Scotland at the crossroads

[culloty82]

The SNP have ruled Scotland for the last four years as a minority government, but have been unable to hold a referendum on independence due to the blocking votes of the three London-based parties. Now, however, opinion polls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011) indicate that the Nationalists will increase their seat total on Thursday, but probably not by enough to secure a majority. Polls regularly indicate that the Scots would reject independence, which in practice would only affect Westminster representation as no parties want to drop the monarchy or sterling at the moment, but like Quebec, a vote will probably be needed to settle the issue.

[BonnieShels]

The SNP have ruled Scotland for the last four years as a minority government, but have been unable to hold a referendum on independence due to the blocking votes of the three London-based parties. Now, however, opinion polls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011) indicate that the Nationalists will increase their seat total on Thursday, but probably not by enough to secure a majority. Polls regularly indicate that the Scots would reject independence, which in practice would only affect Westminster representation as no parties want to drop the monarchy or sterling at the moment, but like Quebec, a vote will probably be needed to settle the issue.

And maybe the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour might let them have it? Even Trimble's jokey comment about letting the north have one might end up going the same road in Ecosse.

[Macy]

Polls regularly indicate that the Scots would reject independence, which in practice would only affect Westminster representation as no parties want to drop the monarchy or sterling at the moment, but like Quebec, a vote will probably be needed to settle the issue.
If the "UK" parties were that confident why do they keep blocking it? Not being smart, I simply haven't followed it closely enough, but if the polls show it wouldn't be carried, you'd think they'd have the vote and then get on with it. It seems like silly tactics as the SNP probably getting support on the basis on getting a referendum even from people who'd vote against it!

[peadar1987]

If the "UK" parties were that confident why do they keep blocking it? Not being smart, I simply haven't followed it closely enough, but if the polls show it wouldn't be carried, you'd think they'd have the vote and then get on with it. It seems like silly tactics as the SNP probably getting support on the basis on getting a referendum even from people who'd vote against it!

I think a lot of it's a money issue. It's not cheap to hold referenda.

But I think it could well be closer than opinion polls suggest. When I lived over there, it seemed like the pro-independence people cared far more about the issue than the pro-union ones. There might well be a greater turnout from the nationalist side.

I personally think it wouldn't be a bad thing. Scotland is a very different place to the rest of the UK, and its issues can#t be addressed the same way as those of London, Manchester, or Belfast.

[DannyInvincible]

Scotland also has its own legal system as distinct from that in England and Wales.


And maybe the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour might let them have it? Even Trimble's jokey comment about letting the north have one might end up going the same road in Ecosse.

Interestingly, as part of the GFA terms, if a referendum on unity was to occur in NI, another referendum would not be permitted to occur for at least another seven years.

If they're confident that Scotland wishes to remain within the UK, surely the "UK parties" could wind some similar condition into any potential Scottish referendum on independence if they really wanted. At the very least, it would keep the issue off their agenda for another few years anyway, assuming any forthcoming referendum went in their favour.

[DannyInvincible]

I personally think it wouldn't be a bad thing. Scotland is a very different place to the rest of the UK, and its issues can#t be addressed the same way as those of London, Manchester, or Belfast.

Are you suggesting that Belfast might be less different than Scotland from the rest of the UK?

[BonnieShels]

Interestingly, as part of the GFA terms, if a referendum on unity was to occur in NI, another referendum would not be permitted to occur for at least another seven years.

I remember that well. Haven't read the gfa since 98. Must look over it again. Never know how the referenda could be instigated. And then was it mandatory to have them after 7 years. It was a very vague sop to unionism.

Could work in Scotland alright.

Also I know what Peadar is getting at. Themes a serious problem with Scottish nationality. It'not contiguous with Scottish identity and its very confused. In the north of Ireland everyone knows where they stand in the grand scheme of things whether they agree or not.

