the scottish independence referendum

Well, there doesn't seem to be any plan for what happens if Yes wins.

government contingency plans are more likely to be circulated among ministers that distributed to journalists in pdf

i wonder why the UK government and the No campaign in general might want to create the impression that a Yes vote will lead to unplanned chaos

it's almost as if the No campaign has continually tried to create the dishonest impression that Scotland wd be cut loose overnight after a Yes vote

/than/ distributed

the uk government is generally supposed to have the most extensive contingency planning for climate change among the major nations, why would it be so unprepared for independence of scotland

they probably miscalculated the likelihood of a vote for independence a few years ago but fairly safe to assume they have planned extensively for that anyway

which isn't to suggest those plans will be effective

be interesting to know what percentage of people outside of Scotland are sick of the UK as a political entity too

― Daphnis Celesta

well I mean if yer asking......

the plan for a Yes vote is to build a wall from carlisle to newcastle

i wonder why the UK government and the No campaign in general might want to create the impression that a Yes vote will lead to unplanned chaos

― Daphnis Celesta, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 21:32 (3 minutes ago)

there is this, and then there is the snp's suggestion that the current uk government are completely unprepared naifs, which is sentimentally appealling and helps to embolden the wavering

the contingency planning will involve all sorts of devious sub rosa manipulations, bribes and blackmails to secure faslane at all costs so no surprise cameron doesn't want to talk about them

Most likely trade is that it's for currency union.

Well, there doesn't seem to be any plan for what happens if Yes wins.

― everything, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 20:28

Applies to both sides of the argument imo.

More so from the gov. Unless you buy the theory that they're well prepped but secretive about it. Which again could apply to either side.

they probably miscalculated the likelihood of a vote for independence a few years ago but fairly safe to assume they have planned extensively for that anyway

Normally nakh talks sense but I have no idea why he's so confident about the forward planning abilities of this current goverment - with David "Lazybones" Cameron at the helm

It occurs to me that I don't actually trust either side of this debate very much. Nationalism of any stripe is pretty repugnant to me and I don't really believe that the SNP or a lot of their supporters are particularly left wing at heart, any more than the Lib Dems were.

God knows I wouldn't choose to be governed by our shower of cunts if I could opt out of it so I see the appeal of the Yes vote. But Scotland strikes me as very monocultural in a way that could get worse after independence.

I suppose what I'm interested in is the sort of Scottish Right that will emerge in the event of a Yes vote. I suspect that both Labour and the SNP have benefited from the Scottish Tories being such a tainted party that even right-leaning people wouldn't vote for them, but the emergence of either a new RW party or a lurch to the Right from the SNP would hoover up those voters.

the government in this instance isn't just the few main officers of state but the entire cabinet office and other department who will furnish them with all of the relevant plans

if you don't think all of this has been fully laid then to them then you are naive

to reiterate this isn't to suggest that all of those plans in their platonic splendour will be able to take account of all of the various contingencies (alluded to here) especially where financial markets are concerned and various more or less unforeseeable disasters that might occur

and it doesn't remotely suggest that the executive will implement them effectively, but there will be no lack of best laid plans

Times apparently has a poll tomorrow with a clear lead for Yes

this certainly has the look of an endgame about it

https://twitter.com/scottishlabour/status/508195079195201536

Voted 'dgaf', but that sounds more aggressive than I really feel. I don't especially care one way or the other, but if a majority of Scots vote for independence, they should have it. My main worry is that it will make it more difficult to get rid of a Tory government in what's left of Britain, but that's obviously not something that should sway the vote for Scots.

http://i.imgur.com/jXbV7SQ.jpg

Tipping point.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/06/latest-scottish-referendum-poll-yes-lead/

that is a beautiful thing.

that sort of looks like 'fingers crossed'

this could have a dynamic of its own from now on, once the scarcely possible of a year ago becomes possible, the wavering might just be emboldened

if nothing else it makes it look like independence is an inevitability, if not now then in the not so far future, in which case why wait?

no precedent which is what makes it so exciting, along with the likelihood of a huge turnout

Reminds me of the last election when the polls for the Lib Dems were looking a lot better than what turned out to be in polling day so..

oh, shush.

