CyclopsRock
Member
True, but it all alters what comes after it a lot. Even things like reduced majorities can alter the nature and extent of legislation that gets passed, so I don't think the effect should be diminished too much.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Scottish Independence Referendum |OT| 18 September 2014 [Up: NO wins]
- Thread starter Ape Gone Insane
- Start date
- Status
True, but it all alters what comes after it a lot. Even things like reduced majorities can alter the nature and extent of legislation that gets passed, so I don't think the effect should be diminished too much.
Yes but the fear some have that England would have permanent Tory rule is misplaced.
Although NuLab are Tory lite so maybe they are right...
AHA-Lambda
Member
Walking through buchanan st is a terrifying experience, you'd think yes was winning by a landslide.
I'm shitting bricks.
I'm shitting bricks.
The centre of Edinburgh is hardly a particularly fun place for a Yes supporter or Catholics of either persuasion in general atm.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
You're forgetting 1997.
Without the Scots (Smith, Blair, Brown, Cooke) New Labour would probably not have existed, let alone won.
Two very different cities, Edinburgh full of anachronistic orange bams today and Glasgow full of mostly ordinary, newly politically charged people.
Hot Coldman
Banned
The Orange March stuff is baffling to me, as a thing that still exists
English voted for them in a landslide so I don't see the problem?
Whereas we never vote Tory but get them for most of the last 50 years.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Oh wow. This...this is just not good for anybody.
See the general fuck the poor, bootstrap nonsense that has infected our politics for what I mean.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Um...
You're talking about politics (you'd still need to go into specifics about that because I'm pretty sure there haven't been any significant fuck the poor mentality shifts in recent years) and not "socially" as you claim.
They'd slit their wrists in the USA if they woke up with the level of socialised services we have in this country.
EDIT: Is this related to Alex Salmond's claim that the NHS would be privatised? Do you honestly believe that?
Yes there has, the financial crisis has successfully been pinned on poor people over the last 5 years for one example. Everyone is cheer leading cutting all support to the bone. Rachel Reeves labour mp promised to be "even tougher than the Tories".
Another example the English nhs is being slowly privatised, even my Doctor thinks so.
Edit not our nhs which thank fuck is devolved but the English nhs is already being cut to pieces.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Because they were Scottish. They wouldn't have even been in the (English) Labour Party, let alone Parliament or government. So nobody could have voted for them at all.
British labour party. British elections.
God forbid anyone but the English get to rule I guess. Scotland, Wales and N.I only exist to be ruled, right?
Forgot about that piece of shit trade deal. Where private companies can sue govts for bringing services back into the public sector.
Lovely stuff.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
These issues would inevitably be addressed in the next general election. In fact I'm sure enough of the English mentality when it comes to the NHS that any moves to privatisation would become a big platform for the other parties. But it is in the SNP's best interests to foster the false belief that England is politically/socially moving towards the American model and thus in a completely different direction from Scotland.
Let's not forget that the British parliament controls every aspect of English life, and that we here in England have no real opportunities to express concern (or any voting power) over Westminster's current actions until the general election. However the SNP can do it right now.
So no, I don't accept the idea that the English public (don't conflate that with the Westminster government) is for the privatisation of the NHS.
Let's not forget that the British parliament controls every aspect of English life, and that we here in England have no real opportunities to express concern (or any voting power) over Westminster's current actions until the general election. However the SNP can do it right now.
So no, I don't accept the idea that the English public (don't conflate that with the Westminster government) is for the privatisation of the NHS.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Eh? Phisheep is talking about the period from 1997-2010 when we had Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Chancellor, and you're saying "God forbid anyone but the English get to rule"?
He said it was an issue because they were scottish after I pointed out England handed them a landslide.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I believe the point he was making was the Scots have had a greater impact on UK politics than just the 59 MPs they send to Westminster.
Edit:
Sorry, don't want to put words in your mouth Phi!
Can you really call Tony Blair Scottish. His mother was Irish, and his father was born to English, who was simple adopted by Scottish. He spent more of his childhood in England than Scotland.
