Well those are very different scenarios. I doubt the EU would even respond to a post-UDI Catalonian government about anything. After all, it would technically be in rebellion, even if things stay peaceful throughout. That's totally different from a spiteful Spain just keeping a universally recognized Catalonia out through a veto.

Good point. I guess I was just assuming there was roughly -0.2% chance of there being any kind of equivalent to the Edinburgh Agreement in the Spanish case, so I ran on with that assumption.

But yeah, if a Catalan referendum were universally accepted as legitimate, Spain would be MUCH less likely to issue a veto on EU membership for the Catalans. If they agreed to allow the referendum, they could hardly turn around and (credibly) argue about keeping Catalonia out.

Unless there is a dramatic turn of events, there is no reason to suppose that a referendum will be held in Catalonia.

I'm surprised by Octavious's position and fully in agreement with Invictus. My assumption is that David Cameron only supported a referendum for Scotland because he was guessing that the result would be "no" (which it still very well might be).

Cameron is the leader of the Conservative AND UNIONIST Party. Don't forget the second part of that. Many in the Party, especially at grass roots, see themselves as defenders of the traditions and history of Great Britain as a union.

If the historic Union of 1707 between Scotland and England is dissolved while Cameron was Prime Minister, as a result of a process that he did not oppose, and following a weak, failed pro-Union campaign of which he was a part, many Conservative & Unionist MPs and Lords, and thousands of Party members, will consider this an unforgivable failure by Cameron, personally. It is almost unquestionable that they would seek his removal as leader in such a scenario.

Of course Cameron expected the SNP to lose, as they will. There will be a high quality poll out on Thursday that will give a better idea which of the two latest (one giving Yes a slight lead, the other saying there has been no change for a month) are closer to the mark.

But no, the referendum is happening because Scotland voted for the SNP and gave them a majority. Cameron agreed to it because he felt it was the right thing to do. Say what you like about DC, but he is a great believer in democracy. That is why he supported the referendum. That is why he gave Parliament the vote on Syria despite not having to. More often than not it causes him problems, but I have to admire him for it.

Jamiet99uk, I'm glad you agree. I was starting to wonder if I was just crazy. More than usual, I mean.

Would you think the same if there were a Labour PM now? All the arguments transfer well.

I don't think the Yes campaign would be nearly as strong under Labour, as there wouldn't be so much of a sense of getting a government that they didn't vote for.

@ mendax

I think the Scots are more mature than you give them credit for. We live in a democracy with multiple parties. Most people get a government they didn't vote for. Last time round everyone got a government they didn't vote for. People who get upset because they don't always get their way don't deserve democracy.

@ Octavious, how are you going to justify your ludicrous final sentence?

"People who get upset because they don't always get their way don't deserve democracy."

What exactly do you think democracy is?

@ Octavious: "The referendum is happening because Scotland voted for the SNP and gave them a majority. Cameron agreed to it because he felt it was the right thing to do."

Both of these things may be true. Neither of these things will prevent many Conservative members and parliamentarians turning on DC if the vote goes the way of "yes".

As for "what if Labour was in power?" I actually have to side with Mendax. I'm from Scotland. I still have many friends in Scotland. Some will vote "yes", some will vote "no". All agree that the concept, and experience, of being governed by the likes of David Cameron, George Osbourne, Teresa May, Eric Pickles and Michael Gove is a powerful force in influencing many Scots to want to be as far away from Westminster as possible.

@ Kofi

What is there to justify?

@ Jamie

I'm sure plenty of Scots can't stand the Tories. What I struggle with is the idea that Scots that hate Tories only notice them when they are in power. If you would want to sell your country down the river on the basis that half the time the UK has a government you don't want, surely that reason is no less real whether the Tories happen to be in power or not?

Indeed, the current bunch of Tories are somewhat less Tory-like than the last lot.

@ Octavious

With: "People who get upset because they don't always get their way don't deserve democracy."

You seem to have misunderstood that reasoned and unreasoned disagreement is what makes a democracy thrive. As soon as people stop saying 'I disagee' it's over. Ideology and / or Apathy are the mindsets that lead to its destruction.

