The Core
Why We Are Here => Water Cooler => Topic started by: rcjordan on September 08, 2014, 06:28:58 PM
-
Debbie says.
-
The powers that be want a nay! I've changed my mind to a yes but can't vote being in Canada just now.
The real sticking point of the debate has been the currency issue, or more so the lender of last resort.
It seems people have switched to a yes because there hasn't been much positive coming from the "no" camp. Ultimately most of the discussion has been around economics.
-
If they go independent, will there be free crossing of people, goods and services between the countries? Will Scotland adopt the Euro?
-
The SNP (Scottish National Party) are the instigators of the referendum and they propose a currency union with the rest of the UK and continue to use Sterling. The UK parties have all said there's no chance of it and there's a bit of bluff on both sides. The SNP argue that if Scotland cannot take the proportion of the UK's assets, then it will won't take the proportion of debt either. The underlying theme would seem to be that the rest of the UK would co-operate, as Scottish exports (a large part being oil) helps the balance of trade with Sterling.
Ultimately the referendum is whether the people want Scotland to be independent, and there would be an election. So any party is entitled to have a different point of view and be voted in on that.
The EU Commissioner (?) had came out and said that Scotland would not be assured automatic entry into the EU or Euro.
Doubtful there'd be border controls.
There are a lot of unknowns if the yes vote comes through.
-
Debbie says.
not sure - its an definate possibility but polls are 50/50 and I think the twin factors that people seem to be embarrased to say they're voting no (bit like voting conservative) and the fact that Yes leaves no room for reconsidering later, might just tip things to a no on the day.
While a part of me really wants it to be no, its going to be really interesting watching how they seperate us if its a yes - I don't think whether to arm the border guards will be much of a discussion but oil, currency, what happens in the UK once 40 odd MP's are removed mid term, even what happens with our flag will all be complicated.
-
A good read on the subject:
Schroedinger's Kingdom: the Scottish Political Singularity Explained
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/06/the-scottish-political-singula.html
It makes it really hard to even think about writing that next near-future Scottish police thriller when I can't predict what country it will be set in, much less what its public culture will look like or where it will be ruled from.
-
The No campaign want a Yes, as it is being run by the conservatives, and if there is a Yes, it means the conservatives will be in for the next 20 years in The UK- scots.
what will we call it? Still the UK? Still keep the flag.
FWIW, I think its not "independence", it is "Disunion" Everyone wants independence, its a very emotional word. The "Better to getter campaign" is imho pathetic..
Hence my view that actually, they want ot loose.
think of the political problems it would solve.
loads of Labour seats gone.
Th Midlothian question Answered. (Scots currently vote in the UK, but others do not vote in Scotland)
the gap between expenditure per head is solved.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031543/UK-government-spending-Scots-1-600-year-spent-English.html
-
>Debbie says.
She bases this on how she sees a similar "Do you want out?" referendum going for, say, Texas. Or maybe even Vermont.
-
On a completely emotional level, it feels wrong to me. Born and raised in England to a Scottish father and Welsh mother, I consider myself British first, English second, part Scottish and Welsh third. I realise I'm in the minority having such a multicultural background ;)
At a simplistic level, the idea of squirreling off into our own little corners seems regressive.
-
Mini states fragmenting off from larger unions only make sense when there are no powerful enemies nearby. With peace and prosperity let's people think about fiddling with the status quo. Scotland is not the end of it:
Belgium is barely holding together, Spain and especially if Scotland votes for separation, Quebec will eventually try again. There are more.
The whole Scotland question took me by surprise, I had no idea that close to 50% of the voters might consider separation. It is going the be very interesting.
-
Had a great time in Scotchland
The world is a changing...
-
My heart wants the union to stay.
My pockets wants it to go.
I fear that Yes will win (posted something in private that may be interesting)
-
>what will we call it? Still the UK? Still keep the flag.
EWNIted kingdom :-\
-
I see no problems in us keeping the full name (even if Scotland leaves)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Scotland is voting whether to become an independant nation by leaving the UK. The rest of Great Britain isn't voting to change and will continue to be all it is, within it's formal name.
-
> referendum going for, say, Texas
Hilary Clinton had sided with "Better Together", a few days before the 4th of July no less.
Seems like there's a lot of movement outside the UK pressing for the no vote, probably more to do with NATO and having a strong NATO partner than anything. One of the SNPs manifesto pledges is to remove all nuclear warheads from Scottish territory. Apparently the entire UK arsenal is here.
-
>better together
f### that. We anarchists want to see what would happen. Couldn't be much worse than it is now.
>outside
Massive Scottish influence on colonial North Carolina. In fact, the last Scottish broadsword attack in a major battle was here, not over there.
-
If Scotland votes for separation I'm going to
hoard stock up on The MacAllen sherry cask just in case there is a bureaucratic SNAFU on imports and exports between the USA and independent Scotland. Purely for medicinal purposes.
