Scottish Independence

[Sheilbh]

The polls have tightened a lot:


A lot of this seems to be because the SNP are playing on people's fears for the NHS under the Tories:


Which has increased their support among Labour voters - while women are also turning to the Yes campaign, which may be because of how overwhelmingly negative the 'No' campaign while reaping less rewards for their doom-and-gloom:


The gap's narrowed in all polls:


And there's reports that there's going to be one (or more) poll this weekend showing a small Yes lead.

What I've read and the tone of things in Scotland when I was there last week reminds me a bit of Clinton-Obama in 2008. Suddenly people are feeling this could actually happen rather than just being a nice idea. So the Yes campaign are getting a boost from people who think their votes will matter - there's reports of a last minute surge in registration over the last week or two, which Salmond described as the 'missing million' for independence.

Simon Jenkins sums up the way I feel. As myself I'd vote no. But visiting Mull and Glasgow I did think, chances are, if I still lived there I'd vote Yes.

Scottish independence: A yes vote will produce a leaner, meaner Scotland
The no campaign offers merely stasis. Even with devo max, Scots would remain in political shackles. It's time to break free
Simon Jenkins
The Guardian, Thursday 4 September 2014 19.30 BST

I sit overlooking Cardiff Bay as seven warships, including the destroyer HMS Duncan, manoeuvre gingerly into position. They join an army of 10,000 assorted police and guards to lock down the city so that Nato can eat a banquet in Cardiff castle. Not since the Field of the Cloth of Gold can such extravagance have masked such impotence. From the castle walls, statesmen hurl empty threats at Russia and Islamic State, who are currently dismembering Ukraine and Iraq, two nations the west claimed only recently to have "liberated". No one notices that their host, the UK, also faces dismemberment. Nato's response to a global revolt against over-centralised and insensitive states is to quaff champagne and gobble canapés.

Whatever comes of Scotland's impending independence referendum, Britain owes that country a vote of thanks. For six months it has staged a festival of democracy, an Edinburgh tattoo of argument. Not a politician, not an airwave, not a town hall, not a wall, tree or road sign is free of the debate. If, as predicted, turnout tops 80%, that is a triumph in itself. Political participation is not dead when it matters.

How would I vote? As a British citizen residing in London, I would vote no. I would be shocked at how England's rulers have incurred the loathing and distrust first of most of Ireland and then of half of Scotland. This incompetence reached its climax in the no campaign itself, the jeering, patronising, money-obsessed "project fear" designed to warn the Scots to stay close to nurse. The assumption that independence is all about cash is bad enough. Worse have been the expatriate celebrity endorsements – why have they all left home? – and scares that Scotland will lose its monarch, its missiles, its brains and the BBC, getting only poverty and terrorists in return.

I would therefore hope that a no vote might encourage London to seek some new federation for its dependencies in the "first English empire", picking up on Herbert Asquith's 1912 "home rule for all". The shock of the past year might warn the English establishment to embrace constitutional reform. It might put stuffing into David Cameron's empty localism and avert the humiliation of a collapsed union.

But as a Londoner I have no such vote. I have to go to Edinburgh and imagine myself a Scot. In that case there is no argument. I would vote yes.

I am sure the outcome of the referendum, whichever way it goes, will be nothing like the alarms or promises made by both sides. Pick apart the no vote's "devo-max" and the yes vote's "independence-lite", and the practical differences are not great. Both will deliver a distinctive Scotland yet one still close to England. Whatever deal follows whatever vote, there will be joint citizens, open borders, a common currency, joint banking, arrangements on welfare, security, tax-gathering and broadcasting. Scotland may set its taxes differently, but the scope for drastic change will be limited. It can already raise or lower its income tax but has not dared to do so.

