Implications of Scottish Independence

[Francesca R]

You've taken the remark fully out of context. And I don't think what you say in your "why" question.

ETA--You only need to read this page to see the context. It is a big misrepresentation to suggest I think an independent Scotland (which has not acted on a threat to not pay it's share of UK debt) would not attract capital. I have even acknowledged in the thread before that ScotGilt yields could trade through the UK in some circumstances.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Where's that from, Soapy?

Seid umschlungen, Millionen
Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt
Brüder, überm Sternenzelt
Muß ein lieber Vater wohnen

Is what I know. I've sung it a dozen times. Your version not at present ringing any bells.

Rolfe.

You are quoting the last 4 lines of the first verse of Schiller's "An die Freude" - the choral bit everyone knows.
My quote is from (I think) the fifth verse and translates loosely as
"Stick with it, you millions, for a better world. You will get your reward in heaven." which seemed more appropriate for your labours.

I don't know how much of Schiller's poem is actually sung in the ninth symphony. When I learned what little German I know,on a holiday in Rothenburg, the teacher (on whom I had a major crush) asked "Wissen sie was ist 'Freude' ? " and was astonished when the boy wonder quoted a chunk of Schiller . (Not that I actually knew what it meant.)
She being no classical music / poetry buff (though being from Munich she should have been) had no idea what I was on about. Which made two of us.
Gods, she was sexy though. "Freude, schone Gotterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium", fitted her so well and she knew damn well I was talking about her. Glory days.

 

[Rolfe]

I scanned a page of the Ode to Joy online and didn't spot your quote. It was perhaps not the complete poem.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Here you go.
http://www.raptusassociation.org/ode1785.html

Lines 57 - 60
Wee bit different from my memory. (And a rather more detailed translation). I have it in book form- "Die Lyrischen Meisterstucke von Schiller. (Gowans & Gray , Glasgow & London)

 

[Craig B]

I have been informed that a Populus poll is now showing 46% Yes, excluding don't knows.

 

[Rolfe]

I have been informed that it's a Scottish subsample of a UK-wide poll so don't put too much emphasis on it. On the other hand the full poll sample was apparently 6,000, which means the Scottish subsample could be large enough to be statistically meaningful - if it's been properly weighted, which we don't know.

Scot Goes Pop is the go-to site for opinion poll analysis. He made well over-target in his fundraiser too.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I have been informed that a Populus poll is now showing 46% Yes, excluding don't knows.

We appear to be drifting towards what is (IMO) the worst possible outcome- a 50 / 50 split, or a small majority (either way) of only a few percent.

I feel that taking Scotland out of the union on the basis of a majority which represented only a tiny fraction of the Scottish population (and a far smaller one of the British population) would be deeply unwise and would cause great resentment among the "no" voters. This could split not only Britain, but Scotland itself.

By definition it would mean almost half the population of Scotland would be unhappy and could result in the SNP taking a hammering at the first national election thereafter, leaving the Crankies in charge.

The opposite scenario- a failure to achieve independence by a few percent- would be less costly in the sense that all existing administrative systems would essentially carry on as normal, but it would still leave half the country seething with disappointment- and, worse, would have failed to put the whole issue to bed either way, with yet another referendum likely a few years down the line.

If the vote was a significantly asymmetrical one - 70:30 or even 60:40, either way, at least some credible claim of a mandate could be made and we could move on to whatever comes next, but 51% of the vote is no ringing endorsement of any policy, let alone one as radical as independence.

My vote will be "No", but I think I would actually be happier about a "Yes" endorsed by three Scots out of four than a "No" that 49% did not want.

 

[Rolfe]

I think you underestimate the transformative power of a Yes vote.

I believe if there is a Yes vote, even a fairly narrow one, there will be an awakening in the country to all the new possibilities ahead. This will be a great time for our medium-sized nation as we take control of our own destiny and chart a path for the future. I believe in a few years time you will have trouble finding anyone who will admit to having voted No. (I also think that any move to say "you can't be independent because the majority wasn't big enough so even though it was a Yes we're going to call it a No" is a recipe for civil war.)

I believe that if there is a No vote, things may get very ugly. It will become clear that we have been lied to on an industrial scale to secure that vote - it won't be possible to conceal it for long. The "many people" the Daily Record predicts as voting No "with a heavy heart" will feel particularly betrayed. As Scotland is hammered by more rounds of Westminster cuts, as Holyrood's powers are cut back, as we become the butt of ridicule from south of the border and abroad as being the only country to vote ourselves out of existence, this is not going to be a good place to be.

You will reject all that of course, I expect nothing more, but time will tell.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Just a thought, Soapy. Were you ever undecided? You claimed to be, once or twice, but all your posts came over as hard-line No.