I suspect the civil service has been planning, but I'm not sure that counts for much. There certainly hasn't been any planning at the political level, and all the sounds of panic we're hearing tonight are proof of that.

Hell, if the government had been taking this seriously would they still have acted like they have the past four years? New weird taxes on the poor, cuts for the wealthy and even more privatisation is almost the perfect mix to ignite the Thatcher grudges again.

(But from what I can tell, this isn't just the old wrongs reheated. It's much more positive than that. Which is fantastic to see: All sorts of politically disengaged people I know are firing up)

that single poll is a statistical 50/50 as it says, and combined with all of the other polling the weight of probabilities is still with no

nobody is calling it yet but once it goes from 80/20 no to 60/40 to....it isn't an inexorable movement because it could just trigger a backlash but it gets hopes up, and that might be the difference

Davis Moyes being right back on the no team might just about win this for the yes team.

I suspect the civil service has been planning, but I'm not sure that counts for much. There certainly hasn't been any planning at the political level, and all the sounds of panic we're hearing tonight are proof of that.

― stet, Sunday, 7 September 2014 00:25 (9 minutes ago)

the political level has mostly been minor tories crowing but the civil service is mostly what i was referring to, that there will be (necessarily crude) contingency planning in the cabinet office that will have some approval by the higher ministers, it wasn't a suggestion that the dynamic against the no compaign was foreseen by cameron et al

Hell, if the government had been taking this seriously would they still have acted like they have the past four years? New weird taxes on the poor, cuts for the wealthy and even more privatisation is almost the perfect mix to ignite the Thatcher grudges again.

(But from what I can tell, this isn't just the old wrongs reheated. It's much more positive than that. Which is fantastic to see: All sorts of politically disengaged people I know are firing up)

― stet, Sunday, 7 September 2014 00:25 (2 minutes ago)

there's a sort of contradiction here because you acknowledge, this has its own momentum which is far more than just 'the current uk administration is detestable'

the better way to look at it isn't that cameron et al failed to cater policy to scotland, rather that they clearly underestimated the movement for independence else they wouldn't have granted this referendum for 2014

'the sounds of panic', insofar as they truly reflect the will of the cabinet itself, are about that miscalculation

all of this neglects that throughout the inept support for the no campaign within the conservative party, they have recognised for years that there is a long game to be played that could favour them in the case of independence, if the dissolution is managed successfully

if you look at everything the newer generations of conservatives have been saying, there isn't a lot to suggest they are wedded to the union as an end in itself, certainly not as a transcendent political ideal

To respond to Matt DC "Nationalism of any stripe is pretty repugnant to me and I don't really believe that the SNP or a lot of their supporters are particularly left wing at heart, any more than the Lib Dems were."

This isn't about nationalism, it's about democracy, being a normal country as opposed to a very junior partner in a moribund, over-centralised and undemocratic union. I'm a Green and a Yes, and while I don't like everything the SNP has done, they have a solid record of social democratic policies, the sort of things the right-wing Labour party has long abandoned.

"But Scotland strikes me as very monocultural in a way that could get worse after independence."

Scotland has never been a monoculture and the existence of campaign groups Asians For Yes, Poles for Yes, Africans for Yes is testament to the absence of any ethnic element. Scotland isn't immune to the toxic anti-immigration rhetoric of down south, but all the political parties up here have generally avoided going down that route.

"I suppose what I'm interested in is the sort of Scottish Right that will emerge in the event of a Yes vote. I suspect that both Labour and the SNP have benefited from the Scottish Tories being such a tainted party that even right-leaning people wouldn't vote for them, but the emergence of either a new RW party or a lurch to the Right from the SNP would hoover up those voters."

