saintbletch

I'm not so sure, Verbal. I agree with your base analysis, but I think mobilising "stay" voters will be the challenge. Watching the Scottish referendum I was intrigued from afar to see what impact "passion" would have, and whether it would overcome the fear of the obvious leap into the economic unknown. With a month or so to go I felt that the positivity and passion for the Yes vote might start to sway it their way. Instead, it became clear that there was passion on both side of the debate. As you suggest, the No "passion" might actually have started as fear, but there was also a sense that Better Together was standing up for and protecting something important and almost tangible; identity and nationhood. The problem I have in guessing the result of a European referendum is that I don't see anywhere near the passion on the "stay" side of the argument as I do on the "leave". I also don't see a widely held feeling of being European; such that the threatened loss of this status would swell passion in those able to vote. Looking at the fear, I got the sense that in Scotland many on the No side cared less about identity, but instead felt it was their duty to stop the ego of one man from making an economic basket case of their country. Independence for many was a decision that had a potentially apocalyptical outcome. That is fear on a biblical level. This same level of fear isn't there with the European question to anywhere near the same degree. The impact of the answer to the European question is less polarised; it's less likely to have the same CTRL+ALT+DEL impact as the Scottish question. I feel that many will sense that we will be better one way or the other, but that either way we'll still be here, still exist and won't need the sort of economic CPR that a post-Yes Scotland might have done. So without the emotional pull of the potential loss of identity, it will, as you say come down to playing on the fear of economic realities, and then I wonder if the "stay" vote will simply succomb to the apathy we see every 4 or 5 years. *It goes without saying that the framing of the question will be critical, as will the restrictions that govern enfranchising.

The truth is of course that they are both playing party politics. Not wanting to play the blame game, but Cameron did link the Scottish vow with changes to England-only voting. I'm sure he'd say that this is a clarification of the mechanics of the vow he made. We all know that he is doing this because of the issues his own party has with ever-greater powers for the Scots, as well as obviously attempting to mortally wound the Labour movement in England. Miliband is of course doing his fair share of ****ting on the Scottish people by threatening to withdraw support for the vow (on Cameron's terms), whilst he squirms around looking for justification for his vested interest in not answering the West Lothian question. Personally, I can't see how a Scottish MP can legitimately vote on English issues when English MPs cannot alter corresponding policy in Scotland. It is that simple.... ...But the change to the Westminster voting dynamic is so significant that I can't accept this change during the term of a sitting parliament. It feels significant enough to be part of a general election process or perhaps a wider debating platform. That said, I think it might offer the sort of shakeup that would force Labour or perhaps an alternative movement to become a credible opposition. The downside would be the potential for several further-to-the-right governments before a natural rebalancing.

Agreed. Cameron has put Miliband in a very difficult position. I can't see an easy way out for him. I think the resurgence of Brown, and his proclamation that he will ensure promises are kept, might have been a clever move. Brown will now be able to interpret the delays in Westminster on behalf of the Scottish people. He will be able to cast the Tory party as the villain of the piece. Whether that will be enough is questionable. I can see Labour on the outskirts of politics for a long time unless they play this well. Then again, I also feel our political system is long overdue a shake-up. It's just that the price of successive right of centre parties out-doing each other for the next 3 election cycles doesn't sound that great.

Yep, I agree with most of that. Scotland wasn't tricked in to voting No across the board. My "****ed over by Westminster" was in the post-referendum, time-to-deliver-on-the-vow sense. And I took Salmond's 'tricked' comment in the same context. He would obviously also like to have a scapegoat for the result, but as things stand the vow doesn't look like being kept in the timescales that Cameron outlined, or that Brown went on to be more specific about.

Yep, I'd agree with that - unless we're presented with some unforseen, unholy and thankfully completely unlikely situation where UKIP were to be thrown into coalition with the Tories at the next election. But the timetable will have changed dramatically from what was generally communicated in the late stages of the campaign.

I agree with your analysis of the impact CB Fry - as shown in the poll analysis I posted earlier, but Scotland has surely once again been ****ed over by Westminster politicking. No?

