The time to vote against independence would be the date of the referendum as agreed by Holyrood and Westminster and laid out in the Edinburgh Agreement. It’s not like the referendum is secret - it’s been the main political story here for the best part of two years and a known SNP manifesto commitment.
I suppose it is possible that a party (and it would have to be Labour I think) could make a core part of their platform at the next Scottish Parliament election in 2016 a proposal to hold a referendum on the negotiated indy agreements, say in 2018. (It’ll take at least that long I think to get things in shape). Unlikely, maybe, but possible.
Reading the agreement, it’s too vague for someone to say that the UK refused to honor it, under any realistic scenario.
A prediction, should the yes vote win: The United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland will have a a different view than Scotland on how to divvy up the assets and debts of the former United Kingdom. Some of the people in Scotland will then claim it this to be disrespectful of their national project, and thus a Edinburgh Agreement violation. Others will realize that the agreement was too vague to judge whether it was adhered to, one way or the other.
What’s mindblowing to me is that after the Euro crisis, anyone would still want a currency union:
While completely discounting the wishes of the majority of Scottish UK citizens that didn’t vote for the Union?
Cameron absolutely will not to this. After all, at the last general election a very substantial majority of UK citizens did not vote for candidates whose policy was that David Cameron should be Prime Minister.
This is the problem with qualified majority requirements. The government may find itself having to implement a policy which has been democratically rejected at the polls. That’s a very uncomfortable position to be in. They did, as you point out, impose qualified majority requirements in the 1979 devolution referenda the result was that, despite securing a majority of the votes cast, the Scottish devolution proposal was not approved. That left a sour taste in everybody’s mouth (and didn’t lead to stability - devolution returned as an issue and now we are where we are). They have not made that mistake since, and they won’t again.
Eh? The understood terms of the Edinburgh Agreement are that all parties will respect the result of the referendum. I realise that it would be possible to find wiggle room if one were determined to do so, but who would benefit?
It may very well not be up to him. In any case, it will be a different government that will be deciding this, even if it is headed by Cameron.
If not, say hypothetically there is a Labour government by this point that has campaigned on not allowing independence (presumably this would be 2020), it would be a very different story.
If things progress smoothly from a Yes vote to negotiations to independence in 18 months, none of this will be an issue at all. It’s if the negotiations start to break down it will. And as the Yes campaign has been promising things it absolutely cannot deliver, this is a very real possibility.
Frankly, it would have been better all round if a proposal for how independence would take place was negotiated first, then that proposal voted on at a referendum.
Why would it make sense to negotiate independence before it was clear there was any desire for it?
Because the people voting for independence now are voting for a pig in a poke? People are voting on independence without knowing what the effects of independence will be. What if people vote yes, and then the negotiations happen and turn out really badly for Scotland? How many people will turn around and regret the yes vote? Alternately, if a plan for independence was made ahead of time, it might win over no voters. A lot of the appeal of Better Together seems to be what Pjen calls “Unionist fearmongering”. They’re worried an independent Scotland would have problems with currency, EU membership, basing issues and all that. If there’s a plan in place that shows what independence would mean, and how those issues would be resolved, it might win over voters who are scared of what a yes vote might mean.
I’m inclined to think that the 18-month target is not attainable, and will move it.
But if there is a YES vote, independence will come, even if not quite on the promised schedule. The project will have too much momentum to be stopped.
Well, it would have been better from a unionist perspective. Westminster could have deliberatively offered an utterly lousy deal so as to minimise the prospects of anyone voting to accept it. But precisely for that reason Salmond would never agree to such a process.
Plus, his bargaining power and status when he already has a mandate for independence is immeasurably greater. Even if Westminster had not been quite as Macchievellian as I am certain they would have been, Salmond would not get the post possible deal for Scotland in such a process.
Care to lay a verb on us?
I think he meant “do” instead of “to”.
Yes, but more I believe there will be some serious buyer’s remorse when they sober up the next day. I fear the Scots are dooming their children to life in a second-world country because of a fit of pique Mum and Dad suffered in 2014. I also fear that the citizens of the UK will view them as ingrates and have no inclination to make the change easy. Perhaps even Hadrian’s Wall will get some long overdue upgrades, like the US is making the walls on the Mexican border harder to cross.
Yes, I did. Cameron will not do this. Cameron will not refuse to grant Scottish independence on the argument that those voting for it, though a majority of the voters, do not constitute the majority of those qualified to vote.
Yep. The first Quebec referendum in particular was widely criticized not only for being based on a very vague but much-hyped concept of “sovereignty-association” which ultimately was nothing but a meaningless slogan, but also criticized for a vaguely worded question which basically was asking "are you in favor of a kind of effective sovereignty which is a little bit like independence but not really, mainly in that it contains all the good bits about sovereignty but none of the bad ones? (Honest, that’s how it would work! Would we lie to you?)
Those may not have been the exact words but that was the spirit of them. 
The last thing secessionists ever want to do is get into the details of what it really entails. Their mission is to get the “Yes” vote. To the real zealots, all the rest is mere detail.
There is a plan for independence; the Scottish government’s plan, which is laid out in a fair degree of detail in the white paper they issued in 2013. It’s just not a plan that has been agreed with the UK, the EU or other relevant bodies. On some points - e.g. sterling - the UK government has indicated that does not look favourably on what the plan provides, on others - e.g. whether and on what terms Scottish Citizens can retain British citizenship - it has declined to say what it will do, on the grounds that this will be matter for the UK government in office if and when the issue has to be decided, and on still others - virtually everything to do with the government of Scotland itself - it has said nothing on the basis that it is none of the UK’s business.
You do have a dogged persistence.
Your line of argument closes down any real discussion over virtually anything to do with anything. It is an interesting party trick but no-one respects a one trick pony.
Example
Debating point:
A/ I believe X because of Y
B/ I believe Z becasue of Y
C/ I don’t see how Y supports either Idea
D/ What if W?
Steophan/ It makes no difference because in the long run anything can happen.
You have used this argument over citizenship, fianamce, military, passports, national debt EU, NATO etc etc.
Continually reminding us that the unlikely and downright weird may happen is not argument. It is an irritating habit that stifles debate.
Yeah, this is my view as well. I don’t expect the rUK to go out of its way to make things hard for Scotland but Scotland also cannot assume that everything is going to go their way.
Minor thing, btw, Pjen about citizenship law. It is minor as it doesn’t affect British Citizenship (and hence this discussion) but you are wrong about getting another nationality not being an issue in the modern world. There are many countries, including several in the EU, that do not accept dual citizenship and will take steps if they find you have done it.
I once had a very bizarre discussion with a man from Scotland (actually, a reasonably well known videogames journalist - Stuart Campbell) who, despite knowing that my Mother was from Scotland, could not accept me wanting Scotland to do well in football was anything other than me, as an Englishman (which I am not), looking down on Scotland.
That sort of bitterness is just taking it to a whole new level. It was proper weird.
What, **the **Stuart Campbell? “Rev” Stuart Campbell? Wings Over ScotlandStuart Campbell?
In context, that’s a hell of name drop.
Yeah that’s the fella, although it was on his forum (which I’m not sure if he even has anymore), not face to face. He actually ended up banning me because my support for Scotland irritated him so much.
I used to hang out on the old Edge forum (and RLLMUK for several years after Edge ditched their forum) a lot and he used to be quite active there.