter-islands trophy come the day. Scotland could pick 11 of the best from its two teams, england could scour its PL for actual english players who aren't injured old warhorses or raw boys. Dunno what wales would want to do- field a welsh team maybe. Then we rope in NI for a team. Maybe a joint Roi/NI team, to make the numbers up.


Two teams?

And you mean a home championship? We had one for a hundred years with no problems putting teams together.


----------



## peterkro (Sep 8, 2014)

Lying,cheating,thieving bastards.When the pounds drops because of their machinations it's "good for exports,business will flourish and it's unfortunate the poor will pay but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" cunts.
I'm no nationalist but the Scots would be mad not to go for it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

four if you include hibs and hearts..

and thats my knowledge of football exhausted.

It'd make for a good tournament/contest though, in seriousness. But where in the schedule to slot it.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> four if you include hibs and hearts..
> 
> and thats my knowledge of football exhausted.
> 
> It'd make for a good tournament/contest though, in seriousness. But where in the schedule to slot it.


I think you may have missed what's happened/happening to Rangers.


----------



## gabi (Sep 8, 2014)

They'll have to change the Union Jack. Which will be massive pain in the arse for marketing folk everywhere.


----------



## newbie (Sep 8, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> A large opportunity cost where an enormous amount of time and treasure in spent by all the numerous departments involved  to divide the assets. A bonanza for consulants and 'task forces' who will be deployed for months if not years to push this forward.


yes, there'll be huge spending on city firms of lawyers and accountants trying to work out how to carve up complex, integrated things like air traffic control and the grid as well as much discussed matters like fisheries, oil and the national debt.  New Porches and trebles all round, and let's not even think about the negotiators who self-identify with Scotland and whatever conflict of interest that might imply. 

And vast amounts of time spent by politicians bickering, which may mean they can't get up to anything worse or may just mean the government can slide through whatever else it pleases without what passes for scrutiny. 

Their most immediate problem still appears to be the planned 2015 election, which will give them plenty of scope for grandstanding.  The official view is here with an awful lot of ifs, buts and maybes. 

The central 'toxic' conundrum is not easy to resolve- what role should Scottish MPs play in the UK process that negotiates separation with the Scottish government? Whatif their presence creates a Labour administration that would lose its majority when they leave, but which will gerrymander negotiations for whatever future electoral advantage it can get both north and south of the border. The MPs longterm interest (and that of the constituents they pretend to represent) lies with Scotland so it's hard for even non-Tories to see fairness and parity in Scottish votes counting twice and being represented on both sides of the negotiations.  Or should they somehow be excluded/exclude themselves in which case they still help determine the majority party but otherwise Scottish votes for UK constituencies are all but meaningless during the biggest constitutional change of the era. Delaying the UK election won't alter that, merely use an older mandate which further excludes those of us not in Scotland from any involvement in the process at all.  And, of course, Scottish MPs will be out of a job after 2016, which will also play some part in their thinking.

So there's plenty of scope for dodgy deals and jockeying for advantage amongst chaps who all went to school/Oxbridge together and who- like Danny- see possibilities in the upheaval but unlike him are looking out almost entirely for themselves. 


... and then there's the house of lords...


----------



## newbie (Sep 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> The football results will take half the time they do now.


even better, no longer will we have to listen to their miserable weather on the forecasts


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think you may have missed what's happened/happening to Rangers.




completely. But on thinking of it I suppose there may be some sort of battle for the clubs soul going on internally wrt scots indy? gers being traditionally known as the unionists but its never that simple is it. 

unless you are on about something completely different.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2014)

further to previous replies duke of edinburgh.deported as undesirable alien


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

newbie said:


> even better, no longer will we have to listen to their miserable weather on the forecasts


Oh, no.  In the negotiations, we'll make sure you get the bad weather.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

I see that the Orange order are having an away-day in Edinburgh on Saturday. That might help a few "DKs" to make up their mind.

I suppose the Ulster Unionists are pretty scared of the scenario in which their desire for union is with an entity that can't even be named yet.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I see that the Orange order are having an asset-day in Edinburgh on Saturday. That might help a few "DKs" to make up their mind.
> 
> I suppose the Ulster Unionists are pretty scared of the scenario in which their desire for union is with an entity that can't even be named yet.


Unionism: the belief that two lands sharing a border ought also to share a government, unless those lands are part of Ireland.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2014)

gabi said:


> They'll have to change the Union Jack. Which will be massive pain in the arse for marketing folk everywhere.


----------



## Sue (Sep 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I see that the Orange order are having an away-day in Edinburgh on Saturday. That might help a few "DKs" to make up their mind.
> 
> I suppose the Ulster Unionists are pretty scared of the scenario in which their desire for union is with an entity that can't even be named yet.


And Nigel Farage is apparently staging a pro-union rally in Glasgow this Friday.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2014)

Sue said:


> And Nigel Farage is apparently staging a pro-union rally in Glasgow this Friday.



What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

Sue said:


> And Nigel Farage is apparently staging a pro-union rally in Glasgow this Friday.


Only needs Gideon now, and that would just about seal it!


----------



## newbie (Sep 8, 2014)

Sue said:


> And Nigel Farage is apparently staging a pro-union rally in Glasgow this Friday.


he's in favour of one free trade agreement but not another?


----------



## ddraig (Sep 8, 2014)

gabi said:


> They'll have to change the Union Jack. Which will be massive pain in the arse for marketing folk everywhere.


good and lol


----------



## 19sixtysix (Sep 8, 2014)

gabi said:


> They'll have to change the Union Jack. Which will be massive pain in the arse for marketing folk everywhere.



Either way in referendum result I reckon it's about time UK things were made properly UK. Flag need bit of wales so may be bottom blue bits go green and we have dragon on top. Bank of England is moved away from city of london and renamed Bank of UK with a purpose to serve the population not corporations of the UK.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 8, 2014)

don't want to be on the flag thanks


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

Must say I was quite taken with Natalie Bennett's public welcoming of the _*constitutional chaos *_that would follow a 'Yes' vote.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Must say I was quite taken with Natalie Bennett's public welcoming of the _*constitutional chaos *_that would follow a 'Yes' vote.



"The floodgates of anarchy will come crashing down upon our heads".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 8, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> What are the implications for the left and the anarchist scene in England if there is a yes vote ? Are there any or is it just a question about getting the right line?



Losing both of the Scottish anarchists would certainly be a major blow.


----------



## flypanam (Sep 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I suppose the Ulster Unionists are pretty scared of the scenario in which their desire for union is with an entity that can't even be named yet.



Also one which they fear may one day sell them out.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2014)

flypanam said:


> Also one which they fear may one day sell them out.



I don't think so. Their whole thing is loyalty to the crown, and that will still be there. I suppose they could even "kick it old school" and revert to loyalty to the Dutch monarchy, if there was even an English republic.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> "The floodgates of anarchy will come crashing down upon our heads".


----------



## flypanam (Sep 8, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> I don't think so. Their whole thing is loyalty to the crown, and that will still be there. I suppose they could even "kick it old school" and revert to loyalty to the Dutch monarchy, if there was even an English republic.



I agree with the crown bit, but I always thought the presence of Scotland within the union was for UU is/was a reassuring presence against an English parliament that they don't entirely trust.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2014)

flypanam said:


> I agree with the crown bit, but I always thought the presence of Scotland within the union was for UU is/was a reassuring presence against an English parliament that they don't entirely trust.



During the plantations, weren't the protestant planters about 50/50 Scots/English?


----------



## marty21 (Sep 8, 2014)

this referedum is obsessing politicians and the media but I don't see any obsession amongst the general public in the rest of the uk - personally I think it will be a yes vote which will please me - the move to the yes vote has gained momentum since 2010 election - surely no coincidence


----------



## MrSki (Sep 8, 2014)

marty21 said:


> this referedum is obsessing politicians and the media but I don't see any obsession amongst the general public in the rest of the uk - personally I think it will be a yes vote which will please me - the move to the yes vote has gained momentum since 2010 election - surely no coincidence


But the rest of us will be stuck with a tory government till the cows come home.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

Sue said:


> And Nigel Farage is apparently staging a pro-union rally in Glasgow this Friday.




remember this waste of oxygen?



			
				Christopher Walter Monckton said:
			
		

> ][/B]The Scots are subsidy junkies whingeing like a trampled bagpipe as they wait for their next fix of English taxpayers' money.






			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> By January 2013 he had become UKIP's president in Scotland but was sacked by UKIP leader Nigel Farage in November 2013 following factional infighting.



Lets hope Farage has to flee whichever drinking hole he has retreated to under guard from henchmen. Again.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> But the rest of us will be stuck with a tory government till the cows come home.


Really? Again?


----------



## marty21 (Sep 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> But the rest of us will be stuck with a tory government till the cows come home.


 I think there will be a back lash against the Tories - and there will be an inevitable split over Europe, particularly if UKIP win in Clacton and Tories start getting worried about their seats as a result -  and the next election will include Scottish MPs - despite Tories apparently wanting to delay the next election -


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> But the rest of us will be stuck with a tory government till the cows come home.




even if scotland goes indy the loss of slab votes will still see labour with a clear majority in england, if the polls are to be believed. Anyway I think that even with a yes to indy the slab contingent won't be sperated off till after the upcoming GE.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 8, 2014)

gabi said:


> They'll have to change the Union Jack. Which will be massive pain in the arse for marketing folk everywhere.



Why? We might as well keep it the way it is. Unless the Scots decide to sue us for having blue in our flag.

If the UK has to change its flag then so presumably will Australia, New Zealand, Montserrat. Bremuda, Fiji, Tuvalu etc.


----------



## newbie (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> even if scotland goes indy the loss of slab votes will still see labour with a clear majority in england, if the polls are to be believed. Anyway I think that even with a yes to indy the slab contingent won't be sperated off till after the upcoming GE.


England or the rUK parliament?  This BBC page is a few months old but clearly gives Dave a 21 seat majority, where are you getting your numbers from?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> But the rest of us will be stuck with a tory government till the cows come home.



That's the bitter reality. At the moment there are 40 Scottish Labour MPs and only 1 tory. Let's not be in denial about it; it will become far easier for the tories to win without Scotland.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> But the rest of us will be stuck with a tory government till the cows come home.


 
Nope.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 8, 2014)

the UF didn't change when Ireland left the UK a mere 90-odd years ago, and the Royal Arms of England didn't stop including France for the best part of _three hundred and fifty_ years after English possession of the large areas of France ended, and 200 years after any serious claim to France was made..

quite why anyone should think a new flag would be required any sooner than the above examples suggest is the norm is beyond me.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Losing both of the Scottish anarchists would certainly be a major blow.


 
Danny La Rouge and weepiper are leaving Urban if there's a yes vote??!?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 8, 2014)

kebabking said:


> quite why anyone should think a new flag would be required any sooner than the above examples suggest is the norm is beyond me.


 
Because the Scottish would have exclusive rights to the colour blue and would sue our asses - have you not been paying attention at all?


----------



## treelover (Sep 8, 2014)

Well, new royal baby on the way, so the 'pernicious Scots' won't get much more coverage.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

fingers crossed its another ginger cuckoo


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> Danny La Rouge and weepiper are leaving Urban if there's a yes vote??!?


Yes, we'd have to, because no foreigners can post on the internet.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2014)

newbie said:


> England or the rUK parliament?  This BBC page is a few months old but clearly gives Dave a 21 seat majority, where are you getting your numbers from?


The BBC's numbers are from the 2010 GE - Tory 36.4% labour 29%. They're pretty far away from current (or pretty much all post-2010) polling.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, we'd have to, because no foreigners can post on the internet.


 
Yeah, right.  You bloody anarchists would just sneak back in pretending to be Firky or something.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

krink said:


> Who are these 'anarchist purists'?


I'm thinking of certain comrades here.  

This covers a range of thinking:

http://glasgowanarchists.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/independent-and-free/


----------



## newbie (Sep 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The BBC's numbers are from the 2010 GE - Tory 36.4% labour 29%. They're pretty far away from current (or pretty much all post-2010) polling.


yes, but it's all I've been able to find, where has up to date predictions of an rUK parliament based on current polling and constituency boundaries?  Electoral calculus shows a 30 seat lab majority but that's propped up by 41 Scottish seats and opposed by the other 18 Scottish seats.


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

newbie said:


> England or the rUK parliament?  This BBC page is a few months old but clearly gives Dave a 21 seat majority, where are you getting your numbers from?



What that piece says is that if the *last* GE had happened without the Scottish MPs, the Tories would have had an overall majority.

Current polling suggests that Labour will have a majority at the next GE, and will still retain it if Scottish MPs leave Westminster.


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

newbie said:


> yes, but it's all I've been able to find, where has up to date predictions of an rUK parliament based on current polling and constituency boundaries?  Electoral calculus shows a 30 seat lab majority but that's propped up by 41 Scottish seats and opposed by the other 18 Scottish seats.



You may be forgeting that if the Scottish MPs go, the overall number of MPs and therefore the number needed for a majority also goes down


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm thinking of certain comrades here.
> 
> This covers a range of thinking:
> 
> http://glasgowanarchists.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/independent-and-free/


That piece raises a good question, I think: If you like the kinds of promises Salmond has been making about the direction he'd like to take Scotland in, what is the best framework within which to force him to keep to those promises? I would suggest that 'devomax' may well be the answer to this question.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2014)

Can you _really _rule out civil war?


----------



## weepiper (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That piece raises a good question, I think: If you like the kinds of promises Salmond has been making about the direction he'd like to take Scotland in, what is the best framework within which to force him to keep to those promises? I would suggest that 'devomax' may well be the answer to this question.


Devo max isn't on the ballot paper.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

douglas hurd. He nos.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> douglas hurd. He nos.



I assume that's the Douglas Hurd, right?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> I assume that's the Douglas Hurd, right?


I seem to remember that he was an aspiring novelist once upon a time, so yes, I think it will be.


----------



## newbie (Sep 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> You may be forgeting that if the Scottish MPs go, the overall number of MPs and therefore the number needed for a majority also goes down


I'm not forgetting that. I've been searching for someone who's done the calculations and so far all I've found is unsubstantiated assertions.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I seem to remember that he was an aspiring novelist once upon a time, so yes, I think it will be.



Not just the rhyming slang for 'tory'.


----------



## treelover (Sep 8, 2014)

Just read somewhere that the Gov't has already spent future North Sea oil revenues through 'rehypothecation'

is this correct or nonsense on the web?


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

newbie said:


> I'm not forgetting that. I've been searching for someone who's done the calculations and so far all I've found is unsubstantiated assertions.



I've done the calculations, and posted my conclusions earlier on this very thread, but here they are again...



> This site currently predicts a Labour majority of 30 at the next GE
> 
> Party2010 Votes2010 SeatsPred VotesPred Seats
> CON36.97%30731.82%*258*
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2014)

newbie said:


> I'm not forgetting that. I've been searching for someone who's done the calculations and so far all I've found is unsubstantiated assertions.


You can't do any calculations beyond coming up with a forecasting model then putting figures in - either current polling figures or others. And that's only been done on a UK basis so you need to do some gap filling in yourself. UK polling report give a 31 seat labour majority based on uniform national swing for the UK. Electoral calculus incorporate regional/other variations and come up with a 30 seat labour majority (i think this is the lowest they've had for some time - it's tended to be 70+for labour and has been as high as 100+). These are all that we can possibly have at this stage.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> Just read somewhere that the Gov't has already spent future North Sea oil revenues through 'rehypothecation'
> 
> is this correct or nonsense on the web?


Link? If they have borrowed on the back of future oil revenues, they can, if they wish, borrow some more on the back of being a govt that can raise taxes and replace said hypothecation with that. 

Could be a ruse to hide debt on a balance sheet, I guess.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That piece raises a good question, I think: If you like the kinds of promises Salmond has been making about the direction he'd like to take Scotland in, what is the best framework within which to force him to keep to those promises? I would suggest that 'devomax' may well be the answer to this question.


We aren't voting on Salmond's promises, though.  The question we're being asked is: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"  Not: "Do you endorse the SNP's White Paper?"

There will, for the millionth time, to put it bluntly, be. fucking. elections.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

But we're getting back off "the implications for the rest of us".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> We aren't voting on Salmond's promises, though.  The question we're being asked is: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"  Not: "Do you endorse the SNP's White Paper?"
> 
> There will, for the millionth time, to put it bluntly, be. fucking. elections.


Sure. But let's not kid ourselves - the result of the first election will be victory to the SNP.


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> But we're getting back off "the implications for the rest of us".



Yes you are, and if it happens again I'm going to insist the moderators put armed border guards on this thread...


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure. But let's not kid ourselves - the result of the first election will be victory to the SNP.


Yes, indeed, as I've said on the other thread, over the years.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

I wonder if Ken Mcloed, scots anarcho pro-unionist and posadist heretic, has changed his mind yet 


Idris2002 said:


> Can you _really _rule out civil war?






> "Adam Roberts' new novel is a terrifying vision of a near future war - a civil war that tears the UK apart as new technologies allow the worlds first truly democratic army to take on the British army and wrest control from the powers that be. Taking advances in modern communication and the new eagerness for power from the bottom upwards










hilariously in this one Wills dies in a chinook crash and scotland refuses to accept the paternity of hewitts kid, leading to a civil war. Scotland hire the eponymous crowd sourced army. Presumably named after cromwells army


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That's the bitter reality. At the moment there are 40 Scottish Labour MPs and only 1 tory. Let's not be in denial about it; it will become far easier for the tories to win without Scotland.


That's the kind of scaremongering that I keep hearing from unionists on the Labour side. But let's face it, Labour are dominated by neoliberals and are little better than the Tories. Moreover, Scotland historically returned many more Tory MPs than it does today, so the "if Scotland becomes independent, it will mean Tory rule in England forever" narrative is dishonest. If anything, I reckon a realignment will occur south of the border, meaning that the Tories will become a spent force. And about time too.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> fingers crossed its another ginger cuckoo



The father?



Spoiler: nsfw


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 8, 2014)

Has there been any word of whether an independent Scotland will raise or lower duty on sales of shortbread in the rUK?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> That's the kind of scaremongering that I keep hearing from unionists on the Labour side. But let's face it, Labour are dominated by neoliberals and are little better than the Tories. Moreover, Scotland historically returned many more Tory MPs than it does today, so the "if Scotland becomes independent, it will mean Tory rule in England forever" narrative is dishonest. If anything, I reckon a realignment will occur south of the border, meaning that the Tories will become a spent force. And about time too.



its like some collective amnesia, did everyone just forget the blair years? or is it because the tories actually call you a cunt while robbing you that makes them stand out as so much the bigger demon. Labour have been coasting by on being 'not the other cunts' for years on end now and they seem to be singing from the same songsheet as the tories now anyway! Won't reverse cuts, won't back a single solitary strike, won't cease the headlong privitisation of the NHS. 

on the latter point you make I'm waiting to see what happens if scotland go yes and what amount of seats the ukip lot can get. Scots indy might open up a limited space for alternatives but whats left of labour? Respect?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Has there been any word of whether an independent Scotland will raise or lower duty on sales of shortbread in the rUK?




apparently it will mean the end of Jools Hollands Hootnanny.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Link? If they have borrowed on the back of future oil revenues, they can, if they wish, borrow some more on the back of being a govt that can raise taxes and replace said hypothecation with that.
> 
> Could be a ruse to hide debt on a balance sheet, I guess.


treelover doesn't usually bother with links or answering questions from others on their posts, just the other way round


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> That's the kind of scaremongering that I keep hearing from unionists on the Labour side. But let's face it, Labour are dominated by neoliberals and are little better than the Tories. Moreover, Scotland historically returned many more Tory MPs than it does today, so the "if Scotland becomes independent, it will mean Tory rule in England forever" narrative is dishonest. If anything, I reckon a realignment will occur south of the border, meaning that the Tories will become a spent force. And about time too.


Furthermore, as we keep having to point out, there are only 59 Scottish MPs, not all of them Labour.  (Currently: 40 Labour, 11 Lib Dems, 6 SNP, 1 Tory, 1 independent).

Labour's majorities last time round were: 179 in 1997, 167 in 2001, 66 in 2005.  Without Scottish MPs each time, all of those Labour governments would have been returned comfortably.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Furthermore, as we keep having to point out, there are only 59 Scottish MPs, not all of them Labour.  (Currently: 40 Labour, 11 Lib Dems, 6 SNP, 1 Tory, 1 independent).
> 
> Labour's majorities last time round were: 179 in 1997, 167 in 2001, 66 in 2005.  Without Scottish MPs each time, all of those Labour governments would have been returned comfortably.


Indeed. Furthermore, the Tories, who found it difficult to win outright in 2010 can only go into a tailspin from here.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 8, 2014)

Implications if Scotland votes yes?

Well obviously the wall will take some building!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its like some collective amnesia, did everyone just forget the blair years? or is it because the tories actually call you a cunt while robbing you that makes them stand out as so much the bigger demon. Labour have been coasting by on being 'not the other cunts' for years on end now and they seem to be singing from the same songsheet as the tories now anyway! Won't reverse cuts, won't back a single solitary strike, won't cease the headlong privitisation of the NHS.
> 
> on the latter point you make I'm waiting to see what happens if scotland go yes and what amount of seats the ukip lot can get. Scots indy might open up a limited space for alternatives but whats left of labour? Respect?


I don't think UKIP will poll that highly. I think, because of the Scotland independence referendum more people in England are starting to engage with politics more and are having the political debate they should have had years ago. 

As for parties to the left of Labour, there's the Greens, I suppose.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 8, 2014)

We have Scotland disliking being ruled by Westminster, whether they vote yes or no, and Westminster disliking being ruled by Brussels, whether the Tories get re-elected and have a referendum or not. It certainly seems as if large political groups, with their own governments, are not popular at the moment with their constituent parts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> I don't think UKIP will poll that highly. I think, because of the Scotland independence referendum more people in England are starting to engage with politics more and are having the political debate they should have had years ago.
> 
> As for parties to the left of Labour, *there's the Greens, I suppose*.



truly the english proletariat is saved then


----------



## futurereal (Sep 8, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> That's the kind of scaremongering that I keep hearing from unionists on the Labour side. But let's face it, Labour are dominated by neoliberals and are little better than the Tories. Moreover, Scotland historically returned many more Tory MPs than it does today, so the "if Scotland becomes independent, it will mean Tory rule in England forever" narrative is dishonest. If anything, I reckon a realignment will occur south of the border, meaning that the Tories will become a spent force. And about time too.



Agreed regarding the Tories becoming a spent force.
If Scotland vote yes, Cameron will either be brought down by the rest of his party, or/and will see a number of Eurosceptic MP's move to UKIP.

The Tories will face the choice of fighting with UKIP over the anti-EU vote, or taking a pro-EU stance and becoming the right-of-centre representation for EU reformists. Ken Clark may get the last laugh yet.

I suspect the fighting with UKIP will be the route they take at first though, probably without Cameron in charge thanks to the Old Guard toppling him.

There does seem to be a lot of pessimism, as somebody though who is pro-EU (not without caveats of course, there is a need for a lot of reform IMO) I can see the Yes vote being beneficial to EU-reformists of both the left and right in England.

I also suspect Scotland will set of a domino effect in Europe. Catalonia, the Basque region, Brittany, Belgium, Corsica maybe Wales.

If the EU handles Scotland's admittance to the Union quickly and with little fuss, then it will act as a litmus test for the other movements in Europe.

In the longer run:

I see Britain and Frances position on the UN security council being replaced by the EU. If EU member states continue to devolve, there will be a movement towards a joint EU military force. Simple economics will dictate this to the military brass in various member states.

EU nations overseas territories either leaving and joining regional blocks in the geographic region, or becoming formal entities within the EU (for example Aruba and the Falklands).


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> truly the english proletariat is saved then



If only the (English) proletariat had their own democratic party.....


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2014)

futurereal said:


> EU nations overseas territories either leaving and joining regional blocks in the geographic region, or becoming formal entities within the EU (for example Aruba and the Falklands).


while i have long been an advocate for unity between the three falkland islands - east, west and north (the latter currently known as aruba) - many people have made much of the distance between the two southern islands and north falkland as a reason to pooh-pooh my scheme.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> If only the (English) proletariat had their own democratic party.....



Bolivian arse wasps come first.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> Bolivian arse wasps come first.


i think you may be on the wrong thread.


----------



## futurereal (Sep 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> while i have long been an advocate for unity between the three falkland islands - east, west and north (the latter currently known as aruba) - many people have made much of the distance between the two southern islands and north falkland as a reason to pooh-pooh my scheme.



lol. I obviously meant between Aruba, the Falklands and the EU. Rather than the Falklands and Aruba .


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2014)

futurereal said:


> lol. I obviously meant between Aruba, the Falklands and the EU. Rather than the Falklands and Aruba .


i think my scheme's more sensible than yours, which is obviously preposterous


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you may be on the wrong thread.



It's from here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

another implication is that scotland will field their own Eurovision Song Contest entry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2014)

i'll be exploring the possibility of political asylum in scotland should this go through


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> apparently it will mean the end of Jools Hollands Hootnanny.




**Joins YES campaign**


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> truly the english proletariat is saved then


Ha ha. There's also Left Unity and others. You speak the language of eternal defeat.


----------



## futurereal (Sep 8, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> There's also Left Unity


Ironic.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2014)

futurereal said:


> Ironic.


Yes, I know how much LU (and others) are derided on Urban but that's Urban for you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Ha ha. There's also Left Unity and others. You speak the language of eternal defeat.




eh I'm just not sure the political wing of the woodcraft folk have much to offer, nor the usual suspects talking shops. I have not totally abandoned all hope though! things work by increments I suppose not overnight solutions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2014)

there'll be some extra money made by people whose houses or land straddle the border, as there is on the border between the 6 & 26 cos.


----------



## futurereal (Sep 8, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Yes, I know how much LU (and others) are derided on Urban but that's Urban for you.



I think LU bring it on themselves tbh.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> eh I'm just not sure the political wing of the woodcraft folk have much to offer, nor the usual suspects talking shops. I have not totally abandoned all hope though! things work by increments I suppose not overnight solutions.


Really? This incremental change that I've heard so much about is more glacial in its speed than incremental. But yeah, derision, that's the way forward.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2014)

futurereal said:


> I think LU bring it on themselves tbh.


Yes and in your eyes no doubt the rest of them do too.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll be exploring the possibility of political asylum in scotland should this go through


 
There's South London's Lakeland as an alternative, though....assuming this Thursday's vote goes the right way!

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/...ependence_referendum_on_eve_of_Scotland_vote/


----------



## futurereal (Sep 8, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Yes and in your eyes no doubt the rest of them do too.



Depends who "the rest of them" are really? 

I think the Greens are a viable option for shaking up politics in England. They are electable, have several strong support bases in England (Norwich and Brighton come to mind).
They have counterparts in other EU nations of course as well.


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

futurereal said:


> ...I also suspect Scotland will set of a domino effect in Europe. Catalonia, the Basque region, Brittany, Belgium, Corsica maybe Wales...



I'm not so sure about this. I agree that Scottish independence may give a boost to desires for independence in those areas, but the existing nation states are under no obligation to offer them independence or a referendum which might lead to it.

If Scotland votes Yes, Cameron will be seen as having made a serious political miscalculation in allowing a referendum which he will rightly be seen as responsible for, one which the governments of Spain, France, Belgium and the new rUK will be even less likely to make.


----------



## futurereal (Sep 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm not so sure about this. I agree that Scottish independence may give a boost to desires for independence in those areas, but the existing nation states are under no obligation to offer them independence or a referendum which might lead to it.
> 
> If Scotland votes Yes, Cameron will be seen as having made a serious political miscalculation in allowing a referendum which he will rightly be seen as responsible for, one which the governments of Spain, France, Belgium and the new rUK will be even less likely to make.



It's true that they are under no obligation. I guess though the question is: is it viable that they could continue to go-on and not allow a referendum?
Scotland sets a precendent in my opinion that Spain can't ignore.


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

futurereal said:


> It's true that they are under no obligation. I guess though the question is: is it viable that they could continue to go-on and not allow a referendum?
> Scotland sets a precendent in my opinion that Spain can't ignore.



I don't know enough about the strength of demand for, say, an independent Catalonia to predict what the result of a referendum might be.

I suggest that if Cameron had thought he was going to lose, or even that it was going to be this close, he wouldn't have allowed this referendum to take place, and that the message Spain will take if Scotland votes Yes is

"don't offer Catalonia a referendum you think they'll vote No to, just in the hope it will shut them up for a generation*, in case they surprise you by voting Yes"

*This is the only reason I can see for Cameron allowing Scotland to vote, TBH - major miscalculation


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Really? This incremental change that I've heard so much about is more glacial in its speed than incremental. But yeah, derision, that's the way forward.


glaciers move by increments, its one of their noted features.

Its not derision so much as exasperation btw- I'm sure theres good people, good socialists and genuine people working in the mentioned orgs, but there are good eggs working within the labour party and look how far thats got us.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> I don't know enough about the strength of demand for, say, an independent Catalonia to predict what the result of a referendum might be.


According to here, a poll this year indicated 55 percent support for full independence in Catalonia, which is a large increase. So the strength of demand is there. There's a very big 80+ percent support for a referendum.

Different dynamic, though. Within living memory, Catalan identity was persecuted, and also, Catalonia is a rich bit of Spain. There is also a large right-wing current in Catalan nationalism, and quite a bit of anti-Castellano feeling, so the situation is rather different.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> According to here, a poll this year indicated 55 percent support for full independence in Catalonia, which is a large increase. So the strength of demand is there. There's a very big 80+ percent support for a referendum.
> 
> Different dynamic, though. Within living memory, Catalan identity was persecuted, and also, Catalonia is a rich bit of Spain. There is also a large right-wing current in Catalan nationalism, and quite a bit of anti-Castellano feeling, so the situation is rather different.


when i was in barcelona a few septembers ago i saw the catalan processions on their national day, 11 september. a very diverse group of people were on the demonstration, from radical socialists or anarchists to the most reactionary freemason lot. still got a catalan afa flag though, but which i'd bought a phrygian cap too


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> According to here, a poll this year indicated 55 percent support for full independence in Catalonia, which is a large increase. So the strength of demand is there. There's a very big 80+ percent support for a referendum.
> 
> Different dynamic, though. Within living memory, Catalan identity was persecuted, and also, Catalonia is a rich bit of Spain. There is also a large right-wing current in Catalan nationalism, and quite a bit of anti-Castellano feeling, so the situation is rather different.



But a referendum for Catalan independence would need to be granted by the Spanish state, and they have no reason to agree to a referendum they're likely to lose.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> ...*This is the only reason I can see for Cameron allowing Scotland to vote, TBH - major miscalculation



this idea puzzles me for its lack of logic - firstly when the referendum was asked for/demanded the 'yes' side would have been lucky to get 25% of the vote, so thats a big win for Cameron (the PM who saved the Union etc..) and a pretty political cataclismic defeat for the SNP and wider Scottish Nationalism, and secondly what do you think would have been the potential consequences of _not_ allowing a referendum?

the absolute wiping out of the Tories north of the border?

civil unrest or even terrorism?

UDI?

making the UK a complete laughing stock - self determination for the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, not to mention Ukraine and the Baltic states, and the UK from the EU, but not for Scotland from the UK?

Cameron - and the rest of the Westminster parliament - allowed the referendum because to refuse one would be utterly contrary to everything they profess to, and probably do, believe. it would also be _utterly_ self-defeating.


----------



## futurereal (Sep 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> But a referendum for Catalan independence would need to be granted by the Spanish state, and they have no reason to agree to a referendum they're likely to lose.



Depends what the composition of the Spanish states Congress of Deputies is though right?
The Catalan group has 16 seats and the Basque group 5, which ganted is not a lot.
However, should they reach a point where a coalition government is formed between the Left and the Nationalist groups in an election for example, one pre-cursor for the coalition might be an agreement to a referendum.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> But a referendum for Catalan independence would need to be granted by the Spanish state, and they have no reason to agree to a referendum they're likely to lose.


It would require a new constitution, for starters, but if Scotland votes yes, pressure could mount on Spain to grant a referendum.


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

kebabking said:


> this idea puzzles me for its lack of logic - firstly when the referendum was asked for/demanded the 'yes' side would have been lucky to get 25% of the vote, so thats a big win for Cameron (the PM who saved the Union etc..) and a pretty political cataclismic defeat for the SNP and wider Scottish Nationalism, and secondly what do you think would have been the potential consequences of _not_ allowing a referendum?
> 
> the absolute wiping out of the Tories north of the border?
> 
> ...



I'm suggesting that when Cameron agreed to a referendum, he thought the vote was bound to be No, otherwise he wouldn't have agreed. He thought he would get the political benefits you mention, but he misjudged things. Do you think he would have agreed if he had foreseen what has actually happened?

Some of your forecasts as to what would have happened had he not agreed suggest you've been reading the book someone posted earlier.

As far as the right to self-determination goes, the position within international law as far as I can remember* is that recognisable national groups within a larger nation have to be given regional autonomy short of full sovereignity within existing international borders (unless they are colonies), but they don't *have* to be given even the chance to choose independence. 

Scotland is not a colony, Catalonia and the other examples futurereal mentioned are not colonies, even though some of their inhabitants might feel they're treated as if they were.

I happy to be corrected on this if I've got it wrong.

*and I'm not going to look it up now coz I'm busy, though I might do later...


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

futurereal said:


> Depends what the composition of the Spanish states Congress of Deputies is though right?
> The Catalan group has 16 seats and the Basque group 5, which ganted is not a lot.
> However, should they reach a point where a coalition government is formed between the Left and the Nationalist groups in an election for example, one pre-cursor for the coalition might be an agreement to a referendum.



Again, I don't know how sympathetic the Spanish left is to independence for Catalans and Basques, but in that situation they might well decide that it wasn't a price worth paying to enter a coalition.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 8, 2014)

I assume that Free Scotland will have to face the issue of joining the Commonwealth? Or would having Liz 2 as head of state make that part of the deal from day one?

And would it matter?


----------



## chilango (Sep 8, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Can you _really _rule out civil war?


Is that online anywhere? I'd like to watch it...


----------



## chilango (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Furthermore, as we keep having to point out, there are only 59 Scottish MPs, not all of them Labour.  (Currently: 40 Labour, 11 Lib Dems, 6 SNP, 1 Tory, 1 independent).
> 
> Labour's majorities last time round were: 179 in 1997, 167 in 2001, 66 in 2005.  Without Scottish MPs each time, all of those Labour governments would have been returned comfortably.



11 less Lib Dems you say?

Hmm. Surely improves our chances of having a Lib Dem free Commons,no?

Go for it Scotland!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> I assume that Free Scotland will have to face the issue of joining the Commonwealth? Or would having Liz 2 as head of state make that part of the deal from day one?
> 
> And would it matter?




I did asking this question and it was pointed out to me that all them other countries who threw off the shackles still get to be part of the commonwealth. It was pointed out in a sarcastic manner as well.


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> ...*and I'm not going to look it up now coz I'm busy, though I might do later...



It doesn't actually take very long to google "self determination" and discover the following. The key sentence here appears to me to be



> According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence



but those who are interested may obviously want to read it in more detail.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Here's an implication already: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ce-pound-slumps-to-lowest-level-for-10-months
> 
> *pound slumps to lowest level for 10 months*
> 
> ...


1c makes no difference - its hardly a slump


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2014)

i suppose independence would see scotland cease being called one of the home nations in football, rugby etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2014)

ska invita said:


> 1c makes no difference - its hardly a slump


it is if you're a journo desperate for news on a slow day


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i suppose independence would see scotland cease being called one of the home nations in football, rugby etc


Really? Shit. Maybe I'll vote No.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Really? Shit. Maybe I'll vote No.


go on, be a cameron poodle


----------



## Belushi (Sep 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i suppose independence would see scotland cease being called one of the home nations in football, rugby etc



Ireland are still a Home Nation, in Rugby at least.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Ireland are still a Home Nation, in Rugby at least.


they will return to the fold in fuhrer farage's greater britain


----------



## gosub (Sep 8, 2014)

I'd guess the fall of the markets would be pretty instantaneous, and slightly cascady


----------



## ska invita (Sep 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it is if you're a journo desperate for news on a slow day


or desperate to paint Yes as bad news...

if theres one thing that drives me mad is using overdramatised signals from the markets to prevent social change - even _proposing_ meaningful reforms create ripples on the market and can be painted as billions wiped off pension funds before its even got close to being voted on.

and on a parallel note, another gripe is "profits down %3", meaning we only made 3 billion this quarter as opposed to 3.3 billion last quarter or whatever else it is grrrrrr


----------



## gosub (Sep 8, 2014)

ska invita said:


> 1c makes no difference - its hardly a slump


4c in less than a week


----------



## ska invita (Sep 8, 2014)

gosub said:


> 4c in less than a week


who cares


----------



## ska invita (Sep 8, 2014)

gosub said:


> 4c in less than a week


its currently 8c up on the same time last year, and its been falling since mid June http://www.x-rates.com/graph/?from=GBP [click on YEAR]


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

ska invita said:


> its currently 8c up on the same time last year


Sell!


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2014)

Buy!


----------



## ska invita (Sep 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Sell!





brogdale said:


> Buy!


definitely!


----------



## gosub (Sep 8, 2014)

ska invita said:


> who cares



if you are on the hob nob barter system fair enough.  Salmond himself will soon start pointing to the market data to prop up his currency union idea.  You could tell that from articles he wrote in March


----------



## gosub (Sep 8, 2014)

ska invita said:


> its currently 8c up on the same time last year, and its been falling since mid June http://www.x-rates.com/graph/?from=GBP [click on YEAR]



so thats 50% of an annual fluctuation in a week


----------



## Libertad (Sep 8, 2014)

futurereal erroneous quote in your post here:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...cotland-votes-yes.327187/page-7#post-13387081

I'm not sure if that was your intention.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 8, 2014)

gosub said:


> so thats 50% of an annual fluctuation in a week


sorry, i still dont care and nor should anyone else in scotland


----------



## weltweit (Sep 8, 2014)

England's going to need another one of these!


----------



## Belushi (Sep 8, 2014)

weltweit said:


> England's going to need another one of these!




Are we replacing the Scots with Mongolians?!


----------



## Sue (Sep 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> Again, I don't know how sympathetic the Spanish left is to independence for Catalans and Basques, but in that situation they might well decide that it wasn't a price worth paying to enter a coalition.


A good friend lives in the Spanish Basque country. Saw him a few months ago and he was telling me the Basques and Catalans are watching events in Scotland with extreme interest  and then asked me a load of detailed questions his (Basque) wife had asked him to ask me about the referendum.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Are we replacing the Scots with Mongolians?!


:gasp!:  Sean Hughes!


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

Sue said:


> A good friend lives in the Spanish Basque country. Saw him a few months ago and he was telling me the Basques and Catalans are watching events in Scotland with extreme interest  and then asked me a load of detailed questions his (Basque) wife had asked him to ask me about the referendum.



I'm sure they're watching it very carefully, but so will the government in Madrid be.

Perhaps the question they should be asking is "how did you trick Cameron in to allowing you to have this referendum?"


----------



## Idaho (Sep 8, 2014)

gosub said:


> so thats 50% of an annual fluctuation in a week


Markets work by pricing in future possibilities. Arguably the effect on sterling of a yes vote has just been priced in and there won't be further significant drops. 

Also have to factor in the wider currency markets where sterling was due for a correction.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

whatever currency and markets do in the short term will level out. Its a fair sized economy using, producing and trading every day. Markets aren't going to do some capital strikes affair on scotland, why the hell would business interests do themselves over. Its simply natural caution based on uncertainty as to where the vote will go. Frankly, screw the markets. Its an irrelevance here really.


----------



## Sue (Sep 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm sure they're watching it very carefully, but so will the government in Madrid be.
> 
> Perhaps the question they should be asking is "how did you trick Cameron in to allowing you to have this referendum?"


Oh, we discussed that. My reply was "Because they didn't think yes could win." Which would be a lot more difficult to pull off there due to historically stronger support for independence/greater autonomy.


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2014)

Sue said:


> Oh, we discussed that. My reply was "Because they didn't think yes could win." Which would be a lot more difficult to pull off there due to historically stronger support for independence/greater autonomy.



What level of autonomy do they have at the moment? Is it broadly comparable to the current Scottish position? How do they feel about greater autonomy short of actual independence?

Alhough an independent Scotland may not lead to further new independent nations emerging in Europe, where there's already support for regional autonomy, I can see that being encouraged and the pressure for greater autonomy short of independence being irresistable in some places.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Furthermore, as we keep having to point out, there are only 59 Scottish MPs, not all of them Labour.  (Currently: 40 Labour, 11 Lib Dems, 6 SNP, 1 Tory, 1 independent).


It's also worth noting that as a percentage of their current number of seats the LDs lose more than Labour (19 % to 16 %).

Do you know how many Scottish MPs each had before the 2010 election?

EDIT: According the wikipedia none of Scotland's seats changed hands at Westminster so before the 2010 election Scotland accounted for 18% of the LDs seats compared with only 11% of Labours.


----------



## Sue (Sep 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> What level of autonomy do they have at the moment? Is it broadly comparable to the current Scottish position? How do they feel about greater autonomy short of actual independence?
> 
> Alhough an independent Scotland may not lead to further new independent nations emerging in Europe, where there's already support for regional autonomy, I can see that being encouraged and the pressure for greater autonomy short of independence being irresistable in some places.


I'm not an expert on Spanish politics by any means   but as I understand it, they have more powers than Scotland does but the Madrid government has no problem interfering in things as and when they feel like it.

Oh and think because of this, they desperately want independence rather than more powers alone. Well the Basques I've met anyway.


----------



## futurereal (Sep 8, 2014)

Libertad said:


> futurereal erroneous quote in your post here:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...cotland-votes-yes.327187/page-7#post-13387081
> 
> I'm not sure if that was your intention.


Oops thanks. Fixed.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 8, 2014)

krink said:


> an indie scotland yesterday



Fecking love the Shoppies.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 8, 2014)

Eve of battle rallying cry from Australian borne naturalized US citizen anti-semite.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 8, 2014)




----------



## ddraig (Sep 8, 2014)

i LOVE that, simple and brilliant


----------



## kenny g (Sep 8, 2014)

Heard the Army are being put on standby.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

including the highland regiments and other scots regiments?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 8, 2014)

kenny g said:


> Heard the Army are being put on standby.



lol, for what exactly?


----------



## Coolfonz (Sep 8, 2014)

Scotland are going to invade?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 8, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> That's the kind of scaremongering that I keep hearing from unionists on the Labour side. But let's face it, Labour are dominated by neoliberals and are little better than the Tories. Moreover, Scotland historically returned many more Tory MPs than it does today, so the "if Scotland becomes independent, it will mean Tory rule in England forever" narrative is dishonest. If anything, I reckon a realignment will occur south of the border, meaning that the Tories will become a spent force. And about time too.



Labour _are_ better than the tories and having 40 to 50 less seats by default at each GE is obviously going to make beating the tories that much harder... of course it is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

name me three major areas of policy where labour disagrees with tory.


----------



## 8115 (Sep 8, 2014)

Not this again.


----------



## elbows (Sep 8, 2014)

J Ed said:


> lol, for what exactly?



Since implausible situations are being mentioned in a silly way, I'll take the opportunity to point out that Scotland could easily bring the national grid to it's knees because there is a rather large north->south transfer of electricity. A chunk of it is from the North of England to the South, but also plenty from Scotland to England.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> including the highland regiments and other scots regiments?



i'd imagine so - loads of Fijians could be quite handy if theres trouble. or a Rugby match...


