The Scottish Independence Referendum Discussion

I hope we get Berwick back and a chance to do something about their war with Russia.

Are from the UK? I'm just wondering because you have some strong opinions on the issue. I know enough to know its a huge decision and I hope they make an informed choice, but don't pretend to know the right answer.

@subyman: I'm not, though I do have ancestral blood ties. I want them to make an informed choice, too, but from some people I've talked to, the status quo does appear to give the Scottish less of a viable voice.

I won't take a side on either option, because I don't have a horse in this race, but I can't imagine living in a country with its ultimate governing body outside of its own borders and being very happy about it.

Maybe it's just like living a US state and not caring that the federal government is in DC, but the UK isn't a single country with states or provinces, they are a union of countries. It just seems like a bad holdover of colonialism no mater what benefits the anti-independent campaigners are claiming.

I NEVER REALIZED THE UNION JACK IS THE SCOTTISH AND ENGLISH FLAGS STUCK ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.

Seriously, a lifetime of looking at all three flags and never putting that together. Man. On that note though I find the discussion over alternatives to the Union Jack and the complicated legality associated with it fascinating.

I think larger nations are more effective than smaller ones, so in principal I'm opposed to Scottish independence. However, whenever I talk to a Brit and I say, "Oh, you're British," they immediately correct me to say Scottish or English or Welsh. As separate as our American opinions are, it's only the outlier from Texas who would correct you if you called him an American. So if they don't even see themselves as the same nation, then maybe it's a lost cause.

@bacongames: Also the Irish flag.

Northern Irish, yes. Part of me wants to see this go 50-50 and then see what they do. It'll be a re-vote but I'd much rather see a caber toss over Hadrian's Wall.

Scandavian nations beg to differ. Their size is every bit a contributor to their successes. Scotland by itself would be one of the top 20 wealthiest nations. When you ignore national defense (which Scotland would no longer have to contribute to, enabling it further success like other limited, or no, military countries (Japan etc.) which are largely more successful being able to take that money and instead invest in infrastructure etc. So Scotland would be better off, UK would survive.

This all comes down to the powers that be, claiming to love democracy when in fact they despise direct democracy, where people actually make their opinions known divorced of influence from lobbying interests from the companies that run David Cameron, Obama, parliament, congress, etc.

@krataur said:

You're totally right but not in a way that would seem obvious today. As I had found out earlier, the saltire of St. Patrick accounts for the red portion which overlays the white bands of the Scottish flag but that flag has semi-obscure uses today and definitely hasn't been used officially since the establishment of the modern Irish Republican flag in 1916. That is unless we include Northern Ireland in the mix which one could argue "represents" their membership in the UK.

In a way that's probably the best argument for keeping the Union Jack the same. Hell if the saltire of St. Patrick is still on that thing, and the Welsh flag never was, then it doesn't really mean much if Scotland not part of the United Kingdom anymore. Personally though I think it would be kinda cool to consider a flag that reflects what's left of the UK and finally throw Wales up in the mix.

@bargainben: There are all of 3 Scandinavian nations (and Iceland, were they the example you're looking for?), and when we talk about their success, we're usually talking about Norway (oil), while Denmark is actually not all that well off. It's fair to say that whatever is going on up there is relatively idiosyncratic. I also don't agree with the blanket statement that the lack of a military leads directly to greater success. I feel that this is predicated on the view that we live in a "post-war" world where military is an extraneous expense. There's no way of saying you're wrong, but basically you're forecasting an awful lot based on 20 years of post-Cold War peace in times when it's never looked more tenuous.

Here's a little bit of an enjoyable sentimental speech. Honestly I was hoping for something like this, it's always the best thing to come out of big events, the big heart-pulling speeches.

I mean some will dismiss it as sentimental drivel, but there's plenty of valid reasons to back it up so a little of the heart to go with the head can't go wrong.

Scotland is a frustrating country to vote in. I have become exceedingly apathetic to voting in general elections because, philosophically speaking, my views (and seemingly the vast majority of the Scottish people) are almost polar opposites to the remainder of the UK.

It would be nice to be fully represented by a government that had autonomy and could fully service the needs of their people. Don't get me wrong, things aren't terrible with devolution — but they could be better. Independence is guaranteed change for better or worse. A 'No' vote made up of promises of further, isn't.

There's also some purely selfish reasons for me voting Yes, and it's mostly employment related. The industry I work in would receive a MASSIVE boost in an independent Scotland, and open some new opportunities for kids up here.

If everyone in Scotland who has suddenly become so politically informed could keep it up, for like, ever, then that would be awesome. At least something good will have come out of this referendum.

To me that is one of the best reasons. Whether or not Scotland is more wealthy it will have the views of its people represented in those that govern them, its sort of hyperbole but we are kind of voting for greater democracy and that can only be a good thing.

