Scotland Watch

[OrraLoon]

So -- was that the end of Round One?

Who knows?

My gut feel is that, if a second referendum is granted, it will come through popular pressure rather than by a majority Scottish government having a mandate to negotiate a second referendum with Westminster.

I find the spike in SNP membership encouraging. Personally, although not a member (yet), I find they are the mainstream party that I can most readily identify with. I know that their primary raison d'etre is to achieve independence but, in a way, I think the party's name lets it down, as it carries too many Nationalist (capital N) connotations. Perhaps "Scottish Social Democratic Party" would be more appropriate. They're not perfect, and their stewardship in government hasn't been perfect. But it's not been bad IMHO.

However, I think the real impetus for a second referendum (if there is such impetus) will come from the continued existence of the grass-roots "Yes" campaigns. 55% vs 45% is decisive, but not THAT decisive. There could come a time when Westminster has to decide whether to protect its interests in Scotland, at the expense of increased dissatisfaction and unrest among Scots, with the uncertainties that brings, or to cut their losses and agree to Referendum 2.0.

If the fairy godmother comes along and waves her wand so that all the promised powers are granted, I think that will fix things. Let's face it; the movement from 30% in favour of independence to 45% was as a result of proactive campaigning from a very effective grass roots movement. Until their cages were rattled, a substantial majority were happy with things as they were. An effective Scottish government, exercising its stewardship responsibly with its new enhanced powers, should quell the hunger for change.

Of course, if the SNP win another majority in 2016, they could always run an informal referendum, a la Donetsk. If the result was decisive for "yes", with a decent turn-out, they could go to Westminster to ask for it to be ratified, or just declare UDI. That would really set the cat among the pigeons, given how the markets reacted to just a 1% lead in one opinion poll.

Yes, interesting to see that some have gone directly to the SNP. I could also see a Scottish Broad Left Party being formed, comprising Labour Indies, the remnants of the SSP, one or two Greens and some in the SNP keen to reposition themselves. Maybe left-wing Eurosceptic. Or it could be that the SNP is currently acquiring its own "Independence Square" Tendency.
John McTernan (Blair's former political secretary) says that there will "never" be another referendum. But what's that bell I hear…

Seconds out, start of Round Two…

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Yes-Next ... 58?fref=ts

[UndercoverElephant]

Actually, "the genie" can be put back in the bottle. Legally put back. The SNP can be muzzled forever, as has happened in India and the US.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/c ... 212654.ece

The United Kingdom may be unbalanced. But, hey, it works

Now that Scotland has decisively spoken, after a campaign whose terms were set by the SNP for itself, we should follow the example of stable federated countries (the US and India, for example) and say: “This Union is now indissoluble.”

Why should independence be forever but the nationalists get infinite bites at the cake?

[kenneal - lagger]

Perhaps we should get rid of the MSPs and AMs or what ever they are called in Wales and Northern Ireland and have one set of MPs who sit in there own country parliament for three days and in Westminster for the "Federal" parliament for two. That would save money and as the real power lies in Brussels with the EU at the moment they should have plenty of time to sort out what they are left with.

That way each country could look after its own affairs and come together for the few supra national affairs that are not dealt with by the EU. England would get its own parliament and the whole nation could be run by whoever can cobble a majority. I can't see that happening because Labour would probably lose many of its Scottish seats to the SNP and they would lose control of England.

The one government that are doing well out of this are the EU bureaucrats who would like to demolish individual country governments by destroying national boundaries to enhance EU central government control. the talk of England being broken up into regions must be music to their ears. Once England is broken up into regions Trans Manche, the Borders other odds regions come a step closer.

[UndercoverElephant]

I can't see that happening because Labour would probably lose many of its Scottish seats to the SNP and they would lose control of England.

Indeed. I think this would only work if we changed to a fair voting system, consistent throughout the whole of the UK, but the Tories would reject this for the same reason Labour would reject what you are proposing: it would lock them out of (absolute) power.

[biffvernon]

Why should independence be forever but the nationalists get infinite bites at the cake?

Independence doesn't have to be forever. Had the vote been Yes it is entirely possible that at some future point a pro-union government might be elected, call a referendum and ask to rejoin the UK. Unlikely, there are I think no world precedents, but theoretically possible.

[OrraLoon]

Actually, "the genie" can be put back in the bottle. Legally put back. The SNP can be muzzled forever, as has happened in India and the US.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/c ... 212654.ece

The United Kingdom may be unbalanced. But, hey, it works

Now that Scotland has decisively spoken, after a campaign whose terms were set by the SNP for itself, we should follow the example of stable federated countries (the US and India, for example) and say: “This Union is now indissoluble.”

Why should independence be forever but the nationalists get infinite bites at the cake?

"Ours is a willing Union, not a forced marriage, like those that imprison Flanders in Belgium, and Catalonia in Spain. The door is not locked against those who would leave. Why then should it be locked against them returning?
Alex Salmond asked, powerfully, "If not now, when?" and I think the answer may well be "Ten years hence, when the older generation is gone".
If the Scots want to go, as they may, then I think we should make it clear they would always be welcome back, and leave a light burning in the window. We will never have better friends, and you don't keep friends by threatening them."

[Peter Hi.tc.h.ens, "Mail on Sunday", 21 Sep 2014]

Funny how it can be easier to agree with a crusty English Nationalist than some never-so-liberal types. (Even though the willing Union and 'happy families' stuff is fanciful.)
(I don't believe we would vote to go back. Who has?)

[peaceful_life]

Perhaps we should get rid of the MSPs and AMs or what ever they are called in Wales and Northern Ireland and have one set of MPs who sit in there own country parliament for three days and in Westminster for the "Federal" parliament for two. That would save money and as the real power lies in Brussels with the EU at the moment they should have plenty of time to sort out what they are left with.

