Yes or No and no bullsh*t

[P. G. Tipps]

I've puzzled too over why citizens of voting age in England, Wales & Northern Ireland have not been allowed to take part in this referendum.After all it affects our lives too. And then it struck me -

Sadly, the next part only confirmed that the strike had clearly failed to register ... <winkeye>

This is a matter for the people of Scotland, nobody else. Of course any Scotland departure won't just affect them, and it is at least gratifying that this is now belatedly dawning on many south of the border after months, even years, of displaying very little interest in the matter. If the UK is as stupid enough to want to leave the EU as Scotland would be to leave the UK, would you seriously suggest that everyone in the EU should vote whether the UK stays or leaves the EU?

There is a certain irony in the fact that English Eurosceptics who clamour for a YES/NO referendum on the EU, expecting it will result in a victory for their side, are often the very people who moan and whinge about the same rules for the Scottish referendum. John Redwood MP bleats that the two cases are not exactly the same. Well, two cases rarely are, but these two cases seem pretty similar to me and, in any case, the principles of national self-determination and any repatriation of powers are exactly the same!

As a Scot living in England I'm not exactly 'over-the-moon' about being excluded from voting on the future of my beloved native land whilst Indians, Italians, Chinese, Poles, Americans, Germans etc, and, yes, English, Welsh and N. Irish folk too, who have only lived in Scotland for a short period to date are granted that right. However, a line must be drawn somewhere and I accept that the people who actually reside in the country must take priority over those who now don't.

Your suggestion that millions of people who have never lived in a country at all should have a vote and say in its future is certainly a novel idea, but I suspect not a view that is likely to be widely shared in democratic circles anywhere in the world in the 21st Century.

[MrGongGong]

https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/7048_1556605597896040_5312083932270254564_n.jpg?oh=0e4e9ecf6944ccdb3cd6671ce76f8696&oe=54CEC0CC

[ahinton]

And, once again, my point is still that should Cameron have decided to give all the eligible citizens of UK a vote in a referendum on Scotland's leaving the UK, a bright spark of a Euro-sceptic Tory might have agitated for an additional question to be posed about UK staying in/leaving the EU. It might not have worked but it would most certainly have caused trouble & strife for Cameron in his current relationship with his Euro-sceptic back-benchers - and so, in my fantasy, he decided to close off that possibility.

It's an interesting thought but I can't quite see it myself; I believe that it's not necessarily as simple as you appear to portray it.

There'd have been no "might not" about it; it wouldn't have worked. Tories do not in any case have a monopoly on Euro-scepticism; each political party has some Euro-sceptics and then there's the delightful noisily braying one-trick pony that we know as UKIP whose one trick is to ensure UK of GB & NI's secession from EU.

Furthermore, should Scotland vote "Yes", the Scottish electorate will immediately have disbarred itself from voting in an EU in/out referendum because Scotland will no longer be an EU member.

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.

Moreover, should all that happen, one might question whether England might have to reapply for EU membership should it so choose (after all, it's currently "UK of GB and NI" that's the EU member, not "England") and, were that indeed to be the case, the very notion of a referendum on EU membership would have blown itself out of the water. Whilst I doubt that Mr Cameron will have thought all of that through on his own, I likewise doubt that anyone else will have done and it seems unlikely that all who might haves done so would have refrained from having a word in his ear about it.

By the way, I note that RBS has announced that it'll quite an "independent" Scotland - see http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-advi..._NMA_Daily_EAM

The Tory Eurosceptics wanted to have this referendum yesterday; 2017 is another attempt, in their eyes, by Cameron to kick the issue into the long grass, and as such is to be thwarted at every possible ooportunity.

For the reasons given above - and no doubt others as well - I rather doubt either that this is their view or that, even if it were, the issue would in any case be kickable into the long grass because Euro-sceptics en masse would continue to work to ensure that this didn't happen.

