Possible Scottish Independence and the Monarchy

[PrincessOfPeace]

Even in the best of scenarios, Scottish independence poses a serious challenge to the existing order of states embodied in the treaty of the European Union.

Europe’s order is built on the idea of stable states and fixed borders that underpin a legal order more than 50 years old, as well as structures such as the EU and Nato.

When Mariano Rajoy, Spain’s prime minister, described Scottish independence as a “torpedo to the vulnerabilities of the EU” he was speaking for many - if not all Europe's leaders.

Scottish referendum: 'Scotland will find few friends and allies in Europe' - Telegraph

No good deed goes unpunished. In granting residents of Scotland a referendum on their country’s political future, David Cameron surely thought he was doing a good deed. The Scottish National Party would have to put up or shut up. A Yes vote would be a victory for them. A No vote would be a victory for the Scottish Labour Party bigwigs to whom Mr Cameron entrusted the campaign against independence, in the belief that he – despite being the son of a Scotsman – was less qualified than they to make the case for the Union.

If Mr Cameron gave a thought to his own self-interest, it can only have been a fleeting one. Before he became prime minister, I once suggested to him that a referendum on Scottish independence might be a Machiavellian masterstroke. If it went the wrong way, I suggested, playing devil’s advocate, might not the Tories rule for ever more in the remaining UK?

Scottish referendum: Alone, Scotland will go back to being a failed state - Telegraph

 

[Nice Nofret]

your arguments are always alongline Money ... but it's much more at stake; can't you see that?

 

[Marengo]

We can argue that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are more prosperous then they were in the Soviet Union. We can argue that both the Czech Republic and Slovakia have fared better since they split in a "velvet divorce". We can argue that countries as Croatia and Slovenia have reached a far higher standard of living since they broke away from Yugoslavia. In general I am no supporter of separatism but it is hard to find any nation which has fared worser since they split away, leaving some obvious exceptions like Serbia (the backbone state of former Yugoslavia). The argument of Scotland will impoverish without Britain has -so far- not found evidence in other examples in Europe.

The difference being that all these countries formerly were under communist dictatorship. While Scotland is not.
Of course, since the Scots have an ocean full of oil it is unlikely that they will get poorer in the short run. Especially since the populist of the Scotish party has to hand out 'presents' to his voters, as all these populist nutters promise. Still, more fragmentation in Europe is the last thing we need.

 

[Muhler]

Forgive me for asking a stupid question, (rather than trawling back through the pages), but is a theoretical 50.5 % of the votes really enough to pass the referendum?

I would have imagined that a much larger majority would be necessary in such a crucial matter, say 66 %.

 

[cepe]

To win the referendum, one side needs to secure 50% of the vote, plus one extra vote. That one extra vote is the winning line.

 

[Muhler]

Thanks, Cepe.

That's what astound me. Considering that there is no going back, wouldn't such a narrow acceptable margin be more politically divisive among the Scots, regardless of the outcome?
That would mean, again in theory, that if a majority of the voters in say Glasgow voted no, and the national result of the referendum was yes by say 52%, then people of Glasgow would have a good case for seceeding from Scotland and remaining in the rest of UK, wouldn't they?

 

[cepe]

First past the post is how the UK vote and everyone knows that. There have been many instances in the UK parliament where the party with the most seats is not the party with the biggest overall vote.

 

[Rudolph]

We are following all of this very closely in Canada. Scots played a big role in shaping the history and culture of the country.

 

[Jacknch]

Thank you for bringing this issue up Muhler, because it is something that worries me a great deal. I do not believe that democracy is properly served when voting results mean that ALMOST half the population are not in favour of whatever has been voted in. What about the 49.5% of the remaining population? It is a significant proportion whose voice will have been heard but ignored.
I would have gone beyond a 66% and insisted on 75% then we can be sure that whatever the result is will have properly been the will of the people.
We'll know soon enough, but I can't see how anyone will be able to celebrate whatever the result is if it's such a close end.

 

[PrincessOfPeace]

Cameron gave the SNP every concession it wanted, from the date of the referendum to the age of voting (16). Not only does the rest of the United Kingdom not have a say but it takes only 50 percent +1 of Scots to break up the union.

 

[Ish]

While I find the age of voting a bit odd (do 16 year olds get to vote in everything or just this referendum?), the 50%+1 vote makes sense to me.

If they said that the result had to be 66%, and it came in at 53%, then clearly the majority of Scots are in favour of separation but are at that point literally being forced to stay in the union because their majority isn't big enough. Yes, it would suck for the very sizeable minority if the result comes down that close, but it's still respecting what most people in Scotland want.