That way each country could look after its own affairs and come together for the few supra national affairs that are not dealt with by the EU. England would get its own parliament and the whole nation could be run by whoever can cobble a majority. I can't see that happening because Labour would probably lose many of its Scottish seats to the SNP and they would lose control of England.

The one government that are doing well out of this are the EU bureaucrats who would like to demolish individual country governments by destroying national boundaries to enhance EU central government control. the talk of England being broken up into regions must be music to their ears. Once England is broken up into regions Trans Manche, the Borders other odds regions come a step closer.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... us-failure

'The vibrant and euphoric yes movement, which, during the debate, evolved from a small base to come within a whisker of a sensational victory, will be massively disappointed that they didn't manage to get it done.

They will have to cool their ardour a while longer, although anybody believing they'll stop now is indulging in wishful thinking. Why would they? The process and the subsequent debate, which they won handsomely, took support for independence from around 30% to 45% and heading north. It's now established as the compelling narrative of the post-devolution generation, while no dominates only in a declining constituency of elderly voters. Yes may have lost this battle, but the war is being won'

[RenewableCandy]

Why should independence be forever but the nationalists get infinite bites at the cake?

Because Scotland as a country really is different from England, with a difference that most people south of the border grossly underestimate. Please, if we can't convince you, all I can suggest is that you go and live there for a while and see for yourself.

Yes it would be a shame for the UK to split up. But if we (the UK) can't accommodate this difference in ethos that you find in the North, then we really don't deserve to keep Scotland and its resources. There will be huge legal and technical difficulties. But people have brains, and Scotland has resources, enough to cover for what they want to do. And to quote:

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea."

Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[OrraLoon]

Why should independence be forever but the nationalists get infinite bites at the cake?

Because Scotland as a country really is different from England, with a difference that most people south of the border grossly underestimate. Please, if we can't convince you, all I can suggest is that you go and live there for a while and see for yourself.

Yes it would be a shame for the UK to split up. But if we (the UK) can't accommodate this difference in ethos that you find in the North, then we really don't deserve to keep Scotland and its resources. There will be huge legal and technical difficulties. But people have brains, and Scotland has resources, enough to cover for what they want to do. And to quote:

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea."

Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Great quote. One to keep and use.

Stop press: Scottish Greens have signed up another 1200 members (Sunday Herald snippet) -- and I have no reason to think that there's any whiff of organic compost about that claim.

[Tarrel]

Perhaps we should get rid of the MSPs and AMs or what ever they are called in Wales and Northern Ireland and have one set of MPs who sit in there own country parliament for three days and in Westminster for the "Federal" parliament for two. That would save money and as the real power lies in Brussels with the EU at the moment they should have plenty of time to sort out what they are left with.

That way each country could look after its own affairs and come together for the few supra national affairs that are not dealt with by the EU. England would get its own parliament and the whole nation could be run by whoever can cobble a majority. I can't see that happening because Labour would probably lose many of its Scottish seats to the SNP and they would lose control of England.

The one government that are doing well out of this are the EU bureaucrats who would like to demolish individual country governments by destroying national boundaries to enhance EU central government control. the talk of England being broken up into regions must be music to their ears. Once England is broken up into regions Trans Manche, the Borders other odds regions come a step closer.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... us-failure

'The vibrant and euphoric yes movement, which, during the debate, evolved from a small base to come within a whisker of a sensational victory, will be massively disappointed that they didn't manage to get it done.

They will have to cool their ardour a while longer, although anybody believing they'll stop now is indulging in wishful thinking. Why would they? The process and the subsequent debate, which they won handsomely, took support for independence from around 30% to 45% and heading north. It's now established as the compelling narrative of the post-devolution generation, while no dominates only in a declining constituency of elderly voters. Yes may have lost this battle, but the war is being won'

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Yes-Next ... 3691465058

http://www.allofusfirst.org/

[Mr. Fox]

It's now established as the compelling narrative of the post-devolution generation, while no dominates only in a declining constituency of elderly voters.

I guess old people are easy to frighten.

[Tarrel]

I guess old people are easy to frighten.

The question is; is it their age, or their generation which drives this.

Is this one particular cohort who, because of the combination of circumstances prevalent during their lives, place a specially high perceived value on the benefits of the union? Or..

Is it an inherent trait in this age group, which the younger "Yes" voters will acquire when they too reach that age?

My Mother (English to the core) was frankly terrified of the prospect of Independence. She rationalised it in lots of relatively trivial (though important to her) issues, such as "Learning A New Currency", but I suspect there were deeper but shapeless fears.

This person who was worried about the prospect of having to use new money was once part of the training team for decimalisation at Woolworths' flagship store on Oxford Street in 1971. Attitudes do change as people age.

[UndercoverElephant]

It's now established as the compelling narrative of the post-devolution generation, while no dominates only in a declining constituency of elderly voters.

I guess old people are easy to frighten.

Old people are wise. 16-17 years olds are idealistic and gullible.

[Tarrel]

It's now established as the compelling narrative of the post-devolution generation, while no dominates only in a declining constituency of elderly voters.

I guess old people are easy to frighten.

Old people are wise. 16-17 years olds are idealistic and gullible.

Agreed, some are. But some are gullible.

[RenewableCandy]

This person who was worried about the prospect of having to use new money was once part of the training team for decimalisation at Woolworths' flagship store on Oxford Street in 1971. Attitudes do change as people age.

Christ that's depressing. Sometimes I wonder whether it's only a lower limit there should be on voting age