Referendum on Scottish Independence

[Viregel]

On the subject of invasions, that's a point - would an independent Scotland be historically obliged to invade Panama?

 

[Farm Boy]

Beware Monroe and his doctrine.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Beware Monroe and his doctrine.

I thought he outsourced that to the Royal Navy - and if Scotland goes independent they'll be shutting up shop for a few years while they move to new premises.

 

[Takhisis]

Well he is North African.

Eastern European, as it is.

Please, join us! (I mean, we gotta get military from somewhere, right? )

You won't keep Trident? I thought havign nuclear weapons meant that no one would ever attack you.

 

[Farm Boy]

You won't keep Trident? I thought havign nuclear weapons meant that no one would ever attack you.

Wearing a tight kilt and flirting with #1 goes a long way. Or at least it used to!

 

[Takhisis]

Apparently the SNP -and, to a lesser extent, the Greens- are reporting a surge in membership.
Also, Labour have lost Glasgow, maybe -hopefully- for good. A "Labour Party" that doesn't answer to or represent workers in any way, not even an indirect or symbolic one, is unworthy of the name. On the Liberal Democrats… their deeds in 2010 have already condemned them, and a regional party overtaking them gives me a lot of schadenfreude.

Spoiler :

SNP poised to become one of UK’s largest political parties
Scottish National Party announces that membership has jumped 70% in four days, with more than 18,000 people joining

The Guardian, Monday 22 September 2014 20.14 BST

SNP conference 2013 Scotland's deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, speaks at the SNP's 2013 party conference in Perth. Photograph: Murdo Macleod for the Guardian

The Scottish National party is poised to become one of the largest in the UK after Scotland’s pro-independence parties saw a surge in membership after last week’s referendum.

As evidence emerged of the extent of the Labour no campaign’s referendum defeat in Glasgow, the SNP announced on Monday that its membership had jumped by 70% in four days. More than 18,000 people joined the party since Thursday, lifting its overall membership to a record level of 43,644.

Peter Murrell, the party’s chief executive, tweeted that this put the SNP on course to overtake the Lib Dems’ total membership to make the SNP the UK’s third largest party, outstripping the UK Independence party’s 35,000 figure on the way.

The Lib Dems retorted that their paid membership had risen by 9% to stand at nearly 44,400, following a slump from nearly 49,000 in 2012, making them the first party to record a rise in membership while in office at Westminster.

The Scottish Green party, also part of the yes campaign, reported a parallel surge in membership, with 3,000 supporters joining since Friday. Meanwhile, Labour responded to its rivals’ successes by trying to reassure Scottish voters that their pledges of significant political and constitutional reforms were sincere.

Margaret Curran, Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary, is to tour the 10 constituencies with the highest yes vote after admitting that the party had to reach out to disillusioned Labour voters who had opted for independence at the referendum.

“We have to be honest when we look at the results and see that many of the people who think that Britain can’t work for them are Labour voters,” she said at the party’s annual conference in Manchester. “They are terrified of Tory governments, they are worried about the future of our public services and their living standards have been ground down over recent years.

“We need to understand more clearly why they are angry and what we need to do about it. We need to understand why, in areas like Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Dundee, people feel so let down by our country that they want to opt out entirely. The yes campaign did not convince people that they could provide any real economic future for the people of Scotland.

“We now need to show that the UK can create the change that all the people who voted last Thursday want – a fairer, more equal, more socially just Scotland.”

Her appeal came after the true extent of Labour’s defeat in its former stronghold of Glasgow last Thursday became clear. While the turnout there was the lowest in Scotland at 75%, Glasgow city council released polling figures for all eight Holyrood constituencies showing the no vote championed by Scottish Labour had lost in every single seat.

Derek Mackay, the SNP’s Holyrood business convenor, said: “As Labour meets in Manchester, their position in Scotland grows more and more precarious. With nearly 17,000 new members joining the SNP – and Labour’s heartlands voting yes in the referendum – the Labour leadership will be increasingly worried. Ordinary Labour voters simply won’t forget [Scottish Labour leader] Johann Lamont’s alliance with the Tories in the no campaign.”

Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Green party’s co-convenor and one of its two MSPs, said the near tripling his party’s membership was proof that the surge in political engagement by voters during the independence referendum was serious.

“We’ll be going into the next election as a much bigger party than we could have imagined, and the potential clearly still exists for a dramatic realignment of Scotland’s political landscape,” he said.

“Making that happen will mean finding ways to work together. We have always been a party that seek to work with others where common ground exists, while still offering a robust challenge where we must on the core principles of the green agenda. I’m very excited to know that we’ll be doing so as a far bigger party in future.”