[DannyInvincible]

I remember that well. Haven't read the gfa since 98. Must look over it again. Never know how the referenda could be instigated. And then was it mandatory to have them after 7 years. It was a very vague sop to unionism.

The GFA (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm) states that the NI Secretary of State can call a referendum on unity "if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland". It wouldn't be mandatory to have another after seven years; this would just be the minimum amount of time that would have to pass until another could be called. Relevant portion here:


SCHEDULE 1
POLLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 1
1. The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order.

2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.

3. The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule.

[culloty82]

With nearly half the seats declared - 58/129, both Labour and the Lib Dems are getting absolute hammerings:

SNP 45
Lab 20
Con 4
LD 2
Green 1

Scotland also has a list system, which will probably give a boost to the smaller parties, but the momentum can be clearly seen. Clegg will likely get another trouncing on the AV (single-seat PR) referendum, as it was seen as a vote on the Lib Dems, and Labour were split down the middle.

The BBC's final prediction is:

SNP 68 (overall majority)
Lab 38
Con 12
LD 6
Green 3
Oth 2

[The Fly]

The BBC's final prediction is:

SNP 68 (overall majority)
Lab 38
Con 12
LD 6
Green 3
Oth 2

...which would represent Labour's worst result since at least 1931, the worst Tory result ever and the worst Lib Dem performance since 1979.

All in all, there's a good chance of a referendum on independence this term.

[BonnieShels]

...which would represent Labour's worst result since at least 1931, the worst Tory result ever and the worst Lib Dem performance since 1979.

All in all, there's a good chance of a referendum on independence this term.

I really hope there is. I have no real desire or will to see an independent Scotland I just want to see what way these things go.

The what ifs that will arise are tantalizing.

[culloty82]

One of the most tantalising "what ifs" that arises would be Scotland's EU membership - you'd presume an independent nation would automatically continue as a member, unless it voted separately to leave, but because no region has broken away since the Treaty of Rome was said, there's no legal consensus on the issue. Should have emphasised in the OP that I wasn't anti-independence, just that even what the SNP wants seems very weak even compared with our Treaty.

[The Fly]

The what ifs that will arise are tantalizing.

The 'what if' which I find most intriguing is the effect such a prospect would have for Northern Ireland and, in particular, the Unionist psyche.

[peadar1987]

The 'what if' which I find most intriguing is the effect such a prospect would have for Northern Ireland and, in particular, the Unionist psyche.

It'd certainly be interesting from a Northern Irish perspective. Hopefully the nutter fringe on the nationalist side would see that it's possble to break away from the UK without shooting anyone in the knee, at the very least!

[DannyInvincible]

Alex Salmond has promised a referendum on independence to take place by 2015.

[Gather round]

I think a lot of it's a money issue. It's not cheap to hold referenda

Actually, it is. Britain hardly ever has referenda. so they don't cost much. Although I suppose you could argue that that the cost is the main deterrent to having them.


I personally think it wouldn't be a bad thing. Scotland is a very different place to the rest of the UK

Scotland is very similar to NI, Wales and the rest of England beyond the M25, ie its economy isn't dominated by the city of London. But given that it makes up only 9% of Britain I wouldn'y get carried away.


The 'what if' which I find most intriguing is the effect such a prospect would have for Northern Ireland and, in particular, the Unionist psyche

I imagine the unionist psyche would be little affected/ interested in a Scottish indepedence vote which is likely to be lost heavily. Only 20% support in the 2010 Scotish general electiion, remember.

[Gather round]

It'd certainly be interesting from a Northern Irish perspective. Hopefully the nutter fringe on the nationalist side would see that it's possble to break away from the UK without shooting anyone in the knee, at the very least!

Maybe, although more likely nutters will continue to act nuttily. It should be fairly obvious to most reasonably intelligent NI nationalists that local unionists are simply not interested in a UI. Ergo partition wont end regardless of how enthusiastic the nutters are.

