12 ms·

Scotland's Decision

118 points by andrewaylett 12y ago

tim333 12y ago
While I tend not to be too impressed by UK politicians I'm quite proud that the government is able to say to Scotland, OK have a vote and go independent or not. So many of the world problems seem to have been caused by governments taking the opposite view and saying it's mine all mine. See Ukraine and about 1000+ other examples.
- boronine 12y ago
  Not Ukraine. Crimea could have conceivably voted to leave, if they were given a fair vote -- they were not. As for Eastern Ukraine, there is far smaller Russian support there and any talks of federalization or referendums is an attempt by the Russian side to repeat the Crimean takeover. The only referendum Russians will allow is another "occupendum", and if Ukraine tried hosting a fair one, Russia would do anything to undermine it, discredit the results and then invade anyways. Russia's goal is to destabilize the country, best course of action is to stand firmly in union, not play Russian games, which everyone seems to lose.
  - mtrimpe 12y ago
    Indeed. East-Ukrainian polls pre-invasion showed roughly 30% supported secession. Crimea was the most interesting since it actually had the legal structure in place for a secession and if a proper referendum had been held it would actually have been a close call. What happened was not actually a proper referendum though; even Russia's own internal sources indicated an actual turnout of only about 35% which is nowhere near enough to qualify for the legal way of seceding from Ukraine.
    - guard-of-terra 12y ago
      even Russia's own internal sources indicated an actual turnout of only about 35%[citation needed] For Crimea, this referendum was like the real second coming of Christ for the bible belt of US of A. Would be surprised.
      - mtrimpe 12y ago
        Just like there's more to the US of A than it's bible belt; there's more to Crimea than the ethnic Russians in Sevastopol. Here is an article of the leaked document I was referring to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/p... The Forbes article isn't fair in that the polls indicated 55% in favor and a turnout of 30-50%, but it's to be expected that those that voted disproportionately voted in favor so the final tally of 22.5% voting in favor is probably not accurate. It's also important to keep in mind that the current faux-referendum was not about independence but joining Russia. Independence would have gotten much more votes, also from the Tatar population. What most people forget is that the Tatars were forcibly removed from Crimea in a mass deportation/genocide under Stalin and returned to Crimea, their original homeland, after the fall of the Soviet empire. They were understandably wary of accession to Russia, rightfully so since Russia almost immediately barred their main leader from (re-)entering Crimea, and would never have voted in favor of the referendum.
        guard-of-terra 12y ago
        Interesting article, thanks for the read. http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsionnoy_politike/materialy/problemy_zhiteley_kryma.php http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsion... "Independence would have gotten much more votes" I doubt this is true. Russians are not accustomised to living in tiny independent states. This is a dream of a few national theorists, to peacefully split Russia into more manageable states with local transparent government, more responsible fiscal policy - but there's not much ground under this idea. There is no "Crimean nation" to build a successful state on. Sadly, most off-block small states won't know what to do with their independence and will be forced to side up with some larger state sooner or later. And tatars are a minority. A significant minority which is at risk of civil war and ethnic cleansings in the suggested independent state. Which they may eventually even win, but I think they seen enough pain already.
        mtrimpe 12y ago
  - myth_drannon 12y ago
    Cremea voted to be independent of Ukraine in 1991, it was invaded by Ukrainian forces during the referendum and after. I't just that Russia had it's own problems back then and didn't have the ability to deal with local conflicts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,_1991 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,...
  - tim333 12y ago
    Ukraine is something of a mess but in principle both sides could treat the ethnically Russian eastern areas a bit like the UK treats Scotland, as semi independent and able to choose if they want to go fully independent or not. In practice both sides seem more set on trying to control the area militarily, unfortunately. Though Putin does seem to be moving that way.
    - mtrimpe 12y ago
      The geopolitics in Ukraine are quite different though. Right now they're focusing two things: a) maintaining control over as much territory as possible, given Russia's original goals [1] and the huge importance a land-bridge to Crimea has to Russia (imagine having to ship water, food and oil for 2.5mln people by sea.) b) preventing a Georgia-style frozen conflict, which is Russia's preferred technique of destabilization lately. It seems they have only just given up on b) but they're still working very hard on a). Either way; I doubt there are many parallels with Scotland at this stage of the conflict. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya
- m0nty 12y ago
  I think the Westminster government had no choice. David Cameron was dithering about the decision to allow a vote on independence, and Alex Salmond just went and announced a date. What's Cameron going to do, forbid it?
  - jarek 12y ago
    Why forbid it when you can just ignore it? E.g. Spanish government said they wouldn't recognize results of a Catalonia independence vote. (Whether they actually would is another matter.)
    - m0nty 12y ago
      That would symbolise everything the independence movement asserts about the arrogance of Westminster politicians and their alleged couldn't-give-a-damn attitude towards the Scots. Personally, I think there would be riots. If there is a legally-held and popularly-supported vote in Scotland which decides in favour of independence, it would end badly if Westminster somehow decided to declare it null and void or just pretend it didn't happen.
      - asuffield 12y ago
        Here's some irony for you: the Tories, who are the people the "independence movement" is complaining about, would gleefully sign off on Scottish independence because it would give them complete and permanent dominance over the rest of the UK - without the Scottish MPs there is no possibility of any other party controlling the UK government. (Post-independence Scotland would likely have a very unhappy experience negotiating with a permanent Tory government) LDs will back the outcome of the referendum whatever happens. Labour are the only party that might attempt to ignore the referendum because Scottish independence will end their existence.
        m0nty 12y ago
        I hadn't really thought through the implications for the remainder of the UK, you've made some interesting points. In terms of international politics, I could see it diminishing Britain's status considerably.
- shannmcnicholl 12y ago
