JINGS! Microsoft Bing called Scots indyref RIGHT! As we reported two days ago: Microsoft's seldom-used digital yellow pages has waded into the independence referendum with the claim that Scots will vote no and the United Kingdom will be preserved. According to the world's other search engine, some 48.1 per cent of Scots will tick the Yes box, while 51.9 per cent will …
Because he's seen as some kind of Scottish hero by many of the 'Yes' zealots, despite not really having achieved very much and being just as much of slimey lying weasel as every other politician.
Like you I don't object to Scottish independence, just the SNP and it's leader.
The best effect a 'No' result could have tomorrow is causing Alex Salmond to be forced to resign.
Absolutely. Screw us locals in favour of more hair! Independence could be great but don't believe Salmond will deliver political renewal.
It is difficult to work out where he wants to go but public ownership of Oil and Banks (sans sense) with privatisation of public services seem to be the order of the day
He's no hero, but can (along with others) be justifiably proud of his successes; he's brought the prospect of independence from laughable to within a reasonable error bar of 50%. Before that, the SNP got a majority in a parliamentary system which could be argued was specifically designed to stop any one party (i.e. the SNP) from doing so.
Also, the best chance of him retiring (and the SNP fading away) would be a "Yes" result - it's sort of like Cancer Research - they say their goal is to put themselves out of business. OK, the SNP don't actually say that, but a lot of their voters probably think that way - once their purpose is served, what point to keeping them around?
I'm with bing on this one.
I'm sure lots of Scotch think independence would be nice to have but you really need to have a war to make the realities of making it happen worthwhile. Do they want to join the Euro? That makes them vassals of the Germans and the Greeks (and any other group large enough to outvote them in Europe) rather than the English. Whoop-dee-doo. If they did go it alone, they'll have to make some major concessions to Westminster in return for not being dropped like a hot potato before they have bought the infrastructure needed to run a country alone. That will spike tax requirements and it will be a bit like Ireland - beautiful country, but its cheaper to drive from Dublin to Belfast to do your weekly shop than to do it locally. Does Scotland have a database of taxpayers? That would be non-trivial to put together in a short time. What about all those English-registered companies doing business in Scotland? None of that tax revenue is headed North.
My guess is that they'll take the concessions offered by Cameron and say, "thank-you very-much... we'll stay." Then they'll receive some funding punishment from Westminster to even things up. Like mooting any divorce, relations will sour regardless of the outcome.
"The great thing about independence is you can then vote for whoever you want, and not end up with David Miliband who has no interest."
You'd think so but it doesn't work that way. Look at Republic of Ireland - the Kery TD (member of parliament) only cares about Kerry, the Dublin TDs don't care about anywhere else. The independent TDs will openly blackmail the government for a new road in their constituency in return for support. Just recently, the minister of health wrote his own consituency onto a list of regions to get new healthcare centres - no rationale for this except his own self interest.
If anything it's more corrupt because the scale is smaller and the government ability to snuff out corruption is diminished. Sometimes impartiality (or aloofness if you prefer) is an asset. It allows government to look at the big picture and be less susceptible to corruption.
Doesn't take a full blown government to see the way that self-serving policies appears.
Which streets in your borough get the best service? Would they be the ones that certain council members need to keep sweet?
I live in Barnet, by the way.
Having those three wet fish flopping around inside your borders is frankly an excellent reason to demand independance :(
I think even the Scots know Salmond has more fire than he has fuel, but knowing isn't feeling, and most people will vote how they feel, and most is enough. If you're asking a preacher if he can back up his claims then you've misunderstood the problem.
The United Kindgom will become a lie. The quarrelsome family splits, and dinners are eaten in silent regret. Two fists will now fight seperately.
I can't oppose them either. I can taste the dream even from here. What needles me tho is whether this Scotch broth might have been spiked by vodka. It would be frankly *trivial* to stir this pot. I mean, the temptation alone.... *sigh*
"I'm not fine with the amount of lies and promises Alex Salmond is telling the Scottish people. He's promising things he has no power to deliver and which are, imo, pretty unlikely to happen."
I doubt Scotland has any chance whatsoever of making good on the Yes promises until it rejoins the EU and adopts the Euro. Up until then it won't have any banking system, no lender of last resort, capital will fly south, contracts (particularly in public services, defence etc.) will get cancelled, prices in shops will go up and the economy will tank. It might get so bad they end up crawling to the UK or Europe to bail them out (because they can't bail themselves out) and swallowing the bitter pill which comes with that.
Salmond and the SNP are lying big time when they say it's all going to be wonderful. Aside from that even long term it won't make a damned bit of difference. Look at Ireland which is nearly 100 years independent - it's like a slightly different version of the UK where public services are crappier and everyone pays more in taxes and the daily cost of living is higher.
"Look at Ireland which is nearly 100 years independent - it's like a slightly different version of the UK where public services are crappier and everyone pays more in taxes and the daily cost of living is higher."
Moral of the story is that where England lays its hand in "ownership" it destroys that country.
"Moral of the story is that where England lays its hand in "ownership" it destroys that country."
Well, apart from the fact a Scottish king inherited the English crown, became king of both countries so in effect Scotland took over England. Then there was 13 years of Scottish Prime Ministers running the whole UK until they fucked over the economy so badly we ended up with Cameron and Clegg.
Quite. The Scots have forgotten, and not really surprising as it's 300 years now, that the Act of Union was a Scottish idea to begin with. The Empire was built mostly by Scottish merchants and bankers (and merchant bankers, but that's another story). One of the proximate drivers of the Union was Scotland's public debt, incurred in trying to build a colony of its own.
The Union has been a great deal for Scotland; what England got out of it was mostly an end to periodic invasions from the north.
Now, somehow that history has morphed into "centuries of oppression" by the English. I blame Mel Gibson.
"Look at Ireland which is nearly 100 years independent - it's like a slightly different version of the UK where public services are crappier and everyone pays more in taxes and the daily cost of living is higher."
Unsurprisingly, the Irish prefer it to being starved to death as a matter of policy, or being murdered by other means though.
I thought he was promising that if people make a sufficiently believable noise about voting yes then they will get more money and concessions from English taxpayers when the eventually vote no.
Seems an eminently plausible and sound strategy.
I'm not fine with the amount of lies and promises Alex Salmond is telling the Scottish people. He's promising things he has no power to deliver and which are, imo, pretty unlikely to happen.
Unfortunately that is how modern politics works. The unwashed masses don't want to hear the truth, they want to hear what they want to hear. The excuses come later. Isn't this how Obama does things?
