May 2015 UK General Election Campaign.

[Agelastus]

So, bets on the UK still being whole in 2020?

Ask me again after the Scottish Parliament elections next year.

[Barrister]

So, bets on the UK still being whole in 2020?

I'll take that bet.

[Warspite]

So, bets on the UK still being whole in 2020?

Um didn't we just have an election on this? Surely Scotland has to wait at least a decade to try again. Otherwise it just gets stupid.

Unless you are suggesting Wales or NI is going to break away.

Why?

If you are a determined pro-Independence SNP strategist, here's how you make it work:

The Holyrood elections of next year deliver an SNP victory;
The No vote in the 2014 referendum was predicated upon the delivery of promises related to devolution of further powers to Scotland;
The Smith Commission's recommendations in the aftermath of the vote do not go far enough in delivering this further devolution - in other words, the promise has been broken;
Given the fundamental assumption of the No vote has proven to be false, a new referendum is required - naturally, backed up by strong polling data indicating a preference for leaving.

You base the referendum on the idea that a sacred deal has been broken and that the unionist parties are completely bust in the UK.

[Valmy]

Why?

Because it is enormously unjust. The whole situation for the 'no' side in these kinds of referendums is outrageously unfair enough. In no other variety of democracy is victory temporary and defeat eternal outside of some kind of 3rd world pseudo democracy. The vote was had. At least a generation must pass or it is sham democracy.

The Holyrood elections of next year deliver an SNP victory;
The No vote in the 2014 referendum was predicated upon the delivery of promises related to devolution of further powers to Scotland;
The Smith Commission's recommendations in the aftermath of the vote do not go far enough in delivering this further devolution - in other words, the promise has been broken;
Given the fundamental assumption of the No vote has proven to be false, a new referendum is required - naturally, backed up by strong polling data indicating a preference for leaving.

You base the referendum on the idea that a sacred deal has been broken and that the unionist parties are completely bust in the UK.

So political maneuvering, double talk, and bullshit. I suppose if the promises of the Yes side prove to be untrue then that "sacred deal" and election would be invalid as well? Of course not. What a just and fair process!

Anyway the promises have not been broken yet.

[Neil]

Valmy, we live in a balkanizing world, where things like the EU and the UK can no longer be supported.  Unchecked individualism was weakened our ties to each other, and unchecked access to information and unscrupulous politicians has turned us all against each other, and made every little thing an existential war.  The large structures that made civilization possible will fall apart into tiny polities, until the next civilization rises up from the ashes.  Of course, we won't live to see everything really come unglued, but a thousand years from now, the time we live in now will be part of a Dark Ages analogue.

[crazy canuck]

So, bets on the UK still being whole in 2020?

Um didn't we just have an election on this? Surely Scotland has to wait at least a decade to try again. Otherwise it just gets stupid.

Unless you are suggesting Wales or NI is going to break away.

It wont be considered to be stupid if the independence vote wins.  I imagine they will take the same view as the separatists in Quebec.  They will wait until they have favourable conditions for a victory.

Because it is enormously unjust. The whole situation for the 'no' side in these kinds of referendums is outrageously unfair enough. In no other variety of democracy is victory temporary and defeat eternal outside of some kind of 3rd world pseudo democracy. The vote was had. At least a generation must pass or it is sham democracy

But you are considering this from the point of view of the UK.  From the point of view of the Scottish separatists, the only democracy that matters is within the political unit of Scotland.

[Warspite]

Why?

Because it is enormously unjust. The whole situation for the 'no' side in these kinds of referendums is outrageously unfair enough. In no other variety of democracy is victory temporary and defeat eternal outside of some kind of 3rd world pseudo democracy. The vote was had. At least a generation must pass or it is sham democracy.

The Holyrood elections of next year deliver an SNP victory;
The No vote in the 2014 referendum was predicated upon the delivery of promises related to devolution of further powers to Scotland;
The Smith Commission's recommendations in the aftermath of the vote do not go far enough in delivering this further devolution - in other words, the promise has been broken;
Given the fundamental assumption of the No vote has proven to be false, a new referendum is required - naturally, backed up by strong polling data indicating a preference for leaving.

You base the referendum on the idea that a sacred deal has been broken and that the unionist parties are completely bust in the UK.

So political maneuvering, double talk, and bullshit. I suppose if the promises of the Yes side prove to be untrue then that "sacred deal" and election would be invalid as well? Of course not. What a just and fair process!

Anyway the promises have not been broken yet.

There is also the more fundamental point that there is real evidence that Scotland has diverged from the UK politically. Even staunch unionist Scots I know are saying this.

You can say 'sham democracy' all you want but at the end of the day what matters is what pro-Independence Scots reckon they can get away with. 'It's not fair' is not going to cut it as the unionist message. They need to up their game pretty quickly.

