Black Wizard Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 We'd come crawling back when the oil runs out in fifty years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackclaw Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The 54% figure seems rather high to me to be recent: I suspect that's from a few years ago?Nope. From yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The alleged business uncertainty seems a bit of a red herring to me. Businesses all over the UK are holding back from making investments because the economy is flatlining to attribute non-investment to fears that you might get no return on your capital because, of what precisely, that an SNP independent Scotland might pop into existence and nationalise you?, seems slightly mischievous.It's also not necessarily the case that an independent Scotland would necessarily be worse for businesses based in Scotland. There are certainly risks (potentially big risks), but also opportunities for them if, for example, an independent Scotland cut corporation tax rates (which I think Salmond has been proposing). George Osbourne's recent unexpected tax rise for North Sea oil might also have reminded companies working in Scotland's biggest industry that there are risks to their profit margins when Westminster is in charge as well. That said, I suspect overall most companies would probably prefer the status quo since like voters they tend to be more worried about the potential negatives than the potential positives.Cameron's under pressure from some of his backbenchers to call the SNP's bluff, and he (probably correctly) calculates that an early referendum would be bad for the SNP in that it would be harder to win and more devastating to lose.I'm not sure it would be all that devastating for the SNP's electoral prospects if they did lose, since there are a lot of people who vote for the SNP even though they don't support independence, and I suspect most of their voters who do support independence will continue to vote for them even if there's no prospect of it in the immediate future. It would really confuse the opposition parties' election strategies as well, they might actually have to come up with an anti-SNP argument that isn't warning of the dangers of independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Within the context of the EU we'd still be two English speaking countries open to each other's citizens to work, study or live.And potentially with the same head of state (are most pro-independence types after a repeal of the 1603 Union of the Crowns, or just 1707?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I'm sure the English would dearly love to cut Scotland loose.Care to elaborate?I don't know about now, but a few years back it was the case that Scotland received slightly disproportionate (based on population) amounts of money from Westminster compared to the rest of the UK. The logic is that Scotland takes more out of the UK budget than its fair share, and removing Scotland from the union would mean that money is more fairly distributed around the rest of England and Wales. Whether that's still the case now, I don't know.Aside from that, I don't think there's any feeling at all in England that Scotland needs to be 'cut loose' from the union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 And potentially with the same head of state (are most pro-independence types after a repeal of the 1603 Union of the Crowns, or just 1707?).The SNP's official position is that they would retain the Queen as head of state after independence. I suspect they're not too keen on the monarchy (and the feeling is mutual), but probably see the issue as a distraction from their real goal, so think it is simpler to remove it is as an issue.I don't know about now, but a few years back it was the case that Scotland received slightly disproportionate (based on population) amounts of money from Westminster compared to the rest of the UK. The logic is that Scotland takes more out of the UK budget than its fair share, and removing Scotland from the union would mean that money is more fairly distributed around the rest of England and Wales. Whether that's still the case now, I don't know.Coincidentally, the BBC had an analysis of this today. Depending on how you want to use the statistics you can argue it either way, although I think the Treasury's attempt to argue that no oil revenues count as Scottish revenue despite 90% of the oil being in Scottish waters is very disingenuous. Either way, the figures seem to suggest that any benefit to the English taxpayer from Scottish independence would be relatively small compared to the total size of the UK budget.Of course, there's nothing special about Scotland having a disproportionate amount of spending, richer parts of the UK tend to subsidise poorer parts so the South of England subsidies the North, England subsidises Wales and everybody subsidises Northern Ireland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Nope. From yesterday.That's not all that helpful without identifying the source, but if it's from a recent poll it's certainly an outlier. Such polls do exist: the Herald had a poll back in September putting support for independence at 39% and support for the Union at 38%, but I'd consider that an outlier too. Much depends on how the poll approaches 'don't knows'. I'm highly suspicious of any poll on this topic that doesn't have a high percentage of 'don't knows', because it suggests that respondents were pressured to give a definite answer, or that the poll question is leading. (Or, of course, that people are playing fast and loose with the actual numbers. It's a common tactic to ask a three-part question: 'of these three options, which do you prefer - independence, further devolution or no further change in the constitutional arrangements?' and then cite the combined figure of the last two as if it were equivalent to 'no' in an 'independence - yes or no?' question.)My experience chimes with the majority of the polls over the last year, which suggests that the 'no' camp has a very slight lead but that there are a hell of a lot of people who haven't made up their mind, or could change their mind.I'm not sure it would be all that devastating for the SNP's electoral prospects if they did lose, since there are a lot of people who vote for the SNP even though they don't support independence, and I suspect most of their voters who do support independence will continue to vote for them even if there's no prospect of it in the immediate future. It would really confuse the opposition parties' election strategies as well, they might actually have to come up with an anti-SNP argument that isn't warning of the dangers of independence.The problem for the SNP if they lose is