Getting back on topic it must be obvious whatever the eventual result, the union is deeply divided. That ought to prompt some new political thinking from Westminster but I expect the usual denial.
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.
Surely it's time to ditch all the coloured-tie and propaganda crap and get down to some serious pragmatism?
That ought to be the case in a post yes scenario, but never underestimate the depths to which Westminster will sink, even if it hurts the rUK to do so.
Yeah, sorry Molls. Thats what I meant. 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.
Say what you like about Alex Salmond, but he's got people out voting, who wouldn't normally be arsed
the union is deeply divided
What is the problem people have in Scotland? They certainly get a lot of spending so can't be that. Just don't like being controlled from a far away place? Having Scottish PMs doesn't seem to help.
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.