  What other option do they have though? They can't go spewing democracy across the rest of the world and then iron fist things back at home. No. The only thing they could do (and are doing) is attempt to undermine and scare everyone out of it. - "You don't even have a currency figured out!" - "You are not getting to use the pound, no way!" - "You are not getting into the EU either, we've checked and got the big wigs in the EU to say as much, publicly, as well." - "... and there'll be no more commonwealth for you either!" - "Your north sea oil wells are drying up, you'll all be starving to death in a decade. The horror!" - "It's a big world and you'll be in it on your own. Be afraid!" ...etc. *PS. The above quotes are a summation of actual quotes made by the opposition.
  - orf 12y ago
    > *PS. The above quotes are a summation of actual quotes made by the opposition. By that you of course mean caricatures of real arguments with valid points.
  - celticninja 12y ago
    Both sides have talked up their own side and down the other. The Yes side have sidestepped questions where they dont have answers or provided partial answers or over simplified things to make the yes decision seem like the better decision. Anyone voting on this issue should read this book: http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/papers/Scotland%27s%20Decision%20final%20ebook.pdf http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap... 90 page PDF explaining both sides of the biggest questions, providing the Yes and No side and then an analysis by independent experts. Even if you are not voting it is a worthwhile read. I am not eligible to vote as i dont live in Scotland but this give me a much better understanding of the issues at hand. Personally i would like to see a Yes vote, partially because it will be interesting to see how it all pans out, but also because there is a genuine feeling in Scotland that they may be able to make a difference to the lives of residents of Scotland, who lets be fair, are usually at the bottom of the pile in terms of health, employment, life expectancy etc.
    - ownagefool 12y ago
- nmeofthestate 12y ago
  I think willingness to permit a referendum is largely a function of how unlikely a Yes result seems (or seemed when the Edinburgh Agreement was signed). In Spain, where a Yes result in Catalonia seems likely, there is opposition to a referendum. In the UK the opposite is true.
  - fidotron 12y ago
    It's also a function of how much the rest of the country cares. In the UK the political classes care an awful lot more than everyone else. One of the great confusions of separatist movements is they seem to always want to pull away from a host that needs to be seen to want them at all costs. The idea that the host may push them away or act indifferently is met with moral indignation.
- asuffield 12y ago
  This referendum is not binding in any sense. The government in Westminster will make the decision, and it will not be made by the current government (there isn't enough time before the general election). If the next government is formed of different people, then under British sovereignty traditions it will feel no obligation to pay any attention to the referendum run by its predecessor. In practical terms: if Labour gets into power in 2015 then Scottish independence will not happen regardless of the outcome of this referendum, because Scottish independence would eliminate Labour as a political force in the UK (Tories would win all UK elections, SNP would win all Scottish elections). It's not over yet.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    "The government in Westminster will make the decision" Sorry no - one way or another the people of Scotland will make the decision. Whether the government of the UK lives up to that decision is up to them, I honestly believe they would abide by what the people say.
    - sgt101 12y ago
      I think it's inconceivable that the result of this referendum would be ignored. The loss of credibility would be corrosive to every commitment of the UK and successor states, but it would also destroy whichever political party attempted to make that decision.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    I can't see the Scots rushing out to vote labour if they reneged on the outcome of a referendum. Labour would still be able to win elections in the UK without Scotland (in fact Blair would still have been PM without Scotland), At most some policies would change, or worst case another party rises as competition.
  - tomp 12y ago
    > Tories would win all UK elections If this would happen, I'm pretty sure some or other power-hungry fractions of the party would try to make a new party, so you'd again have two (or more) competing.
- mdasen 12y ago
  I think the whole thing has been impressive, but I think a lot of that comes from the fact that the Yes Scotland campaign isn't about hating English people or barricading themselves off and the Better Together campaign isn't about oppressing Scots and ruling over them. In a certain sense, the British-American sensibility about the world is that if you can trade freely with people, come and go as you please, etc. then that covers a lot of what you care about. An independent Scotland is about different local setup, not receding from the world. Similarly, even the No campaign recognizes that the UK isn't about imposing laws and policies on people that don't want them. In the past (post-Empire, pre-EU), national borders have meant a lot. Your citizenship gave you a very limited area that you could live and work in. Today, if Scotland is separate, what is the downside? Europeans have the right to live and work in Europe. Keeping the pound, things would look much as they always have for Scots. Even things like consular representation wouldn't change rapidly: Europeans can already use the embassies and consulates of other EU countries if they don't have their own representation in a country. And for all of the posturing, I think that any rump-UK government would allow and, in fact, want an independent Scotland to be as close and integrated as possible. In some ways, it feels like the world is trying to figure itself out. In the past, empires brought lands together. If you were part of a tiny country, you could be at a distinct disadvantage. Empires broke up for many reasons into a more fractured world. Today, I think we're trying to build institutions that allow for independence while getting the benefits of trade, freedom of movement, etc. For non-Scots, the question somewhat becomes, "does it make a difference to us whether Scotland is independent or not?" If one is English and will have the right to live, work, vote, etc. in Scotland, aren't those the same privileges you have now? And ultimately this campaign, on both sides, has (seemingly unknowingly to anyone in it) laid some of tracks of what our future might look like (worldwide). I think the Yes campaign has been a rebuke of nationalism based on race and hatred, while showing that nationalism can still be relevant when it's based on governance and values. Similarly, the No campaign has recognized the importance of democratic governments not simply imposing themselves on people and the flexibility and changing landscape of modernity. No matter how the vote goes later this month, the UK should be really proud. Unlike other nationalist movements, the UK-Scotland situation feels so modern, regardless of the result. They're almost to that point of asking themselves what it means to be a nation, in which ways are locations important to be independent and in which ways should they be integrated, and how do we best provide for happiness and prosperity in the modern world.
- MarkMc 12y ago
