Voting No – Heading Off Trouble
Posted: September 17, 2014
Updated: June 4, 2017
The UK establishment has come out full force against the Independence vote but do their arguments stand up to scrutiny?
Suffering perhaps from the hubris of treating the independence movement as if it had all the chances for success of a North Korea casino license application, the “No” campaign, or, as they like to keep reminding everyone, the “Better Together” campaign, has been playing catch-up ever since a published poll put a vote for independence within the margin of error. The ensuing panic in Westminster, seat of the British government, saw all three major political parties pledge new devolved powers to Scotland if they voted against full independence, precisely the “Devo Max” option they had once insisted be removed as a referendum option.
The largest obstacles to an independent Scotland lie in the economic sphere with the Pound being central to them all. During one of the televised debates between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond it was repeatedly pointed out by the former that since the Pound is quite definitely English the latter couldn't say what currency an independent Scotland would be using. The reply that it was Scotland's pound too might have rung hollow in Westminster but it played well north of the border.
The currency issue rumbled through the early stages of the campaign as the experienced economist Darling did all he could to portray the economic instability and independent Scotland would face, even going so far as to question the sustainability of income from the enviable oil and gas resources that Scotland enjoys, and which play a major part of the desire to keep it within the Union. The economic balance between income and spending has been a Darling mainstay throughout.
The oil reserves upon which much of the independence campaigns economic plans depend are pumped out by rigs in the North Sea and the plans themselves face just as rough weather as business leaders and company directors, bankers and other well established firms have all voiced objections to the go-it-alone strategy of Mr. Salmond. Pointing out the lack of detail in the plans the “No” campaign has time and again driven home the message that voting for an independent Scotland was more of a gamble than putting a tenner on Hillary Clinton to win in 2016 on some online gambling site in the UK.
The “No” campaign obviously have the advantage when it comes to the economic arguments, which is why they tend to focus upon them, because there isn't a small newly independent nation in the history of the world that hasn't faced some form of economic instability, especially not if their neighbor and largest trading partner is hugely displeased with them for leaving a socio-political union after three hundred years. Not that anyone would characterize Westminster politicians as vengeful petty minded control freaks that will seek to cause that instability after a pro-independence vote, at least not to their faces.
The cost of pensions and the NHS are issues the “No” campaign insists are massive economic stumbling blocks that tourism and oil won't cover sustainably over the long term, something perhaps backed up by the announcements of several banks they would “relocate” south of the border should Scotland leave the UK feeling that there would be inevitable tax rises on businesses and the banking sector perhaps most embarrassingly the Royal Bank of Scotland is amongst them. This playing the the head not the heart has been central to the “No” campaign.
Europe is another issue on which the “No” campaign has zeroed in pointing out that Scotland would no longer be a member of the European Union and that the European Union is unlikely to be too easy on an independent Scotland. The EU, somewhat obviously, doesn't like countries breaking away from centuries old economic unions, it sets a bad precedent that some of their member might decide to emulate. Their place on the world stage would be under threat, the “No” campaign insist, with it not even being a safe bet on sports in the UK being able to continue as before.
Overall the “Better Together” campaign has played to the head not the heart knowing the “Yes” campaign has a stranglehold on the wild eyed idealists, but the almost mercenary manner in which the “No” campaign has tried to convey a sense of the huge gamble with their future Scots would be taking were they to vote for independence. A point of view that will almost certainly strike a chord with the typically quite prudent Scots, but will that be enough to save the union when the chips are down well it's still too close to call.
Not, of course, that this stops the bookies giving odds on the result and seemingly ignore the very close public opinion polls. Whilst the margin of error covers the poll numbers the odds on offer are widely different (far wider than but a few days ago) with Bet365 offering 3/1 on a vote for independence, which is still in a long way from where it was, and BetVictor giving 11/4 on a “No” vote victory. What do the bookies know that the polls aren't showing? We'll find out on Thursday and on Friday we'll all have to live with whatever the Scots decide to do.
Read more about the Scottish Independence gamble.
Suffering perhaps from the hubris of treating the independence movement as if it had all the chances for success of a North Korea casino license application, the “No” campaign, or, as they like to keep reminding everyone, the “Better Together” campaign, has been playing catch-up ever since a published poll put a vote for independence within the margin of error. The ensuing panic in Westminster, seat of the British government, saw all three major political parties pledge new devolved powers to Scotland if they voted against full independence, precisely the “Devo Max” option they had once insisted be removed as a referendum option.
