Mumsnet Talk

Cameron says 'get on with it'. Salmond is biding his time. Presumably both of them think an early referendum would earn a 'no' result. In an era where countries are banding together to weather the storms of international economics I'm not sure I quite understand why a very small nation would want to go it alone. Then again, is it a given that anyone that voted SNP automatically wants independence as they are suggesting? Or is it, same as in England, that they got in because they 'weren't Labour'...?

Cameron wants a yes/no choice, soon. Salmond wants an independence/devo max/status quo choice in 2014 and the date was in the manifesto upon which he was elected by a landslide, despite the voting systsm having been set up to prevent that very thing.

An early yes/no imposed by Westminster may well result in a "fuck you" yes vote (it would be my reaction) where waiting till 2014 and allowing the three choices is more likely to result in devo max, ie no breakup of the Union but increased powers to thd Scottish Government.

And I think the SNP got in because they weren't Westminster. They talk positively about Scotland instead of berating us as subsidy junkies etc.

Actually I'm with you oldlady on this one.

Forcing them to have an early vote is exactly the type of thing which Salmond will use to say "Look at Westminster...forcing us to do stuff again"

Personally I think that the breakup of the union will be disastrous for all of us but if that's the will of the Scots then we must respect that.

In my opinion, the SNP only got in by a landslide because people were pissed off with Labour, couldn't bring themselves to vote Tory thanks to Maggie and so voted for SNP. I don't think most Scots want to be independent.

The only positive thing i can think of is that it would finally answer the West Lothian question.

Perhaps England could / should have a referendum to see if we want to stay in the union. I don't know why this is never put forward by any political party - the union cuts both ways and since it seems that Scotland gets a very good deal - so why not? Personally, I particularily dislike the Scottish / Ulster protestant idea of Britishness - the intolerance that they show to other cultures is way out of kilter with the reality of life in most of England.
Salmond's reaction to such a proposal would be very interesting.

There is no English political party that I've heard of that is anything other than Unionist (though I think there's one that wants independence for Cornwall) so presumably there is no great interest in independence for the English.

Would you also break up with Wales and Northern Ireland?

What OldLady said....

Plus SNP largely got in because they've done a good job during the last Scottish Parliament, and seem to be actually quite good at governing Scotland.

The anti-Labour thing may be part of it - but in my case at least it was because the local Labour candidate came round the house and couldn't find anything positive to tell me about why to vote for Labour, but just kept on and on and on about why the SNP were disastrous for Scotland. I was brought up to believe that if someone can't tell you anything positive about their product and can only rubbish their competitors, they are not the best choce

But a vote for SNP certainly wasn't a vote for independence - plenty of people up here would prefer "devo max". But the more I hear of English people whinging about how much they finance Scotland, and whinges about our university fees and prescription charges, the more likely I am to vote for full independence when I get the chance.

Agree with you niceguy2.

My mum still goes on about the Poll Tax fiasco when we were kids!

Having spent some time over Christmas reading Simon Schama's 'History of Britain' I was struck that objections to parliamentary union were vigorous on both sides of the border for a full hundred years after James I/VI took the throne. It was a long way from the 'hostile takeover' version of events that I'd been expecting.

Anyone seen any opinion polls on whether a referendum held now would result in a yes or a no?

Agree with AMum, the negativity of all of the Westminster-based parties was a major contributor to the success of the SNP. If you keep telling us that 300 years of Union have left us too poor and too stupid to survive without England, it starts to look as if we couldn't be any worse off on our own.

I think Scotland is still about 1/3 in favour of independence, so more likely a No vote. But I think there is probably a small majority in favour of the "devo max" solution - increasing Scotlands devolved powers beyond what we currently have, while keeping the union.

I'll see if I can find the figures...

The result of a referendum now would depend on the question, Cogito.

The latest figures I can find have something like 39% in favour of full independence, and 68% in favour of increased devolution (separate questions). But I'm not sure exactly how the questions were worded.

But support for independence has been going up over the years, which may account for the Westminster parties being so keen to push on and get the referendum done sooner rather than later. Plus the fact that they are trying to make out that Salmond has in some way been dishonest about the plans for the referendum - he has always said it would be late in this parliament, and is sticking to that, so I don't think there has been any dishonesty at all, but they are stirring up the "this uncertainty is bad for business" line, to make out that he's not competent.