Well in a future Scotland with devolved tax raising powers, I guess your average man in the street might have another line on his payslip showing ScotTax or similar. It may also cost them more to fill up with petrol, or file a corporation tax return. Equally it may cost him less to educate his children and look after elderly relatives. As a result of these different tax policies, Scotland might be a socially fairer place - or equally it might be a less fair place depending on the ruling party and your point of view.

More analysis from the poll below.

Would this statement mean that you're happy for them contribute to society through taxation, but not vote on how any tax they pay is spent? I'm not sure about the figures anyway (see below), but anything that engages 16 years olds in the voting process can only be a good thing in my opinion. I thought the same BTT, and I'd also heard anecdotally that the "youth" vote was No, so I went to try to find the figures. I couldn't find the results represented in the same way as they are shown in the "17% of 16-17 year olds..." chart below, but I think I found the complete study from where they were extracted. It's certainly from the same polling 'organisation' - Lord Ashcroft Polls. *This poll was taken on the 18th and 19th September with a sample of 2047 adults who voted in the referendum (method: 831 online, 1216 telephone). It looks like it is the same data set as the result below, except that the data for the 16-24 year old category has been broken out into two categories - 16-17 (a two year span) and 18-24 (a 6 year span). The problem with this is that the sample counts are very low for the bottom two ranges: * Taken from the raw data analysis here. That 16-24 (8 year span) category has a sample size of 98, each of the other (10 year span) categories has between 263 and 488 responses. Or put another way, the headline "71% of 16-17 year olds vote Yes" which is the takeaway from the chart that ART posted, really means that "10 young people voted Yes from a sample of 2047". I'm sure statisticians would be better placed to comment on the rigour of such small sample size, but to my eye that seems too low to reach any representative conclusion. I suppose that these age group ratios may be representative of the age groups that voted across the referendum. i.e. ~7 people out of every 1000 that voted were in the age range 16-17. If not then it would perhaps show the folly of taking data visualisations at face value. Finally, to your point of the apparent blip in the 25-34 range, if you reassemble the data as 16-24 you do get a smoothing of the Yes vote trend, but interestingly you still see an unusual spike in the 25-34 year old category. These figures also do not support what I thought I'd heard - that the youth vote was No.

Salmond announces decision to stand down.

Early days on that front I'd say, but yes I'd acknowledge that I didn't see this move coming, or rather I hadn't appreciated its potential significance in helping Cameron to his feet. But... Just heard an interesting interview with Boris on 5 Live a moment ago. Said some provocative things including (para.): "I gave no such vow..." He then went on to exhibit one of his trademark, coreographed dumb-plays, where he used a tandem as a metaphor suggesting that Scottish and English devolution should go together, one wheel after the other like a tandem, before asking how many wheels a tandem had "It's three isn't it?". The consensus was that Boris might be suggesting that if there were a change of leader in the Tory party, and that if he were to be that leader, then he wouldn't be bound by any vow. The tandem bit at the end was classic Johnson so he could dismiss his earlier remark as the prattlings of a bumbling fool. I'm not so sure... So Dave might be able to fight off some of the bastards outside the tent, but he better check that Boris is stood next to him on the inside first.

Because in order to secure that result, funding and further autonomous powers have been promised to devolved Scotland? These powers will re-raise the West Lothian issue, and without further recognition of England as a separate nation, I'm sure that the English electorate will feel it's unfair. Cameron will have to appease the unrest in his party, and presumably counter the undoubted accusations from UKIP that the Tories have mollified the Scots at the expense of the English. Both major parties are now stating that England should be treated as a separate case, so I can't see anything but wider constitutional change; perhaps even down at the city/county level.

Yes, good point. I'm guessing that if a Westminster vote relates to issues that are completely; fiscally, legislatively or geographically English, then the other nations of the Union will not be able to vote. The same would be true if that region already has separately devolved powers relating to the issue. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out, because the Tories have certainly put Labour in a difficult position, and as was said below if you add UKIP into the mix, it's really spiced things up nicely.

