UK Politics: Referendum day!

[Pebble thats Stubby]

I thought winning elections was democratic .

Most people win elections by the democratic proccess of being the least disliked and maybe having the least objectional policies.

Referendums are won on Single policy options.

So yeah I guess you could call cliaming independance by both means as democratic, but one way is definatly better than the other.

[brAnthelAstgreenseer]

Most people win elections by the democratic proccess of being the least disliked and maybe having the least objectional policies.

Referendums are won on Single policy options.

So yeah I guess you could call cliaming independance by both means as democratic, but one way is definatly better than the other.

If the SNP is going to have it in their mandate that they will go for independence if they have a clear majority and the people vote for them even after knowing that , i don't see the harm in doing that .

[Chaircat Meow]

Wouldn't work. This isn't the BNP we're talking about, or even UKIP, where you get into a lesser of the two evils situation. Tories wouldn't tactically vote Labour against the SNP (not least because an awful lot of the SNP comes from old-school Tories who basically shifted between anti-Labour groups). Labour wouldn't tactically vote Tory or Lib Dem. because they consider David Cameron the greater evil.

I know some Labour voters who, through the course of the referendum, have basically acknowledged they are really centre-right, but vote against the Tories because of that party's perceived anti-Scottish bias. They are considering going over to the Tories. Some of the tartan Tory support might leave the SNP too.

edit: I'm a Tory and I'd vote Labour to keep the SNP out now, and I know other Tories who would. I don't think you realize how angry the SNP and the YES campaign have made some of us NO voters.

[ljkeane]

If the SNP is going to have it in their mandate that they will go for independence if they have a clear majority and the people vote for them even after knowing that , i don't see the harm in doing that .

The institution with the power to create an independent Scottish state is the UK Parliament and the SNP aren't winning a majority of the the MPs in Westminster so it doesn't really matter. They aren't just going to unilaterally declare independence, that'd be stupid. Of course they're going to try and get another referendum at some point in the future.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

If the SNP is going to have it in their mandate that they will go for independence if they have a clear majority and the people vote for them even after knowing that , i don't see the harm in doing that .

I think its a very risky move. With the FPTP system of electing MP's you often need segnicicatly less than half the people to support you. and if this happens too soon after the referendum then it could look and feel as a sneeky way to force a Minority (ok not much of a minority at 45% ) viewpoint on the Majority of the popluation. that too me is a recipe for violance.

I think the better way is to support further devolution, continually push for it. and go for independance via future referendums. and if the UK govenement does a U turn on devolution or doesn't offer enough then thats just more support for independance in the future referendums.

Also the more devovled you get the less of a change full independance is.

[SeanF]

I don't see any prospect of the SNP declaring UDI. They're democrats, and it would be pointless, given that 55% voted against independence on a 84% turnout. If the SNP were to win a majority of the Scottish seats, in 2015, it would likely be on a far smaller vote share than 50%.

However, I do think the SNP have the potential to do very well next year. If they can persuade most of the 45% to support them, they could do very well.

[mormont]

The institution with the power to create an independent Scottish state is the UK Parliament and the SNP aren't winning a majority of the the MPs in Westminster so it doesn't really matter. They aren't just going to unilaterally declare independence, that'd be stupid. Of course they're going to try and get another referendum at some point in the future.

Stupid or not, UDI used to be the preferred option of a pretty influential part of the SNP, way back in the day. Their whole plan was: win majority of Scottish MPs, declare independence. Jim Sillars was one who supported this policy (and viewed the Scottish parliament as a Westminster plot to divert independence-supporting sentiment).

I doubt that Salmond is a late convert to this cause, though (he had bitter fights against the fundamentalists, back in the day, and an intra-party fight leaves scars). What he actually said was:

‘There are a whole range of ways Scotland can improve its position in pursuit of Scottish independence.’

He added: ‘I think referendums are great, they have been my policy and even I have been surprised by an 85 per cent poll and the degree of public engagement, but of course for many years there was a “gradualist” attitude to independence.

‘That is to say you establish a parliament, you establish successfully more powers until you have a situation where you’re independent in all but name and then presumably you declare yourself to be independent. Many countries have proceeded through that route.

