The Polls do seem to be saying that but im calling the Polls bullcrap. Support for independence will not have significantly changed since Sept. People may tell pollsters one thing and do another once they get to the polling station. I can as good as guarantee that if another referendum was held tomorrow the results would not be as close as 54- 46. The majority of NO voters seem to have voted No due to the economic uncertainty of Independence. With every $10 a barrel the price of oil goes down the Yes vote will correspondingly decline a percentage point or two.
One thing you can take to the bank is the near impossibility of Scottish independence happening whilst oil prices are so low.
For me, this underlines why any independence referendum should require a supermajority to succeed.
For something this important and with such widespread ramifications, yet with so many details still up in the air, it should be established that support is great enough to ensure that it won’t shift the other way once hard policy has to be set or if the economic winds shift a bit.
But surely that cuts both ways? Is there not an equal case for saying that support for remaining within the UK is great enough to ensure that it won’t shift the other way “once hard policy as to be set or if the economic winds shift a bit”?
In a sense, this thread is evidence of the problem. When, late in the day, it became apparent that a “yes” vote was a real possiblity in the recent referendum, unionist politicians made a variety of statements and promises which boiled down to “we recognise that the degree of support for independence is evidence of dissatisfaction with the current relationship of Scotland to the rest of the UK; the status quo is not an option; if there is a “no” vote we will review matters after the referendum to address these concerns and improve the position of Scotland within the UK; more details to follow”. And now, entirely predictably, some are saying that the “no” vote was secured by raising expectations which are not going to be met. Should the “no” vote have been able to carry the day on the basis of a slim majority which might easily evaporate in these circumstances?
Your logic is faulty. Prior to September the polls never showed the two sides as close- NO was always a good 6-10 points ahead of YES. In the last weeks the polls tightened but the poll of polls never showed YES in the lead, with only two polls suggesting a 1-2 point lead.
The recent polls have shown that there is a 55-65 percent support for Independence- something the polls have NEVER shown before. And they show massive support for considerably more devolution than has been delivered by the Smith commission.
It will be interesting to monitor this change in public opinion over the next year.
The history of the Super Majority in the devolution poll in 1979 makes this an impossibility politically. It would stir up anti-English fervour and lead to an increased vote for Independence.
There is quite a division between the general English view of the Union and that of mosts Scots whether Nationalists or Unionists.
The Scottish view is that the Union is the union of two historic nation states with their own culture, law and politics. It is assumed that that which can be put into a union can be removed if the people disagree.
The English view is that the Union makes us one nation state with two nationalities and that devolution or independence is an affront to the idea of Britishness and the British State.
If Scotland were a mere subsidiary part of a single nation state, then a super majority might be reasonable, but given the history a beliefs of the Scottish people, it would be seen, as last time, as an affront to the sovereign right of the people to determine how they are governed.
Indeed, there’s no possible way of calling my bluff, as a currency union between an independent Scotland and rUK would never happen in a million years.
You cannot seriously be comparing polls in the run up to an actual referendum with other polls that are nothing more than idle speculation. Surely, the reasons why polling before a referendum and polling when no referendum is imminent may be different are painfully obvious to you?
The polls prior to the referendum being called were usually about 30 YES 70 NO. Thus idle speculation in 2009 differs considerably from idle speculation now.
The interesting poll will be one that asks whether the Scottish people desire a further referendum. The fact that SNP membership has increased fivefold since the referendum suggests a sea change.
And in the opinion of every man who could possibly be Chancellor of the Exchequer in the foreseeable future, in the thinly disguised opinion of the current Head of the Bank of England, and in the massive levels of public opposition in the rest of the UK to any currency sharing deal. Forget all of those parts, did you?
If you’re so against the Union, why are you insisting on trying to keep so much of it in a prospective independent Scotland? It’s almost as if you have no faith in Scotland to actually run its own affairs like hundreds of other independent nations. Why insist on keeping another country’s currency? It’s just weird.
I am not suggesting that it will be easy to maintain some sort of currency union, merely that your simplistic view of “just say no” is part scaremongering propaganda and part whistling in the dark.
It is not surprising that you make this error as you demonstrably have problems of comprehension ( remember your accusation of lying which was shown to be an error of comprehension on your part). This problem leads you into the schoolboy error of erecting straw man arguments to make it seem easy to prove that your simple opinions are facts in the real world.
If and when Scotland votes for independence, both parties will act to ensure that the transition damages neither of the nations nor third parties by ensuring that whatever goal is set, it will be reached with minimal financial disruption.
Such separation could easily take place piecemeal over a number of years allowing for gradual separation rather than a single big bang event. As I have said before, I can see shared financial structure to be balanced against the length of lease allowed for Coulport and Faslane.
Why would such a lease ever be needed? Faslane and Coulport would be given to the UK as Sovereign Base Territory in exchange for a population share of British oil.
“British Oil” after separation would be divided according to International Law- either by agreement or by decision of the court at the Hague. All oil in Scottish territorial waters would belong to Scotland; the only dispute is exactly what the angle of the line going North East from Berwick should be and this concerns only a few percent of remaining oil stocks. It is essentially a non issue and not up for any meaningful negotiation.
Exactly, by agreement, and here International Law is largely irrelevant. Scotland will agree to taking a population share of the oil in exchange for assigning Coulport and Faslane as Sovereign Base Territory. Isn’t that what I said? I’m not sure what The Hague has to do with this as the agreement will be between the UK and Scottish governments. Scotland wouldn’t want a costly, time-intensive court case at The Hague whilst all its business flees South to a more stable economy (see Quebec).
Incidentally, what are Scottish territorial waters? Isn’t that exactly what the negotiations are intended to define? Most of the oil lies on the UKCS, which is split by joint treaty between the UK, Norwegian and Danish governments into zones. Scotland is not a party to this treaty. If Scotland wishes to obtain a share of the oil situated in British waters, then it will naturally be something that will be discussed in any separation agreements and will be something that Scotland will have to make major concessions to obtain.
I’m not sure why you think that Scotland has an automatic “right” to the possessions of the UK state, such as embassies, parts of the armed forces, and yes, even the currency, but the UK state does not have an automatic right to oil and other resources that are managed and divided by mutual treaty that it, and only it, not Scotland, is a party to. Seems fair enough to me: if you’re taking a population share of the army, and expecting a currency union, then we’ll take a population share of the oil. No?
In international relations, the will of the bigger party usually goes, especially so when they have a commanding negotiating position like that of rUK. I’m sure any hard-nosed negotiation with the British state over how to split oil and other joint possessions will stand a newly independent Scotland in good stead in any future negotiations with other, potentially more hostile, governments.
It’s not just the Scottish that can play hardball.
Pjen’s go-to argument of last resort whenever someone here points out the Nats’ expectations are assuming rUK will just bend over and take it is to claim it’s ‘scaremongering’, it seems.
But THE VOW! Haven’t you heard about THE VOW! Gordon Brown promised stuff that he was in no position to promise and it should have been implemented overnight!
The UK has agreed that should Scotland decide to become independent, then it should be so. This was agreed in the Westminster agreement setting up the referendum.
Once Scotland is a potential independent state, it owns its own lands including the continental shelf under the International Law of the Sea. The rUK could try to bargain with Scotland but could not force it to give up its own land as this would fail at the International Court at the Hague.
No British Minister or other person in authority has ever doubted that the oil in Scottish waters would be a Scottish matter if separation occurred.
You are just making it up as you go along, ignoring protocol, law and realpolitik.