Implications of Scottish Independence

[MikeG]

All the lies are on the "No" side, and all the straightforward logical neutral unemotional discussion is on the "Yes" side. I see.......

There must be a word for that sort of delusion. Other than racist, or one-eyed, of course.

 

[jhunter1163]

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.

What do you think might happen if the current polls hold and the referendum is rejected decisively, say 60-40?

 

[Soapy Sam]

In an exam, 50% is a fail, to my mind. 51% is a pass. Neither is very good.

50% "Yes" might be seen as very good by those involved, if they initially expected they would get about 30%. To those who earnestly thought 65% was achievable, it might be seen as disappointing. These are subjective responses, based on starting assumptions.

I'm not saying 51% is a fail. I'm saying it's the sort of win that may be more trouble than it is worth. It is an admission that half the people the Yes campaign hoped to win are actually opposed to their aim. What happens later is not known to me, or to anyone else.
If there was a clear, unarguable demand for independence of the sort seen in several post-soviet republics and of the sort some "Yes" campaigners believe exists, we would not be discussing 46% and wondering if it might reach 50. That level of desire manifestly does not exist and I fail to see how that cannot be evident even to the most ardent "Yes" campaigner.

My point is that if a political party leads a population into independence who overwhelmingly demanded it, then it can suppose that the population will be behind it even if there are unanticipated problems in the short term.
If it leads a population of whom half actively rejected it, then it may expect to be further rejected unless everything goes well. This is reality.

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.

I could say exactly the same about a Pan European Federal Government.(I wouldn't, because I'm not psychic) but I might). You would not accept such unsupported speculation from me. Why should I accept yours?

Was I ever undecided? Of course. Back in the mid 1970s I was to some degree in favour. I gradually came to think that sovereign states are more of a drag on human progress than they are worth. I want to get rid of the lot. UK included. I find most of the "No" campaign uninteresting because they want to keep the status quo. The Nationalists want to keep a slightly modified version. I want to ditch it.

I still am undecided, in the sense that if something happens between now and September that I never thought of, or never heard of and which is a mind changer (IMO), then I would , of course, change my mind.

An example would be a major UK party manifesto (I do not count UKIP) pledging to pull Britain out of the EU and NATO.
Absent something of that magnitude then I intend to vote "No", simply because I am convinced making two nations where there is one is a step in the wrong direction. (Retaining the status quo is not moving forward either. It's just marking time and time is something we may not have).

Anyway, enough of that nonsense.
I'd like to know more about Francesca's lurid fantasies now, please?

 

[Francesca R]

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 [ . . . ]

I think Soapy Sam believes a narrow Yes will lack legitimacy and you believe so will a narrow No.

I would go as far as to say Soapy Sam believes a narrow Yes ought to be set aside, and you believe a narrow No ought to. But you object to that. Doesn't really matter. Neither of you expect yourselves to perceive closure from a narrow result.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Conversely, Soapy really seems to think that a narrow Yes vote should be set aside as "not good enough".

I don't think 99.999...% is "good enough", but it's a lot more convincing than 49.999...%

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.

Sorry, are there two people named "Soapy" here? Because this one didn't mention any of that.
You are fitting your opponents' thoughts to suit your preconceptions.
And you WILL have fraccing in central Scotland within 2 years, independence or not.

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.

He does. In fact he mentioned that in his earlier post, which was about 'splaining why he thinks a close result is a problem either way.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I think Soapy Sam believes a narrow Yes will lack legitimacy and you believe so will a narrow No.

I would go as far as to say Soapy Sam believes a narrow Yes ought to be set aside, and you believe a narrow No ought to. But you object to that. Doesn't really matter. Neither of you expect yourselves to perceive closure from a narrow result.

I think (as we probably all do) that doing any of those would end in tears. But so might not doing it. That's really all I was getting at- that a near result is the worst possible - worse IMO even than a big majority vote in the opposite camp from what any of us prefer.

But about the lurid fantasies...

 

[jhunter1163]

In an exam, 50% is a fail, to my mind. 51% is a pass. Neither is very good.

The Parti Quebecois lost their independence referendum very narrowly in '95 (50.6% No). Had they won, I think a lot of the same issues you described in your post would have surfaced, complicated by the language issues there. It seems that the PQ has lost its appeal; they were badly beaten in the most recent election in April.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Yes. I was talking to a lovely lady from Quebec about this a week or so back.
She was fascinated by the local parallels here.

The important thing is to get out and vote.
If naught else, 50% of a 90% turnout carries a lot more weight than 50% of 30%.