[BonnieShels]

Seems to be the subject across the Water this week and some very interesting comments and articles in the Guardian,

Though there was one spectacular comment from an English man purporting to be in his 80's...


• I am (obviously) not a constitutional lawyer. It does seem to me, however, that a Scottish vote to secede from the UK needs careful study. I should be interested to know the (legal) distinction between a "Scottish citizen" and a "UK citizen". If, as a young man, born, brought up and educated in England, I had moved to Scotland for employment and stayed there, would I now (at 80) be a Scottish citizen? If the distinction of citizenship is not clear then surely a referendum about a section of the UK seceding must be a decision for all UK citizens and not just for those who live in a particular part of it.
John Pottinger
Linthorpe, Middlesbrough

Can be seen on this page.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/09/scottish-independence-thorn-and-thistle

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/09/scottish-independence-thorn-and-thistle)It surely wouldn't be that difficult for anyone to maybe just maybe to consider a time when the UK last faced a similar situation... It was in the 1920's I seem to think...

[Eminence Grise]

I think our campaign was a bit more nuanced... seem to recall support from Lee Enfield and Messrs Smith and Wesson playing a role... Haven't seem much of that in Scotland.

More seriously, the Anglo-Irish Treaty might well have some lessons, but I think the Statute of Westminster, 1931 would have to be factored in as well. It's very complicated stuff...

[Spudulika]

How will it play out under EU rules? In 2006, I think it was, there was discussion in Belgium about dividing the country and I am trying to remember what the EU stated on member states having breakaway regions.

Just a little aside on Quebec, the headers there pushed very hard and I was just about to return home from an extended working holiday in 1995 (to set up for a move the next year) when the referendum took place. I could be wrong on this, as the brain's not up to much, but it was supposed by CBC talking heads that had the spoiled votes - mainly from the Yes areas - not been so, they would have broken away. And in the days just before some native nation up in the north of the province took a full page ad in the major dailies stating that under the terms of some agreement with the British and ratified in Canadian law, that if there was secession they'd leave Quebec, and that their patch of land was pretty valuable. The frenchies made some sort of threat (Bouchard said that there would be no dissent) so Chretien on the eve of the election appeared on tv and said that Canadian forces would protect the legal rights of it's citizens without qualms. I don't know if it was a major factor, but the final poll before the vote had 52-46 (yes-no). Oh, and the Quebecois told everyone that they'd join a monetary union with the USA (but I think that was earlier). It'd be funny if Scotland joined the eurozone and took the remains of the oil and gas industry with them.

[DannyInvincible]

I imagine the unionist psyche would be little affected/ interested in a Scottish indepedence vote which is likely to be lost heavily. Only 20% support in the 2010 Scotish general electiion, remember.

Support for an independent Scotland has apparently risen to over 30 per cent now. And still two years to go 'til a vote. How would the unionist psyche be affected in a Scottish independence vote with a very realistic chance of success?

Interesting difference in the language used and approach taken by the British establishment in relation to the prospect of Scottish independence in comparison to the language used and approach taken when discussing the prospect of Irish unity: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16503307

The establishment clearly feels that this issue is very much their business - a Westminster/UK-wide issue and not one for the Scottish electorate alone - whereas external impediment is something that the Good Friday Agreement forbids with regard to any future referendum on Irish unity in NI. I think it tells us about the nature of the union and the perception of Scotland as being integral to its fabric, whilst NI is seen as dispensable.

[Eminence Grise]

It could also be a residual perception from the time of the Anglo-Irish Treaty to the subsequent establishment of the Boundary Commission that NI was probably only destined to be separated from the south temporarily.

Scotland existed as a kingdom in its own right before union in 1706 (/7?), whereas the Irish kingdom was artificially created out of the Lordship of Ireland by Henry VIII, around 1541 iirc, so it might be perceived by some in the establishment as a deeper union...?

