Thursday 11th September 2014.

[letsskiptotheleft]

It's early.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ry-britain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nail on the head. Might as well start with the independence campaign. Whilst it's not the only thing happening at the moment, it will trump all others, rightly or wrongly?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Morning LetsSkip and All!

Thanks for the link.

A good while ago on the old forum, I suggested that a narrow No victory say 51% No 49% Yes would be the perfect outcome for Salmond. My argument was not well received by fellow posters at the time

Well. Was I so silly?

[refitman]

Morning. Labour lead at 6 points on Yougov:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 10th Sept -

Con 32%, (+2)
Lab 38%, (+2)
LD 6%, (-2)
UKIP 14%; (-2)

APP -24 (no change)

[letsskiptotheleft]

Is this really helpful?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -vote.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Probably from Farage's point of view yes?!

[refitman]

RBS and Lloyds have confirmed plans to move offices to England in the event of a Yes vote.

[adam]

Morning LetsSkip and All!

Thanks for the link.

A good while ago on the old forum, I suggested that a narrow No victory say 51% No 49% Yes would be the perfect outcome for Salmond. My argument was not well received by fellow posters at the time

Well. Was I so silly?

A loss is a loss - you can't come back and just try again straight away. Salmond did ridiculously well (and Cameron did ridiculously badly, even for him) in setting terms for a referendum with a simple majority and no turn-out requirement or share of total electorate. If it's close, and the SNP maintain and develop their hold of the Scottish parliament in the next couple of Holyrood elections, then we might be back doing this again in ten years or so, but not before, it just can't be done.

As a comparison, look at what's necessary if you want to amend the US constitution in any way at all - two thirds of both houses of congress plus two thirds of the states within a year of congress' decision. Any future independence referendum should be on some kind of developed criteria.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Salmond reacts to questions about RBS, Lloyds etc by attacking the BBC. Brilliant.

Murdoch's little lap dog.

[ErnstRemarx]

Morning LetsSkip and All!

Thanks for the link.

A good while ago on the old forum, I suggested that a narrow No victory say 51% No 49% Yes would be the perfect outcome for Salmond. My argument was not well received by fellow posters at the time

Well. Was I so silly?

A loss is a loss - you can't come back and just try again straight away. Salmond did ridiculously well (and Cameron did ridiculously badly, even for him) in setting terms for a referendum with a simple majority and no turn-out requirement or share of total electorate. If it's close, and the SNP maintain and develop their hold of the Scottish parliament in the next couple of Holyrood elections, then we might be back doing this again in ten years or so, but not before, it just can't be done.

As a comparison, look at what's necessary if you want to amend the US constitution in any way at all - two thirds of both houses of congress plus two thirds of the states within a year of congress' decision. Any future independence referendum should be on some kind of developed criteria.

A defeat for Salmond is but a setback to him. I've seen it said that the no camp can win as many times as they like. The yes campaign only has to win once. A sobering thought.

[refitman]

Oh look, another reason not to listen to LBC: Nigel Farage gets LBC phone-in slot alongside Nick Ferrari

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greens ... farage-lbc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JackPranker]

Oh look, another reason not to listen to LBC: Nigel Farage gets LBC phone-in slot alongside Nick Ferrari

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greens ... farage-lbc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nick Ferrari is reason enough. I've been in London taxis where the cabbie has turned Ferrari off for being "a bit facist".

[adam]

Morning LetsSkip and All!

Thanks for the link.

A good while ago on the old forum, I suggested that a narrow No victory say 51% No 49% Yes would be the perfect outcome for Salmond. My argument was not well received by fellow posters at the time

Well. Was I so silly?

A loss is a loss - you can't come back and just try again straight away. Salmond did ridiculously well (and Cameron did ridiculously badly, even for him) in setting terms for a referendum with a simple majority and no turn-out requirement or share of total electorate. If it's close, and the SNP maintain and develop their hold of the Scottish parliament in the next couple of Holyrood elections, then we might be back doing this again in ten years or so, but not before, it just can't be done.

As a comparison, look at what's necessary if you want to amend the US constitution in any way at all - two thirds of both houses of congress plus two thirds of the states within a year of congress' decision. Any future independence referendum should be on some kind of developed criteria.

A defeat for Salmond is but a setback to him. I've seen it said that the no camp can win as many times as they like. The yes campaign only has to win once. A sobering thought.

There were 18 years between the two devolution referenda, and there have been 17 years from the last devo referendum to this one. There were 15 years between the two indie referenda in Quebec. This isn't going to come around again very soon, it can't, and the SNP will need to keep and develop their hold of the Scottish parliament to argue for it to come around sooner rather than later. You are right, they only have to win once and that's it, but there isn't a reasonable argument that, even if the outcome here is a very tight 'no', we should go again straight away.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Gordon on good form:

I will stand for Scottish Parliament if Salmond continues to peddle lies about the NHS.

