Better Nation

31 Comments

• #1 by ronald alexander mcdonald on October 11, 2012 - 6:06 pm

  

  I’m under the impression that most scots want real change, but aren’t sure what that change should be, constitutionally.

  Therefore, any movement proposing change is pushing at an open door. I can’t see the masses storming into the polling booths in 2014 to enthusiastically vote NO-for the status quo.

  However, to achieve a YES vote the SNP must be more radical than they are at the moment, or the people will not vote for Independence. Bearing in mind Independence means change, it’s up to the Indepedence movement to convince the masses that change is worth voting for.

  Having said all that the referendum isn’t for another two years. The last thing they want to do is peak too soon. Better to let the unionists continue with their scaremongering, and create general resentment. Then release information bit by bit. I’m confident that will happen and of a YES vote.

  I don’t expect the polls to move much over the next year and a half. Engage with the people when the times right. If a weeks a long time in politics, what’s two years?

  • #2 by Jeff on October 11, 2012 - 7:12 pm

    

    Good points Ronald. Despite there being an appetite for change, I don’t think that necessarily means that a fussy electorate will vote for any old change that’s in front of them. I still think, despite Devo Max being off the table, that the SNP has a tough sell and needs to do a lot of convincing, a lot of constitutional heavy lifting that they currently don’t seem willing to get into.

    But I agree, the polls could stay low until 6 weeks before voting day and an avalanche could appear. It happened at Holyrood last year, it could happen in 2014. (But that doesn’t leave us bloggers with much to write about!)

    • #3 by Angus McLellan on October 12, 2012 - 2:05 am

      

      You say you don’t think people will vote for any old change, but the record could be read that way if you were so inclined. After all, Scots voted 52:48 for the ’79 deal, and nobody then or since thought it was a good deal so far as I can see.

      As Kerevan says in the Scotsman, and thousands of others have said before him, it’s not an impossible sell. The Yes campaign (not the SNP) need to convince devomaxers that Yes is closer to what they want than No is. Now according to the slide that accompanied Alan Trench’s “Enhancing devolution” article, “in reality the gulf between ‘independence’ and ‘greater self-government’ for Scotland within the Union is greater than many think”. So, if Trench is right, after months of being persuaded that they’d like Holyrood to be responsible for almost everything, the devomax tendency are likely to discover over the next couple of years that even the most extravagant promises of jam tomorrow turn out to fall far short of what they once thought they wanted. And what happens then?

• #4 by Indy on October 11, 2012 - 6:13 pm

  

  I disagree – I think we always need to spell out what the alternative to independence is. The Tories. That is not the entire message of course but we do need to keep reminding people that it’s not a case of independence or something else. It’s independence or this. Anyone who votes No is voting to allow the Tories to run Scotland. They will, in fact, be enabling it. I think we do need to ram that home, it’s the negative side of the pro-indy debate if you like. No point people crying crocodile tears about all the terrible things the Tories are doing if they then vote No because that is a vote to enable the Tories to run Scotland every time they win in England.

  • #5 by Jeff on October 11, 2012 - 7:23 pm

    

    It’s not just the Tories that the SNP is calling Tories though, is it? Johann Lamont got the full treatment for raising a not unreasonable point (albeit in a clumsy and half-baked manner).

    And it’s not the pointing out that Scotland inside the UK means 50% Tory rule over the next few decades, it’s the lack of discussion and debate anywhere (that I can find) that develops that objection into what it means for Scotland. A simple case in point is the creeping privatisation of the NHS in England and Wales and the funding impact on the 100% public, and consequently costlier, NHS in Scotland. Another is the savings reduced defence spending would make. The SNP (or Yes Scotland) should be all over these types of arguments like a rash but it just doesn’t seem to happen.

    People expect Salmond to bash the Tories at each turn, he can really only disappoint if he continues to do so though. He needs to step outside his comfort zone on an incremental and ongoing basis to get over this challenge. I currently don’t see that taking shape given the inability to rise above the bunfights.

    • #6 by Indy on October 13, 2012 - 8:55 am

      

      Yes but we know part of the reason in 2010 that Labour swept up the vote so convincingly is that the SNP forgot to slag off the Tories. It’s something we have overlooked at times because it is so obvious. You tend to assume people know the SNP oppose the Tories and of course people who are closely interested in politics know that. But most voters aren’t that interested, they don’t follow every twist and turn so you need a certain amount of repitition to establish a point. Which is – I fully accept – boring and uninspiring for those who do follow the political game closely.

