Scotland votes no to Independence

[HSTEd]

Mod Note: Split from this thread.

It is looking almost certain now that there will be no official movement from HS2 Ltd, the DfT or TS before the referendum on the topic of high speed rail reaching Scotland. It is my firmest belief that even if there is a Yes vote, which is now looking rather less unlikely given that people are now being much more engaged about the actual consequences of a No vote in terms of public spending and most importantly the NHS, the message that would come across is that the plans will continue almost unchanged, as if Scotland had voted No. The alternative is that basically the whole plans of HS2 so far, including the Hybrid Bill and all the public consultations, is no longer current and could well need to be scrapped and started again. I'm more than certain that an alternative route configuration could deliver a higher BCR if it will only serve England, but the cost and disruption of starting everything again from scratch (and completely ruining David Higgins' day) is immense.

We don't dare say anything until after the referendum because Salmond will just start screaming about scaremongering as he does when anyone challenges him on any one of his claims - threatening default on a tiny part of the national debt is not much of a bargaining chip when most of the infrastructure is owned by the Westminster government.
And while HS2 is suboptimal for England only it is not enormously so - the only critical de-speccing would likely be removal of the Wigan section with the depot moving out east somewhere.

And remember a Yes Vote is not necessarily decisive - they will not be independent by May which means there will be at least one more Westminster election in Scotland. This could easily scotch (huh an unintended pun) independence if news of the deal (which is not going to be good) leaks out before then. If unionist parties win that election strongly (almost certainly campaigning under a 'Save the Union' umbrella) they may claim mandate and make a deal with the English and Welsh parties to prevent the passage of the act of parliament that actually triggers independence.

 

[NotATrainspott]

We don't dare say anything until after the referendum because Salmond will just start screaming about scaremongering as he does when anyone challenges him on any one of his claims - threatening default on a tiny part of the national debt is not much of a bargaining chip when most of the infrastructure is owned by the Westminster government.
And while HS2 is suboptimal for England only it is not enormously so - the only critical de-speccing would likely be removal of the Wigan section with the depot moving out east somewhere.

And remember a Yes Vote is not necessarily decisive - they will not be independent by May which means there will be at least one more Westminster election in Scotland. This could easily scotch (huh an unintended pun) independence if news of the deal (which is not going to be good) leaks out before then. If unionist parties win that election strongly (almost certainly campaigning under a 'Save the Union' umbrella) they may claim mandate and make a deal with the English and Welsh parties to prevent the passage of the act of parliament that actually triggers independence.

If there is a Yes vote then no political dealings will ever prevent Scotland from becoming an independent country unless a second referendum is somehow legitimately held and it results in a No vote. It might be nice to suggest that it might happen but given that Alastair Darling made a rather big thing about there being 'no going back', something backed up by all sides of the debate, it seems unlikely that this would happen.

 

[HSTEd]

If there is a Yes vote then no political dealings will ever prevent Scotland from becoming an independent country unless a second referendum is somehow legitimately held and it results in a No vote. It might be nice to suggest that it might happen but given that Alastair Darling made a rather big thing about there being 'no going back', something backed up by all sides of the debate, it seems unlikely that this would happen.

If the Scots were to vote for a unionist slate in 2015 all bets are off.
It would essentially be an election contested by the SNP and the Unionists.

The election will amount to a second referendum - and despite what Alistair Darling says it would be the people that would demand that the representatives save them from their own insanity.

 

[NotATrainspott]

If the Scots were to vote for a unionist slate in 2015 all bets are off.
It would essentially be an election contested by the SNP and the Unionists.

The election will amount to a second referendum - and despite what Alistair Darling says it would be the people that would demand that the representatives save them from their own insanity.

Do you seriously believe that after a Yes vote, the Labour, Lib Dem and Tory parties will put in their manifesto that they will campaign in Scotland for the result of the referendum to be ignored? Has this ever, ever happened before, anywhere? Is there any precedent or any legal ability for these people to do that? If the SNP had in their manifesto that they would declare UDI, and they had won in 2011 with that pledge, no one would have accepted a unilateral declaration of independence because the will of the party with the most seats is not the same as the final will of the people, and when contemplating a matter of this gravity the only view that matter are the views of the people, found through a free and fair referendum. If the Unionist parties put a promise to have a free and fair second referendum in their manifesto, and they win a majority in the Scottish Parliament (not the UK one's Scottish section) to that effect then that might be permissible, in the same way that the SNP's manifesto pledge for a referendum was legitimate.