----------



## cesare (Sep 8, 2014)

What's the latest on Scotland's status as a Hydro Nation, btw?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> What's the latest on Scotland's status as a Hydro Nation, btw?



I hear there cron is peng


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> name me three major areas of policy where labour disagrees with tory.



Not here sunshine.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2014)

I was trying to think of three myself, thinking surely to god....but no. Theres nothing. Eds even happy to play the anti unionist quorum setter! Once, perhaps when you wore a younger mans clothes, Labour were different. Other than a flair for the micromanagerial HR twattery the tories don't really do there isn't much in it anymore and thats the labour party I grew up with.

edited for clarity!


----------



## elbows (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> name me three major areas of policy where labour disagrees with tory.



The disgusting lack of variation in many key areas between the major parties is always a cause for much well deserved wailing and gnashing of teeth.

However I'm always a bit wary of letting this, and the numerous major failings of Labour, utterly eradicate the idea that there are differences between them that can actually make a difference to peoples lives.

I certainly noticed a difference when it came to funding and regeneration of various regions that are not in the south when New Labour got in. It's not quite so easy for me to judge the changing of the guard back to the Tories because of the austerity agenda, and the fact that Labour were being rather shifty about exactly what cuts would have taken place if they'd stayed in power.


----------



## Combustible (Sep 8, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour _are_ better than the tories and having 40 to 50 less seats by default at each GE is obviously going to make beating the tories that much harder... of course it is.



It makes it harder but there are also 59 fewer MPs. So assuming 40 Labour MPs and ignoring Sinn Fein, Labour currently need 285 MPs in England and Wales for an overall majority, in the event of independence they need 296 - an extra 11 MPs. Maybe a few more assuming Labour could win a handful more Scottish seats but it doesn't really make it vastly more difficult.


----------



## chilango (Sep 8, 2014)

Combustible said:


> It makes it harder but there are also 59 fewer MPs. So assuming 40 Labour MPs and ignoring Sinn Fein, Labour currently need 285 MPs in England and Wales for an overall majority, in the event of independence they need 296 - an extra 11 MPs. Maybe a few more assuming Labour could win a handful more Scottish seats but it doesn't really make it vastly more difficult.



How would Labour need _more_ seats post-independence?


----------



## elbows (Sep 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> What's the latest on Scotland's status as a Hydro Nation, btw?



I doubt there is anything too interesting to report, as despite the grand title it's aspirations are really quite modest in most areas. Developing the international reputation of associated businesses seems to be a large part of it, yawn.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00458322.pdf


----------



## Combustible (Sep 8, 2014)

chilango said:


> How would Labour need _more_ seats post-independence?



They would need to win more seats in England and Wales. At the moment they need 326 overall but they have 40 in Scotland.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

Combustible said:


> They would need to win more seats in England and Wales. At the moment they need 326 overall but they have 40 in Scotland.


But there would be 59 fewer seats.  Take 59 away from the 650 there currently are.


----------



## Combustible (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> But there would be 59 fewer seats.  Take 59 away from the 650 there currently are.



I did, (650-59)/2 rounds up to 296. Which is why despite losing 40 odd MPs in Scotland they only have to win a relatively smaller number of extra seats in England and Wales (11 or so) to get a majority.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 8, 2014)

From judging in the two pubs where I watched the football tonight a yes vote may well accentuate a sense of Englishness here lol.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2014)

Combustible said:


> I did, (650-59)/2 rounds up to 296. Which is why despite losing 40 odd MPs in Scotland they only have to win a relatively smaller number of extra seats in England and Wales (11 or so) to get a majority.


I sort of see what you mean, but I've lost 21 seats in your arithmetic somewhere.  There's 18 in Northern Ireland (but Unionists count towards Tory majorities).

It's too late for this sort of thing.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> name me three major areas of policy where labour disagrees with tory.



It doesn't matter does it.

Labour lose 38 seats. 

Bang. Gone.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 8, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> But there would be 59 fewer seats.  Take 59 away from the 650 there currently are.



Ahhhh ....


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 8, 2014)

As a generally 'not stupid' person I should have realised that, Pilch.

Sometimes it takes a better man to point out the obvious.

"Missing the wood for the trees" of course.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2014)

One of the useful strategies I would like to see people pursue in the event of Scottish independence which I think could organise some support is devolution for the North IE the North East, Yorkshire and Humberside and the North West - I would combine them in a single region rather than the 3 they are in for Euro elections. 

The Hannah Mitchell society has some good stuff to say about that, and they could easily elect a regional government with the powers and politics of the Welsh one if not Scottish IE free prescriptions, no more marketisation of the NHS etc


----------



## Celyn (Sep 9, 2014)

gabi said:


> They'll have to change the Union Jack. Which will be massive pain in the arse for marketing folk everywhere.




It might be quite nice for flag-making companies.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I seem to remember that he was an aspiring novelist once upon a time, so yes, I think it will be.




Yes, Same one.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 9, 2014)

kenny g said:


> Heard the Army are being put on standby.




Sending tanks into Glasgow again?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

kenny g said:


> Heard the Army are being put on standby.


For what?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 9, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> One of the useful strategies I would like to see people pursue in the event of Scottish independence which I think could organise some support is devolution for the North IE the North East, Yorkshire and Humberside and the North West - I would combine them in a single region rather than the 3 they are in for Euro elections.
> 
> The Hannah Mitchell society has some good stuff to say about that, and they could easily elect a regional government with the powers and politics of the Welsh one if not Scottish IE free prescriptions, no more marketisation of the NHS etc


New Labour, to their credit, implemented a referendum on this already in 2004, and I was surprised and disappointed the NE didnt vote in favour (78% No) - do you think it would be different this time?

http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2014-07-18/north-east-devolution-is-it-time-to-think-again/


> Ex Labour MP forms The North East Party
> Hilton Dawson was a Labour party member for 35 years and represented Lancaster and Wyre in parliament. After moving back to his native north-east, he has quit Ed Miliband's army to set up a new political party campaigning for his home region http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...r-mp-hilton-dawson-forms-the-north-east-party


----------



## kebabking (Sep 9, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> For what?



making the tea and toast for the lawyers and accountants at the _endless_ negotiations about divvying everything up?


----------



## flypanam (Sep 9, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> During the plantations, weren't the protestant planters about 50/50 Scots/English?


IT article on the UU position on Scotland. I think it's pretty good shows up David Trimble (alright yesterday's man) as a bit of a dreamer.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 9, 2014)

flypanam said:


> IT article on the UU position on Scotland. I think it's pretty good shows up David Trimble (alright yesterday's man) as a bit of a dreamer.



Was there meant to be a link in thon post?


----------



## flypanam (Sep 9, 2014)

Yeah give me a minute.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/if-scotland-says-yes-what-will-ulster-say-1.1922025


----------



## Wilf (Sep 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> New Labour, to their credit, implemented a referendum on this already in 2004, and I was surprised and disappointed the NE didnt vote in favour (78% No) - do you think it would be different this time?
> 
> http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2014-07-18/north-east-devolution-is-it-time-to-think-again/


The 2004 ref was a joke. It was so timid that it turned a devolution majority into a minority.  It was a complete fuck up by Prescott. In some ways, the mirror opposite of what we are seeing in Scotland.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> We should go for something with an A because then it'd save time scrolling to the bottom when choosing country whenever you fill in an online form


A Former United Kingdom.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 9, 2014)

Albion, the Country Formerly Known as the UK.  Pull down menus, do yer worst!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2014)

Anglaterre. If scotland is leaving us we should go with france. Without thinking, and then regret it the next day


----------



## ska invita (Sep 9, 2014)

Wilf said:


> The 2004 ref was a joke. It was so timid that it turned a devolution majority into a minority.  It was a complete fuck up by Prescott. In some ways, the mirror opposite of what we are seeing in Scotland.


can you explain more? what should have been proposed that wasnt?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:
			
		

> as  far as I know, there is no international law  that requires the names of nations to be accurate.  I guess England, Wales & NI would continue to use the name UK for simplicity sake.


Personally, I really like the German name for the U.K.: Grosse Brittanien. I also like their descriptive name for Britons: _Inselaffen- "island monkeys". _


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 9, 2014)

flypanam said:


> Yeah give me a minute.
> 
> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/if-scotland-says-yes-what-will-ulster-say-1.1922025



"For unionist leaders in Belfast, the fear must be that even if the relentlessly negative pro-UK campaign is successful in Scotland it might end up curing the nationalist disease but killing the unionist patient."

Heh heh. _heh heh. heh heh heh._


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Personally, I really like the German name for the U.K.: Grosse Brittanien. I also like their descriptive name for Britons: _Inselaffen- "island monkeys". _



Actually, auf der Jerryspeak it's Vereinigte Königreich, or something like that.


----------



## krink (Sep 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> can you explain more? what should have been proposed that wasnt?



Wilf might rember more than me but I remember it being seen as just another layer of politicians. More jobs for the boys etc. I recall being utterly underwhelmed by it but don't recall the details or even how I voted


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2014)

I am a bit peeved by the (frankly ridiculous) attitude displayed by some Englanders that sees (coerced?) Scottish participation in the union as complicity with the three centuries of the imperial project. Most Scots gained little from union, and this that did benefit were the Scottish ruling classes, ,who have historically been inclined to take sphincter-wrenchingly large dumps on their own "lower orders" if it turned a profit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2014)

N_igma said:


> Lol god forbid what happens to Balmoral!


Expropriation strikes me as a keen final solution to the Balmoral question.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 9, 2014)

krink said:


> Wilf might rember more than me but I remember it being seen as just another layer of politicians. More jobs for the boys etc. I recall being utterly underwhelmed by it but don't recall the details or even how I voted


 Yeah, my memory of it too.  No tax raising powers for one thing.  Whole thing seemed like a reorganisation of local government which, in a sense, is exactly what it was. More politicians and bureaucracy, without it being a significant devolution from Westminster.  Certainly not a devolution to 'the people' (whatever that might mean).  Sorry, at work so can't dig out the specifics.  From memory it was the only thing I've voted on in the last decade and that was only to add to Prescott's frustrations.  Memories a bit hazy, but I think Yes had a pretty bad campaign and weren't able to answer the questons put to them about cost an how it would work.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I am a bit peeved by the (frankly ridiculous) attitude displayed by some Englanders that sees (coerced?) Scottish participation in the union as complicity with the three centuries of the imperial project. Most Scots gained little from union, and this that did benefit were the Scottish ruling classes, ,who have historically been inclined to take sphincter-wrenchingly large dumps on their own "lower orders" if it turned a profit.


Hmmm. Not sure you can separate things off in that way. By exactly the same token, you can say that most English people were also not active in the imperial project and were also shat upon from a great height by the ruling classes. I'm not sure how exceptional Scotland is here. And Scottish merchants most certainly benefited from such things as the slave trade - which was central to the growth of Glasgow, which was prominent in the trade of slave-grown tobacco and sugar. link on that


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2014)

and those ruling classes sold scotlands soverignty for a mess of pottage because they'd sunk a fortune into that spice trading colony that didn't work.

so sayeth a bbc4 docu I saw anyway


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> most English people were also not active in the imperial project and were also shat upon from a great height by the ruling classes.


I think that's absolutely right. Which is why Geldof's contribution that "the Scots were up to their necks in running the Empire and slavery" is politically inept, ahistorical racist nonsense. Yes, you read that correctly: racist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Not sure you can separate things off in that way. By exactly the same token, you can say that most English people were also not active in the imperial project and were also shat upon from a great height by the ruling classes. I'm not sure how exceptional Scotland is here. And Scottish merchants most certainly benefited from such things as the slave trade - which was central to the growth of Glasgow, which was prominent in the trade of slave-grown tobacco and sugar. link on that


Of course "by the same token" the mass of the English, Welsh and Irish weren't complicit - that's my point: that to say "the Scots were up to their necks in it" is at best historically ignorant, and at worst, actively politically a malicious.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

Incidentally, for Bob Geldof's benefit, blaming people for the sins of the father is idiotic, as is the completely class-blind insistence that "the Scots" owned slaves. My ancestors were coal miners.  They were only "up to their necks" in slavery to the extent that they were slaves themselves.  And I don't mean metaphorically, I mean actually.

http://www.scottishmining.co.uk/8.html


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course "by the same token" the mass of the English, Welsh and Irish weren't complicit - that's my point: that to say "the Scots were up to their necks in it" is at best historically ignorant, and at worst, actively politically a malicious.


Some Scots were up to their necks in it. Perhaps I misread you, but the point here is that it was very much a British empire, not an English one, and the likes of Glasgow merchants participated every bit as much as, say, Bristol or Cardiff ones.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Some Scots were up to their necks in it.


Indeed.  The important words being "some" and "were".

Not, I add, that I'm implying that it was you suggesting otherwise.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 9, 2014)

I wasn't aware this was in the context of something Bob Geldof said, tbh. 

Who gives a fuck what he thinks?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I wasn't aware this was in the context of something Bob Geldof said, tbh.
> 
> Who gives a fuck what he thinks?


The front page of the Daily Record cares.  (One of the big 2 tabloids in Scotland).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 9, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The front page of the Daily Record cares.  (One of the big 2 tabloids in Scotland).


Well I certainly agree with you that this is a product of confused thinking. 

It is true that the proceeds of the slave trade, for instance, were used among other things on civic projects that we all benefit from now. The proceeds of exploited labour here also went towards such projects. But there was a fight among those here who were exploited working in the factories, mines, etc, to gain a share in that wealth. And seeing that ought, imo, to lead to an internationalist position - the descendants of slaves and exploited workers in the UK are on the same side. The fight for economic justice of, say, Caribbean people is the _same fight_ as the fight for economic justice of British people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 9, 2014)

Geldof can fucking fuck off anyway. Made himself rich on the back of charity work, the fucking cunt that he is. He's part of the fucking problem.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> and those ruling classes sold scotlands soverignty for a mess of pottage because they'd sunk a fortune into that spice trading colony that didn't work.
> 
> so sayeth a bbc4 docu I saw anyway



Scots who own and Scots who rent,

Scots who sold their parliament,

Built an empire for some gent, 

Way below the tweed.


----------



## futurereal (Sep 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> can you explain more? what should have been proposed that wasnt?



Yep it was a total mess. Most people I have spoken to want an English parliament AND regional assemblies. 
Essentially an English parliament made up of regional seats, with a central seat of power where regions would come together to decide which policy should be devolved to a regional level, and what's required at a national level. Germany would be a good example of a Federal structure like this for example.

The Lib Dems had a policy to pursue this very setup (so we can take it as given that they have done absolutley nothing to advance that)!

Prescott's NE assembly proposal was exactly what you would expect from New Labour - half baked. 
Here is an outline of what they proposed the Assembly would do:



> The draft bill would have given the assemblies the following powers:
> 
> Promotion of economic development
> Promotion of social development
> ...





So no tax raising powers for example! How do you reduce health inequalities and promote economic development if you can't realign your tax raising methods to meet those goals? There is no flexibility, just another layer of government without any real power.

Imagine one giant council, like Doncaster or Rotherham covering the whole North East. That's essentially what was being proposed.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour _are_ better than the tories and having 40 to 50 less seats by default at each GE is obviously going to make beating the tories that much harder... of course it is.


Saying Labour is "better" than the Tories is meaningless. Anything is "better" than the Tories. Apple pie is better than the Tories. So what?

Like so many people, you seem to forget that, historically, Scotland returned more Tory MPs than Labour MPs. This only changed fairly recently.

I read an interesting article yesterday on this very subject but until I find it, this will have to suffice.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/01/scotland-labour-majority-win
From a slightly more partial source.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> glaciers move by increments, its one of their noted features.
> 
> Its not derision so much as exasperation btw- I'm sure theres good people, good socialists and genuine people working in the mentioned orgs, but there are good eggs working within the labour party and look how far thats got us.


Glaciers do move by increments but they take a very very long time to get anywhere. Most of us are dead and buried by the time they move a few miles.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2014)

futurereal said:


> Ironic.


Okay, how about Class War?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2014)

futurereal said:


> Depends who "the rest of them" are really?
> 
> I think the Greens are a viable option for shaking up politics in England. They are electable, have several strong support bases in England (Norwich and Brighton come to mind).
> They have counterparts in other EU nations of course as well.


Do you? That's not the impression I got from you. 

The main problem with the Greens is that they run councils pretty badly.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> eh I'm just not sure the political wing of the woodcraft folk have much to offer, nor the usual suspects talking shops. I have not totally abandoned all hope though! things work by increments I suppose not overnight solutions.



Whichever way the vote goes in Scotland, it will change the way British politics is done forever. Yes, I'm being optimistic but, finally, people are beginning to realise that politics is too important to be left to politicians.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 9, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour _are_ better than the tories and having 40 to 50 less seats by default at each GE is obviously going to make beating the tories that much harder... of course it is.


That's like saying Pol Pot was better than Hitler.


----------



## futurereal (Sep 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Okay, how about Class War?



Which version of Class War? Their most recent incarnation?


----------



## Supine (Sep 9, 2014)

If they say yes i hope we can stop doing the clock change thing every year. I seem  to remember it was Scottish farmers who wanted it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2014)

futurereal said:


> Which version of Class War? Their most recent incarnation?


Well, I'm not talking about previous incarnations.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Whichever way the vote goes in Scotland, it will change the way British politics is done forever. Yes, I'm being optimistic but, finally, people are beginning to realise that politics is too important to be left to politicians.



Which partially explains the rise of UKIP


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> Which partially explains the rise of UKIP


Er, you think so? I don't think that's a particularly good example, given UKIP are in favour of abolishing the NHS among other things.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 9, 2014)

An impartial look at the implications of independence from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...if-Scotland-left-the-union-in-60-seconds.html

MARKET CRASH
NO VOTES FOR SCOTS
SAY GOODBYE TO EVERYTHING YOU'VE EVER KNOWN OR LOVED


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Whichever way the vote goes in Scotland, it will change the way British politics is done forever. Yes, I'm being optimistic but, finally, people are beginning to realise that politics is too important to be left to politicians.


Odd claim to make for a politician led initiative that will lead to a politician led state.

There is no resonance of the RIC stuff elsewhere - nevermind the other stuff whic is just politicians. None at all. Half of the YES stuff is just capital.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Er, you think so? I don't think that's a particularly good example, given UKIP are in favour of abolishing the NHS among other things.


Most of those who vote UKIP would think it's anti politician vote though


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Er, you think so? I don't think that's a particularly good example, given UKIP are in favour of abolishing the NHS among other things.


Are they?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> New Labour, to their credit, implemented a referendum on this already in 2004, and I was surprised and disappointed the NE didnt vote in favour (78% No) - do you think it would be different this time?
> 
> http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2014-07-18/north-east-devolution-is-it-time-to-think-again/



No they didn't. This was completely different to my suggestion, a friend of mine worked  (for the regional development agency at the time) on the campaign - there was almost no real effort put into a campaign for a vague idea of a regional assembly in the North East with unspecified but less than the Welsh Assembly powers...

I am proposing a single regional parliament for the 3 northerly regions combined


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are they?


Yes


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Odd claim to make for a politician led initiative that will lead to a politician led state.
> 
> There is no resonance of the RIC stuff elsewhere - nevermind the other stuff whic is just politicians. None at all. Half of the YES stuff is just capital.


Hardly. Do discussions between non-politicians count as "politician led"?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Hardly. Do discussions between non-politicians count as "politician led"?


Do the politician led results that they lead to count as politician led?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Saying Labour is "better" than the Tories is meaningless.



No, seriously, for many many people they most certainly are better.



> Like so many people, you seem to forget that, historically, Scotland returned more Tory MPs than Labour MPs. This only changed fairly recently.



Last time that happened was 1955 and I can't see the Scots rekindling a love affair with the tories any time soon if they reject independence.

Losing 40+ Labour seats at a GE will obviously make it harder for them to win.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do the politician led results that they lead to count as politician led?


What on earth are you talking about, my pedantic friend?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No, seriously, for many many people they most certainly are better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, the last time it happened was in the 1970s. You didn't bother to read the links, did you?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> No, the last time it happened was in the 1970s. You didn't bother to read the links, did you?



Not according to Wikipedia it didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland#2010


----------



## newbie (Sep 9, 2014)

Supine said:


> If they say yes i hope we can stop doing the clock change thing every year. I seem  to remember it was Scottish farmers who wanted it.



yes please


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No, seriously, for many many people they most certainly are better.



No, they *appear* better, for a variety of reasons - everything from not being the coalition to not having imposed austerity economics - but qualitatively they're no different from each other. Labour would have imposed austerity too, all that would have been different (by their own admission) would have been the period over which they buttfucked the poor to pay off the debts of the rich.


----------



## futurereal (Sep 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Do you? That's not the impression I got from you.
> 
> The main problem with the Greens is that they run councils pretty badly.




Yes I do - hence why I replied. 

Also my comment mentioned LU not the Greens, so not sure how you got that impression, are you just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it?

The Greens lack experience to be honest, but that will come with time. And frankly looking at Labour or at the extreme BNP run councils I don't think they have anything to worry about at the moment. 

Lucas has also been a far more decent person then some of the idiots who proclaim themselves on the Left and have made it into parliament. I think the public has less problem taking Lucas seriously than Galloway for example.

Anyway, so you don't think any organisations on the Left bring some the derision they recieve on themselves? How about the SWP for example?


----------



## futurereal (Sep 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Well, I'm not talking about previous incarnations.



Class War as a vehicle for protest have done some pretty interesting things in the past. 
As for their current incarnation, I don't have a deep opinion on it yet to be honest. I don't expect them to garner many votes at the next election to be honest.
In Norwich South for example, they may end up taking away student votes from the Green's (although the WRP only got 102 votes in 2010, so maybe not). I'm not sure how that really helps anyone. Unless of course you don't like the Greens and want to see the Lib Dems get back in (unlikely), or Labour.


----------



## Coolfonz (Sep 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do the politician led results that they lead to count as politician led?



I am finding it quite incredible that the Unionist camp are sending Cameron, Milliband and Clegg up there together. I mean _together_.

They don't get it so much, that they think the appalling site of the three of them side by side isn't going to make everyone sick to the stomach. _Everyone_ hates at least two of those pricks, if not all three of them. 
So to get the Scots and those living there to vote - to save the Union - they send those three absolute fucknuts. Seriously? Who thought that was a good idea?


----------



## futurereal (Sep 9, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> I am finding it quite incredible that the Unionist camp are sending Cameron, Milliband and Clegg up there together. I mean _together_.
> 
> They don't get it so much, that they think the appalling site of the three of them side by side isn't going to make everyone sick to the stomach. _Everyone_ hates at least two of those pricks, if not all three of them.
> So to get the Scots and those living there to vote - to save the Union - they send those three absolute fucknuts. Seriously? Who thought that was a good idea?



It's farcical.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> I am finding it quite incredible that the Unionist camp are sending Cameron, Milliband and Clegg up there together. I mean _together_.
> 
> They don't get it so much, that they think the appalling site of the three of them side by side isn't going to make everyone sick to the stomach. _Everyone_ hates at least two of those pricks, if not all three of them.
> So to get the Scots and those living there to vote - to save the Union - they send those three absolute fucknuts. Seriously? Who thought that was a good idea?


it's as though they want people to vote 'yes'.


----------



## Sue (Sep 9, 2014)

Up here at the moment and everyone I've spoken to/heard talking about it is laughing like a drain at the 'fly a saltire and make the Scots feel loved' nonsense (including DKs and Nos). Yet another masterstroke from the No camp.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 9, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Glaciers do move by increments but they take a very very long time to get anywhere. Most of us are dead and buried by the time they move a few miles.



EVERYTHING moves by increments!! 

With the possible exceptions of tachyons, bad news and Bob Mortimer.

</pedantry>


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2014)

i suppose there are quite a few scots (albeit doubtless a minority) who want the union but don't want further devolution, yet everything coming from the 'no' camp seems to be 'if you don't want independence then we'll thrust devo max down your throats'.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 9, 2014)

We should never have given the Stone of Scone back to Scotland with that historic gesture like the Ring of the Nibelungens the English seceeded their power for perpuity. If the Scots really want to hammer the point home they should steal the Ravens at the Tower for a final Celtic fuck you gesture. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 9, 2014)

The Magic Rock gave us back our mojo. 

Got my mojo workin!


----------



## futurereal (Sep 9, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> We should never have given the Stone of Scone back to Scotland with that historic gesture like the Ring of the Nibelungens the English seceeded their power for perpuity. If the Scots really want to hammer the point home they should steal the Ravens at the Tower for a final Celtic fuck you gesture.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone





Ahh but the real coronation stone of the Kings of England is in ..... Kingston Upon Thames.








Time to get that thing back to Parliament and embue its power to the English football team!


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 9, 2014)

futurereal said:


> Ahh but the real coronation stone of the Kings of England is in ..... Kingston Upon Thames.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 9, 2014)

Maybe the Archbishop should wade in and tell us what God wants. According to the Fail he has a tartan streak but as he is answerable to the Queen who whatever she publically denies wants the Union - so maybe he should get out his old Magick book and start rubbing that stone what else have we left what with Gordon Brown , the Saltire on No 10 and the terrible three hot footing it across the border. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ks-inflaming-independence-debate-comment.html

There is a legitimate descendant of the last Scottish king 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria

_"If they did so, they could invite the man regarded by some as James’s legitimate heir, the ‘Stuart Pretender’, to replace the English Queen. That would mean the present Duke of Bavaria becoming King Francis II of Scotland. However, Duke Franz claims to be perfectly content where he is."_


----------



## krink (Sep 9, 2014)

every time somebody says 'devo max' i get this stuck in my head


----------



## futurereal (Sep 9, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Maybe the Archbishop should wade in and tell us what God wants. According to the Fail he has a tartan streak but as he is answerable to the Queen who whatever she publically denies wants the Union - so maybe he should get out his old Magick book and start rubbing that stone what else have we left what with Gordon Brown , the Saltire on No 10 and the terrible three hot footing it across the border.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ks-inflaming-independence-debate-comment.html
> 
> ...



Well Duke Franz sounds a lot better than Michel Roger Lafosse's claim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Roger_Lafosse


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 9, 2014)

Sue said:


> Up here at the moment and everyone I've spoken to/heard talking about it is laughing like a drain at the 'fly a saltire and make the Scots feel loved' nonsense (including DKs and Nos). Yet another masterstroke from the No camp.


You wonder if the BT leadership are some sort of undercover YES supporters. You expect ineptness but this level of ineptness is amazing.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 9, 2014)

Well if Salmond says he wants to keep the Monarchy then he might as well go back to a legitimate pre-Union heir. 

And could this be repeated ?


----------



## Idaho (Sep 9, 2014)

I was fairly ambivalent about it all. But the number of idiots and politicians that are freaking out about it is making me desperately hope for a yes vote.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 9, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> That's like saying Pol Pot was better than Hitler.



Well, was that the first Godwin of the Scottish independence debate?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Well, was that the first Godwin of the Scottish independence debate?



no, some quarters have been calling salmond a nazi for ages


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 10, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> From judging in the two pubs where I watched the football tonight a yes vote may well accentuate a sense of Englishness here lol.


 
I went to live in Slovakia in January 1993, just after Czechoslovakia split up into two countries. Different background to ours, but there was a massive rise in nationalism amongst Czechs and Slovaks. I was surprised at the venom they started to spit at each other. Maybe it had always existed though.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 10, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I went to live in Slovakia in January 1993, just after Czechoslovakia split up into two countries. Different background to ours, but there was a massive rise in nationalism amongst Czechs and Slovaks. I was surprised at the venom they started to spit at each other. Maybe it had always existed though.



I found the same thing during the Quebec referendum.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 10, 2014)

While the Scotch folk have always been so charming and polite towards their southern neighbours, I can't see that changing.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 10, 2014)

DYK: if we declare _English _independence right now, we could be legally rid of our three top idiots forever, under a hitherto unknown constitutional amendment of The Magna Carta entitled '_Ye Olde Mufical Chairf Rulef'._


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

so Standard Life inform customers that their money will continue to be held under BoE rules, rather than in a foreign country under foreign rules. I presume other Scottish based financial institutions with a UK wide customer base will do the same.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 10, 2014)

Why not give it a little time to see how it works. I would imagine that there will be a transition process in the event of a yes vote, rather than a sudden sealing of the borders and rounding up of honest English folk.


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

of course, about 18 months if the provisional timetable works, though whether that will affect capital flight/runs on banks/attacking sterling, that sort of thing, is anyones guess.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 10, 2014)

Idaho said:


> Why not give it a little time to see how it works. I would imagine that there will be a transition process in the event of a yes vote, rather than a sudden sealing of the borders and rounding up of honest English folk.


 
that would be sensible.   however it is clear that sensible is not part of the campaign.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2014)

why on earth would there be capital flight from a yes scotland? even the CBI know it'll be more or less bizz as usual. It's not a red dawn or a civil war ffs


----------



## likesfish (Sep 10, 2014)

Considering  they cocked up the parliment building and glasgow tram independence has all the makings of a complete disaster with all the top flight brains in westminster "helping"


----------



## 8ball (Sep 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> why on earth would there be capital flight from a yes scotland? even the CBI know it'll be more or less bizz as usual. It's not a red dawn or a civil war ffs


 
Currency uncertainty will be a big one, but the main thing is often the fear of uncertainty itself.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 10, 2014)

newbie said:


> of course, about 18 months if the provisional timetable works, though whether that will affect capital flight/runs on banks/attacking sterling, that sort of thing, is anyones guess.


It won't make that much difference. This is getting a bit hysterical.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> why on earth would there be capital flight from a yes scotland? even the CBI know it'll be more or less bizz as usual. It's not a red dawn or a civil war ffs


 
there absolutely won't be.  it's deliberate scaremongering, innit.


----------



## IC3D (Sep 10, 2014)

An English boycott of Angus Steak Houses will hit the Scots hard, imagine rows of empty seats every day.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 10, 2014)

its a well used joke at the moment, but New Years Eve won't be featuring the words 'Jools Holland' and 'Hogmanay'...

we won't have to pretend to like Robert Burn's poetry, or indeed understand a word he wrote.

we can finally repay, in spades, the delightful 'anyone but England' sporting banter/vitriol of our dear cousins across the Tweed.

i mean theres loads of stuff about debt, currency, infrastructure, defence, trade, immigration and all that stuff, but lets concentrate on the important bits.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 10, 2014)

nogojones said:


> I'd like to hope the Scots would be up for a Welsh / Scots union


Oh god ....no ......just no .....


----------



## ddraig (Sep 10, 2014)

why no?


----------



## Tankus (Sep 10, 2014)

The whole point of our assembly is to keep very strange people occupied and not walking the streets as a danger to the community at large ...

Don't want to add to that do we ?


----------



## Tankus (Sep 10, 2014)

Besides ....they can't afford us  !


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why no?




They would produce a rugby titan team so potent the ptb would just cancel the six nations in despair


----------



## Idaho (Sep 10, 2014)

A Wales Scotland union would be great. We could fence off a lane on the m50/m6 to act as a corridor between the two. Looking forward watching them start moaning about each other instead of moaning about the English.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 10, 2014)

Idaho said:


> A Wales Scotland union would be great. We could fence off a lane on the m50/m6 to act as a corridor between the two. Looking forward watching them start moaning about each other instead of moaning about the English.


blah blah blah indeed


----------



## kebabking (Sep 10, 2014)

Idaho said:


> A Wales Scotland union would be great. We could fence off a lane on the m50/m6 to act as a corridor between the two. Looking forward watching them start moaning about each other instead of moaning about the English.



good lord no, dreadful waste of motorway - if they wish to send each other shiny stones or compare notes on mysteries of the world like 'vegetables' then i'm sure they can manage to dig out a tree trunk and paddle between Holyhead and Campbeltown..


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> why on earth would there be capital flight from a yes scotland? even the CBI know it'll be more or less bizz as usual. It's not a red dawn or a civil war ffs





> Earlier this month, UBS economist Paul Donovan prophesied a Yes vote would bring a “significant risk” of deposits heading south. In fact, the move had already begun. One chief executive tells Lombard she shifted £300,000, the entire cash float of her company, to England starting in May. Contacts at trade bodies and networking groups report a minority of members have done the same.



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6163f0c8-377d-11e4-971c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Cuy8IgrS


----------



## Idaho (Sep 10, 2014)

Risks... Hearsay. Meaningless.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 10, 2014)

The Scots wouldn't tolerate you lot for long. They actually have a sense of humour.  They even serve foreigners in their shops. 





ddraig said:


> blah blah blah indeed


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2014)

forgive me if I find the voodoo of someone quoted in the ft as likely- I don't doubt there will be fluctuations and pre-emptive shuffling of decks etc but as I said earlier in the thread- these are capitalists. They'll cry heaven and bloodfire and doom but they sure as shit won't ever leave a market untapped.


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

Idaho said:


> Risks... Hearsay. Meaningless.


I'm impressed by your certainty, as others seem rather less convinced

http://www.scotsman.com/news/comment-urgent-need-to-clip-wings-of-capital-flight-1-3534085
http://www.economist.com/news/brita...endum-nears-capital-takes-fright-case-jitters

we'll see, won't we


----------



## Roadkill (Sep 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> forgive me if I find the voodoo of someone quoted in the ft as likely- I don't doubt there will be fluctuations and pre-emptive shuffling of decks etc but as I said earlier in the thread- these are capitalists. They'll cry heaven and bloodfire and doom but they sure as shit won't ever leave a market untapped.



They won't, but one thing capitalists always like to minimise is risk and one thing they hate is uncertainty.  Scotland doesn't have a stable arrangement in place for its currency after a vote for independence, and if it tries to keep the pound against the wishes of the rest of the UK it won't have a lender of last resort either, to prop up the financial system in a crisis.  That's both uncertain and potentially risky.  If they reckon they can carry on doing business in Scotland but shift as many of their resources as possible to a more stable financial regime in England, some of them will do just that.  Already are, in fact.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> ...but they sure as shit won't ever leave a market untapped.



nothing in the SL blurb said anything about leaving the Scottish market, merely _potentially _relocating its assets and headquarter operations out of Scotland.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 10, 2014)

How idiotic can Salmond be?

“Last Monday I saw something which I did not ever think I would see in my political life. In Dundee, I saw people queuing up – and it was not a short queue, it was a long queue – to register to vote.

“Almost reminiscent of the scenes in South Africa that some of us of a certain age remember from 20 years ago or so when people queued up to vote in the first free elections. I saw people queuing up to put in their registration forms to vote." 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...and-wont-pay-back-debt-Alex-Salmond-says.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2014)

kebabking said:


> nothing in the SL blurb said anything about leaving the Scottish market, merely _potentially _relocating its assets and headquarter operations out of Scotland.




they just want reassurance that business will still go on as normal, and it will. On roadkills currency point- it'll be a euro switch or a currencey union. As soon as the dust settles it'll be back to the status quo in terms of business


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> forgive me if I find the voodoo of someone quoted in the ft as likely- I don't doubt there will be fluctuations and pre-emptive shuffling of decks etc but as I said earlier in the thread- these are capitalists. They'll cry heaven and bloodfire and doom but they sure as shit won't ever leave a market untapped.


'capitalists' is pejorative, in the context.  Business owners are part of it, but so too are many millions of people who have savings in Scottish institutions.  A yes vote will cause many or most of them to consider whether they'll be safer under BoE guarantees as well as whether they'll get better returns directly from sterling based institutions or from ones whose currency will be uncertain for some while to come. I can envisage Scots who vote yes feeling they should put their money where their vote went, but all the English, Welsh etc- why would they want their savings in a fledgling foreign country?  

If capital flight starts (and I've no idea whether it will) it's quite possible it will snowball.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> forgive me if I find the voodoo of someone quoted in the ft as likely- I don't doubt there will be fluctuations and pre-emptive shuffling of decks etc but as I said earlier in the thread- these are capitalists. They'll cry heaven and bloodfire and doom but they sure as shit won't ever leave a market untapped.


 Head of Tesco: 'No, no, we're off.  Suggest you set up some sort of Lets or barter scheme'.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 10, 2014)

Bet you all a pound to a pinch of shit that in the event of a yes vote the rUK government will agree to currency union.


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

kebabking said:


> nothing in the SL blurb said anything about leaving the Scottish market, merely _potentially _relocating its assets and headquarter operations out of Scotland.


from reports, key parts for customers include
• New regulated companies are created in England from which to do business
• All transactions with customers outside of Scotland continue to be in sterling
• Customers outside of Scotland are subject to UK tax laws
• Pensioners and investors will be covered by UK regulation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...gland-if-Scotland-votes-for-independence.html

we, who didn't have a vote and have little to gain from separation, are unlikely to want to take the risks that those who vote yes are willingly signing up to.


----------



## Supine (Sep 10, 2014)

Would an independent Scotland raise or lower corporation tax?  That will be a key factor for companies deciding to move north or south of the border.


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bet you all a pound to a pinch of shit that in the event of a yes vote the rUK government will agree to currency union.


and the EU will fall into line?  that's nice of them


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2014)

newbie said:


> and the EU will fall into line?  that's nice of them


Yes, of course. What choice would they have? Scotland has never been part of the euro, and isn't going to be. The rest of the EU cannot, and will have no reason to, force this issue. Scotland will keep the pound and be admitted into the EU without joining Schengen, basically on similar terms to the current UK terms. 

There would be no reason or will or profit to be gained by the rest of the EU in resisting this.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Sep 10, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bet you all a pound to a pinch of shit that in the event of a yes vote the rUK government will agree to currency union.


Yes I thought that. I can't really see how they can refuse If thats what Scotland wants, even if Scotland does want its own currency it would have to be set up within their own timetable not the(slightly less)UK's. They can't just allow Scotland to go into financial meltdown it would have implications for the UK. I guess same for EU membership I can't see how they would be refused entry in the long run.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 10, 2014)

Supine said:


> Would an independent Scotland raise or lower corporation tax?  That will be a key factor for companies deciding to move north or south of the border.



Take the Irish model it seems: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24990385 - rumoured to be 3% lower than here.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 10, 2014)

newbie said:


> and the EU will fall into line?  that's nice of them



Of course they will. If Scotland has to go through formal application as a new state, then rUK will too. Can just see the EU welcoming that can of worms.

Same for NATO too.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 10, 2014)

The currency issue is a red herring, a yes vote as I understand it just means kick starts independence, it doesn't happen overnight. And negotiations will probably result in some sort of currency union , rather like the Euro but called the pound


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, of course. What choice would they have? Scotland has never been part of the euro, and isn't going to be. The rest of the EU cannot, and will have no reason to, force this issue. Scotland will keep the pound and be admitted into the EU without joining Schengen, basically on similar terms to the current UK terms.
> 
> There would be no reason or will or profit to be gained by the rest of the EU in resisting this.


and nothing to be gained from granting it. What about the UK specific rebate, will that be given to Scotland as well, just because they want it?

I'm not pretending I know the outcome of these negotiations, and I'm more than a little baffled that other people seem to, but I have seen what happens when a bunch of politicians are put in a room to negotiate.  Scotland wants something- EU membership- and to get it they'll be expected to give.  Give what, and to whom, well we'll find out in the fullness.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 10, 2014)

newbie said:


> and nothing to be gained from granting it. What about the UK specific rebate, will that be given to Scotland as well, just because they want it?
> 
> I'm not pretending I know the outcome of these negotiations, and I'm more than a little baffled that other people seem to, but I have seen what happens when a bunch of politicians are put in a room to negotiate.  Scotland wants something- EU membership- and to get it they'll be expected to give.  Give what, and to whom, well we'll find out in the fullness.



Scotland has been in the EU since the UK joined, what's to negotiate?


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, of course. What choice would they have? Scotland has never been part of the euro, and isn't going to be. The rest of the EU cannot, and will have no reason to, force this issue. Scotland will keep the pound and be admitted into the EU without joining Schengen, basically on similar terms to the current UK terms.
> 
> There would be no reason or will or profit to be gained by the rest of the EU in resisting this.



"The rest of the EU" is not some monolithic entity (monothought clique...). it's made up of a number of different nations, each with their own governments with their own idea of what is in their national interest. I'd therefore be rather hesitant about predicting that the EU will simply go ahead and ignore its own rules about new members joining, especially as this would encourage independence movements in some of those countries (Spain being merely the most obvious example) to think they could simply gain independence and join the EU the same day, under whatever terms they saw fit.


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

marty21 said:


> The currency issue is a red herring, a yes vote as I understand it just means kick starts independence, it doesn't happen overnight. And negotiations will probably result in sone sort of currency union , rather like the Euro but called the pound


only if hard-eyed economists and politicians think it's in rUKs best interest.  There is no guarantee that's the case, and it doesn't seem particularly plausible- what happens in a currency union if the weakest partner falls over- the whole Eurozone had to bale out Greece, are you really thinking that rUK should pick up the tab- why would that be a good idea?


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Scotland has been in the EU since the UK joined, what's to negotiate?


you're making assumptions in a world of pork barrel politics.


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Of course they will. If Scotland has to go through formal application as a new state, then rUK will too. Can just see the EU welcoming that can of worms.
> 
> Same for NATO too.



No, Scotland will become a new state, whereas rUK will continue with all the existing memberships etc of the existing UK.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 10, 2014)

The big implication I can see is in the rest of Europe, Catalans in Spain, they will push for a referendum with renewed confidence, maybe Northern Italy, Wales , of course and with any luck Northen Ireland too.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 10, 2014)

newbie said:


> only if hard-eyed economists and politicians think it's in rUKs best interest.  There is no guarantee that's the case, and it doesn't seem particularly plausible- what happens in a currency union if the weakest partner falls over- the whole Eurozone had to bale out Greece, are you really thinking that rUK should pick up the tab- why would that be a good idea?


Scotland have a few cards to play, North Sea oil and gas for one,  can't see the govt really wanting the hassle that an independent Scotland might go into a non euro trading block with someone else


They are close to the scandanavian countries afterall


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

marty21 said:


> The big implication I can see is in the rest of Europe, Catalans in Spain, they will push for a referendum with renewed confidence, maybe Northern Italy, Wales , of course and with any luck Northen Ireland too.


I'm off out, but if Spain grants the Catalan (& Basque) demand for a ref, it will also have to respect the same in Gibraltar.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 10, 2014)

newbie said:


> I'm off out, but if Spain grants the Catalan (& Basque) demand for a ref, it will also have to respect the same in Gibraltar.


Yep, very complex


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> No, Scotland will become a new state, whereas rUK will continue with all the existing memberships etc of the existing UK.



You sure about that?


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/09/-sp-if-scotland-votes-for-independence-key-questions



> A Foreign Office spokesman has said “independent legal opinion sought and published by the UK government” had clarified that the UK would continue on existing terms and Scotland would be an entirely new state. But there is one huge caveat to this: UK membership of the security council is dependent on Scotland not declaring that both countries are new states.


----------



## Flavour (Sep 10, 2014)

There will almost certainly not be a referendum on the north of Italy splitting or rather dividing the country for the simple reason that all the so called legisti are too busy stuffing their faces in Rome on taxpayers money


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You sure about that?...



