Scottish independence: Voting under way in referendum

[Turborama]

Source: BBC

People in Scotland have begun voting on whether the country should stay in the UK or become an independent nation.

Voters will answer "Yes" or "No" to the referendum question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

With 4,285,323 people - 97% of the electorate - registered to vote, a historically high turnout is expected.

Votes will be cast at 2,608 polling places across the country until 22:00 on Thursday. The result is expected early on Friday morning.

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29238890

[1dogleft]

1. yes

to freedom

[Helen Borg]

3. Either way..

With a 50/50 split, it will be a mess. When 50 % of people don't want "freedom" you have to wonder what the word really means.

[MrModerate]

5. In this case it means "the slogan created by an issue's proponents"

And this from someone with no dog in the fight and no strong opinion whether Scotland will be 'freer' if the vote goes to the yeses.

My point is that the people voting no are not (in their minds) voting against freedom, but against the dismemberment of what they consider to be their country. At least that's what my Scottish co-workers (all three of whom would vote no if they were back home) tell me.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Very fair comment.

[Lenomsky]

25. People are voting No ..

because they FEAR something that is not the status quo this is especially true for older voters.

We have 3 parties working together Conservatives, Labour and Liberals inducing FEAR and threats from large companies inducing FEAR.

I think it speaks volumes that the Political Parties are offering bribes in the form of more autonomy. Why now and not 5 years ago or 10 years ago.

I think you'd find the majority of Scots consider themselves Scottish first and British second.

I'm a YES voter so my opinion is subjective I suppose.

[MrModerate]

31. And I'm not there, so . . .

I'm mostly restricting my opinion to "hmm, how interesting."

[Lenomsky]

34. and neither are your co-workers ..

I flew home from USA to be sure I could cast my vote.
I'm not resident in USA BTW I visit frequently.

We've been inflicted with right of centre politics for too long: New Labour, Tories and the poor Lib Dems sold their soul.

It's not about Nationalism but a change in the political climate that would ensue with SNP and Labour elected in an Independent Scotland and the Greens etc having more of a say. In my opinion Labour would need to rethink their current right leaning policies.

[politicat]

49. I've been thinking that even a squeaker "no" victory is a defeat for Cameron and the

mis-marriage of Tory and Lib Dem.

Am I reading that correctly? Would a "no" still prompt a no confidence and force a realignment?

(I still don't understand what prompted LibDem to pair with the Tories. It sounded like one of those booze cruise marriages that can't possibly last after the hangover subsides.)

[Lenomsky]

85. I can't see Cameron standing down anytime soon ..

the election is 2015 after-all and Cleggs ratings are lower than a sewer.

Cameron now has a headache as offering Scotland further devolved powers has put him in the position where all States must be given equal powers. We'll see how that works out I guess.

The Lib Dems wanted a play at power and as they did not have enough votes to work with Labour and have a majority (IIRC seats would have been ~50/50) they jumped into bed with the Tories and were slammed for it. In terms of percentage of the vote Lib Dems were not far behind Labour shockingly (I guess we can blame B-liar for that) however in terms of seats they were.

I have little faith in the current Political landscape and had hoped (maybe naively) that an Independent Scotland would have offered a new dynamic.

[politicat]

86. Ah. So a year of grumbling & planning to dump the whole slate

I understood the *math* the libdems used, just not their sense of history or myth. They clearly never read the story of the frog and the scorpion.

But I also agree that Labor leadership has nobody to blame but themselves. (And possibly an Imperius curse cast by Cheney on Blair because yeah, he really did 180 there...)

[MrModerate]

79. Well, my co-workers do have family in-country . . .

With whom they communicate all the time. They're reporting not only their personal sentiments, but those of their families and friends as well.

OTOH, they're not overtly political people, and so don't have as sharply demarcated opinions as you do.

[Lenomsky]

84. It's moot now ...

The many people I spoke to that intended to vote NO were following the Party line putting their trust once again in Labour (and other parties but primarily Labour). 'Better the devil you know' covers many opinions.

The threats by Political Parties and Big Business swung the vote and we all know Politicians and Big Business sleep with each other.