Curiously Salmond was not that popular with many of the Yes supporters until the concerted media campaign against him, whereupon I think many felt obliged to defend/support him because he had been made synonymous with voting Yes.
I think a basic mistake of the No group, and the media, is treating this as just another party political fight - it isn't.
LOHAN repurposed with the new bigger batteries powering the laser armament.
Not death ray, of course. Any Scots invasion attempt would be repelled the same way NATO planned to deal with the Soviet Union - bore them to death with PowerPoints. The lasers are just for pointers.
@Khaptain - It may have crept under your radar, but Croatia joined the EU on 1 July 2013, and Albania and Macedonia are on the candidate list (the latter delayed by the Greeks in a naming dispute over the name of their country). IT angle? An IP dispute over your Nation's name....
but out of that lot, which ones are energy self sufficient and which ones are laundering the riches of the few?
And Croatia is already an EU member, so that leaves a few basket cases, does it not?
For all of its failings, the EU is still a better bet to my mind. And please note, there are no other sabres being rattled by a party in government, anywhere in Europe, that openly declares that if they win the next election they will have a referendum on EU membership.
I firmly believe that's the wrong choice for England.
As someone else has pointed out, the elephant in the room is Germany but whats not to like about the way that they run their economy?
In any case, the UK and Europe were doing well before the big banks, not only in Scotland, fucked up the worlds economy.
In case you really don't know, the promise is that Scotland would be expelled from the UE.
Pretty much the same way Alger was when they got their independence from France
Not that I see the point in voting for independence as long as you are promised not to be independent.
In case you really don't know, the promise is that Scotland would be expelled from the UE.
Scotland would not be expelled from the EU, since Scotland isn't a member of the EU. EU members are states, the UK is a member, and by leaving the UK Scotland would be voluntarily choosing to leave the EU and would have to apply to join in its own right as a new state.
bill 36,
I'm not sure about the joining the Euro bit... There's still a very large chance that it's going to collapse or otherwise break-up in the next few years.
There are still ways to save it (QE or Eurobonds), and in the end they'll probably do one of them, because the alternative will be going into a weekend-long crisis summit, coming out without a proper answer, and a total Eurozone banking-collapse on the Monday morning. Followed by break-up and global depression.
Anyway, whatever Scotland does, they can't promise to join the Euro, because they can't guarantee whether they'll be allowed to join the EU. So there has to be an interim currency first. One of the reasons the rUK politicians don't want them to keep the Pound is that there'll be uncertainty for the next decade as to whether they'd leave and join the Euro, which could be very destabilising.
Becoming a fully integrated member of the EU could take years to work out even if negotiations started on Friday. I doubt the EU would grandfather in the UK opt-outs either. Imagine all the fun if Scotland was in Schengen and the UK wasn't.
And to stand any chance of joining the euro they'd have to join the stability & growth pact and meet various economic indicators - inflation, debt-to-GDP, deficits etc. Doubt it'd happen until the economy recovered and that could take years too.
IMO it's also pretty stupid for an independent Scotland to join even bigger power bloc where their voice is barely a squeak. Maybe they'll find common cause with the UK some of the time, but they might easily find themselves having less voice than they enjoyed before when they were part of a large state.
I think you are misunderstanding that 50 million vs 5 million argument. That was in response to the idea of moving towards a fully federalised UK. A federal system will work better if each component is of similar size.
The irony of the SNP being in favour of the EU is more that it illustrates they clearly don't want "independence" at all.
The world is too small for Nationalism and small countries to stand apart.
Maybe so, but it's human nature to want to belong to "something", and to feel that your "something" is better than their "something".
Glueing all the countries together into a unified something won't make people magically content to be a member of that something, they'll just look for other groups to join. If it isn't countries it will be regions, or languages, or dialects, or football clubs, or gangs, etc.
The downside of that is that instead of a big punchup, military or economic, every 50-70 years followed by a period of relieved stability you get a constant background level of minor trouble, which flares up every so often. This year it's Ukraine and Scotland, next year the Basques, then Catalonia, then Flanders/Walloons, etc. The EU isn't a solution, any more than the USSR was.
As a flemish european citizen (moved around a couple of countries now), I feel this nationalistic streak is a rather indicative of insecurity around your national identity.
Personally, I feel completely at ease with being flemish and being belgian and being european and I enjoy all the benefits that brings.
I love traditional flemish things, feel proud and embarrassed to be belgian too when my wallon friends do something great or mess up, and get to move around europe freely and enjoy what the other member states offer.
I don't see what flemish independence would add to that...
Presumably Bing's predictions have some margin of error in their values?
If so those results are somewhat close together to be of much use surely.
Bing's prediction essentially tells us what those of who are don't fall within the Venn diagram of 'Raving luncatics' and 'Politicians' already knew, that the vote is looking like it may be too close to call.
Whichever way it goes, it's probably going to result in demands of recounts, legal challenges and accusations of misconduct from one side or the other.
The accusations of misconduct are already being prepared for challenging a Yes vote. Claims of violent actions by campaigners and suppression of No speeches.
These claims have been specifically denied by the Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation.
As for the result being too close to call, Craig Murray has an interesting take on that.
The No campaign seems to be entirely FUD, without any actual positives. And Craig has a really interesting comment on that, from a Pole who saw the same reaction to Solidarity.
"The No campaign seems to be entirely FUD, without any actual positives"
Partly, but this is natural because independence is change and fear and uncertainty in regard to change (particularly major change) is a natural human reaction.
There are some actual positives, the number of actual positives depends on how much you believe various politicians.
The 'Yes' campaign may not be FUD, but it's certainly got the UD. Uncertainity because some things have not been properly planned and disinformation because of things that Alex Salmond and the SNP claim they will absolutely be able to do that everyone else says the can't (including the people who would actually be responsible for allowing it).
Cristoph,
Craig Murray is far too much of a conspiracy nutter for my tastes.
But to answer his specific point, why would you go up to a 'No Change' stall to ask for a leaflet? Why would you be as enthusisastic about voting to keep things the way they are than voting to change them? Plus the world is full of politicians who when they're asked why the polls look so bad say, "well the people I'm talking to don't say that". Then the polls usually turn out to be broadly correct.
Polls are a snapshot of feelings at the time, but tend to be pretty accurate around election time. Although with a margin of error for these type of around +/-2%.
Have a look on UK Polling Report. I won't link to a specific post, because the current top 3 are all relevant. He gives the results of recent polling, and in the third post down (it may move down if you look later), talks about how the polls could be wrong, and what pollsters do to avoid it.
I think the polls aren't counting:
In short, the polls are meaningless; it could be 60/40 either way.