 

[Takhisis]

Wearing a tight kilt and flirting with #1 goes a long way. Or at least it used to!

Yes, yes. Pity that if any non-English person identifies as British, he'll be labelled just as 'another kind of Englishman'.

 

[Flying Pig]

Apparently the SNP -and, to a lesser extent, the Greens- are reporting a surge in membership.
Also, Labour have lost Glasgow, maybe -hopefully- for good. A "Labour Party" that doesn't answer to or represent workers in any way, not even an indirect or symbolic one, is unworthy of the name. On the Liberal Democrats… their deeds in 2010 have already condemned them, and a regional party overtaking them gives me a lot of schadenfreude.

Spoiler :

SNP poised to become one of UK’s largest political parties
Scottish National Party announces that membership has jumped 70% in four days, with more than 18,000 people joining

The Guardian, Monday 22 September 2014 20.14 BST

SNP conference 2013 Scotland's deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, speaks at the SNP's 2013 party conference in Perth. Photograph: Murdo Macleod for the Guardian

The Scottish National party is poised to become one of the largest in the UK after Scotland’s pro-independence parties saw a surge in membership after last week’s referendum.

As evidence emerged of the extent of the Labour no campaign’s referendum defeat in Glasgow, the SNP announced on Monday that its membership had jumped by 70% in four days. More than 18,000 people joined the party since Thursday, lifting its overall membership to a record level of 43,644.

Peter Murrell, the party’s chief executive, tweeted that this put the SNP on course to overtake the Lib Dems’ total membership to make the SNP the UK’s third largest party, outstripping the UK Independence party’s 35,000 figure on the way.

The Lib Dems retorted that their paid membership had risen by 9% to stand at nearly 44,400, following a slump from nearly 49,000 in 2012, making them the first party to record a rise in membership while in office at Westminster.

The Scottish Green party, also part of the yes campaign, reported a parallel surge in membership, with 3,000 supporters joining since Friday. Meanwhile, Labour responded to its rivals’ successes by trying to reassure Scottish voters that their pledges of significant political and constitutional reforms were sincere.

Margaret Curran, Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary, is to tour the 10 constituencies with the highest yes vote after admitting that the party had to reach out to disillusioned Labour voters who had opted for independence at the referendum.

“We have to be honest when we look at the results and see that many of the people who think that Britain can’t work for them are Labour voters,” she said at the party’s annual conference in Manchester. “They are terrified of Tory governments, they are worried about the future of our public services and their living standards have been ground down over recent years.

“We need to understand more clearly why they are angry and what we need to do about it. We need to understand why, in areas like Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Dundee, people feel so let down by our country that they want to opt out entirely. The yes campaign did not convince people that they could provide any real economic future for the people of Scotland.

“We now need to show that the UK can create the change that all the people who voted last Thursday want – a fairer, more equal, more socially just Scotland.”

Her appeal came after the true extent of Labour’s defeat in its former stronghold of Glasgow last Thursday became clear. While the turnout there was the lowest in Scotland at 75%, Glasgow city council released polling figures for all eight Holyrood constituencies showing the no vote championed by Scottish Labour had lost in every single seat.

Derek Mackay, the SNP’s Holyrood business convenor, said: “As Labour meets in Manchester, their position in Scotland grows more and more precarious. With nearly 17,000 new members joining the SNP – and Labour’s heartlands voting yes in the referendum – the Labour leadership will be increasingly worried. Ordinary Labour voters simply won’t forget [Scottish Labour leader] Johann Lamont’s alliance with the Tories in the no campaign.”

Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Green party’s co-convenor and one of its two MSPs, said the near tripling his party’s membership was proof that the surge in political engagement by voters during the independence referendum was serious.

“We’ll be going into the next election as a much bigger party than we could have imagined, and the potential clearly still exists for a dramatic realignment of Scotland’s political landscape,” he said.

“Making that happen will mean finding ways to work together. We have always been a party that seek to work with others where common ground exists, while still offering a robust challenge where we must on the core principles of the green agenda. I’m very excited to know that we’ll be doing so as a far bigger party in future.”

I think it's a mistake to view the No campaign as a 'Labour' project, though the practicalities of Scottish politics meant that no other party could have fronted it. Alastair Darling was a good candidate to lead it precisely because he isn't as much of a party man as other figures: he's distant from current Labour politics and able to be the voice of consensus. It was clear at numerous points that Salmond's superior charisma gave Yes a significant advantage, and that a leader like (say) Gordon Brown could have mitigated this, but he was too partisan a figure for the job - one cannot imagine him addressing the Conservative Party conference, as Darling did. There are certainly marked ideological similarities between the SNP and middle-aged Labour, though there doesn't seem to be the appetite for anything other than teenage Labour in England itself.