Another thought. I think there is going to be a significant swing to Yes in the final weeks of the campaign. If I'm right, you can rest easier about the mandate.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Here's an interesting article, given the discussion above. You can read it for the price of answering one silly question.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b0f58308-ed5f-11e3-abf3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz33x9nZGVb

I think I now understand why Stu Campbell hasn't yet come home. It also suggests that whether or not he suddenly moves back to West Lothian at the beginning of September will be an interesting straw in the wind.

I also like the way he says he's not eccentric. News flash, Stu. Most people are going to agree that a middle-aged man living with six pet rats is eccentric. Even if in a good way.

Rolfe.

 

[Rat]

I believe if there is a Yes vote, even a fairly narrow one, there will be an awakening in the country to all the new possibilities ahead. This will be a great time for our medium-sized nation as we take control of our own destiny and chart a path for the future. I believe in a few years time you will have trouble finding anyone who will admit to having voted No.

While I think this is quite a worrying sentiment, it comes across as either extraordinarily arrogant or oddly patronising. All of those Scottish people who don't want Scotland to be independent are simply wrong in their beliefs, and they will come to see the error of their ways when you get your way?

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, I realise you would see it that way. Where there is no vision, the people perish, it has been said. Rather a long time ago, but it's still true.

It's not that people are "wrong in their beliefs", but that they are being lied to and frightened off voting for the best opportunity this country has ever had since the ice retreated. This is occurring on an industrial scale. As people engage with the issues they turn to Yes in very significant numbers. However, they have to engage first, and the mainstream media is busting a gut to make sure they don't.

The propaganda war going on at the moment is going to produce more than a few doctoral theses in the future. Right now, though, it's a difficult barrier to overcome.

Rolfe.

 

[Rat]

And why does only Yes have vision?

 

[Rolfe]

Just compare the campaigns. This for example.

http://marksimonfrankland.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/how-it-was-being-part-of-indy-debate.html

Yes has vision, No wants to stifle vision and keep the Westminster/House of Lords gravy train running for the people who are pushing it.

Yes IS vision. It's practically the definition of vision. The soul-destroying absence of vision in the No campaign has been lamented even by people on its own side.

Rolfe.

 

[Francesca R]

I believe if there is a Yes vote, even a fairly narrow one, there will be an awakening in the country to all the new possibilities ahead. [ . . . ]

I believe that if there is a No vote, things may get very ugly. [ . . . ]

You will reject all that of course, I expect nothing more, but time will tell.

Well you have to admit it is rather open to challenge! Rather conveniently asymmetric, as if to say that the "true" winning post for independence really ought to be well under a majority or something.

If, alternatively, one viewed the union as the null hypothesis, then one could argue that the requirement to overturn it needs to be properly statistically significant, such that you need to be--say--90% confident that "nobody wants to be in the UK". So--a 90% yes vote is necessary to carry it.

Happy with that? Didn't think so.

 

[Rolfe]

I said that was what I believed. You can challenge it all you want. Although please challenge what I actually said, not your lurid fantasies of what I didn't say. Fortunately the actual rules for the referendum only require a simple majority. After what happened in 1979 there would have been widespread discontent if it had been otherwise.

So, given that the Edinburgh Agreement only requires a simple majority, could you outline the mechanism whereby you foresee a Yes majority being over-ruled and held to be a No victory after all?

Rolfe.

 

[Francesca R]

Hmmm . . . Please challenge what I said instead of your lurid fantasies of what I didn't say.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, you can pontificate that a higher-than-50% threshold should have been set, but it hasn't, so what's the point?

Soapy seems to be cherishing the hope that a narrow Yes majority will be set aside as "not good enough", and that this will turn an incipient civil war instigated by the losers into a happy continuation of the union. I'd like to know how that might actually come about.

Rolfe.

 

[Francesca R]

Of course I do not think a 50% winning post will even be challenged, still less overturned.

It was a response to your apparent belief that a narrow No is still sort-of a yes, but a narrow Yes is resoundingly a yes.

I mean you are welcome to it but I am sure you are not blind to the possibility, even likelihood, that that is nothing more than your preference talking.

 

[Rolfe]

What you describe as my "apparent belief" is nothing of the sort.

I was giving my prediction of what I think might happen after a narrow No majority achieved under the current climate of lies, threats and spin from the mainstream news outlets. Once it's a done deal it will be very difficult to conceal the degree of lying that has been going on, as events unfold. People who realise they have been deceived into a No vote might not be too happy about it.

Conversely, Soapy really seems to think that a narrow Yes vote should be set aside as "not good enough". I have no idea how that might be accomplished. I also think that his apparent belief that if that were done the country would sink into contented acceptance of Westminster cuts, Trident and fracking is delusional. He might predict discontent from the No supporters in the event of a narrow Yes win leading to independence, but he might also like to think about the reaction should a narrow Yes win be set aside.

Rolfe.