‘There is a parliamentary route where people can make their voice heard as well - so a referendum is only one of a number of routes.

‘I think it’s the best route incidentally, that’s always been my opinion but my opinion is only one of many.’

So really, what he's describing is almost the opposite of the 'fundamentalist' position. He's saying: we could keep getting powers for the Scottish parliament until it is in effect independent, and then make the de facto into de jure. I'm not sure I see how that works, in practice (I mean, you'd surely have to have power over things like immigration and defence? How will that ever happen?) but maybe it's possible?

As to another referendum - yeah, everyone knows that'll happen. But to get one, the SNP first need a new mandate. That means they need to win an election, and not just win it, but do so with a pledge for a referendum in their manifesto. Now, at present, they can't justify such a pledge: in fact, it would likely be a vote-loser. So the first obstacle is finding a way to get that pledge into the manifesto. To do that, they need an excuse - this referendum was invalid for some reason, or (as is the main focus now) the pledges given to win this referendum for the No side have not been honoured. So, that's the current strategy.

As for whether it's irreversible, there's really no reason why an independent Scotland couldn't rejoin the UK. Both sides would have to be willing, but it could in theory happen.

[Chaircat Meow]

So really, what he's describing is almost the opposite of the 'fundamentalist' position. He's saying: we could keep getting powers for the Scottish parliament until it is in effect independent, and then make the de facto into de jure. I'm not sure I see how that works, in practice (I mean, you'd surely have to have power over things like immigration and defence? How will that ever happen?) but maybe it's possible?

I don't really see how. If you get to a situation close to full federalism that doesn't mean you just segue to full independence. How does that work: UDI? There is still all the difference in the world between a devolved/federal state and an independent country. Many of the crucial issues people were worried about, like the currency, EU membership, redistribution of income within the UK, are not going to go away with a more powerful Scottish Parliament.

As to another referendum - yeah, everyone knows that'll happen. But to get one, the SNP first need a new mandate. That means they need to win an election, and not just win it, but do so with a pledge for a referendum in their manifesto. Now, at present, they can't justify such a pledge: in fact, it would likely be a vote-loser. So the first obstacle is finding a way to get that pledge into the manifesto. To do that, they need an excuse - this referendum was invalid for some reason, or (as is the main focus now) the pledges given to win this referendum for the No side have not been honoured. So, that's the current strategy.

I certainly wouldn't put any money on it not happening but I don't think it is guaranteed by any means within the next 20-30 years. A lot depends on chance.

As for whether it's irreversible, there's really no reason why an independent Scotland couldn't rejoin the UK. Both sides would have to be willing, but it could in theory happen.

It's got to be a practical proposition: you can't pull the country apart, indulge in years of negotiations and then shred the whole thing 10-15 years down the line and recreate the old country. And what if the terms of the new union would be no secession, as they almost certainly would be? People really ought to accept the result and move on (not that they will).

[paddington]

I certainly wouldn't put any money on it not happening but I don't think it is guaranteed by any means within the next 20-30 years. A lot depends on chance.

I doubt it's going to take 20-30 years for another vote on this.

[Chaircat Meow]

I doubt it's going to take 20-30 years for another vote on this.

Hope not fear.

[williamjm]

I don't see any prospect of the SNP declaring UDI. They're democrats, and it would be pointless, given that 55% voted against independence on a 84% turnout. If the SNP were to win a majority of the Scottish seats, in 2015, it would likely be on a far smaller vote share than 50%.

However, I do think the SNP have the potential to do very well next year. If they can persuade most of the 45% to support them, they could do very well.

The SNP did win a majority of seats in the last Scottish Parliament election and obviously that didn't translate into a majority for independence so it would be an odd argument to make that they didn't need another referendum. As Mormont says the current SNP leadership don't really seem to be saying that, although Salmond could have expressed himself more clearly.

The first post-Referendum poll suggests the SNP would win the next Scottish election (although it's debatable how meaningful a poll is when we don't even know who will be leading the party) and not be too far behind Labour at the General Election in Scotland. They've also apparently gained enough members recently that they might be the third-largest political party in Britain which isn't too bad for one that can only ever appeal to 10% of the population - even if Nick Clegg can probably take much of the credit for the previous third-largest party falling behind them.

