Forum menu
If the one thing a yes vote achieves for rUK is killing the outmoded, regressive two-party political system, it might just have been worth it.
Isn't that what the Limp Dems were supposed to have done?
The real risk for Labour is that Carswell takes over UKIP and does an election deal with the Tories.
Convince people who should be natural labour voters to actually vote. Which will actually have to involve being more than just a poor imitation of the tories, with a wafer-thin veneer of a social conscience
Great, you win the natural Labour voters, increase the majority in seats that you were going to win anyway, and lose the swing seats.
Blair won elections for a reason, and it wasn't through appealing to the core vote!
There are thousands of people walking the streets of every marginal constituency who would be natural left-leaning voters, they just don't vote.
No, they're all voting for UKIP!
Labour in the form of a hard left wing party has gone. It was tried with Foot and to a lesser degree with Kinnock. It just meant that Labour became unelectable. Given that Thatcher was in power that was a real achievement. Smith, then Blair then Brown brought the Labour party to a more middle ground place to make it electable.
That is because the parties do agree on so much. There will also be the hard left, hard right individuals, but for the bulk of issues the actual discussion points are quite small and not far apart. For example - Lab and Con both believe in a publicly funded NHS free at the point of delivery. There are discussions about how much should be done by private companies but the fundamental issue is not in doubt.
Without Scotland, I suspect that there would be very little change. There will be no devolved powers to the regions, because defining the regions (except for Wales and NI) is almost impossible). We are a very small country in terms of landmass, so a Federal system like the US probably is not practical. Remember that the German Federal model was put in place to stop the rise of German superpower after WWII. In any case the German states, were actual countries/states until the rise of Germany in the late 19 Century.
There will be no change in the political system. There will be a movement of UK jobs out of Scotland into Wales/NI/North East. Economically the UK will survive and as a country of 55 million will still be one of Europe's largest voices. There is a thought that without the distraction of trying to include Scotland we may end up with a more balanced spending pattern.
Getting back on topic it must be obvious whatever the eventual result, the union is deeply divided
I suspect this will be the main social/political legacy whatever the economic outcome.
Scotland is clearly divided over the issue with a 50/50 split as the polls are indicating.
rUK and Scotland appear to be divided over the issue as there's an expectation in rUK that it will be worse off
rUK may end up more divided if it leads to a greater desire for greater devolution...
If the Union stays together (a 'no' vote) I suspect these division may remain minor but if there's a 'yes' vote, more likely to be magnified, leading to all kinds of uncertainty which can only be bad for business (as the markets are already indicating)...
If the one thing a yes vote achieves for rUK is killing the outmoded, regressive two-party political system, it might just have been worth it.
So UKIP, Conservative, Lib Dem, Labour coalition politics is progress ?
The French have always had Communist, Left, Centre-Right, Far-Right - do we want that, Far Right is 25% of the vote there now.
@sadmadalan is spot on ...
Labour in the form of a hard left wing party has gone. It was tried with Foot and to a lesser degree with Kinnock. It just meant that Labour became unelectable. Given that Thatcher was in power that was a real achievement. Smith, then Blair then Brown brought the Labour party to a more middle ground place to make it electable.
Getting back on topic it must be obvious whatever the eventual result, the union is deeply divided
Isn't it Scotland which is [i]deeply divided[/i]?
hilldodger - Member
Getting back on topic it must be obvious whatever the eventual result, the union is deeply divided
Isn't it Scotland which is deeply divided?
No - almost every NO Voter I have spoken to has a varying degrees of sympathy with the Yes Camp, but there's just a nervousness about goign the whole way. If/when yes wins, they will accept it. Of course there are Nos that are more polarised, but much less than might be interpreted from the 50/50 position
A narrow No would be the worst possible result, and the bitter divisions would fester on. No matter what the eventual result the repercussions will continue for a long time; and many of them won't be pleasant.
It's a tough call - what will an independent Scotland really be? Would be much easier if the oil/debt/currency issues had been sorted out first.
Isn't it Scotland which is deeply divided?
myopic - Member
No - almost every NO Voter I have spoken to has a varying degrees of sympathy with the Yes Camp
ohnohesback - Member
.....the bitter divisions would fester on.