Of course there's a Scottish centre-right constituency who an independent Scottish Tory party would cater for, but it's not large enough to win. But even if it did become the government so be it, that's democracy. The beautiful thing about this referendum is that it's not about party politics.

the better way to look at it isn't that cameron et al failed to cater policy to scotland, rather that they clearly underestimated the movement for independence else they wouldn't have granted this referendum for 2014

You're right, but there's underestimating and then there's showing complete contempt for. Some of the things they've done recently, especially TTIP, almost seem like they're goading Scottish sentiment. Of course, they aren't intentionally provoking, they're just oblivious. And it's that obliviousness which I think is particularly infuriating to Scots.

Whether they're playing a long game is an interesting one, not least as it feels like the short game is all downsides for the conservatives. Losing oil, a spike in Sterling rates, more austerity, a surge in UKIP, none of the likely consequences should sound appealing to them. Nor is it certain that they'd weather them well enough to enjoy the long-term benefits.

i thought the losing oil bit was not foregone?

I agree with Stew, It's not about nationalism. I don't actually see that element, at all, amongst people i've been talking to

"But Scotland strikes me as very monocultural in a way that could get worse after independence."

Scotland is moving pretty fast. Monocultural perhaps describes Scotland 10 years ago fairly well but now? No. I think this view of the SNP is also one that's about ten years old but doesn't reflect what's actually happening now. In fact the BNP/UKIP axis influence in Scotland is laughably small.

Almost nothing's foregone - that's been pretty much the whole No strategy in a nutshell. But it's more likely than not that at least some will go. Sterling's rate will reflect even the uncertainty pretty quickly. xp

is dr. who voting yes or no?

Don't be lasagna, Mordy

This isn't about nationalism, it's about democracy, being a normal country as opposed to a very junior partner in a moribund, over-centralised and undemocratic union. I'm a Green and a Yes, and while I don't like everything the SNP has done, they have a solid record of social democratic policies, the sort of things the right-wing Labour party has long abandoned.

Yeah I know, I'm familiar with all this, and I agree with a lot of it. But most of the Yes people I follow on the internet are passionate, articulate, relatively young and left-leaning. The Yes campaign strikes me as overwhelmingly positive in a way that, cynic that I am, I don't quite believe, and I wonder if there is a nastier element lurking in there in places I don't see. If not, then great.

In fact the BNP/UKIP axis influence in Scotland is laughably small

But why is it laughably small? (Actually the BNP axis in England is laughably small as well but that's neither here nor there). Do those reactionary elements just not exist in any real numbers in Scotland? Are Scottish people just better? Or is it that existence of a viable alternative to the two main parties just means that there's a more positive outlet for post-New Labour disillusionment so reactionary parties and policies gain less traction? I'm guessing the latter, but would that state of affairs continue in the event of a Yes vote (especially if Scotland were to get into economic difficulty)?

all of this neglects that throughout the inept support for the no campaign within the conservative party, they have recognised for years that there is a long game to be played that could favour them in the case of independence, if the dissolution is managed successfully

In the short-term a Yes vote is likely to be disastrous for the Conservative Party, Cameron will go down in (English) history as a clown and a bungler. In the longer term, given the voting patterns in the rest of the UK, I'd guess it would favour them, given the removal of a big chunk of Labour seats? The rural South of England isn't going to stop voting Tory any time soon.

I guess I'm in "don't want them to leave, hope they succeed if they do, my opinion doesn't really matter" territory. Except the consequences for England look grim here, especially the North of England. I also haven't read very much on the potential consequences for Northern Ireland, who is good on this subject?

the labour party is essentially fucked if scotland go, right?

Not necessarily, but it will be interesting to see if various voices in the media try to paint a Yes vote as Labour's fuck-up rather than lay it at the door of David Cameron, who will obviously try to bluff through being the PM in charge at a point of deep humiliation.