There probably would be some interest in independence for England if a major party adopted it. Having lived in Scotland, sometime ago albeit, I was a little surprised at the hostility to 'England' - it seems that in the minds of some all of the ills of the world eminate from it. Labour would not countenance the policy as it would condemn them to never being able to form a government. The conservatives are by default a Unionist party. It could be of some appeal to the Lib Dems (as they are barely represented in Scotland) and may actually give them a chance of forming a majority Westminster government.
The whole union is a big compromise that we should perhaps examine from time to time. For instance, if we really belive that NI is part of Britain why don't we give the voters there a chance to vote for mainstream non sectarian political parties. IMO it is because no one (not the NI voters or the mainstream political parties) truly consider NI to be a part of Britain.

I certainly think that England needs some form of "devolution" Now that Scotland and Wales have an option to determine some questions which only apply to them, without it having to be discussed and voted on by the whole of Westminster, England should have the same as well. Whether that gets done by having a whole separate assembly, or whether some sessions could be English MPs only to discuss England-only topics, I don't know, but if I was living in England I'd be very unimpressed by Scottish MPs voting on things like education which are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and therefore don't affect them.

I think there is less hostility towards "the English" since we've had an SNP Government tbh.

Completely agree AMIS - but there are currently too many vested interests amongst the mainstream parties for real change to occur. I think that we did have a referendum a few years ago on having another tier of government which was decisively rejected - perhaps because it was associated with John Prescott.

However, Salmond's posturings and the very real prospect of the break up of the union could well arouse a backlash of some sort down here.

Personally I think it's about time this issue be put to rest. So in other words, Scotland should either vote for full independence or not.

Not another political fudge which leaves the SNP free to have another go later if things don't go their way.

"Devo max" as mentioned above sounds like cherry picking the good bits and not wanting the bad bits. Sorry but life doesn't work like that. You either want to stand on your own two feet or you don't. As the Euro has painfully proved, you cannot have financial independence without political independence.

The chances are Scotland would have to be part of the EU to stand a chance to compete. In which case as a small fish in a big pond you'd effectively be dictated to from Germany and France.

Lastly it does seem a bit rich that SNP is moaning about how unfair it is for Westminster to dictate the timing of any referendum when they don't want one now because they fear they'd lose it.

I think Salmond wants devo max (the most likely outcome) so that independence would occur at some future date by stealth. I agree that the choice put to Scotland should be clear - either be a part of the union with all its faults, or plough your own furrow without the Barnett formula.

The SNP want to have the referendum when they always said they'd have the referendum - towards the end of this parliament - they don't want to be pushed into an agenda set by Westminster. And, personally, I think Westminster trying to push is actually a bad move for them - it makes it look as though England are trying to push us around instead of recognising the authority of the Scottish Parliament to make decisions about how to do things up here.

I'm not even sure I'm in favour of independence, but the current posturing of Westminster makes me more in favour of it than I've ever been before. As OldLady puts it, a "Fuck you" yes vote....

Yep, I'm sure that's what Salmond wants but we shouldn't allow something so fundamental to be decided by stealth and apathy. There should be a clear vote and only enacted if the majority of Scots vote for it.

I just can't imagine why any small country would want to go it alone in current times. I mean look at what happened to Ireland or worse still, Iceland. Small countries with small economies are more vulnerable to financial shocks.

Can you imagine what the impact would have been for Scotland if it were a sovereign nation at the time that RBS and HBOS went under? It would have been following firmly in the footsteps of Iceland. It's only because of the union that the UK as a whole absorbed the losses. Ireland had no such backup. Neither did Iceland.

Perhaps if Scotland had retained independence all those years ago, RBS and HBOS wouldn't have happened. Perhaps our financial regulations wouldn't have permitted it. There's no way to tell.

I seriously doubt it. The temptation upon the SNP to turn a blind eye would have been even greater.

Remember that in the boom years, the banks were a huge success story. Everyone was more than happy to take tax the profits and not ask too many questions. Ireland & Iceland again are perfect examples. The idea that the SNP would have clamped down when every other nation was trying to open up is quite fanciful.

OLKN - that is exactly the sort of attitude that I detected when I lived in Scotland. It absolves Scots (in their own minds) from any responsibility when things go wrong because 'the English' won't let them do things their own way. I shouldn't really have to remind you that the PM (and chancellor and many of the cabinet) at the time of that crisis were both Scots.

I just find it insulting that David Cameron is bemoaning Alex Salmond's timing as an attempt to influence the result of the vote. What exactly is DC trying to do by bringing it forward?! DC obviously has no problem with a government/political party trying to influence the outcome of a referendum (see the AV vote) so what he is saying does not add up. It just makes him look like the archetypal upper class English tory trying to control Scotland (even more than normal). Not a good move.