[letsskiptotheleft]

George Galloway:

I will be turning up at the BBC event tomorrow (tonight) whether Sturgen or Salmond like it or not. Get the popcorn in.

Say what you like about George, and let's face it there's plenty to say, he would make mince meat out of them.

[HindleA]

Latest (very few)WCA assessment figures.for those interested.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ember-2014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Not sure. I used to think that but the way Salmond and Yes (not to mention the UK government) have poisoned the debate means any dealings with Westminster in future will stick in the craw of a lot of people. The mutual resentment will take a long time to get over.

A point I was trying to make to a Scottish friend last night. Whatever the result there will be a lot of bitterness after the 18th because of the way this campaign is being run (on both sides) and, as it is the same people who will need to do the rebuilding, I don't see a happy way forward for any of us.

[PorFavor]

Good morning.

Do BBC reporters and presenters have the word(?) "er" written into their scripts? It's driving me nuts. As is the over the top coverage of the Oscar Pistorius trial. It's not as if it's even a quiet news week for UK issues.

Oh - and the Nick Robinson stuff by Tubby Isaacs is great!

[mbc1955]

A defeat for Salmond is but a setback to him. I've seen it said that the no camp can win as many times as they like. The yes campaign only has to win once. A sobering thought.

Why is it 'a sobering thought'? A vote is to be held on whether a change should be made. If the electorate votes against, are you therefore arguing that the question of whether the change should be made can never ever again, in any shape or form, be raised? Irrespective of any shift in opinion by those who voted against? Quite rightly, the question should not be submitted again in the short term. But after another ten years, for example, it would be tyrannous to stipulate that the question cannot be re-asked because of a decade old vote.

Times change. Circumstances change. People change. If the urge for the change remains strong, it is only fair and democratic that it be allowed to be asked again. If there is no urge towards the change because the situation has changed appeciably, there will be no urge to ask again. But to say that someone too young to vote now should never have the chance to voice their vote ever is unreasonable, no matter how 'sobering' the thought is.

Take the Referendum next Thursday. At the moment, Westminster's panicking like mad at the thought of having 5 million people escape from under their thumb, and they're promsing all sorts of goodies, like an abusive husband promising to stop beating his wife and make her life happier. The Referendum votes against Independence. Having seen off the question of the Scots leaving the Union, those fevered promises are somewhat slow to materialise and turn out to be less generous than when the question was still live.

It is the very opposite of sobering to think that, after a decade or so, the question should be legitimately posed again.

[TechnicalEphemera]

A defeat for Salmond is but a setback to him. I've seen it said that the no camp can win as many times as they like. The yes campaign only has to win once. A sobering thought.

Why is it 'a sobering thought'? A vote is to be held on whether a change should be made. If the electorate votes against, are you therefore arguing that the question of whether the change should be made can never ever again, in any shape or form, be raised? Irrespective of any shift in opinion by those who voted against? Quite rightly, the question should not be submitted again in the short term. But after another ten years, for example, it would be tyrannous to stipulate that the question cannot be re-asked because of a decade old vote.

Times change. Circumstances change. People change. If the urge for the change remains strong, it is only fair and democratic that it be allowed to be asked again. If there is no urge towards the change because the situation has changed appeciably, there will be no urge to ask again. But to say that someone too young to vote now should never have the chance to voice their vote ever is unreasonable, no matter how 'sobering' the thought is.

Take the Referendum next Thursday. At the moment, Westminster's panicking like mad at the thought of having 5 million people escape from under their thumb, and they're promsing all sorts of goodies, like an abusive husband promising to stop beating his wife and make her life happier. The Referendum votes against Independence. Having seen off the question of the Scots leaving the Union, those fevered promises are somewhat slow to materialise and turn out to be less generous than when the question was still live.

It is the very opposite of sobering to think that, after a decade or so, the question should be legitimately posed again.

I am not sure I agree, if things change you might ask the question again. But it is destabilising to keep asking just because you think you can win.

The Scots are also not under Westminsters thumb, they will get Devo max out of this (and good luck to them). They are under neo liberal government, but they will get far more of that as an independent country. Watch the markets screw them, and rUK, over.

[PorFavor]

Alex Salmond continuing, point blank, to refuse to answer the currency question. Apparently, he will answer questions "in his own way". Very much akin to "the David Cameron way", it would appear.

[Rebecca]

Gawd,Salmond is STILL saying that there will be a currency union,and that he is going to seek a mandate from the people of Scotland to argue for one.And that there will be no job losses from RBS.
He is a fucking liar,and I can't work out how anybody can believe such tripe.
And if he had a mandate from every man,woman and child in Scotland to demand a currency union what difference will that make?That's less people than live in London alone.So,he thinks the sovereign will(whatever that means)of a few million people is going to browbeat 60 million into caving in to his demands?
I am praying that there is a yes vote,then goodbye Scotland,and take your mandates and sovereign wills with you.Plus Michael Gove .
Afternoon all.