• #7 by Andrew Smith on October 11, 2012 - 6:50 pm

  

  I think what those of us who support independence need to consider is what the response will be if Better Together and the unionist parties rebrand themselves as pro devolutionists. The Lib Dems and Labour have both called for devolution style commissions, which will no doubt determine their policies based on where they perceive public opinion to be and what would cause the minimum disruption to the status quo. Ultimately I believe if they feel that they need to then they will sign-away a number of financial powers as long as they can keep control of foreign policy and oil.

  How does it effect the campaign if the status quo becomes ‘more powers’? I know all of the ‘jam tomorrow’ types of arguments, but at the moment the polling suggests that support for independence is still around the 1/3 mark. The result will be decided by people who currently support more powers but not independence (what degree of power is open to question to) and YES Scotland and SNP need to have a more detailed response than just talking about 1979.

  I think the YES campaign can win (and of course I want it to) but Jeff is broadly right, being anti-Tory is one reason to support independence, but there needs to be something more than that. The SNP have been in power for 5 years (albeit only 14 months with a majority) but the polls haven’t been shifting, and they need to shift more in the next 2 years than they have in the previous 50.

  • #8 by Jeff on October 11, 2012 - 7:28 pm

    

    Excellent points Andrew. I’m very much a gradualist so if a No vote ends up meaning fiscal autonomy and some more powers then I’ll be in pretty much a win-win position. I suspect many would think the same. I don’t really know how such a disparate group as Labour/Tories/Lib Dems can brand a No vote as equating to anything particularly tangible (Cameron was certainly vague on what powers Scotland would get after the referendum) but it’s a pretty big and largely stationary target that the unionists have to aim at with how pro-devolution they can choose to be, and that is certainly to their advantage.

    • #9 by Iain Menzies on October 11, 2012 - 7:31 pm

      

      The conversations ive been having with friends in the tory party would suggest that there is a growing sense that there needs to be fundamental constitutional change across the UK. There arent many tories that are thinking in terms of ‘more powers for holyrood’ but rather in federalising the UK. I dont think it would be in the interest of any section of the UK to devolve much more in the way of powers now, unless there is a rebalancing of powers across the UK. Which means Scots, welsh and Irish having equal powers, and the same for the english at a ‘national’ or regional level. And from the reports ive seen thats pretty much where wee Ruthie is too.

      • #10 by Andrew Smith on October 11, 2012 - 9:21 pm

        

        That’s an interesting angle from your Tory friends Iain, but if it represents where the head honchos in the party are then I would be surprised, although it does sound like the sort of thing I could imagine Murdo Fraser saying.

        I would expect Lamont and Rennie must be capable of reading polls (although sometimes it would appear otherwise) and must be aware that they can significantly increase their chances of winning by showing some political flexibility. Their best strategy to win would be to create doubt about independence with the current sort of attacks (which as much as some people hate to admit appear to be having some traction) while at the same time offering a positive devolved alternative.

        • #11 by Iain Menzies on October 11, 2012 - 10:09 pm

          

          Well the mood music coming from davidson is that after the referendum there should be a constitutional convention, which would look at devolution to england as well as further powers for scot/wales/NI, and shes not known for going much away from the leadership of the party in london. So i would say thats as near as the head honchos without cameron dedicating a PPB to it.

          On the polls….There are those that support the union, and those that dont.

          Those that dont are a minority. If there is a devo max option or not the indy option is a minority. Devo max is not indy, its unionism (for the most part). The best strat for the unionist side to win is to trust in teh people of scotland….since at least 55% pretty much always say they are unionists….Better Together has, well pretty much won already.

• #12 by Iain Menzies on October 11, 2012 - 7:27 pm

  

  BoJo is always up to something. But the idea that he is about to rush back to Westminster and then go for the leadership just doesnt wash. First off is how would get get back in? Where would he find a seat? Someone would have to step down, there arent all that many safe tory seats in london that have MP’s that would be willing to make way in the next 2 years for him. And if he did get the chance at a winable seat in london then how does he justify standing as an MP when he still has the most of his term as Mayor to finish, a term he promised to finish. Its not a good start to begin a return to westminster by breaking his most recent election promise. SO that basically rules out a london seat. Getting at a seat in thge rest of the country wouldnt be easy either, unless someone dies, and Tory MP’s aint that old these days…and if he did well hes essentially saying screw you to london. Why would the tory party elect as leader someone who has not kept his commitment to london, and who makes it much harder for any tory to win in london. But beyond that, the tory party is broadly behind Cameron. Support for boris is ann expression of unease and frustration rather than a real desire to change leadership.

  other than that you are pretty much on the mark.