"Whichever way it goes, it's probably going to result in demands of recounts, legal challenges and accusations of misconduct from one side or the other."
Apparently the recount system is that each side can demand a recount in each of the 32 council counts, but no recount will be allowed for the final total.
The Beeb has a good article that discusses the possibilities of recounts... A close result wouldn't be a valid reason for a recount at each of the local levels.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29176884
The difference between this and US elections, for example, is that a single level recount wouldn't be enough to swing an election, whereas the electoral college system in the US means that a few votes in each state can be enough to swing it.
Social media is not a good place to take a measure of the feelings of the people.
There has been a substantial amount of intimidation where anyone has expressed a preference, with idiots on both sides. There's a large number of No supporters who are frightened to make their feelings known in public, and the Yes campaign is being particularly vocal. If you want to know what it feels to be intimidated like the Blacks and Gays, put that little "No Thanks" sticker on your Facebook picture (apologies for the non-political correctness, but it gets the point over). So looking purely at social media I predict Bing will be wrong (bookmarked to come back on Friday and check).
Tech bit over.
This has become a War of Independence. We might be using the ballot box instead of the bullet but this War of Independence has deeply polarised opinions and brought the worst out in supporters of both camps to the extent of being "religiously" fanatical. The metaphorical "spilling of blood" typical in revolutions and Independence wars has not happened (yet), but blood has been drawn, violence has taken place and property has been vandalised and destroyed.
I hope my fellow countrymen of both sides are proud of their actions and behaviour. I for one am looking for a new country to call home. Ukraine is looking good at the moment. (Count down to nasty replies just to prove my point).
Heh, amusingly Windows 8 and Scottish independence may well work out the same way.
Do it (in the event of a Yes tomorrow) or try to do it (in the event of a No), then realise that no-one is entirely happy with the result and try and fix it later like Windows 8.1
Where this comparison falls down of course is that with Windows 8 people had the choice to go back to using Windows 7.
The difference being that Scotland's existing OS was developed by the English for the English, so thereby the yes vote can only lead them to a better system as it will be their system, developed by them for them..
Kinda like moving away from Windows 8 to Linux. The learning curve is steep but worth it in the end.
"The difference being that Scotland's existing OS was developed by the English for the English"
By the Americans, surely?
"Kinda like moving away from Windows 8 to Linux. The learning curve is steep but worth it in the end."
Presumably just like moving away from speaking English to speaking Gaelic and from the British Pound to the Scottish Groat...
You can see this sort of thing in action - Border towns in the Republic of Ireland have been devastated because people prefer to drive North for their shopping than shop locally. The exchange rate a few years back meant it cost 30-40% less to shop in the North. Things aren't so bad now but come Christmas they'll still be huge queues in places like Newry. Appeals to patriotism naturally fell on deaf ears.
I also expect if a Yes passes that Carlisle would be choked with people withdrawing their cash from ATMs in sterling notes. That amount of capital that will fly out of Scotland is likely to be enormous.
"....then the shop owners in Carlisle and Berwick-upon-Tweed will be loving the extra business as the Scots drive south for cheaper goods.... Once they clear customs and the border posts.. ;-)"
To be fair you well get some traffic in the other direction as people pick up duty free cigarettes and whiskey once Spain and various other countries block Scotistan's EU application....
"I also expect if a Yes passes that Carlisle would be choked with people withdrawing their cash from ATMs in sterling notes. That amount of capital that will fly out of Scotland is likely to be enormous."
Yes - imagine if they have their own currency. No one will accept it south of the border. Oh wait - it's like that already with Scottish 'Pound Notes'...
Yes - imagine if they have their own currency. No one will accept it south of the border. Oh wait - it's like that already with Scottish 'Pound Notes'...
A 'friend' who'd just been to the Edinburgh festival paid me back with a Scottish fiver the other day. I was worried I'd never get rid of the bugger. But the first place I asked took it, with no trouble. So that's not entirely true.
It was a Greggs. Don't judge me... I was buying a bacon roll and a belgian bun. And they were both delicious.
I know that shopkeepers outside Scotland tend to get antsy about taking Scottish banknotes. That's bad, and you shouldn't put up with it.
But it's completely optional. Nobody forces you to take those notes south of the border. You could just take your ATM card and take money out of a cashpoint in England to spend there, if you weren't so all-fired gung-ho to flaunt your "own currency" at the English. You'd get out one pound of money for every pound you take out of the account, give or take ATM charges. Or you could just use your credit card.
If Scotland becomes independent, that will change. There'll be an exchange rate, and conversion charges, and no way to avoid them.
"If Scotland becomes independent, that will change. There'll be an exchange rate, and conversion charges, and no way to avoid them."
Or you can take English pounds and the Scots will be so desperate for hard currency as their economy flat lines outside of the EU that they will give you a higher value than the official exchange rate - just like in most other third world countries...
I think the figure I saw was an net benefit to English/Wales/N Ireland GDP equivalent of 150 UKP/person; so for one I hope Scotland goes it's own way.
The reality is they won't, they will get too many benefits by acting as a moody teen and making threats. I wish the English parliament would offer the same benefits as those in Scotland (tertiary education without dealing with fees!) and end this 'racial' discrimination against the English.
What I'm curious about is who is paying for this referendum, and why the English cannot have one on if Scotland should stay. As any relationship counsellor will tall you, sometimes staying together and making a poor relationship work is not always the best option, splitting up and moving on can be healthier for everyone in the relationship.
What I'm curious about is ... why the English cannot have one on if Scotland should stay.
Oh, but the English electorate *can* have a referendum, they just need to follow the same, simple steps as the Scottish electorate:
1. Persuade a political party to make it part of their manifesto.
2. Give that party majority vote in a parliamentary election.
3. Have your referendum.
AbelSoul I think you need to reread the post you're replying to. It asks why the English don't get on vote on Scotland staying, not on English independence.
Matters not. The English electorate could have had a vote on either (or anything else for that matter) by following the same steps. (Bit late now, granted, but that's hardly Salmond's fault.)
>>"Matters not. The English electorate could have had a vote on either (or anything else for that matter) by following the same steps"
I'm not sure that's true. Voting to kick out a large section of the UK's population and render them stateless would be a very different prospect and I have a feeling it would be heavily illegal under International and EU law.
"I think the figure I saw was an net benefit to English/Wales/N Ireland GDP equivalent of 150 UKP/person; so for one I hope Scotland goes it's own way."