To me it sounded like he meant that Scottish people have had a pretty big impact on politics in the UK, not that they didn't deserve to be there...
I don't even think he self identifies as Scottish apart from once when he was giving a speech up here.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I think you are missing my point that the 1997 election might have been differently decided (and the parties differently constituted) had Scotland bee independent. That's all - no more.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Are there any answers to the issue of dual citizenship? I'm referring to the idea that citizens of an independent Scotland could theoretically and automatically retain British citizenship.
Because the notion that someone could flit between the two whenever they please and contribute to the political direction of both countries without a British citizen being able to do the same in Scotland doesn't sit that well for me.
Because the notion that someone could flit between the two whenever they please and contribute to the political direction of both countries without a British citizen being able to do the same in Scotland doesn't sit that well for me.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Ehh, I think the bolded is a little off somehow. Yes, his father was adopted, but it was as a baby to a Glaswegian, and Leo Blair considered himself a Scot.
Fair enough as to where Tony Blair spent his childhood - that can have an effect on identity - but he was born in Scotland, attended school in Scotland and his dad was Scottish. I think that's plenty to call him Scottish personally, but I can't answer whether he identifies as Scottish. At a guess, I imagine he considers himself British.
Edit:
Makes me think of Bane from the Dark Knight Rises though: "You think the Scots are your allies? You were merely adopted by the Scots..."
I don't think RUK would allow that and rightfully so.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Well according to Salmond's white paper British citizens in Scotland will be granted Scottish citizenship. So does that mean they stay British citizens too?
If that is actually how it turns out then I will definitely end up being staunchly anti-Scotland because that is many shades of fucking wrong.
The white paper says something like the British in Scotland, people born in Scotland but abroad and their children would be granted Scottish citizenship. Not sure there's anything about dual citizenship but I think that's a matter for the Government of the rest of the UK to decide.
Doesn't matter what Salmond says, uk decides their citizenship rules not him.
Edit be kinda interesting for the huge number of English and others here though.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Maybe that bloody idiot should have thought about that before promising citizenship to people. I bet he doesn't bring that issue up on the campaign trail.
And the issue of the currency union is a matter for the UK government too, but that didn't stop Salmond from promising it. He seems to love making promises he doesn't have the authority to keep.
Heh we need more immigrants to grow so offering citizenship to everyone and their dog is one way to get it. Lol
Edit Should be using our own bloody currency like we'd eventually have to anyway. If we vote yes I hope someone says this and I'll vote for them.
More comprehensive answer from Yes Scotland site :
edit : Interesting analysis piece : http://blog.majesticseo.com/research/scottish-election-poll/
Napoleonthechimp
Member
So do you have to hand in your British passport before or after getting the Scottish one?
It would make me seriously angry if that turns out to be the case. Independence is one thing but to have your cake and eat it? GTFO.
Hiding the currency union behind a veil of patriotic nationalism ("It is Scotland's pound!") may work for the uninformed Scottish voters but the UK is home to powerful financial institutions that can see right through that transparent facade. Especially where money is concerned.
The SNP will drop the pound at it's earliest convenience ("the pound is a millstone around Scotland's neck. An independent Scotland will adopt the Euro.") and I like to imagine the UK is well aware of that which is why they are initially rejecting the currency union in order to prevent the value of the pound from dropping in the future.
I'm not from Scotland so I don't buy into the patriotism that man is selling. He'd sell the UK down the river to ensure the stability of Scotland (and more importantly, his political legacy).
It would make me seriously angry if that turns out to be the case. Independence is one thing but to have your cake and eat it? GTFO.
Hiding the currency union behind a veil of patriotic nationalism ("It is Scotland's pound!") may work for the uninformed Scottish voters but the UK is home to powerful financial institutions that can see right through that transparent facade. Especially where money is concerned.
The SNP will drop the pound at it's earliest convenience ("the pound is a millstone around Scotland's neck. An independent Scotland will adopt the Euro.") and I like to imagine the UK is well aware of that which is why they are initially rejecting the currency union in order to prevent the value of the pound from dropping in the future.