[peadar1987]

It could also be a residual perception from the time of the Anglo-Irish Treaty to the subsequent establishment of the Boundary Commission that NI was probably only destined to be separated from the south temporarily.

Scotland existed as a kingdom in its own right before union in 1706 (/7?), whereas the Irish kingdom was artificially created out of the Lordship of Ireland by Henry VIII, around 1541 iirc, so it might be perceived by some in the establishment as a deeper union...?

I think if the Scottish people vote for independence, no amount of posturing from south of the border will be able to stop it. They may say that the issue affects the whole of the UK, and that the whole of the UK should have a vote, but they didn't apply the same arguments when the Soviet Union was breaking up. The international community would almost certainly recognise Scotland as an independent state.

[culloty82]

The precedent was already set in Montenegro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrin_independence_referendum,_2006) in 2006, where the international observers required a Yes vote of 55% before independence would be approved, so can't see how London could over-rule a similar Scottish result. As for the actual referendum timing, 2012 or 2014 shouldn't materially affect the result, but when most Scots are definitely anti-Tory by instinct, Cameron's intervention will only bolster both the Yes campaign and Salmond's efforts to organise the vote on his own terms.

[DannyInvincible]

Why does this look familiar? ;)

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57819000/jpg/_57819787_freescotland.jpg

Bit nauseating listening Cameron getting haughty in Westminster yesterday with his cringe-worthy "never-endum" jibes. This talk of "delay" is simply falsehood. The referendum should take place when it's mandated to take place.


They may say that the issue affects the whole of the UK, and that the whole of the UK should have a vote, but they didn't apply the same arguments when the Soviet Union was breaking up.

They didn't even apply the same arguments whilst erecting a framework to enable NI's future passage out of the union.

[horton]

They didn't even apply the same arguments whilst erecting a framework to enable NI's future passage out of the union.
Your forgetting that Scotland has a decent economy and is a money earner, Northern Ireland costs London more than they get back in taxes:D

[peadar1987]

I was reading the comments left beneath one of the articles on the BBC website (don't do it, it will make you rush for the nearest balaclava and semtex!)

Plenty of ignorant little-Englanders from the Daily Mail counties saying Scotland would soon come crawling back to the Union, because they wouldn't be able to afford things like aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons! What possible reason could Scotland have for capital warships and a nuclear deterrant?! It was shocking enough that one person would think this, but I saw it at least three times. Some people are so disconnected from reality it is scary!

[BonnieShels]

It was interesting to contrast the reactionary, panicked pre-recorded interview this morning on Morning Ireland with Nick Clegg vs the calm, collected live interview with Salmond.

[mypost]

Scotland would break up from the UK technically, but be so politically, emotionally and culturally so connected, that in reality it would barely make any difference. They would keep the Pound, and keep many of the existing ties they have.

On the wider UK question, I get the impression that nobody in the rest of the UK gives a damn whether they become independent or not. London doesn't want to pay for their upkeep, the British taxpayer wouldn't be that keen on it either. NI and Wales haven't the time or the will to care about the issue.

[BonnieShels]

Blah blah

Do you really think that Scotland are such a financial basket case?

Learn more. Comment later.

[peadar1987]

Blah blah

Do you really think that Scotland are such a financial basket case?

Learn more. Comment later.

The point has been made many times, but if Scotland was a black hole for money populated by sponging alcoholic jocks (Daily Mail et al, 2012), Westminster wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep it. They certainly wouldn't be so put out if Northern Ireland or Wales decided to go it on their own.

[mypost]

Blah blah

Do you really think that Scotland are such a financial basket case?

All of the UK is a financial basket case. Have you seen their deficit figures?

[culloty82]

The point has been made many times, but if Scotland was a black hole for money populated by sponging alcoholic jocks (Daily Mail et al, 2012), Westminster wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep it. They certainly wouldn't be so put out if Northern Ireland or Wales decided to go it on their own.

