Salmond "We can take Scotland in two weeks"

[scooterscot]

IIRC, the original proposal for the referendum included a devomax option.

I believe it was Westminster who insisted on Yes or No, presumably confident of a no vote.

Correct. No very good a chess are they? For that matter, tic-tac-toe would have David flummoxed.

If I put the cross in the centre box..

[eek]

IIRC, the original proposal for the referendum included a devomax option.

I believe it was Westminster who insisted on Yes or No, presumably confident of a no vote.

Yes, No, have a pressie was hardly a sensible question to ask. The reason why there wasn't a third choice was that it would win..

[DodgyAgent]

IIRC, the original proposal for the referendum included a devomax option.

I believe it was Westminster who insisted on Yes or No, presumably confident of a no vote.

From what I understand the silent majority will vote No anyway. Salmond wont want the monkey of Independence on his back. it is been an exercise for every chippy Jock to play out his personal inferiority issues. The thought of having to stand on their own two feet must be a nightmare. Far better to just lose carry on enjoying even more attention than they already get and continue to blame the English for all their woes.

[mudskipper]

Here we are

Scottish independence referendum, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bill outlined 3 proposals: the first was full devolution or 'devolution max', suggesting that the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for "all laws, taxes and duties in Scotland", with the exception of "defence and foreign affairs; financial regulation, monetary policy and the currency", which would be retained by the British Government. The 2nd proposal outlined Calman-type fiscal reform, gaining the additional powers and responsibilities of setting a Scottish rate of income tax that could vary by up to 10p in the pound compared with the rest of the UK, setting the rate of stamp duty land tax and "other minor taxes", and introducing new taxes in Scotland with the agreement of the UK Parliament, and finally, "limited power to borrow money". The 3rd proposal was for full independence

And the bill:

WebCite query result

[Mich the Tester]

IIRC, the original proposal for the referendum included a devomax option.

I believe it was Westminster who insisted on Yes or No, presumably confident of a no vote.

Was it the Conservatives who opposed the extra option(s)?

[Old Greg]

Had a nice chat to a Scottish friend / old colleague in Edinburgh yesterday (who works across the whole of Scotland so has a broader view than just Edinburgh). Her view was that people would step back from the brink but that it will be fairly close. Of course, this may be wishful thinking as her hubby works in financial service and his job may go South, and she heads up what I think must be the only part of NHS England operating in Scotland (and funded by Scottish government), so her job will probably have some upheaval as well (not in itself a bad thing).

Inneresting times.

[jemb]

Two problems

1) Devomax isn't an option in the referendum.
2) Devomax is not something the unelected Gordon Brown can offer. Any party who offers it may discover the entirety of England votes UKIP at the next election.

While Westminster seems to still want Scotland in the union, the sight of everyone panicking and offering more and more as part of that panic means many south of the border would be happy to be shot of Scotland...

Keeping us, Scotland, in the Union is a good thing. There was always going to be a constitutional settlement after the vote.

I'm struggling to see why further devolution for Scotland, a constitutionl settlement for England and Wales and NI would give UKIP more votes?

As for UKIP - they got 10% in the EU elections (and an MEP) in Scotland and their vote is growing. They're expecting their vote to rise in Scotland after a Yes vote.

[sirja]

Had a nice chat to a Scottish friend / old colleague in Edinburgh yesterday (who works across the whole of Scotland so has a broader view than just Edinburgh). Her view was that people would step back from the brink but that it will be fairly close. Of course, this may be wishful thinking as her hubby works in financial service and his job may go South, and she heads up what I think must be the only part of NHS England operating in Scotland (and funded by Scottish government), so her job will probably have some upheaval as well (not in itself a bad thing).

Inneresting times.

I think the senior citizens will swing it for the No camp. They are usually a very focused and serious voting group who can be counted on to actually come out and vote on the day come hail or high water. I agree it's going to be tight which is a shame because it means it's likely we'll be doing this all over again in a few years time

[eek]

Keeping us, Scotland, in the Union is a good thing. There was always going to be a constitutional settlement after the vote.

I'm struggling to see why further devolution for Scotland, a constitutionl settlement for England and Wales and NI would give UKIP more votes?

As for UKIP - they got 10% in the EU elections (and an MEP) in Scotland and their vote is growing. They're expecting their vote to rise in Scotland after a Yes vote.

Scotland are rapidly becoming perceived as a bunch of ungrateful .... who want even more when they already get more than others get (free university, free prescriptions....)... (oh and if you don't believe me read the comments on an referendum article on the times, telegraph, guardian or mail website).

Offering any more devolution is going to go down like a lead balloon in England and going to go down very badly at the election. I couldn't imagine myself ever voting for UKIP but can imagine them winning a fair few seats if Scotland get any additional perceived benefit from this vote...

[Old Greg]

I think the senior citizens will swing it for the No camp. They are usually a very focused and serious voting group who can be counted on to actually come out and vote on the day come hail or high water. I agree it's going to be tight which is a shame because it means it's likely we'll be doing this all over again in a few years time

The 1995 Quebec referendum was very tight - 49.42% Yes to 50.58% No, but there have been no further referenda, because an acceptable constitutional settlement within Canada was found. There are differences of course, but a close No does not make a repeat inevitable.

This is why it is getting fraught. The hard core nationalists recognise that this may be a once in a lifetime opportunity. What is going on I think is this thought process:

If this is our one change to gain liberty, then any lie or half truth (e.g. on currency, risks to EU membership) is justified.

It is a profoundly anti-democratic position, and it's a shame because the arguments for independence stack up pretty well on their own merits. But the risks should be acknowledged. What I think is really interesting is that the YES campaign are making a plat for the DevoMax supporters by presenting a watered down sovereignty with a Currency Union, where Westminster has a veto on certain Scottish fiscal matters and the BoE continues to set interest rates etc. Of course, the truth is that CU will never happen, the YES campaign know it and they don't want it in any case.