[Richard Tarleton]

Listening to Newsnight last night I reflected for the nth time in this process on how two or more sets of experts, with access to the same information, can reach such different/opposite conclusions. Last night the topics under discussion were first the economy, and then defence. This phenomenon is discussed by Paul Ormerod in his book Why Most Things Fail. The human brain simply can't take in all the variables, chooses one set of variables and goes with those. Ultimately the ordinary voter, to an even greater extent than the experts, will be guessing. This referendum is inviting people to take a punt. That is no doubt to state the bleedin' obvious, but with the possible consequences being laid out ever more starkly, and denied with equal vehemence, what chance has the ordinary voter got of knowing what to do with any degree of confidence?

[MrGongGong]

Listening to Newsnight last night I reflected for the nth time in this process on how two or more sets of experts, with access to the same information, can reach such different/opposite conclusions. Last night the topics under discussion were first the economy, and then defence. This phenomenon is discussed by Paul Ormerod in his book Why Most Things Fail. The human brain simply can't take in all the variables, chooses one set of variables and goes with those. Ultimately the ordinary voter, to an even greater extent than the experts, will be guessing. This referendum is inviting people to take a punt. That is no doubt to state the bleedin' obvious, but with the possible consequences being laid out ever more starkly, and denied with equal vehemence, what chance has the ordinary voter got of knowing what to do with any degree of confidence?

Good point (i've been meaning to read that book for ages thanks for reminding me)
maybe part of the "problem" is that in our society we expect that there IS a "right" decision to make? When in reality there are many more options than we imagine.
People often assume that the quality of a decision is directly connected to the amount of time one has spent thinking about it or collecting information when we often make very "big" decisions based on little information.
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.

Free improvisation has a lot to teach us IMV

(today i'm off to London for a discussion about a piece that an ensemble we all know and love wants me to make. So what it becomes, how much I get paid for it, what the instrumentation is etc etc won't be decided by collecting all the information and sifting it to make the most 'sensible' or 'logical' decision. I'm probably going to decide to do something that will entail massive amounts of work that will be thrown away BUT that's part of the process. How people make decisions is very interesting indeed, sometimes one decides to do something because it's in front of your face OR you might have an idea about what might happen. I suspect there are many people who will spend longer deciding which car to buy than whether having unprotected sex is a good idea or not, even though the consequences of the latter are likely to be much more long term than the former.)

[P. G. Tipps]

Voting 'No' retains a degree of security and relative certainty in a very dangerous and unpredictable world.

Voting 'Yes' is a crazy leap into the Great Unknown, with no return, and no one really having the foggiest idea what might lie at the bottom.

Salmond just dismisses every expression of doubt put to him as 'scaremongering' and 'negativity'.

It reminds one of common corporate management insistence that 'positive thinking' will magically crush all doubts and painful realities in the workplace.

For all Westminster's shortcomings (and there are many), it's probably as close as one could possibly get to a black-and-white political issue, imho.

[aeolium]

Listening to Newsnight last night I reflected for the nth time in this process on how two or more sets of experts, with access to the same information, can reach such different/opposite conclusions. Last night the topics under discussion were first the economy, and then defence. This phenomenon is discussed by Paul Ormerod in his book Why Most Things Fail. The human brain simply can't take in all the variables, chooses one set of variables and goes with those. Ultimately the ordinary voter, to an even greater extent than the experts, will be guessing. This referendum is inviting people to take a punt. That is no doubt to state the bleedin' obvious, but with the possible consequences being laid out ever more starkly, and denied with equal vehemence, what chance has the ordinary voter got of knowing what to do with any degree of confidence?

I agree, RT, and this is what makes it impossible to have a situation in which all the facts and probable outcomes are set out clearly in advance of the decision. There will always be different interpretations and different prognoses. As far as I can see, there is only one virtual certainty in the event of a Yes vote and that is that all those powers previously exercised by Westminster over Scottish affairs will devolve to the Scottish Parliament (though the latter will still be subject to all kinds of external pressures outside its control) and those resident in Scotland will no longer send representatives to Westminster. Everything else is uncertain. But that kind of life-changing decision can be just as likely in anyone's personal life as well, and it is more often than not taken on a gut feeling rather than pure rational calculation.

