If Scotland Votes Naw.

[Spain]

Anyone who thinks it will be exactly the same is delusional IMO. At the moment the UK Government is willing to give certain concessions to Scotland because they want us to remain part of the union. If there's a substantial no vote then they will no longer have to do so and you will see less consideration given to the political impact of decisions they make in Scotland.

Seriously doubt it, we'll be bribed with Devo Max beforehand in return for a "no" vote.

[roverthemoon]

Things have been turning for the worse for a while now.

You need to ask, if we vote No, will it continue or will things improve?

Impossible to say at moment. Like Craig says no one can predict the future. Depends a lot on the who makes up the next UK Government and how the economic recovery pans out. There might be things happening from left-field. There are scenarios where things could get worse AND better, that was my initial point. Saying everything will turn to shit reeks of scaremongering to me that's all

[LinkinFighter]

If we vote no then chances are that's us shafted for another generation, parties like the Conservatives and UKIP getting more votes down south. Grim.

[roverthemoon]

If we vote no then chances are that's us shafted for another generation, parties like the Conservatives and UKIP getting more votes down south. Grim.

Or we could get a repeat of 1997-2010 period where Scotland got exactly the Westminster Government it voted for. That's more likely than your scenario given current polls

[Ad Lib]

Very little will change in the event of a No vote. The Scotland Act 2012 will come fully into force, but the powers won't significantly change our relationship with London. The alternative to Stamp Duty Land Tax might be forthcoming north of the border, which will be of tangential interest to home-buyers, but most other things will not change.

Depending on the result of the 2015 election, you will probably see another Commission (a bit like Silk in Wales) exploring the further taxation control that Holyrood could credibly be given. I actually tend to the view that you are more likely to see this happen if the Tories are one of the parties in government rather than Labour, because Cameron is a committed devolutionist in the way that Miliband isn't. Out of a desire to ensure that we never reach the situation again of having another referendum on independence, he is likely to make quite a comprehensive offer of control of taxation, sold to his colleagues down south under the notion that if Scotland is responsible for raising what it spends, they won't be (seen to be) "subsidy junkies" any more.

Such a settlement would probably lead to a radical overhaul or replacement of Barnett, but not necessarily in a way which disadvantages Scotland if it gets proper control of most taxation. The only cause for alarm for an overhaul of Barnett would be if it happened *without* other tax competences being devolved, though even then it might be justified if it was only a marginal reduction and was going essentially to benefit the chronically underfunded Wales and North East of England.

The real sticking point is the UK Labour Party. In the event of a No vote, they are hopelessly divided and, if anything, more antagonistic, to the Scottish Parliament being made properly responsible for its own affairs. If they get back into government, and cannot agree on significant tax powers for Scotland, then I'd seriously start to worry about what it is they had in store for Barnett and future devolution.

The sheer remoteness from a clear consensus on future powers, however, gives the strong impression that very little is going to change. People have been talking about getting rid of Barnett pretty much non-stop from all angles since the 1980s, in the run up to devolution, in the aftermath of devolution and during the Calman discussions. It never happened. The truth is there's not enough of a consensus about what should replace Barnett for something to be forced through against the wishes of the Scottish people, unless it comes with significant revenue control.

I find the doomsday scaremongering about Westminster "taking powers away" from us and "cutting our budget" to be pretty shrill and unpersuasive. That doesn't appear to be something credibly on the agenda for those with the actual power to change things.

[Burma]

If Scotland votes Naw then Cameron and Gideon would be entitled to fight the next election as the men who beat Salmond and saved the Union.

It would naturally be seen by the Etonian nightmare at Downing Street as an endorsement of the current course of the current Westminster Govt. The Lib Dems are seeing their core support desert them in their droves. The difference between Labour and the Tories seems to be based on wether you think Milibland or Eton Dave have the better personality. I fully expect to see the Tories reinstalled at Westminster with a minority vote propped up.by the rise of UKIP. This will lead to an in/out referendum on EU membership.

