I believe this would be of major significance, for both groups - it certainly was here in Canada when the Province of Quebec held a referendum on separation that was narrowly defeated last time around. please log in to view this image
A good bit more now that the good residents have worked out that "the special relationship" turned out to be an allegiance with some seriously flawed, unscrupulous, nutters.
As an Englishman who has lived in Scotland for the last 15 years, I can assure you that the debate is certainly not based upon any anti-English sentimentality. For a long time I was definately strongly entrenched into the No campain, but as the debate has progressed, and I have read more information I have swung more and more towards a Yes vote. There are many factors for this, but there seems to be an overwhelming feeling that being run by a government that is not of our choosing, that is based in a city 400 miles away, doesn't have the best interests of the Scottish people at heart. The debate isn't about Salmond v Cameron, or England v Scotland, it's about having an opportunity to govern ourselves in a fair manner. There is an election planned for 2016 in the event of a Yes vote, and it would not surprise me if Salmond doesn't get re-elected - he's not particularly liked in many parts of the country and many of my friends who are Yes voters despise him as a leader of the nation. So, we want to govern this country locally, not from Westminster....but do we have the finances etc to cope? This is the area of debate that the undecided people want to know about, but until the decision has been made then there is only speculation on behalf of the Nationalists, and doom and gloom on behalf of the Unionists. The latest offer from the Unionists, Devo-More, gives Scotland a lot more power and is swaying a lot of voters, but it appears as a panic measure on their behalf releasing it with just over a week to go til the referendum. When the Referendum was announced, there were originally going to be three options, Yes, No and Devo-Max (where Scotland got to raise all it's own taxes and have almost complete autonomy from Westminster, but was still part if the Union). The Devo-Max option would almost certainly have won the vote, as it was in Scotlands best interest, but was removed by Westminster as at the time the No campaign was so far ahead in the ratings that they thought there was no chance of it being as close as it is now. So Devo-More, Gordon Browns love child, has been hastily thrown out to the masses to appease those voters that are undecided. I think this has backfired on Westminster as these powers should already have been given to us up here. Another big argument is Trident, an un-useable weapon from a bygone era - are they planning on nuking ISIS? Who then would they use this on? I can see Faslane base from my house on the other side of the Clyde and it's removal from the UK, not just Scotland, would make me a happy man and save billions. The money saved on this could then be re-directed into public services ( NHS, schools etc). Independant research has shown that there is currently about £1.5 trillion of oil left in the North Sea, that doesn't even include any exploration off the West Coast (which has been prohibited due to Polaris/Trident subs using that coast for last 30 years). Scotland also has about 35% of Britains coastline that is available for wave/tidal power and enough land for renewable energy. The plan is to set up a "Trust Fund" using oil revenue of about £1Bn per year to keep until the oil eventually run out - I believe this is similar to Norway? I've spent a few days in England recently and have found the press/media to be very biased towards the No campaign, with very little coverage of other side, so can understand how you all must be feeling towards this issue. The Panorama program that was on last night was interesting, hadn't realised that the de-nationalisation of the industries had had quite the effect they had. Thatcher is totally despised up here, to the extent that they had parties when she passed away. She certainly had a lot to do with excelerating the drive towards indelendance. Still a couple of days to go so plenty of more debating to be had! If you're interested in some facts, check the link below - research carried out by a Reverend who was unbiased and undecided. http://wingsoverscotland.com/weebluebook/
With all the bribes being promised by Call Me Dave and Millie the Munch (to try to keep their own jobs), it could cost a lot more to the rest of us if the Scots stay in
Thanks Steelmonkey, good to get a view from someone who actually has a vote to cast. Good job I don't have a vote, I am veering wildly. Started off yes as a romantic ideal, turned no-ish mainly through a visceral dislike of Mr Potato head, now think yes is probably best for all. This devo more/max thing will just cause a whole series of other issues for the rest of the UK. Clean(ish) break, no hard feelings, lets all get on with it.
It's been interesting following the news in France, as they are very pro independence, and I've seen a few news reports from the Auld Alliance pub, which I go to occasionally. Mostly though, Not sure if this has been posted, but I was disgusted by this piece of reporting on the BBC. Complete and obvious bias reporting. [video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iAui47uha7s[/video]
As Stan says, great to hear a different view point steelmonkey. My opinion is if they vote for it good luck to them, as I can see the attraction - but I don't think the SNP have really thought through a lot of the economic sides (at least from what information we get down here). The currency for example, they want a union with rUK which is fine as a wish - but the rest of the UK has to agree as well and I don't think a shared central bank with a foreign power will be a vote winner come the next election.