So even divided about whether there's a divide or not 😆
the union is deeply divided
No, ~<50% of a small part of the union is, not sure what % scottish population makes up of the UK as a whole. Although a lot of the rest of us think westminster are a bunch of tubes anyway.
bigjim - Member
....not sure what % scottish population makes up of the UK as a whole.
not much really, so with a 75% turnout and a 50% (ish) split you're talking less than 2 milion "no-ers"
say about 3% of total UK
Based on the 2011 census:
the population of England was 53.012m (84% of the UK),
Scotland 5.295m (8.4%),
Wales 3.063m (4.8%),
Northern Ireland 1.811m (2.9%).
Greater London was 8.17m (12.9%)
Anyway.... never mind all this nonsense. Are we having a sweep on what time the first egg will splatter across the expensively tailored suit of one of the Westminster Elite then?
I'll go for 12.31, and I reckon it'll be Dave. Please let it by Dave. A direct hit on his great big shiny, bottoxed fod!!!
I doubt any of the three will see daylight - there will be "events" with carefully-vetted supporters for the benefit of the media, then they'll go home.
Why waste a good egg? The more the terrible trio are seen the better for the Yes campaign.
Ha, I was right - Cameron is at an invitation-only event in the Scottish Widows building.
[i]Ha, I was right - Cameron is at an invitation-only event in the Scottish Widows building.[/i]
What a shocker! You might not like him, but he's not stupid!
Any sign of Ed yet? The No campaign needs a powerful orator like him to passionately articulate national solidarity, and galvanise the nation with a speech to stir the soul, and quicken the pulse of everyone in the country!
bigjim - MemberNo, ~<50% of a small part of the union is,
Er, it's a union of 4 nations, dismissing the second largest as a "small part" is daft- if any one part is unhappy with the state of the union, then it is divided. (and it's not 50% that are unhappy- it's 50% that are so unhappy, they're planning to end the entire thing. A vote for No isn't a vote in favour status quo, it can be a vote for change from the inside, or it can be a vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils, or the known quantity. In the same way as not all unhappilly married couples instantly get divorced)
By your logic, since 5.3 million Scots are a small part, the Welsh and Northern Irish must be too small to count as well... So as long as the English are happy, the union's not divided. Which is exactly the sort of thing that divides the union, ironically.
What a shocker! You might not like him, but he's not stupid!
He's not tactically stupid, he is strategically stupid.
it's a union of 4 nations
No, it's not!
with a wafer-thin veneer of a social conscience.
@binners a social concsience costs money, you have to make the sums work. The left wing Government of Fancois Holland has reached all time lows in terms of popularity, his polices have done more to damage the working population of France than did the centre-right government before him. Everyone hates him. Welfare/NHS costs money and if you over spend you actually do much more long term damage than short term good. Labour did the country a massive disservice by over-borrowing and totally dropping the ball on banking regulation, they even crippled Lloyds by pursueding them to buy HBOS. They did the average working person no good service at all
A narrow No would be the worst possible result, and the bitter divisions would fester on. No matter what the eventual result the repercussions will continue for a long time; and many of them won't be pleasant.
@ohno I think the worst result is a narrow Yes, the resentment in the UK is going to be sky high never mind the Scottish No voters. A narrow No and you have 50% of the Scots hacked off but the other 50% together with the UK which are quite content.
Er, it's a union of 4 nationsNo, it's not!
He's right - at least one was annexed militarily, I don't know enough Irish history to comment on that situation.
the worst result is a narrow Yes, the resentment in the UK is going to be sky high
I don't get it - why the assumption that English people particularly GAS about what happens to Scotland?
By your logic, since 5.3 million Scots are a small part, the Welsh and Northern Irish must be too small to count as well... So as long as the English are happy, the union's not divided. Which is exactly the sort of thing that divides the union, ironically.
Yes you are right there actually
An interesting opinion from the Telegraph:
He's got some very good points.
I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with the usually lunatic ramblings of George Monbiot, but he's on the money in the Guardian today
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/yes-vote-in-scotland-most-dangerous-thing-of-all-hope ]A yes vote in scotland could unleash the most dangerous thing of all. Hope[/url]
Yes!