-
I think the NATO angle is a huge part of it, but the financial repercussions are even bigger. When you put financial stability with mega weapons issues, the last thing any Westernised nation wants is another clusterfuck similar to when Eastern Europe broke from Mother Russia.
-
I see no problems in us keeping the full name (even if Scotland leaves)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Scotland is voting whether to become an independant nation by leaving the UK. The rest of Great Britain isn't voting to change and will continue to be all it is, within it's formal name.
The reason that is contentious is that "Great Britain" is a geographic term that describes the chunk of land we sit on and have arbitrarily carved up into England,Scotland and Wales. We can change political borders, but geographical boundaries are physical.
That said, my money would be on "The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" - everyone will just need to fight over the order.
I'm still hoping for a no. My family connections to Scotland and Wales are more distant and I don't feel especially connected to either. I have though always identified with being British over English.
-
Gurtie: Why do you NOT want this?
>In fact, the last Scottish broadsword attack in a major battle was here, not over there.
?? Link, please...
-
Gurtie: Why do you NOT want this?
Can I answer that too?
Because Together we stand divided we fall.
our Standing in Europe will diminish.
Our standing in dealing with the USA will diminish.
Because it will cost a hugh amount.
Because Alex S is talking about opening the boarders while at present it seems we are trying to control the boarders.
because there will be problems with Trident.
Because our standing in Nato will be diminished.
Because when it goes wrong they will just blame the English.
Because it will go wrong when they spend spend spend.
There is not much oil left, but they insist there is to fuel the spending.
Thats just off the cuff, half asleep, there are loads more.Its a stupid idea, and the only winner will be one man, and he will make a fortune out of it. I think the people of Scotland are being pulled along by the heart strings and ultimately played for mugs.
He cannot deliver everything he promises, and i believe he will deliver not a lot.
-
>>broadsword >link
http://www.nps.gov/mocr/ Factoid down at the bottom.
-
Can I answer as well?
Because the whole thing seems to be being conducted on a wing and a prayer - 'Vote Yes for independence, worry about the details later, it'll all be brilliant honestly'. I've no problem with independence per se, but being so cavaliar about something that will also have huge consequences for the 92% of the UK population who don't even get a vote is both dangerous and disrespectful.
-
On the one hand, I would not expect the other EU nations to have a say in whether the UK is in or out of Europe.
[probably contentious ;)]
However, There was a war between the north and the south in the USA when the south wanted out. They were not allowed to go. This is similar... Its NOT like a colony wanting independence.
[probably contentious ;)/]
Other snippets
Apparently Argentina are looking on with interest.
Norway and the rest of Scandinavia has no interest in Scotland
Europe is terrified... if Scotland goes, the Basques will be next, and then every small group will be wanting to go it alone. Even Yorkshire.
Now getting Grumpy old Man
300 years ago we took in the Scots because they were bankrupt... are we likely to want to do it again?
-
Oh, I wouldn't expect to get a vote, I'd just like to see the whole thing conducted in a more grown-up manner (on both sides) seeing as it affects millions of other people.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/europe/separatists-around-the-world-draw-inspiration-from-scotland.html?_r=0
-
sorry Sugarkane. No mean to you, I agree. That bit was to proceed the War of Independence .
good article that. in the NY times.
In his view, Britain has failed to give the Scots and Welsh proper representation in Parliament,
A view that is disassociated from reality. The Scots get more air time/money than the rest of England. (In my view . :)
-
> The Scots get more air time/money than the rest of England.
Agreed, but I think the issue is many think of England by default rather than Britain.
A week to go, we'll know soon enough whether Europe collapses or we carry on united.
-
>think of England rather than Britain.
I shouldn't say this, but people over here consider that whole group of islands to be "England." Meaning, we kind of see it as the "generic" word for "Great Britain.
>Because Alex S is talking about opening the boarders while at present it seems we are trying to control the boarders.
Uuuuum....what boarders? And to whom? Can nobody immigrate to GB?
>because there will be problems with Trident.
Who/ What is Trident?
-
>>think of England rather than Britain.
> I shouldn't say this, but people over here consider that whole group of islands to be "England." Meaning, we kind of see it as the "generic" word for "Great Britain.
That was my point Heather.
> borders
Immigration is a big and contraversial topic here
> Trident
Is the name of our nuclear powered and nuclear armed submarine fleet.
-
97% of the adult population has registered to vote on this. Pretty damn good considering the usual voter apathy.
-
I know a lot of things are up in the air should the vote say yes to the divorce, but have the Scots nationalists addressed any of the following.
1. Property rights of non-Scots who own land in Scotland?
2. Shetland Islands who may want divorce from Scotland (and have a claim on part or that North Sea oil)?
3. Keeping the Queen as Monarch?
4. Residency, will non-Scots currently living in Scotland being allowed to continue living there?
I'm just curious.