In any case if you listen to the debates it's pretty clear that for a great number of Scots they may feel the Union is the best but by no means are they confident in the three UK parties to work in the best interest of Scotland. Labour have eviscerated any support that may have remained when the SNP won Scotland in 2011, while the Lib Dems and the Tories have only themselves to blame for their current woes north (and south, and west, for the former) of the border.

 

[HSTEd]

Do you seriously believe that after a Yes vote, the Labour, Lib Dem and Tory parties will put in their manifesto that they will campaign in Scotland for the result of the referendum to be ignored?

I would expect that the Labour, Liberal Democrats and Tory parties would not contest the 2015 election at all - it would be contested by a 'Unionist Party' founded for this sole purpose.
The election will occur either way.

Has this ever, ever happened before, anywhere? Is there any precedent or any legal ability for these people to do that?

Parliament is supreme and no parliament may bind its successors.
If the people chose to vote for a unionist slate in the general election there would likely be considered to be a mandate in favour of abandoning the referendum result.
Especially if the referendum result is close as it will be.

If the SNP had in their manifesto that they would declare UDI, and they had won in 2011 with that pledge, no one would have accepted a unilateral declaration of independence because the will of the party with the most seats is not the same as the final will of the people, and when contemplating a matter of this gravity the only view that matter are the views of the people, found through a free and fair referendum. If the Unionist parties put a promise to have a free and fair second referendum in their manifesto, and they win a majority in the Scottish Parliament (not the UK one's Scottish section) to that effect then that might be permissible, in the same way that the SNP's manifesto pledge for a referendum was legitimate.

A UDI would be illegitimate because only Parliament, as the ultimate and final representative of the people, may make that decision.
The Scottish Parliament has no independent standing - it is merely an agent of the Crown of the United Kingdom.
And when will be the time for this second referendum? It is highly unlikely that the 2016 Scottish Parliamentary election will occur before the SNP decreed independence date - so if the unionists win then it is too late.
The union will have been sundered and there really will be no going back.
And even if it does - it is unlikely it would occur before the passing of the relative legislation in Westminster.

The only significant democratic forum between the referendum and the date of independence decreed by Alex Salmond is the 2015 Westminster election.

In any case if you listen to the debates it's pretty clear that for a great number of Scots they may feel the Union is the best but by no means are they confident in the three UK parties to work in the best interest of Scotland

And yet they are going to sleepwalk into a disaster - if you just look at the opinion polls related to subsidiary questions the Scottish Nationalists seem incredibly naive.
(The whole currency union thing, the BBC will apparently continue to serve Scotland and Trident will leave immediately because Salmond commands it and a dozen other things).
When the negotiations start they are going to be in for a rude awakening.

 

[JamesRowden]

And yet they are going to sleepwalk into a disaster - if you just look at the opinion polls related to subsidiary questions the Scottish Nationalists seem incredibly naive.
(The whole currency union thing, the BBC will apparently continue to serve Scotland and Trident will leave immediately because Salmond commands it and a dozen other things).
When the negotiations start they are going to be in for a rude awakening.

As I see it the rest of the UK will have a huge bargaining tool in that it will be able to tell the scotts that if they don't agree to Westminster's terms, they don't get independence.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I would expect that the Labour, Liberal Democrats and Tory parties would not contest the 2015 election at all - it would be contested by a 'Unionist Party' founded for this sole purpose.
The election will occur either way.

Genuinely what on earth are you on about? This idea is totally absurd.

Parliament is supreme and no parliament may bind its successors.
If the people chose to vote for a unionist slate in the general election there would likely be considered to be a mandate in favour of abandoning the referendum result.
Especially if the referendum result is close as it will be.

