The Scottish Independence Referendum Thread

[Graeme]

Figured I may as well be the one to start this...

In less than two weeks time, I (and presumably a fair few other forum members) will be going to the polls to make what is likely to be the most important political decision of our lifetimes and potentially end our country's 307-year-long incorporation into the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Why is this vote happening? Foreigners may wonder. Why now? The answer has very little to do with drunken kilted warriors running about hills, fighting the English hundreds of years ago and everything to do with economics. In the last 70 years, a right-wing majority has been elected in Scotland exactly once, in 1955, yet because Scotland currently comprises 8% of UK political representation, we have been governed by a Conservative incumbent for the majority of that time. Conservative politics (particularly since the turn of the 1980s) financially decimated large parts of the UK (Wales, Northern England, Northern Ireland and Scotland) through privatisation of public services and the closure of industries, with only the City of London and the wealthy Southeast seeing much of the benefit. In Scotland, this became a national grievance and the Conservative party's support here collapsed entirely in the 1997 General Election, they have only ever returned one seat out of 59 subsequently. At this time the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh was re-established and given limited power to govern domestic affairs North of the border.

In 2010, despite their support remaining as low as ever in Scotland, the Conservatives regained sufficient support (predominantly in England) to become the majority party in a coalition government. Since then, they have enacted what has been perceived as a brutal agenda of austerity, slashing the budget for many public services. The following year, in response to this, Scotland elected a left-wing government to its own parliament with a mandate to hold a referendum on independence.

At the time, this was perceived largely as a protest vote and the campaign has been a long, gestating monster which has gradually consumed the nation's consciousness over the last three years. Now, Scotland is alive with participatory democracy, town halls are packed with meetings, grassroots movements (largely on the Yes side) abound and voter turnout is predicted to be around 80%. Scotland is a country in the middle of deciding exactly what it wants to be, and it's a hugely exciting place to be at the moment. The latest polls show that the gap between the two campaigns (No was always shown to be in the lead from the beginning) has narrowed significantly. The next two weeks are going to be very interesting.

For anyone interested in examining the psyche of what's going on here beyond my ramblings, I can't recommend this film highly enough:

Edited September 5, 2014 by Graeme

[Johnny Drama]

Scotland for the Scots.

[Lio]

So what do you think, Graeme ? Is there a chance Scotland goes for independence ? Media here still deem it a very small chance, but that it's become less improbable in the last weeks. Will you vote yes ? If the Yes camp wins, it will have huge ramifications for the rest of Europe too. Will Scotland become a member of the EU ? Will they be allowed to join ? As I understand it, Scotland is pro Europe. Will the chances of a Brexit increase ? What with Catalans and Basks ? No doubt these are interesting times for Scotland, and for the EU (or Europe) as a whole.

[supercool]

i don't know about scotland, but in catalonia the independence movement is led by the bourgeoisie, it's not a workers (revolutionary) movement. so, fuck that independence shit since it only means more power and money for the bourgeois.

[DieselDaisy]

I just hope that if the no vote wins - which I think it will - Salmond will just go, ''okay, the Scottish people have decided. Now I will break up the SNP and go back to eating chips for a living.'' You just know it is not going to happen but, ethically, that is what he should do because he has made such a song and dance about, ''the Scottish people having the fate of a nation in their hands'' and similar tripe.

Someone however did raise an important point the other day that almost - almost - made me a supporter of it. If Scotland do break away, the Labour vote will completely collapse in England. Very tempting that, no more Labour. But no, I am an ardent Unionist.

So what do you think, Graeme ? Is there a chance Scotland goes for independence ? Media here still deem it a very small chance, but that it's become less improbable in the last weeks. Will you vote yes ? If the Yes camp wins, it will have huge ramifications for the rest of Europe too. Will Scotland become a member of the EU ? Will they be allowed to join ? As I understand it, Scotland is pro Europe. Will the chances of a Brexit increase ? What with Catalans and Basks ? No doubt these are interesting times for Scotland, and for the EU (or Europe) as a whole.

Scotland is, ehh, pro-Scandinavia!

