Scottish Independence

[Sheilbh]

Even Nigel Farrage?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29003017
Kind of tongue in cheek, but I do not recall seeing in mentioned here. Was he worse than Cameron for the No? And how?

He was probably worse, but also not a major party leader and pretty irrelevant in Scotland. I hadn't realised he'd gone at all. Probably no more helpful than the Orange Order deciding to stage a march for the union

Cameron was very good. It was exactly the sort of thing that was needed - why he (as an Englishman) values the union and Scotland, that he won't last forever and neither will his government, an irreversible decision like this shouldn't be used to give a kicking to the 'effing Tories' and so on.

Edit: Incidentally I always love campaigns and elections but I do feel very positive about one that gets 97% of the electorate to register and looks set to have record turnout. It's extraordinary and very positive.

[Warspite]

The consensus on Brown's speech is: where the hell was this in 2010? 

An excellent speech, however. In an age of manicured presentations, it was refreshing to see some quite raw emotion matched with the reason.

[Warspite]

I am a bit surprised they let foreign residents to vote on this.

Why wouldn't they? I think it's entirely sensible that people who live in Scotland should decide the future of Scotland and people who don't, regardless of how tartan their blood, shouldn't.

I'm not so sure about this.

This is a huge decision for Scotland: one of its outcomes is likely to be - realistically - irreversible.

To allow temporary residents of Scotland - who may be foreign students passing through a four year degree at Edinburgh, or migrant workers building up some savings for a better life back home in a few years - a say in such a major decision is, in my view, rather problematic. Unlike a local election, this does not create a political reality that can be changed in four or five year's time. This vote is it.

It's also irked a lot of Scots who live south of the border but still consider themselves very Scottish and directly attached to their homeland (and often intend to move back). They have no voice in this vital decision over their country's future. (Anecdotally, this has especially pissed off a few of my friends and colleagues here in London who work here because they simply cannot do this job anywhere but the capital, e.g. civil service, military, central government.)

The problem is, however, I cannot see a better way that doesn't introduce a whole set of other problems. But I think it is nonetheless important to recognise this system has disenfranchised a lot of Scots and empowered a lot of people who won't have to live with the consequences in the same way.

[Duque de Bragança]

I am a bit surprised they let foreign residents to vote on this.

Why wouldn't they? I think it's entirely sensible that people who live in Scotland should decide the future of Scotland and people who don't, regardless of how tartan their blood, shouldn't.

I'm not so sure about this.

This is a huge decision for Scotland: one of its outcomes is likely to be - realistically - irreversible.

To allow temporary residents of Scotland - who may be foreign students passing through a four year degree at Edinburgh, or migrant workers building up some savings for a better life back home in a few years - a say in such a major decision is, in my view, rather problematic. Unlike a local election, this does not create a political reality that can be changed in four or five year's time. This vote is it.

Most of these temporary residents probably aren't interested in locals politics though so they won't vote, but I understand your concern. How hard was for the Scots "exiled" in England to keep a separate if slighty phoney address to vote in Scotland?

[Warspite]

I am a bit surprised they let foreign residents to vote on this.

Why wouldn't they? I think it's entirely sensible that people who live in Scotland should decide the future of Scotland and people who don't, regardless of how tartan their blood, shouldn't.

I'm not so sure about this.

This is a huge decision for Scotland: one of its outcomes is likely to be - realistically - irreversible.

To allow temporary residents of Scotland - who may be foreign students passing through a four year degree at Edinburgh, or migrant workers building up some savings for a better life back home in a few years - a say in such a major decision is, in my view, rather problematic. Unlike a local election, this does not create a political reality that can be changed in four or five year's time. This vote is it.

Most of these temporary residents probably aren't interested in locals politics though so they won't vote, but I understand your concern. How hard was for the Scots "exiled" in England to keep a separate if slighty phoney address to vote in Scotland?

