The Mod-Sanctioned Scottish Referendum Megathread

[Parti Ouvrier]

Also, if Scotland leaves, it'll pretty much mean that the Tories will find it much, much easier to win elections...

Not really. Having no Scottish seats only changes the outcome of two post WW2 elections. The Coalition would be a Conservative majority and we would have had a hung parliament instead of the second Wilson government. The Scots aren't the only people stopping the UK being governed by perpetual Conservative governments; and whilst the number of Scottish MP's makes a difference in parliament they tend not to alter the outcome of elections.

That is rather vague, which two post WW2 elections are you talking about? By the way, if the elections were held now, according to the independent without Scotland we would be certain to see a Labour minority government, rather than a majority Labour government, admittedly, it wouldn't mean a Tory government, but I can see why Labour voters in England would be concerned. In the words of the New Statesman 'What those who say that Labour cannot win without Scotland are really arguing is that the party will never win a sizeable majority again.' [1] I'm not really concerned about that, but many working class Labour voters will be and that's why it is so disgraceful that the Socialist Workers Party and Scottish Socialist Party are willing to alienate workers in England by giving left cover to the SNP for short-term gain. They know that an SNP run independent Scotland will have to impose austerity of its own, yet they continue to deceive workers in Scotland in their own delusions that it will lead to greater radicalism and a "socialist Scotland", sure if they want Scotland to be more like Cuba or North Korea. Thankfully, that is unlikely, more likely to see a neo-liberal SNP led Scotland that cuts corporation tax and in the words of Rupert Murdoch, 'Salmond a friend, great politician, man of the people, etc, but I would be much happier with another great Scottish AS - Adam Smith!'. [2] Wonderful!


1. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ity-tories
2. http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/s ... g11sgBAuEl

[Na h-Alba Nuadh]

3. Now this is true. Unless you've been living in a cave this weekend you may have noticed a long list of business leaders who are saying independence would cost more for business. That Llyods and RBS are potentially relocating offices to London in the event of a yes vote.

Slight problem with Lloyds relocating their offices to London...they are already in London - 25 Gresham Street EC2V 7HN. Here's a photo of it http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/globa ... _large.jpg

In fact most of the Lloyds Group companies are registered in England. What they have in Edinburgh is a brass plate for a holding company, a PO Box, and about 7 members of staff. So, not a significant business impact...

[Organized States]

They must think we're daft.

(Image)

And people say the No Campaign is using fear-mongering.

[The Nihilistic view]

3. Now this is true. Unless you've been living in a cave this weekend you may have noticed a long list of business leaders who are saying independence would cost more for business. That Llyods and RBS are potentially relocating offices to London in the event of a yes vote.

Slight problem with Lloyds relocating their offices to London...they are already in London - 25 Gresham Street EC2V 7HN. Here's a photo of it http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/globa ... _large.jpg

In fact most of the Lloyds Group companies are registered in England. What they have in Edinburgh is a brass plate for a holding company, a PO Box, and about 7 members of staff. So, not a significant business impact...

So only the important tax domicile status. You know the part government get revenue from, so moving that won't affect Scotland at all with their proposed 0% tax rates.

[Jenlom]

They must think we're daft.

(Image)

Two issues: 1) half of those aren't true 2) they are grievances with the Government of the United Kingdom. You confuse the Government of the UK with its people, the vast majority of which don't wish Scotland to leave, and the vast majority of which are honest, hardworking people.

It'd be like me saying we should eject Scotland from the Union because of the furore over al-Megrahi. That was the Scottish Executive, nay, a few people in the Scottish executive, not Scotland.

[Sassinia]

It's Scotland's oil!

[Dalcaria]

They must think we're daft.

(Image)

Two issues: 1) half of those aren't true 2) they are grievances with the Government of the United Kingdom. You confuse the Government of the UK with its people, the vast majority of which don't wish Scotland to leave, and the vast majority of which are honest, hardworking people.