Selfishly, this is the best result for the UK. Months of uncertainty wouldn't have been good. But I can't help feel for the Yes voters, and when 40 odd percent of the population are opposed to the other 50 odd percent on something so fundamental, then it will surely create tensions and issues for years to come. Yes BTT, if I were feeling particularly generous this morning I might say that team Cameron might just have salvaged something from what at the time looked like an embarrassing u-turn to offer a late-in-the-day Devo-max. Forcing through an English-only vote on English-only issues would be very damaging for Labour. If I were feeling incredibly generous, I might wonder if Dave and his strategist foresaw this when he corralled the other two nodding dog leaders to vow to give Devo-max powers. It would be quite a sop to Tories annoyed at more powers for Scotland, if Dave could ensure that Labour lost the power of its Scottish MPs to vote in domestic English issues. Has Dave played a blinder here? How would Miliband and co vote on "English devolution" - Turkeys and Xmas and all that?

Exactly so.

Brown is better than Darling, but being better than Darling isn't necessarily a ringing endorsement. He's more statesmanlike, but otherwise I think Brown is a shocking speaker. I think the only thing that could sway the vote to Yes, would be complacency from the No vote. A Yes vote, being a positive vote for change where the voter has created an image of a better Scotland in their mind, would likely stand up better to voter apathy. The mindset of some No voters will be for the status quo, and that's less of an emotional driver to force someone to action. "I must make sure I vote so that things stay exactly the same" Having said all of that, from what I've read voter apathy won't be a factor.

It's a good question scotty - how would the party leaders explain a volte-face on the position of not sharing the currency with an independent Scotland? I think the Bank of England would play a role here. I could see the Prime Minister (whoever that might be) talking about taking advice from the BoE, and that because the Scots have made such a mess of their economy, and because our economies are so closely interrelated, that we have no choice but to extend the currency to them - perhaps it would be sold as a temporary measure. Salmond would also have his own credibility issues by the way - in accepting restrictions on their tax and spending plans. I do agree that if Cameron carried out the move then he would be damaged goods, but if there is a Yes vote then Cameron surely is on borrowed time anyway. There's an argument that his Devo-max offer may make him damaged goods in the event of a No vote. An incoming PM, especially if it were to be a from different party would have less trouble accepting the advice of the BoE, because as usual they could just blame it on the mishandling of the last government.

You're right. Why would we underwrite an independent Scottish economy without the control? We wouldn't and shouldn't. But I'm not suggesting that. As I said in an earlier post, a wider currency union (BoE being Scotland's central bank) would have to come at the cost of controls on an independent Scotland's expenditure and taxation. The Eurozone has taught us this. This isn't what Salmond is publicly stating he wants, and it's not what Yes voters will be expecting, but I think it's a natural conclusion given the other factors you list and I listed in previous posts. And what's more I think Salmond knows this and sees it as a safe haven for the independent Scotland to find its feet. Either way Salmond has played a blinder (in a Francis Urquhart/Frank Underwood sort-of-a-way).

That's one scenario, but I'm suggesting that some greater currency union would have to exist given a Yes vote. This might be the backing of a central bank (BoE) for an independant Scotland for example, but all of the tradeoffs you list (and more) would probably mean that this wasn't what the Yes voters were expecting. I think Salmond knows this, and I think he's sees independence in two stages. Firstly stability through sovereign independence with some degree of economic union, and then secondly financial independence.

Yes, in some way, it seems unavoidable to me. But I don't think either side would get exactly what they want from such an arrangement. An independent Scotland would need to tie its economy closely to that of rUK, which reduces its taxation and expenditure freedom - two of the key tenets of the Yes movement's campaign. This isn't ideal, but it would give a post-independence Scotland time to stabilise before making a later move (Euro / Scottish Dollar). Regarding the political suicide, this would obviously only happen if there is a Yes vote, and whilst I wouldn't rule that out, I'm leaning towards a No as the outcome. If there were to be a Yes vote, then I think history would show that Cameron started to unwittingly tie the noose when he agreed to the referendum on Salmond's terms. That he would go on to place his neck in the noose and jump, would be simply the conclusion of that process. He, or perhaps his successor would share the pound because the alternative or a crippled Scotland would badly impact rUK. In fairness to Cameron, I don't think anyone thought it would be as close, or that the Better Together team would have done such a poor job.