[citizenJA]

Apologies for not coming sooner. I received the e-mail but was downloading data for the Five Years of Austerity: The ToryLB Coalition - Biography of a Government text I'm writing.

Nice place here.

I'll write more in a bit.

xx
JA

[letsskiptotheleft]

A Tubby Isaac's scripted Nick Robinson heckles Salmond, Alex looks a tad rattled.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-09- ... -robinson/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mbc1955]

A defeat for Salmond is but a setback to him. I've seen it said that the no camp can win as many times as they like. The yes campaign only has to win once. A sobering thought.

Why is it 'a sobering thought'? A vote is to be held on whether a change should be made. If the electorate votes against, are you therefore arguing that the question of whether the change should be made can never ever again, in any shape or form, be raised? Irrespective of any shift in opinion by those who voted against? Quite rightly, the question should not be submitted again in the short term. But after another ten years, for example, it would be tyrannous to stipulate that the question cannot be re-asked because of a decade old vote.

Times change. Circumstances change. People change. If the urge for the change remains strong, it is only fair and democratic that it be allowed to be asked again. If there is no urge towards the change because the situation has changed appeciably, there will be no urge to ask again. But to say that someone too young to vote now should never have the chance to voice their vote ever is unreasonable, no matter how 'sobering' the thought is.

Take the Referendum next Thursday. At the moment, Westminster's panicking like mad at the thought of having 5 million people escape from under their thumb, and they're promsing all sorts of goodies, like an abusive husband promising to stop beating his wife and make her life happier. The Referendum votes against Independence. Having seen off the question of the Scots leaving the Union, those fevered promises are somewhat slow to materialise and turn out to be less generous than when the question was still live.

It is the very opposite of sobering to think that, after a decade or so, the question should be legitimately posed again.

I am not sure I agree, if things change you might ask the question again. But it is destabilising to keep asking just because you think you can win.

The Scots are also not under Westminsters thumb, they will get Devo max out of this (and good luck to them). They are under neo liberal government, but they will get far more of that as an independent country. Watch the markets screw them, and rUK, over.

But things change all the time. In ten years time, a percentage of the voters who will vote next Thursday will have died. Ten more years worth of would-be voters will have become eligible to vote. If DevoMax comes - and you'll pardon me if I hold a cyncial attitude to the relationship between this week's panic promises and what might be given out if the crisis of Independence is headed off - and it's satisfactory, then the call for Independence will, presumably, diminish.

On the other hand, it might embolden those who have seen Scotland become more viable as a quasi-independet country to aspire for more.

We don't know what the position is going to be in 2024 (we have no idea where it will be on September 19!).

As for the question of holding another referendum just because the Nats think they can win it, isn't that the very definition of victory? They'll only 'win' it if a democratic majority of Scots want independence, and if that's the case...

[mbc1955]

A defeat for Salmond is but a setback to him. I've seen it said that the no camp can win as many times as they like. The yes campaign only has to win once. A sobering thought.

Why is it 'a sobering thought'? A vote is to be held on whether a change should be made. If the electorate votes against, are you therefore arguing that the question of whether the change should be made can never ever again, in any shape or form, be raised? Irrespective of any shift in opinion by those who voted against? Quite rightly, the question should not be submitted again in the short term. But after another ten years, for example, it would be tyrannous to stipulate that the question cannot be re-asked because of a decade old vote...

It is the very opposite of sobering to think that, after a decade or so, the question should be legitimately posed again.

Forgive me, but I thought Ernst's point was that independence can always be revisited in the future, but reunification can't.

I don't doubt that if there is a genuine, popular call for independence in the future, the UK government would look at it. The trouble is, I'm not sure there was all that much of an appetite for independence before the campaign kicked off. My recollection is that Westminster virtually goaded Salmond into announcing it - the SNP had claimed that if it won a majority in the Scottish Parliament, it would hold a referendum, but after the 2011 elections, it looked as though Salmond was prevaricating and pushing for more devolved powers instead. Certainly there was a clear poll lead for 'No' before the campaign started, and a big chunk of 'don't know' so I'm not entirely sure why, aside from political considerations, we needed to have a referendum at all. I can't see there being any winners whatever happens, apart from Salmond of course.

Again, it's down to change. If you vote for change, you get something different, and you can never put the pieces back together the way they were again.