It'd be like me saying we should eject Scotland from the Union because of the furore over al-Megrahi. That was the Scottish Executive, nay, a few people in the Scottish executive, not Scotland.

Kay, now I don't like these people either, but seriously, what is up with this constant nattering about pedophiles in government? I'm sorry, they don't think there is probably at least one in the Scottish parliament? Really? Pedophiles aren't just solely attracted to Westminster, sorry to break it to you guys. So that in mind, WHY is that even an argument point for the Yes campaign? Please, somebody else explain the logic to me, because I fail to see how they think only Westminster has had this.

[Briwen]

Two issues: 1) half of those aren't true 2) they are grievances with the Government of the United Kingdom. You confuse the Government of the UK with its people, the vast majority of which don't wish Scotland to leave, and the vast majority of which are honest, hardworking people.

It'd be like me saying we should eject Scotland from the Union because of the furore over al-Megrahi. That was the Scottish Executive, nay, a few people in the Scottish executive, not Scotland.

Kay, now I don't like these people either, but seriously, what is up with this constant nattering about pedophiles in government? I'm sorry, they don't think there is probably at least one in the Scottish parliament? Really? Pedophiles aren't just solely attracted to Westminster, sorry to break it to you guys. So that in mind, WHY is that even an argument point for the Yes campaign? Please, somebody else explain the logic to me, because I fail to see how they think only Westminster has had this.

The point is that they lied about it....

[Organized States]

Kay, now I don't like these people either, but seriously, what is up with this constant nattering about pedophiles in government? I'm sorry, they don't think there is probably at least one in the Scottish parliament? Really? Pedophiles aren't just solely attracted to Westminster, sorry to break it to you guys. So that in mind, WHY is that even an argument point for the Yes campaign? Please, somebody else explain the logic to me, because I fail to see how they think only Westminster has had this.

The point is that they lied about it....

Governments don't lie. They dodge the questions. Unless you happen to have a source that says the U.K.'s government lied, which I doubt.

[Arkolon]

After debating this with a Scot "Yes" teen from a free-to-play MMO's public chat room, I'm convinced that voting No is the only worthwhile option for both UK and Scotland itself.

[Dalcaria]

Kay, now I don't like these people either, but seriously, what is up with this constant nattering about pedophiles in government? I'm sorry, they don't think there is probably at least one in the Scottish parliament? Really? Pedophiles aren't just solely attracted to Westminster, sorry to break it to you guys. So that in mind, WHY is that even an argument point for the Yes campaign? Please, somebody else explain the logic to me, because I fail to see how they think only Westminster has had this.

The point is that they lied about it....

Yeah, exactly what did they lie about and source please? By the way, plenty of organizations lie about not having pedophiles, probably quite a few in Scotland and Wales I'll bet. And do you know why? Because they think it'll make them look bad, even though covering it up automatically makes it worse. But really at the end of the day, it's not about trying to help a criminal, but trying to keep an issue quite to avoid getting bad reputation, which I guarantee you has happened in Scotland and Wales too.

[Risottia]

Which means we finally manage to shake off England - so we can get Scotland in as soon as Cameron leaves? I think of it as a major bonus instead, you know.

I can understand your attitude to 'special relationship' UK or soon to be rUK on one level, but firstly, Scotland would be blocked (by Spain) for EU membership,

Could be.
Or Spain could use that as a leverage about Gibraltar. Also, Spain has some problems about its political influence, with its economy being currently restructured through EU monetary assistance.

secondly, European class solidarity would be weakened if rUK left the EU.

Would it? I don't see how the English have provided that much of "class solidarity" to the rest of the EU workers.

Really, whatever floats their boat, but losing a strongly anti-union member country (rUK) isn't going to make me shed many tears.

