Scotland and the referendum on independence

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Since there doesn't seem to be a dedicated thread for this, and some comment has been made on this in the 'Ukraine' thread, I'm starting a new thread here on the upcoming referendum on Scottish independence (which takes place on 18 September, in 12 days time). I'm kicking off with a quote from Arshad:

The LRB has good recent article on this:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n17/lrb-scotla ... referendum

That is less an article and more a compendium of short pieces by various people giving their views (it is well worth reading).

Paul McKeown also commented, talking about how some hearken back to the glories of Empire.

A very good BBC article I read recently touched on that:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/ ... index.html

It comes across as a very good analysis of why the political landscape changed so much over the last 70 or so years.

[Paul McKeown]

To be fair, Chris, I said that only a few hearkened for the "glories of Empire".

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Yeah, sorry, Paul. I mentioned that because I wanted to say something on that, and then forgot what exactly I was going to say (something roughly along the lines of saying that reading about aspects of the history of Scotland in the Union and particularly within the British Empire gave me a greater appreciation of that history, something that you don't really get from ordinary English school education). What you (Paul) said was more than just that, and I stripped all the context away.

I'm hoping that some of what others have been saying in various threads will get ported over here, or repeated here. I just clicked over to the BBC News website, and I only just now saw the headline with the blurb saying that "a poll suggests [the 'Yes' campaign' has taken the lead for the first time". Could be an interesting 12 days (the tennis results were more shocking, though )

[John McKenna]

Good idea, Chris, because although there are some parallels, that certainly bear comparison, between the events taking place in Ukraine-Russia and Scotland-UK now. They are really quite separate matters when you go into detail. Better to avoid mixing them too much.

By the way, rumour has it that a poll in Scotland has the Yes campaign in the lead for the first time.

Rumour also has it that an unnamed Minister has promised more sweetners to come shortly to keep Scotland attached and if it disengages border posts (in a rebuilt Hadrian's Wall?)

[John McKenna]

The quotes that follow are from the 'Ukraine' thread -

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the King.

Was this ever really a part of the National Anthem, or was it just a piece of 18th century music-hall japery, rather like the way in which nowadays the lyrics of popular songs are adapted or rewritten in hilarious fashion to make fun of political or sporting figures of the wrong persuasion?

The latter. They stopped being sung as part of the song long before it actually became the official national anthem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_ ... nal_verses

Jack, I think you and Alistair are letting the Wade verse off on a technicality -

It gets better...

He was replaced as Commander-in Chief by Prince William, Duke of Cumberland who literally destroyed the Stuart forces at the Battle of Culloden in 1746 by ordering his troops to show no quarter to any surviving Jacobite rebels.

In the same year Handel wrote the oratorio Judas Maccabaeus to celebrate the victory and compliment the Duke on his return from Scotland.

Perhaps the chorus will be sung when Darling returns to London if he also wins -

See, the conqu'ring hero comes!
Sound the trumpets, beat the drums.
Sports prepare, the laurel bring,
Songs of triumph to him sing.

It gets better...

It does? I'm afraid you've lost me here.

Could be because of my warped sense of irony - as the deeds got worse the music got better.

As you pointed out, the jingoistic verse to the popular song God Save the King of circa 1745, was prompted by the relatively staid exploits of General Wade. That ditty must surely pale into insignificance when compared to a magnificent Handel oratorio, composed in 1746 to celebrate the return of "Butcher" Cumberland - as he was called by his Tory opponents! (Shudder to think what he was called in the Highlands.)

The music got bigger, better and appropriately reached Old Testament proportions to commemorate deeds that the New Testament could never countenance. Surely that speaks volumes about the nature of the early Union.

Of course, it mellowed as time went on but has its time run out?

[Geoff Chandler]

AT one time, not all that long ago, you could have got odds of 150-1 at the bookies
for a YES vote. Now it's down to 3-1.

Possibily a lot of 'NO' voters are saying 'YES' at the polling becuase saying 'NO'
tends to attract a mass of abuse from the more rabid section of 'YES' voters.

Although I have never voted in the past I'll be voting 'YES' because Independance sounds like a laugh.
If it turns out 'NO' then I won't be too upset. Working class people get screwed no matter who runs things.

