CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

White Paper (THE #indyref thread)

(2915 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Morningsider
  • Latest reply from chdot
  • This topic is closed

1…505152…98

  1. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    It's of no general significance, but I was keeping an eye out for Yes and No signs as I walked the route of the Seven Hills race on Saturday with Madame IWRATS. The route includes urban, leafy and gritty parts of town.

    Didn't see a single No sticker. Saw Yes car stickers, posters and two actual banners. I was taken aback to see a car with both 'Help For Heroes' and Yes stickers.

    I know that Yes is the radical, No the conservative choice. Many No voters will resent the simple fact of the referendum and not advertise their adherence to No other than by their vote. All the same it was heartening to see Yes supporters unafraid to publicly back what is quite a radical cause.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/lesley-riddoch-we-ve-won-whatever-the-indy-result-1-3460608

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    From that Scotsman article;

    "Even if there is a No result, things will never be the same again as more powers are handed from Westminster to Edinburgh.”

    That's the Big Lie right there.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. crowriver
    Member

    Yeah, that smacks of a huge level of complacency. We're in real danger of a "Kinnock 1992" moment if we don't watch out (the Yessers I mean). Some folk are getting so caught up in the positivity, the ideas, the enthusiasm from the already committed that they believe not only are we destinerd to win but that Scotland is changed forever regardless.

    While there may be some truth in there, I suggest there is a LOT more work to be done reaching out to the "don't knows" before Yessers can be quite so confident. Also I'm sceptical about the "don't knows": anecdotally some have actually been persuaded to back Yes after a long think and much discussion. However I fear many "don't knows" are in fact "Noers" who prefer not to declare their intentions as they don't want to get into a discussion/argument with family/co-workers/canvassers. Just like the closet Tory voters in 1992. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a bad feeling about many of the "don't knows".

    As for Westminster giving more powers after a No vote, I don't believe it at all. They may transfer more responsibilities, calling it "accountability" but they'll also attach so many strings the "powers" will be next to worthless. Oh and Barnett will be for the chop too: big. big budget cuts on the way in the event of a No vote.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @crowriver

    It is fun, isn't it? Last night me and Madame IWRATS got into a heated discussion about whether or not the people can be sovereign in a monarchy (we'd exhausted the chicanes on cycle paths topic).

    All that goes into the realm of theory if there's a No vote. No sovereignty for the people then.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. Morningsider
    Member

    IWRATS, crowriver - do your powers of prediction extend to the results of the 6.00 at Windsor, or are they limited to the actions of the UK Government...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    "Oh and Barnett will be for the chop too"

    This is one puzzle of the whole 'debate'.

    You'd think the yes side (or at least the SNP) would be going 'OK then, give us a guarantee about the BF for the next (random number) years.

    Obviously there is no guarantee about anything, but after a No vote - with or without extradevo - the chances of smaller share/less cash from 'Westminster' seem high - if only for 'austerity' reasons.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Morningsider

    If you can think of a plausible mechanism whereby a No vote leads to more power for Holyrood then I'm all eyes.

    I can think of many likely ways in which Holyrood might come to acquire more responsibilities under that scenario, but I can't see any historical precedent for the British state ceding power after a failed revolt.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. crowriver
    Member

    @Morningsider, one need not be a racing tipster (á la Alex Salmond) to see what's planned. One can peruse the "devo nano" proposals from Scottish Labour, or the marginally more daring Scottish income tax "pledge" made by the Scottish Tories for a flavour of what's in store. Then imagine watered down, compromised, amended, filibustered and Ermine gown adulterated versions of these coming into effect around 2020, depending whether the red team or the blue team win the 2015 match (assuming the chances of the yellow or purple teams being crowned champions, or even kingmakers, are exceedingly slim).

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. Morningsider
    Member

    I have no way of knowing what will happen if there is a "no" vote. All three main parties have promised further devolution - you might not like the plans but it seems a stretch to say that they are simply lies.

    I haven't heard any plans for getting rid of Barnett - possibly because designing a replacement is a task no-one really wants to undertake for the amount of political grief it would cause.

    IWRATS - I'm sure it was just a rhetorical flourish, but the referendum isn't a revolt. It was agreed by the FM and PM signing leather-bound documents in a room in St Andrew's House. It's hard to imagine anything less like a revolt than that.

    I do agree that more austerity is heading our way - I think that this will happen regardless of a yes or no vote.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    "but it seems a stretch to say that they are simply lies"

    Yes, but.

    Apart the the unknowables surrounding next year's election in terms of seats split and final coalition (or not), it's far from clear which current leaders (if any) will still be in charge of their parties.

    In charge, but perhaps not in control. I'm sure there will be MPs more interested in a Euro referendum than honouring whatever actually gets into the relevant manifesto(s).

