Am I the only one pissed off by the SNP?

[Sheilbh]

Interesting.  I thought one of the big drives in the independence referendum was to escape the tyrannical Tory rule and ensure benevolent indefinite SNP powah.

Te SNP are in power. Their 'yes' vote is a given. They need to convince members of the major opposition party to vote 'yes' too, and that party's Labour. So of course they're emphasising the fact that Scotland could free herself from Tory rule.

But the SNP's heartlands are in areas of Scotland that, in England, would be solidly Tory. They used to be known as 'Tartan Tories'. The Tories used to win between 25-35% of the seats in Scotland (so around the low 20s). Since Thatcher (and especially the poll tax) and the devolution campaign they went to 0 MPs in Scotland, currently they have 1.

Also I think devolution has changed things. The SNP have become the anti-Scottish Labour Party which I think has elevated them at the expense of the Tories. Given the nasty tribal and corrupt elements in the Scottish Labour Party I think lots of sensible people who may well be unionists vote SNP just to keep Labour out. Chances are I would, it helps that Salmond's a very good politician and quite an effective First Minister which is more than can be said for any Labour leader since Donald Dewar died.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think UKIP will do as well as a lot of people seem to be projecting.

They don't need to do that well though. I think Iain Martin is right on this, ' I have pointed out repeatedly, on and off, since 2010 that even just the 3.1 per cent the party got last time – when Farage was not leader – was more than 919,000 votes. Ukip does not need to get up to, say, 15 per cent. It just needs six, seven or eight per cent, perhaps a couple of million votes, to have an enormous impact.'

[Agelastus]

England and Wales better get dredging some deep harbours and getting UN nuclear storage safety inspectors in pronto, otherwise the first time the Trident subs come in for a refit after the vote they won't have anywhere to go.

My gut feeling is that if independence comes included in the "divorce" arrangement is a deal for the Royal Navy to continue to use the facilities at Faslane.

They'll move to Devonport; the only reason HMNB Clyde (that includes Faslane) still exists was the political cost of closure. Scotland leaves the Union, the subs move; as they nearly did in the Nineties.

Which is probably something else Salmond is in denial about - which is odd since he was politically active at the time.

[mongers]

I know of one Englishman living in Scotland, who was against independence, but has become fed-up with the fear-mongering from south of the Border/Tory London, and is going to vote yes.
His partner, Scottish was initially also anti-independence, but she's moving towards a yes. 

[Viking]

England and Wales better get dredging some deep harbours and getting UN nuclear storage safety inspectors in pronto, otherwise the first time the Trident subs come in for a refit after the vote they won't have anywhere to go.

My gut feeling is that if independence comes included in the "divorce" arrangement is a deal for the Royal Navy to continue to use the facilities at Faslane.

They'll move to Devonport; the only reason HMNB Clyde (that includes Faslane) still exists was the political cost of closure. Scotland leaves the Union, the subs move; as they nearly did in the Nineties.

Which is probably something else Salmond is in denial about - which is odd since he was politically active at the time.

Is that move something that can be done immediately?

[grumbler]

They'll move to Devonport; the only reason HMNB Clyde (that includes Faslane) still exists was the political cost of closure. Scotland leaves the Union, the subs move; as they nearly did in the Nineties.

Which is probably something else Salmond is in denial about - which is odd since he was politically active at the time.

Actually, you have it entirely reversed; Devonport is the current base for the RN's SSNs, which are scheduled to move to Faslane over the next few years; Faslane is a much better base from which to operate, and it was political cost to leave Devonport which kept the subs there.  The boomers have always been in Faslane.

Obviously, since the Tridents refit in Devonport anyway, they can get there and base there if Faslane is lost.  The location sucks from a deployment view, though.  You'd much rather have a port with deep water immediately available.

[grumbler]

Is that move something that can be done immediately?

Other than possibly weapons storage facilities, yes.  You might have some mooring issues (limited pier space, perhaps), but the number of units is small enough that this wouldn't stop anything.

[Josquius]

I've heard it mooted that Hartlepool is a possible destination for the subs.
Probably due to nuclear ignorance.


One argument that I've never seen but I think has a lot of merit is in response to the shot termist anti-tory SNP crap.
Surely, if Scotland goes independent, then it would be even more exposed to the Tories screwing them over?
The Conservatives would dominate in England; the big economy next door to Scotland which they're completely tied in with. What happens in England will effect Scotland a lot. And Scottish views won't really matter too much since they're foreigners.

Why?  Tory?

