Will you vote for independence?

[Quartz]

Another BBC debate in Glasgow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25096546

When are they going to come to Aberdeen?

 

[danny la rouge]

Well yes, but as long as you recognise that, you can take it and move on.



I really don't see it that way. For me the SNP is about power. They want power and that power will come through an independent Scotland. Will Scotland benefit from giving them that power? I don't know. I'm still only on chapter 2.

You talk as if they only came into being in time to publish the white paper. I think it's the other way round: being in power is the way they'll try to deliver independence.

Their stint in Holyrood has been about demonstrating that they are a "responsible" party, not wild-eyed zealots; that they can be trusted to deliver independence; that it's not something that will frighten the horses; that constitutional change is business as usual.

That said, their rationale is that independence isn't an end in itself, but a means to deliver all these things you can't have as a part of the UK. So they aren't going to disband on independence day plus 1.

 

[Quartz]

You talk as if they only came into being in time to publish the white paper.

Probably bad phrasing on my part.

I think it's the other way round: being in power is the way they'll try to deliver independence.

Aren't they already in power and trying to deliver independence? And independence is their means to more power. Right now, they're bit players on the international stage, but come an independent Scotland and everything changes.

Their stint in Holyrood has been about demonstrating that they are a "responsible" party, not wild-eyed zealots;

Except they've not been in power for long, only from 2006, and there's been the recession and banking crisis.

that they can be trusted to deliver independence; that it's not something that will frighten the horses; that constitutional change is business as usual.

Business as usual? That's a very dangerous line to take.

That said, their rationale is that independence isn't an end in itself, but a means to deliver all these things you can't have as a part of the UK.

'Can't have'? Or 'don't have'? You make it sound like the SNP are like spoiled children. I've not thought of it that way before.

So they aren't going to disband on independence day plus 1.

Of course not. Why would they relinquish that power?

 

[danny la rouge]

Probably bad phrasing on my part.

Aren't they already in power and trying to deliver independence?

Yes, but I'm stepping back and looking at their project in its historical context.

Except they've not been in power for long, only from 2006, and there's been the recession and banking crisis.

That's certainly been a challenge for them. Bad timing. Events, my dear, events. Nonetheless, that is their strategy.

Business as usual? That's a very dangerous line to take.

It is. But Salmond is a well-known gambler, and he's hoping it'll pay off. I'm not so sure.

'Can't have'? Or 'don't have'? You make it sound like the SNP are like spoiled children. I've not thought of it that way before.

I mean, the SNP narrative is: "so long as Scotland remains part of the UK, there are certain choices simply not made available to the Scottish electorate, because Westminster will never make them available".

Of course not. Why would they relinquish that power?

Indeed.

 

[redsquirrel]

Yes, that's exactly what he's doing.

I'm not convinced it'll work. Because I don't think he'll win people over this way. Most people have pretty much made up their minds, and aren't going to be persuaded. They are either Yes or No. The question is, will they turn out to vote?

I'm busy irl atm, so I'll come back to that if it's OK.

Cheers for the answer. I would think that a low turnout will benefit the Yes vote, though I still think they'll lose.

 

[danny la rouge]

Cheers for the answer. I would think that a low turnout will benefit the Yes vote, though I still think they'll lose.

I kind of agree, but I think what is more likely to happen is a differential turnout.

While there are fewer Yes voters, I think that more of them are more likely to turn out. In short, they tend to be more enthusiastic.

Don’t get me wrong. There is a committed unionist core. Tory Unionists, some Rangers fans, the Orange Order, and so on. But while most Scots say they are against independence, it isn’t through any real Queen-and-Union-Flag British nationalism. (Opinion polls suggest that most Scots, even Unionists, see themselves as Scottish first). Rather, for most, I think it’s more of an “I’d rather not change things” feeling.

And that feeling isn’t one that’ll set the heather alight. Non-Yes voters I speak to, just don’t see the referendum as a big issue. It isn’t their top priority. For Tory Unionists like Sas, it is. They’re wound up and angry. But that doesn’t reflect the whole of the No vote.