If you were registered at a parents' address, then easy enough. No one checks if you really live at an address. I was eligible to vote in two constituencies in 2010. 

[Viking]

The Rot Creepeth? or mere emotional blackmail?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/shetland-may-reconsider-place-scotland-yes-vote-alistair-carmichael

Shetland may reconsider its place in Scotland after yes vote, says minister
Scotland secretary says if islands were to vote no but national vote was yes, it could become self-governing like Isle of Man


Oil-rich Shetland may consider becoming a self-governing territory like the Isle of Man rather than stay part of an independent Scotland in the event of a yes vote, the Scotland secretary, Alistair Carmichael, has said.

In an interview with the Guardian, Carmichael said if Shetland were to vote strongly against independence but the Scottish national vote was narrowly in favour, then a "conversation about Shetland's position and the options that might be open to it" would begin.

The Liberal Democrat MP, who represents Orkney and Shetland in Westminster and has been secretary of state for Scotland in the coalition government since last October, said those options might include the islands modelling themselves on the Isle of Man, which is a self-governing crown dependency that is not part of the UK, or on their neighbours the Faroe Isles, which are an autonomous country within the Danish realm.

Asked if he was suggesting Alex Salmond should not take for granted that oilfields off Shetland will belong to Scotland in the event of a yes vote, he said: "That would be one of the things that we would want to discuss. I wouldn't like to predict at this stage where the discussions would go."

Responding to Carmichael's comments, a Yes Scotland spokesman said: "Scotland's island communities will have greater control over their local economies, natural environment and be represented at the heart of government in an independent Scotland.

"A yes vote is about empowering people and communities throughout Scotland, including our island communities. That is one reason why the Shetland News has chosen to chosen to back yes."

But Carmichael's comments were echoed by Tavish Scott, Shetland's MSP, who when asked whether Shetland would have to obey the will of Scotland in the event of a yes vote, said: "Will it now? We'll have to look at our options. We're not going to be told what to do by Alex Salmond."

Speaking as he canvassed in the capital Lerwick's town centre on the final day of campaigning before the vote, Scott said the option of becoming a crown dependency was "something we will look at", though he said he ruled out full independence for the islands.

A petition of more than 1,000 signatures raised by islanders from Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles calling for a separate referendum on whether they could themselves become independent was rejected last month by the Scottish government, which said it had promised new powers to the three island groups.

The Shetland archipelago, more than 100 miles north of mainland Scotland, has traditionally voted strongly against Scottish independence, in part because of its distinctive history – until the 15th century it was part of Norway and is closer to its west coast than the Scottish capital – in part because the oil industry has made it rich without particular assistance from Edinburgh.

Sullom Voe oil and gas terminal, in the north-west of the island group, is one of the largest in Europe, and a levy on oil processed through the islands since 1976 has poured into a multimillion pound charitable trust, which funds services, community projects and the arts for the islands' 23,000 population. Shetland's landscape and much of its architecture is unsparing, but roads and services are excellent, shops prosperous and hotels full of foreign business travellers.

If the extent of Scotland's oil reserves has been hotly debated across the nation as a whole, the topic is even more pressing in Lerwick, where the main harbour is dominated by six cruise ships providing accommodation for 1,700 workers from Total's gas plant, next to Sullom Voe.

Few expect Thursday's no vote to approach the emphatic 73% vote against independence in the 1979 referendum, however. In the bustling Yes Shetland shop on Lerwick's Harbour Street, which opened last month thanks to crowd-funded donations, campaigners yesterday rattled off detailed figures for the amount of oil remaining in the oilfields west of Scotland, and repeated the widely held claim among independence supporters that its true extent has been concealed by Westminster. A YouGov poll last week found 42% of voters in Scotland believe it is "probably true" that a bonanza find on the Clair oilfield is being concealed by BP until after polls close.

"Of course they have downplayed the amount of oil we have left," said Angela Sutherland, who had popped in for a cup of tea with fellow campaigners. It was "our oil", she said, and if independence is rejected "we're not going to get a penny of it, it's going to underwrite [Westminster's] debt".