Combination of Irishness and hating the Tories. 'They don't even care about the North of England. Who thinks they give a fuck about another country?' He claims to speak from his 'great experience' of living in the South

So he decided he wants to completely fuck over the north of England by losing half of northern Britain?

I know of one Englishman living in Scotland, who was against independence, but has become fed-up with the fear-mongering from south of the Border/Tory London, and is going to vote yes.
His partner, Scottish was initially also anti-independence, but she's moving towards a yes. 

Gods.
That is just crazy. The SNP are the prime fear mongers

[Valmy]

I know of one Englishman living in Scotland, who was against independence, but has become fed-up with the fear-mongering from south of the Border/Tory London, and is going to vote yes.
His partner, Scottish was initially also anti-independence, but she's moving towards a yes. 

Wow.  Horrible.  I am just glad there are people out there who make Texans look smart.

[Syt]

There are people in the UK who really like the Tories right?  It just seems like I rarely hear from any of them.

My co-worker grew up in London and is very much pro-Tory. She thinks Thatcher is one of the best things to ever happen to the UK. She's only 26, though, so I think she may know better when she grows older.

[Agelastus]

They'll move to Devonport; the only reason HMNB Clyde (that includes Faslane) still exists was the political cost of closure. Scotland leaves the Union, the subs move; as they nearly did in the Nineties.

Which is probably something else Salmond is in denial about - which is odd since he was politically active at the time.

Actually, you have it entirely reversed; Devonport is the current base for the RN's SSNs, which are scheduled to move to Faslane over the next few years; Faslane is a much better base from which to operate, and it was political cost to leave Devonport which kept the subs there.  The boomers have always been in Faslane.

Obviously, since the Tridents refit in Devonport anyway, they can get there and base there if Faslane is lost.  The location sucks from a deployment view, though.  You'd much rather have a port with deep water immediately available.

The argument at the time was that it would be cheaper to modify the old dreadnought docks at Devonport than to expand Faslane; the plan was to close one of them and Faslane as the costlier was the favourite to close throughout most of the review period. Of course they compromised and split the work in the end.

Of course, there's been two more Defence Reviews (at least) since the period I'm talking about.

And since the surface ships were always going to stay at Devonport whereas Faslane only had the Subs I don't see where you are getting the idea from that Devonport was only kept as a submarine base due to the political cost; Faslane was under threat, not Devonport.

------------

While writing the above I discovered that the incorrect on the Kindle Fire replaces dreadnought with deadweight!

[Agelastus]

Nevermind, I'm getting Rosyth and Faslane mixed up; although I was talking about the Tory, not Labour, defence review Grumbler.

Interesting discovery.

The RN says that it can't use Devonport as of 2012 for "safety reasons" (they're "not willing" to get the safety certification upgraded due to the number of people in the area, or something like that.)

The Scottish government has said (back in 2012) that they'd kick nuclear weapon armed submarines out of Scotland as soon as possible after independence.

Milford Haven, anyone?

[Sheilbh]

I blame my dad for this:

Alex Salmond is within striking distance of victory. Why hasn't England noticed?
We could be seven months away from the end of Britain. It's time to worry
710 Comments 8 February 2014 Alex Massie 

A century ago, with Britain in peril, Lord Kitchener's stern countenance demanded that every stout-hearted Briton do their bit for King and Country. 'Your country needs you' rallied hundreds of thousands to khaki and the Kaiser's War. Today, with Britain in peril again, you could be forgiven for asking where Kitchener's successor is. A new recruiting poster might cry: 'Britons: Wake up! Pay attention! Your country really is at risk!' The threat, of course, is domestic rather than foreign (for now, at least). It is beginning to be appreciated, even in London, that Alex Salmond might just win his independence referendum in September. The break-up of Britain will have begun, David Cameron will have to contemplate being Prime Minister of a rump country — and HMS Britannia will be sunk, not with a bang but a whimper. It will be due as much to English indifference as Scottish agitation.

The battle for Britain is being conducted on a wavelength which unionist politicians in London struggle to pick up. The nationalists have been preparing for this vote all of their political lives — and know that it is a fight like no other. The unionists seem rather worse prepared. Like hockey players sent on to play a game of rugby, they have a rough idea of the game — but many, especially those based in London, don't properly understand its rules. The unionists can babble on about the Barnett formula and a hundred other details but, in the end, these are mere details. Salmond's nationalists offer a tryst with destiny. And the future.