If there is a Yes vote then the sovereign will of the Scottish people is that 'Scotland should be an independent country'. The idea of Parliamentary sovereignty is an English & Welsh concept and has no real grounding in Scottish law, although it has never properly been tested. However, if there is a Yes vote the sovereign will of the people of Scotland will be for it to become an independent country. If Britain wants to remain regarded as a modern, representative democracy and not a pariah state it is now bound to respect that sovereign will in the same way that it is bound by all other constitutional precedent. If they want to have a stab at getting the result they want their only option is to call another free and fair referendum. Simply voting away independence is not something that is in any way feasible.

A UDI would be illegitimate because only Parliament, as the ultimate and final representative of the people, may make that decision.
The Scottish Parliament has no independent standing - it is merely an agent of the Crown of the United Kingdom.
And when will be the time for this second referendum? It is highly unlikely that the 2016 Scottish Parliamentary election will occur before the SNP decreed independence date - so if the unionists win then it is too late.
The union will have been sundered and there really will be no going back.
And even if it does - it is unlikely it would occur before the passing of the relative legislation in Westminster.

In the modern world no constitutional expert would tell you that when push comes to shove, the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty comes above the sovereign will of the people. Yes, over the history of British democracy it is the case that the powers of democracy have come from the Crown, who then gets their power from the Christian deity, but in this modern world it is the democratic will of the people that matters above Parliament. If there were a referendum on abolishing the monarchy, for example, if the people voted to abolish it then Parliament could then not justifiably ignore that on the basis of being re-elected with the promise of reinstating them. The absolute final will of the people is what matters when you have issues of this depth; the inferred will of the people through the political parties that can gain significant numbers of seats may be good enough for day-to-day business but it is by no means sufficient to make such radical decisions, except to authorise free and fair referenda.

The only significant democratic forum between the referendum and the date of independence decreed by Alex Salmond is the 2015 Westminster election.

And yet they are going to sleepwalk into a disaster - if you just look at the opinion polls related to subsidiary questions the Scottish Nationalists seem incredibly naive.
(The whole currency union thing, the BBC will apparently continue to serve Scotland and Trident will leave immediately because Salmond commands it and a dozen other things).
When the negotiations start they are going to be in for a rude awakening.

If there is a Yes vote isn't not 'Alex Salmond versus the UK Government', it's the final sovereign will of the people of Scotland discussing terms with the UK Government. Alex Salmond may be the top negotiator that the people of Scotland send to act on their behalf but by no means is he someone that can simply be dismissed. We don't know exactly what is going to happen if there is a Yes vote because it would be a politically cataclysmic event for the current Government. I personally do not believe that any government could command a majority in the House of Commons after the complete and utter failure of the three parties as part of Better Together and the complete failure to do any preparations for that outcome. If there is no government, there must be an election. The three party leaders could never show their faces again as they would be the party leaders that lost Scotland - with the effect that has on things like the nuclear deterrent and whether the rUK really does need permanent membership of the UNSC.

I would also warn you that the campaign has actually moved on quite a bit. At this point in time there are no encouraging signs about the future of our budget as part of the UK, primarily due to the political popularity in England and Wales to massively reduce public expenditure in Scotland. I think it is naive to assume that the two-and-a-half Westminster parties would be able to resist the siren song of getting lots of seats in the North of England and Wales by promising that cut, as the gains they would make would more than compensate for the loss of support north of the Border (indeed, I can forsee no situation in which the Tories would not choose to do this given that they are an utter irrelevance north of the border in all respects). If that is the positive future within the Union then I don't think you can blame anyone for looking at it and thinking that it might even be worse than independence. If Scotland does vote Yes, it will be an independent country that theoretically has all the necessary economic levers to help balance its own budget in a sustainable way. The economic decisions will be made by the same sort of general elections that (supposedly) decide ours today as a part of the UK. If Scotland wants to vote for a party that advocates austerity then they are more than able to do so - the big change is always that the Parliament would be accountable to the people of Scotland and the people of Scotland alone for these decisions through free and fair and representative elections.

As I see it the rest of the UK will have a huge bargaining tool in that it will be able to tell the scotts that if they don't agree to Westminster's terms, they don't get independence.

