FREEDOM!!!! [3]

Cameron didn't have a lot of choice.
Holding a referendum was in the manifesto promises of the SNP when they stood for election- they won a landslide majority and could therefore go to Westminster and say it was the sovereign will of the people to hold a referendum as they voted for one.
It left Cameron in a very difficult position where he really couldn't say no, even though he really didnt want to say yes.

"Sovereign will of the people" doesn't really count for much on its own though, especially when the referendum was only one plank in the SNP's platform.

A pretty big plank however.

And the way manifestos are supposed to work in our system is it lays out what people are voting for before they vote.

I don't follow British politics as closely as you do, but I'm sure there are plenty of cases of politicians ignoring the demands of voters because they would rather do something else.  I'm not saying that Cameron did anything amazing, but I think that given the near-simultaneous events in Spain, he deserves credit for not being a stonewalling asshole. (That's an accomplishment for a politician, isn't it? )

I guess one should give Cameron and the Tories some crdit, but I can't help thinking that their thinking about this boiled down to "Well, give them a simple yes or no question, as they do not want full independence, get a no vote vote and we'll not have to worry about this for the another 30 years."

Only thing is, it looks like it could be backfiring..

doubt it.

Bluebottle wrote:I guess one should give Cameron and the Tories some crdit, but I can't help thinking that their thinking about this boiled down to "Well, give them a simple yes or no question, as they do not want full independence, get a no vote vote and we'll not have to worry about this for the another 30 years."

Only thing is, it looks like it could be backfiring..

I think Cameron's thought process was that by keeping increased devolution off the ballot but simultaneously promising to unilaterally offer increased devolution in the case of a No vote, he'd be able to combine the "more powers but no independence" and "keep the status quo" blocs, thereby building an insurmountable majority in the referendum. It remains to be seen if that works, though the polls are a lot closer now than most people predicted two years ago.

Thing is though, as Petty keeps saying, they promised that last time as well, and it never materialized.

In reality I think people rather fear already devolved powers might be shirked in by a no vote, and are therefore pushed towards voting yes. When their preferd optioon would be simply more devolution, while remaining in the Union. That might be bordering on speculation on my part though. Petty would probably know better.

The polls seem to suggest that a lot more people made that mental calculus than Cameron bargained for.

When the referendum debate began all the polls showed about the same thing- support of independence was about 30%, the status quo about 30% and devomax about 70%

But the main feature of devomax is all the revenue raised in Scotland would stay there and the Barnett formula would be scrapped, which from a Treasury stand point is as bad independence. And they didn't want it.

Cameron publicly rejected devomax as an option, stating that there would only be a yes/no question to settle the matter once and for all.

There wasnt even supposed to be the offer of more powers that there now is, that only came about as reaction to ever closing polls and to try to bribe people back to the Union position.

Cameron seem so to have gambled on denying devo max forcing Scots to hedge their bets and stick with the union, given support for independence was a slow as 30% at the time.

But it seems to be backfiring.

How much actual difference is there between devomax and amicable independence ? 

It sounds to me as if it's going to be a lot like the difference between separation and divorce when you're both still having to live in the same house afterwards. Either way, at the end of the day you've still got to figure out the awkward bits like paying bills and having "friends" over.

With devomax we would essentially control most things- taxation, spending, borrowing (within set limits), any revenue raised in Scotland would stay here, but stuff like military, security, social security benefits, immigration would remain solely with Westminster.
So we couldn't stop the hugely unfair and unpopular taxes like the notorious bedroom tax, and we couldn't have stopped our soldiers being sent to Iraq as they were by Blair to an illegal war. And we would have no say over having Trident based here.

Ah, those would be the "who gets the children?" issues.  

If it comes to it, it would be reasonable to assume that those topics would be among the highest priorities during the months of negotiations, don't you think?  

For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of a long term mutual aid treaty come out of the negotiations. This is just the way divorces go, and any good negotiator should know the game.

Indeed. That is in fact the YES side position, characterised by some as wanting to keep all the good stuff.
But in fact its simply the sensible logic that where it is in both countries interests to continue to share assets and systems we should.
No point throwing the baby out with the bath water.

For example as Scotland provides RUK with  large chunk of their electricity needs it would be sensible to maintain a national British grid and come to some settlement over another area in return that benefits Scotland in return for continuing to proved that electricity.
We want to be good neighbours and partners not enemies. There is no appetite or bile for the english, this is about self determination, politics and social direction, not about hating the english, except among the usual nutty minority fringes you will always get in any campaign.
But the english as a people dont even come into any debates I have heard or taken part in.