[ahinton]

Listening to Newsnight last night I reflected for the nth time in this process on how two or more sets of experts, with access to the same information, can reach such different/opposite conclusions. Last night the topics under discussion were first the economy, and then defence. This phenomenon is discussed by Paul Ormerod in his book Why Most Things Fail. The human brain simply can't take in all the variables, chooses one set of variables and goes with those. Ultimately the ordinary voter, to an even greater extent than the experts, will be guessing. This referendum is inviting people to take a punt. That is no doubt to state the bleedin' obvious, but with the possible consequences being laid out ever more starkly, and denied with equal vehemence, what chance has the ordinary voter got of knowing what to do with any degree of confidence?

A good question after some good points! All that I would add is that it is -and should be seen to be - possible to separate the hard facts from the speculative opinion but the principal problem is that we hear far too little of the former and a disproportionate amount of the latter.

EU membership, for starters

It has been stated that an independent Catalunya will cease to be an EU member state by reason of its secession from Spain; there seems no obvious reason why the case for Scotland should be any different, but whatever the truth, it needs to be stated so that all can understand it. Yes, of course there are Euro-sceptic Scots voters just are is the case in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but it's vital to be sure of the fate of Scotland's EU membership should a "Yes" vote pertain.

Currency

Westmonster has said and continues to say no to an "independent" Scotland retaining the British pound as its currency; as long as it does so, that will not be an option. That is a fact. With an "independent" Scotland no longer an EU member, it will not be able to adopt the Euro; this seems to be even more certain than the case of Catalunya which, as part of Spain, is inside the Eurozone although, of course, should an independent Catalunya no longer be an EU member, it won't be able to continue to use the Euro and, as Spain will continue to use it, the newly independent state will have no chnice but to create and adopt its own currency. On this basis, Scotland will have to do likewise. Can it afford to?

Monarchy

Just as all four UK member states have their fair proportion of pro-Europeans and Euro-sceptics in all four UK member states, so they do those of monarchist and of republican persuasion. The official line of those in favour of Scottish "independence" is a desire to retain the British monarchy, but is that actually possible constitutionally? There must be a hard and fast answer to that. In the meantime, we have to imagine that HM the Queen who, at her advanced age, is seeking to offload at least some of her official duties, will henceforward be obliged to preside annually over the state opening of the Scottish Parliament as well as the Westmonster one; how credible will it be for her to speak in Edinburgh along the lines that she does on such occasions in Westminster about "my government" will do this and "my government" will do that when it won't be "her" government?

The situation in which, as you rightly note, most voters feel less than competent to make intelligent decisions based largely upon the barrage of conflicting speculative opinion is alone hard enough for them, but the additional issue that no one seems to be laying down the actual facts about certain matters including but not limited to the above surely only serves to exacerbate an already perplexing scenario for the electorate in Scotland, n'est-ce pas?

[ahinton]

maybe part of the "problem" is that in our society we expect that there IS a "right" decision to make?

Indeed so! - and not only over the Scottish issue either!

People often assume that the quality of a decision is directly connected to the amount of time one has spent thinking about it or collecting information when we often make very "big" decisions based on little information.

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.

A few probably try their best to do this but hardly anyone encourages it or helps towards such an end.

Free improvisation has a lot to teach us IMV

(today i'm off to London for a discussion about a piece that an ensemble we all know and love wants me to make. So what it becomes, how much I get paid for it, what the instrumentation is etc etc won't be decided by collecting all the information and sifting it to make the most 'sensible' or 'logical' decision. I'm probably going to decide to do something that will entail massive amounts of work that will be thrown away BUT that's part of the process. How people make decisions is very interesting indeed, sometimes one decides to do something because it's in front of your face OR you might have an idea about what might happen. I suspect there are many people who will spend longer deciding which car to buy than whether having unprotected sex is a good idea or not, even though the consequences of the latter are likely to be much more long term than the former.)