I'm not from Scotland so I don't buy into the patriotism that man is selling. He'd sell the UK down the river to ensure the stability of Scotland (and more importantly, his political legacy).
Citizenship is something I've wondered about. Can they really tell me if it's a yes that I'm no longer a British citizen even though that's what I've been my whole life?
Wouldn't I have to agree to be Scottish (which would maybe be conditioned to giving up my British).
Kind of how the British fighters heading out to fight with ISIS are still British and the government can't remove that from them despite probably wanting too.
Wouldn't I have to agree to be Scottish (which would maybe be conditioned to giving up my British).
Kind of how the British fighters heading out to fight with ISIS are still British and the government can't remove that from them despite probably wanting too.
nelsonroyale
Member
Just wondering, but why are you so concerned about that?
They aren't saying you are no longer a British citizen, they are saying you are now a Scottish citizen, this doesn't remove your British citizenship.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
When it comes to this nationality issue any semblance of rationality in my mind has left and been replaced by righteous indignation.
nelsonroyale
Member
Why is this? Do you feel impotence? What do you actually want and how do you see it progressing towards this in the current set up?
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Because it isn't fucking right, that's why. And if you don't see it that way then it is because it is convenient for you.
This is exactly what Salmond wants isn't it? All the good things and none of the bad. Fuck that man and the yes campaign.
If you want independence then give up your British citizenship and then if you want, reapply. But if you're a yes voter AND you automatically retain your British citizenship then I consider you nothing short of a hypocrite.
Lolwut.
If i slit my wrists here in the US, it might be because I am mentally ill, which is lucky because one of the places we keep the mentally ill, is hospital emergency rooms for indefinite periods of time. Then, if i survived, they would bill me something well in excess of fifty thousand dollars and likely in the hundreds of thousands. I would then be bankrupt and depressed and might think about slitting my wrists.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Yeah, but the accusation was that the English are close to the US socially (because of "bootstraps bullshit" or something), yet we have socialised medical and dental care, a welfare system with jobseekers allowance, state pensions etc. So clearly we're not of the same mentality as Americans.
You clearly agree that all these social sevices are a good thing, but that's because you're a Scottish ex-pat living in America!
Groundskeeper Willie is a Yes : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vDzf-wSbk
MilkyJoe
Member
From the FT
The nightmare could begin on Friday. Imagine a narrow vote in favour of independence. Down south, Conservative prime minister David Cameron will be held responsible for allowing the fracturing of a union on which national stability has rested for 307 years. But his party has a better future in England than in the UK. The opposition Labour party, which holds 40 constituencies in Scotland, has no such consolation. Scottish nationalism will also surely awake its English counterpart. That will, alas, be good for Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence party, which wants to take Britain out of the EU and is gaining ground in England. This divorcing couple will remain neighbours. The English, at least, are sure to be sullen ones.
From the moment of a Yes vote, the UK government will have next to no interest in the welfare of the Scots. But, until Scotland has become independent, the UK government will represent it in international negotiations. At the same time, it will be negotiating on behalf of the rest of the UKs interests, against Scotland. Divorces are always difficult. But rarely is the abandoned party asked to represent the interests of the departing.
A Yes vote will launch Scotland, and to a lesser extent the UK, into years of uncertainty. Among the biggest doubts are those hanging over the currency. Financial businesses that must be regulated and supported by the UK will flee. Scottish deposit insurance would be as worthless as the Reykjavik-run scheme that failed to cover Icelandic banks in 2008. Cautious Scots must already recognise that the pounds in their bank accounts may end up as something else. Far safer to move the money south.
Confronted with currency uncertainty, banks will need to balance their books within Scotland. This will surely force them to shrink the supply of credit to the Scottish economy. The UK government could try to prevent money from leaving Scotland, but this would require draconian controls, which it will not impose. Either Westminster or the Scottish government could offer to indemnify lenders against currency risks. The UK government will not do that. It will let the credit squeeze happen, blaming it on the Scottish decision. It will be Scotlands choice, if it can meet the cost.