Yeah, I'm pretty sure. As far as I can remember, this has been dealt with (to my satisfaction at least) on the much longer Scottish Independence thread in the Scotland forum.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2014)

so London local news have opened tonight with a straw poll about wether londoners would like to be an independent city state. 1 in 5 in favour.

a) they'd be eating the rats and dogs by day 3, then their own children by a week in

b) Well done for making a scots indy themed news day ALL ABOUT YOU London

jesus


----------



## kenny g (Sep 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> jesus



Yes?


----------



## kebabking (Sep 10, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You sure about that?
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/09/-sp-if-scotland-votes-for-independence-key-questions



i'm under the impression that _everyone_ is sure of that, even the 'yes' campaign.

Scotland can declare what it likes at the UN, that does not make everyone else agree with them, or vote with them.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 10, 2014)

The channel Islands have the pound don't they? As does the Isle of Man. But neither are in the UK.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 10, 2014)

Idaho said:


> The channel Islands have the pound don't they? As does the Isle of Man. But neither are in the UK.


before Ireland joined the Euro, there was some sort of agreement, you could spend pounds and get a set exchange rate iirc


----------



## Idaho (Sep 10, 2014)

Liberty for the south west. Dorset, Devon and Somerset all forming a state as equal partners. We can make Cornwall a lesser member so they have something to whine about.

The capital can be some compromise between Plymouth, Bristol and Exeter... Tiverton.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> "The rest of the EU" is not some monolithic entity (monothought clique...). it's made up of a number of different nations, each with their own governments with their own idea of what is in their national interest. I'd therefore be rather hesitant about predicting that the EU will simply go ahead and ignore its own rules about new members joining, especially as this would encourage independence movements in some of those countries (Spain being merely the most obvious example) to think they could simply gain independence and join the EU the same day, under whatever terms they saw fit.




Er, yes it is. Ask a Greek politician whether or not they had an option not to accept austerity. It was imposed on them by the monolithic entity that sets economic policy within the Eurozone. 

Would that your idea of what the EU is were true. Spain is a very obvious example of a country in the EU that has very little say over how the EU is run or indeed over how Spain is run. Spain and other southern-European countries do what they are told by their northern betters. Power in the EU is not distributed per person, but per unit of wealth, and the interests behind most of that wealth do indeed form a very solid monolith.


----------



## kenny g (Sep 10, 2014)

Apparently Scotch Whisky is going to be supertaxed by the UK post independence - hence destroying the Scotch Whisky trade.


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Er, yes it is. Ask a Greek politician whether or not they had an option not to accept austerity. It was imposed on them by the monolithic entity that sets economic policy within the Eurozone.
> 
> Would that your idea of what the EU is were true. Spain is a very obvious example of a country in the EU that has very little say over how the EU is run or indeed over how Spain is run. Spain and other southern-European countries do what they are told by their northern betters. Power in the EU is not distributed per person, but per unit of wealth, and the interests behind most of that wealth do indeed form a very solid monolith.



Spain may or may not have very little say over how the EU is run, but it, along with every other existing member, has the right to veto the admission of any new member. In common with some other countries, the Spanish government has an interest in not encouraging its own independently-inclined regions to think they can simply become a new state one day and be automatically recognised as new members of the EU, on any terms they see fit, including breaking various of the normal obligations for new members.

Which is not to say that deals and accomodations can't and won't be made, but you seem to be blind to the fact that there is a potential problem here, and one which there is no precedent for, so your confidence that you know exactly what will happen strikes me as a little misplaced.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 10, 2014)

Idaho said:


> Liberty for the south west. Dorset, Devon and Somerset all forming a state as equal partners. We can make Cornwall a lesser member so they have something to whine about.
> 
> The capital can be some compromise between Plymouth, Bristol and Exeter... Tiverton.



We in N Devonare going to join #Kernow, with Barnstaple as our capital - S Devon can stay with the Emmets.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 10, 2014)

kenny g said:


> Apparently Scotch Whisky is going to be supertaxed by the UK post independence - hence destroying the Scotch Whisky trade.


MPs *hic!*  would never vote for that


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2014)

Idaho said:


> The channel Islands have the pound don't they? As does the Isle of Man. But neither are in the UK.


they have _a_ pound.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2014)

kebabking said:


> i'm under the impression that _everyone_ is sure of that, even the 'yes' campaign.
> 
> Scotland can declare what it likes at the UN, that does not make everyone else agree with them, or vote with them.


depends how much whisky and buckfast they use to grease the throats of the delegates.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> Spain may or may not have very little say over how the EU is run, but it, along with every other existing member, has the right to veto the admission of any new member. .


yeah right. Just as Greek leaders had the right to call for a referendum on austerity. There is the form of democracy in the EU but it is just that, a form, an outward appearance.


----------



## futurereal (Sep 10, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Of course they will. If Scotland has to go through formal application as a new state, then rUK will too. Can just see the EU welcoming that can of worms.
> 
> Same for NATO too.



Regarding Nato. There is already grumbling from the US about Europe's "bonzai" armies. Simple fact is Scotland will have a tiny military and intelligence gathering capabilities -  and the perception amongst some in Washington is that Europe can't get its shit together and the small nations ride on the US coat tails (I'm sure there are those in Washington who prefer this situation as well). 

If Scotland joins NATO it will largely be:

1.) Symbolic
2.) Confirmation that Scotland plans to play ball with the other Nato countries and EU on defence issues.

Regarding the US position though. There is also a realisation that the US can't and won't in the long run continue to spend $billions on placing US bases and troops in the EU.

For many on the Left this will be seen as the begining of the end of US hegemony in Europe. For some on the Right (and maybe Left too) it will be an incentive for further Federalisation in order to build a common defence policy for the EU. 

Interesting times.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2014)

The fact that Scottish leaders plan to join NATO shows the conservative nature of this particular revolution. 

Everything changes, yet nothing changes. As danny la rouge liked to say about Obama, 'change you cannot see'.


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

Idaho said:


> The channel Islands have the pound don't they? As does the Isle of Man. But neither are in the UK.


they're Crown Dependencies and have been for hundreds of years, answerable to the Privy Council and counted as UK possessions. Rather than independent states.  They're not in the EU or Commonwealth.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 10, 2014)

newbie said:


> they're Crown Dependencies and have been for hundreds of years, answerable to the Privy Council and counted as UK possessions. Rather than independent states.  They're not in the EU or Commonwealth.


So some variation in the political make up of the various counties, states, Dependencies  that give allegiance to the Crown already exists. So what's the big deal. Things change in time.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 10, 2014)

Actually, that's a good idea. You can have all the inbred bits. 


cantsin said:


> We in N Devonare going to join #Kernow, with Barnstaple as our capital - S Devon can stay with the Emmets.


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Power in the EU is not distributed per person, but per unit of wealth, and the interests behind most of that wealth do indeed form a very solid monolith.


Certainly on the big questions that's true, but is this a big question? What's in it for the monolith, to make a special case for a small, brand new country with no economic record whatsoever?  It took 85 billion euros to bail out the Irish economy a few years ago, why would they take on the risk?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2014)

newbie said:


> Certainly on the big questions that's true, but is this a big question? What's in it for the monolith, to make a special case for a small, brand new country with no economic record whatsoever?  It took 85 billion euros to bail out the Irish economy a few years ago, why would they take on the risk?


My judgement on this - no it's not a big question, hence it is not worth making any kind of stand over. Smoothly expedite the transition and that causes fewest shocks to the system. Excluding Scotland from the EU, which is in effect throwing Scotland out of the EU as it is currently a member via the UK, is the option fraught with danger, and there is no obvious upside to doing it.

ETA: Worse than that, perhaps, for Scotland, I would guess that Germany and France would think of an independent Scotland as 'the UK's problem'. Any bailout of Scotland would be done in pounds not euros, by the Bank of England, and given that, the UK will get to basically dictate the terms under which Scotland joins the EU - the same terms under which the UK is a member. The United Kingdom of the United Kingdom of England and Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2014)

I know people are looking at the wider political implications, asking the questions etc but do you really think these things are not already under consideration on all sides? These are questions that are meaningless anyway untill there is a mandate. So let fair scotland decide, she won't fall into the sea/be bankrupted/declare war just post-indy.


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

Idaho said:


> So some variation in the political make up of the various counties, states, Dependencies  that give allegiance to the Crown already exists. So what's the big deal. Things change in time.


if the Isle of Man goes bust the BoE will pick up the tab. If Belgium declares war on Guernsey the MoD will send gunboats. If the Lieutenant-Governor of Jersey pops his clogs the Privy Council will appoint a new one.

I don't think that's what the Scots are talking about.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 10, 2014)

kenny g said:


> Apparently Scotch Whisky is going to be supertaxed by the UK post independence - hence destroying the Scotch Whisky trade.



The UK including Scotland represents less than 7% of their market, so I doubt that even if this did happen it would destroy the trade.

Source: http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/media/62024/2012_statistical_report.pdf


----------



## newbie (Sep 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My judgement on this - no it's not a big question, hence it is not worth making any kind of stand over. Smoothly expedite the transition and that causes fewest shocks to the system. Excluding Scotland from the EU, which is in effect throwing Scotland out of the EU as it is currently a member via the UK, is the option fraught with danger, and there is no obvious upside to doing it.


there's a big stretch between excluding them and agreeing to every one of their demands.


----------



## kenny g (Sep 10, 2014)

There are reports of large numbers of Scottish terriers being threatened with deportation by Northumberland farmers if Scotland votes yes. On the other hand various English breeds have already started forming lines in Edinburgh awaiting repatriation.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The fact that Scottish leaders plan to join NATO shows the conservative nature of this particular revolution.
> 
> Everything changes, yet nothing changes. As danny la rouge liked to say about Obama, 'change you cannot see'.


Well, it tells you what you need to know about the SNP. 

If you read back in the Big Thread to when the SNP adopted its NATO policy (after decades of being anti), you'll see I had a bit of a wobble about supporting Yes. (Not that I'd ever have voted No). 

However, it's important to remember that Yes is far more than the SNP.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2014)

newbie said:


> there's a big stretch between excluding them and agreeing to every one of their demands.


But it would also be a demand of the UK. No to Schengen, for instance. After all, if Scotland joins the EU under similar terms to the UK's current deal, what has changed for the rest of the EU? Would Germany care? I don't see why they would.

Geography matters in this, too. No extra land borders closed to Schengen because of this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, it tells you what you need to know about the SNP.
> 
> If you read back in the Big Thread to when the SNP adopted its NATO policy (after decades of being anti), you'll see I had a bit of a wobble about supporting Yes. (Not that I'd ever have voted No).
> 
> However, it's important to remember that Yes is far more than the SNP.


I admire your optimistic attitude towards this. 

Genuinely - no piss take.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 10, 2014)

A right wing libertarian financial blog suggests an Independent Scotland should repudiate their share of the debt and massively screw the UK.

_Cameron is the dangerous one, and Scotland should erect the middle finger in his direction._

_The real issue is that Scotland could repudiate their part of UK debt in the public markets.  That would be easy with an independent government, and it would *massively* screw the UK._

_Of course doing that would have serious repercussions for Scotland too -- they would not be able to borrow at reasonable rates in the international markets.  *That's good, not bad -- it would force the government to be honest in its accounting and to collect as much in taxes as it spends, instead of screwing in the ass all of its citizens via currency devaluation.*_

_Cameron, along with *all* of the leaders of nations who run deficits, ought to be *imprisoned* for theft by fraud and deception from the citizens of their country.  Indeed, I can make a clean argument that what ought to be the case is that the penalty from the original Coinage Act should be imposed on them._

_After a fair trial, of course._

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229379


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2014)

One potential upside I can see to Scottish independence does come with the military, despite Scottish intentions to join NATO. 

If, as seems inevitable, UK and Scottish military maintains extensive links, a decision by the UK to start a war that the Scottish govt does not consent to will be harder to push through for the UK. Scottish independence could put a break on British militarism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 10, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> A right wing libertarian financial blog suggests an Independent Scotland should repudiate their share of the debt and massively screw the UK_._


Won't happen. It's not just the UK that would kick hard against that - so would Germany, France, the US. Even China would disapprove. Not to mention Scottish pension holders who would lose their money. As Chomsky said in the interview JEd linked to, this new country would not be seen to be 'treaty-worthy'. Such a move would lead to mass unemployment in Scotland. It would probably lead to a new union with England.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 10, 2014)

Shetland considers Independence from Edinburgh and would wish to take it considerable oil assets with it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-their-own-if-scotland-votes-yes-9217514.html


----------



## 8ball (Sep 10, 2014)

Heard snippets of talk in work today from people musing about how best to arrange their pension pots given the vote next week...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2014)

futurereal said:


> Regarding Nato. There is already grumbling from the US about Europe's "bonzai" armies. Simple fact is Scotland will have a tiny military and intelligence gathering capabilities -  and the perception amongst some in Washington is that Europe can't get its shit together and the small nations ride on the US coat tails (I'm sure there are those in Washington who prefer this situation as well).
> 
> If Scotland joins NATO it will largely be:
> 
> ...


on the other hand outside of qatar and kuwait and turkey i don't suppose too many countries in the middle east want big yankee bases - and turkey not too keen on letting their territory be used for launching attacks on the m.e. so bases in europe might be better than no bases nearby at all.


----------



## IC3D (Sep 10, 2014)

If they go for independence the pressure to buy a round will be the most difficult obstacle I'd of thought


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 10, 2014)

Buried in the detail of 670-page white paper on independence, launched in Glasgow by the Scottish first minister Alex Salmond, it emerged that his government wants to qualify its staunch nuclear free policy by saying that nuclear-armed vessels from Nato countries would be free to use its ports on a confidential basis. It confirmed that an independent Scotland governed by the SNP would aim to eject Britain's Trident nuclear fleet from the Faslane base in Argyll and Bute "with a view" to achieving this by 2020. But it softened its previously hardline position by saying this was its "aim and intention", indicating that it was willing to compromise further.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/alex-salmond-snp-stance-nato-nuclear-weapons


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 10, 2014)

An independent Scotland might get it's hands on nearly 30 tons of gold.

http://rt.com/uk/186048-gold-negotiation-scotland-independence/


----------



## cantsin (Sep 10, 2014)

Idaho said:


> Actually, that's a good idea. You can have all the inbred bits.



thats the exactly the sort of S Devon attitude we want to leave behind - and you can take your poncey cream teas with you


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I admire your optimistic attitude towards this.
> 
> Genuinely - no piss take.


I've always been very clear about what I think a Yes vote achieves. In short, I'm not voting Yes in order to support another Parliament.


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2014)

So RBS and LLoyds have just announced that if yes is successful they will move their headquarters to London.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 10, 2014)

cesare said:


> So RBS and LLoyds have just announced that if yes is successful they will move their headquarters to London.





> The Bank of Scotland was effective in raising funds for the Jacobite Rebellion and as a result, The Royal Bank of Scotland was established to provide a bank with strong Hanoverian and Whig ties



no change there then.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 10, 2014)

cesare said:


> So RBS and LLoyds have just announced that if yes is successful they will move their headquarters to London.


Goodbye.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 10, 2014)

Rbs is still 81% government share owned...So Ozzy's been on the blower


----------



## ska invita (Sep 10, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Rbs is still 81% government share owned...So Ozzy's been on the blower


would be v interesting if proved true


----------



## Tankus (Sep 10, 2014)

Can't see how it could not be ?....its a board decision to move ...and the majority on the board is the  snorter in chief himself

Dunno ?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 10, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Can't see how it could not be ?....its a board decision to move ...and the majority on the board is the  snorter in chief himself
> 
> Dunno ?


sounds likely to me! a good line for the press to enquire on


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2014)

There will be a lot of national organisations which will have to reorganise, the NHS, the bank of England, the tax office, passport office, DVLA, department of transport, ministry of defence army navy and airforces and the like, then there will be plenty of national private businesses which will have to reorganise. Nuclear submarines will have to be brought south and defence shipbuilding.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 10, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Rbs is still 81% government share owned...So Ozzy's been on the blower


vince cable made the announcement back in February it seems http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/05/uk-rbs-scotland-idUKBREA140NP20140205
"I think if you were managing RBS you would almost certainly want to be in a domicile where your bank is protected against the risk of collapse," Cable told a panel of lawmakers.
"I think they already have a substantial amount of their management in London and I would have thought that inevitably they would become a London bank."

...
"RBS declined to comment on whether a vote for independence would lead it to leave Edinburgh and said it was "politically neutral" on the issue of independence.
"We don't support political parties or political movements. We will respond to what voters decide and governments agree," it said in a statement on Wednesday."


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> shows the conservative nature of this particular revolution.


Those ungrateful pleb bastards eh. Getting themsleves together to fight for what they want (an independent country) instead of the revolutionary anarchist thingymabob you want.


----------



## Sue (Sep 10, 2014)

weltweit said:


> There will be a lot of national organisations which will have to reorganise, the NHS, the bank of England, the tax office, passport office, DVLA, department of transport, ministry of defence army navy and airforces and the like, then there will be plenty of national private businesses which will have to reorganise. Nuclear submarines will have to be brought south and defence shipbuilding.


NHS is a devolved body which didn't go for all that internal market bollocks.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 10, 2014)

And the Clydesdale upping sticks too .....apparently


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2014)

Clydesdale have just announced the same as RBS and Lloyds. This is just what's being reported on Newsnight btw.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 10, 2014)

Crappy news night wasn't it ..,sounded tired !


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 10, 2014)

cesare said:


> Clydesdale have just announced the same as RBS and Lloyds. This is just what's being reported on Newsnight btw.


The one thing you notice about independent countries: there are no banks.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 10, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The one thing you notice about independent countries: there are no banks.



well, independant countries where no one knows what the currency is, or who backs it, or who regulates it...


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 10, 2014)

kebabking said:


> well, independant countries where no one knows what the currency is, or who backs it, or who regulates it...


Your information on the currency obviously comes from the unionist side.  (I'm not sure where your information on how to spell independent comes from).


----------



## kebabking (Sep 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Your information on the currency obviously comes from the unionist side....



my information comes from the Bank of England - both the lender and the regulator - and all of the potential UK Prime Ministers who will be in office while the matter is decided. anyone who thinks they _won't_ be the people who decide whether an independent Scotland can have a currency union with the (R)UK is obviously getting their information from Unicorns.


----------



## JTG (Sep 11, 2014)

kebabking said:


> my information comes from the Bank of England - both the lender and the regulator - and all of the potential UK Prime Ministers who will be in office while the matter is decided. anyone who thinks they _won't_ be the people who decide whether an independent Scotland can have a currency union with the (R)UK is obviously getting their information from Unicorns.


If there's one thing I've learned over my lifetime, it's that I can always trust the statements of party leaders - especially in the run up to a General Election


----------



## cesare (Sep 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The one thing you notice about independent countries: there are no banks.


I don't think they suggested that they were closing their retail branches. Or maybe they did - I haven't followed it that closely. I thought the issue was the significant number of job losses that would result from relocating the headquarters, and that concerns about that might influence the DKs.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> (I'm not sure where your information on how to spell independent comes from).



aren't you the indepedant?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 11, 2014)

I don't see why any private companies would relocate? If anything given Salmonds promise to slash corporation tax, they might move their headquarters to Scotland


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 11, 2014)

Quotes ;
_
*Somewhere, emanating from the old crypts and burrows in which Britain was founded, I fear a hideous force may emerge to crush the Scottish people’s desire for self-determination, if only because that desire is a major threat to some very rich and powerful entities who found themselves as unprepared as Downing Street 10.*

*Still, there’s an added dimension in Scotland: the fact that the City of London is the number 1,2 or 3 (take your pick) most important finance center on the planet. If and when anybody rattles that kind of cage, other forces come into play. It’s no longer about politics, but about money (and no, I’m not too think to see how the two are linked).*

*And there’s something in all of that which is definitely scary. London, and the Queen, will do all they can not to lose part of their ‘empire’. The City of London will do even more not to lose a substantial part of their wealth. And this time around I don’t think they properly hedged their bets: the surge of the Yes side is as close to a black swan as we, and the City of London, have ever seen.*_

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-10/black-swan-scotland


----------



## newbie (Sep 11, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I don't see why any private companies would relocate? If anything given Salmonds promise to slash corporation tax, they might move their headquarters to Scotland


and compete with Ireland for offshore taxdodging companies?  Maybe so, although it's a bit marginal.

Surely the company issue revolves around companies based in rUK with banking currently based in Scotland, and v-v, and those based in Scotland with the vast majority of their customer base in rUK.  Customers who may not wish to do cross-border trading, particularly financial trading- banking, pensions, mortgages, savings and so on.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 11, 2014)

cantsin said:


> thats the exactly the sort of S Devon attitude we want to leave behind - and you can take your poncey cream teas with you



and fecking "Totnes"


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 11, 2014)

Surely all this stuff from the banks is posturing anyway - it's a _negotiation_.

They just want to make sure that whatever happens they get a  good deal out of it. If they don't threaten to leave they have nothing to bargain with.


----------



## newbie (Sep 11, 2014)

again, the banks have millions of customers in rUK who will, individually, have to consider whether or not they want to have cross border banking, or get their pension or mortgage from a foreign institution that may or may not be as well protected as we have come to expect.

Whichever way you want to look at it, the new Scottish state will have a fledgling, untried and tested, economy and I can't see any real reason why I, or any other rUK inhabitant, would want to take a risk with something that matters to me.  So if the vote is yes I, and I suspect millions like me, will move the pension I have with Standard Life to an rUK based provider, unless they move it into this jurisdiction themselves.  I won't do it the day after the referendum, there's no panic involved, but there is a perfectly reasonable caution, that I don't want to get caught up in someone elses experiment from which I gain no benefit and might suffer an important (to me) loss.


----------



## 8den (Sep 11, 2014)

kebabking said:


> well, independant countries where no one knows what the currency is, or who backs it, or who regulates it...



Considering you can't use or spend NI or Scottish bank notes in much of England I think the pound is half way towards independence. Or at least a quarter.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2014)

kebabking said:


> my information comes from the Bank of England - both the lender and the regulator - and all of the potential UK Prime Ministers who will be in office while the matter is decided. anyone who thinks they _won't_ be the people who decide whether an independent Scotland can have a currency union with the (R)UK is obviously getting their information from Unicorns.


This is not a new story, it’s just the London media catching up with old scares we’ve heard before.  You might be new to this, but we’ve been discussing it for 2 years.

The Big Thread in the Scotland forum has thoroughly discussed all of this already, so forgive me if I treat it perfunctorily.

1.  The media is conflating HQs and Registered Offices. What is being talked about is the possibility of moving brass plaques, not losing jobs or significant operations.

2.  Before we heard this story the first time, we were told that having the brass plaques in Edinburgh meant the Scottish economy would be financial sector top-heavy, and we’d be responsible for bailing out the banks if they came to that again. Leave aside the fact that that isn’t how it works (c/f big thread for how it does work).  You can’t have it both ways.  If it’s Bad News that the brass plaques are in Edinburgh, then it’s good news that they’re in London; that means rUK would be responsible for bailing out the banks.  (Although, I reiterate, it’s not where the plaques are that really determines where the bailout would be financed from).

3.  Many of these companies said they’d move to London if we voted for devolution.  They didn’t.  I’m not aware of any company that moved because of devolution.  (“Wolf!”).

4.  The bank I use doesn’t have its brass plaque in Edinburgh or London. My debit card still works in ATMs, at check outs, and on websites.

5.  The Bank of England has not said it won’t facilitate a currency union.  The exact opposite is the case; it says it will.

6.  There is a huge discussion on currency on the Big Thread, but there are some important points to be aware of:


Interest rates are currently set by the Bank of England - the Chancellor has no control over them as things stand. 


I think some people get misled by the name of the institution - the “Bank of England”.  It is currently the Bank of UK, in fact.  It is a UK-wide institution, and is separate from government.  Were it to become the central bank for both an independent Scotland and the rUK, then it would be deciding interest rates for both countries.  It would not be a case of the rUK government setting Scottish interest rates, but rather both being set by the same institution.


(As it happens, here, too, I disagree with the SNP.  I think Scotland should have its own currency, pegged at first to Sterling - as indeed Ireland’s was right up until it began the process to join the Euro.  But I can see the logic of currency union, and it certainly isn’t a deal breaker for me).


The rUK has a trade deficit with Scotland (in other words, the net flow of products - whisky, oil, gas, electricity, foodstuffs etc - is largely from Scotland to the rUK, rather than the other way round, and the net flow of payments is the other way).  This is one reason that the Westminster government will want currency union after independence.



The market nerves over Sterling were instructive.  This wasn’t a market judgement on an independent Scotland, as the media is spinning it.  It can’t be - there is no independent Scotland yet.  It is a judgement on Sterling currency uncertainty.  This is caused by the No camp’s bluff that they won’t join a currency union.  In effect, with no currency union, the UK economy would be re-priced as if it had the trade deficit we talked about above.  If that deficit is outside of the Sterling Zone, then the economy has to be revalued.  This is obvious.  That’s one reason why currency union is actually in rUK’s interests more than it is in Scotland’s.


Furthermore, it isn’t logical to have the liabilities that come with Sterling without the assets. If Scotland no longer shares the use of the Bank of England, then it no longer shares the UK debts.  This is another reason that a week tomorrow, if we have voted Yes, the currency bluff will be called.


(Please note that the UK Treasury has said it would continue to honour debts amassed by the UK if Scotland becomes independent. It has said as the successor state to the debt, it alone is responsible for the debt. Now, the SNP Scottish government has said it will pay its share of that debt.  It has never said it wouldn’t.  All it has said is that it doesn’t have to, and that with liabilities come assets).

If you want a fuller discussion, go to the Big Thread.  But excuse us for yawning.  This is all old hat.


And lastly, if you think that a bunch of Tory-financing CEOs, bankers and Eton-educated toffs telling me that I should vote No in an way persuades me I’m making the wrong decision, then you’re very, very much mistaken.


----------



## Flavour (Sep 11, 2014)

The drums of fear continue to resound. It's their only effective weapon. None of this "we love Scotland" stuff washes for even half a second.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 11, 2014)

The Irish Times says that is Scotland breaks free, it will effectively destroy the rUK as a military power:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/defence-central-to-changes-if-scots-go-independent-1.1921047

Not that UK is the swaggering superpower it was back in days of yore, but according to the IT story, it won't even be able to 'punch above its weight' on the world stage, as I recall either Tom King or Douglas Hurd saying a few years ago.

And the Torygraph says:
_
The White Paper spells out Scotland’s precise demands. The RAF would be asked to hand over one squadron of 12 Typhoon fighters for the new Scottish air force. That may not sound much – until you remember that the RAF only has two squadrons of air defence jets. So the rebirth of an independent Scotland would deprive the RAF of 50 per cent of its strength in air-to-air combat.


Scotland would also demand two frigates from the Royal Navy. Again, that may not sound much – until you remember that the Navy only has 13 frigates. Along with six destroyers, that means Britain possesses 19 big warships. So Scotland would demand 10 per cent of the core of the surface fleet._

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...d-would-think-weve-taken-leave-of-our-senses/

I can't see any London government blithely handing over that kind of kit without controversy, in fact the very suggestion is one for the "it is to laugh" file. So watch out for some major skin and hair flying over this one, once the saltire is raised over a Free Edinburgh.

I would also imagine that the average Scottish soldier (Sasaferrato to the white courtesy phone, please) is more likely to be fonder of the Union than his compatriots, and London could easily stir the pot by saying, "well, our kilted wonders will be entirely welcome to stay in HM forces should they so wish".


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2014)

cesare said:


> I don't think they suggested that they were closing their retail branches. Or maybe they did - I haven't followed it that closely. I thought the issue was the significant number of job losses that would result from relocating the headquarters, and that concerns about that might influence the DKs.


The post you replied to was sarcasm, borne of boredom with the re-surfacing of something that's been discussed over and over and over here in Scotland.  For us, this is not a new scare, but an old one that London has only just heard of.

See my subsequent post for the non sarcastic response.


----------



## cesare (Sep 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The post you replied to was sarcasm, borne of boredom with the re-surfacing of something that's been discussed over and over and over here in Scotland.  For us, this is not a new scare, but an old one that London has only just heard of.
> 
> See my subsequent post for the non sarcastic response.


It's the first time I'd heard it as an announcement as opposed to a rumour/whisper/maybe.

In your subsequent post you didn't say anything about how the concern over job losses might influence the DKs. What're your views on that?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2014)

We've strayed again from the thread topic.  I apologize for my part in that; there are plenty of more appropriate threads.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2014)

cesare said:


> In your subsequent post you didn't say anything about how the concern over job losses might influence the DKs. What're your views on that?


well, RBS has only said  it believed it would be "necessary to re-domicile the bank's holding company".  (IE, move the brass plaque).

"In a letter to staff, the bank's chief executive said there was no intention to move operations or jobs."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29151798

So there is no job threat.  But of course the reason for the story re-surfacing is to cause fear & concern to voters, and it may well work, especially if they listen to Radio Scotland, which was just astonishing this morning.  It was like a North Korean version of some sort of state controlled Daily Mail trying its damnedest not to be found guilty of committing thoughtcrime.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I think some people get misled by the name of the institution - the “Bank of England”.  It is currently the Bank of UK, in fact.  It is a UK-wide institution, and is separate from government.  Were it to become the central bank for both an independent Scotland and the rUK, then it would be deciding interest rates for both countries.  It would not be a case of the rUK government setting Scottish interest rates, but rather both being set by the same institution..



It isn't quite separate from government. The governor is appointed 'by the queen', which means by the Prime Minister. This is one of the things I think you are a little unrealistic about. Officially the governor is a civil servant working for the UK government, as are others in the BoE. 

This is the kind of language they use about appointments:



> HM Treasury has today announced that Her Majesty The Queen has agreed, on the recommendation of the Chancellor and Prime Minister, to appoint Anthony Habgood as the Chairman of Court, and Dr Ben Broadbent as Deputy Governor for Monetary Policy.  In addition, the Chancellor and the Governor have agreed to appoint Dr Nemat Shafik as Deputy Governor of the Bank of England responsible for Markets and Banking.



http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2014/057.aspx

In other words, all major appointments are made by the government. The BofE isn't really independent, and I think it's far from obvious that the UK government will give the Scottish govt any kind of formal role in the appointment of UK civil servants. More likely, I would think, that Scotland would have as much say over the BofE as Ireland used to. IE zero.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In other words, all major appointments are made by the government. The BofE isn't really independent, and I think it's far from obvious that the UK government will give the Scottish govt any kind of formal role in the appointment of UK civil servants. More likely, I would think, that Scotland would have as much say over the BofE as Ireland used to. IE zero.


The Chancellor has exactly the same say over interest rates: zero.  (This was a lever of government given away by Brown.  But more importantly, the democratic control over interest rates is zero.  Even if we vote No).

Now, I actually oppose currency union.  (For a full discussion see the other thread).  But the idea that Westminster has any control over interest rates is wrong.  It has the same control that Euro zone countries have over interest rates.  None.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 11, 2014)

The UK government has huge influence over every aspect of the BofE. For instance, it is the govt that sets the inflation target. And there is no way the BofE would ever do quantitative easing, for instance, without govt approval.

In practice, the bofe does what government wants it to do. It is accountable to parliament, and also



> The 1998 Bank of England Act made the Bank independent to set interest rates. The Bank is accountable to parliament and the wider public. The legislation provides that if, in extreme circumstances, the national interest demands it, the Government has the power to give instructions to the Bank on interest rates for a limited period.



http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/Pages/framework/framework.aspx

In other words, the bank of England remains 'independent' as long as it does what the govt wants it to do, but can lose that independence if it fails to do that.

And here's the rub - there are provisions for action in the 'national interest' such as taking the bank of england back under direct govt control. Where will an independent Scotland stand here? I think I can guess.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2014)

What's your point, LBJ?  That currency union isn't the best deal for Scotland?  I agree.  I've always said that.  It's the best deal for the rUK, but not for Scotland.  The rUK will not turn down CU after the vote; they'd be daft to.

But as I've also said all along, there is no such thing as total independence.  No country has that.  All have treaties, agreements, and obligations.  

So, yes, I think we should be launching our own currency.  (And perhaps Salmond plans to, 5 years down the line).  But the reasons for supporting Yes still stand.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> What's your point, LBJ?  That currency union isn't the best deal for Scotland?  I agree.  I've always said that.  It's the best deal for the rUK, but not for Scotland.  The rUK will not turn down CU after the vote; they'd be daft to.


 
Depends who stands to lose the most at that point.  There will obviously be negotiation between the two parties so I think it might become brutally clear quite quickly whether the newly-independent Scotland feels keeping the pound is a higher priority than getting rid of the nukes.


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2014)

newbie said:


> they're Crown Dependencies and have been for hundreds of years, answerable to the Privy Council and counted as UK possessions. Rather than independent states.  They're not in the EU or Commonwealth.



wtf were they doing entering teams for the commonweath games then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 11, 2014)

gosub said:


> wtf were they doing entering teams for the commonweath games then?


They are technically what is left of the Duchy of Normandy. In the Channel Islands, the Queen is known as the Duke of Normandy. Yes, the Duke.


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Rbs is still 81% government share owned...So Ozzy's been on the blower


Actually Juncker, EU finance has to based in the country where it does most its business.  London will still be in EU and bound by EU law, regardless of any ballot north of Carlise.  Got quite pissed off when Salmond said at the Book festival that the only thing Scots about LLoyds is a nameplate.  As a taxpayer and Lloyds customer its bad enough there's no branches in Scotland but to now find out all the the several thousand people dotted about Edinburgh in various buildings do is take turns to polish a brass plate


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2014)

gosub said:


> Actually Juncker, EU finance has to based in the country where it does most its business.  London will still be in EU and bound by EU law, regardless of any ballot north of Carlise.  Got quite pissed off when Salmond said at the Book festival that the only thing Scots about LLoyds is a nameplate.  As a taxpayer and Lloyds customer its bad enough there's no branches in Scotland but to now find out all the the several thousand people dotted about Edinburgh in various buildings do is take turns to polish a brass plate


Salmond neither said nor implied what you say. 

But then, you know that.


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2014)

knew I should have kept that copy of the Edinburgh news.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> What's your point, LBJ?  That currency union isn't the best deal for Scotland?  I agree.  I've always said that.  It's the best deal for the rUK, but not for Scotland.  The rUK will not turn down CU after the vote; they'd be daft to.


My point is really quite a blunt one. Monetary union with the UK could leave Scotland with less input into the monetary policy of the region than it has now. 

You are wrong about the UK govt's influence over the Bank of England - it sets the bank's agenda. The banks' governor has said that Scotland will have to agree to shared spending with the UK to have the bank as a lender of last resort. Otherwise it will need to build up reserves of Sterling. Either way, spending will be restricted, and any new 'independent' administration may be able to do less than the current devolved administration can do. Independent like Greece is independent. IE not at all.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 11, 2014)

The royal navy is understaffed the scottish regiments are massively understrength lot of joke about mcfijians making up the number.
  Fast jets are very expensive to operate spares updates training for pilots technicians etc etc same with the type 23 frigate  big boys toys.
 If you look at ireland they have some patrol boats hellicopters and a couple of prop planes  and thats it.


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> This is not a new story, it’s just the London media catching up with old scares we’ve heard before.  You might be new to this, but we’ve been discussing it for 2 years.
> 
> The Big Thread in the Scotland forum has thoroughly discussed all of this already, so forgive me if I treat it perfunctorily.
> 
> ...




If you think everyone tied to the treasury standing up and go, actually we are a bunch of liars who would say anything for domestic politics, we are are changing the terms of our existing debts and are in full reverse ferret on CU would help shore up the pound, YOU ARE BARKING.


Bad squall it would be, but throwing the tiller overboard is the dullest move possible.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My point is really quite a blunt one. Monetary union with the UK could leave Scotland with less input into the monetary policy of the region than it has now.
> 
> You are wrong about the UK govt's influence over the Bank of England - it sets the bank's agenda. The banks' governor has said that Scotland will have to agree to shared spending with the UK to have the bank as a lender of last resort. Otherwise it will need to build up reserves of Sterling. Either way, spending will be restricted, and any new 'independent' administration may be able to do less than the current devolved administration can do. Independent like Greece is independent. IE not at all.


OK, I think you may be under some sort of misapprehension as to why I'm voting Yes. An independent government with the SNP initially in charge will be an outcome, a product, of a Yes vote, but that's not why I'm voting Yes.  

I had hoped the reasons I repeatedly give were understood, but I accept maybe they aren't.  So, yes, I really am that cavalier about breaking up the British state.  It'll achieve some instrumental objectives, that I repeatedly state (such as getting rid of trident from the Clyde), and it provides space for the working class in Scotland and in rUK to be able to achieve more while the establishment is still on the back foot.

I don't support the SNP, Alex Salmond, or any other parliamentary party or politician, whether in the UK or a possible independent Scotland.  I don't believe there is a parliamentary road to socialism.  And I don't have any faith in parliamentary democracy.  Neither in the UK, in a possible independent Scotland, nor anywhere else.  But nor, and this is important, nor do I think that the conditions exist for the social revolution.

I just think this is an historic opportunity to create the conditions to wrest some material benefits for the working class, and should be used.  It's tactical, and for instrumental reasons.

I realise that the world of states and parliaments will continue, and I'm happy to discuss what we may see, what may happen.  But I remain an anarchist communist.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 11, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> The Irish Times says that is Scotland breaks free, it will effectively destroy the rUK as a military power:
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/defence-central-to-changes-if-scots-go-independent-1.1921047
> 
> ...



I already know someone who is in the process of joining the British Army, and will not be coming back to join the Scottish Cadet Force.

All an independent Scotland would need in the way of armed forces would be a platoon of ceremonial soldiers to parade for visiting dignitaries. Scotland would not be able to afford to finance any meaningful troop levels. 

Seven more days and it will all be over. In the event of a 'YES' vote, I will be enquiring as to whether I will be arbitrarily stripped of my British citizenship, or whether I can continue to be what I was born as, British. Is there precedence in international law for someone to have their citizenship changed forcibly?


----------



## JTG (Sep 11, 2014)

Shall we ask the Irish?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2014)

futurereal said:


> It's farcical.


Yes, it is and they look like the political equivalent of the Three Stooges.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Seven more days and it will all be over. In the event of a 'YES' vote, I will be enquiring as to whether I will be arbitrarily stripped of my British citizenship, or whether I can continue to be what I was born as, British.


You will only be stripped of your British citizenship if the rUK government chooses to do that.  It has declined to answer before the 18th.  The Scottish government is quite clear: you can have joint British citizenship if the UK government lets you, but it is obviously not in their (the Scottish government's) gift.  You will have the additional Scottish citizenship automatically by living here, but they cannot, nor do they want to, strip you of your British citizenship.

Should you wish to enquire as to the UK government's intentions, I can give you an address to try.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2014)

futurereal said:


> Yes I do - hence why I replied.
> 
> Also my comment mentioned LU not the Greens, so not sure how you got that impression, are you just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it?



No. But you seem to be nit-picking for the sake of it.



> The Greens lack experience to be honest, but that will come with time. And frankly looking at Labour or at the extreme BNP run councils I don't think they have anything to worry about at the moment.



There are no BNP run councils. I think the Greens in Brighton have got themselves into an awful mess over service cuts (which they denied were happening) and their attitude to strike action.



> Lucas has also been a far more decent person then some of the idiots who proclaim themselves on the Left and have made it into parliament. I think the public has less problem taking Lucas seriously than Galloway for example.



I have no problem with Lucas, she does a good job. She seems to have more of a clue than her local party.



> Anyway, so you don't think any organisations on the Left bring some the derision they recieve on themselves? How about the SWP for example?



What political party, right or left, doesn't bring derision of some degree on itself?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do the politician led results that they lead to count as politician led?


Let me clarify: ordinary people are engaging with politics in way that hasn't been seen for a number of years, possibly decades. Though I'm not entirely sure what it is you're getting at here.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> You will only be stripped of your British citizenship if the rUK government chooses to do that.  It has declined to answer before the 18th.  The Scottish government is quite clear: you can have joint British citizenship if the UK government lets you, but it is obviously not in their (the Scottish government's) gift.  You will have the additional Scottish citizenship automatically by living here, but they cannot, nor do they want to, strip you of your British citizenship.
> 
> Should you wish to enquire as to the UK government's intentions, I can give you an address to try.



We should have a referendum on the subject :thumbs :


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I already know someone who is in the process of joining the British Army, and will not be coming back to join the Scottish Cadet Force.
> 
> All an independent Scotland would need in the way of armed forces would be a platoon of ceremonial soldiers to parade for visiting dignitaries. Scotland would not be able to afford to finance any meaningful troop levels.
> 
> Seven more days and it will all be over. In the event of a 'YES' vote, I will be enquiring as to whether I will be arbitrarily stripped of my British citizenship, or whether I can continue to be what I was born as, British. Is there precedence in international law for someone to have their citizenship changed forcibly?



A few years ago, Mugabe told all the British passport holders in Zimbabwe that they had to choose one or the other, a Zim passport or a UK one. All the UK passports were collected and handed over to the Brit High Commission in Harare - who promptly mailed them back to their original holders.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 11, 2014)

JTG said:


> Shall we ask the Irish?



Wait for ush to shober up, old chap.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 11, 2014)

I've got a mortgage with the Clydesdale and am now pondering about the consequences if the Clydesdale doesn't move south after a "yes" vote...


----------



## pogofish (Sep 11, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I've got a mortgage with the Clydesdale and am now pondering about the consequences if the Clydesdale doesn't move south after a "yes" vote...



South of where..?  You do realise Clydesdale has been Australian-owned since 1987?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 11, 2014)

pogofish said:


> South of where..?  You do realise Clydesdale has been Australian-owned since 1987?



This isn't an issue of who the shareholders are, it is to do with the jurisdiction in which the bank is domiciled.

I see the IMF have issued a warning on the "yes" vote now too.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 11, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I've got a mortgage with the Clydesdale and am now pondering about the consequences if the Clydesdale doesn't move south after a "yes" vote...



The Clydesdale's HQ is effectively in Australia, they are owned by an Australian bank.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 11, 2014)

pogofish said:


> South of where..?  You do realise Clydesdale has been Australian-owned since 1987?



Antarctica?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 11, 2014)

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome

 (I hope)


----------



## pogofish (Sep 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Antarctica?



British Antartic Territory maybe?  It was never my favourite bank!


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 11, 2014)

pogofish said:


> British Antartic Territory maybe?  It was never my favourite bank!


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 11, 2014)

This Canuckistani view sees it as the first referendum on economic inequality:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-vote-on-economic-inequality/article20489038/


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2014)

JTG said:


> Shall we ask the Irish?



No need. Apparently North Korea have thrown their massive diplomatic weight behind Salmond because Kim Jong un wants to import Scotch Whisky. 

So that'll be that then.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 11, 2014)

Surely one result of independence will be another nation to compete in the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates and so on, shifting the burden on taxation to workers/VAT?  Tax competition will shaft people both sides of the border.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 11, 2014)

dp


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> All an independent Scotland would need in the way of armed forces would be a platoon of ceremonial soldiers to parade for visiting dignitaries. Scotland would not be able to afford to finance any meaningful troop levels.



Why couldn't an independent Scotland afford an army when plenty of smaller and poorer countries manage it? I guess it probably couldn't afford things like nuclear submarines or a force big enough to defend the Falklands or take a leading role in invading Iraq, but it seems like most Scots are willing to live without those delights.


----------



## paolo (Sep 11, 2014)

Yossarian said:


> Why couldn't an independent Scotland afford an army when plenty of smaller and poorer countries manage it? I guess it probably couldn't afford things like nuclear submarines or a force big enough to defend the Falklands or take a leading role in invading Iraq, but it seems like most Scots are willing to live without those delights.