[Greater-London]

That is rather vague, which two post WW2 elections are you talking about? By the way, if the elections were held now, according to the independent without Scotland we would be certain to see a Labour minority government, rather than a majority Labour government, admittedly, it wouldn't mean a Tory government, but I can see why Labour voters in England would be concerned. In the words of the New Statesman 'What those who say that Labour cannot win without Scotland are really arguing is that the party will never win a sizeable majority again.' [1] I'm not really concerned about that, but many working class Labour voters will be and that's why it is so disgraceful that the Socialist Workers Party and Scottish Socialist Party are willing to alienate workers in England by giving left cover to the SNP for short-term gain.

I said in my OP but the 2010 general election would be different - we would have a Conservative majority instead of the coalition. Also the 1974 October election would have been a hung parliament rather than the Labour majority of 3. I agree with you that it would probably be the end (for the mean time at least) of Labour governments with big majorities but that's not really a problem anything over controlling 51% of the house is a bonus. Although to be honest a healthy majority is nice so you can allow for rebels, defections, by election losses ETC; so a UK without Scotland might see a Labour party with a very active party whip. Regardless I understand why Labour voters feel a bit uncomfortable about the idea. I'm also in agreement with you about the last point too, although I'm not a Socialist and like most of the country I don't care what the SWP or SSP do or stand for I find their position in the independence debate rather strange. The workers movement is of course an international one and to side with the Nats in the referendum is a genuine selling out of their ideals. It just demonstrates how like the rest of our political masters (or aspiring political masters) they are only really interested in winning elections.

[Huntertopia]

Well, this solves the issue.

In all seriousness, though, I don't really have much opinion on Scottish independence. If Scots want to be free, let them. We'll see how it works out.

[United Marxist Nations]

So many possible new countries this year. I mean, Iraqi Kurdistan, Donbass, Scotland. Think we've only had South Sudan since Transnistria, South Ossetia, Somaliland, and Abkhazia.

[Alyakia]

After debating this with a Scot "Yes" teen from a free-to-play MMO's public chat room, I'm convinced that voting No is the only worthwhile option for both UK and Scotland itself.

would you like me to show you an uninformed "No" teen as well since that's what you seem to be basing your views on?

[DesAnges]

So many possible new countries this year. I mean, Iraqi Kurdistan, Donbass, Scotland. Think we've only had South Sudan since Transnistria, South Ossetia, Somaliland, and Abkhazia.

None of which actually have full country status (as far as I'm aware, anyway) according to the UN.

[Arkolon]

After debating this with a Scot "Yes" teen from a free-to-play MMO's public chat room, I'm convinced that voting No is the only worthwhile option for both UK and Scotland itself.

would you like me to show you an uninformed "No" teen as well since that's what you seem to be basing your views on?

I'm already a living characterisation of that, so that would be unnecessary.

[Napkiraly]

So many possible new countries this year. I mean, Iraqi Kurdistan, Donbass, Scotland. Think we've only had South Sudan since Transnistria, South Ossetia, Somaliland, and Abkhazia.

None of which actually have full country status (as far as I'm aware, anyway) according to the UN.

Indeed, only SO and Abk have been recognized by UN members and few at that.

[Alyakia]

for what my opinion's worth, i don't subscribe to the estonian independence movement.

aside from the mounting and incontrovertible litany of evidence suggesting that to do so would be economically, politically and socially disastrous for estonia (and to a lesser extent the remaining USSR), I hate to see manufactured division between people of any sort.

the modern world calls for a more united world.

i also don't accept that estonia is that culturally different from the rest of the USSR. most us can speak one langage. they have a language of their own, but that's just local colour. if countries were divided merely on the basis of language, spain, the UK, france, etc. would all be destroyed an an incredibly regressive and fairly medieval manner.

to my mind, estonian independence is a cynical, ideologically-driven exercise in manufactured division between a people who have for 100 years lived peacably and arguably together contributed to this day more to modern civilisation than any other nation. the soviet union's writers, painters, thinkers, inventors, businesspeople, military and musicians have produced some of the finest examples of culture and enlightenment, propagation of socialism, true freedom and prosperity in world history. we went to fucking space. drawing a border through it is to draw a border through families, through communities and through lives.