Politically, Cameron would actually gain if Scotland left, as the Tories have only one MP north of the Border, compared to Labour's 41, but as we saw with UCUNF, the PM is a committed unionist who views every part of the UK as "being as British as Finchley". Most of the English would be happy to see them leave, as they dislike the Scottish MPs voting on questions only concerning England.

[Gather round]

Support for an independent Scotland has apparently risen to over 30 per cent now. And still two years to go 'til a vote

During which two years it might well fall back towards the 20% recorded in the 2010 general election. The latter tend to show higher nationalist votes than the Holyrood equivalent. Basically because at the latter SNP supporters can have it both ways, criticising the broader British government and state while remaining within it.


How would the unionist psyche be affected in a Scottish independence vote with a very realistic chance of success?

Hypothetically- I don't think it has a realistic chance, as above. But if that changed I imagine there'd be short-time wab-waving by NI nationalists, matched by exaggerated Unionist angst. Then abnormal politics would continue.


The establishment clearly feels that this issue is very much their business - a Westminster/UK-wide issue and not one for the Scottish electorate alone - whereas external impediment is something that the Good Friday Agreement forbids with regard to any future referendum on Irish unity in NI. I think it tells us about the nature of the union and the perception of Scotland as being integral to its fabric, whilst NI is seen as dispensable

There's something in that, most obviously a long-term history of paramilitary violence in NI. Which needs to be treated with kid gloves.

But you overstate both Scotland's importance to England (9% and 3% are both insignificant compared with 83%, the relevant population shares). And also the GFA's influence. It's not like Magna Carta nor even your 1937 constitution. but rather a deal which doesn't automatically bind its successors. NI won't leave Britain unless Unionists want it to.


Bit nauseating listening Cameron getting haughty in Westminster yesterday with his cringe-worthy "never-endum" jibes. This talk of "delay" is simply falsehood. The referendum should take place when it's mandated to take place

I hope you don't feel nauseous every time a foreign party breaks a manifesto pledge. Because that's just what the SNP will try if they see an advantage in delaying, hurrying forward, procrastination or whatever else.


It could also be a residual perception from the time of the Anglo-Irish Treaty to the subsequent establishment of the Boundary Commission that NI was probably only destined to be separated from the south temporarily

That might have been a perception in 1932. Not in 2012.


I think if the Scottish people vote for independence, no amount of posturing from south of the border will be able to stop it...the international community would almost certainly recognise Scotland as an independent state

You call it posturing, but there would be plenty to be argued about. What would be Scotland's share of the national debt, or the oil? (I'd say about 9% for both).

If any referendum is relatively close (ie the pro-independence vote between about 45 and 55%), then opposition within Scotland would be more significant than either English posturing or wider rubber-stamp outside.


Plenty of ignorant little-Englanders from the Daily Mail counties saying Scotland would soon come crawling back to the Union, because they wouldn't be able to afford things like aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons! What possible reason could Scotland have for capital warships and a nuclear deterrant?! It was shocking enough that one person would think this, but I saw it at least three times. Some people are so disconnected from reality it is scary!

You do realise that, unpopular as heavy weaponry may be to most Scots, its industry provides a lot of jobs. Simply abandoning them might prove difficult. There must also be a theoretical possibility that Britain (or America, or NATO) might pay Scotland to hire bases, etc.


when most Scots are definitely anti-Tory by instinct, Cameron's intervention will only bolster both the Yes campaign and Salmond's efforts to organise the vote on his own terms

2010- and most previous general election results- suggest they're just as definitely anti-SNP: the party has never managed more than 23% of the Scottish vote in one.

Cameron may look cack-handed in Scotland, largely because it isn't a priority for him. And don't rule out gaffes by the SNP- linking any vote to the Battle of Bannockburn, and extending the vote to 16 year olds, are just stunts. The first particularly is just childish.


as we saw with UCUNF, the PM is a committed unionist who views every part of the UK as "being as British as Finchley". Most of the English would be happy to see them leave, as they dislike the Scottish MPs voting on questions only concerning England

Cameron has to pay lip service to flag-waving unionism, but it's no more than that. His party is one of London and Suburban England (ie excluding the old heavy industry belts around Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc. If the Scots really wanted to go he's let them, I think.