    After all, devomore is less important than student fees...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Mornigsider

    I do like a flourish. An unflourished life would be a tragedy don't you think?

    I suspect our affair has moved on from the cozy days of the Edinburgh agreement, when I would have quite agreed with you. I think Mr Cameron thought he was indulging a tribal chief with an electoral bauble. I'm not totally convinced Mr Salmond quite realised what he'd started, but alea iacta est and all that...

    We are now a threat to the existence of the British state in a way that may be equivalent to the crisis of May 1958 that ended the French fourth republic. Britain wouldn't cease to exist after a Yes vote, but I suspect it would be utterly changed. Perhaps Prince Charles will put on one of his uniforms and take the rôle of de Gaulle? Oh, hang on, I flourished again...back to brass tacks.

    The Barnet formula is finished. No flourish, the intention to replace it has been openly stated;

    See the summary of the Justice Committee's report here;

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmjust/529/529i.pdf

    our Prime Minister's view here;

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/cameron-barnett-formula-s-days-are-numbered-1.881098

    and maybe we should note that the Secretary of State for Scotland's view, expressed on STV in 2010, was "we do want to see Barnett scrapped." He outranks the First Minister.

    There's nothing sacred about Barnet in my mind - the interesting point is that its forthcoming abolition is not widely reported and that no-one has asked us what we might like to replace it.

    One can only imagine what the United Kingdom Independence Party make of the formula, sometimes the insanely named Taxpayers' Alliance gives a hint;

    http://tpa.typepad.com/home/files/unequal_shares_the_barnett_formula.pdf

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. crowriver
    Member

    the interesting point is that its forthcoming abolition is not widely reported and that no-one has asked us what we might like to replace it.

    Don't frighten the horses, they might vote to leave the stable!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    "Don't frighten the horses, they might vote to leave the stable!"

    True but doesn't account for my point above -

    "You'd think the yes side (or at least the SNP) would be going 'OK then, give us a guarantee about the BF for the next (random number) years."

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. crowriver
    Member

    "You'd think the yes side (or at least the SNP) would be going 'OK then, give us a guarantee about the BF for the next (random number) years."

    IIRC the SNP did try to get a multi-option referendum with "Devo Max" as the third option. The coalition said no. There was quite a debate about it in the media at the time, maybe you missed it?

    So now that it's either Yes or No, of course the SNP are campaigning for Yes. The unionist parties are all of a suden saying "oh, hold on, what about a third option"? So why did they emphatically reject that the first time around? Not to be trusted!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @chdot

    As @crowriver points out the 'Devo Max' option, which we all guess would have won hands down, was taken off the ballot by our Prime Minister.

    [flourish]The options are now whatever we can get for ourselves or whatever Westminster gives us.[/flourish]

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    @I, @C

    Clearly I am missing something.

    I am aware of the (didn't happen) 3rd option.

    Still doesn't explain (to me) why 'yes side' isn't raising questions about BF.

    Surely pointing out that 'better together' is far from certain would be useful for its case(?)

    'Not being negative' (or not contemplating defeat) is all very well, but it hardly seems (to me) wise.

    'Yes' is pointing out that 'more powers guaranteed' cannot be guaranteed.

    Is the 'No' side guaranteeing that the BF will remain unchanged and deliver the same amount of money (apart from the bits that SP is 'allowed' to raise)??

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Voters are turning their backs on the bid for Scottish independence, according to a dramatic new poll that threatens to leave Alex Salmond’s hopes in tatters.

    Support for a “yes” vote in September’s referendum is falling away and now stands at just 39 per cent — down three points since March — in the poll by YouGov for The Times. One expert said that it left Scotland’s first minister in need of a “gamechanger”.

    "

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article4134904.ece

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Apparently there is a new YouGov poll out in The Times tomorrow. The paper's Nat-bashing night editor has predictably gone straight into "ANOTHER blow for Salmond!!!" mode, but in fact the changes are margin of error stuff from a pollster that has now not merely consolidated its status as one of the most No-friendly pollsters, but has in fact overtaken even Ipsos-Mori to become the outright most No-friendly pollster.

    "

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/yougovs-controversial-methodology-has.html

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. wee folding bike
    Member

    Opinion polls gave us this in the past,

    When Iain became leader, Labour were 16 points behind the SNP in the polls. A month ago, a TNS poll published by The Herald put Labour 16 points ahead in the constituency vote. Turned into seats, that result would not only see the SNP resoundingly kicked out of office, but it could see Labour a whisker away from being the first party to command a majority in the parliament’s history. - See more at: http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2010/07/05/scotlands-next-first-minister/#sthash.JXNSv89n.dpuf

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @chdot

    There is no mechanism for any government to guarantee anything beyond the life of the current parliament. Insofar as we have a constitution, one of its key elements is that one parliament may not bind its successors. For this reason, the Barnet formula can only be guaranteed until May 2015. On top of this, no one in the No campaign has the slightest authority to offer guarantees. Mr Brown and Mr Darling are back bench opposition MPs. They can declare the abolition of taxation or gravity at will - no one need take any notice of them after the 18th of September.