Again like binners I've always found Monbiot a bit of a limp biscuit until now, but what he's said is the main point for me - that a Yes victory gives us all some hope that there is an alternative (as in 'there is no alternative' the Tories' favourite line) and that we don't have to take all this subservient cow-towing to the market crap any more. Which in its turn will lead us all (not just old white frightened UKIP supporters) to wake up and start making our futures free of the shackles of traditional Tory/Labour/LibDem consensus mindrot. Many things (and not all of them pleasant) will become possible........
[i]Many things (and not all of them pleasant) will become possible........[/i]
This isn't an original thought....Guy Fawkes was there a long time ago!
Assuming Holyrood actually ends up any different to Westminster of course.
we don't have to take all this subservient cow-towing to the market crap any more.
Think about the word "market" as being "reality"
The "market" lends us money to fund business and create jobs and for most countries pay the bills (as they run a budget deficit)
Implosion of labour? I think not. Todays poll would put them in power without Scotland I believe.
There will be no devolved powers to the regions, because defining the regions (except for Wales and NI) is almost impossible).
A quarter million Cornish might disagree with that 😉
Being even further embedded within "England", would be increasingly waring... The SW (as defined by GOSW) is often touted as one of the more likely candidates for a devolved "English Regional Assembly", but would be deeply unpopular in Cornwall
'The North' have been putting together, for some time, a proposition for devolution to a collection of northern cities. Who have less Tory MP's than Scotland. So even more of a democratic deficit. I doubt you'd have to be a rocket scientist to work out which ones they are
because defining the regions (except for Wales and NI) is almost impossible).
Out of curiosity - the Saxon kingdoms might be the easiest option, and not too bad of a fit - no?
1. Debt dynamics worsen but not as much as in iS
2. Economic uncertainty affects investment and growth, but not ....ditto
3. Population of financial services workers expands significantly in London and N of England
4. Tax take increases in rUK but falls in iS
4. Foreign investment increases in rUK until tax war affects investment in N of England and companies bribed to locate in iS
5. No one has to pretend that anyone is interested in Scottish football scores anymore
6. Tokenism will be reduced - career of Lorraine Kelly nose dives and replaced by Huw Edwards cousin
7. Other than that, not much
Oh and joking apart...
8. The 2015 election will see a rise in unpleasant nationalism and anti-Scottish rhetoric.
Two *king huge new Tesco Hypermarkets open at Berwick and Carlisle, as canny Scottish buyers resort to cross border shopping trips to take advantage of the lower VAT rates and avoid the minimum alcohol unit price.
I will wear a sad face for a long time.
My better half is Scottish and really disappointed that she doesn't have a say as to what will happen in what she still sees as her home. This vote in my eyes if Scotland leaves the UK is like a divorce it affects both parties not just one side. For the yes camp to say that it has nothing to do with the rest of the UK is in my opinion a bit disappointing. But what will be will be. You won't be able to change your mind 5 yrs down the line if it's not what you want. This will be very permanent. If Scotland votes Yes I hope for my missus sake that it really goes well and works out but I have my doubts. I think I'd rather have call me Dave than Kim jong Salmond.
Assuming Holyrood actually ends up any different to Westminster of course.
They can but hope.
I really hope they vote yes, will be the most interesting period politically since Thatcher won in '79. All been a bit dull recently.
RE: The currency thing again, UK says no to Currency Union, Salmond says OK we won't take any debts. So what is to stop the UK from simply removing x amount of assets from the negotiations in lieu of that debt?
Its not like Salmond has any leverage then is it?
the leverage in the event that negotiations fail is international law. who that benefits depends on what the law says.
My better half is Scottish and really disappointed that she doesn't have a say as to what will happen in what she still sees as her home.
she should have stayed or moved back, then. sorry if this seems a bit curt but it's a bit rich for people who do not now and would not in the future be affected on a daily basis by any change to want a vote.
Marketisation ideology's got you by the goolies then jambalaya - you really are saying 'there is no alternative'. Dare we not strive for something different, something more? What the Scots debate is saying to us all is that we can do things differently if we dare, and whole new worlds can open up. And it need not be threatening.
While your mottos may be 'TINA' and 'mustn't grumble', I prefer the old anarchist slogan - 'be realistic - demand the impossible!'