As for money, the issues are fiercely contested and wildly out of line. But the consensus appears to be that the £10.5bn net transfer to Scotland could be roughly balanced by Scotland's notional oil revenue. An independent Scotland would lose a billion a year in windfarm subsidies from English energy consumers and might have to carry over £100bn of debt. It would certainly be tough, but that is what independence is about. Poll evidence suggests that Scottish voters are unmoved by the no campaign's economic alarmism, leaving money as a matter for politicians to sort out.

I would vote yes because the no campaign has offered merely stasis. Its leader Alistair Darling's vision is of union as sole guarantor of prosperity. Yet this paternalism has trapped Scotland in dependency and lack of enterprise for half a century. Nor is it clear what his offer of devo max really means. If Scotland were able to raise more of its own taxes, the risk is that the Treasury would offset them with cuts in the subvention. Scotland might see a more adventurous future, but it would remain in political shackles.

Alex Salmond's vision is equally flawed. His socialist heaven of tax and spend, floating on a lake of oil, must be rubbish. He offers voters an extra £1,000 a head after independence, when the reality must be public sector belt tightening. Scotland's budget would lose Treasury underpinning. Its borrowing would be at risk. Its ministers would be on their mettle. Financial crisis would lead to Greek-style austerity, whereupon voters would chuck Salmond out. The Tories might even revive as the party of discipline and offshore capitalism.

I would vote yes because, though I disbelieve both Darling and Salmond, Salmond's lies would precipitate a crisis that would have to lead to a leaner, meaner Scotland, one bolstered by the well-known advantages of newborn states and more intimate governments. Scotland's whingeing and blaming of London would stop. It would be driven towards true self-sufficiency, capable of resembling Denmark, Norway, Ireland or Slovakia as a haven for fleet-footed entrepreneurs.

I have lost count of the referendum debates I have attended. They are dominated by expatriate Scots who have no intention of returning home but who enjoy telling Scotland its business from the fleshpots of London. They see union much as their grandparents saw empire, as a historical inevitability to be defended against all argument. Many are blind to the hypocrisy of deploring Britain's subservience to Brussels yet insisting on Scotland's subservience to London.

The United Kingdom really ended with the departure of Ireland in 1922. In the past half-century the drift to self-determination has been remorseless. In the 1970s, 40% of Scots saw themselves as "British"; now only 23% do. To them, arguments about currencies, subsidies and oil are not the issue. They have been debating the essence of democracy – by whom should they be ruled? They are arguing constitutions, not spreadsheets.

Most Scots know that independence could only be partial, but half-wish to negotiate it as between sovereign peoples. This craving for ever greater regional autonomy is rampant across Europe, from Spain to the Russian border. It slides into partition only when, as in Yugoslavia, central government is deaf to its demands. Whether or not Scotland votes for independence, it will have made its own decision in its own way. To that extent, it is a sovereign state in embryo.

My own view, from London, is roughly the same as Martin Wolf's - though I think that Britishness hasn't been a civic identity for a long time. It's often a fig leaf for liberal metropolitan English people who are too embarrassed by their Englishness. So it ends up just being another word for that. One of the irritations from Scotland's view is how British and English seem interchangeable in the mouths of foreigners and some English people:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fcfdf73a-e5ad-11e3-aeef-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3CTgjSnOA

A split UK is not for a week but for ever
Martin WolfBy Martin WolfAuthor alerts

On September 18 the Scottish referendum will decide whether the country in which I was born will continue to exist. I will have no vote. But this does not mean it does not matter to me. On the contrary, it matters a great deal. My parents came as refugees to Britain. When they took citizenship, they were proud to think of themselves as British. To me, "English" is an ethnic identity and "British" a civic one. I am a citizen of the world's most successful multinational state. If Scotland were to depart, I would lose an important part of myself.

I might add that the political unity of the island we share made a priceless contribution to the freedom not just of the British but of Europe. This may seem less important today. But is that sure to be true for ever? Again, the cultural differences between the English and Scottish, which now make separation seem so reasonable, have been a source of historical strength. Out of diversity emerged something bigger than the sum of its cultural parts. This may seem unimportant now. But will that be true for ever?