[Valmy]

There is also the more fundamental point that there is real evidence that Scotland has diverged from the UK politically. Even staunch unionist Scots I know are saying this.

You can say 'sham democracy' all you want but at the end of the day what matters is what pro-Independence Scots reckon they can get away with. 'It's not fair' is not going to cut it as the unionist message. They need to up their game pretty quickly.

Lots of places in many nations have divergent political opinions. That means nothing. In fact it is expected. A country should have divergent polities and local interests.

And telling you respond to my opinions with political campaigning garbage instead of addressing the fundamental principle I spoke of. The bullshit of running political campaigns is indeed what will determine this, whatever the media manipulates opinion towards or whatever the opinion polls can be massaged to say. If the powers that be in Scotland want this they will eventually get their way. This is not about sloganeering or branding for the marketing campaign, this is about the processes and principles that create the process for these kinds of referendums. Not just for Scotland. If Scotland gets to just hold a referendum every couple years until they get their way that will be enormously destabilizing for the entire world.

[Martinus]

I can see a very strong moral case for a second Scottish referendum if the UK votes to leave the EU. Time to restore the Auld Alliance to combat the perfidy of Albion.

[Martinus]

Also, Valmy, while I can see there being a practical argument of efficiency against having an independence referendum every 5 years or so, the point that it is "sham democracy" unless some issue, once democratically decided, cannot be ever changed (or at least stays fixed for a generation) is quite preposterous.

[Razgovory]

I wish UKIP had won more seats but I'll take the overall results.

Why? The UK leaving the EU is against American interests.

Conservatives have watered themselves down a bit & UKIP says things the Tories are now afraid to say.

Well ever since Enoch Powell, they've tried to keep open racism from being a party plank.  I like the Tories (even if they are un-American), but the UKIP seems to be the British version of the "UN is going to steal all our cows", guys we have in the states.

[Warspite]

There is also the more fundamental point that there is real evidence that Scotland has diverged from the UK politically. Even staunch unionist Scots I know are saying this.

You can say 'sham democracy' all you want but at the end of the day what matters is what pro-Independence Scots reckon they can get away with. 'It's not fair' is not going to cut it as the unionist message. They need to up their game pretty quickly.

Lots of places in many nations have divergent political opinions. That means nothing. In fact it is expected. A country should have divergent polities and local interests.

'Diverged from the UK' does not mean the usual differences between competing parties, it means that the kind of state the Scottish are voting for is markedly different from the kind of state the English are voting for. And "English" and "Scottish" is extremely important here; this is not a US-style culture war where there is a bitter contest between parties who want to control the same political centre. This is becoming a bitter contest where a large number of people in one distinct ethnic group want to leave the country entirely.

That it not like a lot of places - not in the Western world, at least.

And telling you respond to my opinions with political campaigning garbage instead of addressing the fundamental principle I spoke of. The bullshit of running political campaigns is indeed what will determine this, whatever the media manipulates opinion towards or whatever the opinion polls can be massaged to say. If the powers that be in Scotland want this they will eventually get their way. This is not about sloganeering or branding for the marketing campaign, this is about the processes and principles that create the process for these kinds of referendums. Not just for Scotland. If Scotland gets to just hold a referendum every couple years until they get their way that will be enormously destabilizing for the entire world.

The unionists won the vote after the Westminster parties made some pretty big promises on self-rule. It is not unreasonable to assume that the referendum vote was substantially altered because of these promises, determining the result. Let's posit a hypothetical situation where these promises are clearly broken: why is it unjustified for the SNP to break their end of the deal if they can convincingly show that Westminster broke its end of the deal?

Now, I am not saying the deal has been broken; I was merely pointing out a plausible way for the SNP to get to another referendum in a way that could be tricky for Westminster to dismiss out of hand.

Also, why would this be destabilising for the entire world? 

[Zanza]

I hope Cameron fights to keep the UK in one piece and in the EU.

[alfred russel]

Miliband to resign, according to BBC sources.

Milliband, farange, clegg...odd all these "leaders" just quit without trying even to form a coalition.

[Josquius]

'Diverged from the UK' does not mean the usual differences between competing parties, it means that the kind of state the Scottish are voting for is markedly different from the kind of state the English are voting for. And "English" and "Scottish" is extremely important here; this is not a US-style culture war where there is a bitter contest between parties who want to control the same political centre. This is becoming a bitter contest where a large number of people in one distinct ethnic group want to leave the country entirely.

That it not like a lot of places - not in the Western world, at least.

The Scots are not a distinct ethnic group and northern England and Wales are on their side.

I hope Cameron fights to keep the UK in one piece and in the EU.

Yes on the EU.
No on keeping the UK in one piece. If there's one thing that will really boost pro-independence numbers in Scotland its the Tories telling them to stay.