Are We Better Together?This amusingly desperate political scramble has seen much of the work done by Alistair Darling, former Labour Chancellor and head of the “No” campaign as such, a little over-shadowed by the big guns from down south, however perhaps that's just as well, the campaign, perhaps, gambling news of the new promises from David Cameron and Co. will sweep away some of the arguments they've evidently lost with vast tracts of the electorate. “Better Together” is catchy and vaguely sexual but what are the real arguments against Scottish Independence?
• Complacent start to campaign damaged it
• Last ditch panic unseemly and undignified
• Offers more devolution as bribe to “No” voters
The largest obstacles to an independent Scotland lie in the economic sphere with the Pound being central to them all. During one of the televised debates between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond it was repeatedly pointed out by the former that since the Pound is quite definitely English the latter couldn't say what currency an independent Scotland would be using. The reply that it was Scotland's pound too might have rung hollow in Westminster but it played well north of the border.
The currency issue rumbled through the early stages of the campaign as the experienced economist Darling did all he could to portray the economic instability and independent Scotland would face, even going so far as to question the sustainability of income from the enviable oil and gas resources that Scotland enjoys, and which play a major part of the desire to keep it within the Union. The economic balance between income and spending has been a Darling mainstay throughout.
Do The Economic Sums Add Up?
The “Better Together” campaign has been at pains throughout to underline the serious issues that an independent Scotland would still have to deal with not as part of the United Kingdom but by themselves. Not least amongst these are the inevitable long term economic impacts of current prevailing demographic shifts within the population. In essence the Scottish population is aging increasing the burden on the welfare state and health services, this rising macro economic cost is said to leave a 400 million pound hole.The oil reserves upon which much of the independence campaigns economic plans depend are pumped out by rigs in the North Sea and the plans themselves face just as rough weather as business leaders and company directors, bankers and other well established firms have all voiced objections to the go-it-alone strategy of Mr. Salmond. Pointing out the lack of detail in the plans the “No” campaign has time and again driven home the message that voting for an independent Scotland was more of a gamble than putting a tenner on Hillary Clinton to win in 2016 on some online gambling site in the UK.
The “No” campaign obviously have the advantage when it comes to the economic arguments, which is why they tend to focus upon them, because there isn't a small newly independent nation in the history of the world that hasn't faced some form of economic instability, especially not if their neighbor and largest trading partner is hugely displeased with them for leaving a socio-political union after three hundred years. Not that anyone would characterize Westminster politicians as vengeful petty minded control freaks that will seek to cause that instability after a pro-independence vote, at least not to their faces.
The cost of pensions and the NHS are issues the “No” campaign insists are massive economic stumbling blocks that tourism and oil won't cover sustainably over the long term, something perhaps backed up by the announcements of several banks they would “relocate” south of the border should Scotland leave the UK feeling that there would be inevitable tax rises on businesses and the banking sector perhaps most embarrassingly the Royal Bank of Scotland is amongst them. This playing the the head not the heart has been central to the “No” campaign.
EU And NATO Membership At Risk
Of course there are other arguments against independence not least of which is one of national security as an independent Scotland wouldn't have the British army, air force or navy to call upon and would have other fiscal priorities preventing them from developing their own. There would also be the fact they would no longer be a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and might have issues reapplying with any alacrity given NATO itself is somewhat busy heading off World War III in the Ukraine.Europe is another issue on which the “No” campaign has zeroed in pointing out that Scotland would no longer be a member of the European Union and that the European Union is unlikely to be too easy on an independent Scotland. The EU, somewhat obviously, doesn't like countries breaking away from centuries old economic unions, it sets a bad precedent that some of their member might decide to emulate. Their place on the world stage would be under threat, the “No” campaign insist, with it not even being a safe bet on sports in the UK being able to continue as before.
Overall the “Better Together” campaign has played to the head not the heart knowing the “Yes” campaign has a stranglehold on the wild eyed idealists, but the almost mercenary manner in which the “No” campaign has tried to convey a sense of the huge gamble with their future Scots would be taking were they to vote for independence. A point of view that will almost certainly strike a chord with the typically quite prudent Scots, but will that be enough to save the union when the chips are down well it's still too close to call.
Not, of course, that this stops the bookies giving odds on the result and seemingly ignore the very close public opinion polls. Whilst the margin of error covers the poll numbers the odds on offer are widely different (far wider than but a few days ago) with Bet365 offering 3/1 on a vote for independence, which is still in a long way from where it was, and BetVictor giving 11/4 on a “No” vote victory. What do the bookies know that the polls aren't showing? We'll find out on Thursday and on Friday we'll all have to live with whatever the Scots decide to do.
Read more about the Scottish Independence gamble.
GAMBLING NEWS IN UNITED STATES
2024-02-28
2024-02-27
2024-02-27
2024-02-27
2024-02-27
2024-02-27