Not to mention minus fifty labour MPs - the value to the economy of that is massive. Imagine - no more labour governments letting in millions of immigrants, employing hundreds of thousands of extra civil servants in non jobs, and building white elephant aircraft carriers with no planes to keep some uncompetitive and outdated Scots off the dole...and not wasting our taxes on benefits handouts!
Judging from the comments of senior SNP people, there will be recriminations whatever the result.
If the vote goes YES, there will be boycotts of the businesses who supported the NO campaign, and Nationalisations of others.
If the vote goes NO, the SNP (still in power, remember), will say thing like "Your area voted yes. Have a new hospital and a couple of new schools" and "Your area stopped us having things our way. There's no money left for you."
Be careful with media reports on anything to do with this; I know, it sounds swivel-eyed conspiracy loon stuff, but I was in Scotland for a few days last week and was totally taken aback by the gap between reality and what the media were saying.
The SNP have no power to do any of the stuff you mention, except maybe try to convince people to boycott companies, at which point they will get the usual answer people give to political parties; remember, Yes supporter is not the same as SNP member.
No-one is voting with their head, no matter how much the media want to think they are.
It's all about heart and feeling, which is why I worry about them having a flash of national pride and putting that X in the yes box on the day.
Here's a slogan for the yes people:-
"England's domestic policies are governed by the EU, it's foreign affairs are controlled by America. The City of London, within London, is a fraudulent infrastructure mixed in with political cronies. Can we see your TAX returns Mr Cameron? No?
It appears the Government do not really want to keep things anyway, using the sell off of our national institutions cheaply to foreign bidders as an example. At least Thatcher appeared to want the British public to buy British Gas." etc etc
You see, no information given there, it's all about how it feels, this is why I worry that people will vote yes.
On the other hand if Scotland votes yes the population density of the rest of the UK will greatly increase, thus giving more ammunition to UKIP on overpopulation, and more people they can demand be sent back where they came from.
Presumably Farage says he supports a No vote because he realises that anything he favours will not be popular in Scotland.
I thought it was going to be about the Microsoft license agreement and something about them all having signed agreements worded UK and that, therefore, after a YES vote, the country would no longer be licensed to run and Microsoft product, and would be sued into oblivion by M$, who then take over the entire country and enslave the population to make Argyle tablet warmers for Surface Pros and tiny bottles of promotional M$ whiskey...
Trouble with the yes campaign is it is strong on emotion and weak on facts.
They seem to be billing it as only true Scottish people vote Yes - that somehow you're not patriotic if you vote No.
Salmond's economic plans seem to consist of giving everyone lots of money from oil revenue - oil revenue, about as predictable as which way a fly is going go. Only a fool bases plans on oil revenue.
"Salmond's economic plans seem to consist of giving everyone lots of money from oil revenue"
And scrapping Trident, the sunk cost of which gets tacked on to anything requiring funds as "If we weren't paying for this illegal weapon we could have free jetpacks for all"
I am a part Scottish. I would vote 'yes' for independence and I think the majority may as well. It is certainly being seriously considered. They have been convinced that they somehow have more to lose by going on their own, but from what we know about that, they were lied to. Will they believe the lies again? They well might, but I would not bet on it.
It's a coin-flip and it will be close, but if I had to call it, I would say they vote 'yes' by a narrow margin. People underestimate the extent to which Scots identify as Scots first.
Should they vote 'no', I hope that the rest of Britain will appreciate that likely the *only* reason they do is because they are reluctant to embrace the unknown. That is, whether they vote yes or no, their grievances are real and a 'no' vote will not make those grievances disappear.
But would you want Salmond to be the President of Scotland?
Oh deep joy. He can have the Scottish share of our National Debt (largely thanks to a Scot, Gordon Broone).
To quote my Father In Law (from Leith, near the 'Trainspotting Towers'), 'The Wee Man dinnae have a clue'.
'He can promise us the Earth but he canna deliver it'.
Sadly, this sums up most politicians these days. But this time there is a lot at stake.
>>"Compare Salmond to the two muppets currently battling for the UK hot-seat and you suddenly realise that some turds polish-up better than others."
You're not voting for which temporary politician you like most (or hate least). You're voting for the future state of your country.
I do have a vote tomorrow, and I do not believe I am alone in taking much of what the politicians on all sides are saying with a large pinch of salt. The most recent proof of that is the outrageous "vows" (their word) to do this, that or the other, which have already been the subject of "oh really?" comments by back-benchers.
But in the IT and business world, if you were, say, looking at outsourcing your entire IT or moving it to the cloud, you'd look at the nature of the business, the outcomes you believe you and the business wish to achieve, the short term risk factors and the longer term likely outcomes, amongst other things. Unless you're very inexperienced, you would not go to two vendors, and believe their salesdroids when they tell you why your business is the very thing that's tailor-made for their offering, how they're losing on the deal, but it's worth the prestige to them, and all the other marketing-speak that lasts right up to the moment you sign on the dotted line. You have your own standards and your own views about how best to deliver IT, and you choose the model to fit.
I would suggest that many people are using such an approach to the referendum. We really have been discussing this in day-to-day situations, amongst each other for 2 years or more. There's clear understanding here that the referendum is a fork in the road, not a short-term political choice, and all this with a backdrop of party political promises which have a long and nasty record of being empty, especially in the Scottish context such as the 1979 referendum on devolution.
The issue is one of aspiration, not one that's amenable to totting up the pro's and cons. There's nothing unique in two countries that once were together re-establishing themselves, the Czech Republic and Slovakia being the most obvious that spring to mind. There's also no way anyone can claim that Scotland is not a productive enough country, even a rich one. And I think there are few who would claim that on Friday, in the event of a Yes vote, things will suddenly be different. In other words, if this comes about, it's not a unique change, but will be an expression of the will of the people regarding how they wish to be governed, Simple democracy, that's all.
Actually, there's something VERY unique about a three-century-old state, and still one of the most powerful countries in the world, breaking up. Czechoslovakia was an artificial product of the break-up of Austria-Hungary after WW1 and only existed for about 70 years. Like the UK, Germany is also a union of medieval kingdoms and principalities. Luckily the vast majority of Germans understand that unity is strength. Even the ones in the former East Germany who are still distinctly more left-wing than the rest of Germany, and hence have exactly the same excuse that the Scottish nationalists are using for separation. I've never heard of anyone promoting the idea of dividing Germany again though, have you?
" I've never heard of anyone promoting the idea of dividing Germany again though, have you?"