  • #13 by Jeff on October 11, 2012 - 7:45 pm

    

    Salmond promised not to stand for the SNP leadership ever again in the early 2000s. How did that pan out?

    The link I provided showed but one example of how Boris could get into Westminster – an already jaded Zac Goldsmith could step aside in the easily winnable Richmond Park any time between now and the General Election in 2015. Londonders wouldn’t begrudge Boris stepping down. I’m sure there’s plenty of right-of-Cameron Tories who’d make the sacrifice to get their poster boy into office. It’s somewhat dependent on Cameron’s performance over the next year but those Conservatives love a bit of plotting.

    I’m a sucker for hype so you might be right, but I still think there’s more than just media puff behind the Boris vs Dave headlines.

    • #14 by Iain Menzies on October 11, 2012 - 7:52 pm

      

      I am sure that Boris wants the job. And i have alot of time for boris. I was a Party member when Cameron was elected, and i havent been since just after he became leader….but if there is a realistic possiblity of Boris standing, i would join again just to vote against him. Boris may be a contender, but not untill at least 2017. By which point Liam fox will have been rehabilitated, so thats one for the right, David Davis is also popular on the right, thats two, Owen Paterson (Minister of Sound) is a wet dream of tory soundness. Micheal Gove, if he would take it, and if cameron dies tomorrow theres always william hague.

      Boris is good for headlines….but he wont be the next tory leader.

• #15 by Dennis Smith on October 11, 2012 - 8:01 pm

  

  ‘What the point of voting Yes then?’ The point is that Scots will then be able to make democratic decisions about their future as Scots, not as Britons. Democracy is coextensive with political/constitutional identity. People accept political decisions as binding on themselves to the extent that they identify with the polity making the decision: the decision becomes my decision. That is why people got so worked up about a ‘democratic deficit’ in the 1980s and 1990s. As Scots they voted Labour; as Britons they repeatedly got Tory governments. Polls suggest that Scots in general identify much more strongly as Scottish than British.

  The nation-state is the main site for collective decision-making in the contemporary world. (We may not like this, but it’s where we are.) So if Scots are to make democratic decisions that they can identify with and accept as binding, then they need their own nation-state. Everything else is secondary to this – monarchy, nuclear weapons, etc. Either we decide as Scots or we decide as Britons. There is an existential choice to be made – a leap of faith, if you like.

  This is why is not for the SNP, or for the Yes campaign as a whole, to explain what a Yes vote means. It means that the Scottish people will decide whatever they decide, through the parliaments and governments that they elect post-independence. The new Scotland may be very different (as I personally hope) or it may be much the same. It’s for the people to decide – that’s democracy.

  • #16 by Braco on October 12, 2012 - 12:44 pm

    

    Very, very well put. Thank you Dennis.

• #17 by Alex Buchan on October 11, 2012 - 11:38 pm

  

  #7 & #8. The Telegraph had an article on this a couple of days ago. It said Cameron has been taking soundings about setting up a Constitutional Convention to cover the whole of the UK if Scotland votes no. The article said the LibDems are keen, but Labour are not.

  My off the cuff interpretation is that they want a tighter constitutional settlement. The article was quite blunt saying it was designed to stop Scotland being a special case. Reading between the lines, we can expect new rules governing referendum in any part of the UK, effectively ensuring the SNP can’t repeat its present coup of forcing the UK government to negotiate with it. Talk of more powers is really a foil for what would be quite obviously Westminster’s attempt to use the immediate aftermath of a referendum defeat to gain greater constitutional control over Scotland. This is pretty clear from the Telegraph article.

  On federalism: all the UK parties know this is a non-starter because of the disparity in size between England and the other nations. The Tories are totally opposed to English regions. Labour would prefer English regions to English Votes for English Laws or an English Grand Committee because they know that would make it harder for them to govern at Westminster, hence their opposition to Cameron’s Constitutional Convention. However, Labour are stymied because there is considerable hostility in England to regional devolution.