Scotland can promise that the pound will remain the currency of Scotland. It cannot promise a currency union, however. That takes two parties. Even if the government of the remaining UK is prepared to countenance such a union, there should be a referendum. The only satisfactory terms for the residual UK will be ones that impose very tight limits on the fiscal deficits Scotland can run. It must also insist that financial regulation will be run by the Bank of England, which would nonetheless remain accountable to the UK state alone.
Scotland can adopt the pound without a currency union, and so without the back-up of the Bank of England. But this, too, is highly problematic. Scotland would need to build a reserve of sterling that can serve as its monetary base by attracting capital inflows or exporting more than it sells abroad for many years. And it would need more than that. If the eurozone crisis has taught us anything, it is that countries without central banks cannot, in a crisis, stabilise the markets for their public debt. Scotlands share of UK public debt would amount to more than 90 per cent of its gross domestic product a perilous position for a country whose debt is denominated in a currency it cannot create freely. Ireland, Portugal and Spain all had far lower public debt ratios before the crisis. Scotland will need a substantial reserve cushion . Accumulating it will be costly.
Alex Salmond, Scotlands first minister and head of the Yes campaign, will say that if the rest of the UK will not grant Scotland a currency union, Scotland will not take on its share of the UK debt. Not so fast: the negotiations launched by that Yes vote will cover everything. The oil, for example, is not Scottish until the UK agrees. If Scotland repudiates its share of the debt, who says it will get its oil?
All this ignores the little fact that Scotland wants to be in the EU. If it does enter (which Spain will surely seek to prevent lest it encourage Catalonian separatists), it might be forced to join the exchange rate mechanism from the beginning. It would then need its own currency and central bank. It could not persist with sterling. Any such shift away from sterling raises big questions. In what currency will existing assets and liabilities be denominated? How will any redenomination occur? What will happen to the currency denomination of the pensions and all other state payments due to Scots?
These negotiations will be complex, bitter and prolonged. However amicably a divorce begins, that is rarely how it ends. It is the safest possible bet that when this process is over, the English will resent the people who repudiated them and the Scots will resent the people who did not give them independence on the terms to which they believed they were entitled. A United Kingdom will give way to a deeply divided island.
The Scots will discover the taste of austerity. Scotland cannot sustain higher taxes than the residual UK; that would drive economic activity away. It will pay a higher interest rate on public debt because its government will be unfamiliar and dependent on unstable oil revenues (almost certainly smaller than Mr Salmond imagines). Fiscal fibs will be exposed.
By then it will be too late. If the vote is a Yes, it will be forever. But what about a narrow No? That too will be a nightmare. We could then look forward to more referendums. I would have preferred a clean break to that. If Scotland cannot decide firmly in favour of union, let it choose independence. And then, enjoy!
TL
R I am glad I am not Scottish
The nightmare could begin on Friday. Imagine a narrow vote in favour of independence. Down south, Conservative prime minister David Cameron will be held responsible for allowing the fracturing of a union on which national stability has rested for 307 years. But his party has a better future in England than in the UK. The opposition Labour party, which holds 40 constituencies in Scotland, has no such consolation. Scottish nationalism will also surely awake its English counterpart. That will, alas, be good for Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence party, which wants to take Britain out of the EU and is gaining ground in England. This divorcing couple will remain neighbours. The English, at least, are sure to be sullen ones.
From the moment of a Yes vote, the UK government will have next to no interest in the welfare of the Scots. But, until Scotland has become independent, the UK government will represent it in international negotiations. At the same time, it will be negotiating on behalf of the rest of the UKs interests, against Scotland. Divorces are always difficult. But rarely is the abandoned party asked to represent the interests of the departing.
A Yes vote will launch Scotland, and to a lesser extent the UK, into years of uncertainty. Among the biggest doubts are those hanging over the currency. Financial businesses that must be regulated and supported by the UK will flee. Scottish deposit insurance would be as worthless as the Reykjavik-run scheme that failed to cover Icelandic banks in 2008. Cautious Scots must already recognise that the pounds in their bank accounts may end up as something else. Far safer to move the money south.
