A big problem for the No campaign is that the status quo isn’t exciting, but independence is.
I agree with much of your post. But your highlighted part im not so sure of. I believe there is a strong correlation between oil revenue and the rise of the Scottish independence movement. Assuming a further referendum is at least two decades away this referendum would take place at a time when Scottish oil revenue is falling substantially. I think this fall in revenue would take the wind out of the sails of at least some of the Scottish Independence movement.
Sure, if it’s two decades between referendums then the facts on the ground will be wholly different. But I think if there’s a 52/48 No vote then the next referendum will come round sooner - maybe in 5 years. Independence would be a live issue in a way that it simply hasn’t been up till now. Pollsters would continue to track it and at some point you’d see a majority for it. It wouldn’t be hard to see a new referendum being triggered by, say, a 2015 Tory win and subsequent Brexit debate. The SNP - and their newly active base - would be able to campaign on the missed opportunity and the counterfactual of where Scotland could be now.
And I can easily see a second referendum, in those circumstances, being 50.5/49.5 Yes. Which is the end of the matter.
The previous Scottish Independence referendum was in 1979. The result was a very close run thing. In fact the Yes vote actually won with a wafer thin majority. The problem being that a too small percentage of people actually voted. A minimum of 40% of the registered electorate had to vote in favour. This minimum of 40% of all voters was not met. It was all a very controversial result. Despite this another referendum on independence was put off for 35 years. I would therefore expect a further referendum to be at least closer to 35 years away than only 5 years.
That was devolution, not the bigger deal of independence, but it’s a fair point.
However, in the aftermath of the “lost” vote, the SNP basically tore itself part and the nascent protest campaign got nowhere. It wasn’t till the 90s that they were anything resembling a political force again and it still took an idealistic New Labour government (esp. Donald Dewar) to push for devolution. (The general collapse of the left during the Thatcher years is a background to all this, of course). And if that happens this time round, then sure - it’ll be decades to the next referendum. But the SNP are better organised now, and in power. I don’t see the head of steam they’re building up fading away this time round.
I cant believe my own idiocy! For some reason I always believed the 79 vote was for Independence. I dont know why I could have been so wrong.
I agree with you about the SNP. They are far better lead today than they were in the 70’s or 80’s. As much as I dislike Salmond he is a very effective politician. A lot will depend on how the SNP themselves react to defeat. I suspect like most politicians they enjoy power too much to throw it all away. They will remain effective no matter what the referendum result.
Did you think the same about the 1997 referendum?
No. Im old enough to remember the 97 referendum at first hand.
NYT article on the campaign: Scots Are Divided Over Independence, and Its Economic Costs - The New York Times
How the celebs are lining up on the Scottish independence vote: Reading the Future of Scotland in the Stars - The New York Times
The more I’ve followed this, the less respect I’ve held for the Yes side. As far as I can tell it’s a lot like Quebec, where the pro-independence supporters consist of (a) corrupt society elites who want to be even bigger fishes in a small pond, and (b) people who live in a Dungeons and Dragons fantasy world who weep over centuries-old battles, imagined injustices by the English, and money supposedly owed to them (complete with confusing hand made calculations)
This is of course a wild generalisation.
The Yes camp (of which I am a member) is a broad church encompassing nearly half the electorate who have come to an initial conclusion. Are all these people “corrupt society elites” or “Dungeons and Dragons” fantasists.
Try using a little common sense when commenting on matters beyond your ken.
btw to prove the point, I am a retired public servant- a nurse, and English born, and totally opposed to petty faux nationalism. How’s that for being outside your labelling?
If California left the USA, would the United States no longer be the United States?
(admittedly, there’d still be 49 states; the UK’s situation would be different.
I think Malden’s point is that the only reason we are called the United Kingdom is because of the Act of Union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England back in mumble mumble 1707?
However, times have moved on and I personally feel perfectly comfortable with the name the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, being that a) we are a Kingdom and b) we are a union of nations.
However, I guess there’s no reason why we should change just because Scotland leaves us. We could redefine the term Great Britain to be the political entity that is England and Wales. Why not?
I vote for “the United Kingdom of NIWE” (pronounced “nee-way”).
ETA: Well, that is unless the Scots say “nee way” first.
It’s my experience that a significant number are the latter, and by their very nature they are heard more. I am as yet undecided and the abuse they inflict does not help the Yes cause.
The union of 1707 created the Kingdom of Great Britain. It wasn’t called the United Kingdom until the union of Great Britain and Ireland. It’s still the United Kingdom even though the majority of Ireland left, so why wouldn’t it stay the UK if a minority of Great Britain also left?
I think it would, and of course Parliament can choose to call the realm whatever it wishes.
Eight other European separatist movements that are keeping an eye on the Scottish vote: Scottish independence: Europeans with an eye on Edinburgh - BBC News
What do you consider a considerable number? How do you assess whether they are dungeon and dragon like? What are your criteria?
Are you saying any more than "I don’t like ‘Yes’ voters?
I can somewhat identify with what Quartz is saying. From outside Scotland, the wackier opinions are the most noticeable - those who imagine England conquered Scotland, those who think they’re Celts, some seem to think Braveheart is a documentary, plenty who just have an unreasonable animosity towards England (which seems relatively common). I don’t think they’re the majority, but that’s not because the majority of voices I hear are reasonable, it’s because such foolishness can surely not be so prevalent.