Scotland's post-referendum politics: a "tectonic shift"?

On the one hand, nothing much has changed. On the other, Scottish politics are in uncharted waters.

Last September, the people of Scotland voted in historic numbers and emphatically rejected independence from the United Kingdom. While 45% of the populace wanted independence, 55% percent of voters voted NO, we want to remain part of the U.K.

The United Kingdom still reigns supreme over Scotland, one of its four nations.

A poll from this past weekend, eight months later, shows 44% would now vote YES, 49% would vote NO, 5% are undecided, and 2% say "stop bothering me about this issue again, please go away". From that poll, you find a bit of movement but not really a "tectonic shift."

More significantly, however, the Scottish National Party (SNP) fared amazingly well in the U.K.'s parliamentary elections a few weeks ago. Although the Tories surprisingly held onto power and now control the U.K. Parliament with a majority, in Scotland the SNP won 56 of 59 seats. The other three major parties — Tories, Labour, and Liberal Democrats — each won a single seat in Scotland. This dominance in Scotland effectively stripped Labour of a large number of Scottish seats, making them unable to gain a majority in the U.K. We all assume the SNP will be a significant thorn in the side of the governing Tories for years to come.

The SNP already controls the Scottish Parliament and has a popular new leader in Nicola Sturgeon. Now it holds almost all the Scottish seats in the U.K. Parliament.

Before the independence referendum last fall, the Tories, Labour, and Lib Dems promised significantly more powers for the Scottish Parliament. These promises of devolution helped turn the tide of the referendum and secure Scotland remaining in the U.K.

After the referendum David Cameron, the U.K.'s Prime Minister, set up the Scotland Devolution Commission to study the issue and make recommendations to the U.K. Parliament. The commission was led by Lord Smith of Kelvin, a self-made businessman from Glasgow made into a life peer by the Queen. Widely respected across the political parties, Lord Smith most recently served as the organizing chairman of the 2014 Commonwealth Games held in Glasgow.

In November 2014 the Smith Commission, as it has become known, issued its recommendations. In general, the recommendations include more taxing and spending powers for the Scottish Parliament; letting 16 and 17 year olds vote in Scottish elections; allowing the Scottish Parliament more power over economic decisions such as oil and gas extraction; and sundry other smaller issues. The commission also recommended that the devolution of powers include language stating that the Scottish Parliament is a permanent institution.

Most significantly, all of the political parties agreed upon the Smith Commission recommendations. Thus, the SNP signed off and agreed to these devolved powers . . . and their limits.

The Queen's Speech earlier this week — in which the Queen essentially reads the legislative plan of the governing party to Parliament — indicated the Tories will follow the Smith Commission's recommendations. They seek to devolve to the Scottish parliament power over roughly 40% of taxes and 60% of spending in Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon. (Photo courtesy of the Scottish government.)

But after their near sweep of Scottish seats in the U.K.'s parliamentary elections earlier this month, the SNP is emboldened. Claiming their strong showing in the election has "changed everything," the SNP now rumbles about how the Smith Commission should be a starting point and not an end point. Their new leader in Parliament, Angus Robertson, declared the U.K. government must "react positively to proposals for a transfer of powers beyond" the Smith Commission. According to Robertson, the Scottish electorate gave "overwhelming support in the election" to greater powers for Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon, the overall leader of the SNP and the First Minister in Scotland's parliament, declared that the U.K. parliamentary election demonstrated the "tectonic plates" of Scottish politics had shifted.

The SNP has now floated the idea of a new independence referendum in the near future. That's right, less than a year after the last referendum, they want another one. At the time of the independence referendum last fall, the SNP declared it a "once in a generation" event. Sturgeon indicates this new referendum, however, could happen as soon as 2016.

Another referendum so soon puts Scottish politics into the quandary of a "neverendum." The issue is unlikely to pass (at least according to current polls), but it lingers as significant motivation for the governing party in Scotland and its energized supporters. Almost half of Scots want independence, and those supporters are comprised primarily of the young and middle-aged; only the above-60 group votes in significant numbers against independence.

Independence is the framework which likely will color all issues, and perhaps dominate them, for many more years of Scottish politics.

Although only the U.K. government has the power to grant permission for a true referendum, the SNP says Scotland could vote on a non-binding resolution showing the will of the Scottish people. If such a resolution passed, the SNP claims the U.K. government would have to recognize Scotland's desire for independence and therefore hold a binding referendum. Again.

No matter what the U.K. government decides with regard to devolution, the SNP will find a way to be disgruntled. Scottish independence is its raison d'être. To the SNP, the current devolution is just one step toward full independence. They'd love to skip over the small steps to a big bang of independence.

It'll only happen, though, if or when the tectonic plates have shifted far enough.

Want to know more about Scottish independence?