twofold. First, there's the risk of internal schism. The old division between the 'gradualists' and the 'fundamentalists' was won by the former a long time ago, but to lose the referendum risks re-energising the handful of remaining fundies as well as the previously unthinkable prospect of public criticism of Salmond from within his own party. A large part of his apparent untouchability derives from his near-total control of his own party, which in turn derives from the fact that he's brought them success that they previously only dreamed of. Lose the referendum, and the cracks might appear - rebellions on other issues, rumblings about leadership challenges, the whole nine yards. That's obviously less likely if there's an election around the corner than if there three years to go.Second, there's the external criticism. Every First Minister's Question Time, every interview with the press, and every speech that the opposition leaders give from then on will say 'you lost the referendum, the Scottish people have firmly rejected the most fundamental plank of your party's platform, doesn't this show that they have rejected you? You are in office but not in power! What, now, is the point of this SNP government?' and so on. Salmond can cope with that for a while, but not for more than half his term.I agree that strategically, the loss wouldn't necessarily be a disaster - I think that Salmond could live with repositioning the SNP as the 'Scottish party', like the Catalans or some of the Canadian provincial parties. But tactically, it would be a disaster to lose early in the term. That's why he took pains to say during the election that it would be held later rather than sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wizard Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 the Herald had a poll back in September putting support for independence at 39% and support for the Union at 38%Seems legit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usotsuki Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The Ipsos-Mori poll for British Future can be found here (PDF):As you may know, there is going to be a referendum in Scotland in the next few years, which could lead to a change in the way Scotland is governed. One possibility from the referendum is that Scotland may become a fully independent country. Which of the following comes closest to your view?I would prefer Scotland to leave the UK and be a fully independent country (29%)I would prefer Scotland to stay as part of the UK (54%)Don't know (17%)Though I would like to see the results from a poll which hadn't spent quite so much time on the Olympics and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee before it got round to the question of independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 You've transposed the figures there, Uso. ;) But yeah, that poll seems to me to be an outlier. Consider that it's taken only about two months after the Herald poll but reports a whopping 15 percentage point difference in the anti-independence vote (and a ten percentage point difference in the pro-independence vote). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usotsuki Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 :lol:Oopsie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talleyrand Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 This is the same reason as why I thought it was weird that the Irish signed the Lisbon Treaty.I read a couple of years ago that Salmond wants Scotland to use the Euro "when" Scotland gains independence. Well that looks pretty stupid now, and if he did that then I'd move to England.I'd probably stay put and grumble, I've put too much bloody effort into this house to abandon it because Salmond's being childish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 ?There are many criticisms one can make of Alex Salmond, but to suggest that the leader of the SNP is being 'childish' because he's trying to fulfill his party's main purpose for existing seems a bit of an odd one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wizard Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 ?There are many criticisms one can make of Alex Salmond, but to suggest that the leader of the SNP is being 'childish' because he's trying to fulfill his party's main purpose for existing seems a bit of an odd one.Do you remember the attack on Glasgow airport? Salmond apparently went nuts when Scotland Yard took over the investigation and the terrorists were set to be tried in London. I read that he threw a "hissy fit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Do you remember the attack on Glasgow airport? Salmond apparently went nuts when Scotland Yard took over the investigation and the terrorists were set to be tried in London. I read that he threw a "hissy fit".I think this is what is known as a 'non sequitur'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I think is the best summary yet of the issues surrounding the Scottish independence referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 Why is David Cameron Chinese? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Why is David Cameron Chinese?He disappears into the TARDIS, so presumably Chinese David Cameron is in fact a future regeneration of the Doctor.I wonder if that makes Salmond Davros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MultiClassGeek Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 He disappears into the TARDIS, so presumably Chinese David Cameron is in fact a future regeneration of the Doctor.I wonder if that makes Salmond Davros.More to the point, it makes Nick Clegg a companion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MultiClassGeek Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Without knowing much about it, I think Cameron's going for his own version of the Canadian Clarity Act, which laid the ground rules for Quebec if it got serious about separating. Quebec liked to talk about "sovereignty-association", which meant Quebec could hold a fuzzily-worded referendum then become its own nation while still, eg, using Canadian currency and passports. After the country spent about a decade in painful constitutional discussions, the federal government decided to put the terms of separation on paper. Not sure how it'll go over with the Scots: they might have better luck with the EU than Quebec would have had making common cause with the US, but nobody could get excited about the EU's current condition. :/This story may be apocryphaI, but ISTR hearing that the last time Quebec had a referendum-ish thing, the populace voted to stay part of Canada.At the same time, the rest of Canada had their own referendum, and voted to get shot of Quebec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.