This referendum must not be just about what happens in the next few years or even the next 30. This divorce will almost certainly be for ever. The choice then has to be made by the Scots on the basis of their feelings of identity. It must also reflect a belief that the benefits of following their own path outweigh those from continuing to share political institutions with the people who will always make up the bulk of the population of Great Britain.

Set against these considerations, the actual debate is depressingly – indeed, almost unbelievably – myopic and small-minded: myopic, because it focuses so heavily on the short-term consequences of a decision that must be for ever; small-minded, because it focuses so heavily on economics. Economics is not everything.

This week, we heard what sounded like pitches from rival hucksters. Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, promised his people an "independence bonus" of £2,000 per household, while Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the UK Treasury, argued that the "dividend" from the union would be £1,400 per Scot.

Voters will respond to these arguments. On the short to medium-term prospects, the UK government is right to argue that the position of an independent Scotland would be hard, which is also consistent with the analyses of independent experts, such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Scotland's fiscal deficit in 2012-13 was already slightly larger than that of the UK as a whole. Moreover, uncertain and volatile receipts from North Sea oil averaged 15 per cent of notional Scottish revenue over the past five years. The Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecasts that these receipts will fall from £6.1bn in 2012-13 to £3.2bn in 2016-17, while the Scottish government claims they will be as much as £6.9bn.

Above all, this is just one of the uncertainties facing an independent Scotland. Others include the terms of separation from the rest of the UK, including the monetary system and the division of the public debt, terms and timing of membership of the EU and the terms on which Scotland could borrow, which would certainly be worse than for the UK.

The Scottish government suggests it could transform the economy by increasing the rate of productivity growth, raising labour-force participation, especially of mothers, and increasing immigration. It is indeed possible that the long-term performance of the Scottish economy would be better if it became independent than if it remained part of the UK, though the enumerated policies certainly do not ensure that result. These gains might also more than offset the benefits of pooling risks (including those from over-reliance on the financial sector or on oil and gas) within the UK.

But they are not a sure thing. The idea of an independence bonus is a sleight of hand. To take one example, more immigrants should indeed mean more revenue. They must also mean more public spending. As for productivity, the idea that we know how to raise it is a fantasy.

Yet what is more striking is how paltry the debate has become. Rather than say it favours independence whatever the costs, because it is the only way for Scotland to fulfil its national destiny, the Scottish government pretends it will be a simple, costless exercise instead of a journey into an uncertain, demanding future. Meanwhile, the UK prime minister feels unable to go to Scotland to say what seems to be essential: that, whatever the political differences between England and Scotland, he wants Scotland to stay in the union not because it makes us all a bit better off economically but because we in the rest of the UK value Scotland, the Scots and the shared and successful country these peoples have built together.

The debate over the future of the union should not be reduced to huckstering over short-term gains or to debating implausible promises. If the story is to end in separation, let us at least try to have a debate worthy of our extraordinary shared history.
[email protected]

[mongers]

I've said all along, I think they'll vote Yes. 


I'd also say the fear campaign being mounted is backfiring, people are rejecting the manipulation rather than giving into the fear.

Much better for the No campaign to have solely focused on a positive approach.


edit:

Ok, I didn't actually read the op-ed before I posted, but doesn't my point somewhat tie-in with what was said?

[derspiess]

Voted No/No.  As a Scottish American I think it would be insane for my brethren to leave.  They already have a buttload of autonomy & stuff.

[Grallon]

I do hope the Scots will not make the same abysmal mistake we did here by voting no.  I hear Cameron is promising major changes if the No wins... we've heard it all before here in Quebec - and we got screwed, sideways and back again - by some of our very own people.

But if the Yes wins I'll make a point to visit Scotland.

Edit: Btw Sheilbh, what's the breakdown among the younger generation (18-25)?


G.

[Jacob]

I do hope the Scots will not make the same abysmal mistake we did here by voting no.  I hear Cameron is promising major changes if the No wins... we've heard it all before here in Quebec - and we got screwed, sideways and back again - by some of our very own people.