The question of independence is the defining question of Scotland's 21st century politics. Depending on how it turns out, it may be the defining political question for the entire United Kingdom, as well. I've been on this issue since my very first post. Here's some more info:

Independence voters are . . . passionate.

http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/should-scotland-be-independent-country.html

http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-turning-point-for-scottish.html

 http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/any-bounce-for-independence.html

 http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-uk-is-poorer-than-each-of-50-us.html

http://www.coloringwithoutborders.com/2014/09/holy-sht-scottish-independence-might.html

http://www.coloringwithoutborders.com/2014/09/a-less-united-kingdom-but-still-united.html

A less-United Kingdom, but still united

They voted yesterday at 5,579 polling stations within 2,608 polling places, from the cities to the highlands to the islands.

They lined up at dawn; voted all day; queued into the night.

They turned out to vote in historic fashion, 84.6% of registered voters embracing their democratic moment. They participated in higher numbers than any previous vote in Scotland (80.9%) or the U.K. as a whole (84.0%).

They voted, in the end, to retain their union with Wales, Northern Ireland, and England.

The Union Jack will not lose its Scottish blue.

The United Kingdom continues. Intact.

Although it wavered and equivocated in the polls, Scotland's final decision was decisive: 55% rejected independence. In a land which reveres William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, which romantically refers to Bonnie Prince Charlie's rebellion in '45 as though it were in living memory and not from 1745, only 45% of Scots voted in favor of cutting ties with the auld enemy.

YES garnered 1,617,989 votes. But another 2,001,926 Scots pondered independence and decided NO, we don't want to create a new country. It was a once in a generation, perhaps once in a lifetime, offer of disunion from their fellow Brits. And a majority decided the anti-independence campaigners were right, we're Better Together.

A few thousand Scots took their paper with its one question and, possibly overwhelmed by the magnitude of the moment, failed to return a countable ballot. These "rejected papers" included 2,554 ballots left unmarked or void for uncertain marks; 691 ballots that marked both YES and NO; and 16 ballots which left some unacceptable mark. A final 168 voters in some way marked their ballot but were disallowed because they wrote their name or some other identifiable information -- an odd choice by a voter, but an even odder reason for rejecting an otherwise valid ballot, unless we say "stand up to be counted, but don't let us know who you are."

Of the 32 voting precincts in Scotland, only four supported independence. That included Glasgow, the largest precinct with 12 percent of Scotland's total population, at 53.49% for YES. The city's turnout, however, also was the lowest of any precinct, reaching merely 75%.

The purple-shaded areas voted NO to independence; areas shaded red voted YES.

But though it has not been dismembered, the United Kingdom is less united than ever. And it's poised for less unity going forward.

As part of their wooing during the referendum campaign, the three major U.K. parties -- Tories, Liberal Democrats, and Labour -- all pledged major devolutionary powers to Scotland's parliament. As soon as possible. Each party has its own proposal, but the differences are largely of degree and not of type. Scotland, which has always retained its own legal system, will get increased power over taxation and more power over social spending. The U.K.'s parliament likely will retain full control over issues such as defense, foreign affairs, energy, immigration, pensions, and a few other areas. All other matters -- education, housing, welfare, transportation, income taxes, and so on -- will be either wholly or substantially controlled by the Scottish parliament.

Ironically, it was the Scottish National Party and its leader, Alex Salmond, who pushed for these kinds of "devo-max" powers to be included as a third option on the independence referendum ballot. The SNP asked to have the ballot include options for YES, for NO, and for greater devolution. The parties at Westminster rejected the option for devolution, only to use promises for such devolution as a carrot (i.e., bribe) when the campaign got closely contested.

This evening, Salmond announced he will step down both as Scotland's First Minister and the head of the SNP this coming November after the SNP holds its party conference. He has led the SNP for a total of 20 years (not all consecutively), and has been Scotland's longest-serving First Minister.

This morning, basking in the glow of victory, Prime Minister David Cameron reiterated his commitment to devolution. He set out a timetable for a devolution "white paper" to be produced by this November, and draft legislation for Parliament by January 2015. Somehow, he expects all the parties to work cooperatively on the matter, even though they're all positioning themselves for the May 2015 general election. While all three major parties have pledged devolution post haste, they have incentives and disincentives to working together.

Scotland will ignite with anger if the Westminster parties fail to provide what they have promised. A fair number of NO voters rejected independence only because of the promise of further devolution. I think it's a safe bet that some significant devolution will be secured for Scotland in the relatively near future.

But Cameron also added new wrinkles to the game today. He pledged further devolution for Wales and Northern Ireland, not just Scotland. And, significantly, he said the so-called "West Lothian question" should be decided at the same time and in conjunction with the devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It's important to remember that while Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have devolved governments that limit what the U.K.'s parliament can decide, England has no corresponding parliament. The U.K.'s parliament decides all English matters.

The "West Lothian question," first raised in 1977 by a Member of Parliament from the West Lothian constituency in Scotland, asks whether Scottish MPs (or Welsh or Northern Irish) should be allowed to vote on matters affecting only England. In a devolved United Kingdom, the Scottish and Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on all matters in the U.K.'s Parliament, including all matters affecting only England. But English MPs do not have an equivalent vote on matters controlled by devolved Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish parliaments.

