
Scotland's Decision - andrewaylett
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8699/index.html
======
tim333
While I tend not to be too impressed by UK politicians I'm quite proud that
the government is able to say to Scotland, OK have a vote and go independent
or not. So many of the world problems seem to have been caused by governments
taking the opposite view and saying it's mine all mine. See Ukraine and about
1000+ other examples.

~~~
asuffield
This referendum is not binding in any sense. The government in Westminster
will make the decision, and it will not be made by the current government
(there isn't enough time before the general election). If the next government
is formed of different people, then under British sovereignty traditions it
will feel no obligation to pay any attention to the referendum run by its
predecessor.

In practical terms: if Labour gets into power in 2015 then Scottish
independence will not happen regardless of the outcome of this referendum,
because Scottish independence would eliminate Labour as a political force in
the UK (Tories would win all UK elections, SNP would win all Scottish
elections).

It's not over yet.

~~~
tomp
> Tories would win all UK elections

If this would happen, I'm pretty sure some or other power-hungry fractions of
the party would try to make a new party, so you'd again have two (or more)
competing.

~~~
asuffield
I would not be surprised by seeing a Tory split (into the nationalist and
libertarian factions), but it would take years - there's a lot of money
holding the two halves of their party together. I wouldn't like this outcome
much though - it would mean Cameron was the representative of the "nicer
party" in British politics.

------
nmeofthestate
In the latest opinion poll from the most No-friendly pollster[1] 'Yes' is
ahead in all age groups apart from the over 60s, where No is way ahead. If
there is a No vote it seems likely to have been won by the old. This backs up
the narrative from this article that Britishness is dying out in Scotland (of
course, pensioners have also been frightened by scary stories about their
pensions, and tend to be more small-c conservative, so it's not entirely an
identity thing)

[1] YouGov. Different polling companies appear to have different systematic
errors in their results, meaning that polls are spread fairly widely. This
particular polling company has until recently been showing large leads for No.
In their most recent poll the lead had been cut down to 6%, reflecting a
feeling 'on the ground' that there's a genuine shift happening. Personally I
am still totally unsure what result we'll get in two weeks (two weeks!)

~~~
pidg
The SNP probably brought in voting for 16 and 17 year olds on the basis that
it might counter the strong 'No' vote in the 60+ group.

However, that group is fairly equally split (45% Yes/44% No). I reckon they
underestimated how strongly popular culture, which is focused on London,
influences the 16/17 age group.

~~~
cstross
I will note that reducing the voting age to 16 in general elections is
probably on the cards for the UK as a whole after the next general election:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21178379](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-21178379)

------
andrewaylett
I appreciate the politics may not impact many here, but I enjoyed the (by now
fairly common, I suppose) design and the information being presented seems to
me to be a good background to the current state of affairs.

~~~
Semaphor
> but I enjoyed the (by now fairly common, I suppose) design

The opposite for me, I had to use Clearly (restyling extension for easier
reading) to remove all their distracting and annoying, erratically moving
backgrounds (especially together with the semi transparent text background, if
it was opaque at least).

The article itself was a great read though.

~~~
thedrbrian
On my iPad Air the text is massive(as with most "mobile" websites) and an inch
on each side of the screen is wasted with empty space.

Maybe I've got funny eyesight.

------
brortao
It's really exciting to follow this referendum, even if purely from a
democratic perspective (out of the last 68 years, Scotland has voted
Conservative for 6 years, but has had Conservative governments for 38 of those
years). The No campaign has a difficult job, because it's not easy to sell the
status quo - but they've essentially resorted to fearmongering, and it looks
like people are starting to see the lack of substance. I think that
theweebluebook.com presents the argument for independence quite well.

~~~
bruceboughton
>> out of the last 68 years, Scotland has voted Conservative 6 times, but has
had Conservative governments for 38 of those years

Do you mean that Scotland has voted Conservative in 6 general elections? If
so, with a maximum of 5 years between elections, they voted for a Conservative
govt for up to 30years of those 38. That's quite a misleading way to represent
that statistic isn't it?

~~~
nmeofthestate
On this page you can see graphical representation of Scottish and UK voting
patterns, and how 'subtracting' Scottish votes would have affected UK results
(in fact, very little):

[http://theweebluebook.com/principles-and-
politics.php](http://theweebluebook.com/principles-and-politics.php)

~~~
bruceboughton
This does not address my comment.

