Is tripartisanship over the SNP's bid to retain the £ bullying?

[MrGongGong]

Update ... the new Scottish navy would have two frigates from the Royal Navy's current fleet, four mine counter measure vessels and two offshore patrol vessels, according to the BBC.

That should just about prevent an Icelandic invasion, I suspect ...

I think its UKIP who want to start a war with Iceland (if you read what they say about fishing grounds) so the Scots will be on side with Bjork :-)

[ahinton]

Good points
and it's a shame that there isn't a vote for real independence
Voting has never guaranteed anything

I do admire the confidence and enthusiasm even though so much isn't worked out at all
If everyone waited for things to be sorted, worked out, stable etc we wouldn't have many composers

I do think this a (rare?) case of people planning to actually vote FOR something

It may well be in theory but it seems to be almost the very opposite of that in practice. If, for example, Scottish residents entitled to vote want to retain the British monarchy or set up their own or become citizens of a republic, so be it and, if they want (and were to be allowed to have) the British pound or the Euro or their own currency instead, so be it also - but the only effective way in which they can express their desires on these and other issues is by being given opportunities to vote on them and, as this referendum offers them no opportunities to make their views known on such fundamental issues, it seems hard to regard it as a "case of people planning to actually vote FOR" anything...

[ahinton]

I think its UKIP who want to start a war with Iceland (if you read what they say about fishing grounds) so the Scots will be on side with Bjork :-)

What they might want is one thing; what they might get is another. If there's a "Yes" vote in Scotland next week, there will be a semi-independent Scottish government and, if there's a "No" vote, Scotland will continue to be run largely (though not entirely) from Westmonster, whereas UKIP will not be able to start a "war" with any nation (assuming the term "war" to refer specifically to one state battling with another) because it won't possess the governmental powers to entitle and enable it to declare one. Perhaps, however, when Herefordistan becomes independent of what's left of UK, it might consider declaring war on Iceland if only for the purpose of endeavouring to secure due refund of all the monies that Hereford's local authority lost some years ago by investing its taxpayers' hard-earned funds in dodgy Icelandic banks...

Anyway, I have now received what purports to be a definitive response from the Elections and Constitution Division of the Scottish Government's Strategy and Constitution Directorate to my enquiry as to the statistics applicable to the conduct and outcome of next week's "independence" referendum, as follows:

Thank you for your letter of 08 September regarding the referendum on Scottish independence. This has been passed to me for a reply.

The referendum will not be subject to any minimum turnout requirement or approval threshold. This is consistent with established practice in the UK and across Western Europe that referendums should be decided by a simple majority vote. For example, the 1997 referendum on Scottish Devolution was conducted on that basis.

Whatever the turnout in the referendum, if more than half of those voting vote Yes, Scotland will become independent. If more than half vote No, Scotland will not become independent.

Yours sincerely,

This appears to clarify that Scotland could indeed in theory go "independent" on a turnout of less than, say, 20% and on the basis of a single vote with no requirement either for a minimum turnout or a recount should the vote be very close as happens in constituencies where this occurs in UK General Elections; whilst I doubt very much that the turnout will be low (indeed I anticipate that its percentage might even be higher than the highest that has ever pertained in any constituency in a UK General Election), the twin prospects that (a) turnout levels are irrelevant to the outcome and (b) a single vote could swing it either way strike me as rather dangerous for something as fundamental to the future of UK and Scotland as the decision to be made next week, especially given all the anomalies to which I and others have earlier drawn attention.

[visualnickmos]

Being in bed with the USA doesn't make anyone "safe"

Could be worse...

[ahinton]

For what it may or may not be worth, the item at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan...ion_referendum has a section headed International reaction in which, under the sub-heading Organisations, one reads

European Union — A spokesperson of the European Commission declared that if Catalonia seceded from Spain it would automatically leave the European Union: "An independent state, because of its independence, would become a third country vis a vis the EU and as of the day of the independence the EU treaties will no longer apply'".[56]

NATO — A spokesperson for NATO said that an independent country would not automatically be part of the organisation, saying "for any nation to be incorporated into the alliance the consensus of all the NATO allies will be necessary".[57]

[56] "Brussels says an independent Catalonia would need to leave EU": http://www.euractiv.com/video/brusse...eave-eu-307234. Retrieved 29 September 2013.
[57] Source: El Pais - Wed 4 Dec 2013 (2013-12-04). "Idea of an independent Catalonia gets a NATO no-go | Tumbit News Story". http://www.tumbit.com/news/articles/...ato-no-go.html. Retrieved 2014-01-31.