They aren't very loud, but they certainly exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe
Prior to the nuclear stalemate, re-arranging European boundaries every 50 years or so was pretty much de rigeur. At the present time, the excuses for centralisation (financial and defence) are pretty much covered by the ECB and NATO. (Obviously one of these insitutions is currently working rather better than the other, but the official line is that both are here to stay.) That leaves the way wide open for the larger nation states to fragment in line with regional preferences. We have Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia as examples so far. (Ukraine is a work in progress.)
"I hope they vote yes
Otherwise we will have to go though all this crap again in a decade or so."
No chance. Any political party in England even hinting that a further vote will be allowed at any time within the next 100 years has lost my vote for life. MPs of all colours (for yes, I am a floating voter) should pay heed, as you never know when I'll live in your constituency, and I'm more than happy to vote for whomever is your main opposition in the seat.
The issue is too disruptive. Either the Scots stay, or they go. They make their choice now, because come Friday there's only the living with it to look forward too. The one thing there won't be, is another vote.
Otherwise we will have to go though all this crap again in a decade or so.
Also the look on Salmond's face as all his pigeons come home to roost (currency, EU, NATO, share of national debt etc) will be priceless.
Don't forget that a Yes vote just starts the process which is planned to result in separation in March 2016 IIRC. As that process gets under way the pigeons will come well and truly home, and "It'll all work out in the end" Salmond will find himself explaining why Scotland can't stay in the EU, and can't use the pound, and why so many business have upped and left, and why house prices have collapsed because so many people are trying to sell up.
There's a UK-wide general election before then, May 7th 2015. Imagine what happens if Labour trounces the SNP before the Scottish Socialist Republic is created. There would be huge pressure to bring forward the next Scottish parliament elections to before "independence day". Anyone care to bet that there'd be another referendum?
"There would be huge pressure to bring forward the next Scottish parliament elections to before "independence day". Anyone care to bet that there'd be another referendum?"
If they vote to leave, then change their mind and ask to stay, they need to understand the terms of the deal change. Barnett would be politically unacceptable to the English, as would devolution. There would need to be a realisation that adding together the populations of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, you get fewer people than the population of Greater London met area. The tail does not wag the dog.
until recently i was a firm 'no', splitting one small country into two smaller ones will help neither and it makes the awful prospect of an eu exit more likely
but since the spineless raving conliblab party started promising to take an even more disproportionate amount money from the rest of the uk and give it to salmond's whiners (promises that were in no manifesto at the last election and were never approved by parliament) i'm thinking 'yes'
it'll be a rough ride but at least the shafting of the rest of the uk's taxpayers will one day come to an end, plus it'll probably help increase employment in northern uk
Good point about employment in northern England. What about dual nationality? I'm rather curious as to what will qualify for a scottish passport in the 'yes' regime. I gather there are already more people of part scottish ancestry living in England than scottish people registered to vote in this referendum.
but since the spineless raving conliblab party started promising to take an even more disproportionate amount money from the rest of the uk and give it to salmond's whiners (promises that were in no manifesto at the last election and were never approved by parliament) i'm thinking 'yes'
The current proposals explicitly main the Barnett formula, the only change is giving the Scottish Parliament greater leeway in setting taxes. This was indeed mentioned at the last general election. I'll quote the Conservative's 2010 manifesto since they're the senior party in government:
The Scottish Parliament should have more responsibility for raising the money it spends.
It's not their problem if you didn't read it.
Pretty please Scotland, for the love of the English, vote Yes.
I have secured my money in England, in Sterling where it will be safe. I love Edinburgh and really would like a nice cheap holiday flat on Princes Street. Almost from the moment you vote Yes Scottish property prices will begin to slide. They won’t stop sliding for years until either A) you’re eventually admitted to the EU (and Euro) which is unlikely to happen, or B) the Salmond/Wallace/whatever you call your currency has finished depreciating against Sterling. I’m expecting 40% off within the first 3 years, falling to an eventual real terms gap of 50%, but it could be even lower.
Working in the City, we’re already seeing a boost to the number of clients and account balances held at English institutions, which I expect to lead to more stable career prospects as time marches on. As a tax payer, shifting a solid chunk of the national debt off the books onto Scotland, while booking higher tax revenues due to corporate relocations, and spending a lot less due to the Barnett formula, the future will truly be rosy if you just vote Yes.
As a whiskey lover, I’m looking forward to duty free trips to stock up on the water of life. You’ll be outside the EU for a few years, so will be duty free for booze runs, and devaluation of the Salmond will make it oh so cheap. Maybe a holiday cottage on Islay too….
So please Scotland, for the love of the English, dig deep tomorrow and vote Yes.
I've probably drank more of it than most Scots. To quibble over the spelling of such a fantastic drink, when both whiskey and whisky are correct, is to miss the point.
Now, if you had a more sensible debate, such as the comparative merits of a Lagavulin over a Glenfarclas, then we'd be in business.
Both are correct in that they are both words used to describe a spirituous liquor distilled from malted barley, but the two are distinctly different from both an etymological and a legal standpoint.
Scottish whisky is, unanimously as far as I'm aware, without the E. Irish whiskey has the E because the spelling of the two words in scots/irish gaelic is different (usquebaugh vs. uisce beatha IIRC) and hence the transliteration into english was different. Paradoxically enough, this different spelling was popularised due to the piss-poor quality of scottish whisky in the 19th century when the irish were making much higher quality stuff, so the extra E was used to differentiate a superior product. The E stuck in the US due to the large number of irish immigrants who, quite rightly, bought the techniques for their own whiskey over with them. Those of you who've seen "Addicted to Pleasure" will have some insight on how terrible scottish whisky was back in the late 1800's.
As to your other question - IMHO there's no contest. Lagavulin is far superior tipple to a glenfarclas, at least if we're talking about the 16yr vs. the 15yr (the 17yr is a different and rather more expensive beast) :)
Here's hoping they don't fall on the recent trend of abandoning their aged single malts altogether like macallan and auchentoshan seem to have done (instead selling "selections" or whatever they call them for the same price as the single malt). I picked up six bottles of the macallan 12yr sherry oak before the supply started to dry up and they've doubled in price already. And after all the product placement in Skyfall for their aged single malts too! /hangs head
BlartVersenwaldIII,
I believe the word you are groping for is 'expressions'.
My current tipple of choice is the Balvenie. But I've still not tried them all, and am working my way through. It's proving to be a long job...
I believe you can get one of the Japanese whiskies in Sainsbury's, and I was going to try it, but it was £45 for a ten year old. And for that money I can get a 15 year old. I'll get round to it sometime. There's also an English Whisky Company who're selling a 10 y.o. in Morrisons.
Haven't tried a Glenfarclas yet.