Fair comment on the whole, although I'm not so sure that the Scottish electorate could improvise themselves into a quasi-"independent" state and then back out again if the consequences were found to be unduly adverse!

The announcements that RBS and Lloyds TSB have contingency plans in place to relocate all of part of their operations south of the border in the event of a "Yes" vote next week raises the spectre of the fact that these two institutions were bailed out by British taxpayers, including Scottish ones; will the latter get their money back? and, if so, how? (especially if and/or while a newly "independent" Scotland has yet to launch its own currency, something which it will hardly be capable of doing overnight).

[aeolium]

EU membership, for starters

It has been stated that an independent Catalunya will cease to be an EU member state by reason of its secession from Spain; there seems no obvious reason why the case for Scotland should be any different, but whatever the truth, it needs to be stated so that all can understand it. Yes, of course there are Euro-sceptic Scots voters just are is the case in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but it's vital to be sure of the fate of Scotland's EU membership should a "Yes" vote pertain.

But this is where the legal position needs to be qualified by political considerations. If it is the case that Scotland's secession would mean it is no longer a member of the EU (even though it had not used the Lisbon Treaty's withdrawal clause to leave) that would require a re-application as a separate state. There is a dispute as to whether they would use Article 48 of the Treaties of the European Union or Article 49. Some constitutional experts think Article 48, by which a simple amendment through a majority of states would suffice; others think Article 49, normally used for the accession of completely new members, would be required. But the political reality is: would the EU want Scotland to leave, with all the ramifications required? And would the rest of the UK want Scotland to be outside the EU, which would greatly complicate all kinds of relations, economic, political, legal? This political reality has to be taken into account, whatever people (with an interest in Scotland not voting Yes) are saying in advance.

Currency

Westmonster has said and continues to say no to an "independent" Scotland retaining the British pound as its currency; as long as it does so, that will not be an option. That is a fact.

The fact here is what Westminster politicians have been saying and are saying in advance of the vote. There is no definite fact as to what might happen after the vote because all kinds of political factors would come into play (in the event of a Yes vote), particularly concerning the distribution of assets and liabilities, and a Westminster government's concern over the value of its own currency. It might be the case that those politicians continue to be opposed to an independent Scotland remaining in a currency union, but this will be a political judgement and therefore uncertain - it is not a fact that it will necessarily happen.

Monarchy

Just as all four UK member states have their fair proportion of pro-Europeans and Euro-sceptics in all four UK member states, so they do those of monarchist and of republican persuasion. The official line of those in favour of Scottish "independence" is a desire to retain the British monarchy, but is that actually possible constitutionally?

Are you not aware of the number of countries outside the UK that currently have the Queen as their constitutional monarch (16 I think)?

[ahinton]

But this is where the legal position needs to be qualified by political considerations. If it is the case that Scotland's secession would mean it is no longer a member of the EU (even though it had not used the Lisbon Treaty's withdrawal clause to leave) that would require a re-application as a separate state. There is a dispute as to whether they would use Article 48 of the Treaties of the European Union or Article 49. Some constitutional experts think Article 48, by which a simple amendment through a majority of states would suffice; others think Article 49, normally used for the accession of completely new members, would be required. But the political reality is: would the EU want Scotland to leave, with all the ramifications required? And would the rest of the UK want Scotland to be outside the EU, which would greatly complicate all kinds of relations, economic, political, legal? This political reality has to be taken into account, whatever people (with an interest in Scotland not voting Yes) are saying in advance.

That said, whilst the EU's current stance on an "independent" Scotland's membership could conceivably change at some point, it should still be possible to determine the facts as of now, when they're most needed in the run-up to the referendum.

The fact here is what Westminster politicians have been saying and are saying in advance of the vote. There is no definite fact as to what might happen after the vote because all kinds of political factors would come into play (in the event of a Yes vote), particularly concerning the distribution of assets and liabilities, and a Westminster government's concern over the value of its own currency. It might be the case that those politicians continue to be opposed to an independent Scotland remaining in a currency union, but this will be a political judgement and therefore uncertain - it is not a fact that it will necessarily happen.