If it didn't want to have the opportunity to play in overseas intervention, why would it even want a significant military?

(Serious question).


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 11, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I see the IMF have issued a warning on the "yes" vote now too.



Have they? Well, for me who still knows nothing of the deeper issues, that is another crystal clear sign that the ordinary folk of Scotchland would be batshit mental to vote anything other than Yes.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 11, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> No need. Apparently North Korea have thrown their massive diplomatic weight behind Salmond because Kim Jong un wants to import Scotch Whisky.
> 
> So that'll be that then.



Can just picture some of those released from a North Korean prison camp and landing in the more salubrious areas of Glasgow on a Friday night, begging for a return to Camp 25...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Have they? Well, for me who still knows nothing of the deeper issues, that is another crystal clear sign that the ordinary folk of Scotchland would be batshit mental to vote anything other than Yes.




the market threats and finance sector bullying will only entrench the yes vote share. How it will affect the DK's is anyones guess, the appear to be Pliable from Pilgrims Progress so...


----------



## Coolfonz (Sep 11, 2014)

This has been irritating me in the back of my mind. Please don't take it too seriously but...

How long before England and Scotland have a war? 50 years? 200 years? 8 days?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 11, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Surely one result of independence will be another nation to compete in the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates and so on, shifting the burden on taxation to workers/VAT?  Tax competition will shaft people both sides of the border.


I think danny's post above answers this point pretty well. It's a question of opening up new possibilities, now it would be foolish to believe that capital won't try to use independence for it's own advantage, of course it will. But that doesn't mean that independence should be opposed just that whatever happens groups like the RIC need to make sure they continue to push a pro-working class strategy.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 11, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> This has been irritating me in the back of my mind. Please don't take it too seriously but...
> 
> How long before England and Scotland have a war? 50 years? 200 years? 8 days?


Not before the nuclear missiles have been returned to the south!


----------



## futurereal (Sep 11, 2014)

Yossarian said:


> Why couldn't an independent Scotland afford an army when plenty of smaller and poorer countries manage it? I guess it probably couldn't afford things like nuclear submarines or a force big enough to defend the Falklands or take a leading role in invading Iraq, but it seems like most Scots are willing to live without those delights.



In all seriousness, will Salmond support the right to the Falkland islands to decide their own future, or will he start supporting the position that they should join Argentina? After all it won't be Scotland's problem anymore.

I had a conversation a while back with somebody from Buenos Aires and her take was basically: Argentina should let the Falklander's make their own decision, however it should offer the hand of friendship if they want to join as a federal area.
She understood why they didn't want to join the mainland and was of the position that if Argentina stopped electing kleptomaniacs and quasi-fascists into office who robbed the public purse and made an effort to reconcilliate, that in the long run the Falklands may end up joining the federation.

Makes sense to me, I wonder what the SNP take is on it though?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 11, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Surely one result of independence will be another nation to compete in the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates and so on, shifting the burden on taxation to workers/VAT?  Tax competition will shaft people both sides of the border.



Salmond would fuck your dog* up the arse on Glasgow Green at noon, if he thought that it would give him a win. 

*Hamster, cat, Guinea Pig...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 11, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Not before the nuclear missiles have been returned to the south!



Remember the 100 Years War? That would be the ten minute war.  Every ex-squaddie that I know, bar one, is voting 'NO!'.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2014)

futurereal said:


> In all seriousness, will Salmond support the right to the Falkland islands to decide their own future, or will he start supporting the position that they should join Argentina? After all it won't be Scotland's problem anymore.



Who cares?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> .. Every ex-squaddie that I know, bar one, is voting 'NO!'.


I presume because they feel more part of the union, having served the union? is that right?


----------



## futurereal (Sep 11, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Who cares?



I'm guessing the people that live there care.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 11, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I presume because they feel more part of the union, having served the union? is that right?


probably because all the ones he knows are old tory twits


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2014)

futurereal said:


> I'm guessing the people that live there care.



About what Alex Salmond thinks of them?


----------



## futurereal (Sep 11, 2014)

J Ed said:


> About what Alex Salmond thinks of them?



Yes, and what the impact of an independant Scotland's future is likely to hold for them, the result it will have on defence etc.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 11, 2014)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


>


that's the sort of quality which has been such a hallmark of the 'no' campaign's propaganda

another example:


----------



## JTG (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm stunned that after two years of silence during the campaign, Sas has finally come out for 'No'


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 11, 2014)

JTG said:


> I'm stunned that after two years of silence during the campaign, Sas has finally come out for 'No'



I am studiously avoiding debate on the subject. Self imposed purdah.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I am studiously avoiding debate on the subject. Self imposed purdah.


is that because your arguments won't stand the slightest scrutiny?


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 11, 2014)

Salmond and the SNP have won already haven't they - Devo Max is in the bag isn't it ?


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 11, 2014)

The onslaught of hugely negative news spreading a torrent of fear right across the spectrum and with a ferocity I have never seen before in my lifetime called almost at will about the implications of a Yes vote are an abject lesson in the power and force of the British Establishment. Cameron must surely be feeling the heat for letting this happen on his watch.


----------



## newbie (Sep 12, 2014)

There's an academic blog post here which is the first serious attempt I've noticed to look at post-yes negotiations and ask what is in whose interests.  Its conclusion is much the same as mine, that the new Scottish state has little to offer rUK and little bargaining power.

_"an independent Scotland would remain heavily dependent on rUK in a large number of ways. These ways are important for iScotland, but not particularly for its much larger neighbour. To secure an advantageous ongoing arrangement, it has to be able to make convincing proposals to rUK that deliver things rUK wants or needs – and the list of those, once there has been a Yes vote, is small."_

He only identifies two major things rUK will want from post-yes Scotland: continuity for Trident, and that iScotland does not become a failed state.  Everything else, he reckons, is actually pretty marginal from our point of view, and I think I agree. Personally I'd like one outcome to be the complete destruction of Trident, and I certainly don't want iScotland to fail, but really, nothing that this thread has thrown up causes particular concern. tbh I don't really care if I have to show a passport at the border, or change currency, or if they don't get Dr Who and so on.  The medium/longterm implications for 'the rest of us' are actually pretty minor, perhaps the most significant is the the clock change which will affect everyone, but that's a positive reason to wish them well and wave goodbye.

Mind, the post doesn't really consider energy, which rUK will need to import. iScotland can provide oil, gas and hydro electricity which rUK utilities can import if they choose, but while geographic distance means Scotland has few other markets to try to enter, there are plenty of other players eager to sell to the much bigger rUK customer, France, Norway, Russia, the US and so on and on are all likely to want to compete in the reorientated market. So there, too, negotiating power does not seem to lie with Scotland.

It also doesn't consider iScotland negotiations with the EU but as I've said above, I see them with virtually nothing to offer that anyone else wants to gain.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2014)

newbie said:


> I don't really care if I have to show a passport at the border, or change currency, or if they don't get Dr Who and so on.


Read that back.  Then have a good think about the standard of debate that the No side offers.


----------



## newbie (Sep 12, 2014)

you're campaigning for a vote that affects you.  I'm not, I only care about how this affects me.  So my interest in the standard of the debate, as such, is minor.  I am not, in any way at all, seeking to influence anyone who has a vote.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

newbie "iScotland does not become a failed state."

And that would happen how exactly? Hordes of heavily armed Weegies roaming the streets of Glesgae in technicals, and the Clans reforming in the Highlands by holding mass sheep barbecues?


----------



## newbie (Sep 12, 2014)

did you read the article?  Having identified that it is one of the key issues for rUK he then says,
_"A second is that rUK would not want iScotland becoming a failed state. A failed state on the northern border would pose an unacceptable level of risk, in security and other terms. But even if an independent Scotland were significantly less prosperous, inclusive or happy than it is within the UK, that is a far cry from being a failed state. Indeed, the threshold of failing in the way that Afghanistan or Somalia failed is so high that it is almost impossible to imagine what would undermine iScotland so gravely as to make it a failed state. That is therefore not a strong negotiating point."_


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

newbie said:


> did you read the article?  Having identified that it is one of the key issues for rUK he then says,
> _"A second is that rUK would not want iScotland becoming a failed state. A failed state on the northern border would pose an unacceptable level of risk, in security and other terms. But even if an independent Scotland were significantly less prosperous, inclusive or happy than it is within the UK, that is a far cry from being a failed state. Indeed, the threshold of failing in the way that Afghanistan or Somalia failed is so high that it is almost impossible to imagine what would undermine iScotland so gravely as to make it a failed state. That is therefore not a strong negotiating point."_



And has Salmond or anyone else on the yes side threatened London with "meet our demands or we shoot this wee dug"?

The 26 counties remained heavily dependent on UK up until the 1970s, when EEC membership allowed the state to diversify its export markets - but the Irish state also displayed room for manouevre within that dependency, by remaining neutral during the war (a legitimate and necessary action, by the way) and pursuing an independent foreign policy after the war (which is why you often had Irish troops in UN missions) and also building an independent economic development strategy after 1960 and Sean Lemass' Programme for Economic Expansion.

You might respond that the Republic of Ireland was and remains an utterly fucked-up and dysfunctional society, and you'd be entirely correct on that point - but that's not the result of Irish independence, it's the result of the failure of the Irish to use their independence properly.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> newbie "iScotland does not become a failed state."
> 
> And that would happen how exactly? Hordes of heavily armed Weegies roaming the streets of Glesgae in technicals, and the Clans reforming in the Highlands by holding mass sheep barbecues?



so, you've been to Paisley?


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

But I've never been to me.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 12, 2014)

Quote from Galloway in debate last night about effects on NHS, in answer to those claiming 'Yes' is the only way to protect it from privatisation:

_"The Tories will be out in the spring. The privatisation agenda will be dead in the spring."_


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2014)

the one that Blairs government really got going? he must think eveyones memory is shot


----------



## newbie (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> And has Salmond or anyone else on the yes side threatened London with "meet our demands or we shoot this wee dug"?
> 
> The 26 counties remained heavily dependent on UK up until the 1970s, when EEC membership allowed the state to diversify its export markets - but the Irish state also displayed room for manouevre within that dependency, by remaining neutral during the war (a legitimate and necessary action, by the way) and pursuing an independent foreign policy after the war (which is why you often had Irish troops in UN missions) and also building an independent economic development strategy after 1960 and Sean Lemass' Programme for Economic Expansion.
> 
> You might respond that the Republic of Ireland was and remains an utterly fucked-up and dysfunctional society, and you'd be entirely correct on that point - but that's not the result of Irish independence, it's the result of the failure of the Irish to use their independence properly.



I think you're missing the point, which is to ask what, *from the point of view of rUK*, really matters post-yes. Not who has said what during the campaign, or what played out in a different context and a different era.  What matters to us, both personally (my concern) and nationally (what the article is about). 

And I have to agree, I really don't want iScotland to be a failure, either, frankly, of the Somalia model or of the Ireland model, because both of those will impact on me.  That is a key objective from this, for me.

Can you identify any other objectives, for either individuals in rUK or for the rUK state, which are seriously important as opposed to mere considerations?


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

newbie said:


> I think you're missing the point, which is to ask what, *from the point of view of rUK*, really matters post-yes. Not who has said what during the campaign, or what played out in a different context and a different era.  What matters to us, both personally (my concern) and nationally (what the article is about).
> 
> And I have to agree, I really don't want iScotland to be a failure, either, frankly, of the Somalia model or of the Ireland model, because both of those will impact on me.  That is a key objective from this, for me.
> 
> Can you identify any other objectives, for either individuals in rUK or for the rUK state, which are seriously important as opposed to mere considerations?



The idea of iScotland following either the path of Somalia (where clans are living institutions, not historical memories) or Ireland is frankly bonkers, and the link you gave is actually bonkers to even suggest it as a possibility. Failed state me bollocks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2014)

so its going to see a huge capital flight, turn into somalia and then what? godzilla stomps glasgow while King Kong sits atop arthurs seat roaring in triumph?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> The idea of iScotland following either the path of Somalia (where clans are living institutions, not historical memories) or Ireland is frankly bonkers, and the link you gave is actually bonkers to even suggest it as a possibility. Failed state me bollocks.



Didn't it suggest just that, that it was bonkers, albeit in  more measured tones?



> Indeed, the threshold of failing in the way that Afghanistan or Somalia failed is so high that it is almost impossible to imagine what would undermine iScotland so gravely as to make it a failed state. That is therefore not a strong negotiating point.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Didn't it suggest just that, that it was bonkers, albeit in  more measured tones?



It's bonkers of him to even raise it as a relevant point. It's not even wrong, it's just silly.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

Though mind you, I'll look a bit silly myself if in a year's time feral kids are chopping peoples' fingers off with boomerangs, and Alex Harvey is being worshipped as a god amidst the post-apocalyptic ruins of auld Edinburgh toon.


----------



## newbie (Sep 12, 2014)

I hesitate to write this, because it has every possibility of diverting the conversation onto something else, which I really don't want and won't engage with.  But there's a failure on our doorstep which is quiet at the moment but blighted lives here for decades.  Here, not over there.  Bombs, death, fear, horror.

There doesn't have to be any suggestion whatsoever that Scotland will or even could turn into that to for me to know that I don't want it. Whether the vote is yes or no. Therefor I think it's a reasonable thing to say that that not happening is a key objective.

I repeat, what other key objectives are there, for those of us in rUK?


----------



## likesfish (Sep 12, 2014)

Yossarian said:


> Why couldn't an independent Scotland afford an army when plenty of smaller and poorer countries manage it? I guess it probably couldn't afford things like nuclear submarines or a force big enough to defend the Falklands or take a leading role in invading Iraq, but it seems like most Scots are willing to live without those delights.



Noones saying they can't but fast jets and modern frigates are pipe dreams.
 Its not the kit its the infra structure and all the back room people you need to keep the kit running 
 Denmark  has fast jets but gdp is a third greater they use conscripts  and have all the infrastructure set up.
   Persuading people to join the sdf maybe a problem especially the right people with the right skills the uk military has issues keeping highly skilled people a defence force thats small dosent do anything is going to really struggle. Scots dont join the military as it is hence royal regiment of scotland reduced to company size to do ceremonial stuff. A defence force that doesnt do much intresting stuff is even going to be less attractive.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> then what? godzilla stomps glasgow while King Kong sits atop arthurs seat roaring in triumph?



Paddy Power's offering 3/1 that these exact words come out of Gidiot's mouth by next Wednesday.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

newbie said:


> I hesitate to write this, because it has every possibility of diverting the conversation onto something else, which I really don't want and won't engage with.  But there's a failure on our doorstep which is quiet at the moment but blighted lives here for decades.  Here, not over there.  Bombs, death, fear, horror.
> 
> There doesn't have to be any suggestion whatsoever that Scotland will or even could turn into that to for me to know that I don't want it. Whether the vote is yes or no. Therefor I think it's a reasonable thing to say that that not happening is a key objective.
> 
> I repeat, what other key objectives are there, for those of us in rUK?



And I repeat, why even raise that as a relevant point? Is the SNLA biding its time in the glens, or something? Is the Orange Order stockpiling machetes? (actually don't answer that).

As for key objectives would be for rUK to retain some kind of military presence in the northern near abroad, so I would expect some kind of fudge that would allow rUK 'treaty ports' north of the wall.

Your link raises the point that rUK could be an ally for Scot membership of NATO and EU - an alliance with  Scotland inside those bodies would also be an asset for the rUK.

There were a lot of points of antagonism between the Free State and westminster after 1922 - this led to the economic war of the 1930s which wasn't resolved until the agreement with Chamberlain in 1938. Some of those points of antagonism came out of the Irish revolution itself, others were "legacy issues" like the land annuities. 

There's nothing similar to produce similar levels of bad blood between Edinburgh and London now (which is not to rule some sort of resentment, mind), so I don't think it makes sense to suggest that iScotland would be left to wander alone through the world, like a pregnant servant girl cast out into the snow by her Victorian employer.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2014)

newbie said:


> There's an academic blog post here which is the first serious attempt I've noticed to look at post-yes negotiations and ask what is in whose interests...



Yeah, I think that article is well worth reading, not because I agree with everything in it (I don't, for instance, agree that the worries about negotiations should play that much of a part in Scottish voters choosing between Yes and No), but because it may bring an element of realism to how post-referendum negotiations are likely to go.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> The idea of iScotland following either the path of Somalia (where clans are living institutions, not historical memories) or Ireland is frankly bonkers, and the link you gave is actually bonkers to even suggest it as a possibility. Failed state me bollocks.



I think you may be missing the point.

The article asks what strong cards would the Scottish side have in negotiations, and then mentions the hypothetical interest rUK would have in ensuring iS didn't become a failed state to conclude that there's little/no danger of this, and so no reason for rUK fears of this to play a part in negotiations


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think you may be missing the point.
> 
> The article asks what strong cards would the Scottish side have in negotiations, and then mentions the hypothetical interest rUK would have in ensuring iS didn't become a failed state to conclude that there's little/no danger of this, and so no reason for rUK fears of this to play a part in negotiations



And I'm saying the rUK doesn't have a big enough motive to say "fuck you, then" to iScotland. Certainly, there's no sign of anything similar to the way we got fucked over the border promises.

A hundred years ago, the Paddies had to be kept in their place for the sake of the Empire. Well, the empire is gone now, so why fuck the Jocks the same way?

"Far called, our navies melt away, on dune and headland sink the fire. . . "


----------



## mauvais (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Though mind you, I'll look a bit silly myself if in a year's time feral kids are chopping peoples' fingers off with boomerangs, and Alex Harvey is being worshipped as a god amidst the post-apocalyptic ruins of auld Edinburgh toon.


That's the real tragedy. A nation that dreamt for so long of _Braveheart _Mel Gibson, but despite it all, can only ever have_ Mad Max_ Mel Gibson


----------



## Libertad (Sep 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> so its going to see a huge capital flight, turn into somalia and then what? godzilla stomps glasgow while King Kong sits atop arthurs seat roaring in triumph?





> There does however seem to be a darker side to the sudden intense efforts to persuade Scotland to vote No. Because along with the begging come the threats. Every day the party leaders inform us about businesses that will move to England, that RBS and most of the economy will leave, and BP will suck their oilfields to Norwich, and Edinburgh will move to Berkshire, and Dundee will be towed to a swamp in Kent that’s overrun with crocodiles and Ben Nevis will be taken over by North Korea and there’ll be nothing anyone can do because Scotland won’t be allowed in Nato, and in fact won’t even be covered by International Regulations on Cheetahs so they’ll sprint across Cumbernauld eating the lot of you and see if WE care.



Mark Steel's piece today in The Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...h-the-scots-that-was-a-good-move-9727290.html


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> And I'm saying the rUK doesn't have a big enough motive to say "fuck you, then" to iScotland. Certainly, there's no sign of anything similar to the way we got fucked over the border promises.
> 
> A hundred years ago, the Paddies had to be kept in their place for the sake of the Empire. Well, the empire is gone now, so why fuck the Jocks the same way?
> 
> "Far called, our navies melt away, on dune and headland sink the fire. . . "



No, it wouldn't have a huge motive to say "fuck you, then", but neither would it have a particular motive to say "OK, we'll go along with everything you want for old time's sake." It will be down to hard-nosed horse trading, and iS will have relatively little rUK wants with which to trade.

Once (if...) the negotiations begin for real, the real value of each side's hand will become clearer, and I suspect that some on the Scottish side may be in for a surprise. Again, that's not a reason to vote No, but some realism about what may happen the day after is in order.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

Seriously, though. . . 

"If there are independence negotiations, iScotland will essentially be a supplicant to rUK, so weak that it largely has to accept what rUK offers.  Scottish voters need to bear that in mind when they head to the poll."

If the situation would be like that after a yes vote, why is London desperate to avoid it?


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

mauvais said:


> That's the real tragedy. A nation that dreamt for so long of _Braveheart _Mel Gibson, but despite it all, can only ever have_ Mad Max_ Mel Gibson



Be thankful it's not _real life _Mel Gibson.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 12, 2014)

Roughly 10% or people loss 10% of gdp and a massive headache sorting out th resulting problems


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Seriously, though. . .
> 
> "If there are independence negotiations, iScotland will essentially be a supplicant to rUK, so weak that it largely has to accept what rUK offers.  Scottish voters need to bear that in mind when they head to the poll."
> 
> If the situation would be like that after a yes vote, why is London desperate to avoid it?



I already said I don't agree with everything in that piece, and the bit you've quoted strikes me as hyperbole, but there's no contradiction between the UK state seeking to avoid Scottish independence but then maximising its advantages at any negotiations.

Of course, if they do as badly at the latter as they have at the former, they may end up pissing away those advantages, but I wouldn't bet on it just yet.


----------



## newbie (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> And I repeat, why even raise that as a relevant point? Is the SNLA biding its time in the glens, or something? Is the Orange Order stockpiling machetes? (actually don't answer that).


because it's in the strategic interest of the rUK state and the individual interests of its citizens.  'Failed state' are not words that had occurred to me prior to reading the article, but I understand why the author says what he does and I agree with him (and with what andysays).



> As for key objectives would be for rUK to retain some kind of military presence in the northern near abroad, so I would expect some kind of fudge that would allow rUK 'treaty ports' north of the wall.


tbh I think that's more an objective for the US than for rUK- but even then Echelon doesn't need Scotland and there's not that much that can be done from north of the border that can't be done from south, is there? Except Trident, which is a Big Question.


> Your link raises the point that rUK could be an ally for Scot membership of NATO and EU - an alliance with  Scotland inside those bodies would also be an asset for the rUK.


it would, but there have been posts on this thread questioning the iS ability to provide much in the way of army, navy, airforce, and to question whether another tiny state is of any benefit to Nato, so I'm not sure how far rUK will go to gain such a minnow as ally. Nor how much influence that will have, given that its own direct, warfighting reach will be diminished.  
As for the EU, I don't see what's in it for 27 of the existing 28 except dilution of their individual voices and promotion of the (unpopular) UK voice from 1 to 2. So although there would be some benefit to rUK, it will come at whatever price the other 27 can extract.

tbh these questions are way beyond my competence anyway, however much I may wibble about them, what I care about is how this affects me. rUK military bases north of the border, Scotland in Nato or the EU, tbh I don't actually care very much, those are their problems.  The only affect on me will be, as I said earlier and Danny took umbrage about, passports and currency exchange at the border, which is not a Big Question at all. For me.



> I don't think it makes sense to suggest that iScotland would be left to wander alone through the world, like a pregnant servant girl cast out into the snow by her Victorian employer.


fair enough, but that's an appeal to sentiment, not a hard headed negotiating position.  Once the dust settles, and the negotiations start in earnest, fledgling iS diplomatic and fiscal institutions will come up against the experienced and hardnosed (r)UK machine. On each and every point both sides will be looking to their own advantage, not at sentiment. And fwiw, I expect those negotiating on behalf of the state that nominally represents my interests to go in hard and extract every single concession they can that's in 'our'* best interests, just as with any other foreign country.

* 'our' is a very loaded term I know, but I can't think of any other way to put it.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2014)

newbie said:


> ...And fwiw, I expect those negotiating on behalf of the state that nominally represents my interests to go in hard and extract every single concession they can that's in 'our'* best interests, just as with any other foreign country.
> 
> * 'our' is a very loaded term I know, but I can't think of any other way to put it.



Your use of the term "our" reminds me to point out that, if/when these negotiations do take place, those conducting them will be negotiating on behalf of (what they see as) their interests, ie the ruling class of rUK *or* iS, rather than the interests or wishes of the people.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2014)

Much of the ruling class in rUK is also the ruling class in iS, isn't it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2014)

pretty much. aristocracy and political/business elites.


have we had Duncan Ballntyne's voice on this matter yet?

I just want to hear him say 'for that reason, I'm out' again


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2014)

cesare said:


> Much of the ruling class in rUK is also the ruling class in iS, isn't it?



Yeah, there's clearly some overlap (conjures up a picture of those who are members of both running back and forth from one side of the table to the other during the negotiations...)

But I'm referring more to them representing those interests than to who the actual individual negotiators will be. And if all this goes ahead, then the perceived interests of the rUK ruling class will be different, at least in some ways, from the perceived interests of the iS ruling class.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2014)

Calling it iS makes it sould like an apple sponsored islamic state btw


----------



## newbie (Sep 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> Your use of the term "our" reminds me to point out that, if/when these negotiations do take place, those conducting them will be negotiating on behalf of (what they see as) their interests, ie the ruling class of rUK *or* iS, rather than the interests or wishes of the people.


of course, that's why I highlighted how loaded it is.  But I really didn't know how else to put it without writing an essay


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2014)

newbie said:


> of course, that's why I highlighted how loaded it is.  But I really didn't know how else to put it without writing an essay



Yes, I'm not suggesting you don't realise this, I just thought it warranted stressing further/being made even more explicit.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Calling it iS makes it sould like an apple sponsored islamic state btw



I can see the Daily Mail headlines now...


----------



## newbie (Sep 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> Yeah, there's clearly some overlap (conjures up a picture of those who are members of both running back and forth from one side of the table to the other during the negotiations...)


I posted about elections further up, but some 'expert' (another loaded term) on the radio said that the 2015 elections will take place as expected, that Scottish MPs will abstain on matters affecting rUK only but will vote on matters affecting Scotland. Loading the dice or what?  I doubt whether, in practice, it will make much difference, but the principle, that Scottish voters are represented (and another) on both sides of the table and the rest of us on one side only,  cannot be right.

I can't remember who he was, and his certainty on what will happen is as baffling as many of the certainties expressed on this thread. I don't think there'll be an outbreak of happiness and joy this side of the border if the implications of that sink in.

that the ruling class will dominate both sides of the table, and especially that the 500 people who own almost all of Scottish land will probably also own the table, well that probably won't be allowed to sink in.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> But I've never been to me.



Idris working his voodoo very effectively today i see.


----------



## coley (Sep 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's as though they want people to vote 'yes'.


Always had a sneaking suspicion this is the case esp,after Blairs attempts to get rid of the NE.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Idris working his voodoo very effectively today i see.



Muh wha ha hahahahaha


----------



## quiquaquo (Sep 12, 2014)

coley said:


> Always had a sneaking suspicion this is the case esp,after Blairs attempts to get rid of the NE.



That one passed me by, what did the bastard want to do the North East in particular?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Muh wha ha hahahahaha


Do Clegg next!  Do Clegg!


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Do Clegg next!  Do Clegg!



Well, I don't normally do requests, but in this case. . .


----------



## coley (Sep 12, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> That one passed me by, what did the bastard want to do the North East in particular?



We had a vote on a regional assembly, IIRC it was turned down by three quarters of those that voted mainly because it seemed that it was designed to shift responsibility for the region from Westminster to Brussels via the "council for regions" or some such.
Wouldn't be surprised if the establishment elite don't want to get rid of Scotland while crying lots of crocodile tears.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 12, 2014)

newbie said:


> I posted about elections further up, but some 'expert' (another loaded term) on the radio said that the 2015 elections will take place as expected, that Scottish MPs will abstain on matters affecting rUK only but will vote on matters affecting Scotland. Loading the dice or what?  I doubt whether, in practice, it will make much difference, but the principle, that Scottish voters are represented (and another) on both sides of the table and the rest of us on one side only,  cannot be right.
> 
> I can't remember who he was, and his certainty on what will happen is as baffling as many of the certainties expressed on this thread. I don't think there'll be an outbreak of happiness and joy this side of the border if the implications of that sink in.
> 
> that the ruling class will dominate both sides of the table, and especially that the 500 people who own almost all of Scottish land will probably also own the table, well that probably won't be allowed to sink in.


For someone who writes such long posts about political matters you have staggeringly little understanding of the subject


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> is that because your arguments won't stand the slightest scrutiny?


 No. It is because the whole business has become very acrimonious.

The arguments for a 'NO!' vote are many and self evident.

Higher prices, as evidenced by statements from companies such as John Lewis.

Either using the €, or a stand alone currency which would be on par with the Zimbabwean Dollar.

Compulsory enrolment in Schengen, meaning a need to maintain border controls between Scotland and England and N.I.

Huge spending promises, with no hard figures as to how they would be funded.

The ongoing insistence that Scotland would be in currency union with the residual UK is delusional, yet Salmond insists that it will happen. Let us assume for a moment that it did happen, the B of E would be controlling the flow of money and interest rates. An independent country without control over its own finances? Risible.

Money is already flowing out of Scotland, and B of S and RBS have stated that their HQ's would move south, and of course, that is where their CT would be paid, not in Scotland.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> And has Salmond or anyone else on the yes side threatened London with "meet our demands or we shoot this wee dug"?
> 
> The 26 counties remained heavily dependent on UK up until the 1970s, when EEC membership allowed the state to diversify its export markets - but the Irish state also displayed room for manouevre within that dependency, by remaining neutral during the war (a legitimate and necessary action, by the way) and pursuing an independent foreign policy after the war (which is why you often had Irish troops in UN missions) and also building an independent economic development strategy after 1960 and Sean Lemass' Programme for Economic Expansion.
> 
> You might respond that the Republic of Ireland was and remains an utterly fucked-up and dysfunctional society, and you'd be entirely correct on that point - but that's not the result of Irish independence, it's the result of the failure of the Irish to use their independence properly.



And what makes you think that an independent Scotland would fare any better? The flow of talent out of Eire is in full swing... again, and Salmond, who once held up the example of Eire 'The Celtic Tiger' as a model for Scotland, has gone very quiet on the subject.

As to 'failed state' status, had Scotland carried the load of the failure of RBS and B of S on its own, we would have been dining on bean on toast for a century.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> AThe flow of talent out of Eire is in full swing... .



I know. In fact, I'm something of a . . . _swinger _myself.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 12, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Salmond and the SNP have won already haven't they - Devo Max is in the bag isn't it ?



Unfortunately.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> probably because all the ones he knows are old tory twits



'Better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak and confirm it'.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 12, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> I know. In fact, I'm something of a . . . _swinger _myself.



It is dreadful, a vicious circle; the people that are needed to bring prosperity, are the people who are leaving.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 12, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Unfortunately.



sorry, i don't see whats wrong with devo-max? going by the polls in 2011/2012/2013 if devo-max had either been on the ballot or on the statute books 'yes' would consider themselves fortunate to get 30%...


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Devo Max is in the bag isn't it ?


No.

What's on offer is not devo max.  All that's actually on offer is a timetable to talk about possible extra powers.  And the range of proposals that will be talked about do not include devo max. 

Darling (head of Better Together) says:  "It's not new powers - the powers have already been announced".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29099431


----------



## coley (Sep 12, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> No. It is because the whole business has become very acrimonious.
> 
> The arguments for a 'NO!' vote are many and self evident.
> 
> ...



And all those civil service jobs being relocated in England


----------



## coley (Sep 12, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> No.
> 
> What's on offer is not devo max.  All that's actually on offer is a timetable to talk about possible extra powers.  And the range of proposals that will be talked about do not include devo max.
> 
> ...



Don't trust the swines, vote yes


----------



## Dandred (Sep 12, 2014)

Anyone have any idea of what will become of Disclosure Scotland? 
Getting a CBC from England/Wales is hard work from out if the UK, the DS is really simple.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 12, 2014)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...ning-post-yes-vote-says-jim-sillars-1-3539754

Heh ...genius .......


> This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks
> 
> He added: “BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors



No capital flight ?.....nah !


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 12, 2014)

Nice positive message:


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 12, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> It is dreadful, a vicious circle; the people that are needed to bring prosperity, are the people who are leaving.



I don't bring prosperity, I BRING THE NOISE.


----------



## coley (Sep 12, 2014)

Tankus said:


> http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...ning-post-yes-vote-says-jim-sillars-1-3539754
> 
> Heh ...genius .......
> 
> ...



They won't even bother locking the doors behind them


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2014)

Tankus said:


> http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...ning-post-yes-vote-says-jim-sillars-1-3539754
> 
> Heh ...genius .......
> 
> ...



Yet more unrealistic bollocks. The SNP proposes joining the EU, which has very private capital-friendly rules on such things. 

On the one hand, the SNP talks big on social justice. On the other, they are cosying up to big business and offering to sell Scottish workers on the cheap by slashing business taxes. 

The amount of bullshit coming out from both sides in this campaign is astonishing.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yet more unrealistic bollocks. The SNP proposes joining the EU, which has very private capital-friendly rules on such things.
> 
> On the one hand, the SNP talks big on social justice. On the other, they are cosying up to big business and offering to sell Scottish workers on the cheap by slashing business taxes.
> 
> The amount of bullshit coming out from both sides in this campaign is astonishing.


Jim Sillars isn't the SNP. The Yes campaign isn't the SNP.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Jim Sillars isn't the SNP. The Yes campaign isn't the SNP.


Maybe not, but the first government in an independent Scotland will certainly be run by the SNP, so what they say they will do matters, especially as a lot of the things done in the first few years will be very hard to reverse. Will they deliver more social justice than they currently do or less, for instance? I don't think the answer is necessarily more, given some of their ideas about attracting foreign investment.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe not, but the first government in an independent Scotland will certainly be run by the SNP, so what they say they will do matters, especially as a lot of the things done in the first few years will be very hard to reverse. Will they deliver more social justice than they currently do or less, for instance? I don't think the answer is necessarily more, given some of their ideas about attracting foreign investment.


You're replying to an article telling us what Jim Sillars would like to see in an independent Scotland but then you're talking about the SNP.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 12, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> 'Better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak and confirm it'.


Shush then!


----------



## Diamond (Sep 12, 2014)

newbie said:


> There's an academic blog post here which is the first serious attempt I've noticed to look at post-yes negotiations and ask what is in whose interests.  Its conclusion is much the same as mine, that the new Scottish state has little to offer rUK and little bargaining power.
> 
> _"an independent Scotland would remain heavily dependent on rUK in a large number of ways. These ways are important for iScotland, but not particularly for its much larger neighbour. To secure an advantageous ongoing arrangement, it has to be able to make convincing proposals to rUK that deliver things rUK wants or needs – and the list of those, once there has been a Yes vote, is small."_
> 
> ...



Very interesting reading.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 12, 2014)

My law firm has just circulated a note to clients this afternoon, advising them of the risks that they see arising from the referendum result.  I don't think it's confidential but I'm reluctant to post it up as they probably want to keep the advice under wraps for the meantime (it's also quite technical).

The note makes for pretty interesting reading, not least because most of the advice is almost identical to that provided to clients when there seemed to be a real prospect of Greece leaving the Eurozone around 2011/12.  I remember doing work on that then preparing a couple of presentations on the matter - the issues are broadly similar, although there are peculiar complications to Scotland that makes the matter there even more complex - Trident, border controls, EU membership etc...

The bottom line though is that law firms and their clients (including HMG) are probably a lot more prepared than people expect for a "yes" result, given that they have been consistently running through various simulations involving Greece (or another peripheral EU member) exiting the eurozone since the start of the crisis there roughly four years ago.

Of particular interest I remember, were the forecasts involving Germany and other stronger partners exiting the eurozone first - they were pretty fanciful at the time but needed to be explored as they were not totally unrealistic.  Those simulations would seem to broadly map on to post-independence negotiations between rUK and iScotland and would support the analysis linked to by newbie.

There will be a lot of these notes flying around, prepared by banks, law firms, consultancies and so on in the following few days.  It'll be interesting to keep an eye out for them.  Nomura's economics analysis seemed to be leaked pretty readily and always made for interesting reading so it'd be worth keeping an eye out for their briefings.


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2014)

I think the yes vote in the Scottish referendum is a lock. Paisley said that there'd be a independent Scotland over his dead body.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yet more unrealistic bollocks. The SNP proposes joining the EU


Jim doesn't, though.  He opposes EU membership.  (I reviewed his book, "In Place of Fear II", on the Big Thread).

The point Sillars makes, has always made, is that after independence, the Labour Party in Scotland has the opportunity to realign itself; to get closer to what Sillars thinks is its roots. (Because the Westminster pull is rightward, due to parties chasing swing votes in South Eastern marginals). He would then, he says, rejoin the Scottish Labour Party.  He believes such a party would win a Scottish election.  He makes no bones about the fact that he thinks the SNP is the vehicle for independence, but not the party he wants to see winning post independence, nor the party he thinks the electorate would gravitate towards.

He is not claiming that he thinks the SNP will do those things (or the other measures he outlines in his book).

You may disagree with him, but that's his analysis.  (It's, incidentally, at the root of his 2 decade rift with Salmond, mended only as his wife was dying from Parkinsons).


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus  Here's my review of Sillars' book.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2014)

weepiper said:


> You're replying to an article telling us what Jim Sillars would like to see in an independent Scotland but then you're talking about the SNP.


And this is a point worth re-emphasising.  The Yes movement is far wider than just the SNP.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2014)

Was reposting stuff oops


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 12, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Jim Sillars isn't the SNP. The Yes campaign isn't the SNP.



Really? Was it the Seventh Day Adventists who were the authors of the referendum then? As to the campaign, Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative are on the 'No' side, who does that leave driving the 'Yes' campaign I wonder?  Sillars, is an idiot, always was.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 12, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> And this is a point worth re-emphasising.  The Yes movement is far wider than just the SNP.



I take it that the 'Yes' people will find it unbearable to be in Scotland when they lose? Where could they go I wonder? The Utter Hebrides is fairly empty, perhaps they could go there?

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome

That poll which put 'Yes' narrowly close has galvanised the 'No' campaign, 'Yes' have hitherto been the more vociferous, that has changed.


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2014)

Yes they Galvanized Clegg, Cameron and Millband to campaign. Cameron and Clegg devastating popular north of border. 

I know this sounds horribly cliched but yes it is the undecided that will carry this, and this is why I think it will go "No". If you're unsure about independence at this stage in the game, all the negative campaigning will probably ensure you'd err on the side of caution. If Scotland's demographic was younger I could see it going the other way, but all this "they'll destroy your pensions" crap will win it in the end. Depressingly.


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I take it that the 'Yes' people will find it unbearable to be in Scotland when they lose? Where could they go I wonder? The Utter Hebrides is fairly empty, perhaps they could go there?
> 
> http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome
> 
> That poll which put 'Yes' narrowly close has galvanised the 'No' campaign, 'Yes' have hitherto been the more vociferous, that has changed.



I think in the last few days Cameron will drop enough sweeteners and powers for the devolved scottish parliament that they'll have their own army and navy.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Sep 12, 2014)

If David Cameron is against something, I am in favour of it.

It's that fuckin' simple.


----------



## coley (Sep 12, 2014)

8den said:


> Yes they Galvanized Clegg, Cameron and Millband to campaign. Cameron and Clegg devastating popular north of border.
> 
> I know this sounds horribly cliched but yes it is the undecided that will carry this, and this is why I think it will go "No". If you're unsure about independence at this stage in the game, all the negative campaigning will probably ensure you'd err on the side of caution. If Scotland's demographic was younger I could see it going the other way, but all this "they'll destroy your pensions" crap will win it in the end. Depressingly.



That,and all those who are directly or indirectly employed by UK Ltd, don't even think it will be particularly close.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 12, 2014)

8den said:


> Yes they Galvanized Clegg, Cameron and Millband to campaign. Cameron and Clegg devastating popular north of border.
> 
> I know this sounds horribly cliched but yes it is the undecided that will carry this, and this is why I think it will go "No". If you're unsure about independence at this stage in the game, all the negative campaigning will probably ensure you'd err on the side of caution. If Scotland's demographic was younger I could see it going the other way, but all this "they'll destroy your pensions" crap will win it in the end. Depressingly.



https://www.facebook.com/BetterTogetherEdinburgh?fref=nf

Really? 

Scroll down, third item down at the moment.


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> If David Cameron is against something, I am in favour of it.
> 
> It's that fuckin' simple.



Cameron said it would "break his heart" if the yes vote won. So doubleplus good.

It would be his legacy forever remembered as the pm who broke up the union. Meanwhile if the union survives he'll just be  that Etonian shit who broken the NHS, faith school  bedroom taxing shithead who made the terminally ill work, and oversaw foodbanks becoming a word in the fucking dictionary.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 12, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> https://www.facebook.com/BetterTogetherEdinburgh?fref=nf
> 
> Really?
> 
> Scroll down, third item down at the moment.



No great surprises there. Boroughmuir is the nearest thing you can get to a private school without actually paying fees.


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> https://www.facebook.com/BetterTogetherEdinburgh?fref=nf
> 
> Really?
> 
> Scroll down, third item down at the moment.



Yes I imagine a school with one of the boundaries of some of Edinburgh's most affluent areas would vote "No". That's not exactly a accurate description of the country as a whole. 

Most polls are putting it neck and neck. 

Please don't think you're indicative of Scotland you Scottish Tory Deviant Weirdo.


----------



## Combustible (Sep 12, 2014)

8den said:


> If Scotland's demographic was younger I could see it going the other way, but all this "they'll destroy your pensions" crap will win it in the end. Depressingly.



It is interesting that in both the latest YouGov and ICM polls, No is leading among 16-24 year olds but Yes leads in the next age bracket up (25-34/39). There is a similar trend in a lot of YouGov Westminster polls, where the Tories tend to do better with 16-24s than 25-34. The trouble is these subgroups are not necessarily representative of the age groups as a whole and I imagine this is more of an issue with YG, where the panels are more self selecting.


----------



## JTG (Sep 12, 2014)

Are these age splits available for other polls? Any deviation?


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2014)

Combustible said:


> It is interesting that in both the latest YouGov and ICM polls, No is leading among 16-24 year olds but Yes leads in the next age bracket up (25-34/39). There is a similar trend in a lot of YouGov Westminster polls, where the Tories tend to do better with 16-24s than 25-34. The trouble is these subgroups are not necessarily representative of the age groups as a whole and I imagine this is more of an issue with YG, where the panels are more self selecting.



They joke is YouGov is apparently that YouGuv stand's for "What would You like the poll to say Guv?"


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I take it that the 'Yes' people will find it unbearable to be in Scotland when they lose?


Why do you take that?  

What you mean is: "here's something I've made up".


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 12, 2014)

Does anybody in England, except politicians, actually give a fuck whether Scotland becomes independent or not? Apart from the media and here, I've not heard one person mention this dullest of referendums anywhere at all.


----------



## JTG (Sep 12, 2014)

I have


----------



## Combustible (Sep 12, 2014)

JTG said:


> Are these age splits available for other polls? Any deviation?



I think all polling companies publish complete tables. I haven't looked at very many but the latest Survation poll has No leading for 16-24 year olds (with a small sample), while they are equal for 25-34 year olds. I don't think too much can be made of these numbers as pollsters are often keen to point out.


----------



## coley (Sep 12, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Does anybody in England, except politicians, actually give a fuck whether Scotland becomes independent or not? Apart from the media and here, I've not heard one person mention this dullest of referendums anywhere at all.



Lot of interest in this neck of the woods,given the hope that if they are daft enough to vote yes,then some of the jobs lost there will be relocated here.
Plus can we have their Barnett dosh if they bugger off


----------



## 8den (Sep 12, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Does anybody in England, except politicians, actually give a fuck whether Scotland becomes independent or not? Apart from the media and here, I've not heard one person mention this dullest of referendums anywhere at all.



I think no one cared when they thought it wasn't going to happen. They're now bricking it.