So we've been offered further devolved power which is a win and England, Wales and N.I. will also (maybe) be offered devolved powers. The Lothian Question is valid and Scottish MP should not have voting rights on things that affect the other states in the Union unless it affects all states.

[Adrahil]

36. I agree.

My Scots friends are voting mostly No. They see the UK as a positive thing fro Scotland, though they hope to defeat the Tories.

One BIG downside for a Yes vote is that the removal largely anti-Tory Scotland would mean the Tories would gain strength in British politics.

[brooklynite]

32. What a ridiculous comment...

Because I don't want NYC to seceede from a more conservative New York State, I'm not free?

I have no opinion on this referendum whatsoever, but if Scots have freedom to travel, work, live anywhere in the UK as well as have the right to elect the UK's leaders, I don't see how you're rejecting freedom by choosing to stay in the Union.

[Helen Borg]

57. Obviously, you are a Freedom Hater! :)

[merrily]

43. Voting against separating is not necessarily an indication of not wanting freedom.

However, I agree that a decisive vote is far preferable to a close one for many reasons, including suspicion of a "stolen" election.

[1dogleft]

70. Indepenence

is a big scary move. I can see 50% not wanting to "rock the boat" but I can admire 50% saying we should make our own course right or wrong

[iandhr]

61. I think there is a legitimate case

for Scotland to vote yes. But it's to say they aren't free is kind of ridiculous at the moment they get high per capita public resources than the rest of the UK. It's like the people in our country who are dependent on government but complain about it none the less.


If I was a Scott I would probably vote no for the following reasons. Currency, I would want to stay on the pound who in their right mind would want to have to move to the euro. From what I have read the SNP has made very dishonest promises about a currency union. According to the No campaign the SNP has admitted that pensions might have to be cut in the result of a yes vote something else I would also worried about

[merrily]

2. What time (and in which time zone) do you think people will have a

reasonable idea of the outcome?

Thanks for posting this.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. Just heard on the radio here (Philly) that ~7:00 pm ET tonight

for "early" results and most likely into Friday morning for the rest - with the issue of the referendum currently being "too close to call" at this point.

[merrily]

6. Thank you! I am so curious about the outcome!

Whatever happens, I hope it is the best possible result for the greatest number of people.

[Ken Burch]

9. You'll never make it in modern politics with THAT attitude.

(that was a joke...I do appreciate your positive spirit).

[merrily]

11. Luckily, I was never under that particular delusion, so

joke or not, you didn't hurt my feelings.

[merrily]

44. PS Much easier to let the ideology go when it's not your own country.

Have to say, your reply, though a joke, taught me that just today. Or, as the saying used to go, got me to grok it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. First results around 9pm Eastern; overall result unlikely before midnight eastern

which is when Glasgow and Edinburgh results are expected - 5am UK time (counted is done by local authority area)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/16/scottish-referendum-voting-no-carnage-polling-day

If it's really close, it might not be until 6 or even 7am local time.

There is no exit poll being taken; recounts can be done in each local authority if someone puts forward a good case that the counting (by hand) has gone wrong, but "it's really close" won't be a good enough reason (there's no particular meaning to it being close in any one local authority, and they've already confirmed that even if the national result comes out very close, there will not be a recount).

[merrily]

16. Thanks so much, MV.

You are so generous with sharing info. Appreciate it.

I am not sure I like that it's been announced in advance that there will be no recount if the national result is very close.

If someone said something like that here, I'd suspect something. So, I hope that the result is unmistakeably decisive. I do not wish on either the UK or Scotland what happened here after many of us thought 2000 election of Bush had been "stolen."

[riqster]

77. Standard practice over there. And hand-marked, paper ballots.

Good system, solid history of electoral integrity.

[brooklynite]

33. Election officials are promising a decision by "breakfast time" tomorrow.

[Adrahil]

37. Hard to tell. Unless the polls are wrong, it could go down to the wire. NT

[merrily]

45. I cannot imagine the suspense. Either way, it so momentous.

No, only which politician will represent me, but, who and what am I nationally?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

8. So if this huge chunk pulls out from under the British monarchy

Can our media here finally shut the hell up about the royals?