[Gordon Cadden]

Will not be such a bundle of laughs when we start charging a commission for exchanging those Scottish bank notes, and leave you with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I believe that a "YES" vote is a real possibility, because of possible lethargy from the "NO" voters, who cannot give David Cameron their full support, and have little interest in having Ed Milliband as their Leader, for the next 5 years.
Jonathan Rowson has declared that he will vote "YES", and I believe that most chess players North of the border, will follow suit.

[Alistair Campbell]

Will not be such a bundle of laughs when we start charging a commission for exchanging those Scottish bank notes, and leave you with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I believe that a "YES" vote is a real possibility, because of possible lethargy from the "NO" voters, who cannot give David Cameron their full support, and have little interest in having Ed Milliband as their Leader, for the next 5 years.
Jonathan Rowson has declared that he will vote "YES", and I believe that most chess players North of the border, will follow suit.

Just a quick response.

We don't know what currency we would be using. Westminster is suggesting a Currency Union won't happen. Will we have sterlingisation, the Euro, or something else? (The bawbee?)

Why would we be left with RBS? Not LBG or the Clydesdale?

I don't believe JR has a vote in the referendum. He has been campaigning for Yes with all the zeal of a recent convert, however.

Have you any evidence for how Scottish resident chess players will vote?

[Gordon Cadden]

Will not be such a bundle of laughs when we start charging a commission for exchanging those Scottish bank notes, and leave you with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I believe that a "YES" vote is a real possibility, because of possible lethargy from the "NO" voters, who cannot give David Cameron their full support, and have little interest in having Ed Milliband as their Leader, for the next 5 years.
Jonathan Rowson has declared that he will vote "YES", and I believe that most chess players North of the border, will follow suit.

Just a quick response.

We don't know what currency we would be using. Westminster is suggesting a Currency Union won't happen. Will we have sterlingisation, the Euro, or something else? (The bawbee?)

Why would we be left with RBS? Not LBG or the Clydesdale?

I don't believe JR has a vote in the referendum. He has been campaigning for Yes with all the zeal of a recent convert, however.

Have you any evidence for how Scottish resident chess players will vote?

No hard evidence which way Scottish chess players will vote, just a canny feel. I was thinking of debt laden RBS. The Chancellor George Osborne has declared that there will not be a currency union.
Scottish born Jonathan Rowson has declared his support for the "YES" vote. His employment makes it necessary for him to live in London, so as you say, he may not be able to vote.

[NickFaulks]

It has been suggested that this post should have appeared here, rather than on the Ukraine thread. That does seem sensible.

Paul McKeown wrote:

"then his further expressed wish to cast Scotland loose would certainly not happen"

I replied:

"Please read my post again, or perhaps properly for the first time. I expressed no such wish. I merely suggested that any decision to split the UK in two should involve both halves, not just one. If you are so confident that your own view would prevail ( and you may well be right, I don't know ), then why does the idea cause you such consternation?
Of course I do not ignore Wales and Northern Ireland - particularly the latter, which has been treated abominably over the years. However, they both do now enjoy some protection against Westminster which England lacks."

[Matt Mackenzie]

AT one time, not all that long ago, you could have got odds of 150-1 at the bookies
for a YES vote. Now it's down to 3-1.

Possibily a lot of 'NO' voters are saying 'YES' at the polling becuase saying 'NO'
tends to attract a mass of abuse from the more rabid section of 'YES' voters.

Although I have never voted in the past I'll be voting 'YES' because Independance sounds like a laugh.
If it turns out 'NO' then I won't be too upset. Working class people get screwed no matter who runs things.

Would be interested in a citation there - sounds like urban myth to me

(for comparison, the LibDems are "only" 100/1 to win the Clacton byelection - even though they have just 2% support in both the polls taken there)

[NickFaulks]

I've been following this on Betfair. Best odds where any real business has been done are 8/1

http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politic ... Id=5334892

[NickFaulks]

Reply to Matt Mackenzie, who continues to post about this on the Ukraine thread.

Brown and Darling were able to impose policies on England from which their own constituents were substantially exempt. Irrespective of the merits of those policies, I just don't see how that can be constitutionally proper.

[Matt Mackenzie]

It is "constitutionally proper" until the Westminster parliament decides otherwise, which it has not.

"English only votes for English laws" is a nice slogan which is rather more difficult to put into practice.

(and let's not forget Labour had a majority of English MPs *alone* throughout the 1997-2010 period)

[NickFaulks]

"English only votes for English laws" is a nice slogan which is rather more difficult to put into practice.

I don't see why it would be impossible for this principle to apply to England to the same extent that it applies to Scotland.