  UK is better than US on this point. If Texas wanted to secede would the other states let them?
  - cyphunk 12y ago
    yes
  - TheCondor 12y ago
    We have already fought a war because of that issue, we even added it to the pledge of allegiance. It's some what different in that England was an empire, they aren't giving up land but releasing it. As an American, what I find truly fascinating is that they trust democracy with such a substantial issue. Can you imagine how things would be if we had a simple up/down vote on abortion or gay marriage or the war on terror?
    - arethuza 12y ago
      Slight nitpick: the UK is a union not a remnant of the Empire. The leaders of Scotland at the time, partially due to a failed colonial expedition to Darien, agreed to the Union. Edit: One interesting part of this story is that the Union was pretty much bought - the English bailed out Scotland and the institution that was created to handle the payments eventually evolved into the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).... famous for briefly being the largest bank in the world and one of the largest casualties of the recent financial crisis, requiring a vast bailout from UK taxpayers....
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    At this point, methinks there is not the top-down passion for unity that would stop secession. If those wanting out are sufficiently unified and intend to impose a new order by sheer will (a la "consent of the governed"), the central gov't will not have the will to maintain/restore status quo thru force. I actually expect some morning radio stations in the southwest USA will declare "it's time for Azltan's independence", millions will simultaneously just refuse to comply with existing sociopolitical infrastructure, and those in authority will simply have no idea what to do about it - or may even support it, given the developing tribalism. We'd lose about half the land of at least three states in the process. Individual states not having their own armed militia, they could not stop it (the "National Guard" troops of each state can, and would, be "called out" by the central gov't as a trump move for purposes to defuse their influence). Things would get very tense, but separation would ultimately be peaceful. Texas has long been considered to have some ill-understood legal standing to ease secession (being the only state to volunteer for annexation as a former independent country), but I don't see that actually happening. It's akin to an oft-angry spouse who frequently threatens divorce but never actually will.
- m-i-l 12y ago
  And similarly, whatever the result, Scotland can be proud to have pursued a peaceful approach, unlike the majority of both successful and unsuccessful independence movements in the past and in present times which have resorted to bloody terrorism and/or revolution. (No offence intended to a large number of the world's countries.)
andrewaylett 12y ago
I appreciate the politics may not impact many here, but I enjoyed the (by now fairly common, I suppose) design and the information being presented seems to me to be a good background to the current state of affairs.
- claudius 12y ago
  It’s not just politics, though, but also a fair bit of history, economics to a degree and that whole fuzzy area of “what is a nation?”. I found it a very interesting read after stumbling over it from the deep sea ‘mushrooms’ article. Thanks for submitting it! :)
- Semaphor 12y ago
  > but I enjoyed the (by now fairly common, I suppose) design The opposite for me, I had to use Clearly (restyling extension for easier reading) to remove all their distracting and annoying, erratically moving backgrounds (especially together with the semi transparent text background, if it was opaque at least). The article itself was a great read though.
  - thedrbrian 12y ago
    On my iPad Air the text is massive(as with most "mobile" websites) and an inch on each side of the screen is wasted with empty space. Maybe I've got funny eyesight.
- rlpb 12y ago
  The designed seemed so bad to me that I skipped reading it. I don't appreciate having to scroll down pages just to see the beginning of the body text. I don't understand the reason for the giant font either, which means that I have to scroll far too much.
philh 12y ago
> For 15 years the Scottish Parliament has been a fiscally lopsided institution. The money comes from a block grant from the UK Treasury. Westminster decides how much tax we all pay and how much government there should be in relation to the economy but not how it’s spent. > You can see why there’s little room in the Scottish national discourse for a party that says “vote for us and we’ll cut your taxes; vote for us and we’ll make government smaller”. I'm not sure how this follows. Can someone clarify?
- majc2 12y ago
  Scotland's parliament does have tax varying powers but has never used them . So, it takes the block grant from the Westminster parliament and decides how to spend it through something called the Barnett formula. Scotland is essentially a socialist country (and socialist isn't a dirty word here). There is a sense of fair play and looking after the poorest in society - a party that would propose a tax cut for a smaller gov. wouldn't do well in the popular vote in Scotland. Does that help?
  - __chrismc 12y ago
    It's worth pointing out that the only variance it can make under the existing powers is to _raise_ income taxes - this is why it's never been used. Doing so would be political suicide and see a population drain as those able to would quickly move "next door" to an England with lower taxes. The Barnett formula determines the size of the block grant, not the spending of it. The Scottish Government spends the grant according to its priorities. At the moment these include: free healthcare (including prescriptions), free higher education, and free care for the elderly.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      > free healthcare (including prescriptions), For people not in the UK: people in England pay for each item on a prescription. The charge is currently £8.05 per item. You can get discounts if you need multiple items. There are a bunch of exemptions - people with a thyroid problem for example - which mean that about 90% of items are free. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-charges-from-april-2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-charges-from-april-20...
2color 12y ago
I'm curious, what view does BBC generally express on the matter?
- ownagefool 12y ago
  The BBC is supposed to be neutral but, personally, I believe there is resonable evidence to suggest the majority of the UK media is bias towards the status quo. That said, since accusations of bias have arisen there has seen some fairly cutting questions pointed at the UK Govs lies on the matter from the BBC and others, and we've started to see a much more interesting and closer debate. I don't live in Scotland anymore though, so I can't say I know what things look like from within the country at the moment.
- gambiting 12y ago
  BBC cannot express any view on that matter. It's bipartisan and will only report facts.
  - tankenmate 12y ago
    Actually it is not bipartisan; it is required to be neutral, regardless how how many political parties (or political / economic ideologies) there are.
    - gambiting 12y ago
      Alright, that's what I actually meant when I said bipartisan - that it does not support any parties by definition. I know, wrong word.
  - vixin 12y ago