After a Yes vote, if the people of England and Wales decide to vote for the "stop Scotland leaving whether they like it or not" party it would not work because in the eyes of the international community Scotland becoming a sovereign state had already been agreed, and thus they would recognise the new country. There is no plausible scenario where after a Yes vote Scotland does not become independent, unless a second free and fair referendum takes place with the same franchise that would return a No vote. No such concept of a second referendum has been suggested at any time by any UK party. There had been a suggestion at one point from the SNP, back before the Edinburgh Agreement, that there could be a two-referendum system where the first would legitimise the start of negotiations and the second would be whether or not to agree to the settlement made, but this is not happening. If it had been planned then it would be more than possible for the UK Government to play unfairly hard and produce an unworkable settlement with the intention of it being rejected by the polls, and thus killing off independence. That isn't happening.

 

[Altnabreac]

Firstly, this discussion is in the wrong section, hopefully mods can move most of this thread to General Discussion.

However there are some interesting issues here that are worth considering.

Parliament is supreme and no parliament may bind its successors.
If the people chose to vote for a unionist slate in the general election there would likely be considered to be a mandate in favour of abandoning the referendum result.
Especially if the referendum result is close as it will be.

If there is a Yes vote then the sovereign will of the Scottish people is that 'Scotland should be an independent country'. The idea of Parliamentary sovereignty is an English & Welsh concept and has no real grounding in Scottish law, although it has never properly been tested. However, if there is a Yes vote the sovereign will of the people of Scotland will be for it to become an independent country. If Britain wants to remain regarded as a modern, representative democracy and not a pariah state it is now bound to respect that sovereign will in the same way that it is bound by all other constitutional precedent. If they want to have a stab at getting the result they want their only option is to call another free and fair referendum. Simply voting away independence is not something that is in any way feasible

There are potentially genuine differences in Constitutional Law between Scotland and England. The concept of Popular Sovereignty in Scotland is controversial but emerges partly from the Declaration of Arbroath and the 1689 Claim of Right. These both emphasise the sovereignty of the Scottish people over the crown and thus echo the concept of English Parliamentary Sovereignty expressed in the Magna Carta and Glorious Revolution. It can be argued that the Scottish documents place the power on the "Settled will of the Scottish people" rather than parliament itself thus representing the difference of constitutional opinion.

Post 1707 Act of Union the question arises whether this concept has any place in law and whether the Scottish separateness of law and jurisdiction is protected in any way. We have some interesting case law on this subject including MacCormick v Lord Advocate in 1953 in which the Lord Advocate concedes that the "Parliament of the United Kingdom 'could not' repeal or alter [certain] 'fundamental and essential' conditions" of the Act of Union."

For a more recent emuneration of the same principle see Gibson v Lord Advocate in 1975.

More relevant politically the concept was reinvigorated as part of the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly in the 1980s that later became the Scottish Constitutional Convention. They published the Claim of Right for Scotland in 1989. It sets out:

We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.

We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends:

To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland;

To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and

To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure implementation of that scheme.

This is still relevant today as the document was signed by Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, Menzies Campbell and Charlie Kennedy.

Politically it would be catastrophic for Labour and the Lib Dems north of the border to go back on this historical assertion of the soverign will of the Scottish people. It is this political reality rather than any constitutional technicality that means your vision of a joint unionist party and overthrowing of the popular will is impossible.

One area where you could make more traction is in a Scottish Parliament election. There is now some supportive case law for the independent sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament as a creature beyond the scope of Westminster. Axa v Lord Advocate in 2011 sets this out nicely.

I think it would be legitimate for (existing or new) parties to campaign in the 2016 Scottish Parliament to overturn the independence vote, however it would require a second referendum vote which would be unlikely to be won. I also doubt Labour or the Lib Dems would attempt this and severely doubt they could win an election campaigning on this front.

The concepts of popular vs parliamentary sovereignty are by no means a settled point of law. For a thoughtful, slightly contrarian point of view see Lallands Peat Worrier's thoughts on the matter.

Ultimately I doubt there will be a Yes vote, but if there is one I think it politically unlikely its legitimacy would be challenged by any of the major parties in Scotland.

 

[JamesRowden]

My point is that on issues that affect both Scotland and the rest of the UK, Scotland is a minority and Scotland's vote for independence would be the cause of these complications. I think that Scotland would be able to get independence, but that they wouldn't get a good deal.