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. They're keeping the monarchy either way (nt)

[candelista]

38. Right. I suppose they will have a Governor General, like Canada & Oz.

This official, appointed by the Queen for each Commonwealth country, has more than ceremonial power. The one in Australia actually nullified an election because the crown didn't approve of the winner.

The Whitlam Government implemented a large number of new programs and policy changes, including the elimination of military conscription and criminal execution, institution of universal health care and fee-free university education, and the implementation of legal aid programs. With the Opposition-controlled Senate delaying passage of laws, Whitlam called a double-dissolution election in 1974 which he went on to win, albeit with a slightly reduced majority. However, the Opposition continued to control the Senate, and after becoming emboldened by government scandals and a flagging economy, began to challenge Whitlam again. In late 1975, the Senate prevented the progress of appropriation bills, thus denying the Government supply. Whitlam refused to back down, arguing that his elected Government was being held to ransom by the Senate. The crisis ended on 11 November, when Governor-General Sir John Kerr controversially dismissed Whitlam and commissioned Opposition Leader Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_Whitlam

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. I haven't heard they'd use one, no

They're in the same time zone, and modern technology means any important documents can be sent electronically at once, plus video conferencing etc. The need for a representative 'on site' doesn't seem to be there.

Ah, I see the Yes campaign thinks one wouldn't be needed, but some historians disagree: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/11/queen-governor-general-scotland-independence-monarchy

[candelista]

69. Thanks for the link.

This was especially interesting:

In extreme circumstances, governor generals have reserve powers to act without ministerial advice to:

• Appoint a prime minister if an election has resulted in a hung parliament.

• Dismiss a prime minister.

• Force a dissolution of parliament and call new elections.

• Refuse a prime minister's request for an election.

• And refuse assent to legislation.

[merrily]

46. I think AH is saying he doesn't want to hear about them anymore, whether you

keep them or not.

I don't mind either way. I don't follow closely. I'd rather hear about the Duchess's latest pregnancy than about Justin Beiber's latest arrest or brawl, though. Perhaps you can persuade Canada to seek extradition?

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. The title implied A_H thought Scotland would become a republic

"if this huge chunk pulls out from under the British monarchy".

[merrily]

54. Oh, you meant that Scotland will keep

the monarchy, regardless, not that the UK will keep the monarchy regardless.

Your post had only a pronoun and I had read AH's post to mean, "If the UK gets a lot smaller, will media stop reporting about the royals (because a smaller UK means the royals are less significant.

Sigh. Now you can see even more clearly why I did not feel remotely equipped yesterday to discuss the in and outs of the 18th century deal between Great Britain and Scotland and its implications.

I'll just focus on Justin Bieber.

[freshwest]

62. Thanks for your response on the other thread (or this one?) about the debt. But how does

the monarchy stay in place when the countries are divided again?

Sorry for the old and trite example, there was Mary, Queen of Scotland, but King Henry or QE1had her head off, no?

Wars kept going on in the UK. Not sure when people in the UK stopped killing each other, likely after Americans left the Empire. It seems there's been a long peaceful stretch.

What is this autonomy thing, anyway, if they're voting for independence. In American terms, that is a different nation with no need of royalty. How does QE2 stay in power over Scotland when it's independent of the UK?

May be just confusion on the terms here. TIA if you have time to answer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. Mary Queen of Scots was executed by QE1, but she had been in a plot to overthrow her

Mary was Elizabeth's cousin, and her heir; Mary was Catholic (though over half of the Scots had turned Protestant by that time), and Elizabeth Protestant. There was a rebellion in Scotland against Mary, and she fled to England, where she was a problem - the heir, but Catholic, and Elizabeth didn't want a Catholic successor. So she was locked up; some English Catholics involved her in a plot to overthrow Elizabeth in her favour, which was discovered, and Mary was executed. Her son, James VI, who had been left in Scotland, was brought up Protestant, and was now the heir to Elizabeth in England, and that ended up being acceptable; so he became James I of England (in 1603), and that made the same person monarch of each country; kings and queens of Scotland/England/Great Britain/the UK have all been descended from him. They still had different parliaments, and were separate countries (like, say, Canada and Australia).