Konabunny how do you think that just because she is no longer in Scotland that this vote will not affect her on a daily basis. Of course it will because her family are still in Scotland, She has been a tax payer in Scotland for years. She moved for her career in the NHS. I fail to see how you seem to think that just because a person is not residing at the moment in their home that this won't impact on them in any way. A typical ignorant viewpoint. It's like saying your less Scottish because you don't live in Scotland at the moment.
binners - Member
'The North' have been putting together, for some time, a proposition for devolution to a collection of northern cities. Who have less Tory MP's than Scotland. So even more of a democratic deficit. I doubt you'd have to be a rocket scientist to work out which ones they are
Why do people keep banging on like this is a good thing, another layer or bureaucrats, doing the same things that the others do but in an office with a local postcode. What exact powers do you want decentralised?
Health? Education? Policing? Defense?
Or is it the same as the Scottish argument - we know we are screwed but at least let us screw ourselves.
Living in a more federal system there is duplication, division and bitter resentment over many things. There are governments pulling in multiple directions and fighting with each other and more elections that you really need.
As a former resident of the North (the bits actually in the north not Manchester & Leeds) I don't see much actual benefit from this. The majority of the feeling seems to be poorly disguised hatred and mistrust of the Tories, I think the referendum would be a clear no if there was still a labor government.
you really are saying 'there is no alternative'. Dare we not strive for something different, something more?
Well I suppose you could advance to a barter system, or if you want to be really radical and progressive truck might work for you.
I fail to see how you seem to think that just because a person is not residing at the moment in their home that this won't impact on them in any way. A typical ignorant viewpoint. It's like saying your less Scottish because you don't live in Scotland at the moment.
I lived in Glasgow for 9 months, can I have my vote. The vote as with all of these are for the residents of the place deciding. Non resident tough shit.
Konabunny how do you think that just because she is no longer in Scotland that this vote will not affect her on a daily basis...A typical ignorant viewpoint. It's like saying your less Scottish because you don't live in Scotland at the moment.
It will not affect her on a daily basis because she does not live there and does not work there. What happens in Scotland really doesn't affect people who live in England, Wales, Wisconsin or Woolloomooloo on a daily basis. It just doesn't.
It's not like saying you're less Scottish because you don't live in Scotland. It's like saying you don't have a right to a say because you don't live in Scotland.
And frankly no-one GAS about how Scottish anyone is because it's irrelevant. I can be Scotty McScotchburger prancing around Harare in my kilt, sporran and CU Jimmy hat, but it's Tomasz Szemewski eating pierogi in Tillicoultry that Scottish independence will really affect.
It's not an ignorant viewpoint - it just differs to yours!
Perhaps we could give a vote to anyone who likes to go on holiday here. Or anyone who might go on holiday here one day. Also whisky drinkers around the world. And Runrig fans.
Getting back to the original question - In other good news for England: the Scottish banks would all relocate to London. Great! So we have to bail them all out again when it all goes tits up again. Which it surely will, with it being the same unregulated 'business as usual' in the City. 🙄
Watching the Chairman of John Lewis on Breakfast this morning, he was explaining that in the event of a yes vote, it is almost certain that retail prices would rise in scotland at some stage following the split.
They won't like that!
he was explaining that in the event of a yes vote, it is almost certain that retail prices would rise in scotland at some stage following the split.
Interesting. What was his reasoning ?
Just to follow up on @Rockape/John Lewis. What they said is that it already costs more to do business in Scotland but as its part of the UK JL absorbs this cost in order to keep prices in stores the same countrywide. If Scotland becomes independent JL will not continue to absorb this cost and will pass it on. What is interesting is that this situation is likely to be the same at many businesses, eg Tesco, Sainsbury etc. The geographical spread of Scottish cities makes it likely that business costs in Scotland are currently being absorbed and are unliklely to be in the future.
It sounds like an excuse to me. No doubt prices would also be raised south of the border and 'market volatility' caused by an iS would be blamed for that as well.
Sounds like a good argument in favour of being part of a larger country, doesn't it?
Unless of course Scotland, freed of the dead weight of Westminster austerity, actually... dare to say it... does well.
I guess postal prices will go up to then.
Tesco, Sainsbury etc. The geographical spread of Scottish cities makes it likely that business costs in Scotland are currently being absorbed and are unliklely to be in the future.
