Scottish independence

guymo

A little goggling tells me that this reference comes from Salmond's appearance on the Andrew Marr show. The programme is on iPlayer but I haven't watched it to find out exactly what was said and I can't find a transcript. Have a watch if you like!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04j2r2g/the-andrew-marr-show-14092014

scott_lithgows

Rollinghome wrote: »

If Alex's brave new world isn't quite as much fun as he promises, how many will be admitting to voting for it without claiming it wasn't their fault?

Another vision is that of a post No vote,another 5 years of Tory government and heading for the EU exit door-will no voters even leave the house?

Even before that we,re expecting English football fans to have a field day in November "Stand up if you voted No!"

Rollinghome

scott_lithgows wrote: »

Another vision is that of a post No vote,another 5 years of Tory government and heading for the EU exit door-will no voters even leave the house.

Yes that would be tricky for a ex-UK Scotland wouldn't it? Little Scotland in Europe using the Euro and the rest of Britain outside: free to impose whatever rules on imports and immigration it chooses.

Perhaps you should hang around so you can vote in any referendum to help stop it.

It would also be a mistake to think that leaving the UK will make Scotland forever a tory-free zone. For Scotland will have its own divides when it can't unite against Westminster. That may be between the 'have-nots' who want more spent on welfare and the 'haves' who don't want high taxes to pay for it. Or perhaps it will revert to voting along sectarian lines, with the Protestants once again voting tory, or whatever they call themselves, and Catholics again voting Labour, as used to happen until quite recently.

A sunny land where everyone always agrees with each other may be some time away.

zeupater

scott_lithgows wrote: »

Another vision is that of a post No vote,another 5 years of Tory government and heading for the EU exit door-will no voters even leave the house?

Even before that we,re expecting English football fans to have a field day in November "Stand up if you voted No!"

.... but surely "another 5 years of Tory government and heading for the EU exit door" is only likely to happen post a "Yes" result and the inevitable long-term damage to the Labour vote through shifting the tipping point of UK politics a few hundred miles south....

.... what this will all do to the outcome of an almost inevitable EU referendum is anyone's guess, but one really strong prospect is that the well known British sense of ironic humour would likely come into play .... Scotland being 'forced' to (re)join the EU on negotiated terms which are less advantageous than currently available in order to (re)gain access to much needed regional funding and the single market (including rUK), at the very same time as one of the major net contributors (rUK) is leaving .... talk about a dichotomy - isn't taking a moment to peek around the corner to see what could be coming down the road a wonderful thing ...

.... anyway, if this is the case, what happens to the utopian idea which has recently prevailed in this debate of running politics on a win-win basis? .... surely it moves the potential outcome well past a win-lose scenario and a good distance into lose-lose territory ....

jimjames

guymo wrote: »

A little goggling tells me that this reference comes from Salmond's appearance on the Andrew Marr show. The programme is on iPlayer but I haven't watched it to find out exactly what was said and I can't find a transcript. Have a watch if you like!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04j2r2g/the-andrew-marr-show-14092014

Looks like a section around 28 minutes in could be what you're after.

Total fairyland. Why would rUK agree to have an independent Scotland have any control over the BoE? There is no reason to do so at all and it seems fantasy to think that it is a definite option when all 3 parties have said it isn't.

guymo

I watched that section of the show and didn't hear what I was told I would hear... but it could be my ears.

Archi_Bald

guymo wrote: »

I watched that section of the show and didn't hear what I was told I would hear... but it could be my ears.

I didn't either. Must have been some other occasion, or may have been be a misunderstanding.

For the avoidance of doubt, the above doesn't make me a Yes supporter. Quite the contrary - I firmly remain in the No camp - alongside the millions of scottish people who don't want to give up their UK citizenship, and the rights and advantages that come with it.

Glen_Clark

Clearly the Scots are disgusted with Westminster politics (who can blame them) and want something different.
But what they would get from independence looks even worse.

PenguinJim

An example of referendums being ignored or possibly listened to or, well, I don't know:

In Western Australia, three referendums were held in 1975, 1984 and 1992 on the issue, with daylight saving being rejected each time...

On 25 October 2006... the Western Australian Legislative Assembly... introduced a private members' bill for a three-year trial of daylight saving to begin in December 2006... The bill was approved by the lower house 37-14 and then by the upper house 21-10, enabling the trial to start from 3 December...

The 2009 Western Australian daylight savings referendum was held on 69 May 2009 in the Australian state of Western Australia to decide if daylight saving time should be adopted. It was the fourth such proposal which had been put to Western Australian voters and followed a three-year trial period. The referendum resulted in the proposal being rejected, with 69.69% voting against the proposal.

As a result, Daylight Savings did not continue in WA. They asked the people three times, the people said "no" three times, they went ahead with it anyway, the people said "no" again after the "3-year trial", and finally it's gone.

Do I have a point? Not really. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a trial "Independent Scotland" introduced, be incredibly unpopular, fail miserably, and Scotland to be brought back into the UK after three years in a far weaker position and with many people's lives destroyed.

But as absolutely stupid as the "Yes" vote is, I think at this point that it may be the lesser of two evils, given the ridiculous promises of power promised to Scotland in the event of "No" winning - Scotland already having a disproportionate amount of power within the UK. Maybe this was the plan all along...

masonic

PenguinJim wrote: »

Do I have a point? Not really. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a trial "Independent Scotland" introduced, be incredibly unpopular, fail miserably, and Scotland to be brought back into the UK after three years in a far weaker position and with many people's lives destroyed.

I don't really see how that could be done without a referendum in the rUK and I have my doubts people would vote for it even if they were marginally worse off after having had the original change imposed upon them.