Scotland and England had civil wars in the middle of the 17th century, and that at times put the parties in control of each at war with the other country, due to alliances. But after that, there hasn't been an official Scotland v. England war. The parliaments united in 1707, after a Scottish financial disaster (which England did everything to help bring about, admittedly), and then it was one country.

The direct male line from James VI/I, the Stuarts, was denied the crown (that was actually in 1688 - really an English decision, which the Scots went along with, perhaps grudgingly), again, because James VII/II was Catholic, and bringing his son up Catholic. The Protestant Hanoverian royal family, descended from a daughter of James VI/I, were brought in in 1714, and this annoyed some Scots enough to rebel in 1715 - a form of civil war, I suppose (it failed, quickly), but it wasn't Scotland in general - it was only either die-hard supporters of a Stuart monarchy, or Catholics. The same group rebelled in 1745, and the last battle of that rebellion was Culloden in 1746. Again, it was only a section of the Scots - it's often pointed out there were more Scots in the Hanoverian army at the battle than in the Stuart one. That was the last battle on British soil, so before America got independence.

So QE2 really comes from a line that has been monarchs of Scotland for longer than they've been monarchs of England. By default, she'd stay monarch of Scotland. There are some in Scotland who want a republic (more than in England), but trying to combine that with independence would have sunk independence for sure - the middle ground contains a lot of pro-monarchy people (especially pro-QE2 - she has a sky-high personal 'approval rating'; Charles not so much).

[freshwest]

73. Thanks. Still find it odd that anyone wants royalty? What special powers do they have that make them

indispenable? Are they in charge of wars, business, the social contract, or what?

Thanks verry much for explaining why QE2 is in charge of Scotland in some respects. Is this an emotional or a financial thing? I thought she had no real material power.

I do have this picture of QE2 though, that may mean she is taking care of people or is this saying she is receiving welfare?



Is she called the Welfare Queen in the United Kingdom, or is that an incorrect designation?

[merrily]

17. Not happening.

Last edited Thu Sep 18, 2014, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

We didn't want to be taxed by them, but, judging by our media, we enjoy hearing news about them, esp. if it's good news, like a new heir to the throne that our founders resented so much.

Besides, if our kids are going to worship celebrities, I'd rather the Duchess of Cambridge than Justin Bieber. Trouble is, it's not either or.

Maybe it's a plot to keep us from focusing on things like lobbyists and political corruption.

j/k, but maybe not entirely.

[candelista]

39. How about the Duchess of York?

Is she okay as a role model?

[merrily]

41. The question was whether the US media might stop reporting on the royals.

I don't much care whether they do or not, but I really don't think they will. Do you?

In any event, they are not going to report on some royals, but not others. So, I guess I don't really see the point of going through the royals one by one to see who is a good role model and who isn't. And I don't know a lot about them, anyway. Don't pay much attention. Haven't heard a thing about Sarah for a while. What's she been up to lately?

However, weight watchers or some weight loss outfit did once think she was good enough for them to pay to be a role model for their potential customers? Seemed to be a good mom? Don't really know.

[LeftishBrit]

29. Independence wouldn't mean an end to the monarchy, even in Scotland

At least initially, they would still have the Queen as nominal Head of State, as do currently 15 other Commonwealth countries that are totally independent of the UK government.

[merrily]

47. Please see Reply 46.

Your keeping the monarchy doesn't mean media has to report on their private and social lives, (esp. US media).

It's odd that you and MV saw the question the exact same way.

[LeftishBrit]

51. Probably we saw it in the same way because we're both Brits and thus interested in this referendum

from the point of view of local constitutional issues.

And the monarchy itself is of some interest to Brits. Personally, I'd prefer an elected figurehead president.

In Britain, we would continue to hear about the private and social lives of the royals whatever happens (probably for a while, even if the monarchy were abolished and they became ex-Royal celebrities) so the result of the referendum certainly won't affect us from that point of view.

[freshwest]

63. Why do the 'Queen's realms' want her? They have PMs as the executor of laws passed by Parliament.

It seems redundant. From what I'm reading on the thread here, though, her role isn't just ceremonial.