So what might be thought to be so different about Scotland's bid for independence in tehrms of its continued membership or otherwise of EU and NATO? Note [57] is perhaps of particular interest here to the extent of its assertion that
Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, has said that his preference is to remain within both the EU and NATO. Catalonia's stance is the same. However, membership of both organizations requires the unanimous vote of the 28 adherents, meaning that Spain, or any other country, could theoretically block Catalonia's entry into the EU.
It then links to http://www.tumbit.com/news/articles/...-scotland.html which, if a reliable source of information, appears to make a post-"independence" Scotland not only an immediate non-member of EU but that it would not even be allowed to apply to join EU in its own right. How right this is I cannot say, but such journalism does at the very least seem to call into further question a post-"independence" Scotland's relationship with EU despite that fact that it will presumably expect to continue to trade with EU nations including what remains of UK, athough with what currency we do not yet know.

[MrGongGong]

For what it may or may not be worth, the item at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan...ion_referendum has a section headed International reaction in which, under the sub-heading Organisations, one reads

European Union — A spokesperson of the European Commission declared that if Catalonia seceded from Spain it would automatically leave the European Union: "An independent state, because of its independence, would become a third country vis a vis the EU and as of the day of the independence the EU treaties will no longer apply'".[56]

NATO — A spokesperson for NATO said that an independent country would not automatically be part of the organisation, saying "for any nation to be incorporated into the alliance the consensus of all the NATO allies will be necessary".[57]

[56] "Brussels says an independent Catalonia would need to leave EU": http://www.euractiv.com/video/brusse...eave-eu-307234. Retrieved 29 September 2013.
[57] Source: El Pais - Wed 4 Dec 2013 (2013-12-04). "Idea of an independent Catalonia gets a NATO no-go | Tumbit News Story". http://www.tumbit.com/news/articles/...ato-no-go.html. Retrieved 2014-01-31.

So what might be thought to be so different about Scotland's bid for independence in tehrms of its continued membership or otherwise of EU and NATO? Note [57] is perhaps of particular interest here to the extent of its assertion that
Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, has said that his preference is to remain within both the EU and NATO. Catalonia's stance is the same. However, membership of both organizations requires the unanimous vote of the 28 adherents, meaning that Spain, or any other country, could theoretically block Catalonia's entry into the EU.
It then links to http://www.tumbit.com/news/articles/...-scotland.html which, if a reliable source of information, appears to make a post-"independence" Scotland not only an immediate non-member of EU but that it would not even be allowed to apply to join EU in its own right. How right this is I cannot say, but such journalism does at the very least seem to call into further question a post-"independence" Scotland's relationship with EU despite that fact that it will presumably expect to continue to trade with EU nations including what remains of UK, athough with what currency we do not yet know.

SO why do our Westminster politicians (as witnessed just now on R4) pretend that somehow there are NO contingency plans for Scotland voting YES ?

Taking people for fools is unwise
and I suspect that well placed mistrust of their lies and dishonesty will be their undoing

[ahinton]

SO why do our Westminster politicians (as witnessed just now on R4) pretend that somehow there are NO contingency plans for Scotland voting YES ?

Perhaps because, like Obama recently on IS (by which I don't think he meant "Independent Scotland"!), there aren't such plans that could widely be regarded as any more viable, credible and well considered than the terms and conditions under which the Scottish "independence" referendum will itself be conducted?

[MrGongGong]

Perhaps because, like Obama recently on IS (by which I don't think he meant "Independent Scotland"!), there aren't such plans that could widely be regarded as any more viable, credible and well considered than the terms and conditions under which the Scottish "independence" referendum will itself be conducted?

I don't think so.
I think they will have spent a great deal of time working out what to do whatever the outcome.
If they really haven't then they really can't expect us to believe that they are worth trusting.
A bit like a violinist turning up to play a concerto at the Proms without a spare E string ?

[ahinton]

I don't think so.
I think they will have spent a great deal of time working out what to do whatever the outcome.

Maybe, maybe not - but will they have arrived at mutually agreed viable, credible and well considered conclusions that could be implemented in such circumstances? Somehow, I very much doubt it!

If they really haven't then they really can't expect us to believe that they are worth trusting.

Indeed so - but then one of the reasons cited by so many people when declaring their intention to vote "Yes" in next week's referendum is that very thoroughgoing distrust of Westmonster politicians.

A bit like a violinist turning up to play a concerto at the Proms without a spare E string ?

No, surely not; that would, of course, be most ill-advised, but at least someone in the orchestra would presumably be able and willing to supply him/her with one should the soloist's one snap! (and, were the soloist Ms Benedetti, perhaps that would be a Scotch snap)...