    That may be your belief but there are plenty of people who think otherwise. http://biasedbbc.org/ http://biasedbbc.org/
    - willthames 12y ago
      You can look at the tags to see the bias of biasedbbc. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would argue that if not pro-conservative, the BBC neglects many of the issues that would be detrimental to current government - the BBC completely ignored phone hacking, the privatisation of the NHS, among others. It's still probably significantly more neutral than almost any corporate controlled broadcaster though.
brortao 12y ago
It's really exciting to follow this referendum, even if purely from a democratic perspective (out of the last 68 years, Scotland has voted Conservative for 6 years, but has had Conservative governments for 38 of those years). The No campaign has a difficult job, because it's not easy to sell the status quo - but they've essentially resorted to fearmongering, and it looks like people are starting to see the lack of substance. I think that theweebluebook.com presents the argument for independence quite well.
- gburnett 12y ago
  It's even more interesting than you think. The Conservative Party do much better under Scotland's system of proportional representation than in Westminster. Compare these results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election_results_in_Scotland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_ele... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_ele...
  - learnstats 12y ago
    It seems right that the Conservative Party should have representation in Scotland's politics, but it seems wrong that Scotland is ruled by them. The disproportionate Westminster system - where a reasonably sized body of Scottish Conservatives currently have 1 representative out of 304 in the London-based party - contributes to major underrepresentation of Scotland in the existing government.
    - adwf 12y ago
      > It seems right that the Conservative Party should have representation in Scotland's politics, but it seems wrong that Scotland is ruled by them. That's a bit like saying that you only believe in democracy when it's your own party that wins the election, otherwise you'll take your ball and go home. One thing to note is that prior to the current Conservative coalition, we had a huge Labour majority for 13 years that was largely Scottish. So the Scots were ruled by a party that they voted for. When we talk about independence, we're not talking in the same way as say, India for example. Where we had one nation that was immensely ethnically and culturally different, being ruled by people who had no interest except in what they could squeeze out of it. This is two countries that have far far more in common than they do apart. Not one country being consistently screwed by the other; the Empire and the Union was fantastic for Scotland, as the article states. So the argument here is - are the Scots so different from the rest of the UK that they need to be ruled separately? To a greater degree than now that is; they already have their own parliament to set most Scottish laws. NB: I'm pretty neutral on independence. I think it'll be a bureaucratic disaster if it happens, but equally, if it's what the Scots want then fair enough.
matthewmacleod 12y ago
This is a very good background on the wider causes of this referendum taking place – nice to see. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens to the UK post-referendum, regardless of what way the vote goes.
nmeofthestate 12y ago
In the latest opinion poll from the most No-friendly pollster[1] 'Yes' is ahead in all age groups apart from the over 60s, where No is way ahead. If there is a No vote it seems likely to have been won by the old. This backs up the narrative from this article that Britishness is dying out in Scotland (of course, pensioners have also been frightened by scary stories about their pensions, and tend to be more small-c conservative, so it's not entirely an identity thing) [1] YouGov. Different polling companies appear to have different systematic errors in their results, meaning that polls are spread fairly widely. This particular polling company has until recently been showing large leads for No. In their most recent poll the lead had been cut down to 6%, reflecting a feeling 'on the ground' that there's a genuine shift happening. Personally I am still totally unsure what result we'll get in two weeks (two weeks!)
- pidg 12y ago
  The SNP probably brought in voting for 16 and 17 year olds on the basis that it might counter the strong 'No' vote in the 60+ group. However, that group is fairly equally split (45% Yes/44% No). I reckon they underestimated how strongly popular culture, which is focused on London, influences the 16/17 age group.
  - cstross 12y ago
    I will note that reducing the voting age to 16 in general elections is probably on the cards for the UK as a whole after the next general election: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21178379 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21178379
  - willyt 12y ago
    Its a dangerous game though as young people are unpredictable. I'm trying to find a link to the source but I read recently that the far right Jorge Haider was elected in Austria in the first election after 16/17 year olds were given the vote and the youth vote was a strong factor in his success. Edit: Whoops this was meant to reply to cstross below as a general point about unpredictable youth voting intentions not the intentions of Scots youth in particular.
  - 12y ago
imurray 12y ago
Here's a dump of some other insights into the referendum: Betfair's probability of a majority yes vote (NOT a poll of fraction who will vote yes) over time: http://uk.sportsiteexweb.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoChartAction.do?marketId=110033387&selectionId=5334892&logarithmic=true http://uk.sportsiteexweb.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoC... The University of Edinburgh has a guide to the debate: http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/guidetothedebate http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/guidetothedebate It also has a MOOC(!) https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/indyref/ https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/indyref/
chrisweekly 12y ago
Tangent to the Decision per se: that article is a really beautiful presentation, to my eyes. The implementation isn't perfect -- e.g., there's a bunch of low-hanging WPO fruit -- but on a good browser (Chrome 37 / OSX 10.9.4 / 1920x1200) and a fast connection, the UX is fantastic. IMHO. :)
PaulRobinson 12y ago
The worst outcome is increasingly looking like what will actually materialise: a narrow margin. It doesn't matter who wins, if either side does not win with at least 60% of the electorate, it's going to undermine their position going forward. We could see Referendum v2.0 in 2-10 years, quite easily. Nobody on either side wants that, but it's starting to feel inevitable.
- fidotron 12y ago
  Indeed. I can't see the rest of the country being happy with a limbo that ends up giving Scotland ever more powers in order to prevent a by then meaningless "No" in the next round while they all live in statusquoville. Combined with the apparent rise of UKIP the situation is all looking to be a bit of a mess. The SNP may have successfully engineered the divisive conditions that the Parti Quebecois never quite managed, with the PQ example being that the uncertainty is almost more damaging than what is being debated.

