to start yet another Indyref thread?

[FannyFifer]

Round 3 folks.

We should arrange an Indyref meet up at this stage.

What DP and I were talking about this morning (and he is a Yes voter ) - is that if the No vote wins narrowly, then the SNP/Yes campaign will continue and there is likely to be another referendum in 5/10/20 years.

I can't see there being a referendum to go back into the UK if there is a narrow Yes victory. And who knows if rUK would want us back!

To clarify my plea to undecided voters to vote no - I should have said, 'If you're unsure on sept 18th please vote no'.

ItsALLGoingToBeFine:

If there is a yes win of 51% it will be very divisive and not the time to successfully embark on transformative change.

If there could be a Norwegian style 90 odd percent I'd say go for it and good luck.

If there is a yes win of 51% it will be very divisive and not the time to successfully embark on transformative change.

I completely agree, with the proviso that the same applies to a No vote. Whatever the vote everything changes, and there will be a lot of absolutely gutted people. I really hope it is not that close though, whichever way it goes.

"I can't see there being a referendum to go back into the UK if there is a narrow Yes victory".

Don't you think that speaks volumes?

In the real world the no vote will not result in anywhere near the upheavals of a Yes vote.

And unlike a Yes vote it will be revisited no doubt! Once out Scotland will be out forever.

We couldn't just have yet another referendum to rejoin.

(I'm sure I read on MN Norwegian women didn't have the vote at the time of the Norwegian referendum?)

If the issue is self-determination then it can't be argued that a narrow majority yes vote - especially when the entire electorate won't vote and some of the Scottish electorate are not Scottish therefore can't be said to represent Scottish a sense of Scottish identity - is a mandate for self-determination.

If the issue is for better representation of Scottish economic interests - it's our oil, our fish, our wind and waves then IMO it seems grabby.

I admit to not being very well informed about the details of the Common Fisheries policy or the CAP, but I do know that until a few decades ago. Scottish fishermen were usually very well off. - with government from Westminster. I assume the change is our membership of EU, over-fishing and increased costs of fuel.

I think if anyone is unsure on the day, they should go to the polling station and submit a blank / spoilt ballot paper. That means they have then turned out and voted, and their votes will be counted. If there are enough people who make what is essentially a vote of 'neither option works for me', then that is a significant political statement to make.

(Spoilt votes are counted in the UK: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoilt_vote).

I haven't seen much about the Barnett formula being cut. But if it was cut wouldn't that be compensated by additional direct tax raising powers which are likely to be devolved whatever the outcome of the vote?

In the event of a No vote the block grant will be cut, WM's way of forcing Holyrood to raise taxes so they don't have to do it.

*"I can't see there being a referendum to go back into the UK if there is a narrow Yes victory".

Don't you think that speaks volumes?*

I'm not sure what you mean? I think once we say "we're out" then that's probably it. I think a referendum to go back in would be unlikely, and more to the point it wouldn't be unilateral - surely if we wanted to recreate the UK down the line the whole of the UK would have a vote, not just Scotland. So for me, Yes is 'forever' and needs to be considered as such. Realistically if it's No, there will probably be another referendum, or at least the possibility of one, in the future

Statistically Challenged I noticed IrnBru's knowledgeable post and assumed you were members of the same facebooky thing!

Don't you think that speaks volumes?

It would be up to the No campaign to campaign for it. Either campaign has the right to continue campaigning if the result isn't in their favour. It may or may not make a difference, but everyone has a right to be unhappy with the political situation.
As Better Together is WM-funded, there would probably have to be a new campaign started up though, so it would depend if enough people wanted to make that happen.

Afewfallenleaves

"You might want to read my other posts before you accuse me of that."

Apologies, I've been keeping up with this thread all morning. Your tone on the thread does seem to be concern over FS but not about the rest of Scotland languishing in poverty.

(Not solely aimed at you this next bit Stat )IMO I just cannot see Scotland being a fairer place if we continue on the way we are going. Scotland needs fairer representation.

As Better Together is WM-funded

Probably shouldn't say WM, my mistake. Conservative-party funded (in the majority) is a better way of putting it.
I need to stop multi-tasking, I clearly can't do it.

O/T, apologies. I didn't see any televised reports of David Cameron last night at the Hilton. I had a text telling me to switch on the telly as he seemed pissed. I didn't notice the text until later on. Anyone else notice anything odd?

R.e. university tuition / free spaces - as with currency there is an obvious option for a Plan B, which annoyingly hasn't been articulated by AS.