 

[AdamCrock]

Eastern European, as it is.

You won't keep Trident? I thought havign nuclear weapons meant that no one would ever attack you.

I mean do you guys even want us ? I mean sure we are a danger to Your jobs etc ! I know that ! The question is do You guys want/need us ??? If not that the whole Polish sector shoulld just go away ??????

 

[Takhisis]

I think it's a mistake to view the No campaign as a 'Labour' project, though the practicalities of Scottish politics meant that no other party could have fronted it. Alastair Darling was a good candidate to lead it precisely because he isn't as much of a party man as other figures: he's distant from current Labour politics and able to be the voice of consensus. It was clear at numerous points that Salmond's superior charisma gave Yes a significant advantage, and that a leader like (say) Gordon Brown could have mitigated this, but he was too partisan a figure for the job - one cannot imagine him addressing the Conservative Party conference, as Darling did. There are certainly marked ideological similarities between the SNP and middle-aged Labour, though there doesn't seem to be the appetite for anything other than teenage Labour in England itself.

I think that Darlign wasn't quite the right choice, (let it be noted that I despise almost the entirety of the British political establishment) since the Scots who decided on no were running away from the conservatives, not only from the Conservative Party but also from the Labour and Liberal parties (sadly, both the last two are misnomers), and running away scared from London -the City, at the moment, to put it bluntly, sucks, even England complains about that. Having someone who was in good terms with said people didn't add anything to the reputation of the No campaign.

I mean do you guys even want us ? I mean sure we are a danger to Your jobs etc ! I know that ! The question is do You guys want/need us ??? If not that the whole Polish sector shoulld just go away ??????

24k immigrants a year, that's what Salmond wants.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think that Darlign wasn't quite the right choice, (let it be noted that I despise almost the entirety of the British political establishment) since the Scots who decided on no were running away from the conservatives, not only from the Conservative Party but also from the Labour and Liberal parties (sadly, both the last two are misnomers), and running away scared from London -the City, at the moment, to put it bluntly, sucks, even England complains about that. Having someone who was in good terms with said people didn't add anything to the reputation of the No campaign.

Who else would have done it? Darling at least wasn't a Conservative, had a strong reputation in Scotland and had unimpeachable economic credibility, as well as being generally regarded as an honest man at the end rather than the beginning of his climb up the greasy pole. That last point is important, I think. It wouldn't have done any favours for the No campaign to be seen as a stepping-stone on a fundamentally English political career. There aren't any other competent, near-retirement Labour figures who can command the respect of the three main parties and Scottish voters at the same time - except possibly Tony Blair, but he would have been even worse, because his entire public image is slick, polished and professional, so Salmond would have been able to present himself even more easily as running a people's campaign against a smarmy elite.

 

[gangleri2001]

I thought you'd find this interesting:

Pre-referendum polls in Scotland:

Yes 47%
No 53%

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...dence-referendum-poll-the-latest-tracker.html

Pre-referendum polls in Catalonia:

Yes: 59%
No: 32%
Undecided: 9%

Source: https://translate.google.es/transla...ultado-consulta.html#ixzz3E38HqUko&edit-text=

 

[Plotinus]

It was clear at numerous points that Salmond's superior charisma gave Yes a significant advantage, and that a leader like (say) Gordon Brown could have mitigated this...

When the best choice for a charismatic, rabble-rousing leader for your campaign is Gordon Brown, your campaign's in trouble.

 

[Viregel]

In fairness, Brown did do pretty well. Though I'm incredibly surprised that the SNP look like they're going to usurp Labour in Glasgow - I mean, I still oppose independence, but that doesn't mean I like Scottish Labour at all. It has to be said that most of the good Labour politicians (if you can say that) are in Westminster, while Scotland is deemed "not as important", so when the referendum came about, Labour was naturally scrambling to save itself by sending whatever they could into Scotland. The SNP are far more capable in general, given they have a select group of some very good politicians.

 

[Traitorfish]

Also, Labour have lost Glasgow, maybe -hopefully- for good. A "Labour Party" that doesn't answer to or represent workers in any way, not even an indirect or symbolic one, is unworthy of the name.

That was one of the most significant takeaways from the referendum, for me. Everybody expected Dundee to come out majority "Yes", this is SNP country, it would be weird if it didn't, but Clydeside voting "Yes", when other SNP core territories like Aberdeenshire voted "No"? Very big deal. Glasgow's been all but a miniature one-party state for a century, so a majority of Glaswegians to in-effect vote against the party would be significant even if there was an overall "Yes" majority, and doubly so when it went against the national grain.