Salmond thinks that his course of “steady as she goes, it’s not such a big change” will win over doubtfuls and even some of this “I’d rather not change things” vote.

I doubt it. But I think his best chance is that more of those will be less than fussed about turning out. Whether that’ll be enough, I actually doubt. But if it stands any chance of being close, that’ll be how, rather than through conversion.

On the flip side, I think Better Together’s best bet is to return to the logic of their campaign name. Most Scots have friends and relations in England. Appealing to intra-British solidarity will get them much further than the tack they’re increasingly taking of telling us what Scotland is incapable of on its own. Not even the No vote is buying that.


http://www.scotsman.com/news/joyce-mcmillan-no-answer-came-the-stern-reply-1-2745048

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-negative-campaign-failing-1-3001930

 

[pogofish]

Just had a slightly drunk and squeaky-voiced Englishman hectoring all and sundry about how we shouldn't go independant because England "has the only people intellegent enough to run Scotland!"

He's been politely tolerated in my pal's pub but hes just gone across the road and if he starts the same shit in that pub, he's going to get his backside handed to him!

 

[danny la rouge]

Just had a slightly drunk and squeaky-voiced Englishman hectoring all and sundry about how we shouldn't go independant because England "has the only people intellegent enough to run Scotland!"

That's pretty much what Sas was arguing when he complained that Holyrood was full of fuckwits masquerading as MSPs.

 

[Belushi]

Weird, one of the complaints you used to hear from Tory fuckwits in the New Labour years was that England was being run by Scots.

 

[Quartz]

Weird, one of the complaints you used to hear from Tory fuckwits in the New Labour years was that England was being run by Scots.

Except it still is. Cameron's a Scottish name, isn't it? And Brenda's Germano-Scots too.

 

[Sue]

Except it still is. Cameron's a Scottish name, isn't it? And Brenda's Germano-Scots too.

We're not trying to claim responsibility for either of them surely? (Anyway, so what? I'm Scottish and, like many people, my surname isn't.)

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Armando Ianucci the famous Italian comedy writer.

 

[danny la rouge]

Armando Ianucci the famous Italian comedy writer.

Me, the Irish person.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Me, the Irish person.

do you carry a pig under you're arm?

 

[danny la rouge]

do you carry a pig under you're arm?

Yes, and potatoes are me loif.

 

[danny la rouge]

Al Jazeera:

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...nd-quiet-revolution-20131121125828761310.html

Whether or not we like it, Scotland is growing out of the Union, and it would be dangerous for politicians north or south of the border not to give considerable thought to an eventual break-up. But, worryingly, this is a shift the Unionists seem not to have grasped as they prematurely congratulate themselves on a victory in next year's referendum.

those who do not want independence are worried by the minimal visibility of the 'no' campaign in comparison with that of the 'yes', who have been canvassing and door knocking with enthusiasm, holding rallies full of flag-waving supporters and have even opened a walk-in office on the purposefully chosen Hope Street.

The 'no' campaign would be wise not to underestimate their opponents, and here's why: In 2011, at this point in the parliamentary elections, the SNP was more than 10 points behind. But Salmond went on to win by a landslide. He, and his party, have form in making the impossible happen.

 

[butchersapron]

Have we ever seen any comparable shift in polling-->results in UK referendums from against the change to it. I really doubt it.

In the av referendum the very first poll had yes to av on 35%, the last on 34%. The no started on 22% and ended up 66%. (There was also an alternative polling question on AV that returned 56% for AV at start and 33% at end). I suppose that does show that one side can pretty much gather up all the initial DKs so there may be some crumb of comfort there - but i suspect doing that is much easier for pro-status quoers.

 

[DotCommunist]

wasn't there a degree of 'fuck clegg' to the AV vote though?

 

[butchersapron]

That certainly was a factor and one that became more influential as it became clear the yes vote was going to lose. I don't see how that would play out here though. I can't really identify a similar fuck **someone** dynamic developing.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yes, I don't agree with the AJ conclusion, I just posted it as a public service.

 

[weepiper]

This is kind of interesting. It's a poll from a football fans' webzine. It's mostly about football but they also asked 'Should Scotland be an independent country?' at the end.

http://www.theawayend.net/articles/football/features/2027-survey-december-2013

538 people answered the question and the overall breakdown was

Yes: 48%
No: 39%
Don't know: 13%

then they've done a breakdown by supporters of individual teams which is partly predictable:

Rangers
Yes: 15%
No: 79%
Dk: 6%

but also surprising:

Celtic
Yes: 82%
No: 18%
Dk: 0%

Hearts
Yes: 44%
No: 47%
Dk: 9%

Hearts are considered a mini Rangers by a lot of other fans so quite noteworthy that they have a very different opinion on independence. And I was surprised to see such a massive Yes margin among Celtic supporters.

 

[ska invita]

An interesting article here about how migrants in Scotland are responding to the issue - too much to summarise:
http://www.migrantvoice.org/index.p...the-migrant-factor&catid=46:migration-matters

In particular there was a technical point brought up:

Mrs Mushaka, a migrant who has lived in Scotland for 13 years and has a British passport, speaks for the confusion of many when she says, “In an independent Scotland, would I have to apply for a new Scottish passport? Will I still have freedom of movement in the four nations that make us the United Kingdom without a need to show my passport? Would I have to go through border controls to visit my friends and family in England or Wales? Would they visit me in Scotland without the need to carry their passports? All this unnecessary hassle is why I still prefer to stay in the Union.”

It’s a complicated matter, dependent on the outcome of the referendum, and the reactions of both the Scottish and British Governments.

If there is no border between an indy scotland and england, would scotland be forced to follow english immigration limits/procedures?
I guess it would.
At present the SNP is actively encouraging as many people to come to scotland as possible, in direct contrast to the tory policy.

 

[gosub]

An interesting article here about how migrants in Scotland are responding to the issue - too much to summarise:
http://www.migrantvoice.org/index.p...the-migrant-factor&catid=46:migration-matters

In particular there was a technical point brought up:



If there is no border between an indy scotland and england, would scotland be forced to follow english immigration limits/procedures?
I guess it would.
At present the SNP is actively encouraging as many people to come to scotland as possible, in direct contrast to the tory policy.

Would depend on what happens to Scotland and EU, as is highly possible has to rejoin - would have be in Schengen (as well as move towards adoption of EUro). No way English politics would leave a porus border with Schengen area

 

[teuchter]

Everyone's referring to stump UK as "England".

Hard luck, Welsh, NI, etc. if Scotland goes its own way. Welcome to "England".

 

[ska invita]

Would depend on what happens to Scotland and EU, as is highly possible has to rejoin - would have be in Schengen (as well as move towards adoption of EUro). No way English politics would leave a porus border with Schengen area

Would it have to join Schengen? Britain hasn't so far? But yeah, agree " No way English politics would leave a porus border with Schengen area"

 

[ska invita]

Everyone's referring to stump UK as "England".

Hard luck, Welsh, NI, etc. if Scotland goes its own way. Welcome to "England".

Good point - maybe they would stick with (a bit less) United Kingdom to describe that - I think the term Britain has to count Scotland, whatever its status?

 

[Belushi]

Great Britain is a geographical term if I understand it correctly - the biggest of the British Isles.

 

[danny la rouge]

Great Britain is a geographical term if I understand it correctly - the biggest of the British Isles.

That's how I'd use the term, but it isn't its only use. Sometimes it is taken to be a synonym for that part of the UK that isn't Northern Ireland, in other words to mean the territories of all the islands and regions of the political state forming the first part of the title, the United Kingdom of Great Britain (and Northern Ireland).

Contested terminology, eh? It's a bugger.

 

[danny la rouge]

Good point - maybe they would stick with (a bit less) United Kingdom to describe that - I think the term Britain has to count Scotland, whatever its status?

The academic literature is going with rUK, meaning "the remainder of the UK".

 

[ska invita]

How about 'smaller United Kingdom'