If Scotland does go independent its not in RUK's interests to have a failed state on their border.
Which is why the YES side maintain that some things are politics, bluff and bluster- like the no currency union thing, its a tactic in the debate, but once Scotland gets independence and its clearly the option which would be in both countries interests there will be negotiations (this has been partly confirmed by an off the record senior member of the No campaign who told the Telegraph, or might have been the Times, that 'of course there would be a currency union')

edit add- it was The Guardian- 'A currency union will eventually be agreed between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK to ensure fiscal and economic stability on both sides of the border, according to a government minister at the heart of the pro-union campaign.
The private admission comes amid increasing jitters at Westminster, after opinion polls showed an increase in support for independence despite the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all arguing that Scotland could not keep the pound after a yes vote.
"Of course there would be a currency union," the minister told the Guardian in remarks that will serve as a major boost to the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond,
who accused the UK's three main political parties of "bluff, bluster and bullying" after they all rejected a currency union.
The minister, who would play a central role in the negotiations over the breakup of the UK if there were a yes vote, added: "There would be a highly complex set of negotiations after a yes vote, with many moving pieces. The UK wants to keep Trident nuclear weapons at Faslane and the Scottish government wants a currency union – you can see the outlines of a deal."

From the same article, I thought this was rather telling on the whole currency issue-

'Westminster's emphatic rejection (of currency union) was taken on the specific advice of the former chancellor and Better Together chief, Alistair Darling, and the main Downing Street Scottish adviser, Andrew Dunlop. The Treasury had assumed that Osborne would stick to his position of saying that a currency union would be highly unlikely.

The decision to toughen up the message was made because Darling believes Better Together needs to do more than win the referendum – it needs to kill off independence with an emphatic win. "Alistair and Andrew are running the show – we just did what they said," one Treasury source said.

John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, wrote in a recent blogpost: "It has long been apparent that the currency intervention had not produced any boost for the no side. It is now beginning to look as though the last six weeks may, if anything, have seen the yes side catch up a little further."

This was back in March since when the polls have narrowed to just 4 points in it.

From the Crone Report- a document written 30 years ago for governent ministers assessing whether Scotland's wealth backed up the SNP argument for repeal of the Union, it was, for reasons that will be obvious kept hidden form the public for 30 years-

'He said the significance of North Sea oil finds remained in large measure disguised from the public.
Professor McCrone said that an independent Scotland could be transformed by oil revenues and become a leading power in Europe.
His report, The Economics of Nationalism Re-examined, said that estimates from the SNP that oil could yield £800m by 1980 were far too low.
Professor McCrone argued that the economy of an independent Scotland, properly managed, would "tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree".
"Its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner," he wrote.
"Just as deposed monarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as a haven of security... the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds.
"Thus for the first time since the Act Of Union was passed, it can now be credibly argued that Scotland's economic advantage lies in its repeal."

Why on earth should we now believe Westminster tales of impending doom and poverty when they delibretly hid this information from us and lied about the oil revenue last time?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
The decision to toughen up the message was made because Darling believes Better Together needs to do more than win the referendum – it needs to kill off independence with an emphatic win. "Alistair and Andrew are running the show – we just did what they said," one Treasury source said.

If this is true, Darling isn't a man who should be allowed in the strategy room without a supervisor. As my grandma used to say, "You catch more flies with honey!"

Pettytyrant101 wrote: 'A currency union will eventually be agreed between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK to ensure fiscal and economic stability on both sides of the border, according to a government minister at the heart of the pro-union campaign.
....

"Of course there would be a currency union," the minister told the Guardian ....

The minister, who would play a central role in the negotiations over the breakup of the UK if there were a yes vote, added: "There would be a highly complex set of negotiations after a yes vote, with many moving pieces. The UK wants to keep Trident nuclear weapons at Faslane and the Scottish government wants a currency union – you can see the outlines of a deal."

On the other hand, this guy makes sense. I bet if he'd been in charge from the start,  a mutually advantageous arrangement could have been reached without there ever needing to be a vote.

Why do we all so often let the politicians make the big decisions rather than the diplomats?  
[I'm thinking G W Bush administration here. ]

David H wrote:Ah, those would be the "who gets the children?" issues.  

If it comes to it, it would be reasonable to assume that those topics would be among the highest priorities during the months of negotiations, don't you think?  

For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of a long term mutual aid treaty come out of the negotiations. This is just the way divorces go, and any good negotiator should know the game.

England is the Jennifer Aniston of the situation. Divorced against her will by a man attracted to big tits and bigger lips, only to find out the other woman just wants to talk about their sex life, breed like a rabbit and suck the life out of him. Sooner or later he will realize how good things were before. Too late

The worlds only real life human muppet Ed Milliband has come to Scotland to tell us all to vote no.
And his reasons?

Well, "I want a fairer, more equal country. I know so many people in Scotland feel the country is not working for them and they will be wondering should they be voting 'No' in the referendum or should they be voting 'Yes'.
My strong message is to vote 'No' in the referendum because a Labour government is on the way, a Labour government with genuine proposals for social justice."