Confronted with currency uncertainty, banks will need to balance their books within Scotland. This will surely force them to shrink the supply of credit to the Scottish economy. The UK government could try to prevent money from leaving Scotland, but this would require draconian controls, which it will not impose. Either Westminster or the Scottish government could offer to indemnify lenders against currency risks. The UK government will not do that. It will let the credit squeeze happen, blaming it on the Scottish decision. It will be Scotlands choice, if it can meet the cost.
Scotland can promise that the pound will remain the currency of Scotland. It cannot promise a currency union, however. That takes two parties. Even if the government of the remaining UK is prepared to countenance such a union, there should be a referendum. The only satisfactory terms for the residual UK will be ones that impose very tight limits on the fiscal deficits Scotland can run. It must also insist that financial regulation will be run by the Bank of England, which would nonetheless remain accountable to the UK state alone.
Scotland can adopt the pound without a currency union, and so without the back-up of the Bank of England. But this, too, is highly problematic. Scotland would need to build a reserve of sterling that can serve as its monetary base by attracting capital inflows or exporting more than it sells abroad for many years. And it would need more than that. If the eurozone crisis has taught us anything, it is that countries without central banks cannot, in a crisis, stabilise the markets for their public debt. Scotlands share of UK public debt would amount to more than 90 per cent of its gross domestic product a perilous position for a country whose debt is denominated in a currency it cannot create freely. Ireland, Portugal and Spain all had far lower public debt ratios before the crisis. Scotland will need a substantial reserve cushion . Accumulating it will be costly.
Alex Salmond, Scotlands first minister and head of the Yes campaign, will say that if the rest of the UK will not grant Scotland a currency union, Scotland will not take on its share of the UK debt. Not so fast: the negotiations launched by that Yes vote will cover everything. The oil, for example, is not Scottish until the UK agrees. If Scotland repudiates its share of the debt, who says it will get its oil?
All this ignores the little fact that Scotland wants to be in the EU. If it does enter (which Spain will surely seek to prevent lest it encourage Catalonian separatists), it might be forced to join the exchange rate mechanism from the beginning. It would then need its own currency and central bank. It could not persist with sterling. Any such shift away from sterling raises big questions. In what currency will existing assets and liabilities be denominated? How will any redenomination occur? What will happen to the currency denomination of the pensions and all other state payments due to Scots?
These negotiations will be complex, bitter and prolonged. However amicably a divorce begins, that is rarely how it ends. It is the safest possible bet that when this process is over, the English will resent the people who repudiated them and the Scots will resent the people who did not give them independence on the terms to which they believed they were entitled. A United Kingdom will give way to a deeply divided island.
The Scots will discover the taste of austerity. Scotland cannot sustain higher taxes than the residual UK; that would drive economic activity away. It will pay a higher interest rate on public debt because its government will be unfamiliar and dependent on unstable oil revenues (almost certainly smaller than Mr Salmond imagines). Fiscal fibs will be exposed.
By then it will be too late. If the vote is a Yes, it will be forever. But what about a narrow No? That too will be a nightmare. We could then look forward to more referendums. I would have preferred a clean break to that. If Scotland cannot decide firmly in favour of union, let it choose independence. And then, enjoy!
TL
R I am glad I am not ScottishBy then it will be too late. If the vote is a Yes, it will be forever. But what about a narrow No? That too will be a nightmare. We could then look forward to more referendums. I would have preferred a clean break to that. If Scotland cannot decide firmly in favour of union, let it choose “independence”. And then, enjoy!
TL
Not quite. If there is a yes vote on the 18th and the independence negotiations go badly for the SNP they will be voted out of Holyrood in the May 2016 elections and the new government can simply scrap the whole process.
Really? Any source for this?
For what? The referendum result is not legally binding, if the government voted in by the May 2016 elections wants to scrap independence they can. The entire reason the SNP have set April 2016 as the date for independence is so they can try and avoid this very scenario.
- Status