Is the 6 times: 6 parliaments or 6 years? Is the 68: 68 parliaments or 68
years? Are units being mixed for exaggeration?

~~~
hughmcg
In both the unit is years. However, the figure of 6 is incorrect as I assume
it refers to the fact that in 1951 the Conservatives (at the time the Unionist
and National Liberal and Conservative parties in Scotland) got the same number
of seats as Labour in Scotland. If we count this, the correct figure is 8 of
68 years.

------
imurray
Here's a dump of some other insights into the referendum:

Betfair's probability of a majority yes vote (NOT a poll of fraction who will
vote yes) over time:
[http://uk.sportsiteexweb.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoC...](http://uk.sportsiteexweb.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoChartAction.do?marketId=110033387&selectionId=5334892&logarithmic=true)

The University of Edinburgh has a guide to the debate:
[http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/guidetothedebate](http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/guidetothedebate)

It also has a MOOC(!)
[https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/indyref/](https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/indyref/)

------
philh
> For 15 years the Scottish Parliament has been a fiscally lopsided
> institution. The money comes from a block grant from the UK Treasury.
> Westminster decides how much tax we all pay and how much government there
> should be in relation to the economy but not how it’s spent.

> You can see why there’s little room in the Scottish national discourse for a
> party that says “vote for us and we’ll cut your taxes; vote for us and we’ll
> make government smaller”.

I'm not sure how this follows. Can someone clarify?

~~~
majc2
Scotland's parliament does have tax varying powers but has never used them .
So, it takes the block grant from the Westminster parliament and decides how
to spend it through something called the Barnett formula.

Scotland is essentially a socialist country (and socialist isn't a dirty word
here). There is a sense of fair play and looking after the poorest in society
- a party that would propose a tax cut for a smaller gov. wouldn't do well in
the popular vote in Scotland.

Does that help?

~~~
__chrismc
It's worth pointing out that the only variance it can make under the existing
powers is to _raise_ income taxes - this is why it's never been used. Doing so
would be political suicide and see a population drain as those able to would
quickly move "next door" to an England with lower taxes.

The Barnett formula determines the size of the block grant, not the spending
of it. The Scottish Government spends the grant according to its priorities.
At the moment these include: free healthcare (including prescriptions), free
higher education, and free care for the elderly.

~~~
DanBC
> free healthcare (including prescriptions),

For people not in the UK: people in England pay for each item on a
prescription. The charge is currently £8.05 per item. You can get discounts if
you need multiple items. There are a bunch of exemptions - people with a
thyroid problem for example - which mean that about 90% of items are free.

[https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-charges-from-
april-20...](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-charges-from-april-2014)

~~~
majc2
It should also be pointed out that its not entirely a one way street - for
example England has the excellent Cancer Drug Fund, which Scotland doesn't.

[http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/scottish-cancer-
patients...](http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/scottish-cancer-patients-
denied-medicine-fund-1-3117297)

~~~
matthewmacleod
I would strongly disagree with the CDF being "excellent" – it's basically
money cut from other NHS budgets and repurposed for expensive individual
cancer therapies.

At the very least, an expansion and improvement of the existing equivalent
system in Scotland (individual treatment request) would offer a better
solution for the need to fund individual specific treatments that haven't been
widely approved.

------
matthewmacleod
This is a very good background on the wider causes of this referendum taking
place – nice to see.

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens to the UK post-
referendum, regardless of what way the vote goes.

------
PaulRobinson
The worst outcome is increasingly looking like what will actually materialise:
a narrow margin.

It doesn't matter who wins, if either side does not win with at least 60% of
the electorate, it's going to undermine their position going forward. We could
see Referendum v2.0 in 2-10 years, quite easily.

Nobody on either side wants that, but it's starting to feel inevitable.

~~~
fidotron
Indeed. I can't see the rest of the country being happy with a limbo that ends
up giving Scotland ever more powers in order to prevent a by then meaningless
"No" in the next round while they all live in statusquoville. Combined with
the apparent rise of UKIP the situation is all looking to be a bit of a mess.

The SNP may have successfully engineered the divisive conditions that the
Parti Quebecois never quite managed, with the PQ example being that the
uncertainty is almost more damaging than what is being debated.

------
chrisweekly
Tangent to the Decision per se: that article is a really beautiful
presentation, to my eyes. The implementation isn't perfect -- e.g., there's a
bunch of low-hanging WPO fruit -- but on a good browser (Chrome 37 / OSX
10.9.4 / 1920x1200) and a fast connection, the UX is fantastic. IMHO. :)

------
2color
I'm curious, what view does BBC generally express on the matter?

~~~
gambiting
BBC cannot express any view on that matter. It's bipartisan and will only
report facts.

~~~
tankenmate
Actually it is not bipartisan; it is required to be neutral, regardless how
how many political parties (or political / economic ideologies) there are.

~~~
gambiting
Alright, that's what I actually meant when I said bipartisan - that it does
not support any parties by definition. I know, wrong word.