18 yr double wood is very good. 12 year is definitely drinkable ;-) Voted top my college 3 drinking sessions in a row.
Laphroaig is like road tar it is that peaty. The nose on it is pretty chemical....
BTW Whisk[e]y is a lot cheaper here in the USA where it competes with the Corn derived varieties.
If someone offers you a Fireball, decline politely...
P.
"He could prefer the Irish stuff."
Single malt Bushmills was where I made my bones, and picked up the spelling, but these days I prefer the Highlands and Islands to the Irelands, though both are masters of the craft. Japan is certainly a promising contender too, so anyone that has yet to sample a Yamazaki should overcome their fear of travelling, and give it a whirl.
I don't care which way it goes really (might be erring towards Yes, not that I have a vote), but it needs to be a good turn out, and at least 70% in one direction, or we'll have never ending whining from the losing side and the risk of a Quebec style "Neverendum".
Yep, and that's the real problem.
Whichever way it goes, half the population will feel cheated, and they'll instantly blame every problem Scotland faces for the next 20 years (and there will be many, starting with next year's NHS Scotland budget) on the outcome. It's going to stink up the place for a generation or more.
The same way people are now harking back to, and misrepresenting, the 1979 referendum. Only much, much more so, because the stakes are higher this time.
"Scotland would probably ally with France....." Just as Spain has an issue with an independent Scotland due to the Catalan issue, France has a similar issue due to Corsican nationalists. Spain has already come out and openly said it would not be supportive of a Scottish entry to the EU, so banking on French support may be just another of Salmond's pipe dreams.
It isn't really worth it, but I'll just point out that Matt is wrong - some Spaniards have said they wouldn't support Scottish EU entry; some have said that they would support it. Both groups are important enough to be reported in Britain - they are all people with power. The difference is that those in charge of preventing Catalan independence don't want to support it; those in charge of the Spanish economy don't want their fishing catch destroyed. Spanish fishermen in Scottish waters, allowed due to both being EU members, account for ~1% of the Spanish economy. (20-25% of of their fishing catch, 4-5% of their economy is fishing - I didn't believe it either at first).
I think the economics beats the Spanish nationalists.
BTW, this is known, taken into account, and considered by the Scots. Just because the Westminster national press don't report something doesn't mean its not known to the population any more. There's this thing called the internet...
Who are you going to trust more ? A Scot that wears his feelings on his sleeve for everyone to see, or uptight, stiff upper lip Brits, who always hide their emotions under a veneer of oh so respestable propriety ? We told the King what we thought of his "your-a-peeing union" back in 1776.
Of course, we DO have Obama, so freedom isn't perfect - but it beats having your face ground into the dirt by the heel of the King's boot. Good luck Scotland - maybe Ireland will follow your example.
Escape - because that's what Scotland is going to do (I hope). Damned Brits, their driving on the wrong side of the road, and their oh so proper teatime is so annoying. Beatles are cool, though.
'We told the King what we thought of his "your-a-peeing union" back in 1776.'
The English beat you to that, your King Charles I was given a lovely holiday on the Isle of Wight, where he was so overcome by the island he managed to loose his head.
Best days work by the English government ever imo.
I bet the cellular networks are hoping for a yes vote. They can then charge nice high roaming fees to English user's in Scotland and Scottish visitors to England.
Also, since Scotland won't initially be part of the EU then they can charge what they like without any silly EU regulations getting in the way.
The scary part is the realization that there aren't many Scottish IT workers BECAUSE they are more rational than the general population. There are probably a few Scottish sysadmins being hunted down with baying hounds right now, or perhaps being slowly roasted over a campfire of captured Linux documentation.
I just caught the end of an interview on Wireless 4 with someone from the SNP bleating on about having another referendum within the next 5 years.
I hate Salmond with a passion - In the event of a No vote, I'd like to see him hung drawn and quartered, but sadly I think that's just a little against the law.
So long as they take their share of the debt and most importantly are no longer allowed to enjoy the use of the Pound (rough with the smooth...) then good luck to them. As a previous commentard made, it will be nice to watch Salmond trying to explain away the failure to deliver on his promises and maybe it's the Scots that will put his to the gallows.
As for TV - I wonder what will happen to the BBC. It's British after all. I hope they can all get the Outer Hebrides Broadcasting Corporation....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm9I4hbyY6M
Judging by the most popular comments, most people on here seem to be confusing this vote with a vote for a political party. It is not. Were Scotland to vote yes, then that would come after. A vote on voting differently if you like.
This is a vote to determine where the power should lie - no for London, yes for Edinburgh. An analogy I saw earlier was this:
"It’s like the difference between running your own household and living with your parents."
I suspect a lot of people commenting on here have not had much exposure to the debate, other than the main media outlets. I can't speak for satellite, but terrestrial channels BBC and STV have been proven to to show bias north of the border[1], so I can imagine it would be similar elsewhere.
[1] - http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/1052
(Oddly enough it seems searching for 'Fairness in the First Year?' only draws results from pro-yes sites and no national papers, despite it being an impartial study and report from a lecturer at West of Scotland University, fancy that. I tried to pick the most impartial looking one with the figures quickly to hand instead, but searching for it also turned up a BBC response and strong defence by the lead author in question, standing by his methods for impartiality.)
I'm not a wordsmith but the below site is as close as I've found to represent my position:
http://reasonablyraging.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/fuck-scottishness-im-voting-yes.html (summary: electoral reform in the UK is needed and this is about the only way anything's going to get done about it.)
the london vs. edinburgh thing is a red herring, it borders on racism
there's no 'london' or 'westminster' government, it's the government of the uk, voted for by the people of the uk
the fact that one or more areas dislikes it is neither here nor there, it's the system
the correct approach is change the system, not break the uk
otherwise where does it end? i live in a london borough where council and mp are not what i vote for, can i secede?
because that's the core of the snp argument, even if the vote is 'yes', it's likely near half the voters will have said 'no', can they secede?
no way! the snp will never offer that to the people of scotland, they are no different from the system they claim to be so wrong that they want to leave it
salmond and co. are after one thing, power for themselves, they aren't good enough to cut it at uk level, so they dress up their lust as 'independence', the hypocrisy is sickening
same shit, different day
The way the system is setup Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland can get rode over rough shod if one of the big two (most likely the tories but Blair managed it in '97) gets enough MPs in England. You can probably add the west and north of England to that list too. I'll never vote for a party that will be in goverment because of accidents of history and geography and so if you're not in the south east of England you can pretty much get shafted for all the good the Westminister will do for you. Reform would go some way to even out the massive imbalances of power inherient in the system but I can't see the English people or Westminister parties allowing that to happen.