  The article said Labour preferred to obstruct such a constitutional convention in the hope of winning the general election in 2015 and trying to forge their own solution. Any constitutional convention, if it ever came about, would likely try to strengthen the UK by making Scotland part of an overarching constitutional settlement, including new rules governing secession, resulting in uniformity of powers between the three smaller units and any new powers having to be for all rather than just one. The Westminster Parliament would continue to govern England, using English Votes for English Laws or an English Grand Committee.

• #18 by EyeEdinburgh on October 12, 2012 - 5:59 am

  

  I have no particular emotional leaning towards voting yes for independence just for its own sake.

  That said, I count myself genuinely undecided because the Conservatives have gone from bad to worse and Labour are sliding uneasily rightwards to catch up with them. The idea of voting Yes to break up the UK because I cannot bear the government of 2010-2015 seems short-sighted and petty: but what if a permanent right-wing rot has set in at Westminster? This is why both UK Labour and the Conservatives have been successfully campaigning for Yes in 2014 as far as I am concerned.

  But then, there’s the SNP. Their assertion that they want independence because they want Scots to have more control does not square with their party’s supreme lack of concern for local democracy, from freezing the council tax to championing an oil billionaire over local Aberdonians. Alex Neil, appointed and still seated as Health Secretary, stands bullish against half of Scotland’s population having a very basic control over their own lives. How many MSPs will there be in the Scottish Parliament post-independence? If exactly the same number, each of them will have more than twice as much work to do. If the number is increased, where will the constituency boundaries lie? If powers are to be devolved to local councils, which ones? If local councillors are to do more work/have more autonomy, where are the plans for devolving local power? So do the SNP actually mean they want more power for Scots, or more powers for the First Minister and Holyrood? What, exactly, will I be voting for?

  The one policy that has constantly drawn me to voting for independence – closing down Faslane, temporarily or hopefully permanently disarming Scotland and rUK of nuclear weapons – remains shaky.

  • #19 by Jeff on October 12, 2012 - 10:00 am

    

    All good questions, questions that I hope are rhetorical cos I certainly don’t have any answers.

    I guess a rather woolly answer is that an independent Scotland would hopefully pick MSPs who are more representative of the direction Scots want to move in compared to UK MPs as a whole. What I mean is, there are MPs at Westminster, mostly Conservative, who would simply not get elected in Scotland but nonetheless they are charting the UK’s, and by extension Scotland’s, direction.

    Closing down Faslane may still be a challenge after a Yes result in 2014, but it’s a darn sight more likely to happen if we can shake off the more hawkish elements of the Tory party from the crucial decision making on the matter.

    PS I didn’t catch the Alex Neil point, though I’m becoming more and more aware that he’s a marmite politician.

  • #20 by Alex Buchan on October 12, 2012 - 11:43 am

    

    Yes there’s a lot to object to, but voting for independence is voting because you believe in independence and that Scots can shape a better future for themselves, in my view, it’s not about a party. It’s also highly unlikely the present parties would remain as they are. I suspect there would be a realignment. The question is, as Jeff says, what kind of policies would Scots vote for, and on that basis I can’t see Trident remaining.

• #21 by Alasdair Stirling on October 12, 2012 - 1:02 pm

  

  Jeff,

  With a referendum deal on the horizon, it is all too easy to forget how uncertain it was that Westminster would agree to there being a referendum at all. Remember, that the Unionists have form for fixing Scottish referendums and David Cameron could all too easily have simply sat on his hands and let the SNP try to hold their referendum against a legal challenge. Alternatively he could (rather than offering it) have forced Salmond to go cap in hand to Westminister for legal authority and extracted whatever price he wanted. It is much to their credit that Westminister has behaved so well, but one can understand the SNP’s focus on securing a ‘winnable’ referendum. That said, they now have get their ‘game face’ on and set about presenting their prospectus for the future or the Unionists will run away with the referendum.

  • #22 by Jeff on October 12, 2012 - 1:26 pm

    

    Theoretically that could have happened but I personally never thought it was realistic. (easy to be wise after the fact but I’m sure there’s a blog or two backing that up!)

