Scottish independence betting

[David Johnson]

Two weeks to go now. I note that William Hill are offering 1/4 for No, 11/4 for Yes.

Well I have two questions for esteemed forumites.

1. What is your estimate of the final vote e.g. Yes 48% No 52% which would be my guess?

2. If the overall result is a Yes to independence and a vote were to be held in September 2016 in Scotland with the question "Are you pleased with the decision for Scotland to become an independent country?" what do you think the result would be e.g. Yes 20% No 80% which would be my guess?

[fatmick]

Firstly, I hope it will be a Yes.
However I think your first prediction is likely to be pretty accurate.
On your second point, I think it is likely to be a similar 50/50 split. After 5 years probably 30/70, after 10 years 90/10. I am expressing ratios in terms of yes/no.

[fatmick]

PS I am putting a ton on a yes. I reckon the winnings should just about cover my bar bill for celebrations on the 19th!

[David Johnson]

Yeah, I remember being overjoyed when Blair got elected in 97 after 18 years of Thatcher and Major.

Overjoyed is not exactly how I feel now looking back.

I'm sure it will be so much better in an independent Scotland................

[max_tranmere]

If the 'yes' lot win it will be by something like 52/48. I don't think they will win as a lot of the people who ideally would want independence will most likely play it safe as there are many unanswered questions, they'll be taking a dip into unchartered waters, and there is no going back afterwards. This is for keeps.

I am certain that sometime later a chunk of the 'yes' lot would regret it, by then no one would be thinking about the separation issue, instead they would be looking at how well Salmond is doing with the economy, schools, hospitals, pensions, and so on. When they realise he's not very good at it, even more will wish they'd stayed in the Union, will vote him out and probably vote Labour in. Salmond will be the leader of Scotland for 5 years maximum I would say. Then a change of government to Labour and EVEN MORE people by then will be wishing they'd stayed in the UK - but hey, they wouldn't be able to go back, once they're out they're out.

I also think it's unfair to tell what will be about 2.9m Scots, just under half, that they're leaving the Union when they don't want to. It seems the only fair way of doing this would be for everyone to be in favour of it - impossible in any election, but the only fair way here I think. I'm sure the 'no' lot will win anyway. I'll be sad if our Union breaks up, a different view to the one I would have held a year or two ago.

[william]

Looking at the figures and whats going on in scotland I believe that there will be a yes vote - up there they are fed up with the minority vote - going it alone would give them a country that is rish in resources and an ability to develop and do well - unlike down here that is pretty much dependant on a service industry. We make he haw here and it shows. Our economy would fall by a significant percentage without scotland....... and they know it.

Weve raped them for years and they have the chance to break free - how many countries have failed after breaking free ?

[David Johnson]

"how many countries have failed after breaking free ?"

Well starting with most parts of Africa and the Middle East........

The British Empire has a long history of producing failed, independent states.

[max_tranmere]

It is not just a case of us determining the colour of the administration that runs them, it is the other way round at times too. The 2005-10 Westminster government, which was Labour, only happened because of the Labour-heavy vote in Scotland, if England had its own parliament (not that I'm advocating that) we would have had the Tories running England from 2005-10, so Scotland influences the colour of the Westminster government a lot.

It is also be worth remembering that if Scots make up 10% of the British population then it would be fair to have 10% of the Westminster government Scottish. Under Blair it was more like one-third, and then we had a Scottish Prime Minster (although everyone has already forgotten him) for three years.

Their biggest gripe in recent decades has been that the oil money wasn't ring-fenced, but was instead just incorporated into the large Westminster Treasury pot, and also the way Thatcher treated them in the 1980s, they were the testing ground for the poll-tax, getting it one year earlier than England did. Those things are not a factor now however, the oil will probably run out in 20 or 30 years time, Thatcher is long gone, and they have also done well out of the Barnett Formula (Scotland getting more money from Westminster per head than England does) and also with the West Lothian issue (Scots MP's being able to vote on English issues but English MP's can not vote on Scottish issues) aswell.

[dave756]

When the SNP or Salmond claim ?It's Scotland's oil? I wonder just how that will play out when it comes to dividing it up should they get a yes vote. It should be entertaining to see the arguments on part is Scotland and part is in England, adding no one ever said it is was Yorkshire's/England's Coal, why Darling never pointed this out in those debates I just couldn't understand.

A yes vote would kill it once and for all as for a NO vote it will us give years of dripping from the likes of SNP!

[max_tranmere]

The oil might be nearer to Scotland than to England but it is unlikely they would have been able to exploit the oilfields on their own, them being in the Union made this hugely expensive operation possible. Some people claim the oil is actually Norway's, as it's nearer to Norway than to Scotland.