The Supermarkets already price differently in different locations. I can't see that much changing.
Unless of course Scotland, freed of the dead weight of Westminster austerity, actually... dare to say it... does wel
I thought this wasn't about the short term?
Seems to me that the Yessers are shifting their arguments to justify what they want on an emotional level.
Don't like Salmond? Don't worry it's not about Salmond, politicians are short term this is about the long view. But vote yes to get rid of Dave, Boris and Farage. It IS about them in the short term!
Sure, the economy might be difficult for a while, but it's about the long term and freedom. But vote yes to get rid of austerity even though it's a short term policy!
[img] 
[/img]
Unless of course Scotland, freed of the dead weight of Westminster austerity, actually... dare to say it... does well.
But we are doing well. Our housing market is strong
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29148650
there's investment across the country. In Glasgow there's a genuine upturn across the city, albeit the really deprived areas continue to struggle but show me a country that doesn't suffer from that.
More public sector workers; better public services; free universities; free care for the elderly; free health care and prescriptions; more state support for the arts; and lower taxes to boot
How on earth could anyone vote against this?
More public sector workers; better public services; free universities; free care for the elderly; free health care and prescriptions; more state support for the arts; and lower taxes to bootHow on earth could anyone vote against this?
How on earth are you going to pay for it?
How on earth are you going to pay for it?
Salmond says we can afford it, it must be true...
[img] 
[/img]
So basically Scotland will free itself of the [s]Tory[/s]English/Welsh & NI Shackles stride on giving free education, free prescriptions and all the rest while maintaining an exceptional level of public services to a geographically dispersed population without having to raise a lot more cash? Yes there is a share of big ticket items not to share but really?
As for England it's probably the end of HS2 getting past Manchester now. The relocation of a large part of RBS/HBOS down south (or at least to Newcastle) and a whole load more time not spent listening to people whining on.
More public sector workers; better public services; free universities; free care for the elderly; free health care and prescriptions; more state support for the arts; and [b]lower taxes to boot[/b]How on earth could anyone vote against this?
😆
How on earth are you going to pay for it?
Duh, Get with the programme man, the huge west coast fields of cheap, easy to recover oil that the evil basturt tories kept secret!
What @ninfan says, there is a pot of black gold the Scots have kept hidden for just this eventuality, Captain Salmond has the map or maybe the Parrott on his shoulder will tell him where the pieces of eight are hidden
Thinking about the arguments for greater devolution within England.
I'm wondering if, about 10 years after a yes vote, we will see the highlands and islands arguing for greater devolution/independance because scottish policies are seen as too Glasgow/Edinburgh centric.
How on earth are you going to pay for it?
By not spending billions on Trident, billions on illegal wars, billions on white elephant rail networks,...
There's no magic bullet. There isn't a Scottish pot of gold. What there is is a very well-educated and productive country full of energetic people who will succeed.
The John Lewis point is very interesting, as those costs won't just increase for consumers, but also NHS etc. as well. My other half until recently was a drugs rep covering essentially everything in Scotland North of Perth, with the company headquartered in the South East of England and she had to fight very hard for the North of Scotland to be treated equally cost and service wise to the rest of UK. However, ultimately the company were happy to do that as they could absorb the costs. In an iScotland there would be far less incentive to do that. Sure the central belt would probably be okay, but the Highlands, Western Isles etc. could see a big lift in costs.
I think he's found another way
[img] 
[/img]
Shell, BP, The financial Times, The governor of The Bank Of England, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Standard Life, RBS, Lloyds, John Lewis?
Whit the **** dae they ken anyhoo? ****ing unionist basturts..............
By not spending billions on Trident, billions on illegal wars, billions on white elephant rail networks,...
Hmm.. that money that gets spent - where does it actually go? It doesn't disappear.
What there is is a very well-educated and productive country full of energetic people who will succeed.
Are you suggesting the English are ignorant, unproductive and lazy?
Once released from this millstone you will prosper?
If you are so well-educated, productive and energetic how did you become colonized by the English in the first place?
By the way, I have been to Port Glasgow and your description doesn't really apply there! 🙂
billions on white elephant rail networks,...
[img] 
[/img]