"The way the system is setup Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland can get rode over rough shod"
All as it should be. Collectively they have a population of about 10 million, so equal only to the greater London area. Individually, Wales & Scotland would be large counties, and NI a middle of the road one. Giving them greater power is not democracy in any meaningful sense since it makes a Scots vote worth more than an English one, which is wrong.
Perhaps, but you're setting up a large permanent underclass who have nothing invested in the current system and populations who get collectively punished because their leaders disagree with Westminster politics. Two instances I can recall off hand affect in N.Ireland. When the (and I use the term loosely) politicians there were at a log jam Westminster was going to introduce a water tax despite the water company there being a public owned utility and paid for in the rates. They were forced to get work together to prevent that from being imposed. An example of the power being used for good perhaps but because Sinn Fein are refusing to buy into the austery narrative, the money allocated to N.Ireland is being cut by £100 million. England might comprise the majority in the UK but that does not give them license to effectively neglect and abuse the rest of the UK.
"England might comprise the majority in the UK but that does not give them license to effectively neglect and abuse the rest of the UK."
You'd be right, had that ever happened, but it hasn't.
There is no part of Scotland, Wales, or NI that can legitimately complain to be any more neglected by Westminster than the North East of England. Just the opposite, in fact.
Name a council anywhere in England that could have people there (and just in the area covered by that council) forced to pay punitive taxes or have schools, hospitals and police stations shut down solely because the councillors can't get their act together and the hope is instead of blaming Westminster, people will blame the councillors or because the councillors disagree with some policies and aren’t implementing them.
@James 51
I'm afraid you're chasing a fantasy. Any nation (and that includes the putative independant Scotland) will be governed, and have its resources allocated, in a way that leaves a lot of the voters dissatisfied.
The solution is not endless subdivision. What next? Independence for Wessex? Bring back the heptarchy? I live in Huntingdonshire, where we've been ground under the oppressive heel of Cambridgeshire for decades. Can we vote to secede?
If you're not getting your fare share, then persuade more voters to support your side of the argument, rather than changing the system. I don't think any of the flavours of PR you suggest would make much difference. It doesn't seem to have led to much harmony between the northern and southern Italians.
The answer is that membership of any political grouping involves trading individual and sectional needs for wider benefits. If don't accept this, then I presume you don't want your independant Scotland to join the EU.
My points highlighted punishment of an entire region of the UK for political purposes. That's not unfair allocation of resources. It using a metaphorical stick to beat one of the poorest regions of the UK into obedience and there by taking action it's clear the entire region was against in the case of water charges and most are against in the case of the cuts to welfare. And note those cuts aren't just the welfare budget minus the money Westminster thinks shouldn't be spent. A £100 million fine is being imposed
The rest of the UK outside of the south east has had chronic under investment for decades. Ironically Scotland leaving is the best chance the north and west of England have of addressing that.
I didn't suggest any form of PR. I might be a step in the right direction but only if it leads to governments that represent all of the UK.
I suspect (no proof to speak of) that the "evil government" is wherever the senior civil servants are. A bit like the BBC, they moved part of it "oop north" to get rid of the London weighting*
Here in the US you see it repeated at least 50 times. The local government is in Nashville, and it attracts all the hangers on.
Politics is the pursuit of power without merit. This is why fantasy and faith are such important parts of political elections. Humans want to belong to a collective belief system. This inevitably leads to a lowering of the quality of politicians. It becomes harder and harder to compete in the real world against a pile of projected policies based on the fantasy forecasts of a popularity contest based on plausiblity of imagination.
P.
*The hypothetical difference in the cost of living in London vs anywhere else.
I was just trying to say that we are voting on where we want decisions to be made - London or Edinburgh, not what those decisions are. Please read the link at the bottom of my first post for a better description of my sentiments and I hope you will appreciate that there is no racism intended. I struggle to see how you get can extract racist intent from my post to be honest.
I fully agree that the system needs changed, again, please read the link. I voted for PR (the one thing the Lib Dems delivered on was the referendum for that), which although not perfect is fairer than first past the post (but STV(not the broadvaster this time..) would be better still, IMO of course), but apparently the whole country, that is, the UK, were 'too stupid' to understand it, at least that was the general feeling I got from the press around the time. Anyway, that result didn't turn out so well so I feel like this referendum is the next best chance.
Your remark about Salmond and co.'s lust for power may ring partially true (they're politicians after all) but what do you mean by 'cutting it at UK level'? They've got a decent approval rating of the way they've been running the things they are in control of up here and obviously they aren't going to gain 300 seats in Westminster. I very much doubt I'd vote for Salmond in the event of a Scottish general election mind you - people up here aren't blindly voting yes because he's promising unicorns, it's about getting your voice heard - the opportunity to choose who represents the people.
Anyway I was just hoping to show that there are people up here who love the UK but are so dismayed by its current trajectory that a Yes is the best thing to do. Yes or No, I hope this gets enough people up and voting across the UK, because we really need reform (again, IMO) but voter apathy is a tough nut to crack.
"but voter apathy is a tough nut to crack"
I'm not apathetic, but I refuse to vote for a candidate that does not at least somewhat represent my views. I am no longer prepared to vote for the "least worst" option. I'll continue to turn out and write None of the Above on my ballot until then.
Ho Hum as yet another 1/2 Scot [something must be said for the virility of Scottish males and the constant downvoting by sassenachs:-)] I'm pro union i.e. 'No' for independence. I like to consider myself as the UNION of two BRITISH people, strangely enough who met whilst both in the RAF - question: as independent Scotland has affirmed support for the Queen, how do all institutions with the 'Royal' get repositioned / split / shared??
Anyways, in response to the blog link above about disregarding Scottishness: I gave it a quick read to be confronted by a travesty! This reputedly Scottsh blogger used the term "whiskEy". As explained earlier, in this commentary, this is the Irish dialect and further reading revealed this blogger's history of being termed, in his words, a "fenian"; again an ill informed misuse of the term 'thenian.
I classify the entire post as a rude misjudged diatribe of a person who by rejecting Scottishness shouldn't be permitted to maintain any Scottish identity or right to vote. A forced passing of a basic Scottish history test should be mandatory before permitting any cvote on national identity.
While curious about the outcome, I think the only effect it'll have on me will be the kind of snark I read on The Register and in the Economist. (From my perspective, this is like watching one of those "Fail-Blog" videos - I have no way to influence the results and am very glad to not be involved.)
