boL, interesting:

Quote
If we adopted PR 4 years ago I think the nationalist argument would have been massively weakened.

I am missing something here.
From my POV a person in Scotland has more voting power than I do in the Midlands. They have smaller constituencies (Fewer people per MP, some say Tony B liars Gerrymandering ) and those MPs get a say in the Scottish Parliament and in Westminster.

i think I am right in that, certainly what I have been lead to believe.

BTW, isn't it no politics here?

Yes, there was a UK referendum on it a few years back, but the result was to keep the current system. The current UK government is a coalition with one of the big two parties (Conservative) and the 3rd most popular (Lib Dems). Part of the deal of the coalition was that there would be a referendum to adopt PR instead of first-past-the-post, as the Lib Dems always get a respectable % of the vote but far less seats under the current system.

Part of the Scottish "yes" vote rhetoric is to reject the Conservatives who are generally disliked in Scotland and are lucky to gain 1 of the 60 or so seats, yet there's a Conservative government in power. The attitude was pretty much set in the 80s with Margaret Thatcher and the 'Reaganomics' of the time. Not just in Scotland though, it was generally the traditional industrial areas outside of South East. To me it seemed liken necessary progression but there's still a lot of badwill towards the Conservatives (and they're not representative of the Scottish vote).

At least with a PR system (to me) it seems like the vote is more democratically represented.

Oh Ok, I was looking at Scotland in particular, not the whole country.  follow you now.

there are parts of the North I believe that still suffer from Maggies years.  If only they had put more in place to help people at the time.  That was so wrong.

Wrexham is a positive. That turned itself round.  But I dont think Middlesbrough ever has.  Although its a long time since I was last there. 

Someone I know said "Middlesbrough is not the end of the world, but you can see it from there....."  Harsh but fair at the time.

away from the politics a bot, there was an interesting discussion on radio 4 today about the reliability or otherwise of the polls, and why rare scenarios are much more difficult to adjust for/correctly predict - download here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless/all

nothing totally mind blowing but in light of the coverage being given to the polls, its good if you like that type of thing.

Another Scottish resident moves south....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11090807/Scottish-independence-now-Nessie-defects.html

The haggis will be migrating in droves too

Whatever the result, it's been disappointing to see the likes of this from the BBC
http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/bbc-reporter-caught-red-handed-manipulating-video-in-scottish-indy-campaign/

I saw that and it was disgusting reporting by the BBC. Once this is all done and dusted there needs to be some kind of inquiry or equivalent over it. I've always held the BBC in good regard but this, in a tight political contest, is beyond what is even close to acceptable

> Haggis

As I understand their legs are too short to make it south by the time the legalities have been sorted, a year or so down the line, so I think they'll stay albeit in the borders

Actually I've just gone and re watched the long video. Alex Salmond answered, but in a traditional politician way, in so much as he didn't answer the specific question asked.

I think his answer was that the "men responsible for billion of pounds" were either scaremongering (in the case of John Lewis) or moving their HQ for technical/legal reasons... that ultimately won't really affect jobs or ongoing operations in Edinburgh where they are just now. IMO either way the reporting was deceptive.

Peston from the BBC seems to do a better job of being impartial http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29161335

No doubt about it though, both sides have an ugly element to them, just the "no" one has kicked into gear.

I'm wondering how they would split up the army, Air Force and navy units and equipment?

I think it's for the UK to decide and for an independent Scotland to broker a deal. AFAIK they have agreed that personnel would get the choice of which army to serve under.

As it stands, it's a bit like a prenuptial agreement... though there would have to be discussions in the way things are shared and separated.

>I think his answer was that the "men responsible for billion of pounds" were either scaremongering (in the case of John Lewis) or moving their HQ for technical/legal reasons... that ultimately won't really affect jobs or ongoing operations in Edinburgh where they are just now.

I agree he said that, but I feel he, in a traditionally political manner, avoided answering the question asked.

>IMO either way the reporting was deceptive.

Agreed

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67017a0a-390d-11e4-9526-00144feabdc0.html

Behind a paywall but C&P'd here for ease, although easily beaten by changing User Agent to G Bot.

Quote


What happens after a Yes vote will shock the Scots
By Martin Wolf

However amicably a divorce begins, that is rarely how it ends. Talks will be bitter and prolonged
The Union Jack flag and the flag of St Andrew's Cross©Getty
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 UK's interests, against Scotland. Divorces are always difficult. But rarely is the abandoned party asked to represent the interests of the departing.
More
ON THIS STORY
Anxious Scots open English bank accounts
Wetherspoon hits at pro-union stance
No campaign holds Scots poll lead
Business finds its voice on independence
Chris Giles Public finances expose Scottish weakness
ON THIS TOPIC
Top Scottish companies fear independence
Queen urges Scots to take 'care' over vote
Editorial Business and the costs of independence
Fight heats up for Scotland's undecideds
MARTIN WOLF
Draghi shows the way
Price of pound for Scots
Financial reform – Call to arms
Holdouts worse than vultures
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 Scotland's 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. Scotland's 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, Scotland's 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!

>Scotland's share of UK public debt would amount to more than 90 per cent of its gross domestic product

I've seen figures ranging from 60-90%, it's something that'd be on the discussion table so not sure why they're stating it as fact. The current UK ratio is lower.

>currency

As I see it, the flat out no from mainstream UK parties on the subject of currency union is where the majority of uncertainty is. If there were to be some form of agreement where Scotland has constraints on its economic policies for the forseeable, a lot of these problems could go away.

And for sure, in the event of a yes it seems there'd be a radical shake up of politics in London, which maybe is a good thing.

Whether it's yes or no, there will be radical changes out of this.