And as for reunification being incapable of being revisited, again forgive my cynicism, but what we have seen since the Poll that showed the first 'Yes' lead, is it not the case that a lot of what we have seen from Cameron, Milliband and Clegg, has been driven by the politician's panic at the very idea of losing any degree of power over any number of people? If, ten years down the line, a broken, beaten, humiliated Scotland comes begging, cap in hand, for readmittance to the Union, will Westminster really turn its nose up at the idea of reclaiming their lost power, on terms that they can dictate, whilst rubbing the wee ginger bastards' noses in it for daring to think they could be equals to us?

[AnatolyKasparov]

Salmond now saying Scotland WILL vote "yes" in a week's time - no ifs, no buts.

His own "Sheffield Rally" moment draws ever closer......

[Rebecca]

Why is it 'a sobering thought'? A vote is to be held on whether a change should be made. If the electorate votes against, are you therefore arguing that the question of whether the change should be made can never ever again, in any shape or form, be raised? Irrespective of any shift in opinion by those who voted against? Quite rightly, the question should not be submitted again in the short term. But after another ten years, for example, it would be tyrannous to stipulate that the question cannot be re-asked because of a decade old vote...

It is the very opposite of sobering to think that, after a decade or so, the question should be legitimately posed again.

Forgive me, but I thought Ernst's point was that independence can always be revisited in the future, but reunification can't.

I don't doubt that if there is a genuine, popular call for independence in the future, the UK government would look at it. The trouble is, I'm not sure there was all that much of an appetite for independence before the campaign kicked off. My recollection is that Westminster virtually goaded Salmond into announcing it - the SNP had claimed that if it won a majority in the Scottish Parliament, it would hold a referendum, but after the 2011 elections, it looked as though Salmond was prevaricating and pushing for more devolved powers instead. Certainly there was a clear poll lead for 'No' before the campaign started, and a big chunk of 'don't know' so I'm not entirely sure why, aside from political considerations, we needed to have a referendum at all. I can't see there being any winners whatever happens, apart from Salmond of course.

Again, it's down to change. If you vote for change, you get something different, and you can never put the pieces back together the way they were again.

And as for reunification being incapable of being revisited, again forgive my cynicism, but what we have seen since the Poll that showed the first 'Yes' lead, is it not the case that a lot of what we have seen from Cameron, Milliband and Clegg, has been driven by the politician's panic at the very idea of losing any degree of power over any number of people? If, ten years down the line, a broken, beaten, humiliated Scotland comes begging, cap in hand, for readmittance to the Union, will Westminster really turn its nose up at the idea of reclaiming their lost power, on terms that they can dictate, whilst rubbing the wee ginger bastards' noses in it for daring to think they could be equals to us?

Get over yourself.Scots have one vote per person,same as English,Welsh,N Irish.All living in the Uk.Do you think that Scotland should be equal to the combined population of the other three countries?Why should a Scottish vote be worth anymore than my vote?
And if you (please) vote Yes,do you think an iScotland will be 'equal' to the Uk?Still only 10 percent of the population.Scotland is part of the Uk,sadly,unless Scotlands population increases tenfold,it will never be equal.Same way that 10 does not equal 100.
If Scotland becomes independent,and then wants to rejoin,it had better hope that the Uk votes yes in the 'shall we take them back' referendum.Because the tail won't be wagging the dog in that vote.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Killer of a line here from Gordon, that the SNP are using the NHS as a Trojan horse to push their agenda, a separate state.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... n-NHS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Christ, even Watt was praising him this morning.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I do not need Michael Gove to explain to me what antisemitism is (Gove attacks ‘antisemitic’ Israel boycotts, 10 September). I have been the object of antisemitism by two Conservative MPs, Sir Charles Taylor, who told me to “Get back to Tel Aviv”, and Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who admonished me that my loyalty should be to this country and not to Israel, bringing the proceedings of the House of Commons to a roaring halt. Harold Macmillan referred to me antisemitically in his diaries.

Of course the Holocaust, the Nazi slaughter of 6 million Jews, including many members of my family, was an atrocity unparalleled in human history. That does not provide justification for the Israelis murdering thousands of Palestinians. Since governments take no action against these massacres, it is right that communities and individuals should boycott Israeli products.
Gerald Kaufman
Labour, Manchester Gorton

[ErnstRemarx]

A defeat for Salmond is but a setback to him. I've seen it said that the no camp can win as many times as they like. The yes campaign only has to win once. A sobering thought.

Why is it 'a sobering thought'? A vote is to be held on whether a change should be made. If the electorate votes against, are you therefore arguing that the question of whether the change should be made can never ever again, in any shape or form, be raised? Irrespective of any shift in opinion by those who voted against? Quite rightly, the question should not be submitted again in the short term. But after another ten years, for example, it would be tyrannous to stipulate that the question cannot be re-asked because of a decade old vote.