I have never quite worked it out either - something to do with, perfect Socialist oasis existing on the other side of the north sea.

[sturginho]

At first I was hoping they would vote No, now I am thinking that a Yes vote might actually be better for for them and better for us too.

[DieselDaisy]

The No campaign definitely has the pick of the celebs, including Jagger, Judi Dench, Sting, Macca, Helena Bonham Carter and Steven Hawkings. Obama seems like he prefers a No also. The Yes campaign is left with merely, Professor Brian Cox (for some odd reason) and the chap who wrote Trainspotting. It does however have James Bond, which is sort of ironic when you think about it. Incidentally, the No campaign is headed by TV historian Dan Snow who wrote a (and, Zhukov might be interested in this) rather good book on The Battle of Quebec:

I recommend it highly.

[Axls Rocket Queen]

Might as well rename this "Graeme's 'Yes campaign' thread"

As someone from the most northern part of England who had most of my education in Scotland, I'm not sold on the idea of breaking up the UK this way. What I also think is wrong is that the rest of the UK doesn't get to vote on this- given that at present, Scotland is part of the UK and the decisions of it's voters affect us all. A massive proportion of people who oppose having a Tory government come from the north of England and Scotland, if the Scots leave then the rest of us may be stuck with the Tories forever more, but apparently our opinions aren't worth anything.

For example- my dad was born and raised in Scotland and has worked in Scotland for the past 30 years, but because he lives one mile south of the border he gets no say. Yet foreign students who have been here 3 years get to vote, even if they have no intention of staying in the country. Fair? I don't think so.

[username]

I shall support Scotland by buying a lot of their native products.

[UK SUBS]

Could no care a less -- good luck to the scots

The no vote will win a small minority IMO

[Johnny Drama]

I shall support Scotland by buying a lot of their native products.

Aye.

[downzy]

Cool topic, one that I know very little about. I enjoyed reading your summary Graeme.

Being Canadian, I have my own associations of sovereign movements and its effects on the entire nation. I can tell you that many in Quebec (and the rest of Canada) are watching what's happening in Scotland right now with keen interest.

Part of me would like to see the Scots govern themselves, as I can only imagine the frustration of a left-leaning community being forced to follow right-leaning policies. On the other hand, there are potential economic consequences should the yes vote prove successful. Would an independent Scottish nation remain in the EU? What kind of an effect would a yes vote have on trade between Scotland and the rest of the U.K.?

Should be an interesting couple of weeks.

Edited September 5, 2014 by downzy

[sturginho]

Cool topic, one that I know very little about. I enjoyed reading your summary Graeme.

Being Canadian, I have my own associations of sovereign movements and its effects on the entire nation. I can tell you that many in Quebec (and the rest of Canada) are watching what's happening in Scotland right now with keen interest.

Part of me would like to see the Scots govern themselves, as I can only imagine the frustration of a left-leaning community being forced to follow right-leaning policies. On the other hand, there are potential economic consequences should the yes vote prove successful. Would an independent Scottish nation remain in the EU? What kind of an effect would a yes vote have on trade between Scotland and the rest of the U.K.?

Should be an interesting couple of weeks.

So do you think that every constituency which votes Labour should get to be independent?

Regarding the EU membership, I believe that they would leave the EU, but would apply for membership and become a full member fairly quickly (despite opposition from Spain)

Regarding the future of our relationship with an independent Scotland, who knows?

Edited September 5, 2014 by sturginho

[downzy]

Cool topic, one that I know very little about. I enjoyed reading your summary Graeme.

Being Canadian, I have my own associations of sovereign movements and its effects on the entire nation. I can tell you that many in Quebec (and the rest of Canada) are watching what's happening in Scotland right now with keen interest.

Part of me would like to see the Scots govern themselves, as I can only imagine the frustration of a left-leaning community being forced to follow right-leaning policies. On the other hand, there are potential economic consequences should the yes vote prove successful. Would an independent Scottish nation remain in the EU? What kind of an effect would a yes vote have on trade between Scotland and the rest of the U.K.?

Should be an interesting couple of weeks.