However I am curious about the number of establishments - both residential and commercial - that physically cross the border. In short, in how many homes and businesses will it be possible to walk a few feet (or a meter for you anti-imperialists) and be subject to different laws and regulations?
Here in the United States such things happen between the states. Have such establishments already been cataloged?
Scotland has its own legal system already. They never got rid of it after the union. Education was also always different. They don't even have thee same exams as the rest of the country.
Unlike most countries, we never sat down and designed our system. It just sort of happened. And bits got changed as and when we got round to it.
Bit like redecorating really... So for example the last government ripped all the wallpaper off the House of Lords, and took the curtains to the dump. The carpets went to a shallow hole dug in the woods, with the odd hereditary peer bundled inside, BOfH style. Then they fell to squabbling about what colour to repaint it. Hint of democracy, or bright will of the people. Ten years later it's still in the same mess, with all the constitutional suitcases piled up in the corner - and no-one's worked out what to do.
Yes, the imminent cornering of the haggis market. I can see it now....
"Hah, you shites!! You're gonna pay me now if ye want yer haggis!!.......(silence).........Come on now, queue up over here if ye want some!.....................Awwww, yeh feckin' jobbies!! Yeh don't know what's good when yeh see it!!"
I don't think it'll affect haggis supply. Post-independence Scotland are going to want all the foreign exchange they can get. On the other hand, if things get nasty, I'm sure we can smuggle a few breeding pairs across the border and release them on to some moorland down here. Then we could hunt them on horseback with packs of hounds, and kill two birds with one stone. Also, our haggis-hunt would involve absolutely no bagpipes whatsoever. Win-Win.
If the sheep are so important to national wealth and power, someone better ask them where they stand on Scottish independence? Wouldn't want to vote one way and then find out the sheep are thinking "Screw ewe!! Independence is a wooly proposition and a baaaa'd idea!"
Careful of the sheep fifth column, Scots!!
I despise small minded nationalism, flag waving, and petty little divisions. Im sure most other people in Scotland feel the same, unyet Im a fanatical yes supporter. Just even a couple of years ago, the concept of independence was seen as stark raving mad, bonkers, lunatic fringe stuff by almost everyone north of the border. But heres the thing - since we've had devolution, the SNP have gone from a lunatic fringe party, to being the main political power in Scotland, with the simple act of, shock horror, actually delivering on their pre election promises. As in, some of the things they've said before getting power, they've done, once they've got in. Crazy, I know. As Nick Clegg will tell you, thats just not how politics is meant to be played these days. Clegg said pre election he was all for free higher education. The minute he's in the coalition, he claims it should now be three grand a year. Higher education fees in Scotland, under Salmonds SNP - zero. THAT is why we're voting yes. Do we think independence will instantly deliver a socialist utopia? Pfft, please. It'll be rough for a few years, we know whats coming. But its Westminster who have made this vote a question of voting for habitual liars, or a liar who occasionally tells the truth. If it is a Yes victory, Salmond and the SNP didn't win the vote, Westminster threw it away. Yes or no, either way, theres been a sea change north of the border. This is a constant topic of conversation, and the whole nation has become politically aware to an extent I would never have expected. Either way, I only hope that spreads right throughout the united kingdom, wherever its borders may be come Friday.
Tipping points in political allegiances happen.... For example, before the American Revolution John Adams successfully defended in court various British troops who had shot anti-royalist demonstrators, and Benjamin Franklin spent months in Britain trying to get the crown and Parliament to sign off on a compromise that gave colonials representation in Parliament and worrying that independence would impact American's ability to appreciate Shakespeare.
Six and two years later, respectively, they were signing off on the Declaration of Independence, an act for which other signatories that were captured by the British were imprisoned and tortured.
It'll be a definite "No" from me. I'm a Scot, I'm a Patriot, and I have to vote for what I believe is the best of a rotten lot.
Politicians can be described admirably by a paraphrased quote from "The Hunt From Red October": When they're not kissing babies, they're stealing their lollipops.
Alec and his cronies have succeeded in one thing and one thing only: driving a stake into the heart of a great Nation. No matter who "wins" with this vote, that divide will still be there and it could take decades for the damage to heal over. But then again - maybe that's exactly what he wants.....?
This seems to have gone below the radar a tad:
http://www.rsc.org.uk/explore/projects/a-midsummer-nights-dream-a-play-for-the-nation.aspx
Para 2 says
"Directed by our Deputy Artistic Director, Erica Whyman, A Midsummer Night's Dream: A Play for the Nation will tour with RSC actors to all three nations and 12 regions of the UK."
Hmmm. Given they're on in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, I make that 4 nations if nothing changes...
"bang goes the Scots oil"
There's a few issues with that....
Borders are drawn at the angle they intersect the sea, not along parallell lines. That makes the vast majority of the active oil fields Geordie, rather than Scots. The remaining fields are currently uneconomic to pursue. Grab a map and put the ruler from Carlisle to Berwick, then see which side of it the oil fields reside.
Furthermore any division of oil rights will have to be pro-rata'd just like the national debt. So if Scotland are taking 4/65ths of the debt, the only get 4/65ths of the oil rights. It's not like they could stop us running some pipes ashore near Berwick or Newcastle... what are they going to do, invade? There simply aren't enough Scots to pose a threat.
"what are they going to do, invade? There simply aren't enough Scots to pose a threat."
You clearly havn't recently been near a London Railway station late at night. They are full of drunken and smelly Scotsmen swinging their arms wildly and shouting incomprehensible verbage at full volume at anything that comes near - usually with a can of Super Tennents in hand...
That's actually not as crazy as it sounds. What if t`he borders area votes solidly to remain in the UK, as they seem likely to do? If town in that area pass motions asking to remain, will they have to set up a boundary commission to decide exactly where the border is going to be? After all, it has moved in the past.
How many Scots are "digital citizens"?
This silly computer prediction assumes everyone but the toilet are connected and express an opinion, and a true one, in online polls...
How many don't give a fig about polls or forum discussions?
And how many don't know and don't even want to know what an Internet is?
This predictions on wide age and cultural backgrounds based on the ones that are "connected" (or afflicted if you like it better) are not better than pulling numbers out of dark places of the human anatomy.
"Bingly-bingly-beep" was badly wrong and demonstrates how crap IT based predictions with funky algorithms and huge budgets really are - cf financial algos and their effects. They had access to vast amounts of data but could not get it right. I notice they only gave a number without error estimates.
The end result was 55%-45% not "too close for error bars" [my term]
I note that Edinbugh, Orkney and Shetland were massively against indy, ie the capital and the two most remote bits of Jockland want to be Brits and good on them.
Cheers
Jon
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