    A No vote might be interpreted as Scotland flexing its muscles and guaranteeing continued favourable treatment and it might be interpreted as Scotland requesting to be fully integrated into the United Kingdom as a region like any other.

    Without really seeking them out I wound up talking to two people in Cyprus in May, one of whom had been directly involved in their liberation struggle (and who kept Burns' complete works on a bookshelf in his office), the other's family had been involved. They were both desperate that I should understand and take home the message that the British state is above all else utterly untrustworthy. They both believed that Cyprus was promised independence in return for fighting in WWII, a promise given by Churchill and reneged on by Atlee. Tories and Labour lining up to defend the empire. Plus ça change...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. Morningsider
    Member

    IWRATS - yes, we all need the odd flourish!

    The Barnett formula has been on its last legs for as long as I can remember, yet no-one has ever got round to the tricky business of actually reforming it. I suppose the devolution of stamp duty, landfill tax and a Scottish element of income tax plus the creation of Revenue Scotland might be significant enough event to spur the UK Government into action - but I doubt it. The Barnett formula may generate headlines in Scotland, but is a minor issue in the UK Parliament/Government.

    The UK state, as with most states, is ruthlessly pragmatic in furthering its own interests. The odd thing with the independence referendum is that Scotland, and many Scots, are part of that state. We send representatives to the UK Parliament and are represented in the UK Government. This situation is simply unprecedented in UK history.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Radio Scotland DJ pens series of satirical songs on independence - including a ditty about smuggling Buckfast

    "

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/radio-scotland-dj-pens-series-3776327

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    This situation is simply unprecedented in UK history.

    I wonder what you might think of my proposing that the situation isn't entirely unprecedented? Between 1801 and 1922 this country used to be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Irish MPs and peers sat in Westminster, but a large part of the populace found their government intolerable to the point that they were willing to take arms against the biggest army in the world.

    The Irish Republic still forms a common travel area with the UK and you and I could both vote in elections to the Dáil Éireann were we resident there.

    Our process has happily been civil and civic, but if we do decide on a greater degree of autonomy then the precedent for that is there.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. Morningsider
    Member

    If I remember this correctly, around 1920 Sinn Fein won a landslide victory (in Ireland) as part of a UK election and formed a breakaway Parliament in Dublin. This precipitated the Irish War of Independence, which ended with the signing of an Anglo-Irish Treaty and the establishment of the all-Ireland Irish Free State. Northern Ireland chose to opt out of this and remain part of the UK. There was a short civil war in the south (between pro-treaty republicans and more radical elements) which was won by the pro-treaty side. The remainder of the Irish Free State drew up a new constitution and became today's Republic of Ireland.

    I'm not really seeing too many parallels here, apart from the fact that Ireland was part of the UK.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Indeed, the process was quite different, but I think the result may still set some kind of precedent.

    A part of the 'old UK' that was not a colony or dependency broke away and formed a state with a land border to the new 'new UK'.

    I hope the precedent goes further - the cultures of the two new countries are quite different, but relations are now reasonably amicable and fire engines from both countries attend fires in the other country.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Yet another example of the recent trend towards politicians with little discernable power promising us 'things' in return for a No vote;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28111729

    This time it's a 'conference for a new union'. Gordon Brown has already promised to replace the House of 'Lords' with a senate. I wonder if 'Lord' McConnell knows he's to be replaced? I can't believe Mr Darling is co-ordinating these outbursts of generosity, they're quite incoherent.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    All quite amusing really.

    I'm sure there are people in the Yes camp dutifully noting down all these promises.

    In the event of a No vote, there will be rather a lot of people 'expecting' the best of these offers to be implemented - that's people who voted Yes and No!

    It would certainly make the run-up to the next Westminster election interesting.

    As I have said on here before, big incentive for the SNP to try to get the maximum number of MPs. (SNP people I know suggest that the party faithful would be so devastated that they wouldn't be able to organise an election campaign!)

    So might have to be up to all the people who have been energised by the referendum process to do something!

    The future is still unwritten.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Scottish independence growing less likely - research

    "

    http:/:uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0F648R20140701

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Financial Times (@FT)
    01/07/2014 18:57
    The failure of the No campaign is a failure to state powerfully what it means to be British. #indyref

    http://on.ft.com/1mG1oiJ

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…505152…98

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin