Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
There was next to nothing about this in the news (outside Scotland) until the last couple of weeks. This is despite the agreement to hold a legally binding ballot being made back in 2012.
At the time the design of the ballot was being agreed, the SNP proposed three options, the third being 'devo max' (more powers transferred from Westminster to Holyrood). Cameron rejected this out of hand. The result now is there is an all or nothing ballot.
Pretty much throughout the period, the 'No' camp held what appeared to be an unassailable lead. Consequently it seems there has been no preparation whatsoever of what to do if there is a 'Yes' vote. The 'No' camp, while I feel may still prevail - is in utter disarray.
The 'No' camp have largely peddled fear while the 'Yes' camp have been slickly run and have promised opportunity - whether realistic or not is up for conjecture. But the point is, the Westminster political establishment have pretty much mishandled the entire process. And this goes right back to Cameron's initial position where he refused to agree a third choice. What the 'No' camp are now saying is a vote for 'No' is essentially a vote for 'Devo max'. And while the campaign has been running since 2012, they've been saying this since....Sunday.
The UK government is so unpopular that watching on TV, you'd have thought we'd stepped back to 2010. Gordon Brown is now the figurehead (since yesterday) for the 'No' campaign. It is as if Gordon Brown is the PM now. To give you an idea of the level of profile Brown has maintained since he resigned the Labour leadership on 2010, I thought he'd left Parliament altogether.
Yet it is Brown who is setting out or promising what devolution will look like in the event of the decision being 'No'. It is he who is seemingly making up what devolution will look like, along with the timescale for the transition of additional powers to a devolved administration within the UK.
And these promises (there is a distinct lack of detail) that are being made up on the hoof are actually being made after postal voting has already started!
It has been a total mess, with no planning whatsoever on the part of the UK Government on what will happen in the event of a 'Yes' vote.
And it is now very very close according to the polls. That said, a better indication is the betting markets, and here it seems cut and dry that the result of the ballot will be No to independence.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/...rendum-outcome |
I agree with all this.
The whole campaign on both sides has been one of No Plan B.
Westminster has not gotten round to drawing up plans as to what would happen should their plan A--a 'no' outcome--not succeed.
And the SNP has still not come up with a convincing Plan B as to what seems likely to happen if after a 'yes' outcome Westminster and the Bank of England refuse to allow Scotland to use the pound sterling as the currency. Alex Salmond's suggestion that they could create their own Scottish pound tethered to the UK pound (just as say Denmark's krone is tethered to the Euro) would mean that Scotland would have even less influence over its own monetary affairs than it does now. There is also the unresolved issue that the EU currently requires all new applicants to adopt the Euro as a condition of membership.
I don't see how all this uncertainty could lead to anything but bad regardless of which side of the fence you're on.
Also, perhaps I'm cynical, but besides the fact that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are Scottish and no one in the Conservative party is, perhaps the reason Brown and Darling have such prominent roles is because if Scotland secedes you will never see another Labour government in Westminster again (at least not without completely redrawing every constituency line in England, Wales and NI). As many people have pointed out, there are more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs.
It's similar to what would happen if Quebec had left Canada in 1995... all those Liberal seats (or at least non-Tory seats) would be lost and the remaining balance of power in Canada would have shifted to the right. Depending on your political persuasion you might consider this a good or bad thing, but without redrawing constituency lines or reforming the available parties you would only see one colour of government for a very long time which we all know gets stale, uninspired and complacent after a while.