Scottish Independence yea or nay

bpb101

What do you THINK(not want) will be the % in the Scottish referendum 6 or so weeks away.

I was going to do a poll but it looks like you cant in this forum.

yes 60+
yes 57-60%
yes 54-56%
yes 52-53%
yes 50-51%

no 60+
no-57-60%
no 54-56%
no 52-53%
no 50-51%


also what do you think will the turn out be.

my predictions is 54-56 no , however i hope im wrong with a turnout of 75%+

thoughts.

comongethappy

No - 58%
Yes 42%

DarkyHughes

Well if I'm against the break up of Ireland I wouldn't be for the break up of Britain.

I think it will go 55 no 45 yes.

OS119

i'm betting on a surprise 'yes' scraping win on a low, -50%, turnout.

i'm 'no' personally, but i think the 'no' campaign has been pretty rubbish and that the 'yes' campaign is more likely to get its voters to turn out on the day. i think the negativity of 'no', combined with the several-years-running poll lead of 'no', will mean that lots of 'no' voters will stay at home thinking that everyone else will go out to vote, and the margin means they don't have to.

so, a 1 or 2% lead for yes on a much lower turnout than is being predicted.

Manach

Result might depend on the amount of airplay "Braveheart" receives.
Either way reckon there will not be very much between the Ayes/Nays.

serfboard

OS119 wrote: »

i'm betting on a surprise 'yes' scraping win on a low, -50%, turnout.

i'm 'no' personally, but i think the 'no' campaign has been pretty rubbish and that the 'yes' campaign is more likely to get its voters to turn out on the day. i think the negativity of 'no', combined with the several-years-running poll lead of 'no', will mean that lots of 'no' voters will stay at home thinking that everyone else will go out to vote, and the margin means they don't have to.

so, a 1 or 2% lead for yes on a much lower turnout than is being predicted.

That's exactly what I've been thinking lately too - 'no' voters more motivated to turn out.

Is there a minimum turnout level required?

OS119

serfboard wrote: »

...Is there a minimum turnout level required?

nope, just a straight majority of votes.

NIMAN

It will be a definite 'No' vote.

A Dub in Glasgo

I will be voting Yes and the No side will win. 90 minute patriots is a very apt description

A Dub in Glasgo

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Well if I'm against the break up of Ireland I wouldn't be for the break up of Britain.
.

You mean the break up of the UK? You prefer Ireland united in the UK then?

Berserker

On voting day, common sense will prevail and it'll be an easy no. The 'Yes' side will get no more than 40% of the vote.

Sand

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You mean the break up of the UK? You prefer Ireland united in the UK then?

Probably more realistic than any other plan for a united Ireland.

FreudianSlippers

Sand wrote: »

Probably more realistic than any other plan for a united Ireland.

I hate to admit it as a republican, but we're now an independent country. I would not be against joining a true economic partnership with the UK. I'm not saying I'd join the UK necessarily though.

Berserker

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I hate to admit it as a republican, but we're now an independent country. I would not be against joining a true economic partnership with the UK. I'm not saying I'd join the UK necessarily though.

A refreshing piece of realism from a republican. I too can see us going into economic partnership with the UK within the next decade or so. We are massively reliant on each other trade wise as is and that relationship is only going to get stronger as time progresses. Scotland, as part of the UK, will be a very important part of that partnership. I think the idea of independence will be put to bed for a few generations after the vote in September.

FreudianSlippers

Berserker wrote: »

A refreshing piece of realism from a republican. I too can see us going into economic partnership with the UK within the next decade or so. We are massively reliant on each other trade wise as is and that relationship is only going to get stronger as time progresses. Scotland, as part of the UK, will be a very important part of that partnership. I think the idea of independence will be put to bed for a few generations after the vote in September.

In many ways (without getting into a discussion on the North) I see Irish Republicanism as having been a major success. We were successful in gaining our independence and I would not suggest for a second giving that up. I just see that we now have a choice as to whether to take our success and act like a real, grown up country - making decisions that benefit this nation rather than cutting our nose off to spite our face.

We need to be prepared to react to Scotland leaving the UK and/or the UK leaving the EU; we need to know exactly what we, as a nation, will do in those circumstances. It's not enough to do the usual wait and see.

Berserker

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We need to be prepared to react to Scotland leaving the UK and/or the UK leaving the EU; we need to know exactly what we, as a nation, will do in those circumstances. It's not enough to do the usual wait and see.

I totally agree. In all honesty, I think that the possibility of the UK voting to leave the EU is far more likely than Scotland leaving the UK. In that event, we would need to be prepared to move into an economic partnership with the UK. I am not convinced that we have that level of foresight in our administrative ranks, those in power or opposition, at the moment.