118 points by andrewaylett 12y ago

While I tend not to be too impressed by UK politicians I'm quite proud that the government is able to say to Scotland, OK have a vote and go independent or not. So many of the world problems seem to have been caused by governments taking the opposite view and saying it's mine all mine. See Ukraine and about 1000+ other examples.

boronine 12y ago
Not Ukraine. Crimea could have conceivably voted to leave, if they were given a fair vote -- they were not. As for Eastern Ukraine, there is far smaller Russian support there and any talks of federalization or referendums is an attempt by the Russian side to repeat the Crimean takeover. The only referendum Russians will allow is another "occupendum", and if Ukraine tried hosting a fair one, Russia would do anything to undermine it, discredit the results and then invade anyways. Russia's goal is to destabilize the country, best course of action is to stand firmly in union, not play Russian games, which everyone seems to lose.
- mtrimpe 12y ago
  Indeed. East-Ukrainian polls pre-invasion showed roughly 30% supported secession. Crimea was the most interesting since it actually had the legal structure in place for a secession and if a proper referendum had been held it would actually have been a close call. What happened was not actually a proper referendum though; even Russia's own internal sources indicated an actual turnout of only about 35% which is nowhere near enough to qualify for the legal way of seceding from Ukraine.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    even Russia's own internal sources indicated an actual turnout of only about 35%[citation needed] For Crimea, this referendum was like the real second coming of Christ for the bible belt of US of A. Would be surprised.
    - mtrimpe 12y ago
      Just like there's more to the US of A than it's bible belt; there's more to Crimea than the ethnic Russians in Sevastopol. Here is an article of the leaked document I was referring to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/p... The Forbes article isn't fair in that the polls indicated 55% in favor and a turnout of 30-50%, but it's to be expected that those that voted disproportionately voted in favor so the final tally of 22.5% voting in favor is probably not accurate. It's also important to keep in mind that the current faux-referendum was not about independence but joining Russia. Independence would have gotten much more votes, also from the Tatar population. What most people forget is that the Tatars were forcibly removed from Crimea in a mass deportation/genocide under Stalin and returned to Crimea, their original homeland, after the fall of the Soviet empire. They were understandably wary of accession to Russia, rightfully so since Russia almost immediately barred their main leader from (re-)entering Crimea, and would never have voted in favor of the referendum.
      - guard-of-terra 12y ago
        Interesting article, thanks for the read. http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsionnoy_politike/materialy/problemy_zhiteley_kryma.php http://www.president-sovet.ru/structure/gruppa_po_migratsion... "Independence would have gotten much more votes" I doubt this is true. Russians are not accustomised to living in tiny independent states. This is a dream of a few national theorists, to peacefully split Russia into more manageable states with local transparent government, more responsible fiscal policy - but there's not much ground under this idea. There is no "Crimean nation" to build a successful state on. Sadly, most off-block small states won't know what to do with their independence and will be forced to side up with some larger state sooner or later. And tatars are a minority. A significant minority which is at risk of civil war and ethnic cleansings in the suggested independent state. Which they may eventually even win, but I think they seen enough pain already.
        mtrimpe 12y ago
- myth_drannon 12y ago
  Cremea voted to be independent of Ukraine in 1991, it was invaded by Ukrainian forces during the referendum and after. I't just that Russia had it's own problems back then and didn't have the ability to deal with local conflicts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,_1991 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_sovereignty_referendum,...
- tim333 12y ago
  Ukraine is something of a mess but in principle both sides could treat the ethnically Russian eastern areas a bit like the UK treats Scotland, as semi independent and able to choose if they want to go fully independent or not. In practice both sides seem more set on trying to control the area militarily, unfortunately. Though Putin does seem to be moving that way.
  - mtrimpe 12y ago
    The geopolitics in Ukraine are quite different though. Right now they're focusing two things: a) maintaining control over as much territory as possible, given Russia's original goals [1] and the huge importance a land-bridge to Crimea has to Russia (imagine having to ship water, food and oil for 2.5mln people by sea.) b) preventing a Georgia-style frozen conflict, which is Russia's preferred technique of destabilization lately. It seems they have only just given up on b) but they're still working very hard on a). Either way; I doubt there are many parallels with Scotland at this stage of the conflict. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya
m0nty 12y ago
I think the Westminster government had no choice. David Cameron was dithering about the decision to allow a vote on independence, and Alex Salmond just went and announced a date. What's Cameron going to do, forbid it?
- jarek 12y ago
  Why forbid it when you can just ignore it? E.g. Spanish government said they wouldn't recognize results of a Catalonia independence vote. (Whether they actually would is another matter.)
  - m0nty 12y ago
    That would symbolise everything the independence movement asserts about the arrogance of Westminster politicians and their alleged couldn't-give-a-damn attitude towards the Scots. Personally, I think there would be riots. If there is a legally-held and popularly-supported vote in Scotland which decides in favour of independence, it would end badly if Westminster somehow decided to declare it null and void or just pretend it didn't happen.
    - asuffield 12y ago
      Here's some irony for you: the Tories, who are the people the "independence movement" is complaining about, would gleefully sign off on Scottish independence because it would give them complete and permanent dominance over the rest of the UK - without the Scottish MPs there is no possibility of any other party controlling the UK government. (Post-independence Scotland would likely have a very unhappy experience negotiating with a permanent Tory government) LDs will back the outcome of the referendum whatever happens. Labour are the only party that might attempt to ignore the referendum because Scottish independence will end their existence.
      - m0nty 12y ago
        I hadn't really thought through the implications for the remainder of the UK, you've made some interesting points. In terms of international politics, I could see it diminishing Britain's status considerably.
shannmcnicholl 12y ago
What other option do they have though? They can't go spewing democracy across the rest of the world and then iron fist things back at home. No. The only thing they could do (and are doing) is attempt to undermine and scare everyone out of it. - "You don't even have a currency figured out!" - "You are not getting to use the pound, no way!" - "You are not getting into the EU either, we've checked and got the big wigs in the EU to say as much, publicly, as well." - "... and there'll be no more commonwealth for you either!" - "Your north sea oil wells are drying up, you'll all be starving to death in a decade. The horror!" - "It's a big world and you'll be in it on your own. Be afraid!" ...etc. *PS. The above quotes are a summation of actual quotes made by the opposition.
- orf 12y ago
  > *PS. The above quotes are a summation of actual quotes made by the opposition. By that you of course mean caricatures of real arguments with valid points.
- celticninja 12y ago
  Both sides have talked up their own side and down the other. The Yes side have sidestepped questions where they dont have answers or provided partial answers or over simplified things to make the yes decision seem like the better decision. Anyone voting on this issue should read this book: http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/papers/Scotland%27s%20Decision%20final%20ebook.pdf http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap... 90 page PDF explaining both sides of the biggest questions, providing the Yes and No side and then an analysis by independent experts. Even if you are not voting it is a worthwhile read. I am not eligible to vote as i dont live in Scotland but this give me a much better understanding of the issues at hand. Personally i would like to see a Yes vote, partially because it will be interesting to see how it all pans out, but also because there is a genuine feeling in Scotland that they may be able to make a difference to the lives of residents of Scotland, who lets be fair, are usually at the bottom of the pile in terms of health, employment, life expectancy etc.