The Finchley (Thatch's old seat, so maybe it should be Witney now) thing is a bit silly. There's no equivalent to the SNP, Plaid or the Bon Jovies in England. Their fringe parties are nationalistic, but don't want to separate from er, England.


Your forgetting that Scotland has a decent economy and is a money earner, Northern Ireland costs London more than they get back in taxes

Not so, Scotland- although currently the third-richest of Britain's 12 regions, after London and SE England- has a lower output per head than Britain and also in deficit to London. Also, many claims of Scottish economic strength are based on

a) the oil remaining available and accessible for the foreseeable future- some geologists suggest otherwise, and anyway

b) there's some dispute as to how much of it they own. The British state, economy etc. has invested in the oil indsutry and infrastructure, after all.

And don't forget Scotland has three times the population to be subsidised (as per your theory) as NI does.

[dantheman]

I love the way this issue rocks the Unionist's view of the world.

West Pakistan indeed

[DannyInvincible]

But you overstate both Scotland's importance to England (9% and 3% are both insignificant compared with 83%, the relevant population shares). And also the GFA's influence. It's not like Magna Carta nor even your 1937 constitution. but rather a deal which doesn't automatically bind its successors. NI won't leave Britain unless Unionists want it to.

What was the point in including in the GFA a provision for a referendum allowing for NI to leave the union with a simple democratic majority if the whole thing is as meaningless as you suggest? Who's going to back-track on that deal?

[culloty82]

GR won't be worrying unduly about McGuinness's NI referendum (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/north-in-united-ireland-vote-by-2016-181985.html) - it'd take at least 30 years before there would be a majority, and that's only on the big assumption that all Catholics would vote Yes.

[BonnieShels]

GR won't be worrying unduly about McGuinness's NI referendum (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/north-in-united-ireland-vote-by-2016-181985.html) - it'd take at least 30 years before there would be a majority, and that's only on the big assumption that all Catholics would vote Yes.

Currently talking about this on Last Word.

[Mr A]

Piece here about how many English people wouldn't be sorry to see the Scots break away: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/29/andrew-rawnsley-english-pro-scottish-independence

[Gather round]

(Double post)

[Gather round]

What was the point in including in the GFA a provision for a referendum allowing for NI to leave the union with a simple democratic majority if the whole thing is as meaningless as you suggest?

I didn't suggest it was meaningless, rather that it wasn't set in stone for centuries to come. It's a deal to allow what's effectively a British local authority to run with limited real powers and an opposition of two or three members. Not a means to wish away the border.


Who's going to back-track on that deal?

Unionists, in the unlikely event that Nationalists ever look like getting beyond 50%?


GR won't be worrying unduly about McGuinness's NI referendum (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/north-in-united-ireland-vote-by-2016-181985.html) - it'd take at least 30 years before there would be a majority, and that's only on the big assumption that all Catholics would vote Yes

Indeed. Maybe they could all vote twice each to make it livelier. You do realise that Catholics do occasionally vote for- and even lead- non-Nationalist parties?

[Not Brazil]

GR won't be worrying unduly about McGuinness's NI referendum (http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/north-in-united-ireland-vote-by-2016-181985.html) - it'd take at least 30 years before there would be a majority, and that's only on the big assumption that all Catholics would vote Yes.

I'm with Marty on this one.

Bring on the Border Poll - 2016 suits fine.

[DannyInvincible]

'Scottish independence: Orange Order in Ulster Scots referendum call': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19710873


People with an Ulster Scots background should be allowed to vote in Scotland's independence referendum, a senior Orange Order member has said.