Mr.Micro

The no vote will win, IMO. What's independence to economic security? The Scots will put their pound before the notion of governing themselves, simple as. The economy is all that matters to most people. Cameron et al have frightened most people away from independence. Any transition can be painful and the voters will not be prepared to risk it.

tipptom

I think it will be a NO without a doubt and there will be a massive spike of scare stories by the no side(like the armegeddon promised in the EU fiscal treaty here) in the last few days that will seal the deal on the swingers.
Think the 5/1 odds being given is terrible odds considering you would have to put €800 to win €100 for a no vote.


The Scots should use the referendum to get as much for Scotland as they can before the poll reveals how much the Scots really want to remain within.

A Dub in Glasgo

There has already been massive scare stories from the no side. It is laughable how they are being swallowed by folk who are otherwise seem sensible

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There has already been massive scare stories from the no side. It is laughable how they are being swallowed by folk who are otherwise seem sensible

You mean about pandas and alien invasions?

Out of interest, what are considered to be these massive scare stories?

comongethappy

Lemming wrote: »

You mean about pandas and alien invasions?

Out of interest, what are considered to be these massive scare stories?

Things along the lines of the BBC disappearing (as if by forcefield at the border)
Peoples savings or pensions in UK banks disappearing.
Having to revert to barter as a mechanism of commerce....

And so forth.

For Reals

Berserker wrote: »

A refreshing piece of realism from a republican. I too can see us going into economic partnership with the UK within the next decade or so...

We are and have been, what's the need of a rubber stamp with Germany's Liz on it? Same goes for the commonwealth nonsense. Join a hangover from a genocidal war mongering, gave us the concentration camp, empire for a non too noticable set of games......no ta.

I think it'll be a 'No'. My Glaswegian pal reckons London is worried about losing North Sea oil revenue. The Scots will be hard pushed to get the Eaton sets grubby paws off anything of worth should it be a 'Yes'.
There is a chance though, but it will certainly be close. I wish them all the best.

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote: »

You mean about pandas and alien invasions?

Out of interest, what are considered to be these massive scare stories?

Uncle Fred won't be able to visit his niece in England as he would need a passport and he does not have one

Checkpoints and border controls on the M74/M6

Scotland is too small to be independent

The RBS crash would have bankrupted Scotland

Natural resources will have no affect on an independent Scotland

An independent Scotland would be cataclysmic for the west and threaten global stability

The start up costs of an independent Scotland would sink the economy

Scotland cannot keep using the pound if they are independent

People would have to drive on the other side of the road

etc etc

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/03/19/top-10-unionist-myths-debunked-banned-then-re-debunked/

Onthe3rdDay

I think there's a chance that the yes side will win as any those that want independence are more likely to go out and vote. However if Normal voting turnout happens it would be a win for the No side, probably 58 no/ 42 yes.

I have enjoyed the debate from a distance, probably because of the nutty claims made by both sides. According to some on the NO side, Those in the republic would have more rights in the new Little Britain than the Scots!

Lemming

I'm a bit bemused by some of the arguments being treated seriously as scaremongering by the Yes side. There's a couple of bonafide home truths that have been raised in the list below, and again I find it a bit dishonest that a genuine concern is being peddled as scare mongering all because it's "killing Salmond's buzz".

Anyway ... I'll address the serious points; anything not addressed is just bullsh*t to be ignored as idiocy being taken seriously by idiots.

comongethappy wrote: »

Things along the lines of the BBC disappearing (as if by forcefield at the border)
Peoples savings or pensions in UK banks disappearing.
Having to revert to barter as a mechanism of commerce....

The BBC, being the UK state, and state-funded broadcaster would have to relocate any tangible amounts of staff and equipment out of Scotland that are based there, other than "foreign correspondants" or the like. But broadcasting could still be received because .. well ... not to put too fine a point on it, it's a bit difficult to stop radio-waves without actively jamming them. Whether or not broadcast signals would be well received the further north one would travel is a technical matter, if the BBC no longer cater to the Scottish region. All of the above is common sense and stating the obvious.

The pensions pot is a real concern however, and would be down to details on what would be negotiated out of any ceding from the union. But generally speaking, the pension fund is funded greatly by today's workers and as has been pointed out, Scotland has a higher than average older demographic than the rest of the UK which means less younger workers covering a larger older population. Again, that isn't scare mongering; it's common sense to point that out.

People's savings is a matter for bank negotiation, but I would imagine that only deposits above a certain size would be at risk, like what was done for banks during the crisis of guaruanteeing any deposits below £100,000 or whatever it was. Neither side can really comment other than to state that it's an unknown.


Out of curiosity? Who mentioned the barter thing and more importantly, in what context was it said? Because that one is up there with Pandas and Alien invasions in how not to be taken seriously.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Uncle Fred won't be able to visit his niece in England as he would need a passport and he does not have one

Checkpoints and border controls on the M74/M6

Short of a dire collapse in economic negotiations, Scotland is looking at a common travel area agreement like what Ireland has. But I would expect to see import/export restrictions around the movement of certain types of goods; i.e. explosives, animal types.