So do you think that every constituency which votes Labour should get to be independent?

No, sorry, didn't mean it like that. If it were the opposite, if Scotland consistently voted for conservative candidates and yet were governed by a liberal coalition then they would have my sympathies as well.

Part of the reason why Quebec stays apart of Canada is because they pretty much do whatever they want. If the rest of Canada started enforcing its own priorities onto the province I wouldn't begrudge them for wanting to leave.

[sturginho]

Cool topic, one that I know very little about. I enjoyed reading your summary Graeme.

Being Canadian, I have my own associations of sovereign movements and its effects on the entire nation. I can tell you that many in Quebec (and the rest of Canada) are watching what's happening in Scotland right now with keen interest.

Part of me would like to see the Scots govern themselves, as I can only imagine the frustration of a left-leaning community being forced to follow right-leaning policies. On the other hand, there are potential economic consequences should the yes vote prove successful. Would an independent Scottish nation remain in the EU? What kind of an effect would a yes vote have on trade between Scotland and the rest of the U.K.?

Should be an interesting couple of weeks.

So do you think that every constituency which votes Labour should get to be independent?

No, sorry, didn't mean it like that. If it were the opposite, if Scotland consistently voted for conservative candidates and yet were governed by a liberal coalition then they would have my sympathies as well.

Part of the reason why Quebec stays apart of Canada is because they pretty much do whatever they want. If the rest of Canada started enforcing its own priorities onto the province I wouldn't begrudge them for wanting to leave.

I can see where you are coming from, but if you think of it from the point of view that, they return 69 MPs out of 650 so they get just over 10% of the seats, and they have a population (as of the 2011 census) of 5.3 million out of 63 million which is about 8.4% of the population of the UK. So it's not like they are unfairly represented in Westminister, plus they have their own Parliament with devolved powers (i'd like to see some more decentralisation in ENgland and Wales too)

[Snake-Pit]

I'm not Scottish, but I am British, so I guess this effects me; I don't know...

[sturginho]

I'm not Scottish, but I am British, so I guess this effects me; I don't know...

It will definitely affect us, but I guess we won't know how much a yes vote would affect us until it happens and then they start negotiating

[AtariLegend]

Not Scottish, but British also.

Hope they vote no.

Edited September 5, 2014 by AtariLegend

[DieselDaisy]

Scotland would have little global reach. It would for instance immediately lose its representative power on the UN Security Council. The remaining rump, presumably now called the 'United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland', would have its position on that same panel weakened. There is no coherent vision for a Scottish military - or a 'Defense Force' or whatever the hell Salmond desires to call it; what for instance would happen to the Scottish regiments in the British army, some of which are on active duty in parts of the world right now - and for a considerable time to come. A hole in the British army, occurring through the removal of Scottish regiments, would hinder Britain's military obligations (e.g. Nato) and imperil, British security. Would these regiments then form a nucleus of a Scottish army? Well that would be administratively and logistically difficult to engineer since the majority of Scottish regiments were raised after 1707. Presumably, because the SNP are socialists, this army would be minuscule. Would that entail job lay offs? I have never seen any member of the SNP, able to remotely grasp the complex issue let alone, solve the issue of, the Scottish regiments.

Probably they will just scrap these ancient and proud regiments and create a new, socialist, army.

Scotland will need to enter the UN, the EU, the Commonwealth and other supranational organisations. There is no adequate proposals on the citizenship of the many Scots in England, and the many English, in Scotland. I have not even mentioned people of mixed nationality - it is probably rare, especially on the border regions, to find someone with, purely English, or, purely Scottish, blood. And somebody has already alluded to, the unfairness of the vote in this, regard.

The Royal Family have been completely ignored in all of this (probably because, most of the SNP are closet republicans). The two countries will presumably return to the dual monarchy of 1603-1707, but then, 'Great Britain' and the Union Jack actually comes from this period - not, 1707. It is a knotty puzzle to unravel. Also, understand that the Royal Family have developed into a 'British' monarchy, post 1707, becoming colonels of Scottish regiments for instance, utilising Scottish regiments (e.g. the Scots Guards) for ceremonial functions and guard duty. No one has formed a coherent plan to deal with all of this. Nobody seems to have consulted the Commonwealth on this either.