The problem that Scottish voters will have is that if it all goes pear-shaped there is no going back. I don't believe Salmond when he says that he knows what he is doing. He doesn't. He will try to sort everything out after a "yes" vote. He doesn't really care that much as long as he wins. His motivation is purely to be the leader of an independent Scotland. He wants to go down in history and the man who fought for and won independence. He is in a win-win situation. If anything goes wrong in the first 5 or 10 years (no matter how big or small) it will not be his fault. It will be the fault of Westminster. Once enough time has passed that the blame game can no longer be used he will have retired as a national hero. If there is a no vote he will still be shouting "You should have listened to me and voted for independence" any time there is a problem (no matter how big or small). He will then retire .... (not quite) a national hero.
I have a few relatives north of the border and they are all fully expecting the yes vote to come out on top. They firmly believe the undecided will largely vote yes.
Too true Swords, but the media have a lot to blame in that respect, especially the BBC (unbiased? I don't think so!), and they seem to be whipping it up the closer it gets. It's a very exciting time to be up here - I've never watched so much news (BBC at 6, then STV at 6:30, C4 at 7, newsnight at 10, Scotland Today at 11) plus all the debate programmes we've been having (have they been shown in England/rUK?).
Do you think that's why they despise Salmond or is it simply because they see him as the man leading the break up of the United Kingdom? There can't be any other tangible reason because he's no different to any other politician. Although I do fear there may be a kind of latent prejudice toward him because he's extremely articulate and can comfortably deal with any questions or indeed traps they lay out before him. I could be wrong though or perhaps even a bit paranoid.
This was raised above but is there a large subsidy to Scotland and if so, where do they think it'll be coming from after they separate? I really don't know - I thought I had read that there was indeed a large subsidy heading north but of late, at least our press over here has been fairly silent on that topic so now i'm wondering
I think it's a bit of both - actually think he's been under-estimated by Westminster, and now they are having to take him seriously so they are using all their spin to undermine him. Joe Public in England/rUK probably see him as a modern day William Wallace wannabe, but his rhetoric seems to stay clear of flagrant nationalism - he gave a very good interview to David Dimbleby on BBC earlier, and was very inclusive of having England as a great friend and neighbour.
I think that may actually be what winds them up so much about him. He's very measured and diplomatic and therefore can't be painted as some sort of tartan-wearing, savage Scottish bumpkin. But like I said, perhaps I'm just paranoid
The perception is that Scotland is given a large subsidy by Westminster. In fact (don't quote my figures, this is off top of my head) I think there is £1200 per head spent more on Scotland than in England - but Scotland pays back into the treasury through taxes about £1700 more per head - Scotland raised nearly £60 Bn in taxes last year, helped by oil revenue of course.
Just to show how close things were in the 1995 Quebec Referendum for separation from Canada, that resulted in an extremely narrow NO victory with a very high voter turnout. The spoiled ballots amounted to more than the margin of victory for the No side. 1995 Quebec Referendum Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995? Results Yes or no Votes Percentage Yes 2,308,360 49.42% No 2,362,648 50.58% Valid votes 4,671,008 98.18% Invalid or blank votes 86,501 1.82% Total votes 4,757,509 100.00% Voter turnout 93.52% Electorate 5,087,009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995
Thanks , Steelmonkey And I recall sitting on the edge of my seat while those numbers were comming in in 1995
Very interesting article on the SNP and anti-Englishness here: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/04/scottish-labour-party-snp A dislike of our London centric economy and constitution should not be equated to anti-Englishness, and indeed can be found in many parts of England. However, it is naive to say there are no rabidly anti-English Scots (and rabidly ant-Scottish Englishmen) but not enough to make a difference in this referendum. What strikes me as worse is the bitterness within Scotland between some of the Yes/No supporters (hopefully a tiny minority), which will have to be dealt with whoever wins. Have to say I googled anti-English quotes by Salmond and could find nothing but politically motivated accusations of anti-Englishness. Can't say I like him much though.