This seems a little naive to me. You're right that there is every reason to try to get the best deal for rUK, but I think that might also be to give an independent Scotland some or most of what it wants. The two things are in tension; pain for an independent Scotland would translate to pain for rUK.

That's certainly one view. I follow the logic, and you may very well be right. However, the thought that uncertainty over a newly independent Scotland's future only hurts 'them' and not 'us', doesn't seem likely. I can't see a way that Cameron could come out of a Yes vote in a positive enough light to retain his position. Let's say that Cameron plays hardball as you suggest, and let's say that Salmond plays hardball too. Scotland would likely become a pariah in the financial markets, paying junk-status levels of interest to secure itself the cash it would need to exist. So would Cameron be laughing at the poor Scots, and playing to the Tory-voting crowd as you suggest? Well he might try, but rUK at this time would not be immune. If Scotland were to be forced to operate using a shadow-pound without the backing of a central bank, then Salmond would surely turn his back on Scotland's share of the debt that the current UK has amassed. Or in effect, the rUK would have assumed greater net debt. Add to that, or probably more accurately subtract from that the reduced exchequer revenue as our second biggest trading partner (Salmond's figures so I don't know the accuracy) would be a basket case, and taxation on North Sea oil and Scottish corporations would have disappeared. If Scotland were so damaged by these actions, what would happen to the Scottish workforce? Would they look from the terrible situation in the north to the relative stability in the south and respect their newly found and polished border? I doubt it. They would instead push south for jobs or benefits - albeit without EU or UK citizenship. What would happen to our job market in such a situation? What pressure would it put on social services, policing, housing and the health system? Ask yourself how the financial markets would treat rUK in such a situation? So whilst you may be right, to my mind if Cameron did choose to publicly debag Salmond and flush his head down the water closet for having the temerity to demonstrate the will of the people of Scotland (albeit a will that was formed without exposure to the full truth as you've said), then it would surely be nothing more than pyrrhic pride, because rUK would have become significantly destabilised from the same hardball-stance. If you're right then Cameron would have to judge that kicking the Scots for the pleasure of his party and those likely to return him to power, would be more important than the significant destabilisation of rUK. Either way, to my mind if that scenario did pan out, then Cameron wouldn't survive as he would have broken up the Union and reversed much of the "good" he's achieved in putting the country on a more stable financial footing. Personally I think that Salmond's poker-player reading of the situation is spot on. His bet is 3 months (arbitrary figure) of uncertainty for a fledgling country that is riding the can-do, positive emotion of independence would be manageable. Whereas 3 months of uncertainty for rUK would be enough to make 'us' see that pragmatism > pay-back. It's a big bet, but Salmond has played it, has gone all-in, and hasn't blinked. If we get Yes, we'll find out who's been bluffing.

This is true papster, but whilst I don't usually turn to George Galloway for calming advice, he did point out that the party that drives independence in these situations usually (he said always) designs the constitution. One concern would be that something in the constitution might make it difficult to unseat the incumbent.

Kiss me, Halo. Sorry, that's not right. It's another deathbed quote I was after. Et tu, Halo?

Oh, very mature. Do you really have a such a low opinion of your fellow Muppets? I happen to know that the average Muppet is above petty, football tribalism. They're looking at you now and thinking vote Bletch just how small-minded and desperate you're looking. Yes, I was born in an area where most of my peers supported Portsmouth. And it is true that I, unlike many posters on here, can actually claim "My old man said be a Pompey fan...". That I turned away from the preordained path and took the one less trod is all that matters. (Oh, I guess it's also important that I was already a Liverpool fan at the time). I mean, just because you were born in Scotchland, it doesn't mean that Submariner-Man from Camp Den can ostracise you - simply because your skin is translucent, you have red hair and every time you walk you make a noise like the off-cam overrun from a bagpipes. I wouldn't stoop so low as to cast you in such a caricatured way. I urge all other voters to vote Bletch and ignore the fact that your ancestors vandalised the goal posts at Wembley, and that whenever Scotchland plays England you get a horrible conflicted pain in your stomach, and whatever the result you keep your head down on here for a couple of days. Toke's a Scotch.