Sport is a tricky problem also. Will Scottish sport starts who have represented Britain (e.g. Andy Murray), have to suddenly switch to Scotland? They may, after all, have been Unionists and rather proud to have represented 'Britain' all of this time. Will they therefore be given a method to somehow, represent the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Will archival records and statistics of British sporting teams, going back hundreds of years, be divided in two? In other words, will England suddenly have to look back to Fred Perry, once, again, for our last Wimbledon champ?

I mentioned England there, and I could also mention Wales and Northern Ireland, as, the other three constituent nations have been completely ignored in all of this. 1707 was not an English takeover, but a joint sovereign union, established by the merging of representative bodies of the two countries. Presumably then, the dissolving of this act - if it is to be fair and carry with it, the continuity of 1707 - should also be decided by some degree of representation of the two countries. Scotland desires a democratic mandate: it stands to reason that the English should produce at least 50% of this democratic mandate. The vote is thoroughly unfair to begin with!

Salmond has produced nothing but waffle about currency - and this has, indeed, been the weakest part of the SNP campaign (even some of his supporters admit this). This is why he lost the television debates against Darling. The No camp has attacked him on this, and justifiably so. The man can literally not say whether or not Scotland will have the pound! The man wanted to join the Eurozone just a few years ago (before that went tits up). Now he wants the Pound. He wants his economy to be, somehow, 'Scandinavian' (the SNP are obsessed, with Scandinavia). Does he really know what he wants? He will probably be your first leader by the way. The guy is an imbecile. Let's not forget his cheap stunt with the saltire at Wimbledon?

And do not even get me started about the Shipyards and Trident - which will see, thousands of jobs vanish.

The breaking up of the Union would be the worst disaster to have happened to these two countries, since, the British Wars of the 17th century. Basically, Britain's military power would be splintered in two, significantly weakening England and Scotland's global reach. If we go back in history, imagining, no Union at various times, we see dangerous alternative historical narratives which act as a warning sign upon, the decision reached in this vote. What if Scotland had remained neutral during the two World Wars? Lacking the Clyde dockyards, England would have certainly lost the U-Boat war in 1917. England would also have not possessed an adequate North Sea naval base in which to position her fleet. Imperial Germany would have therefore complete control of the Atlantic and the North Sea, threatening the Channel (and the supply routes to the armies on the Western Front). America's entry, in 1917, would have been fatefully compromised. Similarly, imagine World War Two without the Arctic Convoys (do not forget, carrying American Lend Lease aid also). Without these vital supplies, carried from the east coast of Scotland, Soviet resistance to Adolph Hitler would have been seriously imperiled. Leningrad may have fallen. The results are almost too unbearable to contemplate. Yet none of this happened of course, because, the two countries were united.

History acts as a warning for the present. With the menace of Putin and widespread instability in the middle east, there seems to be enough threats to world peace to justify the retention of the Union. The Union provides us with a global reach and a military which is respected, worldwide. It seems as bad a time as any to break apart, that Union and surrender, that global reach, as any.

Edited September 5, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[sturginho]

I think that current British/UK citizens will retain their citizenship, people living in Scotland will automatically be granted Scottish citizenship whilst Scots living outside of Scotland will have to apply. Babies born in Scotland post independence would become scottish citizens not British

[Ace Nova]

Some enlightening perspectives in here. I don't know much about it, so it's interesting to see opinions from both sides of the table.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Graeme]

Scotland for the Scots.

The campaign is based around civic nationalism rather than ethnic nationalism. The current pro-independence Scottish Government would like to increase the amount of immigrants coming to Scotland every year in the event of independence, to combat our currently aging population. Scottish national identity is an inclusive banner, with ethnic minorities more likely to identify themselves as "Scottish" than migrants are to identify as "English" or "Northern Irish": http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_349531_en.html. Many people who are not of a white Scots background are visibly involved in the "Yes" movement, like this group: http://www.englishscotsforyes.org/. Our "enemy" in all of this is not, and never has been the English people, it is the British state and its commitment to neoliberal economic policy.