----------



## JTG (Sep 12, 2014)

coley said:


> Lot of interest in this neck of the woods,given the hope that if they are daft enough to vote yes,then some of the jobs lost there will be relocated here.
> Plus can we have their Barnett dosh if they bugger off


And they can keep their net contribution to HM Treasury - an extra £0.7 billion


----------



## Tankus (Sep 12, 2014)

how do they contribute to the EU ? if he insists that they are part of it  ...what's the mechanism ? who does he pay , and with what , from where   ? 

....and we (UK) should get an immediate EU contribution rebate of at least 10% ....


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 12, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> And this is a point worth re-emphasising.  The Yes movement is far wider than just the SNP.[/QUOTE


For what it's worth, if we can persuade Cumbria (for geographical continuity purposes), I'm all in favour of Merseyside going Scottish. I've had quite enough of Tory cunts.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 12, 2014)

Diamond said:


> My law firm has just circulated a note to clients this afternoon, advising them of the risks that they see arising from the referendum result.  .


 Strangely enough, I've just received a note about the risks to urban if you left.


----------



## coley (Sep 12, 2014)

Tankus said:


> how do they contribute to the EU ? if he insists that they are part of it  ...what's the mechanism ? who does he pay , and with what , from where   ?
> 
> ....and we (UK) should get an immediate EU contribution rebate of at least 10% ....


We will also get an increase in life expectancy and a decrease in annual rainfall (@MTW)


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 12, 2014)

referring to the OP question it might mean compulsory heritage musical retrospectives on a denationalised Scottish Broadcasting Corporation with programmes such as this ... ye gran will be hapeee !




Plus Dr Finlay's Casebook might be compulsory viewing - I reckon Janet was having a highland fling with the good Doctor.


----------



## coley (Sep 12, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> referring to the OP question it might mean compulsory heritage musical retrospectives on a denationalised Scottish Broadcasting Corporation with programmes such as this ... ye gran will be hapeee !
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If they vote yes, than it's nowt mair then they deserve


----------



## Sue (Sep 12, 2014)

Well, this is fun. And original.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Jim doesn't, though.  He opposes EU membership.  (I reviewed his book, "In Place of Fear II", on the Big Thread).
> 
> The point Sillars makes, has always made, is that after independence, the Labour Party in Scotland has the opportunity to realign itself; to get closer to what Sillars thinks is its roots. (Because the Westminster pull is rightward, due to parties chasing swing votes in South Eastern marginals). He would then, he says, rejoin the Scottish Labour Party.  He believes such a party would win a Scottish election.  He makes no bones about the fact that he thinks the SNP is the vehicle for independence, but not the party he wants to see winning post independence, nor the party he thinks the electorate would gravitate towards.
> 
> ...





weepiper said:


> You're replying to an article telling us what Jim Sillars would like to see in an independent Scotland but then you're talking about the SNP.



I'm talking about the SNP because that's who will get in. But I admit that I've jumped in with both size 10s here and misjudged Sillars somewhat. He appears to be a man of substance. 

But the real power brokers are not people of substance. The clowns at the forefront of the no campaign clearly, but Salmond, too, is not a person of substance. He reminds me of Neil Kinnock in the way he's taken his party and the way he plays to capital the closer he gets to power. And we all know where Kinnock ended up with his cushy tax-free establishment job at the EU.

It is an interesting point to ask how Scottish politics would realign following indepedence. But once the deals have been done by the likes of Salmond regarding the EU, NATO, the conditions for keeping the pound, and all the other positions a new Scotland will commit to, how much room will there be left? How will it be different from the rest of the UK?


----------



## JTG (Sep 12, 2014)

The amount of tired stereotyping and cliched ignorance that's been bandied around by people the last few weeks - even here on supposedly enlightened Urban - makes me surprised more of them don't want to leave tbh


----------



## Tankus (Sep 12, 2014)

but ........what about the sheep ?


----------



## coley (Sep 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm talking about the SNP because that's who will get in. But I admit that I've jumped in with both size 10s here and misjudged Sillars somewhat. He appears to be a man of substance.
> 
> But the real power brokers are not people of substance. The clowns at the forefront of the no campaign clearly, but Salmond, too, is not a person of substance. He reminds me of Neil Kinnock in the way he's taken his party and the way he plays to capital the closer he gets to power. And we all know where Kinnock ended up with his cushy tax-free establishment job at the EU.
> 
> It is an interesting point to ask how Scottish politics would realign following indepedence. But once the deals have been done by the likes of Salmond regarding the EU, NATO, the conditions for keeping the pound, and all the other positions a new Scotland will commit to, how much room will there be left? How will it be different from the rest of the UK?



Not a lot, but Salmond and cronies will have their fingers wrapped around Scotland's  purse strings, to their mutual benefit.
Still, totally irrelevant,The vote won't even be close.


----------



## Sue (Sep 13, 2014)

coley said:


> Not a lot, but* Salmond and cronies will have their fingers wrapped around Scotland's  purse strings, to their mutual benefit.*
> Still, totally irrelevant,The vote won't even be close.


Not sure I understand what you mean by the bit in bold?


----------



## newbie (Sep 13, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:
			
		

> For someone who writes such long posts about political matters you have staggeringly little understanding of the subject



So educate me, O guru. Explain post yes parliamentary voting, pick holes in what I said.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Strangely enough, I've just received a note about the risks to urban if you left.



Negligible?


----------



## Nylock (Sep 13, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> <....>
> or a stand alone currency which would be on par with the Zimbabwean Dollar.
> <..>


ffs have a word with yourself


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 13, 2014)

Nylock said:


> ffs have a word with yourself



For a currency to have worth, it has to have a wee bit more to it than a picture of Wee Fat Eck on the front. Gold reserves, for example. Whereas Sterling is by no means gold backe


ibilly99 said:


> referring to the OP question it might mean compulsory heritage musical retrospectives on a denationalised Scottish Broadcasting Corporation with programmes such as this ... ye gran will be hapeee !
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The fawning shown by STV, especially that of the odious cunt Ponsonby, indicates that it hopes to be the state mouthpiece, if the people of Scotland, in an act of monumental mass stupidity, decide to back Salmond.


----------



## elbows (Sep 13, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> For a currency to have worth, it has to have a wee bit more to it than a picture of Wee Fat Eck on the front. Gold reserves, for example. Whereas Sterling is by no means gold backed



Sterling survives for a number of reasons, despite the long-term balance of trade deficit and current account deficit. Large ones include the city of Londons financial institutions making us a large cog in the global borrowing system, and north sea oil & gas revenues. The dramatic drop in north sea oil production over the last decade+ has been at least partially offset by the large increase in the oil price.

So the fear, uncertainty and doubt over sterling which the No campaign whipped up is misleading in the sense that there is a strong mutual dependency there, it's not a one-sided thing.


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 13, 2014)

Freedom for Wessex!

We drove out the Vikings, after all. People have such short memories.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2014)

elbows said:


> So the fear, uncertainty and doubt over sterling which the No campaign whipped up is misleading in the sense that there is a strong mutual dependency there, it's not a one-sided thing.


Salmond and Sturgeon's claims that they'll simply be able to share the current pound are grossly misleading tho.  Sure, in the end, rump UK would probably agree, but with such strings attached it'll make the Euro look attractive. And it's no good arguing that it'd only be for a few years while a Scottish Sterling is brought in,  the EU would never allow it.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 13, 2014)

i heard someone saying that you dont need permission to use another currency...for example there are a number of countries around the world that use the US dollar as their primary currency... i dont really know enough about it to know if thats a good counterargument or not


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2014)

These headlines are just getting stupid


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2014)

J Ed said:


> These headlines are just getting stupid


----------



## weepiper (Sep 13, 2014)

J Ed said:


> These headlines are just getting stupid


The plague of locusts and the rains of blood will be along shortly.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i heard someone saying that you dont need permission to use another currency...for example there are a number of countries around the world that use the US dollar as their primary currency... i dont really know enough about it to know if thats a good counterargument or not


that's only really countries where the official local currency is dodgy as fuck and can't be traded overseas (or only on really crap terms).  They're not really places Scotland aspires to be.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Sep 13, 2014)

I think the chinese Yuan may be the one to adopt. If you're not having one of your own. Have the one most people use.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Sep 13, 2014)

belboid said:


> Salmond and Sturgeon's claims that they'll simply be able to share the current pound are grossly misleading tho.  Sure, in the end, rump UK would probably agree, but with such strings attached it'll make the Euro look attractive. And it's no good arguing that it'd only be for a few years while a Scottish Sterling is brought in,  the EU would never allow it.



A Scottish currency would be perfectly OK in Europe. Countries are required to join the Euro when they meet the convergence criteria but until then they continue to have their own currency. Sweden just keeps missing the criteria.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2014)

19sixtysix said:


> A Scottish currency would be perfectly OK in Europe. Countries are required to join the Euro when they meet the convergence criteria but until then they continue to have their own currency. Sweden just keeps missing the criteria.


Sweden already had it's own currency tho. UK sterling would be fine by them, but Scottish?  Whole new ball game.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2014)

19sixtysix said:


> A Scottish currency would be perfectly OK in Europe. Countries are required to join the Euro when they meet the convergence criteria but until then they continue to have their own currency. Sweden just keeps missing the criteria.



Aren't new entrants to the EU required to effectively write the convergence criteria (i.e austerity, no useful deficits etc) into their legal functioning? So that they get all that good stuff and no euro yet.

They're not really left alone until they meet the convergence criteria - they are forced to adopt measures to meet that criteria as part of early level EU entry.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 13, 2014)

"a day of reconing!" eh .. nice


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Aren't new entrants to the EU required to effectively write the convergence criteria (i.e austerity, no useful deficits etc) into their legal functioning? So that they get all that good stuff and no euro yet.
> 
> They're not really left alone until they meet the convergence criteria - they are forced to adopt measures to meet that criteria as part of early level EU entry.


and they'll be forced to adopt such criteria to have a UK currency union too. Which Salmond will then blame for backing out of every promise he's made now.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Aren't new entrants to the EU required to effectively write the convergence criteria (i.e austerity, no useful deficits etc) into their legal functioning? So that they get all that good stuff and no euro yet.
> 
> They're not really left alone until they meet the convergence criteria - they are forced to adopt measures to meet that criteria as part of early level EU entry.



But according to Salmond (and at least one person on this thread) all that will simply be ignored and an independent Scotland will be welcomed into the EU on whatever terms it chooses on day 1.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 13, 2014)

Salmond wants to remain in the EU, remain in Nato, remain with the BofE in a currency Union, he doesn't want Nuclear Subs - but apart from that he may as well stay in the UK!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Salmond wants to remain in the EU, remain in Nato, remain with the BofE in a currency Union, he doesn't want Nuclear Subs - but apart from that he may as well stay in the UK!



You missed out the monarchy


----------



## weltweit (Sep 13, 2014)

J Ed said:


> You missed out the monarchy


Yes silly me, so I did. Salmond wants to retain the Queen, the pound, membership of the EU and Nato ..


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes silly me, so I did. Salmond wants to retain the Queen, the pound, membership of the EU and Nato ..



But apart from that what have the Sassenachs ever done for us ?


----------



## coley (Sep 13, 2014)

JTG said:


> The amount of tired stereotyping and cliched ignorance that's been bandied around by people the last few weeks - even here on supposedly enlightened Urban - makes me surprised more of them don't want to leave tbh



Some of us don't take the idea of a 'yes' vote seriously, the Scots aren't stupid, hence the mild ribaldry


----------



## coley (Sep 13, 2014)

andysays said:


> But according to Salmond (and at least one person on this thread) all that will simply be ignored and an independent Scotland will be welcomed into the EU on whatever terms it chooses on day 1.



Aye, but Salmond seems to have managed to make a lot of scots put on a pair of rose tinted specs,despite the evidence to the contrary! The boss of the BoE says no currency union, Salmond says 'no problem' the prez of the EU says " Scotlands admission to the EU is not guaranteed"  Salmond says no problem! Etc etc.


----------



## coley (Sep 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes silly me, so I did. Salmond wants to retain the Queen, the pound, membership of the EU and Nato ..



And the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula
No doubt


----------



## Celyn (Sep 14, 2014)

mauvais said:


> .... A nation that dreamt for so long of _Braveheart _Mel Gibson, but despite it all, can only ever have_ Mad Max_ Mel Gibson



I'm not sure that Scotland has dreamt "for so long", or indeed at all, about bloody "Braveheart", really.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 14, 2014)

coley said:


> Aye, but Salmond seems to have managed to make a lot of scots put on a pair of rose tinted specs,despite the evidence to the contrary! The boss of the BoE says no currency union, Salmond says 'no problem' the prez of the EU says " Scotlands admission to the EU is not guaranteed"  Salmond says no problem! Etc etc.




No, he said that a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty.   Which it is.
He has been through this before.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i heard someone saying that you dont need permission to use another currency...for example there are a number of countries around the world that use the US dollar as their primary currency... i dont really know enough about it to know if thats a good counterargument or not



very true . Cuba uses the US dollar in all its international dealings. But to do that you need a large cash reserve so that you are credible as the lender of last resort. Hong kong does this with the us dollar. We're talking a sizeable percentage of gdp here with the cash reserve, too , which is why all scots should be sceptical about any snp spending promises. 

The alternative is to persuade the bofe to act as scotland's lender of last resort. And according to the head of the bofe that will require scotland agreeing to common tax policies with the uk.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 14, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I take it that the 'Yes' people will find it unbearable to be in Scotland when they lose? Where could they go I wonder? The Utter Hebrides is fairly empty, perhaps they could go there?
> 
> [QUOTE="Sasaferrato, post: 1339
> 
> I think the Hebrides are still part of SCotland, you know.   You might have to look further afield for somewhere to deport 'Yes' voters to. Canada, USA, Australia, Van Diemen's Land?


----------



## Celyn (Sep 14, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> For what it's worth, if we can persuade Cumbria (for geographical continuity purposes), I'm all in favour of Merseyside going Scottish. I've had quite enough of Tory cunts.



I'm afraid we have Tories in Scotland too.    Merseyside, eh?  Building ferries to crosss the Mersey might be good work for the shipyards. I'd prefer you not to bring Paul McCartney with you, though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> very true . Cuba uses the US dollar in all its international dealings. But to do that you need a large cash reserve so that you are credible as the lender of last resort. Hong kong does this with the us dollar. We're talking a sizeable percentage of gdp here with the cash reserve, too , which is why all scots should be sceptical about any snp spending promises.
> 
> The alternative is to persuade the bofe to act as scotland's lender of last resort. And according to the head of the bofe that will require scotland agreeing to common tax policies with the uk.



your fingers must be sore from all that googling you've done between posts?


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 14, 2014)

Holy crap. This is so awful.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...n-no-scotland-fewer-walls-barriers?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> Holy crap. This is so awful.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...n-no-scotland-fewer-walls-barriers?CMP=twt_gu


She says _fricking _in the very first sentence.

The same para has:

"groaned my friend Hugo."


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Sep 14, 2014)

http://wingsoverscotland.com/and-then-my-heart-went-boom/#more-61698

BBC allegedly not reporting accurately shocker!!!


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> She says _fricking _in the very first sentence.
> 
> The same para has:
> 
> "groaned my friend Hugo."



Third paragraph:

"As a wishy-washy liberal who holds fast to the two great central political tenets of our time, as expressed by David Mitchell of this paper – "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that" and "it just goes to show you can't be too careful""

It's all too much.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

The latent bit is _vote lib-dem_. Like me and the other boy.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Sep 14, 2014)

Wales is stirring it up too. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-29189446



> Campaigners say a Yes vote in Scotland would be the spark to do things differently in Wales
> 
> Continue reading the main story
> *Scotland Decides - where does it leave Wales?*
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

Wales is is it?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 14, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes silly me, so I did. Salmond wants to retain the Queen, the pound, membership of the EU and Nato ..


Indeed, states that the Queen will be head of state. I wonder if treasonous bastardly has actually asked her Majesty what she thinks. I should imagine She thinks that his head would look good on a pike at Traitor'a Gate.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed, states that the Queen will be head of state. I wonder if treasonous bastardly has actually asked her Majesty what she thinks. I should imagine She thinks that his head would look good on a pike at Traitor'a Gate.


Yeah? You think she'll refuse to be Queen of Scotland and refuse to appoint Salmond as PM? You're wrong. But if there were a chance she would act like that that would be a good reason to vote YES.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 14, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed, states that the Queen will be head of state. I wonder if treasonous bastardly has actually asked her Majesty what she thinks. I should imagine She thinks that his head would look good on a pike at Traitor'a Gate.


Whit. Seriously.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2014)

is it mental sunday or something


----------



## ddraig (Sep 14, 2014)

nah, silly snday
then MENTAL MONDAY, TUESDAY TWITS, WANKER WEDNESDAY and THREAK OUT THURSDAY!!!!


----------



## andysays (Sep 14, 2014)

But will they all be followed by Freedom Friday?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2014)

count won't be in that quick


----------



## weepiper (Sep 14, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> count won't be in that quick


They're talking about announcing it Friday morning.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 14, 2014)

that table someone posted of times of expected results had some late ones but not that late, ie 7am etc iirc


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

The BBC results program is supposed to go to 6.30 AM if no problems with counts.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 14, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Worse than Stalin.


It's bizarre how many things I've seen comparing him to Hitler.


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2014)

Interesting quote from Galloway:

"Now, if Labour is to get out of its deathbed in Scotland, whatever the result, it’s going to have to become Labour again – real Labour again. I’m ready to help them with that and my goodness they need help with it."

Clearly given up hope of being reelected in Bradford.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2014)

he'll have to do another RT series to keep the cupboards stocked


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> Interesting quote from Galloway:
> 
> "Now, if Labour is to get out of its deathbed in Scotland, whatever the result, it’s going to have to become Labour again – real Labour again. I’m ready to help them with that and my goodness they need help with it."
> 
> Clearly given up hope of being reelected in Bradford.


He's after expanding that 3% he got last time he stood in glasgow.

(And finally my long time ago prediction of where he would end up would be proven correct)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2014)

weepiper said:


> The plague of locusts and the rains of blood will be along shortly.



It's the plague of public arse-itches that I truly fear.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> Interesting quote from Galloway:
> 
> "Now, if Labour is to get out of its deathbed in Scotland, whatever the result, it’s going to have to become Labour again – real Labour again. I’m ready to help them with that and my goodness they need help with it."
> 
> Clearly given up hope of being reelected in Bradford.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 14, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed, states that the Queen will be head of state. I wonder if treasonous bastardly has actually asked her Majesty what she thinks. I should imagine She thinks that his head would look good on a pike at Traitor'a Gate.


Madge will take what she can get.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 14, 2014)

weepiper said:


> They're talking about announcing it Friday morning.



Cool, I thought it might be the weekend or even Monday.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 14, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed, states that the Queen will be head of state. I wonder if treasonous bastardly has actually asked her Majesty what she thinks. I should imagine She thinks that his head would look good on a pike at Traitor'a Gate.



He has bowed to Her Imperial Maj so there should be no need for unpleasantness whatever the outcome. Would be good though if he nationalised Balmoral in the case of Yes and turned it into a world class tourist attraction - would piss off the Saxe-Coburgs no end.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm talking about the SNP because that's who will get in.


I can understand that people outside Scotland don’t really have any sense of what’s going on here.  I don’t blame them for that – if I had to rely on the BBC, I wouldn’t either.  But there are some important points posters from Scotland have been making, that I still think people aren’t fully appreciating.


1.  The SNP is not the whole of the official Yes Scotland. There are others in there, such as the Greens, the SSP and others.  This is not as important as the next two points.

2.  The official Yes Scotland campaign has been left far, far behind by the Yes movement. Yes Scotland is pretty dull and uninspiring (its posters are like adverts for a high street bank) and is not in control of what’s going on.  It doesn’t lead, and the Yes camp doesn’t see it as its leader.  The SNP and Yes Scotland have been as stunned as everyone else by the Yes movement, which is spontaneous and bottom up. 

3.  The level of engagement is staggering.  The No camp hates this, and its representatives are often overtly angry about it.


Let me give you some illustrations.  On Friday, I went to the barber.  He just began talking to me, unbidden, about how he’d changed his mind from No to Yes that week.  (He watched the devo panic, and thought – If more powers are so desirable, why is there only now such enthusiasm from the No politicians?  And if they’re so desirable, why stop at the limited range being offered?) 

I later went to the petrol station.  The two cashiers were discussing what further levels of nationalisation in an independent Scotland it might be possible for the populace to demand, in addition to those offered by Salmond.  Their debate was lively.  (One thought it was limited to what the SNP had on offer, the other thought the people had overtaken the politicians, and the politicians were in no position to stem the public mood).

When I was wearing my Yes badge in the street last week, a stranger – an elderly man – approached me to explain why he was voting No.  We had a friendly discussion on the street, agreed to disagee, shook hands, and went our ways.

On Saturday, there were lively pro Yes street campaigns  – with musicians and public engagement as well as stalls and leaflets - in Dunblane High Street, in Bridge of Allan, and in Stirling, where there were events in Port Street and simultaneously in Friars’ Street.  These towns are right next to each other, (so much so that Stirling University is actually in Bridge of Allan).  The other surrounding towns and villages had their own events, too. When I was an anti poll tax organiser, I could get one event organised in Stirling, but it would have been drawing on people from all the surrounding towns.  Nobody would have expected events simultaneously in all that “catchment” area.  Never mind two simultaneous street events in Stirling as well.

That evening, there was another open public debate here in Dunblane. (There have been several since April, all of them full houses). Both sides provided speakers.  The high school hall was filled to capacity. At the end, 80% of the audience voted Yes in a show of hands.

This is Dunblane.  Not natural Yes territory.  Prior to 2011, the local SNP branch would have been lucky to claim 6 active members.  (Probably still does).  This audience had not been stuffed with SNP supporters – they just don’t have the capacity to do so. 

This debate is alive everywhere every day.  97% of eligible voters have registered to vote.

I have been involved in the miners’ strike, the anti poll tax campaign, the Stop the War campaign, and numerous others.  I’ve seen nothing like it, ever.

People outside of Scotland should appreciate that the Yes movement is not led by the politicians. It is leading itself. I hope and believe that if we vote Yes, the public will is going to be something the political classes will find very hard to manage or resist. People will be pushing the political classes for as much as they can get.  There have not been conditions like this since the political classes after the War had to concede the Welfare State.

I had hoped this would happen, but I didn’t anticipate just how much it would take hold.  It has vastly outstripped my expectations.

Don’t get me wrong.  I still don’t think that parliamentary democracy will deliver socialism or anything like it.  But I don’t think it’s only Westminster that’ll be on the back foot if Yes wins: the SNP will be, too.  We just have to hope that organisations like RIC are prepared to make the most of the engagement!

If you are outside of Scotland, I don’t blame you for your scepticism.  But believe me, what’s going on here is astonishing.  So saying this is something led by the SNP is to miss almost all that is important about this phenomenon.

We are aware that a result of voting Yes will be that the SNP will likely form the first government, but that is not the reason many of us are doing it, and the SNP will soon find out, if it hasn’t already realised, not only are they not in the driving seat now, but if we, the people, can keep our nerve, they won’t be from Friday onwards either.


----------



## andysays (Sep 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I can understand that people outside Scotland don’t really have any sense of what’s going on here.  I don’t blame them for that – if I had to rely on the BBC, I wouldn’t either.  But there are some important points posters from Scotland have been making, that I still think people aren’t fully appreciating...



I think it's really useful (and encouraging) for you to set all that out for those of us not able to witness it firsthand. I do think though that it's maybe useful now to start to seperate out why you and many others are voting Yes, from what you think is actually likely to happen if Yes wins.



danny la rouge said:


> ...We are aware that a result of voting Yes will be that the SNP will likely form the first government, but that is not the reason many of us are doing it, and the SNP will soon find out, if it hasn’t already realised, not only are they not in the driving seat now, but if we, the people, can keep our nerve, they won’t be from Friday onwards either.



How are you going to ensure that you remain in the driving seat and particularly that the things you want, some of which have been part of the official Yes campaign's promises for the future, some of which haven't, are included in the post-Yes settlement? 

I'm thinking mainly, but not exclusively about negotiations and horse trading between the new Scotland and rUK which, as has been said on one or other of these threads, will be between and in the interests of the ruling classes of those two sides, and the voices of RIC etc will, I suggest, not be invited to take part. 

To give an example, the SNP position is that they want to get rid of Trident from Scotland and they want to enter into currency union with rUK. The rUK position will be they want to keep Trident based in Scotland and they don't want currency union. Isn't it possible to imagine a deal whereby Salmond agrees to keep Trident based in Scotland in return for rUK agreeing to currency union?* How are you (the collective you) going to prevent this sort of deal from being made?

*I'm not making a prediction, BTW, just giving this as an example, perhaps an extreme or ridiculous one...


----------



## weltweit (Sep 15, 2014)

I don't think in the event of a Yes vote UK Government will want Trident to remain in Scotland!


----------



## newbie (Sep 15, 2014)

Do you know what Danny, I'm jealous.  I've never experienced what you're describing, I'd like to.

All we have is a vague sense of hurt that we may have to change at someone else's whim. Over the last couple of years this referendum has cropped up in conversation relatively infrequently, but when it has I've found myself saying variants of "it's hard to see how they can have self-determination if we get a vote".

Now Paxman had waded in with pathetic clickbait to make out that's a scandal (Guardian writeup here, tbh the original is barely worth reading, not even for frothing comments.)

are you surprised I'm jealous


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2014)

I've been supporting scots indy since it was touted just based on the 'fuck tories/westminster' angle. Why be even vaugely resentful? They're (hopefully) going to stuff it to the ossified political establishment. Good guns.

Every chance that a yes vote could be agitprop potential down here too.

I know indy means a whole host of other things for those within the polity, but from my angle-  let it happen, with a landslide.


----------



## andysays (Sep 15, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't think in the event of a Yes vote UK Government will want Trident to remain in Scotland!



Maybe not in the long term, but in the short term they are unlikely to be able to arrange a practical alternative before the suggested day of independence.

Anyway, it's not about my specific example, but more about the idea that danny la rouge and others with his outlook (which I broadly agree with) are likely to be shut out of the negotiation process, unless they can ensure their voices are heard.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I can understand that people outside Scotland don’t really have any sense of what’s going on here.  I don’t blame them for that – if I had to rely on the BBC, I wouldn’t either.  But there are some important points posters from Scotland have been making, that I still think people aren’t fully appreciating.
> 
> 
> 1.  The SNP is not the whole of the official Yes Scotland. There are others in there, such as the Greens, the SSP and others.  This is not as important as the next two points.
> ...



This is what democracy looks like


----------



## krink (Sep 15, 2014)

Excellent post Danny, really sounds exciting and promising. Hopefully this will be built upon no matter the outcome of the ref.


----------



## magneze (Sep 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I can understand that people outside Scotland don’t really have any sense of what’s going on here.  I don’t blame them for that – if I had to rely on the BBC, I wouldn’t either.  But there are some important points posters from Scotland have been making, that I still think people aren’t fully appreciating.
> 
> 
> 1.  The SNP is not the whole of the official Yes Scotland. There are others in there, such as the Greens, the SSP and others.  This is not as important as the next two points.
> ...


That's a great post. What you describe is really not what comes over on the news at all. I'm really looking forward to Friday and hoping for a Yes. Not just for Scotland but for the shake-up that must happen to the UK in general.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 15, 2014)

Danny's right. It's incredibly exciting. Everyone, I mean everyone is engaged with it. Most of my friends have expressed their difficulty in thinking about anything else. Even my kids are discussing it with each other at school. The air is fizzing with possibility.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2014)

Thanks for the updates, Danny, good to see it from the inside,

Though I personally feel the BBC is now covering the grassroots stuff there a bit better.

ducks for cover


----------



## Dan U (Sep 15, 2014)

Really interesting post danny la rouge thank you, I admit to missing a lot of that due to following on msm in England.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Sep 15, 2014)

magneze said:


> What you describe is really not what comes over on the news at all.



Bit like this? 

What is portrayed in the media is not how it appears on the streets, not by a long shot. For a long time i've thought the NO would win, that people just wouldn't go for it but the official YES campaign has spawned a movement the really seems to be taking over. 
I really think YES will win now.


----------



## magneze (Sep 15, 2014)

Anonymous1 said:


> Bit like this?


That's a good illustration. Wow.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2014)

http://wingsoverscotland.com/and-then-my-heart-went-boom/


Yes, I thought they, the BBC, were getting better, then I read this

surely one reason is if its a yes then jobs at the BBC go?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think it's really useful (and encouraging) for you to set all that out for those of us not able to witness it firsthand. I do think though that it's maybe useful now to start to seperate out why you and many others are voting Yes, from what you think is actually likely to happen if Yes wins.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, one example I could give is the way a new constitution will be written: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/01/written-constitution16012013




			
				Scottish Government said:
			
		

> “There are some recent and inspiring examples of constitutional renewal involving citizens as well as politicians. In particular, Iceland is an example of modern technologies being used to harness enthusiasm of citizens as well as politicians in the renewal of their constitution.
> 
> “Scotland’s convention will provide an opportunity for everyone to express their views. All political parties will be involved, together with the wider public and civic Scotland.


I can see some really useful input being organised there.

As for Trident, Salmond can't back down on that.  Unilateralism is second only to independence in the core values of his party. His own party wouldn't let him trade Trident for anything, never mind the wider Yes movement.

I do think it'll be a challenge to the working class to stay organised and so on, but it's a challenge I look forward to.  Let's see what we can achieve if Yes wins on Thursday.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Sep 15, 2014)

magneze said:


> That's a good illustration. Wow.



Plenty more like that about.
Some of it is outright deceit, others simply lying by ommision but it's all part of the same strategy.


There was an Orange Order parade in Edinburgh packaged as a rally for the no campaign.
Here's the fluffy family friendly bbc version compared to the ugly truth.
These people really are from a bygone age.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2014)

> a young woman with a life-limiting illness called Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency climbed the face of Edinburgh Castle with oxygen strapped to her back and tubes up her nose. (The only cure for A1AD is a double lung transplant.)
> This is what she did there.
> 
> http://wingsoverscotland.com/we-are-not-afraid/



If you have people who believe in independence like this woman then Scotland will be OK.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 15, 2014)

Its totally going to end up like this


----------



## marty21 (Sep 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I can understand that people outside Scotland don’t really have any sense of what’s going on here.  I don’t blame them for that – if I had to rely on the BBC, I wouldn’t either.  But there are some important points posters from Scotland have been making, that I still think people aren’t fully appreciating.
> 
> 
> 1.  The SNP is not the whole of the official Yes Scotland. There are others in there, such as the Greens, the SSP and others.  This is not as important as the next two points.
> ...


 great post - I am excited about the campaign - only wish I could vote yes as well


----------



## 19sixtysix (Sep 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I can understand that people outside Scotland don’t really have any sense of what’s going on here. I don’t blame them for that – if I had to rely on the BBC, I wouldn’t either. But there are some important points posters from Scotland have been making, that I still think people aren’t fully appreciating.



I was up home last week and I loved it. I was in a cafe with a friend when two girls just started talking to us about it the two more folks joined in. The place felt alive like with the people in control.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2014)

The question is how to maintain that momentum, especially if its a No, but it does sound wonderful.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 15, 2014)

Just seen this on that twitter thing the young people are keen on:







A yes supporter allegedly attacked by no-voting thugs. And I've seen other stuff (without graphic images) saying there have been incidents of a similar nature against "no" voters.

Can anyone there on the spot, e.g. danny la rouge tell us if there's much of this sort of thing happening?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 15, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> A yes supporter allegedly attacked by no-voting thugs. And I've seen other stuff (without graphic images) saying there have been incidents of a similar nature against "no" voters.
> 
> Can anyone there on the spot, e.g. danny la rouge tell us if there's much of this sort of thing happening?


No, there really isn't. There's been a handful of isolated incidents. But, when compared to the scale of the engagement - 4 million conversations - it's vanishingly small.  (Distressing though it is for those at the receiving end).


----------



## gosub (Sep 15, 2014)

How good natured it's been is one of the best bits about it


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 15, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Whit. Seriously.



Nah, not really. We've stopped executing traitors.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 15, 2014)

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 15, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome



Is there a mathematical genius in the house? Who can tell me what to bet on each side to come out making money whoever wins?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 15, 2014)

weepiper said:


> They're talking about announcing it Friday morning.



The count is through the night. I'll be up, armed with bottle of cognac* and a new packet of coffee for the espresso maker. The champagne will be in the fridge, to toast the good sense of the people of Scotland, manifested by voting 'NO!'. 

*My mate from down South will be with me, and if it is 'Yes', I'll be too pissed to care.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 15, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Just seen this on that twitter thing the young people are keen on:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Very probably some lippy idiot who said the wrong thing to the wrong person. Scenes such as these are seen at chucking out time up and down the land.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 15, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Very probably some lippy idiot who said the wrong thing to the wrong person. Scenes such as these are seen at chucking out time up and down the land.


It was a middle aged guy chalking Yes on the pavement outside the Yes for Scotland gig at the Usher Hall who got kicked in the face by two 18 year olds shouting about voting No. Carry on with your prejudice if you like.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Sep 15, 2014)

Ignore tab is so handy.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 15, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Is there a mathematical genius in the house? Who can tell me what to bet on each side to come out making money whoever wins?



By my reckoning you can't at those prices.  Someone will no doubt point out I'm wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2014)

Course you can't.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Every chance that a yes vote could be agitprop potential down here too.



Especially in Wales.  Especially if the YES vote is followed by any kind of Leftist government.

This is going to be such a landslide...


----------



## marty21 (Sep 15, 2014)

weepiper said:


> It was a middle aged guy chalking Yes on the pavement outside the Yes for Scotland gig at the Usher Hall who got kicked in the face by two 18 year olds shouting about voting No. Carry on with your prejudice if you like.


We don't them no voters down here


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2014)

Beckham and Izzard, etc in 'stay together' rally in Trafalgar Square about to begin


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 15, 2014)

Much as I respect English comrades who don't want Scotland to go their own way, I find the invoking of "working class solidarity" argument a little shallow.

Why should Scots tailor their votes to suit the feelings of the left in Wales, Northern Ireland or England? If we are to be ruled by tory psychopath corrupt scum then that will be our problem and responsibility to act thereon.

Why should Scots be denied the opportunity to at least have a chance to be free of the endless cesspit of corporate owned Westminster "government"?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 15, 2014)

treelover said:


> Beckham and Izzard, etc in 'stay together' rally in Trafalgar Square about to begin



So they think people are going to take David Beckham's advice on this matter.

That's real desperation for you right there.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Course you can't.



tbf, you can often use oddschecker to in effect bet into 100%+ books.

not for happening in this two horse race though.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 15, 2014)

treelover said:


> Beckham and Izzard, etc in 'stay together' rally in Trafalgar Square about to begin



There's a rival 'See you Jimmy' rally in the East End with Gazza and Jim Davidson leading the festivities.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Why should Scots be denied the opportunity to at least have a chance to be free of the endless cesspit of corporate owned Westminster "government"?


Is that what independence under current conditions will give them? Or will they get a corporate-owned government of their own? That's what Salmond represents, so in the short term at least, it's the likely outcome.


----------



## quiquaquo (Sep 15, 2014)

Last thing the Yes campaign needs is this wrongmo from the Northern League supporting them: http://video.repubblica.it/edizione...referendum-scozzese/177290/176004?ref=HRESS-1


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Sep 15, 2014)

Exciting times, eh? 

Scotland should be brave and grasp the thistle.  Go for independence Scotland!!!


----------



## weltweit (Sep 15, 2014)

If they vote yes it is going to take a while to identify all the Scots living in England and Wales so they can be repatriated!


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Sep 15, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If they vote yes it is going to take a while to identify all the Scots living in England and Wales so they can be repatriated!


I imagine that they might do what the USA and Canada do... just have an open border and open trade.... at least that's what I think happens in North America. ????


----------



## weltweit (Sep 15, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> I imagine that they might do what the USA and Canada do... just have an open border and open trade.... at least that's what I think happens in North America. ????


Well they have NAFTA, which includes Mexico, but I am not sure about open borders.


----------



## JTG (Sep 15, 2014)

treelover said:


> Beckham and Izzard, etc in 'stay together' rally in Trafalgar Square about to begin


I can definitely see this making all the difference


weltweit said:


> If they vote yes it is going to take a while to identify all the Scots living in England and Wales so they can be repatriated!


I don't want my friends repatriated thanks.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 15, 2014)

JTG said:


> I don't want my friends repatriated thanks.


Sorry mate, them's the rules !!


----------



## cesare (Sep 15, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If they vote yes it is going to take a while to identify all the Scots living in England and Wales so they can be repatriated!


What's put the suggestion of repatriation into your head?


----------



## Sue (Sep 15, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If they vote yes it is going to take a while to identify all the Scots living in England and Wales so they can be repatriated!


It's the way you tell 'em.


----------



## JTG (Sep 15, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Sorry mate, them's the rules !!


They're British subjects with UK passports so unless the government decided to strip them of their citizenship, I can't see them being kicked out, especially as they'll have been living and working down here long enough to apply for UK citizenship anyway


----------



## yield (Sep 15, 2014)

Sorry looked but not sure if already posted. Tommy Sheridan and Andrew Neil on Sunday Politics.


Spoiler


----------



## weltweit (Sep 15, 2014)

JTG said:


> They're British subjects with UK passports so unless the government decided to strip them of their citizenship, I can't see them being kicked out, especially as they'll have been living and working down here long enough to apply for UK citizenship anyway


You cannot be serious .... they all have to go, either back up north or to Brussels


----------



## quiquaquo (Sep 15, 2014)

What are going to be the criteria for Scottish citizenship, one grandparent enough?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 15, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> What are going to be the criteria for Scottish citizenship, one grandparent enough?


I have a Scottish mother, wonder if that will get my son a free Uni place


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2014)

treelover said:


> Beckham and Izzard, etc in 'stay together' rally *in Trafalgar Square* about to begin


 More free gifts to Yes.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I have a Scottish mother, wonder if that will get my son a free Uni place


I got a fuckin' parking ticket in Dumfries once. wish I'd never paid it.


----------



## JTG (Sep 15, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I have a Scottish mother, wonder if that will get my son a free Uni place


Provided Scotland is allowed EU membership it won't matter: English students will be able to have free University education alongside all the other EU nationals


----------



## weltweit (Sep 15, 2014)

The English working in the North North Sea will have to move to the South North Sea and the Scots working in the South North Sea will have to move to the North North Sea. And what of the Russians working in the North North Sea?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 15, 2014)

Just how fucking incompetent do you have to be to be running a country, allow a vote on a fundamental aspect of its constitution then wake up 10 days before the vote and realise you are at risk of losing over 1/4 of your landmass. 

Truly surreal.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 15, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Just how fucking incompetent do you have to be to be running a country, allow a vote on a fundamental aspect of its constitution then wake up 10 days before the vote and realise you are at risk of losing over 1/4 of your landmass.
> 
> Truly surreal.


I agree, how did we get into this mess in the first place ..

Sadly I think the masses of ordinary Scots who are being persuaded things will be better under independence may be sorely disappointed in the coming years, assuming a Yes vote Thursday. And I don't expect assuming a Yes, Salmond to remain leader for that long.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Sep 15, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Just how fucking incompetent do you have to be to be running a country, allow a vote on a fundamental aspect of its constitution then wake up 10 days before the vote and realise you are at risk of losing over 1/4 of your landmass.
> 
> Truly surreal.


This is exactly why Westminster should not be running the country.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 15, 2014)

JTG said:


> Provided Scotland is allowed EU membership it won't matter: English students will be able to have free University education alongside all the other EU nationals


_If_ there is a YES vote I think university fees will be one of the areas that will need to be fought for. I can easily see a independent Scottish government trying to bring them in.


----------



## JTG (Sep 15, 2014)

But, you know, what better proof is needed that Westminster takes vast swathes of the country for granted. Unless you're a swing voter in a small handful of constituencies you may as well not exist.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 15, 2014)

I think westminster has seriously underestimated how bad scottish independence will be for the rest of the UK in economic terms.

Our balance of trade deficit will instantly increase by around 50%

We'll lose around 50% of the UK's natural capital asset base (excluding the valuation placed on the landscape / tourism value).

Looking at things that way, it'd seem that it should be the rUK that's concerned about our economic prospects, international borrowing rates etc rather than Scotland.

Though that does depend a lot on what percentage of the value of the oil and gas actually accrues to Scotland, eg if it's being brought ashore and processed by City of London registered companies etc.

figures extracted from...
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_14-07.pdf
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_361880.pdf


----------



## Celyn (Sep 16, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> ... wake up 10 days before the vote and realise you are at risk of losing over 1/4 of your landmass.
> 
> Truly surreal.



Maybe they thought it was only a tiny tiny patch of land - doing geography by BBC Weather Map.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 16, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Just how fucking incompetent do you have to be to be running a country, allow a vote on a fundamental aspect of its constitution then wake up 10 days before the vote and realise you are at risk of losing over 1/4 of your landmass.
> 
> Truly surreal.



Because a large part of it is actualky empty


----------



## JTG (Sep 16, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Because a large part of it is actualky empty


That in itself is an asset - for tourism, farming, fisheries, renewable energy and the military. It's not like it's just unending desert or tundra


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2014)

JTG said:


> They're British subjects with UK passports so unless the government decided to strip them of their citizenship, I can't see them being kicked out, especially as they'll have been living and working down here long enough to apply for UK citizenship anyway



They are most likely British citizens, not British subjects but, hey ho, seeing as we seem to be playing fast and loose with the facts in this discussion, that's hardly the most egregious transgression.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> What are going to be the criteria for Scottish citizenship, one grandparent enough?



The "detail" is in the White Paper from approximately page 291 onwards, however, reading the text, there are a number of quite serious omissions and misrepresentations.

First and foremost, the text does not deal with a major policy issue - the prospect that those in rUK who figure themselves to be better off in Scotland might head North en masse and claim citizenship.

Second, the text implies that a Scottish passport will be equal to an EU one as a matter of course (apparently by virtue of looking a bit like it!).

Third, Scotland will have no defined international relations.  Not being an EU member, it will have to very quickly negotiate an enormous number of bilateral agreements in order to provide its new citizens with the travel rights that the UK currently enjoys.  No mean feat for a new nation with no foreign service and next to no international clout...

It'll be interesting to see how rUK might deal with citizenship and international relations issues too...


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2014)

I don't know though. Reflecting further on this, it's a nationalistic debate, which is fundamentally emotional.

It brings to mind 1776, although it's worth bearing in mind that that lead to the Articles of Confederation and that the Constitution came many years later after a generation of strife and that, further, a young USA prospered only because the great powers were fighting so fiercely amongst themselves during its infancy.


----------



## newbie (Sep 16, 2014)

It's wider than just bilateral agreements about passports, but so much depends on whether the rUK negotiating stance is more jilted lover than supportive older sibling.  Salmond is obviously expecting, nay demanding, the latter, on everything from currency to energy and easing EU membership.  Whoever succeeds Cameron after he's sacked for breaking his country may well be so pissed off at the vast amount of time, money and opportunity cost this will take they'll force Scotland to argue about every DVD and saucepan and expect all their mates to unfriend it on Facebook.