Requiring the Yeses to have a 66% vote doesn't respect what the majority of Scotland wants. It's basically saying "unless you can get an overwhelming majority of Scots to vote for this we're going to ignore the results if they don't favour us". In that case, if the results come in at 53% for yes and 47% for no, the Nos have won the vote without actually winning it.

 

[cepe]

I wonder how the Queen is? Will she stay up? Will she find out ahead of the general public? (Mmm? need to see if I can find the answer to the last question). Will she speak to the nation or just quietly come back to BP this week end

Probably a night for 2 gin/dubonnet, rather than the usual one!

 

[Jacknch]

Well, I can see what you're saying, Ish. But the Nos would be winning nothing as nothing would change in the country and status quo would remain. Nonetheless, it still bugs me what the 49.5% are supposed to do - the workings of democracy has its failings too!

 

[BritishRoyalist]

While I find the age of voting a bit odd (do 16 year olds get to vote in everything or just this referendum?), the 50%+1 vote makes sense to me.

If they said that the result had to be 66%, and it came in at 53%, then clearly the majority of Scots are in favour of separation but are at that point literally being forced to stay in the union because their majority isn't big enough. Yes, it would suck for the very sizeable minority if the result comes down that close, but it's still respecting what most people in Scotland want.

Requiring the Yeses to have a 66% vote doesn't respect what the majority of Scotland wants. It's basically saying "unless you can get an overwhelming majority of Scots to vote for this we're going to ignore the results if they don't favour us". In that case, if the results come in at 53% for yes and 47% for no, the Nos have won the vote without actually winning it.

Well of that the case then The UK will most likely wake up tomorrow still a United Kingdom as if the yes did win i cant see them winning that much percentage of votes. Will be many happy voters on the no side but no doubt there will be some very angry peoples.

I just hope this doesn't turn ugly no matter what happen meaning no civil wars, riots, etc. i would ate to see that happen


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Jacknch]

I wonder how the Queen is? Will she stay up? Will she find out ahead of the general public? (Mmm? need to see if I can find the answer to the last question). Will she speak to the nation or just quietly come back to BP this week end

Probably a night for 2 gin/dubonnet, rather than the usual one!

Well, I suspect as a woman of habit, she will go about her evening/night time routine as usual, but may be woken during the night if anything of note can be gleaned from the results.
As much as I would like it, I cannot imagine that she would speak to the nation whatever the result is. She might make a glancing comment during her Christmas Speech once the dust has settled.
The Ball tomorrow night will be interesting though - I wonder how the staff and workers at Balmoral who are Scottish will have voted and whether there will be more drinking and dancing whatever the result?!

 

[wyevale]

A good percentage of the Noes will up sticks and move to England.. IF the Nats win.. {somewhere where they will still 'fit'...}

 

[PrincessOfPeace]

The other thing that I don't like is the disenfranchisement of almost 1 million Scots.
British soldiers born and raised in Scotland but serving in England are not allowed a vote but an American citizen attending school or university in Scotland is allowed a vote.

 

[Muhler]

While I find the age of voting a bit odd (do 16 year olds get to vote in everything or just this referendum?), the 50%+1 vote makes sense to me.

If they said that the result had to be 66%, and it came in at 53%, then clearly the majority of Scots are in favour of separation but are at that point literally being forced to stay in the union because their majority isn't big enough. Yes, it would suck for the very sizeable minority if the result comes down that close, but it's still respecting what most people in Scotland want.

Requiring the Yeses to have a 66% vote doesn't respect what the majority of Scotland wants. It's basically saying "unless you can get an overwhelming majority of Scots to vote for this we're going to ignore the results if they don't favour us". In that case, if the results come in at 53% for yes and 47% for no, the Nos have won the vote without actually winning it.

I disagree with you, Ish.

The 66 % is to ensure that a very sizeble majority of the population actually do want to go through with whatever but crucial issue they vote for. In this case independence.
It's also to ensure the interests of the loosing side. In this case say 49 % of the voters, who could otherwise become very frustrated since there will be no turning back.
Such frustrations need of course not become violent, but they could result in people leaving Scotland, or at the very least that the no voters in this case would start to vote for those parties and politicians who were most in favour of a no, thus changing the political landscape.
In any case such a large minority would be very vocal, and very troublesome to deal with politically and ultimately the yes side could end up with a political pyrrus victory on their hands, rather than a new refreshing start, which they clearly aim for.