If the EU didn't allow the continuation of the current rule (because Scotland would then be discriminating against another EU member state rather than discriminating against a region within their own state) then Scottish universities would just charge everyone, but offer automatic bursaries to all Scottish students. Bursaries and grants can be as discriminatory as they want; you see bursaries that are just for women, just for people from a certain town or county, or even for Etonion scholarship students who want to study at Oxford.

Essentially it would just involve adding an extra step to what they already do (rather than the government directly covering the university fees of Scottish students the students would be 'charged' but then the charge would be picked up by the government).

The other change would be that students from other EU countries would then be charged for fees, would would be fine from a financial POV - they would either stop coming (meaning the Scottish government no longer needs to cover their fees) or, more likely, they would continue coming and pay fees. After all, you see EU students at universities around the UK even though they have to pay. That said the main "money earning" cohort for the Scottish university I'm familiar with is American students anyway.

No Numanoid you miss my underlying point, sorry if wasn't clear:

As we wouldn't be in the UK we wouldn't have an opportunity to choose unilaterally to opt back in.

We would need to be invited and I don't see why that would happen as presumably we'd want back due to an unforeseen crisis and rUK might well have a bit of resentment at having been dumped previously!

Numanoid do you have full funding evidence to back up that statement? Yes, there were some big donations from people who donate to WM parties. But directly funded by WM? Not according to the donations breakdowns major campaigns are required to make public.

(Obviously intellectually it would be a great loss not to have the added diversity of EU students!)

I have concerns about FS, of course. Its the industry I work in and so the one I know the most about the likely impact of independence and so I know a damn sight more about it than, say, fishing .

I don't believe that significant destruction of one of our largest industries is going to help with poverty. I also think, and this is my personal opinion, that the big FS companies (certainly in Scotland, I don't work in London!) are actually a good place to go if you want to get out of a poor background. I have certainly never felt that where I grew up is holding me back and if anything I feel that I'm respected for it.

I also think it's easy to think of financial services as being a bunch of rich folk, but it's not - how many people does it employ in entry level admin/call centre type roles. I know many who have started in those roles and gone on to build good careers. But it's also the knock on impact - I think it's something like 17% of jobs in Edinburgh are FS, and there are a huge amount more which are dependent on it in a secondary way; nurseries where many of the children have parents in financial services, shops where most of the clients work there, lawyers, estate agents, cleaners...an awful lot of people would be impacted and I think taking the "ach, it's just a bunch of rich folk worried about their jobs" approach to it ignores the serious impact it could have on our wider communities for a long time if they get it wrong.

So yes I'm worried about FS but part of that is because I think the wider impact of it is one which is easily ignored. There's a kind of "othering" that goes on where people who work in financial services are thought of as rich snobs - a kind of "fuck the banksters" attitude. It's a very naive attitude which ignore the breadth and depth of the sector.

Numanoid do you have full funding evidence to back up that statement? Yes, there were some big donations from people who donate to WM parties. But directly funded by WM? Not according to the donations breakdowns major campaigns are required to make public.

That's why I corrected it to say mainly Conservative-party funded, as I remembered that there is strong suspicion that it is WM-funded, but if there have been investigations, nothing has been proven either way.
They only make public donations of over £7500 though.

As we wouldn't be in the UK we wouldn't have an opportunity to choose unilaterally to opt back in.

We would need to be invited and I don't see why that would happen as presumably we'd want back due to an unforeseen crisis and rUK might well have a bit of resentment at having been dumped previously!

Okay, I get you now, sorry! :) Well, I wouldn't want to ask to rejoin the UK. It's a risk, but I think it's one worth taking. The financial projections put iScotland as being richer than rUK so who knows. Neither side can give definite evidence of what will or won't happen, in the end.

If the issue is self-determination then it can't be argued that a narrow majority yes vote - especially when the entire electorate won't vote and some of the Scottish electorate are not Scottish therefore can't be said to represent Scottish a sense of Scottish identity - is a mandate for self-determination.

It is self determination based on the fact that those who live in a country are best placed to govern it. It is not remotely about nationality - that is why all who reside in Scotland can vote, and Sean Connery can't.

I think voting "Yes" is like buying a lottery ticket. You might just win a fortune and your future might be rosy, and wealthy. You have, more than likely, wasted a pound (or two now?)

A "No" vote is much less exciting and has much less drama and possibility but, let's face it, it is far more like sticking your two pounds in the Post Office. It will be safe, well looked after and grow slowly.

"Yes" voters are dreamers, hoping for some kind of grass is greener, better future Utopia. "No" voters are realists who know that the chances are the "Yes" vote will be a foolish mistake and that a "No" vote will bring continuing prosperity.