Without huge support from rUK (or maybe someone else) the Scottish foreign service will need to establish consular representation everywhere its citizens want to travel.  From day 1. If a couple of them get murdered on a beach in Thailand, kidnapped in Syria, nicked for smuggling in Columbia or just seriously ill in Kentucky they'll need a consular machine ready and capable of swinging into action.  We take all that for granted, just as we take passports, Ehic and the foreign validity of driving licenses for granted.  Scots will only be able to do so once all those bilateral agreements have been made, polished and ready for use on day 1.  Or if big sibling rUK provides facilities, countersigns the paperwork, guarantees good behaviour etc. I can see May or Gove or whoever wanting to know what's in it for us.


----------



## iamwithnail (Sep 16, 2014)

Tbf, it needs to have a consular machine ready from Day 1 _in 2016 when independence happens_.  That's still quite a short time to set it up, but it's not like it'll need to be done on Friday.


----------



## newbie (Sep 16, 2014)

that is what I meant, sorry if it wasn't clear.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2014)

Yep.

Salmond has been totally dishonest about basic negotiation theory here.

(much as I detest these terms) What are iScotland and rUK's Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) and Worst Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement (WATNA)?

Once you have established those you can start to game the situation and it really does not look pretty for iScotland.


----------



## newbie (Sep 16, 2014)

well yes but he's a politician trying to win a vote, brutal honesty isn't really to be expected.

I'm surprised though that the No campaign hasn't highlighted the hypothetical consequences of iScotland facing tough 'what's in it for us' negotiating stances.  I guess it doesn't really fit with the 'Better together' campaign message, but that's the way of relationship breakdown, from _please don't leave I can't live without you_ to zero goodwill and a fight about every trivial thing in five minutes flat.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2014)

newbie said:


> well yes but he's a politician trying to win a vote, brutal honesty isn't really to be expected.
> 
> I'm surprised though that the No campaign hasn't highlighted the hypothetical consequences of iScotland facing tough 'what's in it for us' negotiating stances.  I guess it doesn't really fit with the 'Better together' campaign message, but that's the way of relationship breakdown, from _please don't leave I can't live without you_ to zero goodwill and a fight about every trivial thing in five minutes flat.


This is just fantasy stuff. Yeah, it could in theory happen, but it's in the best interest of rest of the UK to have as close links with an independent Scotland as possible. So that's what will actually happen.

And the No campaign _has_ been highlighting these fantasy consequences - border guards, no monetary union, etc etc. It's all bollocks though.


----------



## newbie (Sep 16, 2014)

why is it?  Obviously near neighbours have some common interests which implies give & take in any interactions.  But sfaics iScotland has little to give that rUK will need to take, and a great deal it needs or wants.  

eg there's no need to imagine a Checkpoint Charlie type border to recognise that the EU may insist on the implementation of schengen and thus passport checks..

As for currency union, I have no idea where your confidence comes from, given that one sides preliminary negotiating stance is that it will not happen.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> So that's what will actually happen.


On what terms?  This is Smug n Thug's big lie, that they'll get a currency union, EU membership, everything else, with no strings attached. That's clearly a nonsense. They can only get away with it be cause the No campaign can't admit they will do a deal, but clearly they WILL do a deal. On terms that's are really shit for the Scots (the Scottish people that is, the SNP will be happy to agree to no tax rises, deficits etc)


----------



## newbie (Sep 16, 2014)

... and 63% of English/Welsh people don't want currency union. That's sufficient to turn it into a significant issue in the next election if any party wants to change the stated position.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 16, 2014)

When rbritan is 10x the size of iscotland is not going to be a currency union anyway.
 How could it be?
 All the decisions will go in rbritans favour along with everything else when you have less population than your neighbours capital your ability to be seen as an equal is limited


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 16, 2014)

yield said:


> Sorry looked but not sure if already posted. Tommy Sheridan and Andrew Neil on Sunday Politics.
> 
> 
> Spoiler




Great rabble-rousing stuff, but surely Tommy S. is permanently tainted now?


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> On what terms?  This is Smug n Thug's big lie, that they'll get a currency union, EU membership, everything else, with no strings attached. That's clearly a nonsense. They can only get away with it be cause the No campaign can't admit they will do a deal, but clearly they WILL do a deal. On terms that's are really shit for the Scots (the Scottish people that is, the SNP will be happy to agree to no tax rises, deficits etc)


I've no idea what terms but as you correctly identify, a deal will be done.

I just find the idea of the rest of the UK negotiating like a spurned lover laughable. In the event of a yes vote, I'm sure there will be bullshit and bluster, but what will actually be negotiated will be to (what they see as) the best economic advantage of the country and (probably more importantly) the business interests that call the shots.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> I've no idea what terms but as you correctly identify, a deal will be done.
> 
> I just find the idea of the rest of the UK negotiating like a spurned lover laughable. In the event of a yes vote, I'm sure there will be bullshit and bluster, but what will actually be negotiated will be to (what they see as) the best economic advantage of the country and (probably more importantly) the business interests that call the shots.



Best economic advantage of _which country_?

The "yes" side seems to either ignore or be incapable of grasping this fundamental point - once Scotland is independent it will be an _independent_ partner at the negotiations. (the clue's in the word independent, in case you didn't grasp that...)

Once you have two separate partners, not conjoined in any kind of formal joint venture, the dynamics radically change.

It's that simple.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2014)

I'm talking about the rest of the uk's negotiating position. I thought that was pretty obvious from the post.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Best economic advantage of _which country_?
> 
> The "yes" side seems to either ignore or be incapable of grasping this fundamental point - once Scotland is independent it will be an _independent_ partner at the negotiations. (the clue's in the word independent, in case you didn't grasp that...)
> 
> ...


Which country? Which members of the factions of capital in control of the state at that time (with those who look likely to take on the role later also co-opted into the process) you mean? The _countries _will get fuck all say.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 16, 2014)

cesare said:


> What's put the suggestion of repatriation into your head?


A squirrel.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> I've no idea what terms but as you correctly identify, a deal will be done.
> 
> I just find the idea of the rest of the UK negotiating like a spurned lover laughable. In the event of a yes vote, I'm sure there will be bullshit and bluster, but what will actually be negotiated will be to (what they see as) the best economic advantage of the country and (probably more importantly) the business interests that call the shots.


You dont seem to think the terms matter from that.  But clearly they do - if only to hammer home the SNP's dishonesty afterwards.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> You dont seem to think the terms matter from that.  But clearly they do - if only to hammer home the SNP's dishonesty afterwards.


 Not quite sure where you got the idea that I don't think the terms matter.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> Not quite sure where you got the idea that I don't think the terms matter.


From (what appears to be) your casual attitude to the question.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2014)

I didn't realise I was discussing the detail of a currency union agreement, only whether it would happen or not.


----------



## newbie (Sep 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Which country? Which members of the factions of capital in control of the state at that time (with those who look likely to take on the role later also co-opted into the process) you mean? The _countries _will get fuck all say.


we know this, but neither capital nor politics are entirely monolithic.  62% of rUK reject currency union, according to the poll, so this has every possibility of becoming an election issue, starting Friday.  The role of the Labour Party is crucial, because it, and it alone, has the capacity to form a government in both countries, no other party stands an earthly chance of doing so. 

So politically, either Millibands lot unite with Cameron (or his successor) and reject currency union, or they maneuver towards endorsing it, and risk being seen as compromising the national interest in pursuit of power in a foreign country. 

If the rUK electorate believes that rUKLab is prepared to make accommodations with iScotLab which are not in the perceived interests of the rUK electorate, they'll be rejected at the ballot next May.  

We won't find out yet whether capital, beit rUK, Euro or world capital (I'd guess Scottish capital is all but irrelevant) favours £ based monetary union, opposes it or is simply seeking an opportunity to Buffet the £.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2014)

newbie said:


> we know this, but neither capital nor politics are entirely monolithic.  62% of rUK reject currency union, according to the poll, so this has every possibility of becoming an election issue, starting Friday.  The role of the Labour Party is crucial, because it, and it alone, has the capacity to form a government in both countries, no other party stands an earthly chance of doing so.
> 
> So politically, either Millibands lot unite with Cameron (or his successor) and reject currency union, or they maneuver towards endorsing it, and risk being seen as compromising the national interest in pursuit of power in a foreign country.
> 
> ...


Well, first thing is that we don't know just how strongly that 60% of welsh and english who say a currency union should be rejected feel about the issue - whether it would become as as you suggest a live election defining/winning/losing issue. I'm not convinced it would be at all. And labour voters are by far those least opposed to such a union. Polls from the last week don't have anything related to scotland even appearing on the list of voting factors.


----------



## gosub (Sep 16, 2014)

newbie said:


> we know this, but neither capital nor politics are entirely monolithic.  62% of rUK reject currency union, according to the poll, so this has every possibility of becoming an election issue, starting Friday.  The role of the Labour Party is crucial, because it, and it alone, has the capacity to form a government in both countries, no other party stands an earthly chance of doing so.
> 
> So politically, either Millibands lot unite with Cameron (or his successor) and reject currency union, or they maneuver towards endorsing it, and risk being seen as compromising the national interest in pursuit of power in a foreign country.
> 
> ...




Disagree, nothing really changed on ground since March, markets have sucked up gilts and derivative insurance was cheap til mid last month when they realised they should have hedged better.  

A yes will shake the markets, badly (Scottish capital isn't irrelvant) but the tail wagging the dog would destroy London's credibility entirely.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> I didn't realise I was discussing the detail of a currency union agreement, only whether it would happen or not.


the terms are kinda central, indeed even more important than, the mere fact of some kind of union tho.


----------



## newbie (Sep 16, 2014)

true, but if there is a yes vote, the premise of this thread, iScotland is one potential real division between parties who appear to agree on almost everything else (except Europe, which bores most of us to tears).


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2014)

What are you talking about? The last week has seen an alliance between the three major parties regarding Scotland?


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> the terms are kinda central, indeed even more important than, the mere fact of some kind of union tho.


Yes. But I didn't post on the thread looking for a discussion on monetary union, just to point out the idea that the government of the rest of the UK would reject Scottish negotiations out of spite was nonsense.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 16, 2014)

In Tommy Sheridan's video he mentions 100 years of oil off the west coast that hasn't been tapped because Heseltine banned it as it would get in the way of Trident
any truth in that?


----------



## newbie (Sep 16, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> What are you talking about? The last week has seen an alliance between the three major parties regarding Scotland?



and? they're campaigning in a vote scheduled for thursday.  there's another election next May, where they will be addressing us all, not just the Scots.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> Yes. But I didn't post on the thread looking for a discussion on monetary union,


I bloody am doing tho!  Someone gotta take me up on it


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2014)

Not tonight, Josephine.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 16, 2014)

ska invita said:


> In Tommy Sheridan's video he mentions 100 years of oil off the west coast that hasn't been tapped because Heseltine banned it as it would get in the way of Trident
> any truth in that?



yes. It is well documented.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 16, 2014)

ska invita said:


> In Tommy Sheridan's video he mentions 100 years of oil off the west coast that hasn't been tapped because Heseltine banned it as it would get in the way of Trident
> any truth in that?





> The former Defence Secretary, Michael Heseltine, has admitted blocking a potential oil boom off the West coast of Scotland in the 1980s.
> 
> The Sunday Post revealed last year that declassified documents appeared to show the Ministry of Defence forced oil firms to withdraw applications to drill for oil in the Firth of Clyde, fearing exploration of the seabed would interfere with nuclear submarines travelling to and from Faslane.
> 
> ...



http://www.sundaypost.com/news-view...l-boom-in-the-clyde-heseltine-admits-1.446273


----------



## LiamO (Sep 16, 2014)

The YES campaign is easily the most exciting grassroots political campaign in Britain since the Poll Tax or the Miner's strike - and they were both, by definition, 'anti' campaigns and were hostile - sometimes in the extreme.

This one is nearly all positive - people empowering themselves/taking action/taking on the might of the media using social media etc) and might well have a happy ending. Roll on Friday morning.


----------



## quiquaquo (Sep 16, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> http://www.sundaypost.com/news-view...l-boom-in-the-clyde-heseltine-admits-1.446273



So the oil is still there and theoretically in an independent Scotland’s territorial waters. Why isn't this common knowledge or is just me who had no idea about this?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 16, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> So the oil is still there and theoretically in an independent Scotland’s territorial waters. Why isn't this common knowledge or is just me who had no idea about this?


its not common knowledge


----------



## quiquaquo (Sep 16, 2014)

ska invita said:


> its not common knowledge



That's hardly surprising, would certainly push the Yes vote up a few percentage points if it was. Bastards.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 16, 2014)

Tommy Sheridan is the first person Ive heard mention it - is it not otherwise a plank in the Yes campaign or did I miss a meeting?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 16, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> That's hardly surprising, would certainly push the Yes vote up a few percentage points if it was. Bastards.



Perhaps because the SNP wouldn't want to advertise the fact that an independent Scotland might be over dependent on burning more fossil fuels?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 16, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Perhaps because the SNP wouldn't want to advertise the fact that an independent Scotland might be over dependent on burning more fossil fuels?


perhaps... they've been making the financial oil case based on current North Sea reserves though


----------



## Sue (Sep 16, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Perhaps because the SNP wouldn't want to advertise the fact that an independent Scotland might be over dependent on burning more fossil fuels?


You do know that Scotland exports a quarter of the electricity it generates and about a quarter of the total energy generated comes from renewables..?

Eta useful link from the Westminster government. 
https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...les-northern-ireland-and-england-2008-to-2011


----------



## Anonymous1 (Sep 16, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Tommy Sheridan is the first person Ive heard mention it - is it not otherwise a plank in the Yes campaign or did I miss a meeting?



It's there and not only that, there's more than they originally thought.



> Scotland could be sitting on more than double the amount of oil and gas reserves currently predicted, a new independent industry investigation has found. The investigation reveals that the scale of Scotland’s untapped frontier West Coast or Atlantic Margin has been underestimated.



Pretty sure there's an important (to some) nuclear shipping lane in that direction though.
Trident has to go first and a YES win will see that happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2014)

Anonymous1 said:


> It's there and not only that, there's more than they originally thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If the SNP's plan to allow fellow NATO members nuclear warships and submarines to pass through the area and use the existing ports (without even having to inform the govt) then it wouldn't matter if trident is got rid of or not would it? The same blocks to development would surely exist?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Great rabble-rousing stuff, but surely Tommy S. is permanently tanned now?



Fixed that for you.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Sep 16, 2014)

http://emeraldnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/something-fishy-in-the-scottish-polls/


> Over the latter stages of the campaign the BBC have been found to remove Yes supporters from the background of its ‘special reports’ and Photoshop ‘No’ signs where there were none.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 16, 2014)

The No campaign has brought out their secret weapon - a promise from Clegg.  I can't see the Yes campaign overcoming this, frankly.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2014)

pravda cunts


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> The No campaign has brought out their secret weapon - a promise from Clegg.  I can't see the Yes campaign overcoming this, frankly.




perhaps he should draw up some sort of covenant


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2014)

Buddy Bradley said:


> http://emeraldnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/something-fishy-in-the-scottish-polls/


Whilst the BBC is shit etc this unsupported claim of photoshopping on that site isn't exactly the sort of sterling journalism that could ever seriously challenge it. In fact, it's just that sort of stuff that allows the BBC to pose as providing neutral disinterested reporting.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Great rabble-rousing stuff, but surely Tommy S. is permanently tainted now?



Not if you ask me.  I still think he's great--and that's after discussing him at length with people who know him and hate him, both by PM on here and irl.  I've heard nothing to put me off the guy at all.  And I suspect an awful lot of people feel like me.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Great rabble-rousing stuff, but surely Tommy S. is permanently tainted now?



DP, so I might as well use it to say: we should try for a referendum in Wales next!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> DP, so I might as well use it to say: we should try for a referendum in Wales next!


Ah 'we'.

You love the place so much you could almost bring yourself to live there.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah 'we'.
> 
> You love the place so much you could almost bring yourself to live there.



I do live there, as much as I live anywhere.  And if we got independence I would naturally consider it my duty to return permanently and offer my services.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 16, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> So the oil is still there and theoretically in an independent Scotland’s territorial waters. Why isn't this common knowledge or is just me who had no idea about this?



I was looking to find out about this a few months back, BUT I would have made some nice bookmarky/favourite links that I can't access right now, 'cos different computer, different browser and all that gremliny shit - very possibly able to find them tomorrow evening if I rudely grab my Dad's computer when I visit him.  If find, will post.

I recall an MSP, Chic Brodie, asked questions about it.

Ah, see if this is any use.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.ph...light-lower-firth-of-clyde-oil-boom-potential


----------



## Celyn (Sep 16, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Perhaps because the SNP wouldn't want to advertise the fact that an independent Scotland might be over dependent on burning more fossil fuels?




Scotland is doing not too badly re. renewables.  40% in 2013.  I don't think the headline of this "Guardian" article will be accurate, but it's interesting anyway:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/19/england-lights-scotland-renewable-energy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2014)

Celyn said:


> Scotland is doing not too badly re. renewables.  40% in 2013.  I don't think the headline of this "Guardian" article will be accurate, but it's interesting anyway:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/19/england-lights-scotland-renewable-energy


So they will largely be relying on_ other people_ burning fuel.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Sep 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So they will largely be relying on_ other people_ burning fuel.


Peelywally southerners that can't handle a cool breeze possibly.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Sep 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> If the SNP's plan to allow fellow NATO members nuclear warships and submarines to pass through the area and use the existing ports (without even having to inform the govt) then it wouldn't matter if trident is got rid of or not would it? The same blocks to development would surely exist?



_If_ the Nats carryout that plan then yes answers the former, but they needn't neccessarily be to the same extent as under current operations.
And yes, the SNP will more than likely be in power if Independence is achieved so they will have the chance to act on it for a short time but we know the political landscape will be shifted even if it takes some time to settle. 
It wouldn't be a smart move for the SNP to fight for, and promise, the removal of Trident as a cental matter to then explain to the electorate that this new self-determining country can't actually access it's abundant natural resources as the nukes are still doing laps of the rUK and playing war games with NATO. 

The SNP could soon become irrelevant if Independence is achieved. They may aswell break up and go their seperate political ways as i doubt there would be a great appetite for a nationalistic party and if there was it wouldn't consist of the same personnel as the Nats.

The SNP have their white paper but the most important thing is this will all be decided by the people of Scotland upon independence, or not.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 16, 2014)

There are several questions which both sides have studiously avoided answering - such as

What happens to Poundland?
Whats the story with who gets Ballymorry?


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> http://www.sundaypost.com/news-view...l-boom-in-the-clyde-heseltine-admits-1.446273



Wow...


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

Anonymous1 said:


> It's there and not only that, there's more than they originally thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Greens won't be too happy about an abundance of fossil fuels.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

Frankie Jack said:


> Peelywally southerners that can't handle a cool breeze possibly.




had to google that, must say I've noticed a resurgence online of Scottish vernacular.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 16, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> There are several questions which both sides have studiously avoided answering - such as
> 
> What happens to Poundland?


If we become independent, they'll go out of business because there'll be no Workfare to staff the shops.



> Whats the story with who gets Ballymorry?


It was left to Miss Hoolie in Archie the Inventor's will.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 16, 2014)

The only question I want answered is what will happen to the Shipping Forecast.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> The only question I want answered is what will happen to the Shipping Forecast.


Shannon & Southeast Iceland aren't exactly UK waters already


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> If we become independent, they'll go out of business because there'll be no Workfare to staff the shops.
> 
> It was left to Miss Hoolie in Archie the Inventor's will.




Is stopping workfare guaranteed then?, I hope so, weakens the principle here then as well.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Sep 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> Is stopping workfare guaranteed then?, I hope so, weakens the principle here then as well.


One of the 'powers' offered a few weeks ago was over Workfare.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

Great news.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah 'we'.
> 
> You love the place so much you could almost bring yourself to live there.



What's your problem with migrants?


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 16, 2014)

With regards to the post title we will no longer have to have endlessy see Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon on our screens in rUK please vote Yes if you can - you are welcome to them.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

No, we just have Cameron and Johnson...


----------



## weltweit (Sep 16, 2014)

The Proclaimers will need passports to walk 500 miles!


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2014)

> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists



Excellent Monbiot article, been shocked, well sort of, at the brazenness of the mass media towards Indyref, and noting its a taster for our own GE, Milliband will be savaged.


----------



## ibilly99 (Sep 16, 2014)

Sean Connery might say bugger taxation and sunshine and going to live out my final days in a free and independent Scotland. Scottish diaspora come home !


----------



## krink (Sep 17, 2014)

What are we going to talk about after it is all over?


----------



## JTG (Sep 17, 2014)

krink said:


> What are we going to talk about after it is all over?


Collaborating on an Urban entry for the inevitable 'design a flag for Ulster, Wales & England (UWE)' competition


----------



## yield (Sep 17, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Great rabble-rousing stuff, but surely Tommy S. is permanently tainted now?


I don't know? Wasn't he vindicated by the whole News Corp and Andy Coulson phone hacking thing? I'm probably wrong again.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 17, 2014)

He was in favour of keeping at least some of Glasgow's tower blocks which makes him an ok guy in my book.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...-fight-against-tower-block-demolition-1.72277


----------



## weepiper (Sep 17, 2014)

yield said:


> I don't know? Wasn't he vindicated by the whole News Corp and Andy Coulson phone hacking thing? I'm probably wrong again.


No. Coulson was one of his defence witnesses.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 17, 2014)

krink said:


> What are we going to talk about after it is all over?



Cornish independence.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 17, 2014)

Given Scotland's tendency to lean a bit more to the left than the rest of the UK (in recent times at least) then the increase in registered voters for the independence ref could increase the popular vote for Labour at the GE, whilst probably not making much of a difference in terms of seats.  Conversely, people could also be demotivated to vote if independence is on the horizon.


----------



## Sue (Sep 17, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Given Scotland's tendency to lean a bit more to the left than the rest of the UK (in recent times at least) then the increase in registered voters for the independence ref could increase the popular vote for Labour at the GE, whilst probably not making much of a difference in terms of seats.  Conversely, people could also be demotivated to vote if independence is on the horizon.



I suspect a lot of Labour supporters who are voting yes will think long and hard about voting for them in the general election. A lot of the newly-registered (not those newly-eligible by age) registered because they felt there was something positive to vote for and because they felt they were being listened to. 

These things are unlikely to apply to the Westminster elections so imagine voting within this group will likely be way, way down.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 17, 2014)

Sue said:


> You do know that Scotland exports a quarter of the electricity it generates and about a quarter of the total energy generated comes from renewables..?
> 
> Eta useful link from the Westminster government.
> https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...les-northern-ireland-and-england-2008-to-2011



Good, so no reason why the Yes campaign should try and make capital out of the existence of huge oil reserves still under the sea as was suggested. The oil should stay where it is.


----------



## elbows (Sep 17, 2014)

Regarding the Clyde oil, can't get too carried away with it unless there is exploration that actually confirms the scale of extractable oil resources in the area.

But since it has been blended into the defence issue, I note that a load of former armed forces chiefs have been parping to the press, rather predictable and well in tune with other tactics of recent weeks!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29232793



> In an "open letter to the people of Scotland", they expressed concern about the possibility of a separate Scottish military.
> 
> "As former chiefs of the Royal Navy, British army and Royal Air Force, we know it is fiction to talk about regional armed forces," they wrote.
> 
> ...


----------



## LiamO (Sep 17, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Given Scotland's tendency to lean a bit more to the left than the rest of the UK (in recent times at least) then the increase in registered voters for the independence ref could increase the popular vote for Labour at the GE, whilst probably not making much of a difference in terms of seats.  Conversely, people could also be demotivated to vote if independence is on the horizon.




Given the Labour Party is firmly in the NO camp - I would respectfully suggest they are gonnae get a guid gubbin' at the next GE - whatever way this vote goes.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2014)

Kay Burley calls Yes supporter a 'Knob'


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 17, 2014)

Kay Burley _is_ a knob.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 17, 2014)

"against england"


----------



## gosub (Sep 17, 2014)

ddraig said:


> "against england"



you read some of the stuff on journos blog, being told to fuck off back to England quite often, is going to inform your judgement


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2014)

I love the way the media thinks the proles have no right to bang their car horns, shout for the their sides, heckle opposition politicians,

It called democracy, something the elites have forgotten could exist,,,


----------



## ddraig (Sep 17, 2014)

gosub said:


> you read some of the stuff on journos blog, being told to fuck off back to England quite often, is going to inform your judgement


any examples?
and even if so, journalists are meant to report correctly no? with some facts at least


----------



## gosub (Sep 17, 2014)

ddraig said:


> any examples?
> and even if so, journalists are meant to report correctly no? with some facts at least


http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-16/...ot-enjoying-covering-the-scottish-referendum/


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 17, 2014)




----------



## ddraig (Sep 17, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-16/...ot-enjoying-covering-the-scottish-referendum/


they certainly don't like it up em do they


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2014)

considering how the vast majority of the media has acted as a promotional arm of the 'no' campaign, 'fuck off back to england' sounds like a measured and reasonable response.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

in Kay Burleys case 'fuck off' is generally a fair comment


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

not back here though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 17, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-16/...ot-enjoying-covering-the-scottish-referendum/


Rather short on detail.  Perhaps ironically.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 17, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-16/...ot-enjoying-covering-the-scottish-referendum/



yep, more hearsay, more hot air, no links , no filmed evidence/examples  ( in this ever videoed world ) , more flagrant anti #yes bias from a very well paid UK journo - thanks for posting.


----------



## cantsin (Sep 17, 2014)

gosub said:


> you read some of the stuff on journos blog, being told to fuck off back to England quite often, is going to inform your judgement



you'd think you'd have to be a bit feckin slow on the uptake for that guff to "inform your judgement" - but it seems to be informing yours all right.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 17, 2014)

On a purely emotional level, I for one would hate to see the Scots leave the UK.

I’ve always felt that Scotland and Wales were as much my home as anywhere else in the UK and that Scottish heritage is also my heritage. I’ll never be able to think of Scotland as a foreign country, just as it will be hard for me to visit Scotland as a ‘foreigner’. I reckon I’ve got more in common with many Scots than I have with many here in England and that’s true of a lot of English people.

On a political level and as a socialist I can see why Scots might want to sever links with a Tory dominated Westminster, but I dislike nationalist driven politics - I prefer to see people unite rather than put up artificial barriers between them, especially likeminded people.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 17, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-16/...ot-enjoying-covering-the-scottish-referendum/


"The Scottish Police Federation has suggested that the media and no campaigners are exaggerating the level of aggression employed in the campaign by yes supporters."
http://www.spf.org.uk/2014/09/spf-media-release-independence-referendum-2/


----------



## ska invita (Sep 17, 2014)

krink said:


> What are we going to talk about after it is all over?


Laurie will have a new article out before you know it


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

ska invita said:


> "The Scottish Police Federation has suggested that the media and no campaigners are exaggerating the level of aggression employed in the campaign by yes supporters."
> http://www.spf.org.uk/2014/09/spf-media-release-independence-referendum-2/


Where is the quote from? It's not from the article - as it doesn't mention YES supporters at all.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

ska invita said:


> "The Scottish Police Federation has suggested that the media and no campaigners are exaggerating the level of aggression employed in the campaign by yes supporters."
> http://www.spf.org.uk/2014/09/spf-media-release-independence-referendum-2/



Isn't that release directed more towards the SPF's frustration at being asked to speculate on public disorder in the wake of the referendum?

It doesn't seem to touch on media bias at all, for instance.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where is the quote from? It's not from the article - as it doesn't mention YES supporters at all.


Grauniad update from 10.48 this morning.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> Grauniad update from 10.48 this morning.


Which they confusingly make look like that comedian said it rather than it being their own tendentious  reading of the SPF piece - effectively demonstrating their reporting cannot be trusted - one way or the other.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I
> It doesn't seem to touch on media bias at all, for instance.


yeah im just parroting - too busy to read it


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/spain-independent-scotland-years-eu-membership

As expected the Spanish government have recoiled at a "yes" vote.  They're certainly not the most influential EU member, having had the terms of their bailout dictated by the Troika and with their economy in tatters, but they still theoretically hold a pretty powerful veto on new membership.

Not much from Juncker or Merkel yet though.

If there is a "yes" vote, it'll be fascinating to see how that impacts on the proposals for an EU referendum in the UK.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 17, 2014)




----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2014)

ska invita said:


> "The Scottish Police Federation has suggested that the media and no campaigners are exaggerating the level of aggression employed in the campaign by yes supporters."
> http://www.spf.org.uk/2014/09/spf-media-release-independence-referendum-2/



Possibly setting up an excuse to dispute the result.  Obvious desperation in any case.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2014)

ska invita said:


> "The Scottish Police Federation has suggested that the media and no campaigners are exaggerating the level of aggression employed in the campaign by yes supporters."
> http://www.spf.org.uk/2014/09/spf-media-release-independence-referendum-2/



That's pretty damning, but are the media reporting their concerns?, I won't hold my breath.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> That's pretty damning, but are the media reporting their concerns?, I won't hold my breat


What's pretty damning? Did you actually read it?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I’ll never be able to think of Scotland as a foreign country, just as it will be hard for me to visit Scotland as a ‘foreigner’.



I've never thought of anywhere as a 'foreign' country.  The whole concept of 'foreign' is foreign to me.  I think most people find that they have most things in common with most other people wherever they go.  Scotland won't become any more 'foreign' to me when it is independent.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What's pretty damning? Did you actually read it?


I think he's just got hot keys set up to save time posting - f1: that's a damning indictment of the left, f2: look at this incredible comment on Guardian CiF etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

killer b said:


> I think he's just got hot keys set up to save time posting - f1: that's a damning indictment of the left, f2: look at this incredible comment on Guardian CiF etc.


Don't give me ideas - that sounds like a pretty sweet set up, throw in some randomising stuff and no one would ever know.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/spain-independent-scotland-years-eu-membership
> 
> As expected the Spanish government have recoiled at a "yes" vote.  They're certainly not the most influential EU member, having had the terms of their bailout dictated by the Troika and with their economy in tatters, but they still theoretically hold a pretty powerful veto on new membership.
> 
> ...




I wonder if the spanish fishermen will leave Scotland's waters. I  think their prime minister maybe asked to think again if he vetos.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 17, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> With regards to the post title we will no longer have to have endlessy see Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon on our screens in rUK please vote Yes if you can - you are welcome to them.


You think ..?..either way years of horse trading and manoeuvring ......with  salmond stroking himself raw with every minute of it .....

Even though I've no part ..I'm looking forward to it ..I think it will cause a bigger turnout in the 2015 elections as those south of the border see the engagement of the north  and want to be a  part of that ....good news for Farage perhaps


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 17, 2014)

If there is a "yes" vote I anticipate a massive parallel progressive movement for northern devolution.

And the tory scum can forever be labelled as the party who broke the union with their disgusting behaviour. There should be chaos in the party, and it's less than they deserve.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 17, 2014)

Blair sez it was his fault ?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> If there is a "yes" vote I anticipate a massive parallel progressive movement for northern devolution.
> 
> And the tory scum can forever be labelled as the party who broke the union with their disgusting behaviour. There should be chaos in the party, and it's less than they deserve.


Why would you anticipate that? Around 2/3 of the seats in the NW and yorks are tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Blair sez it was his fault ?


It was Thatchers fault if it happens- this would be her victory from beyond the grave. Tally the voting support for YES with people who grew up late 70s-mid 90s and you'll see why.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why would you anticipate that? Around 2/3 of the seats in the NW and yorks are tory.



Your going by area, not by population of course. I would anticipate it from the big cities, inspired by the momentum. Of course, it wouldn't guarantee success but anyhow...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 17, 2014)

Butchers - sorry if you've answered this, but have you said what you think the result will be?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Your going by area, not by population of course. I would anticipate it from the big cities, inspired by the momentum. Of course, it wouldn't guarantee success but anyhow...


I think you're being ridiculous. Constituencies are pretty much allocated by population. i'd love to see some form of regional attack on the centres of power - but a) this isn't it and b) you wishing something to happen doesn't mean it will happen. There is no support for this stuff right now - what there is is majority opposition to Scottish independence (not on an anti-scottish basis). Out of the bubble!


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 17, 2014)

my work colleague says that he reckons people are just pretending to say they'll vote no because "the scots are very shrewd"

also, that people in England might beat Scottish people up who say they're going to vote vote yes because "in the war people didn't go around saying I'm a blazing hot Nazi"


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Butchers - sorry if you've answered this, but have you said what you think the result will be?


No i haven't.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 17, 2014)

I tried to tell him that support for Scottish independence was entirely different to supporting hitler during the war but he didn't listen.


----------



## Sue (Sep 17, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I tried to tell him that support for Scottish independence was entirely different to supporting hitler during the war but he didn't listen.



It's *exactly* the same.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 17, 2014)

apparently most scots down here are going to lie and say they're voting no because they might get their lights punched out if they were somewhere like Essex or London. never mind that they can't vote if theyre down here


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> apparently most scots down here are going to lie and say they're voting no because they might get their lights punched out if they were somewhere like Essex or London. never mind that they can't vote if theyre down here


Is this the same bullshitter?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 17, 2014)

I've got a mate who thinks there might be a backlash including a boycott. That would be pretty funny if anything. Such a backlash might tip the UKIP vote over the edge in Clacton though, especially if the tories go into a bit of a meltdown.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I've got a mate who thinks there might be a backlash including a boycott. That would be pretty funny if anything. Such a backlash might tip the UKIP vote over the edge in Clacton though, especially if the tories go into a bit of a meltdown.


Over the edge? The edge of a 40%+ lead?


----------



## Sue (Sep 17, 2014)

Has your pal thought about getting involved in politics?  Sounds like he has a lot to offer. 

(Or is it at this point you mention he's the local tory mp or something..?)


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is this the same bullshitter?



no idea, ive worked with a lot of weirdos


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 17, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I've never thought of anywhere as a 'foreign' country.  The whole concept of 'foreign' is foreign to me.  I think most people find that they have most things in common with most other people wherever they go.  Scotland won't become any more 'foreign' to me when it is independent.



Nicely put, but separation WILL create barriers between likeminded people that weren't there before. To me that is a shame.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 17, 2014)

only if you let it bother your small mind


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> apparently most scots down here are going to lie and say they're voting no because they might get their lights punched out if they were somewhere like Essex or London. never mind that they can't vote if theyre down here




i'm warming up my punching arm right now. Damn thier perfidious eyes.


----------



## newbie (Sep 17, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nicely put, but separation WILL create barriers between likeminded people that weren't there before. To me that is a shame.


pretty minor barriers.  Yes, there'll be some mucking about with passport, currency and timezone at the border, but this is 2014, most people have got used to all that and treat it as a trivial inconvenience.  And some sort of 'welcome to mcvodofone' roaming irritation, and trying to remember travel insurance, either of which could get expensive if not properly managed, but that's just like anywhere else abroad.   Apart from that the barriers are inconsequential surely, they'll still speak the same language, drive on the left, eat chips and so on.  

'Likeminded' isn't going to change, not in the short term anyway.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 17, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nicely put, but separation WILL create barriers between likeminded people that weren't there before. To me that is a shame.



to be honest, I think the barriers are already there.


----------



## dennisr (Sep 17, 2014)

We'll have to change this forum's name to 'UnUK and Scottish politics, curent affairs and news'


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 17, 2014)

Surprised this hasn't been discussed much but the only real thing that would worry me about Scottish independence (and I hope they vote yes btw) is the whole "balkanisation" of the UK and descent into nationalism and regionalism, although this would probably be even more likely with a narrow no vote.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Surprised this hasn't been discussed much but the only real thing that would worry me about Scottish independence (and I hope they vote yes btw) is the whole "balkanisation" of the UK and descent into nationalism and regionalism, although this would probably be even more likely with a narrow no vote.



This is a bigger concern in Brussels, hence the hollowness of the "yes" camps assertions about fast-track EU entry.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 17, 2014)

but once it's independent that's no longer a concern surely?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Surprised this hasn't been discussed much but the only real thing that would worry me about Scottish independence (and I hope they vote yes btw) is the whole "balkanisation" of the UK and descent into nationalism and regionalism, although this would probably be even more likely with a narrow no vote.


I don't think so. A narrow 'no', if it leads to more devolution, may not be divisive.

I'm with you on the balkanisation worry. Even among well-meaning (ie not hating the other) nationalists, historical differences are emphasised, historical links and shared experiences and struggles downplayed. It's even evident on here in discussion of Welsh independence. Suddenly the Welsh are a separate nation with deep-rooted distinct traditions. Events from 600 years ago are dragged up. But there is a very different story that can be told.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Surprised this hasn't been discussed much but the only real thing that would worry me about Scottish independence (and I hope they vote yes btw) is the whole "balkanisation" of the UK and descent into nationalism and regionalism, although this would probably be even more likely with a narrow no vote.


We can't balkanise with 3 established countries with  no internal linguistic ethnic or religious territories. With no border-redrawing supported with no claims on areas within other existing or for historical states. Nothing. There is no dynamic or history or facts on the ground here that supports such a scenario. 

And if you lot want it, well, wessex - _we haven't gone anyway you know_.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 17, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Surprised this hasn't been discussed much but the only real thing that would worry me about Scottish independence (and I hope they vote yes btw) is the whole "balkanisation" of the UK and descent into nationalism and regionalism, although this would probably be even more likely with a narrow no vote.



That has worried me somewhat. Not on the whole, but I see pockets of fragmentation along those lines, especially if it goes Yes 49% No 51%. Certain nationalists are rewriting Scottish identity and recasting them as victims of the Empire (not benefactors). I imagine the revisionism of victimhood would continue with more austerity. Even with more devolution, they will still resent the current government (with good reason). 

But on the flip side, I can also see resentment in parts of England, as some dislike the incentives given for devolution, or how the unionists in N. Ireland will respond, or Plaid Cymru. 

Regardless of result, nationalism will be more directly woven into politics/political identity.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 17, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Surprised this hasn't been discussed much but the only real thing that would worry me about Scottish independence (and I hope they vote yes btw) is the whole "balkanisation" of the UK and descent into nationalism and regionalism, although this would probably be even more likely with a narrow no vote.



I have always been in favour of increased regionalism (I wrote my dissertation at University about it), because I would like to see decentralization away from Westminster because it is a rotten cesspit. I'd like to see Northern regions start to plan as a region and maybe develop some kind of regional identity. Real democracy has always seemed much more possible on a smaller scale. 

It is only during this election campaign that I have started to see the other point of view; that the United Kingdom is fundamentally multicultural, a mixture of different cultural and political traditions.

As I said, I wrote my dissertation about regional politics, but mostly focused on Spain. In Spain they have autonomous communities, a kind of unequal federalism, some regions like the Basque Country and Catalonia are nations and have more powers than other regions, and I wanted to explore whether it could be a model for other places in Europe, like the UK or Italy. 

As it stands though, I wholeheartedly support the Yes vote. Westminster is so rotten that it needs to be destroyed. I can certainly understand that some of the motivation for Yes is that the Conservative government is so unpopular that Scotland would rather become an independent than live under their rule. I think that many people in England and Wales would be same given the choice to get rid of Westminster. 

I think that a kind of 'balkanisation' might be a good thing. It is something I have thought about in the past and I could imagine getting involved in, with the right conditions. I wouldn't like to see it become divisive though. Just like I don't want to think that a Yes vote in Scotland will turn us against each other.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Balkanisation doesn't mean a community led process of peaceable decentralization. It means a process of competing elites getting others to die for them and their interests. Anyway, there is not the material for that process here. None whatsoever.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 17, 2014)

I reckon the EU will welcome Scotland and probably take them in on more favourable terms than the remaining UK (in terms of the amount they pay in) just to fuck off the uppity bastards in London that won't play along with all their 'superstate' games.  It'll add to the isolation of the Eurosceptics, although that's no longer just a British phenomenon.

As much as there might be some political/economic spite directed north of the border in the event of the split, there's an equal likelihood of support and solidarity from the likes of Ireland and maybe some of the Scandinavian states.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I reckon the EU will welcome Scotland and probably take them in on more favourable terms than the remaining UK (in terms of the amount they pay in) just to fuck off the uppity bastards in London that won't play along with all their 'superstate' games.  It'll add to the isolation of the Eurosceptics, although that's no longer just a British phenomenon.
> 
> As much as there might be some political/economic spite directed north of the border in the event of the split, there's an equal likelihood of support and solidarity from the likes of Ireland and maybe some of the Scandinavian states.


The price of entry is austerity. Legally bound to it. It well also speed potential UK/whatever exit. Which the EU is desperate to avoid. If anyone is going under the bus it's scotland.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

On the EU front, it should be fairly clear that seceding from an EU member state means exiting the EU.

There is no legal precedent for a constituent part of a member state seceding, thereby exiting the EU, and then applying for membership.

I'm surprised the "no" camp haven't made more of this, although I suppose it is one of those numerous slightly complicated policy points that is difficult to get across succintly and directly.

To put it simply - a "yes" vote is a "yes" for leaving both (i) the UK and (ii) the EU.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> We can't balkanise with 3 established countries with  no internal linguistic ethnic or religious territories. With no border-redrawing supported with no claims on areas within other existing or for historical states. Nothing. There is no dynamic or history or facts on the ground here that supports such a scenario.



Monmouthshire is disputed territory.  Not that anyone's likely to fight over it, but still.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> On the EU front, it should be fairly clear that seceding from an EU member state means exiting the EU.
> 
> There is no legal precedent for a constituent part of a member state seceding, thereby exiting the EU, and then applying for membership.
> 
> ...


When you  say that _it should be_ i take it that you're not referring to the large amount of rather more informed and experienced legal opinion than you that says, _well it might not be_?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nicely put, but separation WILL create barriers between likeminded people that weren't there before. To me that is a shame.


 
Not literal barriers.  Many Western European borders are effectively open these days.  You don't even notice crossing from Holland into Germany.  It would be like that.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 17, 2014)

I am prompted to write because my loverly Local Authority were flying the Saltire over the Town Hall this morning! I guess that local police stations went the same way.
I am ver suspicious of the the British MP's who are offering those good folk the earth if nly they vote no, it's out of desperation almost.
Not sure if anyone has considered this before, but we will no longer be an Island Nation if they vote yes!


----------



## marty21 (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> On the EU front, it should be fairly clear that seceding from an EU member state means exiting the EU.
> 
> There is no legal precedent for a constituent part of a member state seceding, thereby exiting the EU, and then applying for membership.
> 
> ...


A lot in the No camp don't want to be in Europe so would struggle to use that as an argument.
Membership of the EU would be something that would get sorted eventually, don't see it as a major issue


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

I'd expect to see scotland apply for and get membership under the same terms as the former UK. On the big thread this was discussed at length including contrasting quotes from EU legalish types


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd expect to see scotland apply for and get membership under the same terms as the former UK. On the big thread this was discussed at length including contrasting quotes from EU legalish types


Not a chance they'd get thge same membership as UK immediately.  Can you see the Eastern European newbies agreeing when they had to meet loads of new criteria but the Scots wouldn't?  It'll be blocked, no chance of it being agreed by the agreed date for seperation.  That said, Scotland would get, wotchamacallit, the favoured nation status, like the Swedes have, which would be more than good enough for them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> Not a chance they'd get thge same membership as UK immediately.  Can you see the Eastern European newbies agreeing when they had to meet loads of new criteria but the Scots wouldn't?  It'll be blocked, no chance of it being agreed by the agreed date for seperation.  That said, Scotland would get, wotchamacallit, the favoured nation status, like the Swedes have, which would be more than good enough for them.




the other scandies are largely under the EFTA which might be an option...movement of labour isn't seamless under that though so who knows.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2014)

EFTA!  That's the beggar


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

_EFTA the oil runs out._


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> When you  say that _it should be_ i take it that you're not referring to the large amount of rather more informed and experienced legal opinion than you that says, _well it might not be_?



