Wow! Thanks for the blog! This will help in my current events homework.  

Things like this amaze me.  I take too much for granted.  Thanks Zombie for a very enlightening post. Wow

I don't track this but I did see where The queen told the Scots to think about it very carefully.  I don't know about all the changes it would cause, but I kind of like the idea of Scotland being independent.  Then I think it don't really matter, they are going to be their own people anyway.  At least that's how I see them. 

Zombie, is it true what my English colleagues were saying last week, that every time David Cameron's given a speech against Scottish independence, support for the movement's gone up? 

I am one of the bad guys from the other side of the canal. Why? Because I am a committed European, who eventually wants a strong united Europe similar to the United States of America: single currency, a parliament which is not continuously challenged and hindered by  egotistical demands of single member nations, and so on. Even if it is still a long way to go. Guess who's always pissing on my parade?

There are dire warnings by European banks and CEO's about what would happen if Scotland would be independent. These warnings are even more dire if the UK would leave the EU.

So I have to admit, all rational reasons aside,  I am looking at the feeble and very late attempts of the no campaign with a certain degree of schadenfreude.

And we all have our own Euros, with our own little pictures that represent our countries and are happily mixing them. I'm still excited when I have Euros from France, or Italy, or Spain, or Greece, or...Scotland?

Maybe next time Britain votes, they vote with rational  reason. Wouldn't it be great if they'd learned something from their Scotland disaster?

I don't track this but I did see where The queen told the Scots to think about it very carefully. 

This is one one of the rare occasions The Queen has involved herself in politics. In 1963 when the Prime Minster became seriously ill there was no proper process to appoint a successor so The Queen acted and used her Royal Prerogative to appoint Lord Home, the 14th Earl of Home, as the new PM.This was not a "purely ceremonial" action and her actions were criticized for involving herself in politics rather than stepping back and letting the Conservative Party sort out their own mess. With Scotland she has made many pro Union speeches during her reign so the meaning of what she said is very clear - don't do it!

Zombie, is it true what my English colleagues were saying last week, that every time David Cameron's given a speech against Scottish independence, support for the movement's gone up? 

Yes For many - most? - he's the embodiment of eevill He's been a gift for Salmond: Eton educated, privileged Tory toff - the class enemy. There is a significant cultural difference between Scotland - strongly socialist - and England - strongly individualist.

I am one of the bad guys from the other side of the canal. Why? Because I am a committed European, who eventually wants a strong united Europe similar to the United States of America: single currency, a parliament which is not continuously challenged and hindered by  egotistical demands of single member nations, and so on. Even if it is still a long way to go. Guess who's always pissing on my parade?

 

There are dire warnings by European banks and CEO's about what would happen if Scotland would be independent. These warnings are even more dire if the UK would leave the EU.

 

So I have to admit, all rational reasons aside,  I am looking at the feeble and very late attempts of the no campaign with a certain degree of schadenfreude.

 

And we all have our own Euros, with our own little pictures that represent our countries and are happily mixing them. I'm still excited when I have Euros from France, or Italy, or Spain, or Greece, or...Scotland?

 

Maybe next time Britain votes, they vote with rational  reason. Wouldn't it be great if they'd learned something from their Scotland disaster?

You're right, Addy, to bring in the EU aspect. Membership - and the terms of EU membership - is at the very heart of the debate that's been going on since the referendum was agreed nearly two years ago.

You want "a strong united Europe ... single currency, a parliament which is not continuously challenged and hindered by egotistical demands of single member nations" but in many ways that's exactly what's been going on within the UK, just on a smaller scale. It's the tension between a strong centralised government - in London - and Scotland wanting to shake off that centralised control so it can be freed to do its own thing in its own way and control its own money, that has led us to where we are with the vote tomorrow. This has been building up since the 1970s. Strong centralised government has failed.