  - ownagefool 12y ago
nmeofthestate 12y ago
I think willingness to permit a referendum is largely a function of how unlikely a Yes result seems (or seemed when the Edinburgh Agreement was signed). In Spain, where a Yes result in Catalonia seems likely, there is opposition to a referendum. In the UK the opposite is true.
- fidotron 12y ago
  It's also a function of how much the rest of the country cares. In the UK the political classes care an awful lot more than everyone else. One of the great confusions of separatist movements is they seem to always want to pull away from a host that needs to be seen to want them at all costs. The idea that the host may push them away or act indifferently is met with moral indignation.
asuffield 12y ago
This referendum is not binding in any sense. The government in Westminster will make the decision, and it will not be made by the current government (there isn't enough time before the general election). If the next government is formed of different people, then under British sovereignty traditions it will feel no obligation to pay any attention to the referendum run by its predecessor. In practical terms: if Labour gets into power in 2015 then Scottish independence will not happen regardless of the outcome of this referendum, because Scottish independence would eliminate Labour as a political force in the UK (Tories would win all UK elections, SNP would win all Scottish elections). It's not over yet.
- arethuza 12y ago
  "The government in Westminster will make the decision" Sorry no - one way or another the people of Scotland will make the decision. Whether the government of the UK lives up to that decision is up to them, I honestly believe they would abide by what the people say.
  - sgt101 12y ago
    I think it's inconceivable that the result of this referendum would be ignored. The loss of credibility would be corrosive to every commitment of the UK and successor states, but it would also destroy whichever political party attempted to make that decision.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  I can't see the Scots rushing out to vote labour if they reneged on the outcome of a referendum. Labour would still be able to win elections in the UK without Scotland (in fact Blair would still have been PM without Scotland), At most some policies would change, or worst case another party rises as competition.
- tomp 12y ago
  > Tories would win all UK elections If this would happen, I'm pretty sure some or other power-hungry fractions of the party would try to make a new party, so you'd again have two (or more) competing.
mdasen 12y ago
I think the whole thing has been impressive, but I think a lot of that comes from the fact that the Yes Scotland campaign isn't about hating English people or barricading themselves off and the Better Together campaign isn't about oppressing Scots and ruling over them. In a certain sense, the British-American sensibility about the world is that if you can trade freely with people, come and go as you please, etc. then that covers a lot of what you care about. An independent Scotland is about different local setup, not receding from the world. Similarly, even the No campaign recognizes that the UK isn't about imposing laws and policies on people that don't want them. In the past (post-Empire, pre-EU), national borders have meant a lot. Your citizenship gave you a very limited area that you could live and work in. Today, if Scotland is separate, what is the downside? Europeans have the right to live and work in Europe. Keeping the pound, things would look much as they always have for Scots. Even things like consular representation wouldn't change rapidly: Europeans can already use the embassies and consulates of other EU countries if they don't have their own representation in a country. And for all of the posturing, I think that any rump-UK government would allow and, in fact, want an independent Scotland to be as close and integrated as possible. In some ways, it feels like the world is trying to figure itself out. In the past, empires brought lands together. If you were part of a tiny country, you could be at a distinct disadvantage. Empires broke up for many reasons into a more fractured world. Today, I think we're trying to build institutions that allow for independence while getting the benefits of trade, freedom of movement, etc. For non-Scots, the question somewhat becomes, "does it make a difference to us whether Scotland is independent or not?" If one is English and will have the right to live, work, vote, etc. in Scotland, aren't those the same privileges you have now? And ultimately this campaign, on both sides, has (seemingly unknowingly to anyone in it) laid some of tracks of what our future might look like (worldwide). I think the Yes campaign has been a rebuke of nationalism based on race and hatred, while showing that nationalism can still be relevant when it's based on governance and values. Similarly, the No campaign has recognized the importance of democratic governments not simply imposing themselves on people and the flexibility and changing landscape of modernity. No matter how the vote goes later this month, the UK should be really proud. Unlike other nationalist movements, the UK-Scotland situation feels so modern, regardless of the result. They're almost to that point of asking themselves what it means to be a nation, in which ways are locations important to be independent and in which ways should they be integrated, and how do we best provide for happiness and prosperity in the modern world.
MarkMc 12y ago
UK is better than US on this point. If Texas wanted to secede would the other states let them?
- cyphunk 12y ago
  yes
- TheCondor 12y ago
  We have already fought a war because of that issue, we even added it to the pledge of allegiance. It's some what different in that England was an empire, they aren't giving up land but releasing it. As an American, what I find truly fascinating is that they trust democracy with such a substantial issue. Can you imagine how things would be if we had a simple up/down vote on abortion or gay marriage or the war on terror?
  - arethuza 12y ago
    Slight nitpick: the UK is a union not a remnant of the Empire. The leaders of Scotland at the time, partially due to a failed colonial expedition to Darien, agreed to the Union. Edit: One interesting part of this story is that the Union was pretty much bought - the English bailed out Scotland and the institution that was created to handle the payments eventually evolved into the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).... famous for briefly being the largest bank in the world and one of the largest casualties of the recent financial crisis, requiring a vast bailout from UK taxpayers....
- ctdonath 12y ago
  At this point, methinks there is not the top-down passion for unity that would stop secession. If those wanting out are sufficiently unified and intend to impose a new order by sheer will (a la "consent of the governed"), the central gov't will not have the will to maintain/restore status quo thru force. I actually expect some morning radio stations in the southwest USA will declare "it's time for Azltan's independence", millions will simultaneously just refuse to comply with existing sociopolitical infrastructure, and those in authority will simply have no idea what to do about it - or may even support it, given the developing tribalism. We'd lose about half the land of at least three states in the process. Individual states not having their own armed militia, they could not stop it (the "National Guard" troops of each state can, and would, be "called out" by the central gov't as a trump move for purposes to defuse their influence). Things would get very tense, but separation would ultimately be peaceful. Texas has long been considered to have some ill-understood legal standing to ease secession (being the only state to volunteer for annexation as a former independent country), but I don't see that actually happening. It's akin to an oft-angry spouse who frequently threatens divorce but never actually will.
m-i-l 12y ago
And similarly, whatever the result, Scotland can be proud to have pursued a peaceful approach, unlike the majority of both successful and unsuccessful independence movements in the past and in present times which have resorted to bloody terrorism and/or revolution. (No offence intended to a large number of the world's countries.)