The English electorate is increasingly moving towards the idealism and policies of Thatcherism at it's most insane. There is no doubt in my mind that this will lead to the idealogy of "strengthening the union". This will be the base for a restructuring of the "democratic process". A reimagining of devolution if you like. The obvious course of action by those who have always argued against devolution would be to remove the ability for constitutional change from any of the regional governments.

[Ad Lib]

Anyone who seriously thinks that there is going to be a referendum on EU membership as a result of the next UK General Election is a fucking fruitcake. UKIP are a basket-case and will be lucky to win within the margin of error of zero seats in 2015, and the failure of the Boundary Review means Cameron simply isn't going to win a majority next time round, even if he gets a significant swing in his favour.

[wingsoverperthshire]

It'll be no different. We have devolved powers, we'll continue to have them. We're share the highs and the lows.

I'm more a 'better the devil you' know sort of guy.

Username: Simplistic.

[Broccoli Dog]

Haha if we vote no we're fucked.

[pub car king]

As someone who isn't allowed to vote I am looking from the outside in. Which ever way scotland votes it will get what it deserves.

[LinkinFighter]

Or we could get a repeat of 1997-2010 period where Scotland got exactly the Westminster Government it voted for. That's more likely than your scenario given current polls

Those years were based on luck with the English voting. If you're happy with getting a government we elect every few years or so then batter in with a no vote.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

If Scotland votes no, there will be thousands of happy, smirking, fat Sevco fans loving it.

Just think about that before you vote "no".

[itzdrk]

Would anyone leave?

[banterman86]

Anyone who thinks it will be exactly the same is delusional IMO. .

Or is aware of the 2012 Scotland Act

[vikingTON]

I find the doomsday scaremongering about Westminster "taking powers away" from us and "cutting our budget" to be pretty shrill and unpersuasive.

I find all your posts to be pretty shrill and unpersuasive.

[Broccoli Dog]

Would anyone leave?

I might, especially if the right wing nutters manage to pull the UK out of Europe.

[bunkmedal]

I really can't see any Westminster government - Tory or otherwise - advocating a reduction in the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It's a policy that would alienate more of the electorate than it would win over. It's hard enough for the Tories to make any inroads into Scotland as it is without pointlessly antagonising Scottish voters.

I think the one big issue would be the EU, but I still can't see the UK leaving. Labour won't hold a referendum if they win the next election and if you believe Peter Kellner from YouGov, Cameron's "renegotiated membership" referendum would get two to one support from the electorate.

[vikingTON]

I really can't see any Westminster government - Tory or otherwise - advocating a reduction in the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It's a policy that would alienate more of the electorate than it would win over

Nice try, but Westminster elections aren't determined by the total electorate, but by key marginals. The Tories have one Scottish MP. So... in what way would setting out changes to the block grant and/or the devolved institutions adversely affect their electoral position, when playing into the hands of middle England where the lion's share of Tory marginal seats exist?

[bunkmedal]

Nice try, but Westminster elections aren't determined by the total electorate, but by key marginals. The Tories have one Scottish MP. So... in what way would setting out changes to the block grant and/or the devolved institutions adversely affect their electoral position, when playing into the hands of middle England where the lion's share of Tory marginal seats exist?

Focusing on key marginal seats is one thing, completely decimating your appeal to almost 10% of the electorate is another. Reducing the powers of the Scottish Parliament would probably have a similar effect to the poll tax - i.e. the Tories would still be suffering from it decades from now. We're also ignoring local elections, European elections, and elections to the Scottish Parliament where the Tories do compete and win seats. Not to mention that the Scottish Conservatives, who have a part to play in the party machine regardless of how many MPs they have, would presumably oppose it as well.

Cameron has made enough blunders that anything is possible, but he'd have to be completely idiotic to advocate doing this. What people in England typically moan about is the West Lothian question, but that's solved by changing rules in Westminster, not rolling back devolution.

[Todders]

Would anyone leave?

I've already left so don't get to vote but I know for a fact that if Scotland votes no then I will never be back.