 

[NotATrainspott]

My point is that on issues that affect both Scotland and the rest of the UK, Scotland is a minority and Scotland's vote for independence would be the cause of these complications. I think that Scotland would be able to get independence, but that they wouldn't get a good deal.

That is constitutionally irrelevant. For example, the laws of an independent Scotland will not ban the rUK from maintaining a (not really, but that's another argument) nuclear deterrent. It may make it very difficult, given that Scotland holds almost all of the best locations to put things like nukes and spaceplanes for various purely geographical reasons, but if the political will exists in the rUK to move its deterrent to its own territory it is more than capable of doing so. If the UK preserves its nuclear deterrent and the majority of its armed forces in the independence settlement, theoretically there is little reason why it could not remain a member of the UNSC. However, what is the case is that the seismic political change that a Yes vote would create in the rUK could well change the politics of the country enough that the choice is made not to bother moving it.

The referendum debate has engaged the people of Scotland in real discussions about politics. Left on its own the politics of the UK as a whole would continue to decline as people become more and more disillusioned with it. If some of the real energy that has been seen in Scotland transfers down to England, Wales and Northern Ireland there is really no end to what change might occur as people realise that there is a world beyond Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories. The implosion of Labour in Scotland has continued unabated and has been nothing less than accelerated by the actions of the Better Together campaign; the Lib Dems are now an irrelevance outside of Orkney and Shetland and the Tories have simply become more and more reviled. Even if they did not originally want independence, people moved to the SNP as a way of enacting change. If Labour's Scottish disease jumps down to Wales and the North of England there is no telling what might happen in future. All these forces left to fester for a while may make radical changes about what the (r)UK wants to be in the world - if you threaten to bring nukes to Devonport then you'll get an alternative political party that will campaign against them, and the Labour-Lib-Dem-Tory hegemony, and win. The same goes for Wales and Plaid Cymru. Where these new parties are a positive force in politics, parties like UKIP and the BNP are a negative one as they prey upon fear rather than inspiring hope in a better future.

 

[JamesRowden]

That is constitutionally irrelevant. For example, the laws of an independent Scotland will not ban the rUK from maintaining a (not really, but that's another argument) nuclear deterrent. It may make it very difficult, given that Scotland holds almost all of the best locations to put things like nukes and spaceplanes for various purely geographical reasons, but if the political will exists in the rUK to move its deterrent to its own territory it is more than capable of doing so. If the UK preserves its nuclear deterrent and the majority of its armed forces in the independence settlement, theoretically there is little reason why it could not remain a member of the UNSC. However, what is the case is that the seismic political change that a Yes vote would create in the rUK could well change the politics of the country enough that the choice is made not to bother moving it.

The referendum debate has engaged the people of Scotland in real discussions about politics. Left on its own the politics of the UK as a whole would continue to decline as people become more and more disillusioned with it. If some of the real energy that has been seen in Scotland transfers down to England, Wales and Northern Ireland there is really no end to what change might occur as people realise that there is a world beyond Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories. The implosion of Labour in Scotland has continued unabated and has been nothing less than accelerated by the actions of the Better Together campaign; the Lib Dems are now an irrelevance outside of Orkney and Shetland and the Tories have simply become more and more reviled. Even if they did not originally want independence, people moved to the SNP as a way of enacting change. If Labour's Scottish disease jumps down to Wales and the North of England there is no telling what might happen in future. All these forces left to fester for a while may make radical changes about what the (r)UK wants to be in the world - if you threaten to bring nukes to Devonport then you'll get an alternative political party that will campaign against them, and the Labour-Lib-Dem-Tory hegemony, and win. The same goes for Wales and Plaid Cymru. Where these new parties are a positive force in politics, parties like UKIP and the BNP are a negative one as they prey upon fear rather than inspiring hope in a better future.

I can't connect this post with the statement that I made. I am not denying anything that you have said in this post. I am merely stating that the needs of Scotland should not be put above the needs of the rest of the UK.

For example, if an independent Scotland doesn't want Nuclear Weapons, I think that they can be paid back the equivalent value of the weapons but that Scotland should pay for the costs related to the transfer of the weapons to a new base.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I can't connect this post with the statement that I made. I am not denying anything that you have said in this post. I am merely stating that the needs of Scotland should not be put above the needs of the rest of the UK.