The Labour Party is essentially fucked anyway, I think. I doubt the independence movement (and arguably UKIP) would have gained as much traction if Labour was seen as caring much about the people they claim to represent. Sometimes you only really see the effects of governments several years after their time in office but we're only now seeing the deep damage Blair has done to both his party and democracy in this country.

speculating about the medium to long term results impact of a Yes vote on England is pretty random, there's no real clear picture of what the impact will be on Scotland either, not least whether it becomes a beacon or a cautionary tale - for those inclined to need those things

also of course there's a nationalist element to the whole history of the campaign for independence, some arbitrary "North of England" will never be able to secede precisely because it wd have too tenuous a nation-state mythology

Whether they're playing a long game is an interesting one, not least as it feels like the short game is all downsides for the conservatives. Losing oil, a spike in Sterling rates, more austerity, a surge in UKIP, none of the likely consequences should sound appealing to them. Nor is it certain that they'd weather them well enough to enjoy the long-term benefits.

― stet, Sunday, 7 September 2014 00:55 (14 hours ago)

In the short-term a Yes vote is likely to be disastrous for the Conservative Party, Cameron will go down in (English) history as a clown and a bungler. In the longer term, given the voting patterns in the rest of the UK, I'd guess it would favour them, given the removal of a big chunk of Labour seats? The rural South of England isn't going to stop voting Tory any time soon.

― Matt DC, Sunday, 7 September 2014 11:42 (3 hours ago)

this again reflects different elements of the conservative party. very difficult to analyse because the different elements of the decision making within the conservative party are not transparent there's a lot of cognitive dissonance at work in the conservative party.

clearly it isn't either 'save the beloved union at all costs' or 'alienate scotland to ensure future conservative hegemony.' for cameron it's surely true that he has miscalculated the referendum date and terms. his political shelflife was expiring rapidly even before the dynamic shifted in scotland though, and he has little personal support. for the rest it's not so clear, high conservative politics is a sublimated knifefight, each for himself.

maybe it could be analysed within the normative scheme of weber's political sociology, traditional/affective or rational (value rational or instrumental). the affective bonds towards union are strong only with the dying coterie of edward leigh and other artefacts. maybe cameron still has some vestigial clan loyalty to the auld ones. traditional bonds, 'this shall be done as ever it was' also don't seem that relevant. traditional constitutional arrangments have been evaporating over the last 20 years, the artificialty of the 1707 union is evident.

so in terms of rationality, whatever that might mean, instrumentally there are all sorts of immediate difficulties with sterling, cta, faslane etc. the weighting is clearly towards a new settlement with extended devolution terms as osborne describes today. the dissonance occurs when the ideological value rationality gnaws away at the conservative conscience. the spectre of a newly streamlined, liberalized english core further weighted towards finance capital and english separate development, singapore floating somewhere in mid-atlantic on renegotiated terms outside or on the periphery of the eu. further ideological split from the nativist/reactionary ukip to the neoliberal internationalist conservatives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0flxQCmb5oY

Could Cameron continue as PM if Scotland voted for independence? He'd have to go surely?

too close to a general election they're already committed to, any challenge wd be hand-waved away under that rationale

also he had the sense not to be leader of the No campaign

I think he's dead if there's a Yes vote, this is worse than Eden and Suez.

that is a patently absurd comparison

Why would he be finished? (I mean, I think he's a dead man walking anyway, unless there's a massive shift in the polls, as he can't survive if the Tories fail to get an overall majority again and the odds are still against that - but why would a vote for Scottish independence finish him off sooner?)

this a conservative prime minister who plenty within his own party hate or distrust, surrounded by ambitious people who could try to foment uprising/leadership challenges

so it might well happen but it isn't inevitable

I also haven't read very much on the potential consequences for Northern Ireland, who is good on this subject?

This is a huge unknown, isn't it? What should the name of what's left of the UK even be? 'Great Britain' wouldn't make sense any more, but England, Wales and Northern Ireland is more than a bit unwieldy.