Dr David Hume said Ulster Scots had played a key role in Scottish history.

"We are stakeholders as well. Surely a decision such as this should not ignore our input?" he said.

He was speaking at a Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland event in Glasgow to commemorate the centenary of the anti-Home Rule Ulster Covenant.

"In 1912 Scots unionists watched anxiously for Ulster, and in 2014 Ulster will watch anxiously for you as nationalists seek to win a referendum which would alter totally the constitution of our nation," he said.

"A union without Scotland would be a poorer place."

He added: "We will not forsake you as your forefathers did not forsake us.

"Many of them were not born in Ulster so they could not sign the covenant, but they held it in their hearts. We will not forget you for that and the continuing support you give to us."

Dr Hume said Ulster Scots "provided the first unifying force in Scotland in the 6th Century AD and we later extended Scottish influence to Ireland in the 17th Century".

How would that work exactly? Sounds like rhetoric to me.

[Gather round]

How would that work exactly? Sounds like rhetoric to me

Sounds like a p*ss-take on the SNP's own contortions- they want their supporters outside Scotland to have a vote, so it's only reasonable that their opponents have one too.

[BonnieShels]

And the St Andrew's Cross-roads have been reached.

Section 30 agreement signed today by Cameron and Salmond.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19942638

Here's the agreement (http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agreement-final-for-signing.pdf).

[BonnieShels]

Powers were transferred last week to allow Holyrood to hold a referendum in 2014.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21039886

Great website dedicated to the "question" here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/16630456).

[DannyInvincible]

"Scottish independence: 'Scotland Olympic team could be in Rio'": http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/24081596


Scotland will press ahead with plans to have Olympic and Paralympic teams at Rio 2016 if the country votes for independence in a year's time, says Scottish Sports Minister Shona Robison.

Ahead of the referendum on 18 September, 2014, the MSP told BBC Sport she was confident Scotland would meet the strict conditions in order to become an Olympic nation.

"We're comfortable and assured Scotland will have its own Olympic and Paralympic team. It will bring many benefits," she said.

Robison, the Scottish National Party MSP for Dundee City East, said more Scots would get the chance to participate in Brazil and future Games if independence became a reality.

She also insisted Scottish athletes would not be disadvantaged by independence, even though they would be denied access to traditional funding streams and facilities.

"We have made substantial investments," said Robison, explaining that Scottish athletes would have access to a "fantastic new velodrome and a fantastic new sports arena" in Glasgow as well as a new £25m performance centre for sport in Edinburgh.

But not everyone is convinced that Scotland - which hosts the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow - would be better off competing as a separate nation.

Badminton player Imogen Bankier, who represented Scotland at the 2010 Commonwealth Games and Britain at the 2012 Olympics, has told BBC Sport that her country does not have the facilities, funding or depth of talent to make a major impact at future Olympics.

"We're lucky with the way that it stands now for Scotland," said the 25-year-old from Glasgow.

"We can tap into the English system and be part of Team GB when it suits us and use it our advantage. Independence would mean we would lose that. That's only going to see sports suffer."

For Scotland to become an Olympic nation in its own right, it would need to fulfil several criteria:


To be an independent state recognised by the international community
To have a solid sporting structure, such as national federations, sports clubs, etc
To have at least five national federations affiliated to international federations with sports included in the Olympic programme

[BonnieShels]

WEEEEIIIIIRRRRDDDDDDDDDD!!!

Just coming in to post some links.

1 year to the Referendum. I'm very excited by this.

Q&A
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13326310

Debate in Scots Parliament
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24127510

[culloty82]

Latest poll sees the No lead down to five, could Yes improbably win?

[CraftyToePoke]

Latest poll sees the No lead down to five, could Yes improbably win?

Anymore on the polls in the lead in to this ? Cameron and his cabinet seem have a policy of largely smug condescension and belittlement which would make a yes vote all the more hilarious, were it to happen.