[MrGongGong]

Indeed so - but then one of the reasons cited by so many people in declaring their intention to vote "Yes" in next week's referendum is that very thoroughgoing distrust of Westmonster politicians

I don't think it's "sensible" or "worked out" (but there again is being a professional musician "sensible" ?)
but its most understandable and I don't blame them
all the headless chicken stuff today is likely to make things worse for the Westminster parties who seem to have completely misjudged the whole thing (which brings a huge smile to my face)

[ahinton]

I don't think it's "sensible" or "worked out" (but there again is being a professional musician "sensible" ?)

I don't think that such contingency plans are, or could possibly be, mutually agreed by them or even by a majority of them; whether and to what extent there might have been any motivation to try to wrok any out is arguably

all the headless chicken stuff today is likely to make things worse for the Westminster parties who seem to have completely misjudged the whole thing (which brings a huge smile to my face)

But how could they possibly have done other than misjudge it when those who put the referendum, its procedures and the terms and conditions of its conduct together have never structured it sensibly in the first place? - by which I mean one has only to blame those politicians for having made such an ill-considered mess of the entire "independence" referendum charade when launching it and for having appeared in the interim to make little if any effort to try to clarify the issues that need clarifying before anyone should even think to go to the polls.

[aeolium]

Here is one assessment of the risks from Paul Mason of C4 News:

http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/measure-big-indyref-risks/2311

He does not downplay their seriousness (especially what he rates as the highest risk), but in weighting them he considers the political implications which politicians in the UK and EU would have to take into account in the event of a Yes vote. Such politicians may well have a different approach then than they have now when they are seeking to persuade the undecided to vote No - that is, being hostile to an independent Scotland may well not be in their own best interests.

And elsewhere, Catalonia (perhaps the only place where Cameron is a hero, for agreeing to the Scottish referendum) has caught the independence fever:

http://blogs.channel4.com/matt-frei-on-america/scotland-sets-madrid-barcelona-path-confrontation/4115

[Serial_Apologist]

He does not downplay their seriousness (especially what he rates as the highest risk), but in weighting them he considers the political implications which politicians in the UK and EU would have to take into account in the event of a Yes vote. Such politicians may well have a different approach then than they have now when they are seeking to persuade the undecided to vote No - that is, being hostile to an independent Scotland may well not be in their own best interests.

Sure: for one thing, imagine the rest of the UK's refugee problem, should independence go pear-shaped!

[ahinton]

And elsewhere, Catalonia (perhaps the only place where Cameron is a hero, for agreeing to the Scottish referendum) has caught the independence fever:

http://blogs.channel4.com/matt-frei-...rontation/4115

There are large differences in that situation, wherein David Cameron has stuck himself out on a limb in supporting Catalunya's right to decide for itself (his "friend" Angela Merkel, for example, is dead against it and EU and NATO are having hardly any more truck with it than is the Madrid government); not for nothing has the area become jokingly known of late as "Cameroonya" (although I have no evidence that the government of Cameroon itself intends to sue for breach of its intellectual property rights). Cameron's given Scotland the green light to proceed with a referendum on independence, however flawed and confused its premises, terms and conditions whereas Madrid has declared Catalunya's independence referendum illegal. Whilst Scotland also has its own language which is more widely tuaght in Scottish schools today than was once the case, that language is not spoken anything like as widely as is Catalan in Catalunya where, although almost everyone can speak Spanish, they rarely do so other than to others who speak Spanish but no Catalan.

The one aspect of the Catalan independence campaign that seems largely to have been ignored is the factor of what might call "French Catalunya"; the extreme south west of France, with its principal town of Perpignan, is populated by a fair proportion of Catalans and, although French remains the official language there and is still the most widely spoken, Catalan has in recent times been taught in many schools in the area. There appears to have been no move on that part of the Languedoc-Roussillon to secede from France and join an independent Catalunya and I have no idea what if any appetite there is for it there if a "Yes" vote occurs in "Spanish" Catalunya on 9 November.

What's worrying in both campaigns is the growing emergence of animosity between the two sides - Scotland and the rest of UK on the one hand and Catalunya and Spain on the other; the prospect that such increasing hostility might ultimately become a catalyst for the rise of latter-day 1930s-style nationalism, with all that this might carry with it, is simply too appalling to contemplate...

[visualnickmos]

What's worrying in both campaigns is the growing emergence of animosity between the two sides - Scotland and the rest of UK on the one hand and Catalunya and Spain on the other; the prospect that such increasing hostility might ultimately become a catalyst for the rise of latter-day 1930s-style nationalism, with all that this might carry with it, is simply too appalling to contemplate...

Bloody hell! I hope you are not right! Today a friend (French) related a dream he had last night of British tanks swarming over the border into Scotland to combat self-styled armed independence fighters, and militia-style vigilante groups in England and Scotland going around and "getting" people if they had the wrong accent!!!!!