    Everyone knows the SNP is in favour of a referendum and it won a majority fair and square. Cameron, or anyone else, couldn’t politically get away with depriving or even challenging that outcome and, in short, all it would do is drive the public into Salmond’s welcome embrace.

    I think Cameron’s playing a decent game just now, giving just enough to be respectful without it looking like Salmond’s running the show.

    Agree with your last point, the hard work for the SNP starts now. Are they up to it? Plenty of time to find out…

    • #23 by Alex Buchan on October 12, 2012 - 2:18 pm

      

      This is not so much cynicism on my part as a reflection of what goes on behind the scenes. Cameron and the unionist parties in general think that Salmond has made a monumental error in going for a referendum he can’t win.

      They are going to seize the opportunity to try to see off the SNP for good. Cameron’s behaviour needs to be seen in that light. He sees all this as giving Salmond enough rope to hang himself. If the concede all of Salmond’s demands and gets a straight yes no vote then they calculate Salmond will have nowhere to hide after the referendum. He won’t be able to blame the British State because it bent over backwards.

      All of Cameron’s actions are focussed on what happens after the referendum is defeated. As I say above they plan with their idea f a British Constitutional Convention to get a much more rigorous constitution that will make the SNP’s room for manoeuvre more restricted. They also hope the new tax raising powers will favour the Tories as they can campaign in Scotland on a low tax ticket and also favour more traditional class politics i.e., Labour versus Tories.

      We’ll see if it pans out as they hope but one thing’s for sure, all of the British establishment including the Scottish wing (think BBC, press, unionist parties) will pile opprobrium on Salmond after the referendum and there will be a concerted effort to bolster British National identity and to rubbish Scottish Nationalism as a philosophy that the Scottish people have rejected.

      • #24 by Commenter on October 12, 2012 - 4:10 pm

        

        As a yes voter, this comment appeals hugely to my pessimistic nature. I think it’s a pretty spot-on analysis of the current situation (refreshingly side-stepping all the usual guff lauding Salmond’s Machiavellian Brer Rabbit gambit to ‘fool’ the Unionists into a straight one-question referendum).
        It is also a plausible projection of what’s in store after a no vote (which I believe is currently *highly* likely and I can’t see that changing).

        I’m not a subscriber to the ‘independence is inevitable’ theory, and believe that the process of assimilation runs in parallel to any process of ‘increased confidence’. Ah well, there you go.

      • #25 by Alex Buchan on October 12, 2012 - 9:29 pm

        

        I am also a yes voter and I don’t think of myself as pessimistic. I do, however, despair of the “wha’s like us!” mentality that causes us to habitually underestimate our opponents.

        My point is that Alex Salmond’s declared aim is bound to fail because the internal dynamics within the SNP meant that he had no choice but to push for a referendum even though we Scots are not yet ready to make that leap.

        But, on the other hand, the British State is weaker now than ever it has been. The British establishment is likely to see off the referendum and will tighten things up to avoid this happening this way again but they can’t escape the basic decline of Britishness.

        For example, English Votes for English Laws will weaken Britishness but can’t be avoided unless they go for an English Parliament, but an English Parliament would soon challenge the UK Parliaments authority. Every way they turn presents dangers.

        This is why Thatcher and Major held out against devolution, because once you start unravelling the British Constitution it falls apart because for historical reasons Britain was hamstrung in forming a proper British nation and instead had to allow Scotland its distinct institutions.

        My hope for the future lies in the tide of history which is running against Britain as a state, just as it is running against Spain. The Catalans have been emboldened by Alex Salmond and we will be emboldened by Catalonia as it pulls away from Spain. There is little Spain or Britain can do to stop this general trend.

        In fact the contradictions of Britain are all around us to see. Since devolution England has moved inexorably to the right, while Scotland, Wales and N.I. have not. The pulling apart is on both sides. Eventually politics will catch up and Britain will become less and less meaningful as a political concept. When we separate it will seem natural. It doesn’t yet, which is why I feel we’ve some way to go.

• #26 by R.G. Bargie on October 12, 2012 - 1:34 pm

  

  “There is admittedly a risk that the SNP’s challenge becomes the unachievable winning a referendum and winning the an independent Scotland’s first election, but more is certainly required than the current performance.”

  Despite ignoring the “the an” typo and reading this sentence a dozen times, I have no idea what it’s supposed to mean. It APPEARS to say that it’s somehow impossible for the SNP to win both the referendum and the 2016 Holyrood election, which would be a baffling assessment. What’s it meant to say?