My specialist practice area is an area of EU law. No-one I work with - partners, QCs, senior associates holds a radically different opinion from the one that I put forward.

Maybe you can refer me to authorities stating the contrary?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the other scandies



I suppose that geographically speaking, and perhaps politically speaking too, an independent Scotland would be part of Scandanavia.  Once again.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> My specialist practice area is an area of EU law. No-one I work with - partners, QCs, senior associates holds a radically different opinion from the one that I put forward.
> 
> Maybe you can refer me to authorities stating the contrary?


What sort of EU law? The law governing the various treaties and member states obligations? is this your specialist area of practice?

Of course.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I suppose that geographically speaking, and perhaps politically speaking too, an independent Scotland would be part of Scandanavia.




arc of prosperity.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> arc of prosperity.



The Shetlands are closer to Oslo than to Edinburgh.

Don't they speak a Norwegian dialect up there too?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

all I know of those island groups is that faroe knitwear is considered to be THE last word in endurance and quality


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> Not a chance they'd get thge same membership as UK immediately.  Can you see the Eastern European newbies agreeing when they had to meet loads of new criteria but the Scots wouldn't?  It'll be blocked, no chance of it being agreed by the agreed date for seperation.  That said, Scotland would get, wotchamacallit, the favoured nation status, like the Swedes have, which would be more than good enough for them.



Not sure you think why the Scots would even get MFN status...

It may well go the other way with many member states and the Brussels set seeking to _punish _not _reward_ a region that has so destabilised the EU and set a precedent for secession, not integration.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> My specialist practice area is an area of EU law. No-one I work with - partners, QCs, senior associates holds a radically different opinion from the one that I put forward.
> 
> Maybe you can refer me to authorities stating the contrary?


Hang on - are you now _an authority_? On what basis? Your above assertions? Show us your _bona fides_ then.

Here's one. Here's another.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> all I know of those island groups is that faroe knitwear is considered to be THE last word in endurance and quality



I don't think anyone knows much about those places.

I do however know that the Orkneys and Shetlands were part of Norway until the C15th.  Perhaps they will secede from an independent Scotland.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Not sure you think why the Scots would even get MFN status...
> 
> It may well go the other way with many member states and the Brussels set seeking to _punish _not _reward_ a region that has so destabilised the EU and set a precedent for secession, not integration.


they'd want them to join eventually. If only to annoy rUK


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Not sure you think why the Scots would even get MFN status...
> 
> It may well go the other way with many member states and the Brussels set seeking to _punish _not _reward_ a region that has so destabilised the EU and set a precedent for secession, not integration.




if a region seccedes then reapplies to the EU how is it destabilising? Surely any newly minted nation (or in this case re-minted) immediatly applying for membership to the EU only strengthens the federalist project?


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on - are you now _an authority_? On what basis? Your above assertions? Show us your _bona fides_ then.
> 
> Here's one. Here's another.


they're all bullshitters, tho. The EU will end up doing whatever is most politically expedient, and they'll find the appropriate laws afterwards.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> they're all bullshitters, tho. The EU will end up doing whatever is most politically expedient, and they'll find the appropriate laws afterwards.


That's exactly what the two people i linked to actually said. Why do i bother?


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2014)

ohh, I couldn't be arsed to actually read past the opening paragraph


----------



## Belushi (Sep 17, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I don't think anyone knows much about those places.
> 
> I do however know that the Orkneys and Shetlands were part of Norway until the C15th.  Perhaps they will secede from an independent Scotland.



http://www.theguardian.com/politics...r-place-scotland-yes-vote-alistair-carmichael


----------



## Combustible (Sep 17, 2014)

Given that energy security is a massive strategic priority at the moment for the EU, it is hard to see how Scotland would be allowed to sit outside for very long.


----------



## chilango (Sep 17, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The Shetlands are closer to Oslo than to Edinburgh.
> 
> Don't they speak a Norwegian dialect up there too?



Norn is the dialect iirc. It hasn't been a distinct, living language for some time afaik, though obviously words will have survived and passed into the local version Of Scots/English. I suspect there have been attempts at revival too.

Eta. Yup...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norn_language


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

Belushi said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...r-place-scotland-yes-vote-alistair-carmichael




who could have guessed orkney and shetland would be the final bastions of libdemmery


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the other scandies are largely under the EFTA which might be an option...movement of labour isn't seamless under that though so who knows.


hang on, dont you get duty free from EFTA countries?  If so, that's the perfect solution - duty free whisky!!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

alas, I fear the dover-calais run will still prove more popular.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What sort of EU law? The law governing the various treaties and member states obligations? is this your specialist area of practice?
> 
> Of course.



Competition, Antitrust and Trade.

Principally articles 101 and 102 of TFEU.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> alas, I fear the dover-calais run will still prove more popular.



Not for me it wont.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Competition, Antitrust and Trade.
> 
> Principally articles 101 and 102 of TFEU.


So no, nothing to do with anything relevant at all. Bluff  successfully called.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on - are you now _an authority_? On what basis? Your above assertions? Show us your _bona fides_ then.



Tbf he's not claiming to be _an authority, _just that his specialist practice area in this shit gives him a unique insight and his betters are of the same opinion about the same shit. Sounds like an expert. Don't know why he bothers, I really don't.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So no, nothing to do with anything relevant at all. Bluff called.



Do you know what one of the main goals of EU competition law is? (notably in contrast to US antitrust law)

...the creation and maintenance of a single market.

It's fundamentally constitutional in nature.

But you carry on, I'm sure you have a plethora of experience in the field of EU law and a multitude of resources and expert opinions to draw upon...


----------



## leanderman (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> alas, I fear the dover-calais run will still prove more popular.



does anyone still do that?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Do you know what one of the main goals of EU competition law is? (notably in contrast to US antitrust law)
> 
> ...the creation and maintenance of a single market.
> 
> ...


An _authority _they say? Double bluff win  Go on, one more.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> does anyone still do that?




yes. also portsmouth-bilboa. You can do a P&O or Brittany mini-cruise which is three days to bilboa. 8 hours on land either way, the rest at sea. I got paid to buy someone a load of duty free fags last time cos he'd used up his allowance.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> yes. also portsmouth-bilboa. You can do a P&O or Brittany mini-cruise which is three days to bilboa. 8 hours on land either way, the rest at sea. I got paid to buy someone a load of duty free fags last time cos he'd used up his allowance.



Sounds like a lot of effort!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Sounds like a lot of effort!


 to see whales. Actual whales in the sea.

its all good if you turn it into a mini holiday. Last time I got to see whales. Actual whales in the sea. Plus- whisky tasting. A sample from every bottle, buying none. Jobs a good un. You meet all sorts as well. It's fun, and profitable.


----------



## elbows (Sep 17, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> I have always been in favour of increased regionalism (I wrote my dissertation at University about it), because I would like to see decentralization away from Westminster because it is a rotten cesspit. I'd like to see Northern regions start to plan as a region and maybe develop some kind of regional identity. Real democracy has always seemed much more possible on a smaller scale.



Such potential fascinates me, but I firmly believe that it can be even more of a dangerous cesspit if certain things are not put in place first.

I think its vital that genuine transparency and accountability are enshrined in the local thing from the get-go, because the corrupting imbalances of power and lack of accountability can be easier for people to harness locally.

Examples include the unfair influence of rich locals, people well-connected locally, people who can slip decisions through in a corrupt way, and in extreme cases people who can put enough muscle on the streets (either in overtly dodgy ways or via the 'local sheriff') or engage in other forms of intimidation. Also people or family dynasties that become entrenched over long periods and come to view their position within the local corridors of power as a given. Not to mention the side-effects of economic over-reliance on a few industries/companies in the area.

Devolving power to the county level can also cause issues, especially if there is disparity between different parts of the county. Here in Warwickshire there is something of a north-south divide for example, with the leafy Warwick decision-making centre often out of touch with the large population & high deprivation levels of some of Warwickshires northern towns.

Having said all that, I share your favouritism of the power of local decisions. But not as something that we simply evolve towards without a lot of other changes to our society and its structures coming into play at the same time. At a minimum, you absolutely have to get a sizeable proportion of the local populace in all areas to engage with the decision making process, which can be a challenge due to the mundane nature of much daily local business. And we would absolutely have to have a much more effective local press, that relies on proper investigative journalism and not simply rewording of press releases that come from local government, police, businesses etc.

Much of this ties into my interest in the long-term potential of the internet. Without careful attention to these and other related issues such as local organised crime, the people's democratic network of streets (  ) is going to feel like a bit of a stifling prison from very early on. Right now, from the relative safety of my bedroom, it is actually far easier for me to study and be vigilant about both historical and contemporary events on the national and international level than the local level. Information on the local level is often stunningly poor.

To put it another way, there are some 'accepted universal human rights' on a global level which help enshrine peoples safety and freedom in their daily, local lives. So we aren't just looking at having to put safeguards in place locally, but the entire way humans manage everything on every level, from the hyper-local to the global, and crucially the manner in which these levels interconnect. Decent foundations must be built on all these scales of human order for the local stuff to thrive.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> to see whales. Actual whales in the sea.
> 
> its all good if you turn it into a mini holiday. Last time I got to see whales. Actual whales in the sea. Plus- whisky tasting. A sample from every bottle, buying none. Jobs a good un. You meet all sorts as well. It's fun, and profitable.



Sounds good. But boycotting whisky, if YES. And oats.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Sounds good. But boycotting whisky, if YES. And oats.


Seriously, don't. All been done and you'd be wasting everyone's time. Just concentrate on justifying gentrification and such like in england


----------



## Celyn (Sep 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Sounds good. But boycotting whisky, if YES. And oats.



Would you buy whiskey from Ireland, the USA, or Canada instead?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> An _authority _they say? Double bluff win  Go on, one more.



What's your point please caller?


----------



## leanderman (Sep 17, 2014)

Celyn said:


> Would you buy whiskey from Ireland, the USA, or Canada instead?



yep


----------



## weltweit (Sep 17, 2014)

It isn't just whiskey, also eggs and tape, kilts and sporrans


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> What's your point please caller?


That you attempted - and failed - to create an impression of your specialist expertise in the sort of european law that was directly relevant here in order to lend authority to your question begging assertions - when it turn outs that you're just the teaboy measuring bent bananas.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2014)

Belushi said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...r-place-scotland-yes-vote-alistair-carmichael



There you go.

A pretty good country could be made up of: the Orkneys, the Shetlands, the Faroes, Iceland and Rockall.  What would they call it?  

Vikinglia.  Norselandia.  Freezingcoldia.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Fackallandia.


----------



## elbows (Sep 17, 2014)

Farockallneyland

edit - think we had a similar idea there


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Fackallandia.



Islandland.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 17, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Not literal barriers.  Many Western European borders are effectively open these days.  You don't even notice crossing from Holland into Germany.  It would be like that.



Not gone from Spain to the  GiB then back again , perhaps ..?

What happens when the tax differential becomes worthwhile for commodity trafficking ? ...dunno in which direction , but its something that won't be tolerated for long ?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 17, 2014)

So, if there is a Yes majority, will Cameron keep his job?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

weltweit said:


> So, if there is a Yes majority, will Cameron keep his job?




unless they want to face an election with house divided, a notorious vote loser, then they'll have to keep him surely


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That you attempted - and failed - to create an impression of your specialist expertise in the sort of european law that was directly relevant here in order to lend authority to your question begging assertions - when it turn outs that you're just the teaboy measuring bent bananas.



That's a pretty crude misrepresentation but you run with it if you like.

What do I know having spent the last few years working in the EU law departments of various city law firms...


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 17, 2014)

I'll be £960 richer (and not £200 poorer - I just put £200 on at 3.8/1).  I think that's only the 3rd bet I've ever placed in my life.

Not sure what surprises me more. How just... 'right' everyone and everything 'Yes' is (even if you disagree with their argument/idyll (which I probably do tbh - I like the UK as it is )) or the odds. 

I do think the Yes's will be more encouraged to actually turn up at the ballot box and maybe will sneak it.

Fair fucks to them I say


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> That's a pretty crude misrepresentation but you run with it if you like.
> 
> What do I know having spent the last few years working in the EU law departments of various city law firms...


Measuring them nanas. I guess you must be right when you assert that something is def legal fact and then go onto to say that there is no legal precedent in the next breath. And no, you don't get to try and play that trick again. Make an argument based on your experience/knowledge backed up by facts that you can point to and others can access not waving bananas and your secret insider knowledge (this is your area of specialist expertise right?) in peoples face.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Measuring them nanas. I guess you must be right when you assert that something is def legal fact and then go onto to say that there is no legal precedent in the next breath. And no, you don't get to try and play that trick again. Make an argument based on your experience/knowledge backed up by facts that you can point to and others can access not waving bananas and your secret insider knowledge (this is your area of specialist expertise right?) in peoples face.



I was actually discussing two related but separate points there - (i) EU exit and (ii) EU readmission following exit.

But nevermind with all that precision. Barrel on with your ad hominem attacks...


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 17, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> There you go.
> 
> A pretty good country could be made up of: the Orkneys, the Shetlands, the Faroes, Iceland and Rockall.  What would they call it?
> 
> Vikinglia.  Norselandia.  Freezingcoldia.



The Frissons.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I was actually discussing two related but separate points there - (i) EU exit and (ii) EU readmission following exit.
> 
> But nevermind with all that precision. Barrel on with your ad hominem attacks...


Yes, and you tried to use you area of nana expertise to assert a question begging scenario (independence legally means direct eu exit - don't question me i'm a specialist) - which you followed up by letting slip that as there is no precedent this fact is pulled out of your arse/contested.  Then you suggested that due to your and your companies vast nana experience there are no competing views than your own. I provided you with two pretty high level ones. Both have been ignored. So yeah, barrel on.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 17, 2014)

Good news, everyone. You can call off the referendum. BAE Systems have doubts, and you might not be able to get B&Q drill bits so easily.

Also the Danish foreign minister says it's a bad idea. Twice.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

Ah, right for a second there butchers I thought your banana references were to the seminal 1978 case of _United Brands_ but now I realise your more or less total ignorance of EU law by referring to product regulation, which for some reason zealots of all persuasions in the UK use as a bizarre signifier for the _acquis communaire...
_
To further underline that you have little to no idea of what you are talking about there_ has _ been precedent for EU exit (although it was then the EEC and governed by a very different set of treaties so this point is arguable to a degree) with Greenland in 1985.

What there is definitely _not _any kind of precedent for is EU exit (through secession from an MS or any other fashion) and then readmission.

That is exactly why the EU line is that Scotland would have to apply as a new MS.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Ah, right for a second I thought your banana references were to the seminal 1978 case of _United Brands_ but now I realise your more or less total ignorance of EU law by referring to product regulation, which for some reason zealots of all persuasions in the UK use as a bizarre signifier for the _acquis communaire...
> _
> To further underline that you have little to no idea of what you are talking about there_ has _ been precedent for EU exit (although it was then the EEC and governed by a very different set of treaties so this point is arguable to a degree) with Greenland in 1985.
> 
> ...



So were you offering us your more or less total ignorance of EU law, and that you have little to no idea of what you are talking about when you posted "There is no legal precedent for a constituent part of a member state seceding, thereby exiting the EU, and then applying for membership.
"? You get that my references to precedent were references to this - to your own inept use of term in that above question begging scenario i replied to? What an odd little thing to go to  and do - to go and look up the word precedent in your books then come back and suggest that the example that you'd found had somehow been suggested by me.

And again. Your last line. Just assertion. No response to the two rather high level people who think different. No need to respond of course. The authority has spoken.


----------



## elbows (Sep 17, 2014)

mauvais said:


> Good news, everyone. You can call off the referendum. BAE Systems have doubts, and you might not be able to get B&Q drill bits so easily.
> 
> Also the Danish foreign minister says it's a bad idea. Twice.



That image is just some crap a fool posted to some forums over 2 months ago, if google image search is anything to go by.


----------



## chilango (Sep 17, 2014)

mauvais said:


> Good news, everyone. You can call off the referendum. BAE Systems have doubts, and you might not be able to get B&Q drill bits so easily.
> 
> Also the Danish foreign minister says it's a bad idea. Twice.



Cracking "yes" agit-prop that.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> What there is definitely _not _any kind of precedent for is EU exit (through secession from an MS or any other fashion) and then readmission.
> 
> That is exactly why the EU line is that Scotland would have to apply as a new MS.


Can you tell me why no precedent def means no state could be allowed to stay in please? Why on earth would no precedent existing mean that none could be set? Each time you say there is no precedent you make the case that actually there are many potential outcomes here rather than your one - only one!!!! ONLY ONE!!!!!!


----------



## mauvais (Sep 17, 2014)

elbows said:


> That image is just some crap a fool posted to some forums over 2 months ago, if google image search is anything to go by.


It's on the B/T Facebook page now.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can you tell me why no precedent def means no state could be allowed to stay in please? Why on earth would no precedent existing mean that none could be set? Each time you say there is no precedent you make the case that actually there are many potential outcomes here rather than your one - only one!!!! ONLY ONE!!!!!!



It could happen, anything can happen.  But one of the reasons people hire expert opinions is to quantify the likelihood of something happening or, in other words, the risk profile.

When the next Commission president (Juncker) says that Scotland will have to apply for new membership, just like any other aspiring member, that's a fairly reliable indication of the way the wind is blowing and, especially in the _absence _of a precedent to the contrary, seems fairly clear.

e2a - logically this gives you an insight into the appetite for risk of the "yes" camp, which appears to be enormous.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> It could happen, anything can happen.  But one of the reason people hire expert opinions is to quantify the likelihood of something happening or, in other words the risk profile.
> 
> When the next Commission president (Juncker) says that Scotland will have to apply for new membership, just like any other aspiring member, that's a fairly reliable indication of the way the wind is blowing and, especially in the _absence _of a precedent to the contrary, seems fairly clear.


_Only one thing can happen. I repeat: *only one thing can happen*. That said, *anything can happen.* And even with that said, *i'm still an expert*, so anything can happen. By which i mean only one thing can happen._


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _Only one thing can happen. I repeat: *only one thing can happen*. That said, *anything can happen.* And even with that said, *i'm still an expert*, so anything can happen. By which i mean only one thing can happen._



You seem to find subtlety/nuance rather difficult to grasp - word of advice, don't try your hand at law.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> You seem to find subtlety/nuance rather difficult to grasp - word of advice, don't try your hand at law.


I might offer you the same advice. Oh.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> You seem to find subtlety/nuance rather difficult to grasp - word of advice, don't try your hand at law.


Are you're suggesting that i should try my hand at law? I just can't get my poor thicko head round your subtlety and nuance massa.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> On the EU front, it should be fairly clear that seceding from an EU member state means exiting the EU.



Nuance?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 17, 2014)

Saw a bloke in the local junk shop try to give a Scottish five pound note as change to a customer the other day. Not always easy to exchange them without Scottish independence looming.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Nuance?


Nah that one was subtlety i think.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 17, 2014)

Was the same without independence looming. I don't care if it is legal tender I wouldn't accept a Scottish note in my change.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Nuance?



The EU is a polity of 28 MS first and foremost and any region of those MS only enjoys membership by virtue of its wider state's membership, all painfully negotiated in great detail.

If a region departs the umbrella of its wider MS, it logically follows that its EU membership then ceases unless some unprecedented arrangement can be arrived at.

On Scotland's independence timetable that is almost inconceivable.

This is only underlined by the official EU position and the Spanish view.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> The EU is a polity of 28 MS first and foremost and any region of those MS only enjoys membership by virtue of its wider state's membership, all painfully negotiated in great detail.
> 
> If a region departs the umbrella of its wider MS, it logically follows that its EU membership then ceases unless some unprecedented arrangement can be arrived at.
> 
> ...


Now that, _unless some unprecedented arrangement can be arrived at_ is exactly what what missing from your original assertion. That would have indicated at least an awareness of possibilities beyond that bald statement. A path on the road to recognising subtlety and nuance. But, sadly, it wasn't there. In fact i had to introduce that subtlety and nuance to you.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

I'm finding it funny how both sides are trying so hard to look like they're going to win.  It implies that a decent segment of people are so dumb they will vote for a side just based on the fact that it looks like it's going to win.

The sad thing is that I'm not certain they're wrong in this.


----------



## peterkro (Sep 17, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Was the same without independence looming. I don't care if it is legal tender I wouldn't accept a Scottish note in my change.


Over the years I've accepted many,drug dealers and car salespeople will often deal in Scottish hundreds.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 17, 2014)

peterkro said:


> Over the years I've accepted many,drug dealers and car salespeople will often deal in Scottish hundreds.



Says a certain something about a life lived to the full.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Now that, _unless some unprecedented arrangement can be arrived at_ is exactly what what missing from your original assertion. That would have indicated at least an awareness of possibilities beyond that bald statement. A path on the road to recognising subtlety and nuance. But, sadly, it wasn't there. In fact i had to introduce that subtlety and nuance to you.



You do get hung up on some odd points.

I stated that it "should be fairly clear" and that is exactly what it is - not 100% clear but in all the circumstances, it would look fairly clear, as in the majority likelihood, that EU exit goes hand in hand with UK exit.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> You do get hung up on some odd points.
> 
> I stated that it "should be fairly clear" and that is exactly what it is - not 100% clear but in all the circumstances, it would look fairly clear, as in the majority likelihood, that EU exit goes hand in hand with UK exit.



Please stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 17, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Not sure if anyone has considered this before, but we will no longer be an Island Nation if they vote yes!



The UK has had a land border for the best part of a century...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> You do get hung up on some odd points.
> 
> I stated that it "should be fairly clear" and that is exactly what it is - not 100% clear but in all the circumstances, it would look fairly clear, as in the majority likelihood, that EU exit goes hand in hand with UK exit.


It should be_ fairly clear_ that what you then outline will 100% happen. Not it's fairly clear this is likely to happen. it was an assertion that something _will _100% happen and those who don't agree cannot see what is_ fairly clear_ to all of sound mind. In fact, you are now just lying about what you said and what it meant.

 I'm better than you at this. And this is supposed to be your job, your area of _specialist expertise._


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

Ok butchers, if you say so...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

Little tip for future diamond - you are not as clever as you think you are and other people are not at thick as you think they are. Bear that in mind - might serve you well.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

(Can't believe that this whole EU membership argument has been reduced to the employment of a qualifying adverb... talk about limited perspectives...)


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Little tip for future diamond - you are not as clever as you think you are and other people are not at thick as you think they are. Bear that in mind - might serve you well.



I don't think that you're thick butchers, far from it, but you do seem to like making things as personal as you can as quickly as possible, which I think is a bit of an odd way of going about things.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 17, 2014)

mauvais said:


> Good news, everyone. You can call off the referendum. BAE Systems have doubts, and you might not be able to get B&Q drill bits so easily.
> 
> Also the Danish foreign minister says it's a bad idea. Twice.


I don't know if, Morrison's are against Independence...

Really that shitty image is part of the reason why NO has lost so much ground.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2014)

elbows said:


> Such potential fascinates me, but I firmly believe that it can be even more of a dangerous cesspit if certain things are not put in place first.
> 
> I think its vital that genuine transparency and accountability are enshrined in the local thing from the get-go, because the corrupting imbalances of power and lack of accountability can be easier for people to harness locally.
> 
> ...



Local welfare regimes can also be very brutal and unfair, Manchester City council is now prioritising those in work or prepared to look for it, in relation to social housing, we could see the return of a form of 'parish relief' where people have to plead their case for benefits, this is already happening with bedroom tax relief.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously, don't. All been done and you'd be wasting everyone's time. Just concentrate on justifying gentrification and such like in england



Classy


----------



## leanderman (Sep 17, 2014)

Diamond said:


> The EU is a polity of 28 MS first and foremost and any region of those MS only enjoys membership by virtue of its wider state's membership, all painfully negotiated in great detail.
> 
> If a region departs the umbrella of its wider MS, it logically follows that its EU membership then ceases unless some unprecedented arrangement can be arrived at.
> 
> ...



Yes. What a mess


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Classy


Exactly.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 17, 2014)

Probably already been said but id guess the negative Spanish view is based on helping to get a No vote and so taking the steam out of internal Spanish independence movements


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

It's stupid and I don't have a vote anyway but I really really *REALLY* want to know what would happen in the case of a Yes vote.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Probably already been said but id guess the negative Spanish view is based on helping to get a No vote and so taking the steam out of internal Spanish independence movements


the opposite, surely. A yes vote giving fresh impetus to the catalan and basque calls for a peacful autonomy


----------



## leanderman (Sep 17, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Probably already been said but id guess the negative Spanish view is based on helping to get a No vote and so taking the steam out of internal Spanish independence movements



When/if it comes to it, I can't see Madrid actually trying to block Scotland's membership application.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 17, 2014)

If Scotland is to be allowed to remain within the EU, what concessions would the rest of the EU expect to extract from it, and potentially from the rest of the UK, for allowing this to happen?

I'd expect the UK rebate would be on bargaining chip that would need to be sacrificed.

The voting rights in the council for ministers would also look to be a likely sticking point, the UK has 29 votes, the same as Germany, France, Italy. Denmark, Finland, Slovakia have similar populations to scotland and have 7 votes, which would presumably be the level of votes that Scotland would expect to have, but if those 7 votes were taken from the UK allocation that would leave the rest of the UK with only 22 votes, which would be significantly below Spain and Poland on 27 votes, despite those countries having 10 and 20 million lower populations than the rest of the UK.

So that would be a pretty big sticking point, unless Scotland or the rUK were prepared to sacrifice voting rights, as I doubt the rest of the EU would be prepared to increase the overall voting rights to UK and Scotland. I think this is what happened when Germany unified, which is why Germany has the same votes as UK, France and Italy despite having 15-20 million more people now, but I'm struggling to confirm this.

details of council of ministers voting rights


----------



## Supine (Sep 17, 2014)

Implications for the rest of us...

If scotland leave and historically we've giving them 1600 quid in extra benefits due to the xxx formula, how much will we receive when they stop getting paid this money. Can anyone do the maths? Its something to do with population count and %'s.

I hope the politicians give it to us!


----------



## free spirit (Sep 17, 2014)

Supine said:


> Implications for the rest of us...
> 
> If scotland leave and historically we've giving them 1600 quid in extra benefits due to the xxx formula, how much will we receive when they stop getting paid this money. Can anyone do the maths? Its something to do with population count and %'s.
> 
> I hope the politicians give it to us!


negative money because they'd take the vast majority of the North Sea oil revenue, which more than makes up for the extra government funding. ie we'll be worse off.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the opposite, surely. A yes vote giving fresh impetus to the catalan and basque calls for a peacful autonomy


im tired so not sure why you think its opposite...
the campaign itself has already created that impetus - the Spanish Prime Minister who has been "warning" Scotland is, id have thought, against any greater catalan and basque independence (correct me if im wrong)...any sounds out of madrid now are pure politics Id bet and wont necessarily reflect the post-Yes vote reality


----------



## JTG (Sep 17, 2014)

Fuck all, Scotland contributes more than it gets back


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2014)

JTG said:


> Fuck all, Scotland contributes more than it gets back



Such claims are a matter of context, once Scotland becomes independent the landscape changes no matter whether Scotland is a net contributor or net debtor.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 17, 2014)

I'd expect it would dawn on rUK politicians at some stage how desperately they actually need Scotland to stay within the EU. 

Otherwise they'd be entirely free to set their own VAT rates etc and the UK would have to rapidly negotiate bilateral trade, security etc. agreement with Scotland, meaning that it's probably going to be far simpler all around if Scotland does just remain in the EU.

It's certainly not just a issue that would impact on Scotland.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 17, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Was the same without independence looming. I don't care if it is legal tender I wouldn't accept a Scottish note in my change.



I'm going to give you a scottish fiver for your birthday. How'd you like them implications?


----------



## Tankus (Sep 17, 2014)

Technically its already not legal tender ...never was 
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/faqs.aspx#sandni


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 17, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Technically its already not legal tender ...never was
> http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/faqs.aspx#sandni


People generally don't really mean "legal tender" when they say that, though.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 17, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'd expect it would dawn on rUK politicians at some stage how desperately they actually need Scotland to stay within the EU.
> 
> Otherwise they'd be entirely free to set their own VAT rates etc and the UK would have to rapidly negotiate bilateral trade, security etc. agreement with Scotland, meaning that it's probably going to be far simpler all around if Scotland does just remain in the EU.
> 
> It's certainly not just a issue that would impact on Scotland.


Scotland still has a substantial fishing fleet and would have some very large waters that would be outside the common fisheries policy.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 17, 2014)

ferrelhadley said:


> Scotland still has a substantial fishing fleet and would have some very large waters that would be outside the common fisheries policy.


It is a huge area of ocean that would be being lost to the common fisheries policy.








And the UK hasn't got a hope in hell of meeting its renewables obligations without the scottish contribution.... not that this will be a deciding point, but...


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

Just a final point on the EU question - the dominant question in the EU for roughly four years has been its (or more to the point the eurozone's) friability.

Destabilising national/regional popular movements are anathema to Brussels (see UKIP).

The idea that you can break up a MS and then gain automatic readmission is so unpalatable that it has not been countenanced in any serious way to date.  

It would undermine the rule of EU law to provide special dispensation to Scotland, especially in light of the broader EU strategy of enlargement.

Brussels doesn't have much time for such focused national/regional separatism precisely because the logic of EU integration involves claiming incrementally more sovereignty from national governments.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 18, 2014)

Today could be historic.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Just a final point on the EU question - the dominant question in the EU for roughly four years has been its (or more to the point the eurozone's) friability.
> 
> Destabilising national/regional popular movements are anathema to Brussels (see UKIP).
> 
> ...


How closely do you think the Eu actually sticks to Eu law? Esp as regards membership criteria for things and all those nanas?

You seem like an incredibly naive person.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Just a final point on the EU question - the dominant question in the EU for roughly four years has been its (or more to the point the eurozone's) friability.
> 
> Destabilising national/regional popular movements are anathema to Brussels (see UKIP).



Yuval Noah Harari makes this idea into a wider point in his new book, Sapiens: 

'[If] safeguarding human rights and protecting the interests of the entire human species should be the guiding light of politics, having close to 200 independent states is a hindrance rather than a help.'


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How closely do you think the Eu actually sticks to Eu law? Esp as regards membership criteria for things and all those nanas?



Still with the bananas, eh?

Yep, but that's a fair point.  It is political after all - rule of law and politics are inextricably interlinked.

However, one needs to be realistic on what the current policy priorities of the EU are - here are Juncker's 10: http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/priorities/index_en.htm - and the wider strategy of the EU, as seen most saliently on its eastern borders.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Yuval Noah Harari makes this idea into a wider point in his new book, Sapiens:
> 
> '[If] safeguarding human rights and protecting the interests of the entire human species should be the guiding light of politics, having close to 200 independent states is a hindrance rather than a help.'


This is news? The EU doesn't like anti-eu stuff, or stuff that might lead to anti-eu outcomes. Are you diamond's boss? Did you need the appeal to _authority_?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Still with the bananas, eh?
> 
> Yep, but that's a fair point.  It is political after all - rule of law and politics are inextricably interlinked.
> 
> However, one needs to be realistic on what the current policy priorities of the EU are - here are Juncker's 10: http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/priorities/index_en.htm - and the wider strategy of the EU, as seen most saliently on its eastern borders.


Do you mean to answer my question by saying _nah not that closely_, so you making a point of how it always sticks by the law closely and so will in this case looks a bit daft?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do you mean to answer my question by saying _nah not that closely_, so you making a point of how it always sticks by the law closely and so will in this case looks a bit daft?



I think one needs to be realistic.  The EU is about _integration_ fundamentally.

If you start turning over tables and marching off to a national tune, you won't get much sympathy.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I think one needs to be realistic.  The EU is about _integration_ fundamentally.
> 
> If you start turning over tables and marching off to a national tune, you won't get much sympathy.


Please try a little consistency.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> If you start turning over tables and marching off to a national tune, you won't get much sympathy.



Bit like a child running off the pitch with the ball


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Please try a little consistency.



I'm not sure how that was inconsistent.  Please clarify.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I'm not sure how that was inconsistent.  Please clarify.


a) The EU closely follows the law and will in this case - that's what the EU is based on.
b) OK it doesn't and won't when it doesn't think it is in its best interest to do so- it makes it's mind up politically.

Please respond.  Don't know what to do next.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> a) The EU closely follows the law and will in this case - that's what the EU is based on.
> b) OK it doesn't and won't when it doesn't think it is in its best interest to do so- it makes it's mind up politically.
> 
> Please respond.  Don't know what to do next.



On the whole rule a) applies with the exception of rule b).

One then has to take a view on which is more or likely - that is the heart of this aspect of the debate.

At the moment rule a) re: admission and integration is dominant because the more you undermine it with individual/special cases, the more you undermine the whole body of EU law.

My view is that rule a) will tend to lead towards iScotland having a very difficult job of gaining admission on the basis that the "yes" camp has advanced, and certainly not in the timetable that is proposed.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

If iScotland accepts the Euro, the dynamic may change significantly though...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Point a) isn't a _rule  _- it's an assertion from you. It is either true or not.
Point b) is not a _rule _either - it is you admitting that the assertion from you in a) is not true.

Thus any other stuff based on a) is wrong.

I'm better than you at this.


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2014)

there isn't any a), only b)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> there isn't any a), only b)


I know that, any one with eyes to see knows that. Diamond thinks there is an a). After just talking about what they did to Spain.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Point a) isn't a _rule  _- it's an assertion from you. It is either true or not.
> Point b) is not a _rule _either - it is you admitting that the assertion from you in a) is not true.
> 
> Thus any other stuff based on a) is wrong.
> ...



Hmm... (ignoring the grandstanding last bit) not sure what point you are trying to make.

The rule of EU law is clearly what the EU is all about - hence the General Court and the superior Court of Justice (although both are so clogged up with cases that the application/determination of EU law is certainly not prompt).

Without it, there would be no EU.

However, at the same time, it is an international/transnational agreement between member states and therefore is fundamentally political in that respect, which allows for derogations/variability in exceptional circumstances according to the general interest at that point in time.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

The formal declaration of _The rule of EU law is clearly what the EU is all about_ (and haven't you learnt anything on your subtlety and nuance awareness course about the use of clearly) doesn't make it so when you go on to say that precisely that it is a mere formality and means nothing. You undermine your own starting  - and might i say, rather naive - premise.


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I know that, any one with eyes to see knows that. Diamond thinks there is an a). After just talking about what they did to Spain.


whole lot of blind people about then. The whole debate seems to have revolved around variations on a).


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The formal declaration of _The rule of EU law is clearly what the EU is all about_ (and haven't you learnt anything on your subtlety and nuance awareness course about the use of clearly) doesn't make it so when you go on to say that precisely that it is a mere formality and means nothing. You undermine your own starting  - and might i say, rather naive - premise.



No, you misunderstand me - it is not a mere formality, it is the very purpose of the organisation - to establish a common European polity governed by a common European law.

To further that ultimate goal, occasional derogations/variations will be granted but they are few and far between and are governed specifically by that final consideration - a common Europe, underpinned by a common European law.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> No, you misunderstand me - it is not a mere formality, it is the very purpose of the organisation - to establish a common European polity governed by a common European law.
> 
> To further that ultimate goal, occasional derogations/variations will be granted but they are few and far between and are governed specifically by that final consideration - a common Europe, underpinned by a common European law.


No, i understand fully. And it's lying about this and the activities justified under exceptionalism (the language of carl schmitt the founder of fascist legal thought) that will kill it. It's also what renders your argument that the EU will closely follow the law as regards an independent scotland a little bit daft. 
_
It will def follow the law in the bits i agree it should. But not in the bits i disagree with. It's the law. _


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, i understand fully. And it's lying about this and the activities justified under exceptionalism (the language of carl schmitt the founder of fascist legal thought) that will kill it. It's also what renders your argument that the EU will closely follow the law as regards an independent scotland a little bit daft.



Lying, how?

Kill, what?

And, finally, why do you think the, now well established in EU law, accession regime will be ignored with iScotland?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

You need leverage to subvert the existing accession regime - where do you think iScotland's leverage lies and why is it in the EU's interests to prize what iScotland has to offer?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Lying, how?
> 
> Kill, what?
> 
> And, finally, why do you think the, now well established in EU law, accession regime will be ignored with iScotland?


By offering the pretence that the EU is something different from what it is understood by  by those in power. By lying.

KIll the EU.

God, no we're back to your earlier precedent confusion. I never did get an answer to my question as to why the lack of precedents means that an independent scotland automatically leaves the EU rather than this lack of precedents suggesting that there are other options did i? I wonder why. try and answer it then ask me that last question again.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> You need leverage to subvert the existing accession regime - where do you think iScotland's leverage lies and why is it in the EU's interests to prize what iScotland has to offer?


Establish accession is needed. You've been unable to do so all day. I thought this was your area of special legal expertise? All you've managed is_ my boss who doesn't work in the field thinks so and so do his mates who don't know fuck all think so too._


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

I've made my position clear, anything is possible (including the readmission of iScotland to the UK - I find assertions to the contrary particularly egregious examples of party politics).

An interesting point that many UK lawyers often fail to appreciate when dealing with EU law is that there is no formal concept of _stare decisis_ in EU law.

This makes it a lot more flexible, in the civil rather than common law tradition, than UK law.

So, even if there was a firm precedent, CJEU judges would not be formally obliged to find it binding.

Nonetheless, it is very rare indeed for the ECJ to rule contrary to earlier decisions (I am not aware of a single occasion).

Anyway, I digress, although hopefully lending some light on how EU law is different in principle to English and Welsh [and here I am guessing, admittedly] Scottish law.

However, the main point still remains, the EU has many priorities, almost all of which are incompatible, or at best neutral, with Scottish independence insofar as such a development undermines integration.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

I think you've made yourself very clear. You made a series of definitive statements. You can't defend or sustain them under questioning. In fact, you've been forced to undermine them and agree that the basis for them doesn't actually exist. Good days specialist lawyering!


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think you've made yourself very clear. You made a series of definitive statements. You can't defend or sustain them under questioning. In fact, you've been forced to undermine them and agree that the basis for them doesn't actually exist. Good days specialist lawyering!



Fair enough, enjoy that self-awarded medal.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> a) The EU closely follows the law and will in this case - that's what the EU is based on.
> b) OK it doesn't and won't when it doesn't think it is in its best interest to do so- it makes it's mind up politically.
> 
> Please respond.  Don't know what to do next.



But EU law specifically is political, particularly on this sort of point, where any new membership would have to be ratified by all member countries, and any ammendments to the existing documents to allow for Scotland to somehow just be accepted eg by splitting the existing UK votes would also require approval by European parliament and the European Council- the political element is codified into the EU law.

Diamond has it right IMO in that there's nothing actually in the EU law as it stands that would automatically grant Scotland the right to be members of the EU, it would require political agreement between member states for this to happen, basically to amend the legislation to allow it.

That political agreement could happen, but it's a hell of an ask to expect it to happen within 18 months, particularly when considering that depending on how this were to be done it could set a precedent that might well alarm some of the countries that would need to agree to it.

Scotland does have some decent bargaining chips, and it's in the EU's interests for Scotland to be part of the EU, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all countries in the EU will play ball and allow it to happen smoothly.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 18, 2014)

ska invita said:


> im tired so not sure why you think its opposite...
> the campaign itself has already created that impetus - the Spanish Prime Minister who has been "warning" Scotland is, id have thought, against any greater catalan and basque independence (correct me if im wrong)...any sounds out of madrid now are pure politics Id bet and wont necessarily reflect the post-Yes vote reality



The current panic in Madrid about Catalonia can't be underestimated. PP are hell bent on doing anything to wreck independence. I think they would possibly spite Scotland for their own self-interest. Thing is, it won't be PP in power for long. PSOE would be more flexible, and as for Podemos - they'd have the red carpet out for Scotland.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

You have our positions the wrong way round. You read me characterising his positions as my positions. I am the one that forced him to recognise that his definitive claim that an independent scotland is out of the EU and that's an end of it, is naive at best given political will. In fact, as my two things a) and b) above show-diamond doesn't even have a position to be correct about. He makes 100% claims then is forced to take them back. There is no Diamond position.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I never did get an answer to my question as to why the lack of precedents means that an independent scotland automatically leaves the EU rather than this lack of precedents suggesting that there are other options did i? I wonder why. try and answer it then ask me that last question again.


Scotland itself has no signature on any treaties, and no votes specifically allocated to it at the council of ministers.

It can't be a member without signing the treaties, and it can't be a full member without being allocated votes at the council of ministers.

So without an agreement to allow it to just sign the treaties, and be allocated an agreed share of the former UK votes it automatically won't be a member of the EU.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Scotland itself has no signature on any treaties, and no votes specifically allocated to it at the council of ministers.
> 
> It can't be a member without signing the treaties, and it can't be a full member without being allocated votes at the council of ministers.
> 
> So without an agreement to allow it to just sign the treaties, and be allocated an agreed share of the former UK votes it automatically won't be a member of the EU.


Which isn't anything to do with what i asked - i guess that you're reading this thread backwards and then responding (more than a little arrogant that) but at least you did respond. More than Diamond managed.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You have our positions the wrong way round. You read me characterising his positions as my positions. I am the one that forced him to recognise that his definitive claim that an independent scotland is out of the EU and that's an end of it, is naive at best given political will. In fact, as my two things a) and b) above show-diamond doesn't even have a position to be correct about. He makes 100% claims then is forced to take them back. There is no Diamond position.



That's your characterisation of his posts, rather than what he's actually been saying IMO. He probably should have put some caveats in to the first post, eg 'To put it simply - a "yes" vote is *likely to be* a "yes" for leaving both (i) the UK and (ii) the EU.", but it was fairly clearly an opinion rather than a clear statement of absolute fact.

But rather than sniping at his position, maybe you could outline your own understanding of how you see it panning out so that Scotland ends up being able to simply remain a full EU member. I'm assuming you must be basing this on the idea that there would be some political fudge to allow it to happen?

And yes I did read the 2 links you posted, but they weren't particularly clear on exactly how they expected this to work.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> That's your characterisation of his posts, rather than what he's actually been saying IMO. He probably should have put some caveats in to the first post, eg 'To put it simply - a "yes" vote is *likely to be* a "yes" for leaving both (i) the UK and (ii) the EU.", but it was fairly clearly an opinion rather than a clear statement of absolute fact.
> 
> But rather than sniping at his position, maybe you could outline your own understanding of how you see it panning out so that Scotland ends up being able to simply remain a full EU member. I'm assuming you must be basing this on the idea that there would be some political fudge to allow it to happen?
> 
> And yes I did read the 2 links you posted, but they weren't particularly clear on exactly how they expected this to work.



Yes it's my correct characterisation of his posts. Why should he have put those caveats in when that wasn't what he was saying? He was saying t_his is the facts. There is nothing else_. I showed him to be wrong by arguing with him -  or sniping as you put it and argue that i shouldn't do - and he now has accepted that his definitive claims were nonsense. Not that it stopped him making the same sort of definitive claims and the same re-correction having to take place later. But yeah me being right was just sniping and mischaracterisation.