Ok, so we are to believe that Labour will win the next general election, despite England clearly lurching more to the right, and being more anti-immigrant and anti-Eu. OK.
But he said "many people in Scotland feel the country is not working for them" but thats largely Labours fault- when New Labour got elected Scotland voted on mass for them, and at last England too went for a left wing socialist leaning party- only it wasn't. New Labour had to position themselves so far to the right of centre to win English votes they were no longer a socialist party, but Tories in sharper suits.

But lets go with Ed's frankly fanciful notion that they win the next general election with a majority.

So Scotland needs more immigration and changes in immigration law, but even mentioning an increase in immigration in England is a sure fire way of getting no votes at all and being hugely unpopular- so not much chance of change there.


But says Ed, "Labour was committed to a fairer tax system, with a new 10p rate and a higher 50p rate, as well as freezing energy bills, raising the national minimum wage, getting young people into work and increasing the powers of the Scottish Parliament."

Ok.  Question- which Labour party is this? Because the last one was more Tory than the Tories under New Labour. And if Labour is all about social justice why did all that get worse and even further away under the New Labour government with the gap between poorest and richest growing to its widest ever?
And it was Labour who deregulated the UK banking system further than even the Tories ever had which directly lead to many of the problems involved in the banking crisis.
Its not like they have not had a chance to prove themselves, and they failed spectacularly then for Scotland leading directly to the collapse in the Scottish Labour vote at Scottish elections.
So why believe him it will be different this time when most of the voters he has to please are in England and have opposite views to those he is espousing to Scots?

But the human muppet  added: "Frankly it is an SNP con. They are going to continue Tory policies if they have independence, that is their real prospectus.
If you want social justice you vote 'No' and we are going to elect a Labour government."

Um except incase Ed hasn't noticed we have had an SNP administration here for some time now and they said they would protect social issues like free education and health care and then amazingly, for politicians, they followed through on it and delivered. They also balanced the budget every year. Something Labour never have done. Every Labour government since WW2 has left the country up to its eyeballs in debt by the time they leave office.

So just to be clear all Ed is asking is that we believe Labour will win the next General Election and then it will enact all the social justice policies that Scotland values over the heads of the majority of English voters who dont seem to want to go that way but want to go more right.

So will Labour be bringing back free education for all across the UK?
UM, no, thats not one of their current policies.

Will they ensure the NHS is not farmed out to private companies?
Pretty unlikely as they started the current sell off in England and Wales NHS when they were in power.

So will they help in increasing immigration?
That would be a no as well, they are committed, along with every other Westminster party to curbing and reducing immigration.

Ok so what about these extra powers promised for the Scottish Parliament- what are they then.
Um, we dont know, Ed will tell us only after we vote NO.
Well that's about as useful as a fart in a spacesuit!

I think it might be time for Ed to head back south until he has something vaguely credible to say.



Divorced against her will by a man attracted to big tits and bigger lips- Figg

Thats the first time I've heard social democracy described as that! No wonder those Fjordians are so happy!

'Sooner or later he will realize how good things were before. Too late'

There is not a single country in the world which has gained its independence and then wanted to give it back up.
And whatever happens, good or bad afterwards at least the decisions will be ours. The problems to solve ours and the solutions ours. Not imposed on us.
We are Scots, we really aught to be standing on our own two feet, not kneeling awaiting instructions and our pocket money to spend from on high.

''And whatever happens, good or bad afterwards at least the decisions will be ours. The problems to solve ours and the solutions ours. Not imposed on us.
We are Scots, we really out to be standing on our own two feet, not kneeling awaiting instructions and our pocket money to spend from on high''. Petty McWallace Tyrant

a bit of sense of humour wouldnt go amiss. all this grandstanding is a bit cringeworthy

I dont find the entire future of my country to be a particularly funny subject.
And as to grandstanding, I'm passionate, its apparently a Celtic trait. And we should be standing on our own two feet.

Do you seriously think for one moment if the situation was reversed England would be content to hand all its revenue, every last penny over to Scotland and then receive a lump sum back once a year from us that was slightly smaller than what they put in?
And do you seriously think English people would be content to have all England's foreign policy, social benefits, taxation and immigration decided by Scotland?

I doubt it. I very much doubt it.

I dont agree with everything the writer says here but its still a pretty decent overview of how Scotland got from independence being a fringe idea 40 years ago to the brink of it now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8699/index.html

David H wrote:
Why do we all so often let the politicians make the big decisions rather than the diplomats?  
[I'm thinking G W Bush administration here. ]

Because if you're Barak Obama, you have more political appointments to ambassadorships than career diplomats, which is just stupidly wrong. He's far worse than Bush in this respect.

Agreed. Our best and brightest rarely choose a career in the diplomatic corps, partly for that reason.

We ought to consider putting a small fraction of our Defense budget into identifying and training skilled diplomats, then deploying them into regions of unrest as part of any US "technical assistance". I bet the savings would be 1000 times the investment and the World would be a more peaceful place.