What does she bring to the various countries of the Commonwealth (if it is still called that) that they cannot do for themselves with their own elected officials?

I just don't get them not wanting to change that. Of course, I'm American and we're egocentric, think of the whole world in our own terms. TIA.

[candelista]

71. The queen would not just be a "nominal" head of state.

Commonwealth countries have a governor general appointed by the queen.

In extreme circumstances, governor generals have reserve powers to act without ministerial advice to:

• Appoint a prime minister if an election has resulted in a hung parliament.

• Dismiss a prime minister.

• Force a dissolution of parliament and call new elections.

• Refuse a prime minister's request for an election.

• And refuse assent to legislation.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/11/queen-governor-general-scotland-independence-monarchy

Remember what happened to Gough Whitlam in Australia?

[Baclava]

10. 16-17-year-olds get to vote on Scottish independence

Scotland's independence vote Thursday represents the first time voters in the United Kingdom as young as 16 will help decide a significant matter of state

About 120,000 teens ages 16 and 17 are likely to cast ballots, estimates Graeme West, who helps run Generation Yes, an organization raising awareness for young Scottish voters. In a tight vote, they could change the course of history.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/17/scotland-independence-teen-vote/15768549/?csp=fbfanpage

--------------------------

[merrily]

14. Wow, that's outside the box.

One the one hand, it could tune people into politics early; and that would be a good thing. Fewer low info voters over time, perhaps.

Was I, at 16, well-informed enough and focused enough to have a well-founded opinion about an important referendum question like this? I don't know.

I think at that age, I might have been very easily been influenced by others and possibly for the wrong reasons. Looking up to the Duchess of Cambridge or hearing a song by a cute boy band in favor of independence might have swayed me, one way or the other. Hard to put my mind back into my 16 year old mind to decide this hypothetical accurately and without being too harsh on my 16 year old self. I do know I was a lot more trusting/naive/gullible then.

[Baclava]

74. I got Scottish blood - maybe I can emigrate...duel citizenship

I can live in a castle - with a moat!

[Baclava]

78. I see nothing wrong with the young having a stake in their future

they are probably way more in tune with the political outcome than us outsiders

although at 16 I must admit I had other more pressing issues, like gas money and girls

but that was just me

[merrily]

83. I think kids may mature faster these days.

[Lenomsky]

35. 16 Year old are adults in Law ...

albeit they can't purchase alcohol or cigarettes but they can pay tax, get married and have children.

I think the voting age should be 16 in all elections given they are adults (maybe not the most worldy but I could sya that about 40 year olds I know).

[KJG52]

15. Cameron is done...

The one bright side for Scotland's vote is that no matter what happens, Aye or Nay for Independence, Cameron's time as Premiere is done. This is a great benefit to the people of Great Britain, with or without Scotland.

[merrily]

18. Welcome to DU. If Cameron is done, do you think

his successor will be more populist? Or do you not have an opinion on that?

[BlueEye]

19. How populist is Nick Clegg and the LibDems?

He's likely the next PM if Cameron and the Conservatives lose their government. Labour will be more screwed than before if Scotland secedes (due to high representation from Scotland in Parliament),

[merrily]

20. Another question: who would you like to see succeed Cameron?

[Bosonic]

21. Hahahaha

Nick Clegg has less chance of being PM than Simon Cowell/Piers Morgan...

Nick Clegg's Approval Ratings Make Him 'Least Popular Party Leader In Modern History'

Nick Clegg has become the least popular party leader in modern British political history, according to a poll.

YouGov research for the Sunday Times found just 13% thought the Deputy Prime Minister was doing a good job - compared to 78% who said the opposite.

The Liberal Democrat's -65% rating is even worse than Gordon Brown's -62% at the height of the credit crunch crisis in 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/01/nick-clegg-lib-dems_n_5426109.html

[merrily]

23. That's funny. Sitting here, I saw Brown as doing a pretty good job.

Didn't the country acquire a piece of the banks the UK bailed out?