For example, if an independent Scotland doesn't want Nuclear Weapons, I think that they can be paid back the equivalent value of the weapons but that Scotland should pay for the costs related to the transfer of the weapons to a new base.

What I read in your post was that the larger UK should have much more of a say whether Scotland is allowed to be independent or not because of the reasonably large change it may force in terms of nukes and the UNSC etc.

I don't see why Scotland should have to pay for the movement of the nukes down to an alternative base. If there is a Yes vote, there will have to be a real look at what is actually feasible. It is not implausible to suggest that the settlement could basically say that Trident could live on, somehow, in Scotland until that system reaches end-of-life in the late 2020s. If the UK Government still wishes to pay for a replacement deterrent, located south of the border, then that is entirely legitimate. If there's a 49-51 No vote, it does raise the possibility of a second referendum happening well within the lifetime of the replacement for Trident so it would be entirely logical for the UK Government to look at alternative options that would realistically have to be located in England. These alternative options could involve a move to an airborne deterrent, which I feel would be more suited to the sort of thing that the UK Government wants Trident to deter (a rogue state only needs the threat of one or two nukes dropped upon it, making an airborne or cruise missile-based deterrent more useful than the MIRV Trident system that is only good for full on WWIII versus a superpower). If the decision is made to move to a non-submarine system, regardless of the outcome of the referendum it would mean Faslane and Coulport would no longer host the deterrent and so the cost of moving away from it is no longer something that really would need to be borne by an independent Scotland.

EDIT: Further to my point about Trident no longer being the most optimal way of using nuclear weapons to deter states: the least implausible scenario for the third nuclear weapon to be detonated in anger would be for NATO or whoever to decide to take out some form of heavily fortified underground bunker in a pariah state, of the sort used by Iran to refine materials for its nuclear programme. In that case, the use of even a single proper ICBM missile could be misinterpreted or mistrusted by the superpowers as the first salvo of a full-on first strike, thus triggering WWIII. Instead, the least bad option would be for the Americans/Russians to send a B-2 stealth bomber/Tu-160 to drop a limited-yield single bomb, possibly after a bunker buster in order to soften the target. If Trident were replaced with an airborne system it would allow the UK to have this power, and thus the military value of the system would likely increase.

 

[JamesRowden]

What I read in your post was that the larger UK should have much more of a say whether Scotland is allowed to be independent or not

This is where the misunderstanding is. I was not saying that the UK could stop Scotland becoming independent. Just that Scotland might change its mind once it realises the real cost of becoming independent.

 

[SkinnyDave]

Mod Note: Split from this thread.



We don't dare say anything until after the referendum because Salmond will just start screaming about scaremongering as he does when anyone challenges him on any one of his claims - threatening default on a tiny part of the national debt is not much of a bargaining chip when most of the infrastructure is owned by the Westminster government.
And while HS2 is suboptimal for England only it is not enormously so - the only critical de-speccing would likely be removal of the Wigan section with the depot moving out east somewhere.

And remember a Yes Vote is not necessarily decisive - they will not be independent by May which means there will be at least one more Westminster election in Scotland. This could easily scotch (huh an unintended pun) independence if news of the deal (which is not going to be good) leaks out before then. If unionist parties win that election strongly (almost certainly campaigning under a 'Save the Union' umbrella) they may claim mandate and make a deal with the English and Welsh parties to prevent the passage of the act of parliament that actually triggers independence.

Read the a Edinburgh agreement before coming out with this clueless waffle!
Was good for a laugh though
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would expect that the Labour, Liberal Democrats and Tory parties would not contest the 2015 election at all - it would be contested by a 'Unionist Party' founded for this sole purpose.
The election will occur either way.

Parliament is supreme and no parliament may bind its successors.
If the people chose to vote for a unionist slate in the general election there would likely be considered to be a mandate in favour of abandoning the referendum result.
Especially if the referendum result is close as it will be.

A UDI would be illegitimate because only Parliament, as the ultimate and final representative of the people, may make that decision.
The Scottish Parliament has no independent standing - it is merely an agent of the Crown of the United Kingdom.
And when will be the time for this second referendum? It is highly unlikely that the 2016 Scottish Parliamentary election will occur before the SNP decreed independence date - so if the unionists win then it is too late.
The union will have been sundered and there really will be no going back.
And even if it does - it is unlikely it would occur before the passing of the relative legislation in Westminster.