I have to admit I have been appalled at the amount of violence that this campaign stirred. The Yes proponents are going too far - as far as threatening the lives of the No supporters, scaring them off, hackling their children (!!!), calling them traitors... whatever happens, the Scottish society/nation itself will come out of this deeply polarised and divided. Is that what Salmond and SNP wanted??? It's a disgrace of a democracy, and really shameful example of what to expect from the new country were it to happen.

Sadly much of Salmond's and the SNP's presentation has been directed at stoking up nationalist fervour, combined with provoking anti-English sentiment - which has never been far below the surface for many Scots - by demonising Cameron and implying that he and the "remote Westminster ruling elite" are the permanent embodiment of a Tory-aligned, bullying England scheming and plotting to steal Scotland's resources and impoverish its people. The clue's in the name: Scottish Nationalist Party

I've read that independence has huge support among Scottish LGBT groups and people. Don't know if that's true, but I found it interesting. Also, if Scotland does become independent, I wonder what it will do to the politics of Irish nationalism. 

I've read that independence has huge support among Scottish LGBT groups and people. Don't know if that's true, but I found it interesting. Also, if Scotland does become independent, I wonder what it will do to the politics of Irish nationalism. 

I'd not heard that but it's interesting - Scotland, England and Wales are pretty much in step as regards LGBT rights so I don't know why there should be a bias in respect of Yes or No. Northern Ireland is another matter because of the hard line religious positions of Catholic and Protestant which dominate that country.

I can't see the Scotland vote having any impact on Northern Ireland politics because the divide is already deeply embedded and the "peace process" was put in place to keep the two sides together with devolved power-sharing through the Northern Ireland Assembly from 2007. An independence referendum in Northern Ireland is impossible because the whole country would then go straight back to the tribal / terrorist warfare which crippled the country for decades until the peace process.

Thanks for the information and the points of view from all the commentators.  The 21st Century does seem to have its own set of challenges with groups all over clamoring for self-rule including many in the Middle East, Spain and Aftica.  The UN looks less and less like world body and there seems to be less and less trust in government as it is always portrayed as the problem rather than a means of working out a solution.  The Social Compacts of the Enlightenment seem to be a relic of the past.  

The Brave New World is more disorder than order and with weapons of mass destruction and biological and chemical weapons proliferating, it looks like a scary time for mankind is dawning.  

I often agree with you Zombie, but I really did "LOL"  (actually, more like spit out my drink all over the laptop) when I saw you say Gordon Brown is "Credible" and "effective". :-)

I think Tony Blair should have been involved in the campaign - with a big tee-shirt saying "I'm sorry" on it.

Also, just on the subject that HM the Queen "involved" herself in politics.  She issued a very carefully worded piece of advice that applies equally to both camps (and in fact to as-yet-undecided voters).  Strictly speaking, she acted completely constitutionally in the definition given by Walter Bagshot that she has the right to "Advise, encourage and warn".  She acted exactly as she is legally bound to do - issue advice without being partisan.  Even if the newspapers were supposedly reporting her private views all week.

I often agree with you Zombie, but I really did "LOL"  (actually, more like spit out my drink all over the laptop) when I saw you say Gordon Brown is "Credible" and "effective". :-)

 

I think Tony Blair should have been involved in the campaign - with a big tee-shirt saying "I'm sorry" on it.

 

Also, just on the subject that HM the Queen "involved" herself in politics.  She issued a very carefully worded piece of advice that applies equally to both camps (and in fact to as-yet-undecided voters).  Strictly speaking, she acted completely constitutionally in the definition given by Walter Bagshot that she has the right to "Advise, encourage and warn".  She acted exactly as she is legally bound to do - issue advice without being partisan.  Even if the newspapers were supposedly reporting her private views all week.

well I'm very sorry if I've caused your keyboard to shortcircuit from your liquid ejecta but yes, irrespective of his record in a Labour Government, Gordon Brown has been a very "effective and credible presenter" of the Better Together Campaign... for the Scots . Because the Scots are the only audience that matter. How he is perceived South of the border is immaterial.