of course, there have been problems, but again, if we used slightly aggressive means of acquirement as a reason for independence later, then wales and catalonia should be free now. of course, no one argues that because wales was annexed it must be free now, so why should estonia being "annexed" mean it should be "free" now? does this history somehow mean we are not better together, that we are justified in creating new divisions? i would think not.

tallinn is a 1 1/2 hour flight from moscow. that's less than my commute to work by car. it's 540 miles. hardly a colonial power.

the union was at one point run by minorities. some people say the soviet union is undemocratic, but russians suffer just as much under this undemocratic system than estonia. and just beause we he have problems does not mean we should throw baby out with the bathwater. did you know that estonia and russia were united not by a russian, but by a georgian? enough of the BS.

[Glasgia]

Would you like to provide any evidence to the points you have made, or are you just making unfounded statements about Scottish independence?

1: Separation would be a "logistical nightmare".

Here I'm supposing that one doesn't like organising things, or one finds them unpleasant. Of course if you enjoy performing an almost infinite amount of paperwork, form filling, adjusting of websites and existing forms, that sort of thing, then it's probably a logistical dream.

Safe to say that from Scotland's perspective it would mean the creation, location, staffing and statutory footing of a number of new ministries to deal with the new responsibilities it would be afforded under independence. A Ministry of Defence and network for its communication, for example. Passports, general government administration, a Supreme Court of some sort. There are a seemingly endless list of tasks that must be performed. Of course the private sector would also have to adjust, for instance no longer reporting things to British government agencies, but rather Scottish ones.

From a UK perspective, there are a lot of adjustments to be made, also for both public and private sectors. A lot of people need to be laid off, and there would almost certainly be employment tribunals with ACAS, demands for public sector jobs to be relocated, and so on. There are also problems about contracts which need to be rescinded or altered to reflect the new political situation.

We're not just going to suddenly become independent on the 19th if we vote yes. Sure, there'll be logistics, but it'll be spread out over time and far from a "nightmare". People won't be "laid" off, but it's more likely that a new Scottish civil service would provide hundreds or even thousands of new jobs. We've potentially got years to make the transition and, if it does look to be hard, we can postpone or delay it. There's no real nightmare, it's just a dream you've created to scare potential voters.

2: Horrendously expensive

See above, really. Anything the government does, even if it's just changing the words on forms or making adjustments to other systems, costs money, and takes time. Depending on the exact situation with regards to borders, border posts might need to be set up along any motorways entering the UK. Government agencies based in Edinburgh would need to be 'repatriated' to the UK, so new premises would be needed, new staff. Same in Scotland. I think I saw somewhere a figure of £500m for setting up all the new ministries and agencies the government would need.

Something along the lines of £15m per ministry. I can't even see how this is going to work. I mean they paid £414.4m just for the Parliament building at Hollyrood, and that was just to build a building and stick a bunch of chairs in it. How they're going to build the machinery of government for the same amount, including employing all the new staff, buying equipment, building new buildings, securing them, putting in place the infrastructure required, I don't know.

Basically, I don't think anyone thinks that setting up a new country, although some of the work has already been done, would be cheap.

£200 million initially, perhaps reaching up to £900 million maximum. That's not horrendously expensive. That's not even that expensive at all. It's under two percent of the Scottish government's current expenditure and, if you include geographical share of North Sea oil revenues, even with setting up costs an independent Scottish government would be fiscally better off by about £4,000,000,000. You can argue all you like about the economy, and I'll respond to that below, but right now a Scottish government would lessen its deficit if it went independent.

3: Internationally embarrassing

I don't think I need to even justify this point.

Yes, you do. There's no reason respecting the result of a democratic referendum would be internationally embarrassing to the UK government. In fact, it's likely to be seen as a positive move towards self-determination by most. The US may worry that it would struggle to retain such a close alliance with Scotland, and therefore see its influence in Europe weakened, but that's not really for the UK to be embarrassed by.