I would also expect to see tighter ITAR restrictions applied to the Scottish state security apparatus when trying to acquire any shiny new military hardware from North America with Scotland not being a member of NATO.

Scotland is too small to be independent

The RBS crash would have bankrupted Scotland

Natural resources will have no affect on an independent Scotland

RBS dragging Scotland down? Not so implausible at all given what happened to both Iceland & Ireland. But academic because RBS was saved by the UK (including Scotland).

As for natural resources; hard one to call really and all depends on what happens with regards the oil companies as most of them would not be headquartered in Scotland, meaning the rump of profits go elsewhere unless Salmond is planning to do an Argentina move and seize company hardware and oil in storage. Scotland would still benefit, just not in the manner or extent that Norway benefits (with its nationalised ownership) as Salmond talked up at the last debate.

An independent Scotland would be cataclysmic for the west and threaten global stability

The start up costs of an independent Scotland would sink the economy

Scotland cannot keep using the pound if they are independent

People would have to drive on the other side of the road

etc etc

The pound ... Scotland could keep using the pound, the point being that they would have no control over it; much like all those Latin American countries using the US dollar.

A Dub in Glasgo

See above

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/03/19/top-10-unionist-myths-debunked-banned-then-re-debunked/

I'm pretty sure that there's a rule against comment-by-video-link on this forum.

So care to actually comment instead being lazy?

A Dub in Glasgo

Lazy? you should come to Scotland to listen to the BT campaign for the text book definition of lazy

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Lazy? you should come to Scotland to listen to the BT campaign for the text book definition of lazy

I've been hearing it all for years Dub; some of my immediate family and most of my relations live in Scotland, but thanks for the arrogant condescension.

Berserker

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The RBS crash would have bankrupted Scotland

A rogue bank bringing a country to its knee! What a ludicrous suggestion by the 'No' side. Oh wait ...........

DarkyHughes

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You mean the break up of the UK? You prefer Ireland united in the UK then?

No, I believe Ireland the island should be one country & Britain the island should be one countrie.

But if the people of Ireland voted to rejoin the UK I'd support that ( the Tories should suit us were such a conservative country) right, but they voted for complete independence & had their government overthrown by a Free State military coup.

karma_

For the sheer pandemonium and handwringing this would instigate not to mention witnessing a piece of history I hope they go!

A Dub in Glasgo

Add stock market crash to the scare stories

Looks like the Tories are passing off their members as 'ordinary families who are voting No'

http://wingsoverscotland.com/more-ordinary-voters/

A Dub in Glasgo

DarkyHughes wrote: »

& Britain the island should be one countrie.

Why? There are 3 countries on the island of Britain and all 3 are in union to form a state (along with NI). Why shouldn't the respective people of each country be independent (if that is what they want)?

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote: »

, but thanks for the arrogant condescension.

I am sorry if that is what is comes across although I was replying to a post which stated 'Out of interest...' which implied to me that you did not know then the lazy comment came into play when I posted some extra info then the admission that you have heard them all before.

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I am sorry if that is what is comes across although I was replying to a post which stated 'Out of interest...' which implied to me that you did not know then the lazy comment came into play when I posted some extra info then the admission that you have heard them all before.

You posted a video link, as if that answered everything; but it was up to everyone else to go get the answer from it for you. Which incidentally [comment-by-video link] is quite frowned upon in the politics forum anyway because it's lazy and tbh, insulting; it's one stop short of saying "I disagree" and then saying "search google" as your explanation.

Considering that I've posted several times on the politics forum regards Salmonds personal vanity project, why would you presume to think I know nothing? I've heard much of Salmond's noise long, long, long ago. Well before devolution was ever muttered in a national newspaper in fact. Hence I haven't been paying much attention over the last few months to what has been said other than the key points, which is why I was curious as to what was being portrayed as scare-mongering on foot of having watched the initial debate and being gobsmacked that Salmond was fool enough to bring up Pandas and Alien invasions as some sort of serious critique. He was rightly pilloried by an audience member for being more concerned with scoring political points than assuaging Scots of any concerns they might have regards voting yes or no.

A Dub in Glasgo

Now now, the video link was meant to be posted as an edit to my post where I listed some things that came to mind. You presume I have even read any of your posts on politics forum (which I haven't) so looks like you were mischief making by pretending not to know the scare stories

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Now now, the video link was meant to be posted as an edit to my post where I listed some things that came to mind. You presume I have even read any of your posts on politics forum (which I haven't) so looks like you were mischief making by pretending not to know the scare stories

No I didn't know the scare stories. Hence I asked.