[LeftishBrit]

52. I think he was our best PM in 35 years - perhaps that's not saying much!

He didn't have a jolly personality, and was not a very good campaigner. Also, the media hated his guts, and managed to convince lots of people that he was personally responsible for the economic crisis, even though it was global.

Miles better than Blair anyway, IMO.

[merrily]

56. Ah, so your media is like ours, a tool first of the right and second of the establishment,

but only second.

It was global. It's primary cause was sale of unsound mortgage derivatives, something enabled in this county by repeal of Glass Stegall and Wall Street was responsible for most of those sales, even in other nations. However, those sales took shady behavior by flocks of people, from lending banks to real estate appraisers, to accountants to lawyers to investment bankers. They were not all in conspiracy, just greedy and sleazy enough to fall in line.

All up and down the chain, the thinking was the same. "If I don't turn in the appraisal--or the due diligence or the annual financial report or the legal opinion or whatever-- that these folks expect of me, they'll only hire someone else to do it. I can't stop it, no matter what. So, I may as well be the one who collects the fee and gets the return business."


Your media blamed Brown because they did not want to blame the wheeler dealers in your country who thought they'd get in somehow, too. They were lying and they knew it. Too bad it's so hard to explain to the plumber who cannot figure out why his pension fund vanished into thin air.

In this country, they tried to blame the plumber who took out a mortgage or a second mortgage on his or her home. Same lie, different victim. They called it "liar loans,"and took away his or her home, often illegally.

However, the lenders knew very well that plumber could not afford that mortgage. Indeed, they paid mortgage brokers MORE for mortgages that were "no verification loans" from borrowers making too little to afford the mortgage. So the only liars in those transactions were the lending banks and the mortgage brokers. At least Brown, poor guy, was getting paid for taking the blame.

First, let's shoot all the shady media.

[LeftishBrit]

65. Yes - some of it is even owned by the same person (Murdoch)!

[merrily]

67. Of course. Why would he bless only the US with fairness and balance?

[Spider Jerusalem]

76. Brown: much better man than Blair, much worse politician (perhaps those go hand-in-hand?)

[merrily]

82. I just did not have a good gut feeling about Blair.

I would not buy a used car from him, as the saying goes.

Brown lacked the natural charisma of an Obama or a Bill Clinton. But, I thought he was solid and decent. If he did take a piece of the banks for the bailout, good for him. That's a lot better than we did.

[LeftishBrit]

30. Not very! Labour is more so, but, at leadership level, not enormously.

Everything is very up-in-the-air politically.

If the Scottish referendum vote is No, then my prediction is a Labour government with a narrow majority or even a Labour minority government.

If the vote is Yes, then the same could happen, though there is somewhat more risk of the Tories squeaking through, due to (as you say) a significant number of Labour MPs coming from Scotland.

The common myth that the remaining UK would be doomed to permanent Tory rule if Scotland secedes is a bit of an exaggeration. It would make things more difficult for Labour; but in most of our elections the ultimate result would have been the same with or without Scotland's vote - and moreover, we had Labour majority governments at times when Scotland was far less solidly anti-Tory than now.

The next general election result is likely to be close; and may be influenced by all kinds of unknown factors. It's worth remembering a fact rarely noted: in the legendary 1945 Labour super-victory, the Tories got exactly the same percentage of the popular vote (36%) as in their sort-of-victory in 2010. The difference is that the anti-Tory vote was much more divided in 2010. So a lot depends on the popularity/ unpopularity of smaller parties. The LibDem vote has gone down for obvious reasons, and the SNP vote could go either up or down if Scotland says No, and will cease to be a factor in the remaining UK if Scotland says Yes. The right-wing pseudo-populist UKIP is likely to take votes from the Tories, but may also take some from Labour. So it's all a bit up for grabs.

I think Cameron is not likely to be PM much longer. He could well be replaced by Labour; but he could also be replaced by a more personally right-wing Tory.

[oberliner]

22. Quite the opposite is true actually

Scotland leaving the UK will swing the political balance of power there to the right.

[merrily]

24. Thanks. I gathered that. Pity. But, given that, I can

understand all the more why Scotland wants independence. As a more FDR/Truman/LBJ Democrat than a New Democrat or a Republican, I would love being able to live in a nation whose government is more leftist than ours.