But the Yes wins I'll make a point to visit Scotland.

A strong reason to vote no, then.

[Sheilbh]

They already have a buttload of autonomy & stuff.

Less than an American state. From what I can tell probably even less than some American cities.

Edit: Btw Sheilbh, what's the breakdown among the younger generation (18-25)?

Yes is winning in every age group but the oldest, albeit marginally:

[Josquius]

I'm confident the scots will show their sanity and not be misled by the cheap tricks and fear mongering of the SNP.

[grumbler]

Voted yes/no.  I think the Scots are sufficiently irritated that they will leave, but think that the things they are irritated about are, in the end, pretty trivial, and could be solved by less dangerous tactics. An independent Scotland is likelier, IMO, to have a lower standard of living than a higher, and they will replace irritating British politics with irritating Scots politics.

I can certainly see the argument about weak appeals on both sides.  They are arguments unworthy of the debate.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally I'm in a full-blown panic about them leaving now - as someone who absolutely loves Scotland and quite likes the union. But I feel like I'm alone. Westminster's barely noticed. Most English political types I follow on twitter are more interested in a by-election caused by a Tory MP defecting to UKIP than they are the potential end of our country

Among my friends most believe the Scots, ultimately, just won't vote to leave whereas I'm not so sure. I think people sense it could happen.

Incidentally I liked this piece on what's next regardless:

As chances of UK split grow, costs to the world become clearer
By Anatole Kaletsky SEPTEMBER 4, 2014

CONSERVATIVE | INDEPENDENCE | LABOUR | REFERENDUM | SCOTLAND

A man puts money in his sporran at the Birnam Highland Games in Scotland

Until this week almost nobody outside Scotland took very seriously the possibility that Europe's most stable and durable nation, the only big country on earth not to have suffered invasion, revolution or civil war at any time in the past 268 years, might soon be wiped off the map. It now seems quite conceivable, however, that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will cease to exist after the referendum on Scottish independence to be held on September 18.

The prospects for Scotland and Britain changed abruptly on Tuesday when YouGov, one of Britain's most authoritative polling organizations, published a survey showing the unionist lead narrowing to just 53-47, compared with the margins of 10 to 20 percentage points that were typical of previous polls. So sudden and large was the shift in the numbers that Peter Kellner, the President of YouGov, could hardly believe his own numbers. As he said on his weekly blog:
"Alex Salmond [the Scottish Nationalist leader] seemed to be heading for a heavy defeat...But now a close finish looks likely, and a 'yes' victory is a real possibility. When I first saw our data, I wanted to make sure the movement was real. All polls, however carefully conducted, are subject to sampling error. Can we be sure this rise in support for independence is real? I am now certain it is."

By tracking how individual voters had changed their minds on the referendum, Kellner concluded that the independence campaign were gaining four voters for every one they were losing, while the unionists were losing two supporters for every one gained. Analyzing the data by party affiliations yielded the same conclusion: the shift in opinion was for real.

Beyond the statistical cross-checking, there are several reasons to believe that a breakup of the United Kingdom has become a genuine possibility. For a start, the shift in public opinion had a clear catalyst: a televised debate last week that was clearly won by Salmond. More fundamentally, the assumption that the Scots would be mainly swayed by economic issues, which favor risk-averse voting for the status quo, has turned proved wrong. It now appears that many voters are focusing mostly on the political implications of independence. Many Scots see the referendum as an opportunity to turn their country into a Scandinavian-style social democracy, expressing a collectivist national spirit that has been suppressed by English conservatism, especially since Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979. The fact that Scotland elected only a single Conservative Member of Parliament in the last UK election provides clear evidence of this ideological divergence.

Whatever the reasons for the independence upsurge, financial markets have suddenly taken notice. Tuesday's YouGov poll triggered an immediate sell-off in sterling, the biggest jump in the expected currency volatility implied by option premiums since the 2011 euro crisis, and big falls in the shares of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). The panicky reaction made sense.