Don't get me wrong, If the Scots want independence they should have it. Personally I would not accept a part of my own country gaining independence based on a 1 % majority. That would be unfair for the loosing side and politically polarizing.
After all, the yes-side can always try again, this time perhaps securing a much more substancial majority.
The no-side only get one chance this way.
In other words: if the yes-side can't win with a large majority, then the project isn't mature yet.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Cameron gave the SNP every concession it wanted, from the date of the referendum to the age of voting (16). Not only does the rest of the United Kingdom not have a say but it takes only 50 percent +1 of Scots to break up the union.

Not 'of Scots'. It is 50% of all whom are officially registered as a resident of Scotland (so also other nationalities), and have registered themselves as a voter, and who have turned up at the election.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The other thing that I don't like is the disenfranchisement of almost 1 million Scots.
British soldiers born and raised in Scotland but serving in England are not allowed a vote but an American citizen attending school or university in Scotland is allowed a vote.

Mr Cameron walked with open eyes into Salmond's trap, totally underestimating the whole circus. It was obvious from the very first second on that the thought of Scotland going independence was "utter fantasy" for Cameron and other Westminster politicians. They all agreed with the Referendum Act and all arrangements around. Again a proof of their tunnel vision.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I wonder how the Queen is? Will she stay up? Will she find out ahead of the general public? (Mmm? need to see if I can find the answer to the last question). Will she speak to the nation or just quietly come back to BP this week end

Probably a night for 2 gin/dubonnet, rather than the usual one!

The Queen did not speak to the nation when Rhodesia became independent or when Hong Kong went to China, did she? Scotland at least remains one of her Realms, that can not be said about Rhodesia or Hong Kong.

 

[crm2317]

The thing about this referendum that irks me the most is 16 and 17 year olds voting. They have never been allowed to vote at that age before. Many of them will probably have no idea of the future ramifications of a yes vote and are caught up in the idea of a free, independent nation. Mr Salmond only wanted them to vote as he knew without them he wouldn't stand a chance!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Mbruno]

The Queen did not speak to the nation when Rhodesia became independent or when Hong Kong went to China, did she? Scotland at least remains one of her Realms, that can not be said about Rhodesia or Hong Kong.

If I remember it correctly, the Queen did speak to the Australian nation following Australia's republican referendum. Basically she renewed her committment to continue serving the Australian people as "their Queen" following the decision in the referendum to keep the monarchy.

 

[PrincessOfPeace]

The campaign to keep Scotland in the Union has increased its narrow lead, according to the last referendum poll

An Evening Standard/ Ipsos Mori poll, conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday, found that the No campaign had taken a six point lead in the run up to the referendum.

It found that six in 10 of those voting for Scotland to stay in the union were motivated more by "fear" about the risks of independence than "hope" for the future. By contrast eight in 10 Yes voters said they were motivated more by hope than fear.

The poll highlighted a significant gender divide, with men 53 per cent of men favouring independence while 58 per cent of women said they intended to vote for Scotland to stay in the union.

People aged between 25 and 34 were the most likely to vote yes, dividing 73 to 27, while those over-55 were split two to one in favour of Scotland staying in the Union.

Scottish independence poll: No campaign takes six point lead - Telegraph

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That is a bit like mustard after dinner.... coming with a poll while the Mother-Of-All-Polls is right now under way...

It is impossible to predict. Asking a group of 1200 people but what age, which background, which political preference, from Edinburgh or from Dundee, etc. When it is so close, it is almost impossible to tell. A difference of 5% in a group of roughly 1000-1200 persons just means 40 persons. A change in that gap only needs a few persons, that is why these polls are as trustworthy as throwing a coin and choose which side...

 

[Ish]

I disagree with you, Ish.

The 66 % is to ensure that a very sizeble majority of the population actually do want to go through with whatever but crucial issue they vote for. In this case independence.
It's also to ensure the interests of the loosing side. In this case say 49 % of the voters, who could otherwise become very frustrated since there will be no turning back.
Such frustrations need of course not become violent, but they could result in people leaving Scotland, or at the very least that the no voters in this case would start to vote for those parties and politicians who were most in favour of a no, thus changing the political landscape.
In any case such a large minority would be very vocal, and very troublesome to deal with politically and ultimately the yes side could end up with a political pyrrus victory on their hands, rather than a new refreshing start, which they clearly aim for.

Don't get me wrong, If the Scots want independence they should have it. Personally I would not accept a part of my own country gaining independence based on a 1 % majority. That would be unfair for the loosing side and politically polarizing.
After all, the yes-side can always try again, this time perhaps securing a much more substancial majority.
The no-side only get one chance this way.
In other words: if the yes-side can't win with a large majority, then the project isn't mature yet.

I don't know.

