Yes or No and no bullsh*t

[Serial_Apologist]

Should a "Yes" vote next week whet an appetite for secession within Wales and the Welsh Assembly decide to announce its desire for a similar "independence" referendum and is granted it by Westmonster and it's held before the planned EU in/out referendum and also results in a "Yes" vote, the electorate in Wales would likewise cut themselves out of entitlement to vote in that EU in/out referendum.

The position of Northern Ireland would then become quite risky and, if the majority of voters there favour continued EU membership, it might just tip the balance in favour of an application on its part to rejoin the Republic of Ireland, especially since there'll by then no longer be a "UK of GB &" for it to continue to belong to.

Should Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland quite the union, some 1 in 11 of the current population of UK of GB & NI will have left.

I would think that the chances of England giving up N Ireland are absolutely zero, whoever else seeks succession. After all, remember the last time this was mooted in constitutional democratic terms, back in 1967. It tends to be forgotten/overlooked that the IRA back then was a dim and distant memory; yet the British (Labour!) government's response to the peaceful Civil Rights marches and demos was to send in the army on the side of the Unionists, resulting in 40 + years of internecine conflict from which Unionism appears to have emerged victorious if their right to march through Nationalist areas every summer is judged by, and the birth of yet another generation of nationalists.

[ahinton]

Salmond is all in favour of the EU and would even accept being part of the Eurozone if it came to it.

But it does look as though it will come to anything of the kind, whatever Salmond thinks or would like; if an "independent" Scotland will cease to be an EU member by virtue of having seceded from UK of GB & NI just as would apparently be the case with an independent Catalunya, it won't even be entitled to apply for EU membership and therefore could not adopt the Euro as its currency so, if Westminster continues to refuse to sanction its continued use of the British pound, it would seem to have no alternative but to form its own currency.

[ahinton]

I would think that the chances of England giving up N Ireland are absolutely zero, whoever else seeks succession. After all, remember the last time this was mooted in constitutional democratic terms, back in 1967. It tends to be forgotten/overlooked that the IRA back then was a dim and distant memory; yet the British (Labour!) government's response to the peaceful Civil Rights marches and demos was to send in the army on the side of the Unionists, resulting in 40 + years of internecine conflict from which Unionism appears to have emerged victorious if their right to march through Nationalist areas every summer is judged by, and the birth of yet another generation of nationalists.

I had in mind a situation in which NI might seek to apply to join the Republic rather than one in which England would "give it up". That said, I'm less sure than you that an isolated England would be so keen to hand onto it; were Scotland and Wales to secede from the union, there would no longer be a UK of GB and NI because there'd no longer be a GB at all, so any subsequent attempt by England to trying to retain NI would imply satisfaction on its part with the notion of a new nation called "the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland", which somehow strikes me as an unlikely proposition. Indeed, it occurred to me that this might be the one possible peaceful route to a reunited Irleland that has escaped the bounds of possibility for so many decades in which the very suggestion of such a union would attract violent thoughts; everyone whom I know who lives in Northern Ireland regards him/herself as "Irish" anyway.

[Serial_Apologist]

I had in mind a situation in which NI might seek to apply to join the Republic rather than one in which England would "give it up". That said, I'm less sure than you that an isolated England would be so keen to hand onto it; were Scotland and Wales to secede from the union, there would no longer be a UK of GB and NI because there'd no longer be a GB at all, so any subsequent attempt by England to trying to retain NI would imply satisfaction on its part with the notion of a new nation called "the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland", which somehow strikes me as an unlikely proposition. Indeed, it occurred to me that this might be the one possible peaceful route to a reunited Irleland that has escaped the bounds of possibility for so many decades in which the very suggestion of such a union would attract violent thoughts; everyone whom I know who lives in Northern Ireland regards him/herself as "Irish" anyway.

The only ones whom I know, (i.e. the only Irish from The North I do know), inasmuch as calling themselves Irish, see themselves as having escaped and made their home over here. While it would be nice to see such a drift into a changed geopolitical relationship of forces as ineluctably and thereby peaceably reached, my guess would be that any political force north of the Border seeking unification with the Republic would face civil war from the indigenous Protestant population, many of whom have remained armed, if I'm not mistaken, while the IRA has declared or given up its weapons, only small numbers of which have been passed on to its splinter groups.

[ahinton]

The only ones whom I know, (i.e. the only Irish from The North I do know), inasmuch as calling themselves Irish, see themselves as having escaped and made their home over here. While it would be nice to see such a drift into a changed geopolitical relationship of forces as ineluctably and thereby peaceably reached, my guess would be that any political force north of the Border seeking unification with the Republic would face civil war from the indigenous Protestant population, many of whom have remained armed, if I'm not mistaken, while the IRA has declared or given up its weapons, only small numbers of which have been passed on to its splinter groups.

I'd love to think that you'd be wrong about that but fear that you may not be; this entire Protestant v. Catholic stuff in NI ought to be a thing of the past but, as you say, traces remain and might well be hard to dislodge once and for all.

[P. G. Tipps]

But it does look as though it will come to anything of the kind, whatever Salmond thinks or would like; if an "independent" Scotland will cease to be an EU member by virtue of having seceded from UK of GB & NI just as would apparently be the case with an independent Catalunya, it won't even be entitled to apply for EU membership ...

Well, as I've stated elsewhere an ex-President of the EU is not of that mind!