And: "What I struggle with is the idea that Scots that hate Tories only notice them when they are in power." I'd struggle with this idea too. It's reductive and it's a generalisation. It reads like it's the educated guess of a Daily mail reader. To be honest, what is happening in Scotland right now is fantastic - there is a fairly high quality public debate going on (which gets little coverage in the media), and it is empowering. Your attitude is both cynical and patronising and frankly I read this stuff all the time from people who fail to understand the nature of it and it's so boring. Have you called us all nationalists yet?

@ Kofi

What the hell are you talking about? I suggest you reread what I have said and stop being so silly. We share the same opinion on democracy. Quite how you have concluded we disagree is beyond. Also, I am British. I am as much Scottish as English. I find your "us and them" attitude depressing

"As for "what if Labour was in power?" I actually have to side with Mendax. I'm from Scotland. I still have many friends in Scotland. Some will vote "yes", some will vote "no". All agree that the concept, and experience, of being governed by the likes of David Cameron, George Osbourne, Teresa May, Eric Pickles and Michael Gove is a powerful force in influencing many Scots to want to be as far away from Westminster as possible."

I see your point, but it doesn't answer my question. Imagine a Labour PM was in exactly the same position Cameron is in. After a Yes victory, would you think that Labour PM would have to resign? Or be culled by his party?

After all, Labour needs Scotland much more than the Tories do. While it's not true that rUK would be guaranteed Conservative governments indefinitely, without Scotland Blair-style super-majorities are impossible. And, regardless of party, there is still the stigma of being the leader who oversaw the end of Great Britain.

Sorry Invictus, you're right, I didn't fully answer you.

I think that with Labour in power, a "no" vote would be more likely, as Labour is not hated in Scotland like the Tories are. However, in the case of a "yes" vote, I do think a Labour PM would still come under considerable fire and be pressed to resign, yes.

If DC were interested in democracy, why not agree to have devo max on the ballot?

Really? Even if we were little over half a year from a general election? If the referendum was in the middle or start of a term, and the Prime Minister had enough enemies (the latter, I admit, is often the case), then perhaps a forced resignation would be likely. But I really can't see how the damage caused by being on the wrong side of the Scottish referendum could be any worse than the damaged caused by a chaotic last minute leadership battle within spitting distance of an election.

Well, Octavious, if the Labour leader in question was Ed Miliband, a fair section of the Labour party already have no faith in him whatsoever...

Ed Miliband is something of a special case. You should have encouraged him to spend more quality time with his family years ago. But even with Ed I'd still say it would be too late now to do any good.

"You" ?

The glorious ranks of left thinking individuals. I know you're not party faithful by any stretch, but given a choice of Labour and Tory on a ballot box (I'm guessing you'd sooner go Labour than spoil your ballot? Perhaps not.

Aye, that's a fair guess. I actually quit the Labour party just over a year ago out of disgust, and joined the Greens.

Fellow UK'ers please join my game: http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=147187
And if you're scottish please vote to stay - you know you want to

I've always been fond of the Greens. They used to hold really fun socials a a great cafe / bar / canteen place near the 5102 building in Bristol. Lots of fun. They do have one or two very unpleasent members if you disagree with them, but don't they all?

"If DC were interested in democracy, why not agree to have devo max on the ballot?"

I like how this is the meme now. Devo max is not on the ballot because the British government wanted the answer to be clear. Independence: yes or no? Simple. Final. Also, it meant Better Together wouldn't be campaigning for the status quo, but rather more powers for Scotland without the risks inherent in independence. Despite what media coverage over the past few days may lead you to believe, devo max has always been promised and the plan is largely already agreed to.


Now, I suppose devo-max could have been the option rather than No, but good luck getting Salmond to agree to that sort of wording.

Also, thank you for answering, Jamiet99uk.

@ Octavious

"What the hell are you talking about? I suggest you reread what I have said and stop being so silly. We share the same opinion on democracy. Quite how you have concluded we disagree is beyond. Also, I am British. I am as much Scottish as English. I find your "us and them" attitude depressing"

What was silly?
What do we share in terms of opinion?
I find the idea of Britishness as disagreeable as Scottishness.
If you could answer those questions I'd be interested, however if you don't feel like it then fair enough.