Times change. Circumstances change. People change. If the urge for the change remains strong, it is only fair and democratic that it be allowed to be asked again. If there is no urge towards the change because the situation has changed appeciably, there will be no urge to ask again. But to say that someone too young to vote now should never have the chance to voice their vote ever is unreasonable, no matter how 'sobering' the thought is.

Take the Referendum next Thursday. At the moment, Westminster's panicking like mad at the thought of having 5 million people escape from under their thumb, and they're promsing all sorts of goodies, like an abusive husband promising to stop beating his wife and make her life happier. The Referendum votes against Independence. Having seen off the question of the Scots leaving the Union, those fevered promises are somewhat slow to materialise and turn out to be less generous than when the question was still live.

It is the very opposite of sobering to think that, after a decade or so, the question should be legitimately posed again.

It sounds very much to me like the sort of argument UKIP would probably use in the event of a vote to stay in the EU. "We were asked, but that was 10 years ago and a load of people have come of age since then - best have another vote."

I'm not arguing that a vote should never again be held on the subject. My argument is that repeated 'no' always holds the door open using such reasoning, regardless of the (then) expressed will of the people. Would the 'yes' camp advocate a vote to be readmitted to the UK after 5 or 10 years? I can't see that happening, but I can see them repeatedly pressing for an independence vote even if they're told no next week.

[PorFavor]

Rebeccas's mentioning the size of the Scottish population has reminded me of Alex Salmond's comments re trading. Unless I misheard, he claimed that Scotland could be next (ranking-wise) after the USA in terms of trade with the UK. I did think at the time that that sounded a tad over-ambitious, given Scotland's population size.

I'm beginning to come over all anti-Scottish independence. It's not the case. I just dislike Alex Salmond who is being dishonest in the way he is presenting the possible future for Scots as an independent nation.

Edited

I should have said "the remainder of the UK."

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm not following things that closely, but should the Scottish Secretary be a bit more visible?

If the minister is irrelevant during a referendum on independence, the job needs retiring. Wales and Northern Ireland can go with it.

[mbc1955]

Forgive me, but I thought Ernst's point was that independence can always be revisited in the future, but reunification can't.

I don't doubt that if there is a genuine, popular call for independence in the future, the UK government would look at it. The trouble is, I'm not sure there was all that much of an appetite for independence before the campaign kicked off. My recollection is that Westminster virtually goaded Salmond into announcing it - the SNP had claimed that if it won a majority in the Scottish Parliament, it would hold a referendum, but after the 2011 elections, it looked as though Salmond was prevaricating and pushing for more devolved powers instead. Certainly there was a clear poll lead for 'No' before the campaign started, and a big chunk of 'don't know' so I'm not entirely sure why, aside from political considerations, we needed to have a referendum at all. I can't see there being any winners whatever happens, apart from Salmond of course.

Again, it's down to change. If you vote for change, you get something different, and you can never put the pieces back together the way they were again.

And as for reunification being incapable of being revisited, again forgive my cynicism, but what we have seen since the Poll that showed the first 'Yes' lead, is it not the case that a lot of what we have seen from Cameron, Milliband and Clegg, has been driven by the politician's panic at the very idea of losing any degree of power over any number of people? If, ten years down the line, a broken, beaten, humiliated Scotland comes begging, cap in hand, for readmittance to the Union, will Westminster really turn its nose up at the idea of reclaiming their lost power, on terms that they can dictate, whilst rubbing the wee ginger bastards' noses in it for daring to think they could be equals to us?

Get over yourself.Scots have one vote per person,same as English,Welsh,N Irish.All living in the Uk.Do you think that Scotland should be equal to the combined population of the other three countries?Why should a Scottish vote be worth anymore than my vote?
And if you (please) vote Yes,do you think an iScotland will be 'equal' to the Uk?Still only 10 percent of the population.Scotland is part of the Uk,sadly,unless Scotlands population increases tenfold,it will never be equal.Same way that 10 does not equal 100.
If Scotland becomes independent,and then wants to rejoin,it had better hope that the Uk votes yes in the 'shall we take them back' referendum.Because the tail won't be wagging the dog in that vote.

Before you start on any attacks, which are clearly emotionally based, please bear in mind that I am Engish, not Scottish, and I live in England, not Scotland and I do not have a vote next week. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the question of whether or not to be an independent question is entirely for the inhabitants of that country and that anyone having a prohibitive say over their choice, no matter how widespread, is exercising tyranny.

You'd be completely correct if the argument were over, say, a Regional Assembly for the Northwest, which is where I live. That would be about splitting a unitary country and the vote of the whole population is vital to that, not just us Northwesterners. England and Scotland are different countries, joined in a Union, and just like any marriage, it needs to consent of BOTH sides to endure. If one side withdraws that consent, the other side is not entitled to stop them, no matter how much bigger they are.

[PorFavor]

I'm not following things that closely, but should the Scottish Secretary be a bit more visible?