>>Yorkshire
What? Is there really an independence movement for Yorkshire? What's their beef?
-
Pretty sure they've addressed 1,2 and 4. Scotland would still have the queen as head of state. AFAIK the same rules UK regarding being a natural citizen would continue to apply in Scotland. I can see the current generations perhaps having a choice of passports, it depends on what's agreed after the vote with rUK.
Scotland has always had a distinct legal system so property laws shouldn't change in the event of a yes vote.
-
> 97%
Salmond should feel very proud of that and it's the one thing I admire him for.
>1. Property rights of non-Scots who own land in Scotland?
I don't think this will change. It's a civil matter and one very well covered under existing legislation (Scottish civil law, although very close, is different to England and Wales)
> 2. Shetland Islands who may want divorce from Scotland (and have a claim on part or that North Sea oil)?
That will be between the Shetlands and Scotland, although I can't see how Scotland could fight against succession after having just pushed for it themselves.
> 3. Keeping the Queen as Monarch?
I believe this will continue. It's mostly symbolism anyway.
>4. Residency, will non-Scots currently living in Scotland being allowed to continue living there?
I'm pretty sure that is the case and will likely remain so. But... as a seperate country not tied (and unlikely to be accepted into) the EU, they will be free to define their own immigration and residency laws.
-
> Yorkshire
Yorkshire is unlikely to want to split but Cornwall is a whole different ball game.
on a personal level there is a very strong financial argument to argue for the South East to secede from the rest (of whatever it left) of Blighty, although if that were to ever happen the rest of the nation would collapse into a financial quagmire.
-
>> not want it
what evryone else said. And Alex is very smarmy.
To be honest if they vote yes, good luck to them and I suspect English taxpayers will benefit, although politically it will be less healthy as I worry who the new 'second' party may be. Ultimately I don't think it will impact my life much, our clients in Scotland will stay clients, the flights will still fly, the border will be like the Eiire/NII one and we can probably still retire there (although we may not want to given the healthcare and pensions will probably be a lot less generous than now).
Emotionally though I want a no. Very much split head and heart on this one.
-
> Emotionally though I want a no. Very much split head and heart on this one.
Perfectly said. I feel exactly the same.
-
(https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10429269_10154610927875422_9201427576665433153_n.jpg?oh=65a57c9855307383342040661671b0be&oe=5487D6EF)
-
> Yorkshire
sorry that was tongue in cheek. Yorkshire people are very proud of their county, and consider it to be "Gods Country". They are fond of pointing out that Yorkshire do better than some other "Countries" in sporting events.
ah, here it is, they came 12th in 2012:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2012/aug/13/yorkshire-olympic-medals-gold-tourism-leeds-york-dales-sheffield-hull
Cornwall
The Dutchy, as the South west is called (Cornwall) has always been different an is in fact owned by the Prince of Wales. They have peculiar laws that go back centurys, and he has powers some say he should not.
I do not know alot about it, but a friend has taken them on in court. He is a Constitutional Lawyer. Here is some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall
-
Some info about the Monarchy and independent Scotland from the BBC, out today, for us foreigners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29126569
-
hats off to Blair Stenhouse
-
All the fuss, and it will be a no vote. The risks are too high. Even blair will know that.
Can we have a poll here? :)
-
It's the economics of it all that drive the fear and uncertainty. People worried about pensions, people in government jobs worrying about job security, people with mortgages worrying whether their mortgage will cost more. No doubt it's just the consequence of the global economy... the bigger picture is that we're European anyway.
It's pretty sad that the thrust of the conversation revolves around money. This is pretty much the only angle of entry into the voter's mind from the no perspective. All those Edinburgh headquartered banks saying they're drawing up contingencies to legally be based in London. That's fine, they won't be paying corporation tax for another decade due to them being pretty much state owned, the holes they dug were a result of the kind of greed that was symptomatic of the finance sector London is famed for. Seems like there were indications that the banks were following the lead of Downing Street in mentioning this 'capital flight' idea.
I'd bet there could be a line 200 miles further south of Scotland where the people north of it would seriously consider being independent from London and the South East too. Not that it's black and white but that's where the divide is.
If we adopted PR 4 years ago I think the nationalist argument would have been massively weakened.
-
Sorry, PR?
-
proportional representation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
-
boL, interesting:
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 :P) 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.
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.
-
> 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.
I think they're simply taking the current debt owed by the UK, divided by population, then multiplied by Scottish population. That will be the debt as it stands for Scotland today, but agree there is lots of negotiation to do post vote of Yes wins (in fact even if No wins)
> currency
Agreed
> Whether it's yes or no, there will be radical changes out of this.
Agreed!
There will be huge and radical change throughout the countries whatever the outcome. All of which is bad for the economy in the short to medium term. Markets like stability.
