He’s a weird one. Still, his crowd-funded website has done very well. I wonder if he has moved back to Scotland so he can actually vote?
Credit Suisse issued an advisory note yesterday morning on their assessment of an independent Scotland’s economy, and it doesn’t pull any punches:
On Scottish currency:
Ouch.
Meanwhile a soft bank run is underway in Scotland as billions of pounds of assets are fleeing the country, and contracts are having clauses inserted into them that renders them void if Scotland votes for independence. More and more banks are issuing statements detailing their contingency plans if a successful independence vote should happen, with Clydesdale joining the likes of Standard Life, Aberdeen Asset Management and Lloyds this morning in stating they will reincorporate in, or move their head offices to, England.
I know that. We are talking about British Citizenship which has always been liberal on the matter.
As opposed to after a vote, when the UK can offer a “deliberately lousy” deal (which I would characterise as in the rUK’s interests rather than Scotland’s, rather than a sabotage attempt) with less reason to care about Scotland’s opinion, and less chance for Scotland to reject it?
The problem is that Salmond is promising Scots things that, even if they’re possible, would be absolutely unacceptable to the UK, whether as part of a union or as separate countries, and will no doubt spin any attempt by the UK to protect its own interests as “neo-colonialism”.
He won’t get the best possible deal for Scotland in any case, because the UK won’t give up many of the things he thinks it should. At best, there will be some concessions from the UK, but really, we have no great incentive to make a good deal for Scotland. The UK will have already been significantly harmed by a Yes vote, and will be more concerned with mitigating that harm than with Scotland’s interests.
But the continued uncertainty is what’s causing so many problems at the moment. If there was a clear plan for independence, businesses wouldn’t be planning to move out of Scotland, and investment in the UK wouldn’t be falling.
If they were either unlikely or downright weird, you might have a point - although with something as important as independence every possibility should be investigated. However, the things I’m talking about are neither, they are very plausible consequences of the current vote and future negotiation.
Boy, I’ll say. Yikes.
Precisely.
Various groups have been trying to get as many people to register to vote as possible. It seems to have been a great success.
I would suggest that in looking at the polls as an aggregate, it would likely be wise to add a point or two to the “No” side. I suspect voters in referenda of this magnitude are somewhat more cavalier with what they’ll tell a pollster than what they’ll do at the polling station.
Cameron orders the Scottish flag to fly over 10 Downing Street until the vote: Reuters | Breaking International News & Views
Royal Bank of Scotland plans move to England if country breaks away
None of which is surprising to me.
Montreal used to be the financial capital of Canada.
Then in the 60s, the Quebec sovereigntist movement started, beginning to argue for separation.
One of the major results: the money moved to Toronto, which is now Canada’s financial capital, thanks to the sovereigntists. Montreal no longer has that clout that it used to have.
“There’s nothing in the world as nervous as a million dollars.” – Alan Blakeney, former Premier of Saskatchewan
That would be a good rule for most contests, but in this vote a large number of people saying don’t know are likely to be tribal labour voters who feel great loyalty to. TGMOO (this great movement of ours) but who harbour nationalist sympathies and want all Scottish decisions to be left of centre ones.
BP and Shell have warned that Salmond has severely overestimated the amount of oil left in the North Sea and are urging Scots to remain part of the UK.
Some have been saying something quite different–that the Yes voters are more passionate and will turn out in greater numbers than the No voters–thus it would be wise to add a few points to the “Yes” side.
Yeah, I think that’s quite likely. There used to be the phenomenon of the “Shy Tory” in UK opinion polls in the late 80s/early 90s where Conservative support was regularly underrepresented in opinion polls.
It’s expected to be a turnout in the ~90% range. Pretty much everybody in the country eligible to vote is expected to turn out. Reversion to the status quo is also a well known phenomena in past British referenda.
Not been the best of Wednesday’s for Salmond.
As close as that vote was, Quebec has never come close to trying again, has it? The fever broke and the patient recovered.
Demographics are working against Quebec’s separatist movement.
But who knows? In 20 years maybe it’ll be different. Like Scotland, Quebec’s separation movement isn’t based on an honest risk/reward assessment (anymore, anyway; 40-50 years ago things were different.) It’s purely emotional and symbolic. And emotions are hard to predict.
Quebec had their a first one in 1980* that didn’t have qualified majority requirements, yet devolution/separation returned as an issue. Even quicker than Scottish example despite the sour taste.
*eta: which was solidly defeated, yet… And I would suggest that a minimum “quorum” is not a horrible thing.