If the minister is irrelevant during a referendum on independence, the job needs retiring. Wales and Northern Ireland can go with it.

Blimey - good point. I'd forgotten we even had one, let alone know who it is. I just had to look it up on Wikepedia to find out the name (although I'm still not much wiser).

[ErnstRemarx]

"England and Scotland are different countries, joined in a Union, and just like any marriage, it needs to consent of BOTH sides to endure. If one side withdraws that consent, the other side is not entitled to stop them, no matter how much bigger they are."

I agree totally with this, but in the case of Scottish withdrawal from the Union, Salmond's mandate runs as far as the Scottish border and no further. With the majority of EWNI people wanting a continued Union in its present form, the rUK government has and will have the right to tell Salmond that currency union (for example) is off the table, full stop, and he will just have to work round it best he can.

[Rebecca]

Again, it's down to change. If you vote for change, you get something different, and you can never put the pieces back together the way they were again.

And as for reunification being incapable of being revisited, again forgive my cynicism, but what we have seen since the Poll that showed the first 'Yes' lead, is it not the case that a lot of what we have seen from Cameron, Milliband and Clegg, has been driven by the politician's panic at the very idea of losing any degree of power over any number of people? If, ten years down the line, a broken, beaten, humiliated Scotland comes begging, cap in hand, for readmittance to the Union, will Westminster really turn its nose up at the idea of reclaiming their lost power, on terms that they can dictate, whilst rubbing the wee ginger bastards' noses in it for daring to think they could be equals to us?

Get over yourself.Scots have one vote per person,same as English,Welsh,N Irish.All living in the Uk.Do you think that Scotland should be equal to the combined population of the other three countries?Why should a Scottish vote be worth anymore than my vote?
And if you (please) vote Yes,do you think an iScotland will be 'equal' to the Uk?Still only 10 percent of the population.Scotland is part of the Uk,sadly,unless Scotlands population increases tenfold,it will never be equal.Same way that 10 does not equal 100.
If Scotland becomes independent,and then wants to rejoin,it had better hope that the Uk votes yes in the 'shall we take them back' referendum.Because the tail won't be wagging the dog in that vote.

Before you start on any attacks, which are clearly emotionally based, please bear in mind that I am Engish, not Scottish, and I live in England, not Scotland and I do not have a vote next week. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the question of whether or not to be an independent question is entirely for the inhabitants of that country and that anyone having a prohibitive say over their choice, no matter how widespread, is exercising tyranny.

You'd be completely correct if the argument were over, say, a Regional Assembly for the Northwest, which is where I live. That would be about splitting a unitary country and the vote of the whole population is vital to that, not just us Northwesterners. England and Scotland are different countries, joined in a Union, and just like any marriage, it needs to consent of BOTH sides to endure. If one side withdraws that consent, the other side is not entitled to stop them, no matter how much bigger they are.

I am attacking no one.No one is excercising tyranny,or is the fact that Scotland is voting in a referendum to seperate from the Uk really some sort of act of tyranny from the Uk govt?You are just being silly.
Though I do agree with the 'consent of BOTH sides' sentiment,if a union needs this to endure,it sure as hell needs it to begin.Talking about the currency union here of course.The person talking about forcing others to join in a union with Scotland is Alex Salmond.

[mbc1955]

A defeat for Salmond is but a setback to him. I've seen it said that the no camp can win as many times as they like. The yes campaign only has to win once. A sobering thought.

Why is it 'a sobering thought'? A vote is to be held on whether a change should be made. If the electorate votes against, are you therefore arguing that the question of whether the change should be made can never ever again, in any shape or form, be raised? Irrespective of any shift in opinion by those who voted against? Quite rightly, the question should not be submitted again in the short term. But after another ten years, for example, it would be tyrannous to stipulate that the question cannot be re-asked because of a decade old vote.

Times change. Circumstances change. People change. If the urge for the change remains strong, it is only fair and democratic that it be allowed to be asked again. If there is no urge towards the change because the situation has changed appeciably, there will be no urge to ask again. But to say that someone too young to vote now should never have the chance to voice their vote ever is unreasonable, no matter how 'sobering' the thought is.

Take the Referendum next Thursday. At the moment, Westminster's panicking like mad at the thought of having 5 million people escape from under their thumb, and they're promsing all sorts of goodies, like an abusive husband promising to stop beating his wife and make her life happier. The Referendum votes against Independence. Having seen off the question of the Scots leaving the Union, those fevered promises are somewhat slow to materialise and turn out to be less generous than when the question was still live.

It is the very opposite of sobering to think that, after a decade or so, the question should be legitimately posed again.

It sounds very much to me like the sort of argument UKIP would probably use in the event of a vote to stay in the EU. "We were asked, but that was 10 years ago and a load of people have come of age since then - best have another vote."