The comparison of Scotland with Kosovo (!) and with Catalonia is not particularly relevant, he claims, as the referendum in Scotland is completely constitutional having been agreed and sanctioned by the UK government. He thinks Scotland could easily join the EU within 18 months of independence. Of course we could now well have another ex-President saying something entirely different!!

That is the crux of the problem. Nobody really knows. A Leap In The Dark. The Great Unknown. Call it what you like but that's exactly what a YES vote in a week's time will entail, no matter how many opinions are bandied about.

Salmond has been extremely clever in apparently persuading so many voters not to worry their little heads over this uncertainty which makes the situation extremely worrying. We can only hope they wake up before next Thursday or this could be the biggest national disaster for Scotland since the Darien Scheme in the 17th Century which largely forced the country into union with England in the first place! Even worse, this time it certainly won't be afforded a return to the same "solution" as before.

So, what then ... ?

[MrGongGong]

That is the crux of the problem. Nobody really knows. A Leap In The Dark. The Great Unknown. Call it what you like but that's exactly what a YES vote in a week's time will entail, no matter how many opinions are bandied about.

But that's always what voting means
At the last election most people voted FOR something other than what we got

I don't see this as much different

We never know what the future will hold

[Richard Tarleton]

Mechanistically laying out all the options then choosing the "best" (or "best worst") might seem to be a "sensible" way of doing things but I don't think people do that at all.

How people make decisions is very interesting indeed

Cue another Paul Ormerod book - Positive Linking - about how people make decisions today. As it says in the blurb on the back,

We are increasingly aware of the choices, decisdions, behaviours and opinions of other people. Network effects - the fact that a person can and often does decide to change his or her behaviour simply on the basis of copying what others do - pervade the modern world

There's a great chapter on "Unintended consequences", of which one suspects there will be rather a lot, in this case. Makes a great deal of sense of the modern world, does Paul Ormerod.

[P. G. Tipps]

But that's always what voting means
At the last election most people voted FOR something other than what we got

I don't see this as much different

We never know what the future will hold

Yes, that is true, but you are confusing 'elections' with a one-off referendum which is exactly what Salmond wants people to do!

There is always 'uncertainty' as you say but it would be nice to think that there would be an escape route if Salmond is proved hopelessly wrong, which is a distinct possibility?

Unfortunately there won't be, we'll be stuck with it, and you won't even be able to blame the 'posh boys' for the resultant mess! ... <winkeye>

[MrGongGong]

Yes, that is true, but you are confusing 'elections' with a one-off referendum which is exactly what Salmond wants people to do!

I don't think there is much confusion at all
many people people seem to be very aware of the issues
And aren't as bothered about the currency, Eu status etc as some politicians would like them to be

That's what you get with "democracy", you get people making decisions based on whatever they like
do you think Boris would be mayor of London if he wasn't such a "character" ?

[Dave2002]

I don't think there is much confusion at all
many people people seem to be very aware of the issues
And aren't as bothered about the currency, Eu status etc as some politicians would like them to be

That's what you get with "democracy", you get people making decisions based on whatever they like
do you think Boris would be mayor of London if he wasn't such a "character" ?

But Boris won't last forever, and indeed seems likely to move on fairly soon. If the referendum goes as stated, and there's a "Yes" outcome, there won't be a way back - apparently.

[visualnickmos]

.....If the referendum goes as stated, and there's a "Yes" outcome, there won't be a way back - apparently.

And what's the betting that when things go tits-up for Scotland, Salmond will come crawling back to Westminster asking for help, or special conditions, etc etc...?

[teamsaint]

And what's the betting that when things go tits-up for Scotland, Salmond will come crawling back to Westminster asking for help, or special conditions, etc etc...?

Quite a lot of assumptions around what might happen seem to assume that the Scots actually can't look after their own interests.

They seem to have done rather a good job of this in recent years.

if they want to keep big business,they will lower tax rates to keep it in Scotland.

[visualnickmos]

I suppose the bottom line is that no-one can predict the future, so until the referendum has happened, all possible projected scenarios are potentially nothing more than hypotheses.

Will Scotland remain as an EU member?

NATO?

and CURRENCY???

[P. G. Tipps]

And what's the betting that when things go tits-up for Scotland, Salmond will come crawling back to Westminster asking for help, or special conditions, etc etc...?

Oh I don't think Salmond will be around in such an eventuality and I'm not sure the rest of the UK will be in any great position to 'help' in that situation, itself being greatly weakened by events.

I still cling to the small hope that even after a YES vote, and subsequent negotiations are held with Westminster, Home Rule instead of full independence will be the outcome 'in the interests of everyone' and then possibly another referendum held to give it complete legitimacy. Unless there is a huge and wholly unexpected change of heart by the Scottish people that outcome is likely to be sanctioned by a thumping majority. There are just two many things that bind all parts of the UK that will be well-nigh impossible to unravel.

Internal Home Rule ... Devo-Max in other words ... will be difficult enough to negotiate successfully but there are no really huge obstacles to that in comparison to becoming independent as a completely separate state.

I suspect the price Salmond will have to pay for this is the retention of the nuclear weapons facility in Scotland but he'll be able to boast (and he's very good at that!) a huge measure of self-rule without any major complications or disruption. Westminster will also heave a sigh of relief and learn once again that it is never a good idea to either ignore or patronise those ever-whingeing, troublesome malcontents north of the border!

So I cling to that small hope if the worst happens next week ... with admittedly more 'cling' than 'hope'.