4: Dangerous to the economy

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spen ... 30768.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... irmen.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... rophe.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29112095
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -vote.html
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/int ... 7055973398
http://economia.icaew.com/news/septembe ... s-campaign

I read somewhere about independence potentially knocking a percentage point per year off the UK's growth for the next decade while the economy adjusts. I think this area is pretty well trodden anyway.

Basically voting for independence requires a temporary suspension of disbelief in the normal rules of economics.

Oooh, fun. Let's source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29155827
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12 ... _hp_ref=tw
http://blogs.channel4.com/channel-4-new ... dence/6977
https://www.strath.ac.uk/media/departme ... h_2014.pdf
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/in ... -scotland/
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10 ... -scotland/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29199696

The thing is, there are a lot of economists and business leaders on both sides. It depends on what methodology you use and, to be honest, what result you want to have. However, what I can very firmly state is that Scotland's wealth has been squandered. I can state that our economic potential has been denied and our attempts at recovery strangled. We have a chance to break from this vicious cycle of negligence and abuse, so we better bloody well take it.

5: Resulting in a lot of bad blood between Scotland and the UK

Well, this is more circumstantial than anything. Everyone I've talked to has expressed sadness and a sense of loss about Scotland leaving the Union, but the overbearing feeling that everyone has given is that if Scotland does leave, the rest of the UK will be offended. It won't be an amicable separation, partly for the reasons above, but mostly because being dumped makes you feel like shit.

We won't bend over backwards to help Scotland's emergence as a new nation, we won't offer Scotland an olive branch of friendship, and we won't do anything (unless it's a win-win) to make life easier for Scotland.

It's not like "being dumped". It's a mutual break up - People in England seem to be sad about it, they'll oppose it, but they don't hate Scotland for it. We're two different peoples, intertwined to some extent but still very much divided by culture and attitude. We don't expect an olive branch of friendship, but what we do expect is to be able to co-exist as neighbours - And there's no reason why that shouldn't happen.

That is rather vague, which two post WW2 elections are you talking about? By the way, if the elections were held now, according to the independent without Scotland we would be certain to see a Labour minority government, rather than a majority Labour government, admittedly, it wouldn't mean a Tory government, but I can see why Labour voters in England would be concerned. In the words of the New Statesman 'What those who say that Labour cannot win without Scotland are really arguing is that the party will never win a sizeable majority again.' [1] I'm not really concerned about that, but many working class Labour voters will be and that's why it is so disgraceful that the Socialist Workers Party and Scottish Socialist Party are willing to alienate workers in England by giving left cover to the SNP for short-term gain.

I said in my OP but the 2010 general election would be different - we would have a Conservative majority instead of the coalition. Also the 1974 October election would have been a hung parliament rather than the Labour majority of 3. I agree with you that it would probably be the end (for the mean time at least) of Labour governments with big majorities but that's not really a problem anything over controlling 51% of the house is a bonus. Although to be honest a healthy majority is nice so you can allow for rebels, defections, by election losses ETC; so a UK without Scotland might see a Labour party with a very active party whip. Regardless I understand why Labour voters feel a bit uncomfortable about the idea. I'm also in agreement with you about the last point too, although I'm not a Socialist and like most of the country I don't care what the SWP or SSP do or stand for I find their position in the independence debate rather strange. The workers movement is of course an international one and to side with the Nats in the referendum is a genuine selling out of their ideals. It just demonstrates how like the rest of our political masters (or aspiring political masters) they are only really interested in winning elections.

You've just demonstrated how the worker's movement would be worse off in the case of Scottish independence - Two elections in over a hundred years of the Labour party. How it would it be better off? We'd have a chance of implementing Socialism, true Socialism, on a national scale. An independent Scotland would see five million workers free of Tory rule - And the other fifty million would be far from stuck with it. Hell, if Scotland could lead as a shining example then we may even re-invigorate long dead Socialist movements throughout Europe. It's a chance to break free from the Capitalist status quo, to fight for Scottish workers within a Scottish nation.

Also, I should point out that the worker's movement isn't always internationalist. Legends like Maclean certainly weren't interested in that line of thought.

