Yes or No and no bullsh*t

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

despite the incredible temptation of the Tories ditching Dave if the Yes vote prevails i am a reluctant No

[Serial_Apologist]

Whichever, the Tories ditching Dave will only lead to replacement by Gideon or Ms May, wouldn't it?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

aye but yes or no?

[teamsaint]

If I was a Scot, (and I am half by blood) I would vote yes.

Got to believe in yourself.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'd probably abstain, since either way it'd just be voting for another brand of capitalism. By Salmond's silence on crucial issues like currency you know there are too many imponderables in what is proposed, otherwise as a transitional gambit I'd go for a Scandi-type social democracy... and it's high time the Mid-Lothian Question was sorted. To force the issues Parliament (Westminster) should be England and Wales only.

Now, a workers' state... I remember a very entertaining edition of Michael Palin's "Ripping Yarns" being devoted to the question of yes to that, but what kind...

[jean]

... and it's high time the Mid-Lothian Question was sorted...

Is it a different question from the West Lothian Question?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

aye but yes or no?

[Serial_Apologist]

Is it a different question from the West Lothian Question?

No, the same. Apologies: my blind spot was operating. <<blush>>

[ahinton]

I'd probably abstain, since either way it'd just be voting for another brand of capitalism.

But wouldn't abstention effectively be tantamout to doing likewise? Supposing the majority of voters were to abstain? Mightn't that scupper the entire procedure once and for all and thereby ensure the continuation of the status quo?

By Salmond's silence on crucial issues like currency you know there are too many imponderables in what is proposed, otherwise as a transitional gambit I'd go for a Scandi-type social democracy... and it's high time the Mid-Lothian Question was sorted. To force the issues Parliament (Westminster) should be England and Wales only.

Parliament would be just that were the "independence" chosen by Scottish voters to be true and complete independence, at least from UK if not from EU - but it won't be, at least as matters now stand, given the confusion and uncertainty about currency, monarchy and the rest.

I suspect that Salmond's comparative silence on the currency issue (and, to be fair, he's not been entirely silent on this issue even if what he's had to say does nothing to reduce the confusion and uncertainty) is down to the fact that he either (a) doesn't know what to do - pace Obama in a different context - but, unlike Obama, tries to avoid admitting to that or (b) knows that he simply doesn't have the clout to determine which way a post-"independence" Scotland should go on it. I've just stated elsewhere that, if news of an alleged move towards "Yes" can damage the value of the British pound as much as it has done in the past few hours and if were that to continue in like vein, Salmond might in any case end up being relieved that Westminster rebuffed his desire for a post-"independence" currency union with UK on the grounds that the British pound wouldn't be worth having although, of course, that would remove one option from him once and for all.

Now, a workers' state... I remember a very entertaining edition of Michael Palin's "Ripping Yarns" being devoted to the question of yes to that, but what kind...

For any form of that, one might supose that unemployment in Scotland would need first to be slashed; any thoughts on how to achieve that overnight?

All that said, I still not only question the series of flawed and unclear principles upon which the referendum is being held but also note that, flawed or not, any such referendum and what happens after it will largely be decided by the big corporations, in particular those currently Scottish based, in determining whether, where or when to relocate - and that will include the effect of those non-Scottish based ones deciding to relocate to a post-"independence" Scotland should its new government offer a nice corporation tax reduction sweetener in a bid to try to dissuade Scottish based ones from moving south of the border.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

aye but yes or no?

[ahinton]

aye but yes or no?

What about neither? Not being sure of the answer, I've posed a question to the referendum site asking how close the Yessers' and Noers' vote totals will have to be in order to determine the necessity for a recount or three and, should that/these also fail to produce a sufficiently clear result, a re-run; I await the response.

[Serial_Apologist]

But wouldn't abstention effectively be tantamout to doing likewise? Supposing the majority of voters were to abstain? Mightn't that scupper the entire procedure once and for all and thereby ensure the continuation of the status quo?

Well the status quo will continue in either case, because, as you point out:

Parliament would be just that were the "independence" chosen by Scottish voters to be true and complete independence, at least from UK if not from EU - but it won't be, at least as matters now stand, given the confusion and uncertainty about currency, monarchy and the rest.

I suspect that Salmond's comparative silence on the currency issue (and, to be fair, he's not been entirely silent on this issue even if what he's had to say does nothing to reduce the confusion and uncertainty) is down to the fact that he either (a) doesn't know what to do - pace Obama in a different context - but, unlike Obama, tries to avoid admitting to that or (b) knows that he simply doesn't have the clout to determine which way a post-"independence" Scotland should go on it. I've just stated elsewhere that, if news of an alleged move towards "Yes" can damage the value of the British pound as much as it has done in the past few hours and if were that to continue in like vein, Salmond might in any case end up being relieved that Westminster rebuffed his desire for a post-"independence" currency union with UK on the grounds that the British pound wouldn't be worth having although, of course, that would remove one option from him once and for all.

[ahinton]

Well the status quo will continue in either case

If most voters abstain (a highly unlikely scenario, as I'm sure you'd agree) and no worthwhile and credible result thereby achieved, the status quo would obviously remain until such time as - and then affected only to the extent that - the lately much vaunted "additional powers" be granted to a non-"independent" Scotland by Westmonster; if a "Yes" vote obtains, however, the various current uncertainties, anomalies and confusion notwithstanding, a full status quo continuation seems far less likely, I would think.

[Serial_Apologist]

If most voters abstain (a highly unlikely scenario, as I'm sure you'd agree) and no worthwhile and credible result thereby achieved, the status quo would obviously remain until such time as - and then affected only to the extent that - the lately much vaunted "additional powers" be granted to a non-"independent" Scotland by Westmonster; if a "Yes" vote obtains, however, the various current uncertainties, anomalies and confusion notwithstanding, a full status quo continuation seems far less likely, I would think.

Possibly. Even probably. I'm just talking about taking a principled stand. After all, as Peter Cook's retired general character said in the civil defense sketch in "Beyond the Fringe", we need a futile gesture at this stage.

[ahinton]

Possibly. Even probably. I'm just talking about taking a principled stand. After all, as Peter Cook's retired general character said in the civil defense sketch in "Beyond the Fringe", we need a futile gesture at this stage.

Well, we're getting just that right now, are we not? - "here are your additional powers; use them wisely or we'll take them back", as in - and since Broon's in toon promoting this, it could hardly get more "futile", could it?