[~DarkHorse~]

Westminster will never have Scotland's best interest at heart. Already, self interest has taken over and Labour are using the 'Vow' to promote themselves for next years general election- Vote us and we will bring change to all of the UK....Scotland, you need to vote us if you want more power, we can't give you it until we are in power.

England are moving more towards right wing politics and anti-EU thinking while Scotland is growing more socialist, dependable on the SNP and in favour of the EU. The political differences are wider than they have ever been. Next years general election will probably see a Torie/UKIP coalition with Labour losing allot of support in Scotland. Then again we have the whole "we did not vote this government in power" scenario from Scotland who will probably have voted SNP (at least the 45% who voted Yes). The promises to Scotland will probably not be met or will pale in comparison to devo-max, the UK could be pulled out of the EU (does not benefit Scotland at all) and more cuts are made.

I predict the referendum will come around again, I give it 6 years.

Just this once, I agree with Margaret Thatcher- Scottish devolution will be the end of Britain.

We also have this view from one of Britain's best historians about no matter how the vote went, the Union is ending-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/tom-devine-scotland-referendum_n_5838366.html

[Gneisenau]

So the extra powers were just a campaign promise ?

[Tywin Manderly]

So the extra powers were just a campaign promise ?

Indeed.

[polishgenius]

Scotland, you need to vote us if you want more power, we can't give you it until we are in power.

It's not that I've been impressed with the way both Labour and the Tories literally started blatant electioneering the second the referendum results were in, but it's not as if this is untrue.

[paddington]

Westminster will never have Scotland's best interest at heart. Already, self interest has taken over and Labour are using the 'Vow' to promote themselves for next years general election- Vote us and we will bring change to all of the UK....Scotland, you need to vote us if you want more power, we can't give you it until we are in power.

England are moving more towards right wing politics and anti-EU thinking while Scotland is growing more socialist, dependable on the SNP and in favour of the EU. The political differences are wider than they have ever been. Next years general election will probably see a Torie/UKIP coalition with Labour losing allot of support in Scotland. Then again we have the whole "we did not vote this government in power" scenario from Scotland who will probably have voted SNP (at least the 45% who voted Yes). The promises to Scotland will probably not be met or will pale in comparison to devo-max, the UK could be pulled out of the EU (does not benefit Scotland at all) and more cuts are made.

I predict the referendum will come around again, I give it 6 years.

Just this once, I agree with Margaret Thatcher- Scottish devolution will be the end of Britain.

We also have this view from one of Britain's best historians about no matter how the vote went, the Union is ending-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/tom-devine-scotland-referendum_n_5838366.html

There wont be a Tory/UKIP coalition, UKIP may get a decent share of the Tory vote, but it isn't going to win more than a couple of seats. That they would gain enough non-Tory seats to be part of goverment is unlikely.

[SeanF]

There wont be a Tory/UKIP coalition, UKIP may get a decent share of the Tory vote, but it isn't going to win more than a couple of seats. That they would gain enough non-Tory seats to be part of goverment is unlikely.

A Conservative/UKIP coalition would only be likely if we moved to a system of proportional representation. If an English Parliament is established, then it will almost certainly be elected in the same way as the Scottish Parliament and Senedd, and, on current polling, would have a Conservative/UKIP majority.

UKIP could pick up a seat or two from Labour, next year, but they'll won't win more than a handful, overall.

[Chaircat Meow]

The UKIP/Tory coalition thing is one of the silliest of the SNP's pieces of scaremongering. Everyone knows that although UKIP might do well in % terms under FPTP they are not going to be winning many, if any seats. I suspect they'll keep Clacton with Carswell, although I would dearly love for us to take it back. Rotherham might go, and Farage might win in South Thanet. The latter would be a shame though because he certainly manages to liven up proceedings in the EP.

[Recovering forum addict]

As a non-Brit I would certainly prefer him in Westminster over Brussels/Strasbourg.

[Chaircat Meow]

As a non-Brit I would certainly prefer him in Westminster over Brussels/Strasbourg.

He'll just be replaced with another ranting loon as leader of the EFDD anyway though (as they now call themselves).