The only significant democratic forum between the referendum and the date of independence decreed by Alex Salmond is the 2015 Westminster election.

And yet they are going to sleepwalk into a disaster - if you just look at the opinion polls related to subsidiary questions the Scottish Nationalists seem incredibly naive.
(The whole currency union thing, the BBC will apparently continue to serve Scotland and Trident will leave immediately because Salmond commands it and a dozen other things).
When the negotiations start they are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Not when Westminster would have to fund 1.4 trillion worth of debt without Scottish revenue on books oh and the removal costs of that disgrace on the Clyde.. I think you will find negotiations are tough but big cards for Scots to play with
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is where the misunderstanding is. I was not saying that the UK could stop Scotland becoming independent. Just that Scotland might change its mind once it realises the real cost of becoming independent.

What is the real cost James?

The figures don't lie the UK figures facts are there Scots can more than afford to go Independent..
If you leave Labour in charge then yes it could be costly with the main fact that they can't Errm count or run an economy

 

[DarloRich]

When do we in England get a say on Scottish independence? I vote yes. Now. Bye. PS can we have our money back?

It is interesting that while the NO/better together campaign are asking the right questions, especially about the future finances of an independent scotland, few seem interested in looking beyond the braveheart freedom rabble rousing rubbish offered by the SNP.

I have thought all along they will vote yes. What comes next doesn’t seem to be a factor. How will you pay for all of those lovely public services without your grant from Westminster? Do enough people in Scotland have jobs and pay enough tax to meet these on going bills? I don’t think they do. So what will you cut………………..

 

[SkinnyDave]

When do we in England get a say on Scottish independence? I vote yes. Now. Bye. PS can we have our money back?

It is interesting that while the NO/better together campaign are asking the right questions, especially about the future finances of an independent scotland, few seem interested in looking beyond the braveheart freedom rabble rousing rubbish offered by the SNP.

I have thought all along they will vote yes. What comes next doesn’t seem to be a factor. How will you pay for all of those lovely public services without your grant from Westminster? Do enough people in Scotland have jobs and pay enough tax to meet these on going bills? I don’t think they do. So what will you cut………………..

What money yet another ridiculous and factless post please prove what money??
Go and get figures and maybe realise how much England is in the brown stuff without London!

Basic economics doesn't even come into anything you just posted

 

[DarloRich]

What money yet another ridiculous and factless post please prove what money??
Go and get figures and maybe realise how much England is in the brown stuff without London!

Basic economics doesn't even come into anything you just posted

Your own government agrees with me! I have posted the details on here on many times. Go and look. Hell even the terribly biased BBC ran a similar story so it must be a lie!

Your wibble about England adds nothing. Last time i looked the English regions weren’t looking for independence.

 

[JamesRowden]

What is the real cost James?

The figures don't lie the UK figures facts are there Scots can more than afford to go Independent.

Figures that are at least partially derived from a white paper that is written by those who would want independence even if it did produce a lower level of propority?

 

[SkinnyDave]

Lol you just proven you don't have one iota of a clue about the facts or the debate!
Oh and your ridiculous Wibble comment could be met with you should be!

Brilliant
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Figures that are at least partially derived from a white paper that is written by those who would want independence even if it did produce a lower level of propority?

Incorrect, factual figures on Scotland's wealth and contribution are not only in the White paper the white paper is a snap shot of what can be done with Scotland's wealth

 

[JamesRowden]

d's wealth and contribution are not in the Whire paper

But details on how the split up would occur are..........

 

[DarloRich]

Lol you just proven you don't have one iota of a clue about the facts or the debate!

Brilliant

Me?

Look at the figures. You are the one who has no idea. How will an independent scotland fund itself? How will you keep service at a similar level?

 

[SkinnyDave]

Yes you!! Please get the facts and figures that tell me Scotland can't and how it owes you money as you claimed???
Not one iota of a clue basic economics
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But details on how the split up would occur are..........