andrewaylett 12y ago

I appreciate the politics may not impact many here, but I enjoyed the (by now fairly common, I suppose) design and the information being presented seems to me to be a good background to the current state of affairs.

claudius 12y ago
It’s not just politics, though, but also a fair bit of history, economics to a degree and that whole fuzzy area of “what is a nation?”. I found it a very interesting read after stumbling over it from the deep sea ‘mushrooms’ article. Thanks for submitting it! :)
Semaphor 12y ago
> but I enjoyed the (by now fairly common, I suppose) design The opposite for me, I had to use Clearly (restyling extension for easier reading) to remove all their distracting and annoying, erratically moving backgrounds (especially together with the semi transparent text background, if it was opaque at least). The article itself was a great read though.
- thedrbrian 12y ago
  On my iPad Air the text is massive(as with most "mobile" websites) and an inch on each side of the screen is wasted with empty space. Maybe I've got funny eyesight.
rlpb 12y ago
The designed seemed so bad to me that I skipped reading it. I don't appreciate having to scroll down pages just to see the beginning of the body text. I don't understand the reason for the giant font either, which means that I have to scroll far too much.

philh 12y ago

> For 15 years the Scottish Parliament has been a fiscally lopsided institution. The money comes from a block grant from the UK Treasury. Westminster decides how much tax we all pay and how much government there should be in relation to the economy but not how it’s spent. > You can see why there’s little room in the Scottish national discourse for a party that says “vote for us and we’ll cut your taxes; vote for us and we’ll make government smaller”. I'm not sure how this follows. Can someone clarify?

majc2 12y ago
Scotland's parliament does have tax varying powers but has never used them . So, it takes the block grant from the Westminster parliament and decides how to spend it through something called the Barnett formula. Scotland is essentially a socialist country (and socialist isn't a dirty word here). There is a sense of fair play and looking after the poorest in society - a party that would propose a tax cut for a smaller gov. wouldn't do well in the popular vote in Scotland. Does that help?
- __chrismc 12y ago
  It's worth pointing out that the only variance it can make under the existing powers is to _raise_ income taxes - this is why it's never been used. Doing so would be political suicide and see a population drain as those able to would quickly move "next door" to an England with lower taxes. The Barnett formula determines the size of the block grant, not the spending of it. The Scottish Government spends the grant according to its priorities. At the moment these include: free healthcare (including prescriptions), free higher education, and free care for the elderly.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    > free healthcare (including prescriptions), For people not in the UK: people in England pay for each item on a prescription. The charge is currently £8.05 per item. You can get discounts if you need multiple items. There are a bunch of exemptions - people with a thyroid problem for example - which mean that about 90% of items are free. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-charges-from-april-2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-charges-from-april-20...