-
>markets
It's good to kick markets, lawyers and definitely bankers out of the comfort zone from time to time.
No matter what some adventure lies ahead and it's going to be interesting. While it's scary, I am confident that whichever way the vote goes it is going to be fine.
-
> kick markets
To a degree, yes :)
One of the bigger concerns I have, if the No vote wins, is the concessions that will be given. Even more power will go to Edinburgh than they currently have (Effectively the previously rejected "devo max" option) with that being further subsidised by the rest of the UK.
-
Not Scotland's finest hour.
http://www.nuj.org.uk/news/nuj-calls-for-end-to-threats-and-intimidation-of-journalists/
-
Meanwhile, the UK is offering money and all sorts of incentives as a bribe to stay. At this rate, if they stay, Scotland will become the new seat of UK power. ...Assuming, of course, that you actually believe political promises are binding.
-
"Better together, or else" :D
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/11098848/Betfair-pays-out-early-on-Scottish-independence-No-vote.html
Betfair is so confident of a "No" vote in Thursday's Scottish independence referendum that it is already paying out to those who have staked money on it.
The online bookmaker says it is paying out a "six-figure sum".
Despite polls ahead of the vote continuing to be close, betting markets have been overwhelmingly in favour of the Better Together camp winning on Thursday.
Betfair said this morning that gambling patterns indicate a 79pc likelihood of a "No" vote.
-
>Betfair
I've been impressed by my own casual observations of predictive betting results.
-
One of the better explanations I have seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YkLPxQp_y0 Seems to sum it up well.
-
Oliver understands YUROPE ;D
-
My gut feel says a no is going to happen, but who knows who'll have a change of heart (and mind) on the day. The polls indicate a marginal no but the general consensus is that the "undecideds" are just no voters not wanting to appear unpatriotic.
Currency and the economics of it are the sticking point I think. The UK parties are completely unwilling to entertain any idea of a shared currency in the intermediate term. Many seem confused that the vote would result in an SNP government in Scotland when that's not the case. The hard date set for an independence day also looks problematic as any ongoing discussions with the UK could go well past that date.
If anything good comes out of the no, for me, it's the idea that England may get better regional assemblies. And some say the whole question has been divisive to the United Kingdom, I think it's good that people on the street have been talking politics, giving themselves a better idea of how things should be, that it's not something for the grey suits to talk about themselves.
Saying that, it seems like there's the inescapable fact that we're in a globalised economy now and we're shackled to the will of the UK, the EU and beyond. It's depressing... maybe jumping off the economic train is suicidal but an attractive option :D
I found this rally call admirable, socialist but admirable. Problem is it convinces the hearts of the yes's and the pockets of the no's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBOj1xAu2NQ
-
An amazing speech by an amazing orator with superb imagery to support the speech. Very, very rousing.
I'm about to watch Gordon Brown's speech from today which I understand was the speech of his life as he pushes for No and Unity.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/scottish-independence-watch-gordon-brown-4275811
<edit> the link above is very short - I am now trying this one hoping its the full thing - http://labourlist.org/2014/09/gordon-browns-barnstorming-speech-in-defence-of-the-union/ </edit>
-
wow wow wow wow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J39bBV7CBJk
I've never seen him deliver some power and conviction as this - Gordon Brown, I doff my hat to you.
-
Yes, much more compelling than what's been served to date, well-grounded and passionate. The Prime Minister and Alistair Darling sound more like an accountant's summary.
-
> accountant's summary
Agreed. I wished they'd pulled GB out much earlier. I truly didn't know the man had it in him. If he was like that as Prime Minister, I am pretty sure he'd still be leading the country
-
SCOTLAND VOTES NO
http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/results
-
I find it interesting looking at the turn out against the actual results. I am sure there is a load of social going on there.
Glasgow and Dundee particularly have lower turnouts, and Yes won. So why is that? I suspect it can be tied to wealth per head, but not found a map.
http://www.cityam.com/1411046935/who-won-where-how-scottish-councils-voted-independence-referendum-results-map
-
28 council areas voted no, 4 voted yes.
A 10 point difference in the results, which is a far cry from the polls showing a 1 or 2 point difference.
it's now time to move on and build for the future with more powers devolved, not only in Scotland but in all the regions; England included.
-
Gutted to see the result. If the move towards federalism gives Scotland more fiscal autonomy and fairer representation across the UK... then it's been worth the trouble, for me.
-
I can't see the issue going away, not with such a deep national split. If Devo Max works out that'd be a better platform to build independence on IMO
-
>not with such a deep national split
Less than 3% voted they were unhappy, f### em.
-
;)
-
Sore losers too judging by this Google "hack".
-
http://i.imgur.com/amNjjyE.jpg
Note the newspaper headline. From what's been said here in th3core, I think it's dead-on.
-
bump