18 months of negotiations between the two governments would take place

 

[JamesRowden]

negotiations between the two governments would take place

And how can one tell what the result would be?

 

[SkinnyDave]

And how can one tell what the result would be?

That's what pay the civil servants and politicians to do how long is a piece of string?

In my view there will be a Currency Union and debt shared equally Trident will go but not by 2020 I think UK government will negotiate it stays longer until Westminster work out where they go..

 

[JamesRowden]

That's what pay the civil servants and politicians to do how long is a piece of string?

In my view there will be a Currency Union and debt shared equally Trident will go but not by 2020 I think UK government will negotiate it stays longer until Westminster work out where they go..

The rest of the UK will hold a majority over a currency union (unless your saying that the Scotts should have a humungous greater say than the the rest of the UK per unit population). Therefore the Scotts would have no power at all. I would prefer the UK to start its own £#2 than have to share it with an independent Scotland that has a say.

 

[SkinnyDave]

The rest of the UK will hold a majority over a currency union (unless your saying that the Scotts should have a humungous greater say than the the rest of the UK per unit population). Therefore the Scotts would have no power at all. I would prefer the UK to start its own £#2 than have to share it with an independent Scotland that has a say.

That point has already been conceded that Scotland would give up some sovereignty in a currency union.. I won't argue that point MarK Carney has already been on record saying that

 

[JamesRowden]

That point has already been conceded that Scotland would give up some sovereignty in a currency union.. I won't argue that point MarK Carney has already been on record saying that

I'm saying all sovereignty.

 

[DarloRich]

For the benefit of skinnydave:

Scotland accounts for about 8.4% of the total UK population, about 8.3% of the UK's total output and about 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues but receives around 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Government figures show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words spending in Scotland was £1,030 higher than the national average. That works out at about 10% higher!

They go on to state that Scottish total non-oil tax revenues were £43bn in or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of roughly £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head.

These figures show that Scotland received £16.5bn more in UK public spending than it contributed to total UK revenues which work out at a subsidy of around £3,150 per person per annum

I will agree that Scotland has some areas of chronic depravation, ill health and terrible unemployment . it is worth noting that is the same kind of issues many areas in Northern England that don’t benefit from a subsidy.

Now that is before you consider the money from the north sea black gold upon most of scotlands future seems to be built.

Oil revenues are falling but still earn about 6bn per annum. Even if you give all of the oil money to Scotland (as the SNP hope) then you get Scotland contributing £48.1bn in tax revenues to the treasury not £43bn. This reduces the subsidy from central government to around a mere £2,000 per person per year.

This was based on a 2010 Scottish Government study. If you have more recent figures to hand please share them.

 

[SkinnyDave]

I'm saying all sovereignty.

Then that is unrealistic
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For the benefit of skinnydave:

Scotland accounts for about 8.4% of the total UK population, about 8.3% of the UK's total output and about 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues but receives around 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Government figures show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words spending in Scotland was £1,030 higher than the national average. That works out at about 10% higher!

They go on to state that Scottish total non-oil tax revenues were £43bn in or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of roughly £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head.

These figures show that Scotland received £16.5bn more in UK public spending than it contributed to total UK revenues which work out at a subsidy of around £3,150 per person per annum

I will agree that Scotland has some areas of chronic depravation, ill health and terrible unemployment . it is worth noting that is the same kind of issues many areas in Northern England that don’t benefit from a subsidy.

Now that is before you consider the money from the north sea black gold upon most of scotlands future seems to be built.

Oil revenues are falling but still earn about 6bn per annum. Even if you give all of the oil money to Scotland (as the SNP hope) then you get Scotland contributing £48.1bn in tax revenues to the treasury not £43bn. This reduces the subsidy from central government to around a mere £2,000 per person per year.

This was based on a 2010 Scottish Government study. If you have more recent figures to hand please share them.

Errm lol your neglecting to mention one fundamental flaw in your figures there!!
I'll leave you to work it out as you are great with figures
Basic economics Pmsl

 

[DarloRich]

Then that is unrealistic
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Errm lol your neglecting to mention one fundamental flaw in your figures there!!
I'll leave you to work it out as you are great with figures
Basic economics Pmsl

Fire away please! Unlike you I am not an economics professor