Or to be more precise, I didn't know what was being portrayed as scare-mongering considering I heard little that could be considered such during the debate other than Salmond's absurd feigned indignation regards pandas & alien invasions. Which made me think "what on earth are they considering scare stories". Hence I asked.

And your video post appeared after I had replied to you and on the face of it appeared to be a direct reply in its own right with no explanation as to why it was put inside its own post. But on the video post we are going off topic now so that's my piece said on the matter and considered closed.

sarkozy

I hope Scotland goes for it, but I suspect the 'No' side will win out. I hope to be proved wrong!

tbradman

I'm guessing it will be a No vote. After seeing a little bit of the Salmond/Darling debate, I felt Salmond was very weak.

His insistence that Scotland could keep the Pound and at the same time be independent of London was a very major contradiction that even the "friendlies" in the audience rejected. I think Salmond has lost it for the Yes vote.

Berserker

tbradman wrote: »

His insistence that Scotland could keep the Pound and at the same time be independent of London was a very major contradiction that even the "friendlies" in the audience rejected. I think Salmond has lost it for the Yes vote.

That point alone will sway a lot of voters. It'll come down to economics for a lot of people.

Fratton Fred

Berserker wrote: »

That point alone will sway a lot of voters. It'll come down to economics for a lot of people.

It will.

People will look at two things in my opinion, will I be better or worse off and will I feel more Scottish.

The Scots have a very strong identity as it is, so I can't see how independence will make their national identity any stronger.

Then it just comes down to money.

The Corinthian

DarkyHughes wrote: »

No, I believe Ireland the island should be one country & Britain the island should be one countrie.

I suppose you believe that Hispaniola should be one country too.

Where do you stand on New Guinea, Borneo, Usedom or Tierra del Fuego?

While we're at it, a continent could be considered a large island too - or do you have guidelines on how small an island must be before it should be one country?

DarkyHughes

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why? There are 3 countries on the island of Britain and all 3 are in union to form a state (along with NI). Why shouldn't the respective people of each country be independent (if that is what they want)?

Well if that's what they want fine but I believe that it should be one country like Ireland.

DarkyHughes

The Corinthian wrote: »

I suppose you believe that Hispaniola[/URL] should be one country too.

Where do you stand on New Guinea, Borneo, Usedom or Tierra del Fuego?

While we're at it, a continent could be considered a large island too - or do you have guidelines on how small an island must be before it should be one country?

I stand on self-determination, but Britain be one country makes sense to me. how many countries do you want in the world 300, 500 a 1000, do you want to break up all the Germanic, Celtic & American countries? Restore the Iroquois, Mohawks, Aztecs Incas, Atlantis (if you want to live under the sea) territories?

Isn't Australia a large island that's considered a continent?

The Corinthian

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I stand on self-determination, but Britain be one country makes sense to me. how many countries do you want in the world 300, 500 a 1000, do you want to break up all the Germanic, Celtic & American countries? Restore the Iroquois, Mohawks, Aztecs Incas, Atlantis (if you want to live under the sea) territories?

And how is any of that even vaguely connected to your statement that an island "should be one country", which I challenged? By the logic you used, Haiti and the Dominican Republic should unite under one flag, after all. Care to explain?

AbusesToilets

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I stand on self-determination, but Britain be one country makes sense to me. how many countries do you want in the world 300, 500 a 1000, do you want to break up all the Germanic, Celtic & American countries? Restore the Iroquois, Mohawks, Aztecs Incas, Atlantis (if you want to live under the sea) territories?

Isn't Australia a large island that's considered a continent?

I'm sure there are many tribes in the US that wouldn't object to getting their historic territories back.

DarkyHughes

The Corinthian wrote: »

And how is any of that even vaguely connected to your statement that an island "should be one country", which I challenged? By the logic you used, Haiti and the Dominican Republic should unite under one flag, after all. Care to explain?

Ah but you see self-determination comes first. And you see if Scotland voted for independence then that would have to be respected. And if Haiti & DR voted for unity that would have to be respected. But it was not respected here in 1918 & in that lies the fundamental problem you see.

DarkyHughes

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm sure there are many tribes in the US that wouldn't object to getting their historic territories back.

Why are you so determined to break up countries.

A Dub in Glasgo

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I stand on self-determination, but Britain be one country makes sense to me. how many countries do you want in the world 300, 500 a 1000, do you want to break up all the Germanic, Celtic & American countries? Restore the Iroquois, Mohawks, Aztecs Incas, Atlantis (if you want to live under the sea) territories?

Isn't Australia a large island that's considered a continent?

I am sorry but I do not follow your incoherent view

It is not about islands, it is about nationhood

AbusesToilets

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Why are you so determined to break up countries.

I'm not advocating for it, but there should be an option for self determination for people. Why is there a need for super amalgamations of territory and people?