Personally I want to take the risk for great democratic representation. Though Politicians are still politicians, but they will be our politicians. Though personally I've met my local MSP (Member of Scottish Parliament) and MP (Member of Parliament) and have checked up on how they voted in certain key votes (for example gay marriage) and they represent my views.

For anyone interested, this is more or less all over. Scotland decided to stay part of the UK and the results should end up about 46% Yes, 54% No.

It is 5am now, time for bed.

It's been fascinating to watch. A peaceful secession process. It's such a divided vote. Democracy working as intended is awesome to see unfold.

Something that really bugs me about the referendum is how it is the usual majority wins decision where a side only needs more than 50% of the vote to win. For a decision of this magnitude it just doesn't seem right that almost half the population is getting screwed no matter how it turns out (which it looks like No will win at this point). It seems to me that a higher percentage of the vote should have to be required to win, with procedures to determine the next course of action if neither side reaches the required portion of the votes.

It just seems nuts that a slight majority is able to determine something as huge as this. It is much different than an election which will happen again in a few years and even if the leader is terrible almost every country has safeguards against that built into their governmental system. This was a no going back choice.

How else should a democratic vote work? Or to flip it around, why should a majority of people be ignored? Hard decisions need to be made on big questions where even if it is 50.1% to 49.9% a decision needs to be made.

Oh the other hand, the Scottish First Minister called the shots (name escapes me). If he thought that this was an issue he could have set the terms more like "must win by 60%" but chose not too.

Now Cameron has to make good on his promise to grant Scotland more autonomy. Even if only 46% voted Yes, that's still nearly half of the Scottish voting population essentially telling Cameron and Parliament to screw off. Not an insignificant number that now needs to be placated.

A majority shouldn't be ignored, however 51% is barely a majority. For most cases I believe the traditional system works fine however for cases such as this I think a different process needs to be used.

Often, bigger votes(like constitutional amendments in the US) require a 66% vote to win. I feel like a 2/3 majority would make more sense with such a huge decision. If this ended up with a 51%-49% result, the resulting country would be fiercely divided from the start anyway.

I think this is probably for the best. I would have supported them if they did choose independence, but with this close "No", they will now be in a great position. They can leverage this to gain even more autonomy and slowly continue the transition toward independence. That way, they can likely bring up independence again in a few years and actually be in an even better position for self-governance.

It is still the majority, and so long as a simple majority vote is determined the deciding factor, then there's nothing to be done about it.

I think the facinating thing about this whole thing is the major constitutional change for the whole of the UK. Commonwealth countries and US and India have more federal style government systems (national government with national powers, state/province goverment with local powers) and it seems to work well where the UK is definitely behind in this respect. If Scotland gets increased local power, then so should Wales, Northern Ireland and especially England too.

I guess this makes September 18th, Scottish Dependence Day. What a pity.

Oh man, I've been convinced that it was a guaranteed yes for weeks, but it turns out I was completely wrong. Even the area I live in seemed like a yes was inevitable, and it turned out we voted slightly in favour of no.

Super happy about this.

@zella: They way it works right now is the simplest it can get in which it is individual votes that make up the majority. If you change it any other way it becomes more complicated and the majority is not the measurement then what is? Your height? your amount of Scottish blood? How much tartan you can wear at the one time?

There is no alternative a simple yes or no with a simple question with a simple calculation. Otherwise it becomes grey and grey areas are useless.

If you do not go the majority then it is the minority wins.....except there will be more upset people MORE upset because it was robbed as the majority clearly wants what they want.

Now the final vote is No officially and I am glad for this. Now we can get those more powers and still get the benefits of a union than the hardships of an independence with no guarantee of benefits.

So, for the uninformed: what sort of parliamentary changes are we looking toward, here? Is anything guaranteed?

@dark_lord_spam: A Lot of the powers we have wanted for the last 14 years. power to control our own Tax being the main one and everyone would flip shit if we do not get that one. Allowing for us to not get fucked up by Poll Tax (ala the 80s with Thatcher) Bedroom tax (ala now) and so forth.

After that it is just nice extra powers, but the tax one will give us a huge step to that independence while still in the union.

Tax is the main thing that has had the Tories (conservatives) hate them the most. If we can control that the Tories can rule from London all they like we would escape the main brunt that makes us hate the English.

@dark_lord_spam: It means we're now governed by a country who have disdain for us for wanting to leave, but couldn't. Happy we're staying so our money can help their problems. If anyone thinks this is a positive for Scotland; their heads are in the clouds.

@akyho, do you really believe we'll be able to be more independent after this?

Yes.

I wouldn't get your hopes up too much for significant extra powers. It doesn't look like the result is even going to be that close, and Cameron and Clegg especially have a proven history of promising things pre-election and then forgetting all about it afterwards. It also becomes a UK wide issue again now, which means the wishes of the other 60 million people in the country become relevant again.

Make no mistake, this was Scotland's one shot at true independence and they bottled it massively.

Why do people keep saying its their only shot? Can't they bring up another vote at a later date?