[Murkwood]

So many possible new countries this year. I mean, Iraqi Kurdistan, Donbass, Scotland. Think we've only had South Sudan since Transnistria, South Ossetia, Somaliland, and Abkhazia.

Catalonia pushing towards a full referendum, New Caledonia will have one in 2018, and Bougainville is pretty close to having one. Venice is also a likely contender.

[The Scientific States]

So many possible new countries this year. I mean, Iraqi Kurdistan, Donbass, Scotland. Think we've only had South Sudan since Transnistria, South Ossetia, Somaliland, and Abkhazia.

Catalonia pushing towards a full referundum, New Caledonia will have one in 2018, and Bougainville is pretty close to having one.

Well, the Spanish government refuses to acknowledge the referendum, and won't acknowledge the results in November. New Caledonia will likely vote no, as they've done before. I don't know much about Bougainville, but I'll look into that, I suppose.

[Briwen]

So many possible new countries this year. I mean, Iraqi Kurdistan, Donbass, Scotland. Think we've only had South Sudan since Transnistria, South Ossetia, Somaliland, and Abkhazia.

Catalonia pushing towards a full referendum, New Caledonia will have one in 2018, and Bougainville is pretty close to having one. Venice is also a likely contender.

Venice allready had one but it wasnt aknowledged.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

http://www.timeout.com/london/comedy/an ... referendum

Britain's in for hard times.

My son, a young British boy aged five, came to me yesterday with an anxious look on his British face. ‘Dad,’ he said, ‘if Scotland votes for independence, will I still be British?’ ‘I don’t know, son,’ I replied, as paternally as possible given the impending referendum. ‘We’ll have to send some blood samples to the lab on September 19 to find out.’

He put his cuddly toy Alex Salmond and his eerily lifelike Alistair Darling action figure down on the table, staring at them with the democratic love of freedom, equality and justice that only a British child can possess. ‘Dad, is it true that going independent will make Scottish people richer?’ he enquired. ‘Yes, son, that is what they say.’ ‘Is it true that staying in the union will also make Scottish people richer?’ ‘Yes, son, that is what they also say.’ ‘How can that be, Dad?’ he asked. ‘That’s democracy, son. Fun, isn’t it? You must remember that economic statistics are like Hollywood film stars: if you chuck enough money at them, they will say what you tell them to say and it will be reported by the media as unarguable truth.’

A pregnant pause gave birth to another awkward question. ‘Will the Queen have to have her “I heart UK” tattoo surgically removed?’ ‘Just the Sean Connery bit, son. She’ll keep the Roger Moore, but it won’t be the same, and her back will always look really odd. But a constitutional duty is a constitutional duty.’

The boy leafed absently through the kids’ edition of the Financial Times, the furrowing of his brow carving a Union Jack of concern into his forehead. ‘How much oil does Scotland have?’ he inquisitioned mildly. ‘Plenty,’ I guessed, ‘enough that they can dream that, just five or ten years after independence, a Scottish oil billionaire could be piddling away his nation’s geological birthright on an English Premier League football club. Now stop asking silly questions and watch the telly like a good boy.’

I put on my strongest possible if-it-was-right-for-Britain-307-years-ago-it-is-right-for-Britain-now face and hoped his worries would subside. But he posed the question I had most feared. ‘Dad, will Team GB’s Olympic medal haul go down if Scotland votes “Yes”?’

The stark reality of what our national divorce would entail hit me like an aggressive haddock in a jacuzzi. ‘Yes, yes,’ I wept uncontrollably. ‘Please, somebody think of the armchair sports fans! Won’t somebody please think of the armchair sports fans?! This is the single most critical factor in the UK’s emotional GDP, and yet Salmond wants to split the Kingdom of Team GB apart.’

‘Will we have to boo Chris Hoy whenever he comes on the telly?’ asked the boy.

‘Yes, son, I’m afraid we will. Hazel Irvine too. Tough times lie ahead for Britain, lad. Tough, tough times.’