I wouldn't want an independent scotland in the EU. So i couldn't give two shits about working out how it could stay in or regain membership.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Which isn't anything to do with what i asked - i guess that you're reading this thread backwards and then responding (more than a little arrogant that) but at least you did respond. More than Diamond managed.


it was an attempt at answer theing question, as only a precedent to the contrary would indicate that the above would be unlikely to be how it worked out in practice. However, as this is an unprecedented situation, it is also a situation in which the precedent will need to be set one way or the other, so ultimately will be a political decision as opposed to a purely legalistic one (which I think is probably what you've been getting at?).

Actually, I'll revise what I said previously as the EU apparently can suspend the voting rights of a member country, so possibly this could be another route they could go down - accept Scotland's membership, but suspend its voting rights until agreement can be reached on how to divvy the UK voting rights up.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Have a read of your first para. And then read what i've been posting all day.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes it's my correct characterisation of his posts. Why should he have put those caveats in when that wasn't what he was saying? He was saying t_his is the facts. There is nothing else_. I showed him to be wrong by arguing with him -  or sniping as you put it and argue that i shouldn't do - and he now has accepted that his definitive claims were nonsense. Not that it stopped him making the same sort of definitive claims and the same re-correction having to take place later. But yeah me being right was just sniping and mischaracterisation.
> 
> I wouldn't want an independent scotland in the EU. So i couldn't give two shits about working out how it could stay in or regain membership.



To be fair, you haven't demonstrably shown what you claim with regard to my posts to any degree of satisfaction.

The single post that you hinge your bizarrely narrow argument upon offered a clearly qualified opinion.

You are trying to pretend otherwise through selective quotation.

Butchers, you seem to have an adversion to advancing an integrated argument yourself on this topic.  Why is that?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have a read of your first para. And then read what i've been posting all day.


a bit more clarity in your writing style to explain your points better might help then.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> To be fair, you haven't demonstrably shown what you claim with regard to my posts to any degree of satisfaction.
> 
> The single post that you hinge your bizarrely narrow argument upon offered a clearly qualified opinion.
> 
> ...


Why do you write like a trained wanker? Are you actually really trained to write like that? Like integrally and egregiously?

And is that really the best repsonse to criticisms of your own intellectuals positions - to argue that i haven't been as fucking daft as ye? That i failed to be as silly enough to offer a load of definitive postions that i had to take back and attempt to cover up with bluster about nuance and subtlety in the way that you did?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> a bit more clarity in your writing style to explain your points better might help then.


Don't read backwards. Clarity, will come.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why do you write like a trained wanker? Are you actually really trained to write like that? Like integrally and egregiously?
> 
> And is that really the best repsonse to criticisms of your own intellectuals positions - to argue that i haven't been as fucking daft as ye? That i failed to be as silly enough to offer a load of definitive postions that i had to take back and attempt to cover up with bluster about nuance and subtlety in the way that you did?



I'm just trying to be clear.

"trained wanker", is not in my professional vocabulary, admittedly...

(and again, these definitive positions that you refer to are far from what you pretend them to be...)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I'm just trying to be clear.
> 
> "trained wanker", is not in my professional vocabulary, admittedly...
> 
> (and again, these definitive positions that you refer to are from what you pretend them to be...)


Of course not. Of course they _clearly _weren't. Of course i didn't have to _clearly _force you to recognise that they were and so to change them-to offer some nuance. And in the process overthrow your own original argument. _Clearly_.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

And to reiterate again, butchers I don't think you're daft, nor do I think your position is daft (mainly because I have no idea what it _actually is _owing to your reluctance to advance it).


----------



## leanderman (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I'm just trying to be clear.
> 
> "trained wanker", is not in my professional vocabulary, admittedly...
> 
> (and again, these definitive positions that you refer to are from what you pretend them to be...)



Oh dear. Looks like debate has been derailed by inept pedantry and insults


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I'm just trying to be clear.
> 
> "trained wanker", is not in my professional vocabulary, admittedly...
> 
> (and again, these definitive positions that you refer to are from what you pretend them to be...)



Why does writing like a wanker lead you to think that you're being _clear_. You've twisted like a caught out bullshitter all day. Because you _were _clear originally. You said what you meant. Then when what you said was shown to be rubbish and you had to integrate what i was saying into your own view you started writing this wanker talk again. This deliberate attempt at professional exclusionary language - the one designed to re-confer authority. _The authority i so cruelly took from you._


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I wouldn't want an independent scotland in the EU. So i couldn't give two shits about working out how it could stay in or regain membership.


No wonder that I couldn't work out. I'd naively assumed that you were in some way supportive of the arguments made in the articles you linked to when countering Diamonds assertions, not necessarily about what you'd want to happen, but about what you expect would happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> No wonder that I couldn't work out. I'd naively assumed that you were in some way supportive of the arguments made in the articles you linked to when countering Diamonds assertions, not necessarily about what you'd want to happen, but about what you expect would happen.


His assertions were that no one could challenge his nana measuring authority to declare what would happen in the event of an independent scotland and its relations with the EU. _Even his boss _and his bosses mates agreed that no one could possibly disagree. So i posted some high level disagreement. That was 12 hours ago. No reply on the content as yet. Nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> No wonder that I couldn't work out. I'd naively assumed that you were in some way supportive of the arguments made in the articles you linked to when countering Diamonds assertions, not necessarily about what you'd want to happen, but about what you expect would happen.


I don't think anyone's climbed everest btw. My boss and some blokes who he knows agree. Have you an integral  argument that contradicts this? Btw i have seen black narcissus so this is my specialist area.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond, or anyone else who is interested in discussing it....

Would you agree that the main political stumbling blocks to getting an agreement would be

1 - The assignment of voting rights at the European Council, which would either require rUK or Scotland to accept less voting rights than equivalently sized countries, or for the rest of the EU to accept an increase in overall voting rights to the combined Scotland and rUk so that each would have the same voting rights as equivalent countries.

2 - The issue of the UK rebate, which I understand to be a major bone of contention in the EU, and one that other big countries are likely to want to resolve as quid pro quo for sorting out the scottish devolution mess.

3 - The fear among other countries of it setting precedents that might lead to further areas / countries claiming independence.

4 - EMU membership opt out, and Euro opt out.

Salmond has also made noises about wanting opt outs to allow scotland to put living wage criteria into public contracts, but I suspect that one will end up being dropped as it probably is against WTO rules anyway (which I'd also want to get rid of).

anything other key stumbling blocks?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think anyone's climbed everest btw. My boss and some blokes who he knows agree. Have you an integral  argument that contradicts this? Btw i have seen black narcissus so this is my specialist area.


I get that you have a problem with people claiming expertise in a specialist area, but it's a bit boring tbh.

I found it useful to know Diamond's field of expertise, it helped to put his input into context.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Diamond, or anyone else who is interested in discussing it....
> 
> Would you agree that the main political stumbling blocks to getting an agreement would be
> 
> ...



On point 1, no idea, that will come down to traditional Brussels horse trading, although iScotland would be in a tremendously weak position vis a vis voting rights as a matter of course.

On point 2, the best outcome for iScotland would a be rebate proportioned according to population.  This, I would suggest, would be a red-line in Brussels negotiations, though I could be wrong.

On point 3, this is the big one - to set a precedent for secession and readmission on any basis (be it fast track, or as seems likely through the normal process of admission) would be anathema.   Not to flog the horse too hard - integration, not disintegration is the whole point of the EU.

On point 4, I can't see any viable way for admission to the EU without Euro membership.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why does writing like a wanker lead you to think that you're being _clear_. You've twisted like a caught out bullshitter all day. Because you _were _clear originally. You said what you meant. Then when what you said was shown to be rubbish and you had to integrate what i was saying into your own view you started writing this wanker talk again. This deliberate attempt at professional exclusionary language - the one designed to re-confer authority. _The authority i so cruelly took from you._



Writing like a "wanker".

I'm pretty sure that you have used the same terms that I have but which you took unusual offence to...

Again, I ask, what do you think will happen?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> His assertions were that no one could challenge his nana measuring authority to declare what would happen in the event of an independent scotland and its relations with the EU. _Even his boss _and his bosses mates agreed that no one could possibly disagree. So i posted some high level disagreement. That was 12 hours ago. No reply on the content as yet. Nothing.



The bananas again (missed that)...

Seriously?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

You do understand the difference between product regulation and the destruction of barriers to trade, butchers?


----------



## newbie (Sep 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Diamond, or anyone else who is interested in discussing it....
> 
> Would you agree that the main political stumbling blocks to getting an agreement would be
> 
> ...



Schengen.

tbh though listing possible sticking points could go on all day, not that that matters, we've got a bit less than 24 hours before this round of bickering ends and the next round can begin.

Anyway, the list will resolve itself with each of the fingers in the EU pie asking "_what's in it for me_?". All of those fingers will notice with interest that there's no Scottish foreign office with a diplomatic staff ready and able to deal with all of them simultaneously, and that it will take some while to set one up and equip it with even preparatory powers to negotiate. So they'll content themselves in the meantime with making life difficult for the UK so that when the time comes rUK can be cut down to size.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 18, 2014)

There should be a thread:

Implications for the rest of us if Scotland votes No


----------



## newbie (Sep 18, 2014)

... meanwhile the UK diplomatic effort will want to ensure no-one questions whether rUK should keep its seat on the Security Council. Swapping the UK seat for an EU seat is a huge prize for 26 of the other 27, leaving France in a problematic position.


----------



## newbie (Sep 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> There should be a thread:
> 
> Implications for the rest of us if Scotland votes No


I almost started one alongside this, but thought it would die after .c said "nothing will change" in post 2.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 18, 2014)

nah, if Scotland votes no nothing's gonna be the same again either.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 18, 2014)

newbie said:


> ... meanwhile the UK diplomatic effort will want to ensure no-one questions whether rUK should keep its seat on the Security Council. Swapping the UK seat for an EU seat is a huge prize for 26 of the other 27, leaving France in a problematic position.




We has the nukes hence we keep the seat along with france and th ability to go annoy anyone else on the planet.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

likesfish said:


> We has the nukes hence we keep the seat along with france and th ability to go annoy anyone else on the planet.



Yep, while they're keen on certainty and continuity in the EU, the UN is rather more keen on it altogether, especially when backed up with a nuclear arsenal.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

newbie said:


> Schengen.
> 
> tbh though listing possible sticking points could go on all day, not that that matters, we've got a bit less than 24 hours before this round of bickering ends and the next round can begin.
> 
> Anyway, the list will resolve itself with each of the fingers in the EU pie asking "_what's in it for me_?". All of those fingers will notice with interest that there's no Scottish foreign office with a diplomatic staff ready and able to deal with all of them simultaneously, and that it will take some while to set one up and equip it with even preparatory powers to negotiate. So they'll content themselves in the meantime with making life difficult for the UK so that when the time comes rUK can be cut down to size.



This is a good point - how large are iScotland's negotiating teams going to be to deal with exiting two unions in conjunction and then negotiating (i) a readmission to the EU and (ii) a currency union with rUK?

It will be a mammoth task.

Perhaps the "yes" camp thinks that they have some right to use the UK's Brussels machine on the first one, but that would be pretty tendentious at best and one would hope that they have a pretty good independent team briefed and ready to go right now, this morning.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 18, 2014)

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...ireland-unionists-says-academic-30592093.html


----------



## newbie (Sep 18, 2014)

who knows, I've not seen it discussed anywhere much.  Some part of the UK diplomatic staff (& civil service as a whole) must be of Scottish origin, and of them, some will probably see the opportunity to jump from filing clerk to ambassador rather quickly, so they'll sign up to iS. Which will have the effect of weakening the rUK machine and providing some sort of foetal iSFO.  But putting the rest of that in place, legislatively, organisationally and politically will obviously take time and involve getting stuff wrong.  Then they have to find, equip and staff consular buildings in every capital in the world, with particular emphasis on the European capitals for immediate bilateral negotiation. 

That's got to be in place and operating reasonably seamlessly before they become a country, but it's a necessary precondition of negotiating with each of the EU countries and institutions. Obviously that's their problem, and this thread is about us, people who aren't intending to make our future in iScotland. From our pov the UK diplomatic leverage will be weakened a bit, and there will be vultures circling looking for anything they can get.


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> This is a good point - how large are iScotland's negotiating teams going to be to deal with exiting two unions in conjunction and then negotiating (i) a readmission to the EU and (ii) a currency union with rUK?
> 
> It will be a mammoth task.
> 
> Perhaps the "yes" camp thinks that they have some right to use the UK's Brussels machine on the first one, but that would be pretty tendentious at best and one would hope that they have a pretty good independent team briefed and ready to go right now, this morning.


 
I don't imagine they'll have thought of that.


----------



## newbie (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Yep, while they're keen on certainty and continuity in the EU, the UN is rather more keen on it altogether, especially when backed up with a nuclear arsenal.


for sure, but there's plenty of powerful players around the world who'd like to break the strongest bond on the security council, which is that between the US and UK.  I can't see many countries with memories of Iraq not thinking an EU seat would be preferable to a UK one.  How much that might translate into practical politics is pure guesswork.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

newbie said:


> who knows, I've not seen it discussed anywhere much.  Some part of the UK diplomatic staff (& civil service as a whole) must be of Scottish origin, and of them, some will probably see the opportunity to jump from filing clerk to ambassador rather quickly, so they'll sign up to iS. Which will have the effect of weakening the rUK machine and providing some sort of foetal iSFO.  But putting the rest of that in place, legislatively, organisationally and politically will obviously take time and involve getting stuff wrong.  Then they have to find, equip and staff consular buildings in every capital in the world, with particular emphasis on the European capitals for immediate bilateral negotiation.
> 
> That's got to be in place and operating reasonably seamlessly before they become a country, but it's a necessary precondition of negotiating with each of the EU countries and institutions. Obviously that's their problem, and this thread is about us, people who aren't intending to make our future in iScotland. From our pov the UK diplomatic leverage will be weakened a bit, and there will be vultures circling looking for anything they can get.



Maybe, but my bet is that they'll instruct external counsel, and, if they have deep enough pockets, seek out one of the American firms in Brussels (provided that they aren't conflicted) who are prepared to put their people through the wringer, day in day out.

White & Case and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton would be the go-to-guys on this one IMO.

[Slaughter and May would be the obvious choice but they are almost certainly conflicted given their dealings with HMG]


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

I can imagine that it's going to be chaos in quite a few firms' offices in Brussels this morning, actually...

Preparing for the beauty parade of their lives at the drop of a hat...


----------



## newbie (Sep 18, 2014)

Is that what independence looks like, representation by American corporations?


----------



## cesare (Sep 18, 2014)

It would be quite amusing (in the event if a yes) if Scotland don't jump through the expected immediate hoops.


----------



## newbie (Sep 18, 2014)

knowing nothing I've just glanced at White & Case.  They don't have offices in every European capital. Or in Scotland. So even if they are better placed than a proper diplomatic service (doubtful, their people are presumably busy already) they can't hit the ground running either.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 18, 2014)

i'm curious what people think about the "even if its a No Britain will change forever" line - feels overly optimistic to me
yes theres a window of opportunity to get greater regional devolution back on the agenda but theres no reason why overall the genie wont go back in the bottle and things will remain much as they are
ive heard commentators pushing the line that its the notion that people are fed up with the lack of choice since new labour onwards, never mind before, that the situation cant continue...except it really can...
what do you reckon?


----------



## dennisr (Sep 18, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i'm curious what people think about the "even if its a No Britain will change forever" line - feels overly optimistic to me



I guess that view is based on the likely nearness of the vote - if the yes's loose by only a coupel of percent...


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

newbie said:


> knowing nothing I've just glanced at White & Case.  They don't have offices in every European capital. Or in Scotland. So even if they are better placed than a proper diplomatic service (doubtful, their people are presumably busy already) they can't hit the ground running either.



They're good, very good indeed.

They have Ian Forrester QC as a partner.  He is an exceptional lawyer.  Also, interestingly, he is qualified in Scotland, England and Wales, Brussels, and New York.

They also have some other outstanding lawyers, including James Killick, who is a genuinely intimidating guy to deal with.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 18, 2014)

dennisr said:


> I guess that view is based on the likely nearness of the vote - if the yes's loose by only a coupel of percent...


then what would that mean do you think?


----------



## newbie (Sep 18, 2014)

party leaders have made all sorts of promises for post-No Scotland, but there are Tory backbenchers saying "_what's in it for us_?"

Sorry to be repetitive but that's the key question in every single part of this, and when it comes to it, post-No at least 2 of 3 party leaders will say _actually there's nothing in it for us to deliver those promises_.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

newbie said:


> knowing nothing I've just glanced at White & Case.  They don't have offices in every European capital. Or in Scotland. So even if they are better placed than a proper diplomatic service (doubtful, their people are presumably busy already) they can't hit the ground running either.



Also, you don't necessarily need an office in every country - law firms are actually fairly small businesses on the global stage - absolutely tiny compared to banks and consultancies in terms of numbers etc...

What you get from them is an expert who can then instruct a larger team of non-qualified negotiators, or just provide that team with a steer on key issues at key times.


----------



## newbie (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> They're good, very good indeed.
> 
> They have Ian Forrester QC as a partner.  He is an exceptional lawyer.  Also, interestingly, he is qualified in Scotland, England and Wales, Brussels, and New York.
> 
> They also have some other outstanding lawyers, including James Killick, who is a genuinely intimidating guy to deal with.


not being butchers I'll take your word for it, but I'll also guess that such superstars have pretty full diaries already and their existing clients might be a bit miffed if they wander off to Edinburgh.


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2014)

do you realise how ridiculous you look Diamond?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

newbie said:


> not being butchers I'll take your word for it, but I'll also guess that such superstars have pretty full diaries already and their existing clients might be a bit miffed if they wander off to Edinburgh.



Given that they're both Scottish, I'm sure they'd jump at the chance!

However, to get the best of the best, I'd go for Cleary Gottlieb.  Maurits Dolmans and Thomas Graf are head and shoulders above the rest (as well as being very, very odd men).


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> do you realise how ridiculous you look Diamond?



Yeah, fuck it.

I do a ridiculous job that requires me to work insane hours most of the time - it's nice to get an opportunity to talk about it a bit in a relevant situation...


----------



## newbie (Sep 18, 2014)




----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Yeah, fuck it.
> 
> I do a ridiculous job that requires me to work insane hours most of the time - it's nice to get an opportunity to talk about it a bit in a relevant situation...


but you aren't are you? You're just reeling off a list of names that mean nothing to anyone here, and adds nothing to the discussion, other than a display of your testicles (or googling prowess, I neither know nor care which)


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> but you aren't are you? You're just reeling off a list of names that mean nothing to anyone here, and adds nothing to the discussion, other than a display of your testicles (or googling prowess, I neither know nor care which)



Aren't doing what precisely?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2014)

note also that the legal argument drives the reality rather than reality being dressed by the legal post hoc (latin on the interwebs )


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Aren't doing what precisely?


talking about it in a relevant situation. It isn't relevant.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

EU competition law is one of the, surprisingly few, areas of private practice that is highly developed in EU law (as against any other area, save pharmaceutical regulation perhaps...).

As a result, EU competition lawyers tend to be the first port of call in disputes, regardless of their specific expertise because they usually have a unique insight into the CJEU.

Or to put it another way, more or less the only unilaterally effective powers that the Comission enjoys derives from its competition law.  That's why the majority of EU lawyers are overwhelmingly competition lawyers first and foremost.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 18, 2014)

What if the UK votes to leave the EU before Scottish independence is enacted?  Could Scotland retain the UK's membership and see it as just the southern bit of the nation seceding from the EU?  That'd be messy.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 18, 2014)

Can great Britain survive a Scottish no vote:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/can-great-britain-survive-scottish-vote


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Can great Britain survive a Scottish no vote:
> http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/can-great-britain-survive-scottish-vote


My answer to that question would be "No". The Union was formed for the purpose of establishing an empire and that empire is now nothing but a collection of bones. It's time to move on. I was watching Newsnight on Tuesday night and was horrified to hear Emily Maitlis ask the audience "What are the good things about the Empire" or words to that effect. The general tone coming from the audience was the Empire was a force for good.


----------



## Supine (Sep 18, 2014)

So the orkney islands might want independence from Scotland if it's a yes vote. LOL.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> If there is a "yes" vote I anticipate a massive parallel progressive movement for northern devolution.



So new Labour's attempts at regionalisation of powers post-Scottish devolution, and the civic apathy toward it, completely passed you by, then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think you're being ridiculous. Constituencies are pretty much allocated by population. i'd love to see some form of regional attack on the centres of power - but a) this isn't it and b) you wishing something to happen doesn't mean it will happen. There is no support for this stuff right now - what there is is majority opposition to Scottish independence (not on an anti-scottish basis). Out of the bubble!



New Labour (and Prescott especially, as a possible "king in the North") pushed regionalism heavily, and met with either apathy or two fingers, except among the political classes.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> So new Labour's attempts at regionalisation of powers post-Scottish devolution, and the civic apathy toward it, completely passed you by, then?


Do you not think that this referendum has significantly increased potential support for a 'federal Britain'?

However I think that a Yes vote would more likely be the end of that, rather than the catalyst. A No vote and Devo Max would lead to more of 'why can't _we_ have that', but independence is enough of a disconnect to make people give up on the idea.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 18, 2014)

Supine said:


> So the orkney islands might want independence from Scotland if it's a yes vote. LOL.


 
and why not?  the orkneys have a good argument for independence, mostly they don't consider themselves scottish but orcadian.  why shouldn't they?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 18, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> and why not?  the orkneys have a good argument for independence, mostly they don't consider themselves scottish but orcadian.  why shouldn't they?


Then there's Shetland....


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 18, 2014)

Supine said:


> So the orkney islands might want independence from Scotland if it's a yes vote. LOL.



How long before the green and blue halves of Glasgow want independence from each other?

I'm sure that one will be sorted out with a mimimum of fuss.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 18, 2014)

i don't know about shetlend tbh, i've not been there and spoken to people like i recently have in orkney.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2014)

mauvais said:


> Do you not think that this referendum has significantly increased potential support for a 'federal Britain'?
> 
> However I think that a Yes vote would more likely be the end of that, rather than the catalyst. A No vote and Devo Max would lead to more of 'why can't _we_ have that', but independence is enough of a disconnect to make people give up on the idea.


Yep, that's my guess, too. A narrow 'no' _could_ be a good catalyst for change across the UK.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nicely put, but separation WILL create barriers between likeminded people that weren't there before. To me that is a shame.



And who knows, such barriers might create a veritable _kristallnacht_ of pogroms of Scots in England, and Englanders in Scotland!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i don't know about shetlend tbh, i've not been there and spoken to people like i recently have in orkney.



You're prejudiced against the Shetlands because they don't allow donkeys, aren't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> What do I know having spent the last few years working in the EU law departments of various city law firms...



How to give the boss class the perfect rimjob?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> The Frissons.



The Frottagelands.
Motto: "We just rub along with each other".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can you tell me why no precedent def means no state could be allowed to stay in please? Why on earth would no precedent existing mean that none could be set? Each time you say there is no precedent you make the case that actually there are many potential outcomes here rather than your one - only one!!!! ONLY ONE!!!!!!



Look, everyone who's ever watched the film "Highlander" knows there can be only one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> It could happen, anything can happen.  But one of the reasons people hire expert opinions is to quantify the likelihood of something happening or, in other words, the risk profile.



However, establishing an expert opinion on something for which there is no precedent will invariably depend, however much it's dressed up in jargon, as much on the personal values that the "expert" brings to the question, as on the expert's knowledge.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> You seem to find subtlety/nuance rather difficult to grasp - word of advice, don't try your hand at law.



More than a word of advice.
If you practice law, then you're well aware of the role ambiguity can play in interpretation, so why are you seesawing, and making your statements so (relatively) ambiguous? First you're here, then you're there, then you're thither, then you're yon.
Seriously, hire a discourse analyst, then ask them what you're doing wrong. When they've stopped laughing, they'll tell you.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> However, establishing an expert opinion on something for which there is no precedent will invariably depend, however much it's dressed up in jargon, as much on the personal values that the "expert" brings to the question, as on the expert's knowledge.



And their research skills, ability to intuit from similar situations, connections, general "feel" for the matter, etc..., etc...

But yes, we would be entering deep blue water here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> (Can't believe that this whole EU membership argument has been reduced to the employment of a qualifying adverb... talk about limited perspectives...)



Again, if you're in the legal trade, you should be well aware of how important correct phraseology is.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> More than a word of advice.
> If you practice law, then you're well aware of the role ambiguity can play in interpretation, so why are you seesawing, and making your statements so (relatively) ambiguous? First you're here, then you're there, then you're thither, then you're yon.
> Seriously, hire a discourse analyst, then ask them what you're doing wrong. When they've stopped laughing, they'll tell you.



I am stating precisely my interpretation.

If it is not as nailed to the wall as you would like it, then tough.  I'm calling it how I see it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> And their research skills, ability to intuit from similar situations, connections, general "feel" for the matter, etc..., etc...
> 
> But yes, we would be entering deep blue water here.



All of what you mention in your first sentence, are all governed to some extent by the pre-existing values of the expert.  Someone may be supremely adept at research, have sparkling intuition, the best of connections etc, and yet will still be guided by the views that they've already formed, especially if their views have been formed (as so many legal minds in the UK have) in Oxbridge and other "Establishment" institutions.  Even if they haven't, they'll still carry the values learned during their broader education, as well as those absorbed during their training.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

Thanks for that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I am stating precisely my interpretation.
> 
> If it is not as nailed to the wall as you would like it, then tough.  I'm calling it how I see it.



If you believe that what you've stated, was stated precisely, then you have little idea what "precision" actually is.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you believe that what you've stated, was stated precisely, then you have little idea what "precision" actually is.


 
Stating precisely rather than precisely stating.


----------



## andysays (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> I am stating precisely my interpretation.
> 
> If it is not as nailed to the wall as you would like it, then tough.  I'm calling it how I see it.



Except that at times you appear to be claiming that your "as you see it" has more value than that of others' because of some vague claim to special/insider knowledge.

Truth is, you don't know any better than the rest of us.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> Thanks for that.



Thanks for taking time out from your important Euro-related legal work to thank me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

andysays said:


> Except that at times you appear to be claiming that your "as you see it" has more value than that of others' because of some vague claim to special/insider knowledge.
> 
> Truth is, you don't know any better than the rest of us.



A little knowledge being a dangerous thing, naturalising your own opinions (informed or otherwise) as the baseline for any debate (as Diamond has done with his appeals to authority) tends to lead to the belief that those opinions have more value than those who don't have that "little knowledge".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Classy



No war but the class(y) war.


----------



## andysays (Sep 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> A little knowledge being a dangerous thing, naturalising your own opinions (informed or otherwise) as the baseline for any debate (as Diamond has done with his appeals to authority) tends to lead to the belief that those opinions have more value than those who don't have that "little knowledge".



So next time I'm arguing with someone making appeals to authority, can I say that you agree with me?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're prejudiced against the Shetlands because they don't allow donkeys, aren't you?


 
the shetlands don't allow donkeys?

i imagined myself running a donkey sanctuary in the shetlands.  this changes everything.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

mauvais said:


> Do you not think that this referendum has significantly increased potential support for a 'federal Britain'?
> 
> However I think that a Yes vote would more likely be the end of that, rather than the catalyst. A No vote and Devo Max would lead to more of 'why can't _we_ have that', but independence is enough of a disconnect to make people give up on the idea.



I believe that the referendum has increased interest in the principle of secession, and in how secession might effect change in relations between states, but I'm not convinced that it's increased *support* for the idea of a properly-federal union of states, and by "properly-federal", I don't mean "federation according to the EU" or "federation according to the predicates of the political classes and neoliberalism", I mean federal as in "the people decide on federation, and the people decide what *constitutes* federation".
Yes, I *am* occasionally frighteningly-idealistic.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I believe that the referendum has increased interest in the principle of secession, and in how secession might effect change in relations between states, but I'm not convinced that it's increased *support* for the idea of a properly-federal union of states, and by "properly-federal", I don't mean "federation according to the EU" or "federation according to the predicates of the political classes and neoliberalism", I mean federal as in "the people decide on federation, and the people decide what *constitutes* federation".
> Yes, I *am* occasionally frighteningly-idealistic.


It's not a matter of secession. I think for say, 'The North', or Yorkshire, or Greater Manchester, or bits of the South West, or various other areas with some coherent identity, the whole debate and idea that the political system doesn't meaningfully represent them has been brought to the fore, and not only that regional independence of some form might actually matter a bit more now, it might be possible to have a change.

I don't know that federalism (and I'm thinking the German model) has or ever will crystallise as the political idea behind that sentiment, but it's never even been floated before, and what used to be at best a hope for some great 'move part of the BBC'-style moment of Westminster benevolence might well turn into a workable movement.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

The irony is that while there is a drive towards decentralisation and localism, there is also a desire to remain part of the wider EU.

You can't have it both ways - if you are merely replacing Westminster with Brussels, what's the point?


----------



## ddraig (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> The irony is that while there is a drive towards decentralisation and localism, there is also a desire to remain part of the wider EU.
> 
> You can't have it both ways - if you are merely replacing Westminster with Brussels, what's the point?


why not have it both ways? why would you want to stop this?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 18, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why not have it both ways? why would you want to stop this?



Because it is not possible.  It's not a question of me wanting to stop this.

Have you seen how politics has played out in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, France, Greece and even Germany the last few years?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2014)

Diamond said:


> The irony is that while there is a drive towards decentralisation and localism, there is also a desire to remain part of the wider EU.
> 
> You can't have it both ways - if you are merely replacing Westminster with Brussels, what's the point?


You can have it both ways. It's possible to be a part of several layers of state, with as many powers as possible devolved as far down the ladder as possible.

That's not a defence of the EU as currently constituted - but the principle can stand.

I would think that any irony here is that Scotland _already has_ more layers than the rest of the UK, with more powers devolved downwards.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 18, 2014)

This is interesting, economic reality versus nationalist sentiment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...on-can-tell-us-about-the-scottish-referendum/


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And who knows, such barriers might create a veritable _kristallnacht_ of pogroms of Scots in England, and Englanders in Scotland!



Still sulking because years ago I compared nazis to nazis? 

Get over it son.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2014)

tbf you compared smashed bank windows a la black block in london to kristelnacht


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 18, 2014)

which Nazis were on the student protest?


----------



## 19sixtysix (Sep 18, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> This is interesting, economic reality versus nationalist sentiment
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...on-can-tell-us-about-the-scottish-referendum/



He's an economist. He only sees money. Money is just a system to help us do stuff nothing else. It is not the reason to live our lives. Living our lives better and happier is what the referendum is about.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 18, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> tbf you compared smashed bank windows a la black block in london to kristelnacht


bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaa 
forgotten that one  thanks for reminder


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 18, 2014)

The 'No' campaign is predicated on the preservation of the status quo, therefore it is reactionary and has inevitably attracted all manner of reactionaries. Aside from the Orangemen, there have been Loyalists giving Nazi salutes and attacking 'Yes' stalls - according to a video someone posted on Facebook.



> At the top of Edinburgh's Abbeymount, where Orange Order marchers congregated at the end of their parade on Saturday, a group of policemen were making their considered assessment of the morning's events: "Some arseholes, but in general a major success".
> 
> It is not clear whether they were referring specifically to a group of Britain First neo-Nazis who were making their presence felt by the Scottish parliament building. But the Order's 15,000-strong show of visceral pro-union strength through Scotland's capital was broadly good-natured, though fiercely so.
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...er-march-edinburgh-scottish-independence-vote



In the meantime, check out this collection of headbangers. The bloke nearest to the camera shouts "Engerland, Engerland, Engerland". They look like, to use Tony Montana's words, "fucking mummies".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Still sulking because years ago I compared nazis to nazis?



I'm not "sulking", I'm just still amazed that anyone who professes to have an ounce of political sense in their head could possibly compare something so un-_kristallnacht_like with _kristallnacht_.  Stupidity on the scale of yours sticks in the mind long after it's been perpetrated.



> Get over it son.



"Son"? 
One thing my dad doesn't do is compare a handful of broken windows with the 7,000-plus businesses that were destroyed, or the 1,100-plus synagogues that were devestated on _kristallnacht_. He's got this thing (even though he's a Norwich City supporter, and the two don't at first seem compatible) called "a sense of perspective".

You're an idiot, a patronising idiot who didn't have the balls to own up to making a fatuous comparison. Being reminded of that fatuous comparison seems the right "punishment" for someone so bollockless.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 18, 2014)

Lets also not forget that krystallnacht was organised by a state whereas the broken windows on the student protest were organise by er...nobody.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You can have it both ways. It's possible to be a part of several layers of state, with as many powers as possible devolved as far down the ladder as possible.
> 
> That's not a defence of the EU as currently constituted - but the principle can stand.
> 
> I would think that any irony here is that Scotland _already has_ more layers than the rest of the UK, with more powers devolved downwards.



The problem doesn't IMO reside in the number of "layers", as some are implying. For me, the main problem resides elsewhere - in the fact that those layers are all subordinate to the interests of the ruling class, and that whatever benefits (if any) arise from independence will mostly accrue to that ruling class, however deep participation is in the multi-layered democratic institutions the people are allowed.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not "sulking", I'm just still amazed that anyone who professes to have an ounce of political sense in their head could possibly compare something so un-_kristallnacht_like with _kristallnacht_.  Stupidity on the scale of yours sticks in the mind long after it's been perpetrated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ooh... I'm to be punished for comparing Panda's mates to nazis about three years ago!  What are you going to do? Wear a mask and come round and smash all my windows?

This is referendum day in Scotland sunshine, stop shitting all over it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Ooh... I'm to be punished for comparing Panda's mates to nazis about three years ago!  What are you going to do? Wear a mask and come round and smash all my windows?



1) Not "my mates".
2) You're not worth the effort of pissing on, let alone smashing your windows.
3) I put "punishment" in speechmarks for a reason. Good of you to show what a plum you are by taking the word literally.



> This is referendum day in Scotland sunshine, stop shitting all over it.



Physician, heal thyself.


----------



## Theisticle (Sep 18, 2014)

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Off.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 18, 2014)

I am really not a great fan of inappropriate and inaccurate Nazi comparisons ffs. It trivializes the real Nazis.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The problem doesn't IMO reside in the number of "layers", as some are implying. For me, the main problem resides elsewhere - in the fact that those layers are all subordinate to the interests of the ruling class, and that whatever benefits (if any) arise from independence will mostly accrue to that ruling class, however deep participation is in the multi-layered democratic institutions the people are allowed.


I agree entirely. Hence we are not governed in a way most of us would want. However, the evidence I see from devolved parliaments within larger countries - not just the UK, but Germany, Spain and elsewhere - is that those devolved parliaments are made to give more concessions in the fields they are accountable for. This is what legitimises their existence. There are points of comparison with other such bodies - and there is a 'why can't we have that too' effect. This effect precipitated the end of tuition fees in Germany. 

Of course, local government has been under attack in the UK for more than 30 years now. That has added hugely to the democratic deficit.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 18, 2014)

Theisticle said:


> This is interesting, economic reality versus nationalist sentiment
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...on-can-tell-us-about-the-scottish-referendum/



To Yes voters who say they would rather live in a ditch than under the Tories, economic arguments are of little interest


----------



## Nylock (Sep 18, 2014)




----------



## 1%er (Sep 18, 2014)

I have no idea what the implications would be, but looking at the press in South America, they recon:

David Cameron would be kicked out as leader of the Conservative Party and thus no longer prime minister, as he would be responsible for allowing the break-up.

The British pound would start to fall against other currencies because the markets hate uncertainly.

Scotland would continue to use the British pound in the same way Panama and Liberia use the US dollar, but have no control over interest rates or anything else.

Spain would block automatic membership of the European Union for an independent Scotland, it would have to join the end of the queue for membership and go through years of convoluted negotiations. It would have to accept the euro as its currency. (Spain would block it because the Spanish province of Catalonia is holding its own (unauthorized) referendum on independence in November).

Some businesses, particularly banks, would move their head offices from Scotland to England.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> *the shetlands* don't allow donkeys?
> 
> i imagined myself running a donkey sanctuary in the shetlands.  this changes everything.



No such place - It's either Shetland or The Shetland Islands. I'm not even saying that to be a prick for the sake of it, Shetlanders really do get quite aereated if you refer to "the Sheltands".


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're prejudiced against *the Shetlands* because they don't allow donkeys, aren't you?



Same goes for you VP, honestly I'm not trying to be a prick - When I am, I'm fairly unequivocal about it so I hope you'll believe me when I say I'm not, but Shetlanders _hate_ it if you refer to "the Shetlands". Apart from that, as you were, not arsed about any of it, me. Shetland's a lovely place though, I've been once  Didn't need a passport either


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 19, 2014)

Might as well lock this thread I suppose?


----------



## Idaho (Sep 19, 2014)

The implications of the no is probably as great as a yes.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 19, 2014)

Idaho said:


> The implications of the no is probably as great as a yes.


Greater.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

I thought the Yes vote would have won, are we (urban) really so out of touch with the people?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> I thought the Yes vote would have won, are we (urban) really so out of touch with the people?


An i and a we and a  people.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> An i and a we and a  people.



So, a yes then.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> So, a yes then.



The minority is always right


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

In this vote, the majority is to the right.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> In this vote, the majority is to the right.


 
I think the idea that this was a simple left vs. right thing is as spurious as it was in the AV referendum.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think the idea that this was a simple left vs. right thing is as spurious as it was in the AV referendum.


Indeed - and any post result analysis that starts from that position is doomed to be propagandistic. The little info we have doesn't even support this,


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> I thought the Yes vote would have won, are we (urban) really so out of touch with the people?




most people were predicting a narrow no all along?


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think the idea that this was a simple left vs. right thing is as spurious as it was in the AV referendum.



Do you agree with leanderman's post that "The minority is always right." ?


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> most people were predicting a narrow no all along?



Not here, see the Alba forum.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/will-you-vote-for-independence.287096/


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Not here, see the Alba forum.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/will-you-vote-for-independence.287096/


Not a prediction. The question is a clue.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Do you agree with leanderman's post that "The minority is always right." ?


 
I'm not too sure what it was meant to mean.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> most people were predicting a narrow no all along?


 
Even most of those who really wanted a Yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'm not too sure what it was meant to mean.


It was meant to mean - from a gentrifying yuppie supporter - that people who lose votes and dare to stand by their principles are trying to instill a dictatorship. Rather than the democratic acceptance of the vote that actually happened. It's the sort of shrill unsupported assertion that thrives in corners that the sort of participation that YES helped birth can shine some light on.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It was meant to mean - from a gentrifying yuppie supporter - that people who lose votes and dare to stand by their principles are trying to instill a dictatorship. Rather than the democratic acceptance of the vote that actually happened. It's the sort of shrill unsupported assertion that thrives in corners that the sort of participation that YES helped birth can shine some light on.


 
No, you're going to have to go even simpler - I've been doing complicated code stuff all day and would have trouble following the plot of _the A-Team_ at the moment. 

Or I'll just read it again when I've had some sleep...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> No, you're going to have to go even simpler - I've been doing complicated code stuff all day and would have trouble following the plot of _the A-Team_ at the moment.
> 
> Or I'll just read it again when I've had some sleep...


YES voters are undemocrats who think they won.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> YES voters are undemocrats who think they won.


 
I can manage that one. 

Being absolutely fair, though, getting 45% of the vote when the media is telling you you'll be eating each other in 6 months time and will only be able to trade with stale shortbread and used syringes is quite an achievement.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Not a prediction. The question is a clue.



will is used as a prediction, the majority of poster in the Alba forum predicted a yes vote, no?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> will is used as a prediction, the majority of poster in the Alba forum predicted a yes vote.


No it's not. The question is: "Will you vote for independence?". No one predicted anything.

Well done on being this fridays half hour two pint hero though.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> Being absolutely fair, though, getting 45% of the vote when the media is telling you you'll be eating each other in 6 months time and will only be able to trade with stale shortbread and used syringes is quite an achievement.



Maybe. But I think the 44.7% YES was about 'par' - neither a good nor a bad result.


----------



## Coolfonz (Sep 19, 2014)

Chomsky said international capital would be ranged against a yes vote. As usual, spot on by the knitwear king.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> will is used as a prediction, the majority of poster in the Alba forum predicted a yes vote, no?



No.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not. The question is: "Will you vote for independence?". No one predicted anything.
> 
> Well done on being this fridays half hour two pint hero though.



Well, it is quite late here. Still, as I read Urban daily as a way of keeping in touch with the UK I'm surprised the No vote won. Aren't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Well, it is quite late here. Still, as I read Urban daily as a way of keeping in touch with the UK I'm surprised the No vote won. Aren't you?


No. Because i don't use a thread on a  regional forum on part of a brixton based forum as a guide to election outcome


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No. Because i don't use a thread on a  regional forum on part of a brixton based forum.



What vote were you expecting? And what vote were you hoping?


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

Reading this thread yesterday, the Yes vote was in the bag.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

The only point I'm trying to make is that the forums here are way out of touch with people who vote, if that is wrong correct me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Reading this thread yesterday, the Yes vote was in the bag.


 
If you based your view of UK politics on Urban everyone would either be freelance journos for the Telegraph or black hoodie clad anarchos running wild in the street, with a helping of middle class utopians


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If you based your view of UK politics on Urban everyone would either be freelance journos for the Telegraph or black hoodie clad anarchos running wild in the street, with a helping of middle class utopians



No, they would be bored middle class politicos with nothing better to do than argue on line!


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No. Because i don't use a thread on a  regional forum on part of a *brixton based forum* as a guide to election outcome



You really think urban is still *brixton based forum?  *


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> You really think urban is still *brixton based forum?  *


Nope, but it'd be a right fucking tool who used it as it a prediction guide.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 19, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Well, it is quite late here. Still, as I read Urban daily as a way of keeping in touch with the UK I'm surprised the No vote won. Aren't you?



You should have looked at the predict the result of the referendum thread where the majority of respondents voted that No would win.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 19, 2014)

I should have followed the BBC! Same as Urban.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, but it'd be a right fucking tool who used it as it a prediction guide.



Okay, I should have said, "Urban is way out of touch with the vast majority of UK voters." better now?


----------



## gabi (Sep 20, 2014)

Dandred said:


> You really think urban is still *brixton based forum?  *



Well, considering it's based in the barrier block, in central brixton, I'd say yes, it is. There was a short period there a few years ago when it went a bit more global but it's gone back to its roots I'd say.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, but it'd be a right fucking tool who used it as it a prediction guide.



Who do BetFred use?


----------



## Dandred (Sep 20, 2014)

gabi said:


> Well, considering it's based in the barrier block, in central brixton, I'd say yes, it is. There was a short period there a few years ago when it went a bit more global but it's gone back to its roots I'd say.



Shit, I didn't see all those other forms.


----------



## gabi (Sep 20, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Shit, I didn't see all those other forms.



What forms? Lost.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 20, 2014)

gabi said:


> What forms? Lost.



You couldn't work out that I mistyped forums?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 20, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Okay, I should have said, "Urban is way out of touch with the vast majority of UK voters." better now?


I'd hope so.


----------



## paolo (Sep 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'd hope so.





Out of touch, in terms of understanding the broader populis - far from it, it seems.

Out of alignment, with their views, absolutely. It's why we're here.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 16, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Especially in Wales.  Especially if the YES vote is followed by any kind of Leftist government.
> 
> This is going to be such a landslide...



I think this overstates the support in Wales for independence.

At the moment it is 42-34 against the Assembly setting a Wales income tax

http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/election...ting-intentions-in-wales-the-latest-evidence/


----------