So what do you think, Graeme ? Is there a chance Scotland goes for independence ? Media here still deem it a very small chance, but that it's become less improbable in the last weeks. Will you vote yes ? If the Yes camp wins, it will have huge ramifications for the rest of Europe too. Will Scotland become a member of the EU ? Will they be allowed to join ? As I understand it, Scotland is pro Europe. Will the chances of a Brexit increase ? What with Catalans and Basks ? No doubt these are interesting times for Scotland, and for the EU (or Europe) as a whole.

There's a lot more of a chance than has been given credence for the last 3 years anyway. I will vote yes as I currently abhor the way politics is being conducted in the halls of Westminster, I think it's rank to the core and none of the major parties are offering an alternative to Thatcherite economic policy. Scotland has never wanted to be governed under that rapacious economic paradigm yet we have had to tolerate it for the last 30 years. Independence will not guarantee an escape, but it will at least give us the ladder, if we fuck up climbing it then it will be our own mistake and not one made because we are (democratically rather than culturally or financially) an insignificant part of a far larger machine.

Scotland is largely pro-EU. No-one knows what will happen to Scotland's EU membership in the event of independence. The matter could be resolved effectively if the UK government just asked (the EU say they will only deal directly with the governments of member states, so the Scottish government cannot ask). The UK government have refused so far, saying they "will not pre-negotiate Scotland's exit from the United Kingdom" so political posturing is preventing straightforward answers, leading to wild speculation surrounding unofficial statements from senior EU politicians. In order for an independent Scotland to leave the EU, you would have to strip 5 million EU citizens of their citizenship and dismantle all of the existing EU infrastructure in Scotland, only to reinstate it all at a later date, which seems a bit silly to me.

Many people put forward the argument that independence may be the only way to guarantee our EU membership anyway, the Conservatives have promised an in/out referendum on the UK's EU membership in 2017. If Scotland votes "no", and this EU referendum occurs then we may find ourselves powerless to prevent our exit from the EU (in a UK-wide referendum we will only constitute 8% of the vote).

The No campaign definitely has the pick of the celebs, including Jagger, Judi Dench, Sting, Macca, Helena Bonham Carter and Steven Hawkings. Obama seems like he prefers a No also. The Yes campaign is left with merely, Professor Brian Cox (for some odd reason) and the chap who wrote Trainspotting. It does however have James Bond, which is sort of ironic when you think about it. Incidentally, the No campaign is headed by TV historian Dan Snow who wrote a (and, Zhukov might be interested in this) rather good book on The Battle of Quebec.

You really do talk some nonsense. The campaign you're referring to is "Let's Stay Together", an unofficial London-based initiative that Dan Snow put together with a bunch of celebrities who don't have a vote in the referendum asking us to stay in the Union on emotional grounds without any acknowledgement of the reasons the referendum is occurring or offering any alternative solution to the issue of Scotland's democratic deficit.

The official "No" campaign (Better Together) is headed by Blair MacDougall and Alistair Darling. Also, anyone who bases their decisions on what a celebrity thinks should probably not really vote at all.

Might as well rename this "Graeme's 'Yes campaign' thread"

As someone from the most northern part of England who had most of my education in Scotland, I'm not sold on the idea of breaking up the UK this way. What I also think is wrong is that the rest of the UK doesn't get to vote on this- given that at present, Scotland is part of the UK and the decisions of it's voters affect us all. A massive proportion of people who oppose having a Tory government come from the north of England and Scotland, if the Scots leave then the rest of us may be stuck with the Tories forever more, but apparently our opinions aren't worth anything.

For example- my dad was born and raised in Scotland and has worked in Scotland for the past 30 years, but because he lives one mile south of the border he gets no say. Yet foreign students who have been here 3 years get to vote, even if they have no intention of staying in the country. Fair? I don't think so.

Forgive the lengthy wall of stats, but your "may be stuck with the Tories forevermore" argument is completely baseless. The Scottish vote has prevented a Conservative majority once in the last 70 years, in 2010. Every time that Labour attained a majority government in Westminster, they would have done so regardless of Scottish seats.