I'm not arguing that a vote should never again be held on the subject. My argument is that repeated 'no' always holds the door open using such reasoning, regardless of the (then) expressed will of the people. Would the 'yes' camp advocate a vote to be readmitted to the UK after 5 or 10 years? I can't see that happening, but I can see them repeatedly pressing for an independence vote even if they're told no next week.

You're absolutely right on both counts. I wish UKIP would just dry up and blow away, or at least that more angry people would look at what they are instead of projecting their unthought-out wishes onto them. I voted Yes to Europe forty years ago, and I'd vote yes again, but if there IS a sufficiently significant change in opinion among the British over the basis of membership, it would be undemocratic not to allow that expression to be tested. Pain in the neck as it would be.

As for repeated no holding the door open to another test, that's the very nature of change, of any kind. Change can either be effected, after which new conditions apply, or rejected in favour of stasis. Stasis, by its very nature, is subject to the question of whether to change, as time and circumstances change.

If 'No' prevails next week, there will still be change, among people, among nations, among conditions. Maybe the urge towards Independence will diffuse, will wither. Maybe it will be accelerated. If there is still a substantial urge towards change then, after a decent interval - and unless exceptional, unforeseeable circumstances arise, I'd say ten years minimum - if there is a concerted will to change, it should be allowed to be heard.

If there isn't, the question won't arise in the first place.

[mbc1955]

Get over yourself.Scots have one vote per person,same as English,Welsh,N Irish.All living in the Uk.Do you think that Scotland should be equal to the combined population of the other three countries?Why should a Scottish vote be worth anymore than my vote?
And if you (please) vote Yes,do you think an iScotland will be 'equal' to the Uk?Still only 10 percent of the population.Scotland is part of the Uk,sadly,unless Scotlands population increases tenfold,it will never be equal.Same way that 10 does not equal 100.
If Scotland becomes independent,and then wants to rejoin,it had better hope that the Uk votes yes in the 'shall we take them back' referendum.Because the tail won't be wagging the dog in that vote.

Before you start on any attacks, which are clearly emotionally based, please bear in mind that I am Engish, not Scottish, and I live in England, not Scotland and I do not have a vote next week. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the question of whether or not to be an independent question is entirely for the inhabitants of that country and that anyone having a prohibitive say over their choice, no matter how widespread, is exercising tyranny.

You'd be completely correct if the argument were over, say, a Regional Assembly for the Northwest, which is where I live. That would be about splitting a unitary country and the vote of the whole population is vital to that, not just us Northwesterners. England and Scotland are different countries, joined in a Union, and just like any marriage, it needs to consent of BOTH sides to endure. If one side withdraws that consent, the other side is not entitled to stop them, no matter how much bigger they are.

I am attacking no one.No one is excercising tyranny,or is the fact that Scotland is voting in a referendum to seperate from the Uk really some sort of act of tyranny from the Uk govt?You are just being silly.
Though I do agree with the 'consent of BOTH sides' sentiment,if a union needs this to endure,it sure as hell needs it to begin.Talking about the currency union here of course.The person talking about forcing others to join in a union with Scotland is Alex Salmond.

Bold added

I didn't say that, I said the exact opposite. I said that the rest of the UK voting against them leaving of their own free will would be tyranny.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Salmond asked for the BBC/Robinson to name the source?
Classy. Classy.

But fair point that the Cabinet Secretary does need to look at the leak.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Enter a new whistleblower? Gyles Brandreth.

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5363/ ... ophile-mps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or is he just flogging an updated book?

I tend to think some of this "the whips know everything stuff" is exaggerated, but could be interesting. Also successor to Sir Peter Morrison as MP for Chester.

[HindleA]

A Tubby Isaac's scripted Nick Robinson heckles Salmond, Alex looks a tad rattled.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-09- ... -robinson/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shame the original question wasn't on the clip, I would have liked to know exactly what Robinson asked. You're right, Salmond looked distinctly peed off. His usual tactics of bluster and bombast, amd when all else fails, talking over anyone else, didn't seem to be working.

'Our friends in the international media'. FFS. As opposed to your friends in Wapping?

http://wingsoverscotland.com/handed-bac ... nt-1876747" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

Wingsoverscotland get a good kicking from the excellent Simon Wren Lewis:

there is nothing wrong in making a short term economic sacrifice for the hope of longer term benefits or for political goals. But that is not the SNP’s case, and it is not what they are telling the Scottish people. Is this deception deliberate? I suspect it is more the delusions of people who want something so much they cast aside all doubts and problems.

This is certainly the impression I get from reading a lot of literature as I researched this post. The arguments in the Wee Blue Book are exactly that: no sustained economic argument, but just a collection of random quotes and debating points to make a problem go away.