 

[Stacko]

The Parti Quebecois lost their independence referendum very narrowly in '95 (50.6% No). Had they won, I think a lot of the same issues you described in your post would have surfaced, complicated by the language issues there. It seems that the PQ has lost its appeal; they were badly beaten in the most recent election in April.

Support for separation has been low in Quebec since that defeat and support of the PQ provincially has generally to be protest the government in Ottawa or a protest vote against the incumbent provincial government. A PQ government in Quebec is viewed with a weary eye by all Canadians since Jacques Parizeau removed the party's mask by blaming their defeat in the referendum on "money and ethnic votes."

 

[jhunter1163]

Yes. I was talking to a lovely lady from Quebec about this a week or so back.
She was fascinated by the local parallels here.

The important thing is to get out and vote.
If naught else, 50% of a 90% turnout carries a lot more weight than 50% of 30%.

What level of support would be sufficient to confer legitimacy to either result, in your opinion? Would a 52-48 split do? 55-45? 60-40?

ETA: Assuming, say, 80% turnout.

 

[Francesca R]

Reminds me of the objections to penalties at the end of extra time. Perhaps the solution is to have a replay--like run the union for another 300 years and have a referendum at the end.

Or just, you know, penalty shootout.

 

[Rolfe]

I think Soapy Sam believes a narrow Yes will lack legitimacy and you believe so will a narrow No.

I would go as far as to say Soapy Sam believes a narrow Yes ought to be set aside, and you believe a narrow No ought to. But you object to that. Doesn't really matter. Neither of you expect yourselves to perceive closure from a narrow result.

I don't believe a narrow No result should be set aside. Absolutely not. I'm concerned that when people realise that they voted No because they had been systematically lied to, this may not be good.

A No victory achieved on a level playing field would be one thing. A No victory achieved by lies and scare tactics is a different matter.

Rolfe.

 

[Francesca R]

Level playing field as in allowing all UK citizens to vote? Even dual citizens like me--yay.

(Just sayin')

 

[Bad vibe]

I don't believe a narrow No result should be set aside. Absolutely not. I'm concerned that when people realise that they voted No because they had been systematically lied to, this may not be good.

A No victory achieved on a level playing field would be one thing. A No victory achieved by lies and scare tactics is a different matter.

Rolfe.

The supposed project fear maybe unethical but the SNP's project Utopia isn't exactly honest either.

 

[Rolfe]

Level playing field as in allowing all UK citizens to vote? Even dual citizens like me--yay.

(Just sayin')

You think every citizen of the EU should have a vote on whether the UK leaves?

You think every citizen of Russia should have had a vote on whether Estonia became independent?

How would it play out if there was a 75% Yes majority in Scotland but a 60% No majority across the whole of Britain?

Sorry, but you don't get a veto.

Rolfe.

 

[Giz]

The supposed project fear maybe unethical but the SNP's project Utopia isn't exactly honest either.

Now now, what's good for the goose is scaremongering for the gander.

 

[Rolfe]

If the SNP was promising utopia that might be a point, but as they aren't, it isn't.

Rolfe.

 

[Francesca R]

You think every citizen of the EU should have a vote on whether the UK leaves?

You think every citizen of Russia should have had a vote on whether Estonia became independent?

How would it play out if there was a 75% Yes majority in Scotland but a 60% No majority across the whole of Britain?

Not really. Do you think every region of every country should be able to wake up and declare UDI, as long as most of them want to? Do you think anybody has a right to secede by force? And assorted non-sequiturs . . . .

Bottom line--this playing field is just about as level as they ever come, and ever have come in centuries of world history. Get over yourself.

 

[Bad vibe]

If the SNP was promising utopia that might be a point, but as they aren't, it isn't.

Rolfe.

No but the SNP are making pseudo-economic promises they have no idea they can meet. I think they have raised expectations that all will share in iScotlands wealth, I think they probably will but as contributors rather than receiving. The rich will become more so, everyone else? not so much.

 

[Rolfe]

Scotland is not a region.

As playing fields go, globally, you're right. Some people only had samizdat and gestetner machines. We have the internet.

On the opposite side, our mainstream media which are banging the union drum as hard as they can are not perceived to be as biassed as they actually are, so are accorded more respect than they deserve. "Some guy on the internet" who rigorously researches articles and backs everything up with links to primary sources is dismissed, while journalists who reveal themselves on Twitter to be not only extremely partisan but pretty nasty with it are read as if they were a hot-line to Mount Sinai.

Rolfe.