And, for the same reason, I can understand better why the more leftist Brits don't want to see them leave.

Hmmm. I wonder how hard it will be to immigrate to Scotland?

J/k Too many US ties.

[KamaAina]

55. My thought as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025550936

[merrily]

59. Let's kilt shop together.

[Demit]

27. Maybe the rUK Labour Party will be encouraged to go back to its roots.

I understand that the loss of the Scottish Labour MPs will ostensibly weaken the party in the immediate future, but it also creates a vacuum. Maybe rUK Labour will wake up to how unhappy people are with Tory policies & become a stronger oppo party. A lefty can dream

[merrily]

48. We leftists all seem to dream. We can also do more than dream.

In the height of the Kerry Presidential campaign, I took a look at the website of the Republican Party and the website of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party's website featured Kerry--big photo on the home page-- and the lofty things Democrats want (in theory?).

Action items were few and not prominent. Maybe, there were none. I don't recall exactly now. But, at the time, the difference struck me between the eyes because in....

The Republican Party's website featured, on the first page "What you can do" with links to more info on each item. Contact info for newspapers in every locale and sample letters to the editor, contact info for call in radio and TV programs, contact info for every locale for people to volunteer to phone bank or GOTV. Very specific, very organized, very clear.

People speculate and/or study that rightists and leftists have different kinds of brains. Dunno, but those websites sure had entirely different approaches.

[Spider Jerusalem]

75. His successor as Tory leader would be a placeholder (probably Osborne at this point, maybe Hague)

and "placeholder" because Boris Johnson is being parachuted into a safe seat for the next general election and is certain to be an MP and almost certain to be Tory leader.

[KJG52]

80. Cameron

The two pillars of Tory political strength in Parliament are "The City," and BP, they are where the money is in British politics and Cameron, being the ass that he is, jeopardized the stability of oil interests in the North Sea and the stability of the Pound Sterling and the financial markets by ignoring this referendum until it almost won... He's a "Toffy Nosed Gent," in the language of Edwardian England or a "Toff," in the current parlance, a typically condescending member of the upper class and all their interests, but he's also one of the most obtuse members of that class and this has "found him out...," in the British parlance.

I wouldn't be surprised if his slender coalition falls apart and elections are called very soon, especially if he goes too far in the eyes of his masters in propitiating Scotland or doesn't meet the expectations of the Scots or their allies in the Labour Party. Either way he's done and his successor will be pressed hard to change directions in the new Labour government.

[The2ndWheel]

26. Interesting how many posts are pro-secession

Not usually the case.

[secondwind]

28. but, but, but..... what about Balmoral? will it just become a tourist attraction *sarcasm*

I spent a delightful week in Edinburgh all by myself... just wanted to travel to another country by myself. As an older woman, I wanted safety also..so I chose Edinburgh.. I had a blast

Spent a whole hour talking to two gardeners about the Scottish-English dilemma (this was at least six years ago), and they were both strongly in favor of secession.

[harun]

42. Very interesting.

[amandabeech]

50. Actually, the Queen owns Balmoral outright. It's not like some of the other royal residences

like Windsor Castle that are owned by the state.

Thanks for the info on traveling to Edinburgh. I, too, am getting older and cannot always find someone to travel with. I'm part Scottish and would like to see the country. Visiting Edinburgh is a real possibility thanks to your tip.

[lovuian]

58. Who gets the Stone of Scone?

England or Scotland

[okasha]

64. Scotland.

It's currently in Edinburgh Castle.

[KamaAina]

60. One wonders how many millions of pounds the No side has thrown into their campaign

mega-corps like RBS have threatened to flee if it happens. (Royal Bank of Nowhere? )

[oberliner]

66. No they haven't

The location of the HQ would change but no banks would be "fleeing".

[KamaAina]

72. So you're cool with Burger King buying Tim Horton's and moving its HQ to Canada?

Or Walgreens doing the same with a UK company?

[Adrahil]

81. Those different situations.

In the case of the businesses in Scotland, they are currently a UK business. They want to remain a UK business. It's not like they are planning to move to Denmark.