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/ ... s-and.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ErnstRemarx]

Shame the original question wasn't on the clip, I would have liked to know exactly what Robinson asked. You're right, Salmond looked distinctly peed off. His usual tactics of bluster and bombast, amd when all else fails, talking over anyone else, didn't seem to be working.

'Our friends in the international media'. FFS. As opposed to your friends in Wapping?

http://wingsoverscotland.com/handed-bac ... nt-1876747" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks. Crikey, the comments BTL on that piece are delusional!

Reminds me of the nonsense I used to BTL at FreeRepublic, and for similar reasons.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Shame the original question wasn't on the clip, I would have liked to know exactly what Robinson asked. You're right, Salmond looked distinctly peed off. His usual tactics of bluster and bombast, amd when all else fails, talking over anyone else, didn't seem to be working.

'Our friends in the international media'. FFS. As opposed to your friends in Wapping?

http://wingsoverscotland.com/handed-bac ... nt-1876747" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks. Crikey, the comments BTL on that piece are delusional!

The glorious leader of North Korea would be proud of the adoration shown btl there.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Two polls coming up this evening, apparently, a Guardian one, 1000 people sampled and one from the Border region, YouGov tomorrow, if I am not mistaken, mischievous comment reckon if it's favourable to ''Aye'' Murdoch will leak it early, Shirley not?!

[Rebecca]

Thanks. Crikey, the comments BTL on that piece are delusional!

The glorious leader of North Korea would be proud of the adoration shown btl there.

Quite. And while we all accept that the BBC has had a tendency to tend towards a pro-coalition (and pro-establishment and pro-business) stance, the extent to which the Yessers seem to regard the BBC as hostile reminds me of the way Israel regards the UN.

One of them wrote a long comment to Andrew,complaining about the blog being written by an English journalist instead of a Scot.Seeing as there must be plenty of Scots writing about the ref,why not read those and stop moaning at Andrew?

[PorFavor]

Two polls coming up this evening, apparently, a Guardian one, 1000 people sampled and one from the Border region, YouGov tomorrow, if I am not mistaken, mischievous comment reckon if it's favourable to ''Aye'' Murdoch will leak it early, Shirley not?!

Here's a very scientific poll for you -

I just 'phone polled the person I was speaking to at the energy company I'm with (it's based in Scotland). A 'No' from that quarter (although I was also given the official company disclaimer ie neutrality - quite understandably).

[HindleA]

Shame the original question wasn't on the clip, I would have liked to know exactly what Robinson asked. You're right, Salmond looked distinctly peed off. His usual tactics of bluster and bombast, amd when all else fails, talking over anyone else, didn't seem to be working.

'Our friends in the international media'. FFS. As opposed to your friends in Wapping?

http://wingsoverscotland.com/handed-bac ... nt-1876747" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks. Crikey, the comments BTL on that piece are delusional!

To be clear,posted purely as it contained the requested questions,strictly not to be seen as an endorsement or not of the website.I am half Scottish,spent most of my formative years in Scotland but happen to be not in favour of Independence,as an aside the SNP were known as the Tartan Tories and Salmond would have been my MP but for a couple of years of leaving.

[Eric_WLothian]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/handed-bac ... nt-1876747" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks. Crikey, the comments BTL on that piece are delusional!

To be clear,posted purely as it contained the requested questions,strictly not to be seen as an endorsement or not of the website.I am half Scottish,spent most of my formative years in Scotland but happen to be not in favour of Independence,as an aside the SNP were known as the Tartan Tories and Salmond would have been my MP but for a couple of years of leaving.

"wingsoverscotland" is written by Rev (but no church admits to having ordained him) Stuart Campbell, a computer games reviewer who lives in Bath. Even the 'yes' campaign have disowned him, due to his extreme views!

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... ce-2266858

and (sorry) a DM link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lists.html

[HindleA]

Thanks. Crikey, the comments BTL on that piece are delusional!

To be clear,posted purely as it contained the requested questions,strictly not to be seen as an endorsement or not of the website.I am half Scottish,spent most of my formative years in Scotland but happen to be not in favour of Independence,as an aside the SNP were known as the Tartan Tories and Salmond would have been my MP but for a couple of years of leaving.

"wingsoverscotland" is written by Rev (but no church admits to having ordained him) Stuart Campbell, a computer games reviewer who lives in Bath. Even the 'yes' campaign have disowned him, due to his extreme views!

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... ce-2266858

and (sorry) a DM link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lists.html

Thanks for info.

[Eric_WLothian]

This would really shake up Holyrood and re-energise the Labour party in Scotland:

Gordon Brown has suggested that he could stand for election in the Scottish Parliament if Alex Salmond continues to “peddle lies” about the NHS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... n-NHS.html

Keep lying, Alex

And the Scotsman has nailed its colours to the mast (not that there was much doubt):

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-s ... -1-3537857