When we don't get the powers we were promised and when the no voters realise they were lied to about many things I hope we will get another vote and the no voters will not be fooled again.

The sad truth is that both sides where promising a lot in crazy short time lines. I think they can do some token things now like pass an act that permanently protects Scottish Parliament (and heck do that for Wales and NI too) but actually writing up how much they Scotland can control of their taxing is going to take a lot of thinking and negotiating to do correctly which is going to take time. I will not be surprised if most of it won't get done before the next election since they are about due...?

If this happens it would not be a vote that would happen a riot would. Right now only the Yes supporters are unhappy which is 45% of Scotland. If they do not get the significant powers then thats a large amount of the 55% if not all, who would not be happy. Making a 100% not happy Scotland and the only enemy to point too is south.

Besides this has also changed for Northern Ireland and Wales.

From the BBC

David Cameron says there is clear support for maintaining the union. It is time now for the UK to come together - with a "balanced settlement" which is fair to Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.

He says the debate on independence has been "settled for a generation": the settled will of the Scottish people. That latter a conscious echo of words delivered by John Smith about devolution.

Now, he says, there is a chance to change the way the British people are governed. Once more, emphasis on all the constituent parts of the UK.

Insists the promises for Scotland will be delivered "in full". Lord Smith of Kelvin to oversee that process. England, Wales and NI must have bigger say too. A new and fair settlement across the UK.

More powers for Wales. Make devolved institutions function effectively in NI. But now England must be heard. In short, he wants a decisive answer on West Lothian - with English votes on English issues. William Hague to work on that. To the same timetable as the Scottish action.

If they fuck scotland over they are fucking Northern Ireland and Wales over, the worst case scenario cannot happen.

The pledge that is signed and should be delivered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29213418

an overview of what happens now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-2925289

The person we really need to worry about not following up with their promise is this guy.

Well that was a good example of democracy being used to resolve something important. Now the onus is on the UK government to honor the promises it made.

There is no powers he can grant us that will actually make our votes actually count.

@akyho said:

The person we really need to worry about not following up with their promise is this guy.

No! Please! Why would Scotland not give this terrorist what he wants?!

Hopefully he has no honor(like usual) and doesn't follow through on his threat to return to America. I've already seen enough Piers Morgan for a lifetime.

Now Scotland has voted No to stay part of the UK. I think the rest of the people in the UK should vote of we want to keep Scotland a part of the UK.

In some ways i wanted Scotland to leave. Not because i dislike them but because it would have forced this union of nations to change. Now government promises of regional devolution and federalisation will be drawn out for years and years and eventually ignored.

As a northern englishman who despises the tories i’m glad scotland's labour voters remain at hand to help drive these neo-con arseholes out of this nation.

Fuck London. (Not londoners)

Not to stoke the flames of pro/anti London beef but in a purely democratic sense it is reasonable to remember that if you add up the populations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireand together, that combined total only marginally tops the population of London. A lot of decisions get taken that seem to favor London disproportionately (i.e London being just a city and not a country) but in reality an awful lot of people live there so it isn't as unfair as it might seem.

@vaad616 No point. They did an opinion poll and it was in the high 70s in favour of the union.

How did I miss this topic? The matter is resolved, but I was quite involved in the process. I'm an American who was working for the Scottish Parliament, in an SNP office. My old boss was, as you might expect, heartbroken by the result. It was a very decisive vote. I think it's very positive that, in the year 2014, a nation was able to vote on its own independence, and then peacefully accept the results. Furthermore, a yes vote could have been destabilizing for all of Europe, so I think this might be for the best.

@james_hayward:

It has the population it has because people have been forced to move there for work. A result of decades of disproportionate government spending and a duplicit media that only mentions places outside the London bubble when they're talking about crime or poverty.

I myself was hoping for a no vote, but that may have been the conservative (non-political term) and caution in me. When this kind of event occurs there is both what a country is seeking independence from, and then what then does it want to institute for itself. It is along this line of thought I hope the British PM honors the promises he made concerning what was abrasive to Scotland most.

To Scotland as an American, I am quite aware of Scotland as a separate country with identity, and the Scots (inhabitants) existing as a people, say as the English.

You might be overlooking the fundamentals of market supply/demand logic, and also oversimplifying the role that government spending plays in job creation in your assessment there.... but even if you are right and I'm wrong, the basic maths stands in terms of distribution of people. Should government/businesses overlook this reality when making decisions about how to deploy resources? Tough question.

William Wallace is not happy with the result.

As a non-Scottish and non-UK citizen I am happy they stay together. Europe needs to be strong now to stand up to the Russian Tsar.

Isn't the combined population of NI, Wales and Scotland as large as London Metropolitan Area? On the one hand it is an issue that there isn't enough attention for other areas but on the the other hand there has to be a lot of attention on that area of the country because a lot of people do live there.

exactly. London is basically as populated and as economically significant as a country all by itself. The fact that it is just a city but sort of gets treated as a country is what leads to all the beef.