When the 1995 Quebec referendum had a result of 50.58% voting against separation things were controversial. There were accusations of vote tampering (despite the fact that 98.12% of the votes were considered valid), deliberately unclear wording (which... granted, the wording of the referendum was rather unclear), and attempts to buy the vote. Now, almost 20 years later the issue still hangs over Canada and there are still concerns about whether or not Quebec is going to have another referendum, and what the result will be when it happens. And that's with a vote that had the No win. I can't imagine what would have happened had the Yes been at 50.58% and Quebec hadn't been given their sovereignty because the Yeses hadn't had enough of a vote.

If it's a close vote then the losing side is going to be disappointed either way and there will likely be repercussions - and if the Nos win by a small majority the issue isn't likely to go away. But if the Yeses come out with the majority and were denied their independence because they didn't have enough of a majority? That's how you start riots.

 

[Mbruno]

That is a bit like mustard after dinner.... coming with a poll while the Mother-Of-All-Polls is right now under way...

It is impossible to predict. Asking a group of 1200 people but what age, which background, which political preference, from Edinburgh or from Dundee, etc. When it is so close, it is almost impossible to tell. A difference of 5% in a group of roughly 1000-1200 persons just means 40 persons. A change in that gap only needs a few persons, that is why these polls are as trustworthy as throwing a coin and choose which side...

As long as those 1,200 people are a true random sample where all voters in the country have an a priori equal probability of being interviewed, then statistical theory as we learn in college tells that, in 95 out of 100 samples, the estimated voting intention equals the actual voting intention plus or minus at most approximately 2.8 % (the infamous "margin of error").

So, yes, scientific polls are accurate.

 

[Muhler]

I don't know.

When the 1995 Quebec referendum had a result of 50.58% voting against separation things were controversial. There were accusations of vote tampering (despite the fact that 98.12% of the votes were considered valid), deliberately unclear wording (which... granted, the wording of the referendum was rather unclear), and attempts to buy the vote. Now, almost 20 years later the issue still hangs over Canada and there are still concerns about whether or not Quebec is going to have another referendum, and what the result will be when it happens. And that's with a vote that had the No win. I can't imagine what would have happened had the Yes been at 50.58% and Quebec hadn't been given their sovereignty because the Yeses hadn't had enough of a vote.

If it's a close vote then the losing side is going to be disappointed either way and there will likely be repercussions - and if the Nos win by a small majority the issue isn't likely to go away. But if the Yeses come out with the majority and were denied their independence because they didn't have enough of a majority? That's how you start riots.

I don't see it that way.
The Scottish yes-voters will gain political advantages even if they lose, especially if they lose with a very, very low margin.
The no-voters would lose all. - But they will in return demand political concessions, which will make life a lot more difficult for the yes side.

The yes-side can try again in say ten or twenty years and perhaps this time secure a much more convincing yes to independence.
It's after all unlikely the UK will accept Scotland returning should the no side gain a political majority later on, no matter how big it may be.

Apart from the usual hooligans I can hardly see the Scottish yes-voters rioting should the outcome have been say 52-48 in favour of a yes. (With the acceptable majority being say 66 %)
After all I don't think the Scottish are or feel opressed, it's IMO more a case of there being very far politically speaking from Westminster to Scotland. - The northern most parts of England may actually feel the same way as the Scottish in that respect.

In other words isn't this referendum more about knocking the politicians in Westminster on the heads, rather than a genuine wish for full independence?

It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future, but I think Scotland will eventually become independent, - in a generation from now, but not today.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

As long as those 1,200 people are a true random sample where all voters in the country have an a priori equal probability of being interviewed, then statistical theory as we learn in college tells that, in 95 out of 100 samples, the estimated voting intention equals the actual voting intention plus or minus at most approximately 2.8 % (the infamous "margin of error").

So, yes, scientific polls are accurate.

But there seems a HUGE difference between cities as Edinburgh or Dundee, between the cities and the countryside, between young and old, between the haves and the have-nots. Plus a large group (16-17 years) which are for the first time in the electorate and are not in the 'overview' of the poll bureaus because they do not join online questionnaires, telephone- or street interviews. In general is assumed the young is more YES and the elders are more NO (which has absolutely to do with pensions). But Scotland has a large eh... "underclass" with low prospects and have nothing to loose. Getting rid -forever- from the hated Tories might be a great prospect. The "haves" will fear for their mortgages, their jobs and are believed to say NO. All this has to be catched in that very sample of 1.000 - 1.200 participants to an enquête and hopefully they say honest answers and indeed do in the polling station what they have told to the enquêteurs. It is what it is: too close to call.

 

[wyevale]

Just under an hour until polls close.. then its 'all over bar the shouting' { and I fear there WILL be shouting...