A lifelong Liberal, Sutherland said she joined the SNP four months ago "because I felt the press coverage wasn't supporting yes, so I wanted to give them my support".

For Sue Wailoo, independence offered "an opportunity to build a country that's a fair society. We are a nation that is a small enough unit, and there are enough people with great ideas, that we should be able to govern ourselves."

But many on Shetland remain cautious, and for Gillian Ramsay, owner of the Shetland Art Company, a craft shop on Lerwick's narrow, twisting Commercial Street, there were too many unknowns for her to support yes. "I have a business, and I wonder how a yes vote would affect me. Will we be in the European Union? Will England be a foreign country? Will I have to pay more to bring in my materials? They can't tell me. This is the problem. They have been unable to satisfy me that it would be better if we were independent."

Those were all points being stressed by no campaigners a little further along the street outside the Bank of Scotland where, in a rare display of political unity, representatives from the Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives were campaigning side by side. "We're Shetlanders and we've always lived peacefully in Shetland," explained Theo Nicolson in the strong Lerwick accent that still echoes its Scandinavian origins.

Nicolson, the local Lib Dem chairman, described himself as "Shetlander, and then British". And Scottish? A long pause. Only because his mother was Scottish, he said. "We're so different here in Shetland. Our history; we were part of Norway of course and we've always had a strong Norse background. We don't have the tartan culture here." His strong sense of Britishness comes from his father and grandfather who fought in the two wars, something that is important to many older islanders, he said.

Before retiring, Nicolson worked at Sullom Voe as a marine engineer. What was his perspective on the oil question? "Nobody knows how much oil is there. There's a vast amount of difference between different experts. And as you push out the frontiers, it gets more and more difficult to recover and more and more expensive to recover. It depends on global oil prices whether it will ever be viable, and that's something that no man knows."

[Tamas]

You know what... This whole idea is a travesty.

A state is supposed to protect its citizens... If Yes wins by, say, 51%, it means that 49% of the population in Scotland will be British citizens who have a desire to remain as such, but in fact will find themselves shortly outside of British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

We keep debating yes and no consequences, but I think the mere fact that such a momentous decision so decisively affecting the lives of many of its citizens for generations to come could be put up to a simple 50% vote of present residents of Scotland is a shame for the UK as a whole.

[The Brain]

If Yes wins the UK is a failed state and I don't think we can expect a lot from those.

[Viking]

You know what... This whole idea is a travesty.

A state is supposed to protect its citizens... If Yes wins by, say, 51%, it means that 49% of the population in Scotland will be British citizens who have a desire to remain as such, but in fact will find themselves shortly outside of British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

We keep debating yes and no consequences, but I think the mere fact that such a momentous decision so decisively affecting the lives of many of its citizens for generations to come could be put up to a simple 50% vote of present residents of Scotland is a shame for the UK as a whole.

ahhh... the trauma of Trianon.

[Sheilbh]

A state is supposed to protect its citizens... If Yes wins by, say, 51%, it means that 49% of the population in Scotland will be British citizens who have a desire to remain as such, but in fact will find themselves shortly outside of British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

But it's okay for the state to force the 51% of people who no longer want to be part of the country to remain?

A state is supposed to protect its citizens, but it's also supposed to respect the democratic process.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not so sure about this.

This is a huge decision for Scotland: one of its outcomes is likely to be - realistically - irreversible.

To allow temporary residents of Scotland - who may be foreign students passing through a four year degree at Edinburgh, or migrant workers building up some savings for a better life back home in a few years - a say in such a major decision is, in my view, rather problematic. Unlike a local election, this does not create a political reality that can be changed in four or five year's time. This vote is it.