Even if the chances of Scottish independence remain quite low – the odds are only 20 per cent according to political betting markets – the consequences of this low probability event would be immense. The Scottish referendum could trigger all kinds of other risks that financial markets and international business leaders have not yet fully understood.

Most of financial and business analysis has understandably focused on economic issues such as currency arrangements, government guarantees for financial institutions and revenues from North Sea oil. Troubling as these are, the political consequences of independence would be even more disruptive.

The problems would begin immediately after the referendum, since a vote for independence victory would probably trigger a rebellion against David Cameron by right-wing members of his own party, whose historic name is the "Conservative and Unionist Party." Another reason to expect mutiny is ironically that Conservatives would to win elections in England easily in the future, after Scotland's Labour members of Parliament are permanently gone from Westminster. This confidence would, in turn, allow party activists to opt for a leader more in line with their own euro-skeptical and right-wing views than the moderate Cameron.

Whether or not Cameron could survive defeat in the referendum, a huge constitutional challenge would loom in May 2015, when a general election must be held in the UK as a whole. Scottish independence would shatter the democratic legitimacy of whatever government emerged from this election. If Labour won a majority, its victory would depend on Scottish MPs due to be expelled from Westminster at the end of the independence negotiations in 2016 or 2017. A Labour-led government elected next year would therefore have no democratic mandate.

If, on the other hand, the Tories manage to win next year's election, even after a Scottish independence vote this month, they will become extremely confident of securing an even larger majority after Scotland is gone. If Cameron is then replaced with a much more Euro-skeptical prime minister who would campaign for Britain to leave the EU, a British electorate without pro-European Scottish voters would almost certainly endorse this decision in a referendum.

Finally, we need to consider the impact of Scotland voting to stay in the union, but only by a narrow margin. If the vote turns out to be as close as suggested by the latest polls, then the nationalists are unlikely to accept the outcome as final. Cameron's authority as prime minister and Conservative leader would still be seriously diminished and the outcome of next year's general election, already "too close to call", would swing in favor of Labour. Even if the Tories did stay in power, the outcome of the EU referendum in 2017 would become increasingly uncertain.

In sum, political instability looks like becoming a permanent fact of life in Britain unless the unionists can win the Scottish referendum by a decisive margin. Since such a clean-cut outcome now looks unlikely, the volatility this week in sterling and other British assets is probably a portent of things to come.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the number of Conservative members of Parliament from Scotland. David Mundell is a Conservative representing Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale.

[celedhring]

Less than an American state. From what I can tell probably even less than some American cities.

Hardly a fair comparison, given that the US is one of the most decentralized nations in the developed world.

Scotland does have less autonomy than Spanish autonomous regions or German Länder, though.

[Tamas]

It puzzles me how half the Scotts can think that the massive upheaval that would follow independence would worth it.

[Jacob]

It puzzles me how half the Scotts can think that the massive upheaval that would follow independence would worth it.

It seems to me that in general people's perception of the magnitude of their problems scales to fill the available problems. In other words, whatever it is they're unhappy with is a really really really big problem, and it's worthwhile to take drastic action to fix it.

[Josquius]

What is most shocking about this referendum is the complete lack of seriousness with which people are treating it. Even in Scotland it almost seems like a joke. There is just none of the feeling that something truly massive could be on the cards. The campaign has just been... I don't know. Lacking. Considering what it is about.

[mongers]

What is most shocking about this referendum is the complete lack of seriousness with which people are treating it. Even in Scotland it almost seems like a joke. There is just none of the feeling that something truly massive could be on the cards. The campaign has just been... I don't know. Lacking. Considering what it is about.

It's just a confirmatory vote to the logical conclusion to Thatcherism - 'There's no such thing as society' ergo the concluding phase is the dissolution of the UK.

[MadImmortalMan]

Before I vote: How would this affect the retail price of Macallan?