As with the EU membership question, there are facts as of now but they could change if those with the power and authority to do so decide that some change might be prudent.

Are you not aware of the number of countries outside the UK that currently have the Queen as their constitutional monarch (16 I think)?

Of course I am! - but none of these seceded from the union and it is the specific constitutional question as to whether a seceding member of that union could retain the British monarchy by default that appears to remain to be answered yet needs to be answered (at least in the interests of those members of the Scottish electorate who care one way or the other about this particular issue).

[Serial_Apologist]

Sadly, the next part only confirmed that the strike had clearly failed to register ... <winkeye>

This is a matter for the people of Scotland, nobody else. Of course any Scotland departure won't just affect them, and it is at least gratifying that this is now belatedly dawning on many south of the border after months, even years, of displaying very little interest in the matter. If the UK is as stupid enough to want to leave the EU as Scotland would be to leave the UK, would you seriously suggest that everyone in the EU should vote whether the UK stays or leaves the EU?

There is a certain irony in the fact that English Eurosceptics who clamour for a YES/NO referendum on the EU, expecting it will result in a victory for their side, are often the very people who moan and whinge about the same rules for the Scottish referendum. John Redwood MP bleats that the two cases are not exactly the same. Well, two cases rarely are, but these two cases seem pretty similar to me and, in any case, the principles of national self-determination and any repatriation of powers are exactly the same!

As a Scot living in England I'm not exactly 'over-the-moon' about being excluded from voting on the future of my beloved native land whilst Indians, Italians, Chinese, Poles, Americans, Germans etc, and, yes, English, Welsh and N. Irish folk too, who have only lived in Scotland for a short period to date are granted that right. However, a line must be drawn somewhere and I accept that the people who actually reside in the country must take priority over those who now don't.

Your suggestion that millions of people who have never lived in a country at all should have a vote and say in its future is certainly a novel idea, but I suspect not a view that is likely to be widely shared in democratic circles anywhere in the world in the 21st Century.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the above were:

a) Scotland a country struggling for self-determination under a colonial or neo-colonial yoke - whereas it is not: it is and has long been part of an imperialist power structure, as are we, exercising control through governments compliant to its ruling class on countries that are;

b) being restricted from enacting progressive policies against the pro-multinational rules and restrictions on so-called uncompetitive practices imposed by the EU - whereas Salmond is all in favour of the EU and would even accept being part of the Eurozone if it came to it.

[Serial_Apologist]

People often assume that the quality of a decision is directly connected to the amount of time one has spent thinking about it or collecting information when we often make very "big" decisions based on little information.
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.

Free improvisation has a lot to teach us IMV

Bigthumbsupthingy!

It's what a Taoist would call being in close touch with your intuition - something most Western traditions teach us all to suspect.

Oh - and good luck here in London, GG!

[Serial_Apologist]

Of course I am! - but none of these seceded from the union and it is the specific constitutional question as to whether a seceding member of that union could retain the British monarchy by default that appears to remain to be answered yet needs to be answered (at least in the interests of those members of the Scottish electorate who care one way or the other about this particular issue).

I don't see any qualitative difference between "the union" and the British Empire, as far as concerns the monarchy question. But there again, I'm no expert on constitutional matters.

[ahinton]

I don't see any qualitative difference between "the union" and the British Empire, as far as concerns the monarchy question. But there again, I'm no expert on constitutional matters.

Nor am I; what I do think, however, is that it would have been helpful to anyone interested - most especially those members of the Scottish electorate who feel that they ought to know whether or not an "independent" Scotland could simply retain the British monarchy by default if so it chose - had such an expert clarified this situation beyond all doubt by the time that the referendum was launched, just as it would have been had people in the know whose statements could be trusted made similar pronouncements at the same time about the currency, EU membership and other issues of fundamental importance to the voters of Scotland.