2color 12y ago

I'm curious, what view does BBC generally express on the matter?

ownagefool 12y ago
The BBC is supposed to be neutral but, personally, I believe there is resonable evidence to suggest the majority of the UK media is bias towards the status quo. That said, since accusations of bias have arisen there has seen some fairly cutting questions pointed at the UK Govs lies on the matter from the BBC and others, and we've started to see a much more interesting and closer debate. I don't live in Scotland anymore though, so I can't say I know what things look like from within the country at the moment.
gambiting 12y ago
BBC cannot express any view on that matter. It's bipartisan and will only report facts.
- tankenmate 12y ago
  Actually it is not bipartisan; it is required to be neutral, regardless how how many political parties (or political / economic ideologies) there are.
  - gambiting 12y ago
    Alright, that's what I actually meant when I said bipartisan - that it does not support any parties by definition. I know, wrong word.
- vixin 12y ago
  That may be your belief but there are plenty of people who think otherwise. http://biasedbbc.org/ http://biasedbbc.org/
  - willthames 12y ago
    You can look at the tags to see the bias of biasedbbc. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would argue that if not pro-conservative, the BBC neglects many of the issues that would be detrimental to current government - the BBC completely ignored phone hacking, the privatisation of the NHS, among others. It's still probably significantly more neutral than almost any corporate controlled broadcaster though.

brortao 12y ago

It's really exciting to follow this referendum, even if purely from a democratic perspective (out of the last 68 years, Scotland has voted Conservative for 6 years, but has had Conservative governments for 38 of those years). The No campaign has a difficult job, because it's not easy to sell the status quo - but they've essentially resorted to fearmongering, and it looks like people are starting to see the lack of substance. I think that theweebluebook.com presents the argument for independence quite well.

gburnett 12y ago
It's even more interesting than you think. The Conservative Party do much better under Scotland's system of proportional representation than in Westminster. Compare these results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election_results_in_Scotland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_ele... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_ele...
- learnstats 12y ago
  It seems right that the Conservative Party should have representation in Scotland's politics, but it seems wrong that Scotland is ruled by them. The disproportionate Westminster system - where a reasonably sized body of Scottish Conservatives currently have 1 representative out of 304 in the London-based party - contributes to major underrepresentation of Scotland in the existing government.
  - adwf 12y ago
    > It seems right that the Conservative Party should have representation in Scotland's politics, but it seems wrong that Scotland is ruled by them. That's a bit like saying that you only believe in democracy when it's your own party that wins the election, otherwise you'll take your ball and go home. One thing to note is that prior to the current Conservative coalition, we had a huge Labour majority for 13 years that was largely Scottish. So the Scots were ruled by a party that they voted for. When we talk about independence, we're not talking in the same way as say, India for example. Where we had one nation that was immensely ethnically and culturally different, being ruled by people who had no interest except in what they could squeeze out of it. This is two countries that have far far more in common than they do apart. Not one country being consistently screwed by the other; the Empire and the Union was fantastic for Scotland, as the article states. So the argument here is - are the Scots so different from the rest of the UK that they need to be ruled separately? To a greater degree than now that is; they already have their own parliament to set most Scottish laws. NB: I'm pretty neutral on independence. I think it'll be a bureaucratic disaster if it happens, but equally, if it's what the Scots want then fair enough.

matthewmacleod 12y ago

This is a very good background on the wider causes of this referendum taking place – nice to see. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens to the UK post-referendum, regardless of what way the vote goes.

nmeofthestate 12y ago

In the latest opinion poll from the most No-friendly pollster[1] 'Yes' is ahead in all age groups apart from the over 60s, where No is way ahead. If there is a No vote it seems likely to have been won by the old. This backs up the narrative from this article that Britishness is dying out in Scotland (of course, pensioners have also been frightened by scary stories about their pensions, and tend to be more small-c conservative, so it's not entirely an identity thing) [1] YouGov. Different polling companies appear to have different systematic errors in their results, meaning that polls are spread fairly widely. This particular polling company has until recently been showing large leads for No. In their most recent poll the lead had been cut down to 6%, reflecting a feeling 'on the ground' that there's a genuine shift happening. Personally I am still totally unsure what result we'll get in two weeks (two weeks!)

pidg 12y ago
The SNP probably brought in voting for 16 and 17 year olds on the basis that it might counter the strong 'No' vote in the 60+ group. However, that group is fairly equally split (45% Yes/44% No). I reckon they underestimated how strongly popular culture, which is focused on London, influences the 16/17 age group.
- cstross 12y ago
  I will note that reducing the voting age to 16 in general elections is probably on the cards for the UK as a whole after the next general election: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21178379 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21178379
- willyt 12y ago
  Its a dangerous game though as young people are unpredictable. I'm trying to find a link to the source but I read recently that the far right Jorge Haider was elected in Austria in the first election after 16/17 year olds were given the vote and the youth vote was a strong factor in his success. Edit: Whoops this was meant to reply to cstross below as a general point about unpredictable youth voting intentions not the intentions of Scots youth in particular.
- 12y ago

imurray 12y ago

Here's a dump of some other insights into the referendum: Betfair's probability of a majority yes vote (NOT a poll of fraction who will vote yes) over time: http://uk.sportsiteexweb.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoChartAction.do?marketId=110033387&selectionId=5334892&logarithmic=true http://uk.sportsiteexweb.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoC... The University of Edinburgh has a guide to the debate: http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/guidetothedebate http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/guidetothedebate It also has a MOOC(!) https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/indyref/ https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/indyref/

chrisweekly 12y ago

Tangent to the Decision per se: that article is a really beautiful presentation, to my eyes. The implementation isn't perfect -- e.g., there's a bunch of low-hanging WPO fruit -- but on a good browser (Chrome 37 / OSX 10.9.4 / 1920x1200) and a fast connection, the UX is fantastic. IMHO. :)

PaulRobinson 12y ago

The worst outcome is increasingly looking like what will actually materialise: a narrow margin. It doesn't matter who wins, if either side does not win with at least 60% of the electorate, it's going to undermine their position going forward. We could see Referendum v2.0 in 2-10 years, quite easily. Nobody on either side wants that, but it's starting to feel inevitable.

fidotron 12y ago
Indeed. I can't see the rest of the country being happy with a limbo that ends up giving Scotland ever more powers in order to prevent a by then meaningless "No" in the next round while they all live in statusquoville. Combined with the apparent rise of UKIP the situation is all looking to be a bit of a mess. The SNP may have successfully engineered the divisive conditions that the Parti Quebecois never quite managed, with the PQ example being that the uncertainty is almost more damaging than what is being debated.