Also, the only reason a referendum is occurring is because a government was elected with a mandate to hold it (i.e. a referendum was in their manifesto and they were elected in a popular poll to a position of authority). That government was elected to the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh as the settled will of the Scottish people in 2011. The Scottish parliament can only legislate for Scotland, it is beyond its authority to hold a referendum in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the one institution which could have organised a UK-wide referendum (Westminster) did not do so. Of course, decisions made domestically have impacts beyond their jurisdictions, every President of the U.S.A's personal approach to foreign policy has a great deal of weight on the international stage. Since we're all affected by this, do you think we (the International Community) have the right to a say in the U.S. presidential elections?

Imagine the situation where in a UK-wide referendum, Scotland voted for independence but the majority of people elsewhere voted "no". Or the reverse, where Scotland voted "no" but were expelled by weight of opinion elsewhere, surely you'd agree that both outcomes were ridiculous and an infringement of a people's right to self-determination, no? The mandate arose legitimately through due democratic process.

I'd be really interested to see you engage with the debate itself rather than the "why are we having the debate?" sideline which you've chosen to pursue. The fact of the matter is, it is happening and it would not be happening if there was no democratic reason to do so. How would you recommend solving the issues causing the discontentment which led to the referendum within the framework of the union?

1945 Labour govt (Attlee)

————————————

Labour majority: 146

Labour majority without any Scottish MPs in Parliament: 143

NO CHANGE WITHOUT SCOTTISH MPS

1950 Labour govt (Attlee)

————————————

Labour majority: 5

Without Scottish MPs: 2

NO CHANGE

1951 Conservative govt (Churchill/Eden)

——————————————————–

Conservative majority: 17

Without Scottish MPs: 16

NO CHANGE

1955 Conservative govt (Eden/Macmillan)

——————————————————–

Conservative majority: 60

Without Scottish MPs: 61

NO CHANGE

1959 Conservative govt (Macmillan/Douglas-Home)

————————————————————————

Conservative majority: 100

Without Scottish MPs: 109

NO CHANGE

1964 Labour govt (Wilson)

————————————

Labour majority: 4

Without Scottish MPs: -11

CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY OF 1

(Con 280, Lab 274, Lib 5)

1966 Labour govt (Wilson)

————————————

Labour majority: 98

Without Scottish MPs: 77

NO CHANGE

1970 Conservative govt (Heath)

——————————————–

Conservative majority: 30

Without Scottish MPs: 55

NO CHANGE

1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson)

————————————————

Labour majority: -33

Without Scottish MPs: -42

POSSIBLE CHANGE – LABOUR MINORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MINORITY

(Without Scots: Con 276, Lab 261, Lib 11, Others 16)

1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan)

—————————————————–

Labour majority: 3

Without Scottish MPs: -8

CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO LABOUR MINORITY

(Lab 278 Con 261 Lib 10 others 15)

1979 Conservative govt (Thatcher)

————————————————

Conservative majority: 43

Without Scottish MPs: 70

NO CHANGE

1983 Conservative govt (Thatcher)

————————————————

Conservative majority: 144

Without Scottish MPs: 174

NO CHANGE

1987 Conservative govt (Thatcher/Major)

——————————————————

Conservative majority: 102

Without Scottish MPs: 154

NO CHANGE

1992 Conservative govt (Major)

———————————————

Conservative majority: 21

Without Scottish MPs: 71

NO CHANGE

1997 Labour govt (Blair)

———————————–

Labour majority: 179

Without Scottish MPs: 139

NO CHANGE

2001 Labour govt (Blair)

———————————–

Labour majority: 167

Without Scottish MPs: 129

NO CHANGE

2005 Labour govt (Blair/Brown)

——————————————–

Labour majority: 66

Without Scottish MPs: 43

NO CHANGE

2010 Coalition govt (Cameron)

——————————————

Conservative majority: -38

Without Scottish MPs: 19

CHANGE: CON-LIB COALITION TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY

[UK SUBS]

Graeme -- don't kill me but....