It is easy to assume, in England, that Salmond is sunk. After all, aren't all other major political parties uniting against him? It is less appreciated that the other parties are the same ones Salmond has outmanoeuvred at every turn since 2011, when the SNP first won an absolute majority in the Scottish parliament. As referendum day draws closer, a formerly formidable unionist advantage is being whittled away. Since Salmond published his 'white paper on independence', six successive opinion polls have shown a swing towards a 'yes' vote. At present, more than 40 per cent of decided voters plan to vote for independence. It does not take a psephologist to work out that Salmond may win.



If momentum is with the nationalists, so is organisational muscle. 'Yes Scotland' groups have sprung up in almost every small town in the land. Every night, somewhere in Scotland, nationalists meet to plot their strategy — with a morale and determination not to be found among the grassroots of any Westminster party. Last week, for example, the second issue of a nationalist propaganda newspaper — imaginatively called YES — was delivered to thousands of households. Even now, Alistair Darling's 'Better Together' campaign seems quieter than a Stornoway playground on the Sabbath.

Unionists raise procedural, legalistic difficulties such as the precise nature of an independent Scotland's relationship with the European Union, or how much representation, if any, Salmond should expect on the board of the Bank of England. These concerns, while real, can seem tangential to the greater issues: what kind of Scotland is being fought for? And what kind of Britain, too? Salmond assures Scots that technical difficulties should certainly not be used to bar the march of the nation. Or, as he put it recently, 'Let's not wake up on the morning of September 19th and think to ourselves what might have been'..

Real Scots vote 'yes'; timid Scots vote 'no' — and doubtless, in time, will fill a coward's grave. This might seem a form of emotional blackmail, but it is a mightily effective one.



At the same time, Salmond argues that very little will change. The nationalist campaign might be subtitled 'Project Reassurance'. Nevertheless, despite presenting his case as a question of fiscal accountancy and common sense, the true appeal of independence is still emotional. What kind of country, Salmond and his colleagues will ask, rejects the chance to govern itself? It is a good question. The answer, of course, is a country that rejects as false the choice between two identities. You can be a Highlander, Scottish and British — just as you can be Cornish, English and British. Even so, Salmond articulates a vision of a better, purely Scottish future in ways that no unionist politician has yet matched.

England has spent so long regarding separatist movements as a joke that it struggles to accept how potent the threat is now. Once a voter has crossed the Rubicon to join the nationalist camp, it is devilishly difficult to persuade them to retrace their steps. It is difficult work finding voters who have moved from yes to no — whereas the reverse is more common, and certainly more widely discussed.

Moreover, the unionist campaign has the dysfunctionality that you would expect from a hybrid beast: Tory money for Labour men. This, manifestly, is an alliance of temporary convenience. The Tories, bashful as ever, are reluctant to campaign vigorously for the Union lest their unpopularity in Scotland weaken the overall case for unionism.

Labour are reluctant to be seen within spitting distance of any Tory. Moreover, the unionist alliance allows the SNP to argue that there is no functional difference between the Labour and Conservative parties. Only the SNP will stand up for Scotland's interests by putting Scotland first.

Indeed, the SNP's strategy is, in part, based upon creating the impression that Scotland and England have become such vastly different places that it is impossible for them to remain together. They argue that a distinctively 'social democratic' Scotland is now hopelessly out of step with — and held back by — a 'neoliberal' consensus at Westminster.

The question then becomes not whether Scotland can afford to leave the Union but whether she can afford to stay. In this way, the burden of proof is transferred to unionists. Similarly, nationalists ask unionists to spell out their plans for what happens after a 'no' vote. As yet, none has chosen to do so, allowing the SNP to claim this demonstrates that there are no such plans.



Unionism is further handicapped by David Cameron's disinclination to play a part in the referendum. I'm told that he caveated his Christmas cards by saying it would only be a 'happy new year' with a 'large No vote'. But he believes that he can best help the 'no' cause by steering clear of it — this week, he chose London as the venue for his speech on Scotland. Asked to explain the benefits of independence in a single sentence, Blair Jenkins, the chief of 'Yes Scotland', has taken to summarising the essence of the issue as 'No more Tory governments. Ever.' The target is swithering Labour voters and the message is powerful because it is simple.

The Prime Minister is not the only hesitant campaigner. Many businesses — much to the irritation of leading unionists — have been reluctant to intervene in the referendum campaign. The chief executive of BP this week urged Britain to stay together, but this was unusual. Other business leaders don't want to make an enemy of the man who may well be running the whole country. Financiers know that any attempt to question the wisdom of independence is met with accusations of 'talking Scotland down.' If only, nationalists sigh, our opponents shared our faith in the Scottish people.