As for HMQ, it was a very clever remark because, as you rightly point out, it could be interpreted either way. Except... we do know her personal view. And that is not from her "private views" which, as you say, newspapers have been reporting all week, it is from her public statements. In 1977 during her Silver Jubilee she made a public speech making a direct reference to those who had “aspirations” of devolved national assemblies, and warned them of the consequences of breaking up the United Kingdom: “I number Kings and Queens of England and of Scotland and of Princes of Wales among my ancestors,” she declared, “and so I can readily understand these aspirations. But I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and of Northern Ireland. Perhaps this Jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of the United Kingdom.”

That's pretty damn clear.

And in fact she did not act, as you say, "completely constitutionally in the definition given by Walter Bagshot that she has the right to "Advise, encourage and warn", because Mr Bagehot - not to be confused with the attractive Tory stronghold in Surrey - actually stated that the monarch has "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn" but - crucially - this only applies to her ministers via regular audiences with the Prime Minister. It does not extend to making statements to the general public that she knows will be widely reported. So, yes, this is one of the rare occasions when she's engaged in politicking. But very subtly. What would you expect from a wily old bird who's known every Prime Minister back to Winston Churchill and who probably understands British politics better than both Houses of Parliament combined

< FREEDOM!

Might not be all that it is cracked up to be. A divided United Kingdom will have a lot less influence on the world stage.

If Scotland secedes, will HM the Queen still feel welcome at Balmoral Castle?  Will she be required to have a visa?

If Scotland secedes, will HM the Queen still feel welcome at Balmoral Castle?  Will she be required to have a visa?

well, she'll still be Head of State for Scotland whatever the vote, just as she is of Australia, Canada and New Zealand - so I guess she'll still be welcome, and they'll probably waive the visa requirement

After 8 years of Bush and 8 years of O'bozo, I wonder if the Queen will take us back.

Maybe, if you throw her a tea party.

Scots vote "NO".  New York Times article.

EDINBURGH — Voters in Scotland rejected independence from Britain in a referendum that had threatened to break up the 307-year union between them, according to projections by the BBC and Sky News early Friday.

 

Before dawn after a night of counting that showed a steady trend in favor of maintaining the union, Nicola Sturgeon, the deputy head of the pro-independence Scottish National Party, effectively conceded defeat for the “yes” campaign that had pressed for secession.

 

“Like thousands of others across the country I’ve put my heart and soul into this campaign and there is a real sense of disappointment that we’ve fallen narrowly short of securing a yes vote,” Ms. Sturgeon told BBC television.

 

With 26 of 32 voting districts reporting, there were 1,397,077 votes, or 54.2 percent, against independence, and 1,176,952, or 45.7 percent, in favor.

 

The final result for all 32 councils is

No   - 2,001,926  55.3%

Yes - 1,617,989  44.7%

Some interesting factoids

- the turnout was 85%

- lowering the voting age to 16 probably boosted the Yes vote (change is exciting and more appealing when you're young )

- the 2 Sept YouGov poll predicting a Yes win was a shock - it's likely to have spurred No supporters, who may not have bothered voting  because previous polls consistently showed a No win, to get off their butts and hence the record % voting

- it's also likely these included a good chunk of women who generally seem to find politics a turnoff BUT who (and this is a deeply sexist remark ) are also more risk averse and therefore were probably unwilling to accept the significant Yes risks that were highlighted during the campaign

But it's not over. The UK will never be the same again. Change is a comin' ...

I hope London will get more out of this. It's a city that is competing on an international scale yet it's completely bogged down by the Treasury and it only has 1 % of the tax income raised on its "soil". I know many of these taxes are based there only because of national and international HQs, as well as many employees working in London (generating profit for the enterprises in it) are actually living outside London. BUT those employees pay income tax outside London too - and the city needs to count with these extra people on top of the residents and tourists in designing its infrastructure, so it should get more money for that purpose. So yeah, great that the Scottish are getting more powers but I think we're getting a proper devolution across the whole of the country, creating in fact a federal United Kingdom.