It's also irked a lot of Scots who live south of the border but still consider themselves very Scottish and directly attached to their homeland (and often intend to move back). They have no voice in this vital decision over their country's future. (Anecdotally, this has especially pissed off a few of my friends and colleagues here in London who work here because they simply cannot do this job anywhere but the capital, e.g. civil service, military, central government.)

I see your point. But fundamentally these are people who've chosen to make their life and their career in London or England, not Scotland. They may well return when they get another job or retire but that's just as uncertain as how long people in Scotland will remain there.

And for every temporary worker, or short-term student there's another immigrant who's decided to marry a Scottish girl, start their career in Edinburgh or retire in the Highlands. My own view is that I think the latter matter more. I think they're just as likely to live with the long-term consequences as a Scottish civil servant in London (who is just as likely to marry an English girl), they'll have to deal with the short-term consequences and be involved in the building up process and they'll have actually been following the real lived debate in Scotland rather than just political figures and articles.

The problem is, however, I cannot see a better way that doesn't introduce a whole set of other problems. But I think it is nonetheless important to recognise this system has disenfranchised a lot of Scots and empowered a lot of people who won't have to live with the consequences in the same way.

Yeah. Practically I can't think of a way it could be done any other way either.

[Viking]

A state is supposed to protect its citizens... If Yes wins by, say, 51%, it means that 49% of the population in Scotland will be British citizens who have a desire to remain as such, but in fact will find themselves shortly outside of British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

But it's okay for the state to force the 51% of people who no longer want to be part of the country to remain?

A state is supposed to protect its citizens, but it's also supposed to respect the democratic process.

51% means it is a highly contested issue, not an expression of a national consensus. If the referendum comes down to "whoever can get the vote out better" then no, it's not really a manifestation of a national will in the case of an issue which when accomplished will be irreversible.

I prefer my independence referenda to give yes results in the 66% or more region.

[Sheilbh]

51% means it is a highly contested issue, not an expression of a national consensus. If the referendum comes down to "whoever can get the vote out better" then no, it's not really a manifestation of a national will in the case of an issue which when accomplished will be irreversible.

Given that we're talking about voter registration of around 95% and talk of turnout of over 75% up towards 80% (according to polls 95% of Scots are 'definitely' going to vote, though some of them are bound to be lying) I don't think that matters it just means it's a divisive issue. Which is fine, we shouldn't resile from allowing decisions on divisive issues by forcing the status quo on  people until they reach some arbitrary level of certainty - why two-thirds? Why not 60%? Or for that matter 75%? It's a big issue after all.

And precisely because it's a big issue I think we should follow the vote. 36% shouldn't enough to decide the matter.

As I say supermajorities are very alien to our system. So's national consensus for that matter.

I think a supermajority could be justified if there was low turnout - say under 60% - but given the figures that it's being suggested will vote I don't think it can be justified to deny people their choice (albeit a narrow one) and force them to stay in a country they want to leave.

[DGuller]

A state is supposed to protect its citizens... If Yes wins by, say, 51%, it means that 49% of the population in Scotland will be British citizens who have a desire to remain as such, but in fact will find themselves shortly outside of British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

But it's okay for the state to force the 51% of people who no longer want to be part of the country to remain?

A state is supposed to protect its citizens, but it's also supposed to respect the democratic process.

I think it's acceptable for there to be a bias like that, for reasons of stability if nothing else.  Tamas's point is a good one.

[garbon]

A state is supposed to protect its citizens... If Yes wins by, say, 51%, it means that 49% of the population in Scotland will be British citizens who have a desire to remain as such, but in fact will find themselves shortly outside of British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

But it's okay for the state to force the 51% of people who no longer want to be part of the country to remain?

A state is supposed to protect its citizens, but it's also supposed to respect the democratic process.

I think it's acceptable for there to be a bias like that, for reasons of stability if nothing else.  Tamas's point is a good one.

Yeah this isn't something to be taken lightly. As a sometime resident of a state that has suffered at the hands much less important ballot initiatives, I don't see how 51% could be used as a threshold for breaking up a country.