This is another example of how well the SNP have framed the debate. They make it sound like a bureaucratic no-brainer: why shouldn't the decisions that affect Scotland be taken, wherever possible, in Scotland? It is the same logic that drives Tory Euroscepticism, an irony that will not be lost upon a Prime Minister who is fighting wars in Edinburgh and Brussels.

Salmond is fond of borrowing John Steinbeck's reply to a letter from Jackie Kennedy in which the novelist wrote, 'You talked of Scotland as a lost cause and that is not true. Scotland is an unwon cause.' Salmond has the advantage of knowing what he fights for. Can unionists say the same?

They do have one powerful card to play: Britishness. The SNP do not, in fact, want to talk about losing this identity — at least, not openly. Perhaps because, despite everything, Britishness still has a surprising appeal: Scots cheered Jessica Ennis at the Olympics as a countryman. Andy Murray draped himself in a Union flag at Wimbledon last year. This is still the country of Shakespeare and Burns, Dickens and Scott. What unites us — in culture, politics and temperament — is far greater than anything that divides us. Salmond argues that England should prefer a good neighbour to a 'surly lodger', forgetting that many Scots do not think themselves mere lodgers in Britain. It is their home.

In any case, if Britishness were really finished, Salmond would have no need to talk of the 'social union' that would survive — and, he says, flourish — after independence. Identity matters, but so does economics. The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey has shown that Scots' commitment to the Union is provisional and subject to a cost-benefit analysis. They — we — would support independence if it left Scots £500 a year better off and reject it if independence cost £500. Bought and sold for half an ounce of gold, if you will. A depressing thought, but a reminder of why the referendum remains too close to call.



This is an unusual argument, then, in which it is the unionists who stand to benefit from wrapping themselves in the flag and the nationalists who are surprisingly disinclined to do likewise. Salmond also benefits from the fact that most unionists are reluctant to pursue a scorched earth campaign based wholly upon the proposition that Scotland is too weak, too small, too poor to survive as an independent country. Insulting the electorate's ability to run its own affairs would be a pitiful, demeaning strategy. But this concedes that independence is feasible, and shifts the question to whether it is desirable. 'We could but shouldn't' is a harder case to make than 'We can't and mustn't'.

Salmond is also a formidable late-stage campaigner. Two months before the 2011 Holyrood election, he languished 15 points behind in the polls — but went on to win an outright majority, in a voting system designed so no party would ever win an outright majority. No wonder senior strategists in No. 10 are said to believe Salmond's victory is not just possible, but likely.

It is not too late to stem the nationalist tide, but time is not on the side of the Union. The length of the campaign itself offers ample time for Scots to become less fearful with the prospect of independence, and once the idea is planted, it grows. Yet, all the while, too many unionists think their case is so self-evident that it doesn't need to be made with the same passion or verve. They should be afraid — their country may just slip away from beneath their feet.

Alex Massie lives in Edinburgh and blogs at spectator.co.uk/massie

Incidentally I also loved this Massie piece on George Galloway's one man campaign to save the union:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9077391/union-man/

George Galloway is unhappy. One of his interlocutors on Twitter has told him to 'Fuck off back to England'. Gorgeous George is in Glasgow for the first in a series of roadshows in which he sets out his case for Scotland remaining part of the Union and he's not going anywhere. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Not even to England.

This will disappoint his many critics. But Galloway has a new, higher calling: saving whatever remains of the British left. To do that he must first save Britain. Which means persuading his fellow Scots they should remain a part of the United Kingdom. Like a latter-day Othello, he loves us not wisely but too well.
...
So George Galloway is David Cameron's friend in this fight. Perhaps even Cameron's 'useful idiot'. Not that Galloway is a Unionist. 'My flag is red,' he says, which is why independence is an act of betrayal. Worse, it is a proclamation of false consciousness. A factory worker in Coatbridge has more in common with a factory worker in Consett than either does with their bosses. Class still matters more than bloodlines or borders.
...
But George isn't afraid to bring a knife to a public meeting, even his own public meeting. No Roman Catholic should vote for independence, he suggests. Catholics would become scapegoats for Scottish failure. He insists an independent Scotland would be an Orange Scotland. 'If you're not afraid of that, you should be.' He hints that pogroms and perhaps even ethnic cleansing might follow.

Apparently they've managed to convince Gordon Brown (who is relatively popular in Scotland) to come out and campaign.....Which could help.

[Valmy]

Man this is going to be a nail biter.  It is amazing how fickle and reactionary the public is on such a big issue.

[Admiral Yi]

Let them vote yes then offer then really shitty terms when they come crawling back.