• #27 by Ben Achie on October 12, 2012 - 4:45 pm

  

  It is a marathon, but it doesn’t start until the deal is signed and the SNP conference kicks off the party’s yes campaign next week. Devo Max isn’t out of the game at all, it’s just been sidlined. And history doesn’t repeat itself, as in exactly the same thing never happens again, if only because it happened before, so the circumstances cannot be the same!

  So much for the philosophy, and it looks like Alex Salmond has played a blinder. What the SNP wants – as in the vast majority of the SNP’s membership – is a straight yes-no referendum. Alex Salmond has lead the SNP for half his adult life. Having shown gradualism works, with his 2011 parliamentary majority at Holyrood, he is delivering what he was appointed by the membership to do.

  Britain isn’t a liberal democracy any more, and is suffering an increasingly rightward drift under a governmental elite that has mediocrity at its heart. Scotland doesn’t have to be like that, and all the indications are that the majority of Scots prefer the SNP’s approach, based on a social-democratic analysis of society, and the values that implies.

  RUK desperately needs reform, but despite the Lib-Dem veneer (as in paper thin!) what it has currently is actually a very reactionary government that has no vision of where it wants to go, but just wants to protect entrenched privilege, and will happily sit out decline on that basis. Just read George Orwell – he wasn’t just another old Etonian!

  PS – done a spell check this time!

• #28 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on October 12, 2012 - 10:55 pm

  

  A big problem is that the Scots’ sense of national identity is quite weak. Few bother or care about the history and real culture of the country they inhabit, preferring the artificial Corrie and ‘Enders variety. That there isn’t a Scottish equivalent seems not to trouble. We are quite content to consume “foreign pap”. The contrast with Catalonia couldn’t be more stark. A nationalist movement driven by the young, proud of their ethnicity, their language and their particular cultural perspective. They get a million plus on to the streets and give the leaders of the Spanish state a fright. They are prepared to FIGHT for their independence, regardless of cost, and manifest a powerful resolve to see the process through to a successful conclusion. They don’t want the monarchy, don’t want to remain Spanish and don’t want an independent Catalonia to be like the old provincial Catalonia. Hope there will be Catalans at the SNP shindig. Its time the nats grew some real cojones.

  • #29 by Iain Menzies on October 13, 2012 - 3:57 pm

    

    River City….

  • #30 by Alex Buchan on October 13, 2012 - 6:23 pm

    

    Well said. But the Catalans have also gone through a process. Developments have slowly led them to feeling more confident. One is through the growing sense of confidence fostered by the Catalonian language policy in their schooling. It takes time and a process for any nation to feel able to contemplate this order of change.

    Scotland lack of cultural confidence has many historic causes and unlike Catalonia Scotland has many different cultures. The culture of Shetland is very different from the culture of Glasgow or yet again from the culture of Lewis. I personally think there needs to be more encouragement of all off these different cultures as each represents an aspect of Scottishness.

    But it’s a two way thing. Catalonian confidence is linked to the decline in identification with Madrid. Scots have also come a long way it’s just that we tend to take it for granted. Who would have imaged devolution during the dark days of Thatcherism, or a SNP majority, or the wipe out of the Tories and recent decline of Labour.

    If Catalonia breaks free then the whole dynamic inside the EU changes. As a news item on Catalonia said they have already managed to get a source inside the Commission to admit that there is no mechanism for a part of the EU reapplying to become a member. In other words all the stuff about having to leave the EU and reapply is just bluster.

• #31 by Indy on October 13, 2012 - 7:34 pm

  

  I think the idea that after a No vote there would be some kind of strengthening or extending of devolution is kind of pie in the sky. If Scotland votes No then that’s pretty much it for the foreseeable future – the next 20 or 30 years or so.

  Power concedes nothing without a demand. Devolution was conceded due to demand, not because the Westminster government decided it would be nice. And the demand was backed up by the “threat” as Westminster would see it of independence. With that threat gone – as it would be with a No vote – whatever demand still exists can safely be ignored. Why would they pay attention to it? They can validly say Scots voted to stay in the UK. The very fact that there is no “second question” is indicative of that. It has become a binary choice. Status quo or independence. There is no halfway house on offer.

Comments are closed.