I think it's a mistake to view the No campaign as a 'Labour' project, though the practicalities of Scottish politics meant that no other party could have fronted it.

In a lot of Scotland, especially Glasgow, it was a Labour project. Half the "No" signs were in red-and-yellow, the party's colours, a more explicit level of identification than the SNP made with the "Yes" campaign. In a lot of the Central-West, the only significant voice apart from Labour were the Loyalists, and the failure of Labour to distance itself from the Orange vote has been damning enough in itself.

 

[Flying Pig]

When the best choice for a charismatic, rabble-rousing leader for your campaign is Gordon Brown, your campaign's in trouble.

Say what you want for him, but he was seriously impressive when he spoke. I think he finds it easier when he can thunder forth on a great issue and argue against other people rather than having to defend what he's doing in a time where his government's not doing very well.

In a lot of Scotland, especially Glasgow, it was a Labour project. Half the "No" signs were in red-and-yellow, the party's colours, a more explicit level of identification than the SNP made with the "Yes" campaign. In a lot of the Central-West, the only significant voice apart from Labour were the Loyalists, and the failure of Labour to distance itself from the Orange vote has been damning enough in itself.

I didn't realise that - that's quite significant for Glasgow, then.

 

[Plotinus]

Say what you want for him, but he was seriously impressive when he spoke. I think he finds it easier when he can thunder forth on a great issue and argue against other people rather than having to defend what he's doing in a time where his government's not doing very well.

True, and I do like Gordon Brown, although I don't think he was very good as prime minister. But it does remind me a little of the time a decade ago or more when Michael Howard was the Great White Hope of the Conservative party, at the tail end of IDS's leadership. It said a lot more about IDS than it did about Howard.

 

[Takhisis]

Who else would have done it? Darling at least wasn't a Conservative, had a strong reputation in Scotland and had unimpeachable economic credibility, as well as being generally regarded as an honest man at the end rather than the beginning of his climb up the greasy pole. That last point is important, I think. It wouldn't have done any favours for the No campaign to be seen as a stepping-stone on a fundamentally English political career. There aren't any other competent, near-retirement Labour figures who can command the respect of the three main parties and Scottish voters at the same time - except possibly Tony Blair, but he would have been even worse, because his entire public image is slick, polished and professional, so Salmond would have been able to present himself even more easily as running a people's campaign against a smarmy elite.

As I said before, part of the problem is that everyone is sick of the parties.

When the best choice for a charismatic, rabble-rousing leader for your campaign is Gordon Brown, your campaign's in trouble.

Miliband and his bacon sandwich trying to get 'in touch' with the common people in England, then Miliband being pulled out of Scotland because he lost them even more votes… it was hilarious, in a slightly embarrassing way.

That was one of the most significant takeaways from the referendum, for me. Everybody expected Dundee to come out majority "Yes", this is SNP country, it would be weird if it didn't, but Clydeside voting "Yes", when other SNP core territories like Aberdeenshire voted "No"? Very big deal. Glasgow's been all but a miniature one-party state for a century, so a majority of Glaswegians to in-effect vote against the party would be significant even if there was an overall "Yes" majority, and doubly so when it went against the national grain.

The plague of pseudo-Labour might start dying off. In the 2034 referendum, would New Labour bother to campaign as hard for No if Scotland is no longer their stronghold?

In a lot of Scotland, especially Glasgow, it was a Labour project. Half the "No" signs were in red-and-yellow, the party's colours, a more explicit level of identification than the SNP made with the "Yes" campaign. In a lot of the Central-West, the only significant voice apart from Labour were the Loyalists, and the failure of Labour to distance itself from the Orange vote has been damning enough in itself.

I didn't realise that - that's quite significant for Glasgow, then.

Also very significant -and even more telling- is that another large sector was in blue-and-orange. Strangely enough, the Orange Order is still not treated as the bunch of murderous bigoted lunatics which they are. By letting them join the No campaign, even unofficially, the No campaigners showed their true colours. The end justifies the means and the only sin is failure. The hubris from the days of the Empire hasn't quite died off (especially after Cameron's comments from 2012-13 about how proud people should be of the British Empire !)

 

[Flying Pig]

As I said before, part of the problem is that everyone is sick of the parties.

Maybe so, but they had the infrastructure and experience of running campaigns needed to have a chance of success. Neither side in the referendum debate could have been described as amateur.

 

[Takhisis]

And somehow they made amateur mistakes such as telling women to vote no because thinking for themselves was too complicated.