What's your honest view about general views held south of the border which in (crude) summary are;

-- the yes vote is carrying momentum by a significant amount of anti - English sentiment amongst some scots *cough cough* and who've stuck brave heart on repeat and think everything will be cool and dandy once the awful manipulating English are not interfering in Scottish affairs.

The brave heart bit was obviously tongue in cheek but from a girl I know in Stirling no less.

Still question is: does that sentence (as simplistic as it Is) hold any merit from your own perspective or is that complete hogwash?

[Graeme]

UK SUBS, on 05 Sept 2014 - 8:19 PM, said:

Graeme -- don't kill me but....

What's your honest view about general views held south of the border which in (crude) summary are;

-- the yes vote is carrying momentum by a significant amount of anti - English sentiment amongst some scots *cough cough* and who've stuck brave heart on repeat and think everything will be cool and dandy once the awful manipulating English are not interfering in Scottish affairs.

The brave heart bit was obviously tongue in cheek but from a girl I know in Stirling no less.

Still question is: does that sentence (as simplistic as it Is) hold any merit from your own perspective or is that complete hogwash?

I would argue that (while you get xenophobic idiots in every debate), this assertion is almost completely false. Read the first paragraph of my previous reply. Also this piece from English journalist Jon Snow:

"Having just spent a week in first the Western Isles, and second in Glasgow, hatred of Westminster is by far the most dominant factor in people who told me they were voting yes to Scottish independence. The theme was constantly repeated to me. For some, voting Yes is a long deep seated desire for an independent Scotland. But for far more it seems to be a relatively recent desire to have nothing to do with what so many spoke of as "the sleaze, dishonesty, and self-serving London-centric politics of Westminster".

I have come away from Scotland deeply impressed by the high quality of debate, and the relatively low quality of many of the arguments put forward by the No campaign. I'm equally impressed by the range and quality of people who constantly surprised me by their commitment - often recently determined, to vote yes. My sense too is that where the vote on Scottish independence is concerned, Westminster politicians just don't get it.

Perhaps it should be no surprise. The Coalition government boasts just 12 MP's out of 59 in Scotland. And only one of these comes from the dominant party in the coalition, the Conservatives."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jon-snow/jon-snow-scottish-independence_b_5271470.html

[UK SUBS]

UK SUBS, on 05 Sept 2014 - 8:19 PM, said:

Graeme -- don't kill me but....

What's your honest view about general views held south of the border which in (crude) summary are;

-- the yes vote is carrying momentum by a significant amount of anti - English sentiment amongst some scots *cough cough* and who've stuck brave heart on repeat and think everything will be cool and dandy once the awful manipulating English are not interfering in Scottish affairs.

The brave heart bit was obviously tongue in cheek but from a girl I know in Stirling no less.

Still question is: does that sentence (as simplistic as it Is) hold any merit from your own perspective or is that complete hogwash?

I would argue that (while you get xenophobic idiots in every debate), this assertion is almost completely false. Read the first paragraph of my previous reply. Also this piece from English journalist Jon Snow:

"Having just spent a week in first the Western Isles, and second in Glasgow, hatred of Westminster is by far the most dominant factor in people who told me they were voting yes to Scottish independence. The theme was constantly repeated to me. For some, voting Yes is a long deep seated desire for an independent Scotland. But for far more it seems to be a relatively recent desire to have nothing to do with what so many spoke of as "the sleaze, dishonesty, and self-serving London-centric politics of Westminster".

I have come away from Scotland deeply impressed by the high quality of debate, and the relatively low quality of many of the arguments put forward by the No campaign. I'm equally impressed by the range and quality of people who constantly surprised me by their commitment - often recently determined, to vote yes. My sense too is that where the vote on Scottish independence is concerned, Westminster politicians just don't get it.

Perhaps it should be no surprise. The Coalition government boasts just 12 MP's out of 59 in Scotland. And only one of these comes from the dominant party in the coalition, the Conservatives."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jon-snow/jon-snow-scottish-independence_b_5271470.html

Interesting! Thank you