Cameron wants to solve the West Lothian question, most likely by allowing only English MPs to vote on matters that affect only England. That would mean Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs would not have equal rights as MPs as their English counterparts. Not only would those Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs have no vote in their own devolved parliaments, at the same time they would have fewer votes to cast in the U.K.'s parliament.

Furthermore, if a party -- most likely Labour -- gained a majority of seats in the U.K. parliament, it might lose its voting majority if the chunk of Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs were not allowed to vote on matters. Currently and likely for the near-term, Labour has no chance at a majority in the U.K. parliament without those MPs, particularly without the consistent Labour bloc from Scotland.

Cameron's suggestion to solve the West Lothian question on the eve of the May 2015 general election is a superb political machination. As the leader of the Tories, he positions himself as the champion of the English voters, who are far and away the majority of the U.K.'s population. It puts Labour in an awkward position. If they accede to Cameron, they potentially lose the use of Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs in votes in Parliament; even if they win the May 2015 election, their power could be diminished. If they oppose Cameron and anger English voters, they may lose the May 2015 election because of it.

These devolutionary issues have been simmering for at least a century. Many think the Republic of Ireland may not have seceded from the U.K. in the 1920s if the Irish had been granted such devolution. As he did so often, Winston Churchill saw around the corner of history and predicted the U.K. would eventually move toward federalization. He foresaw the call -- perhaps the need -- for devolution. Speaking in Dundee, Scotland in October 1913, Churchill said:

               Another great reason for the settlement of the Irish question in the present Parliament and for
               disposing of the Home Rule controversy now, while we have the full opportunity presented, is
               that the ground is thereby cleared for the consideration of claims of self-government for other
               parts of the United kingdom besides Ireland. You will remember how, last year, I addressed a
               meeting in Dundee on this subject. I made it perfectly clear that I was speaking for myself. I
               made it clear that I was not speaking of the immediate future, but dealing with the subject
               which lay for the moment outside the sphere of practical politics and raising a question for
               reflection and discussion rather than for prompt action.

               I spoke of the establishment of a federal system in the United Kingdom, in which Scotland,
               Ireland and Wales, and, if necessary, parts of England, could have separate legislative and
               parliamentary institutions, enabling them to develop, in their own way, their own life according
               to their own ideas and needs in the same way as the great and prosperous States of the
               American Union and the great kingdoms and principalities and States of the German Empire.

In 1912, Churchill had proposed 10 regional parliaments: one for Scotland; one for Wales; one for Northern Ireland; and seven for regions of England. By "parliaments," Churchill apparently had in mind something similar to U.S. states. He also pointed to the federal systems of Canada and Australia.

A September 1912 political cartoon from the Liverpool Daily Courier.

Yesterday, Scotland voted to reject independence and persist in the United Kingdom. In the next few years, as a result of its referendum debate, Scotland may witness the other constituent nations of the U.K. ease into a loose federation that only nominally remains united.

Holy sh$t, Scottish independence might happen

The pro-independence supporters are feeling . . . frisky.

Unthinkable → extremely unlikely → a respectable showing → closer than we thought → neck and neck → PANIC

If you had asked me a few weeks ago, I would have assured you Scotland would vote against independence. While the vote looked like it might be somewhat close, the pro-union (or anti-independence) campaign of "NO" voters appeared to have a comfortable cushion to win the campaign. After the first televised debate in early August on independence between Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond, and the leader of the "Better Together" pro-union campaign, Alistair Darling, the independence campaign was losing in the polls by double digits. But then a second debate in late August gave a strong boost to the "YES" vote; the polls quickly showed independence closing the gap to within six percent.

This issue has been on my radar for nearly two years, when I saw a news blurb announcing an agreement (the "Edinburgh Agreement") between British Prime Minister David Cameron and Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond that Scotland could hold a referendum regarding independence. That announcement came on 15 October 2012. Although I had no idea in October 2012 I would be moving to Scotland, I'm a political junkie and the referendum was an oddity worth pondering.

Then, in early 2013, Kate got offered a position in Scotland and we soon committed ourselves to moving to the U.K. The independence referendum occasionally popped up in the news and I started doing some background research. I made a reference to the referendum in my very first blog post and have tracked it closely ever since:

          http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/should-scotland-be-independent-country.html

          http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-turning-point-for-scottish.html

          http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/any-bounce-for-independence.html

          http://coloringwithoutborders.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-uk-is-poorer-than-each-of-50-us.html

And then came a poll on September 7, for the first time showing the pro-independence YES supporters in the lead. It was a small lead, 51% to 49%, and within the margin of error. Nevertheless, the poll showed the campaign to be in a dead heat.

This sent shockwaves through the political elite of the U.K. The general consensus -- as it evolved -- is what I outlined at the top of this post: progressing from regarding independence as unthinkable to a panic that independence might happen.

Since the September 7 poll, other polls have weighed in. Most show a small lead for the NO vote, though one poll indicates an eight point win for NO. On the other hand, one poll indicates an eight point win for YES. Averaging the polls, it looks like NO has a tiny lead, perhaps within the margin for error.

The new general consensus is that no one knows how the vote will turn out. Roughly six to ten percent of voters claim to be undecided. The YES voters are visibly more passionate. The NO voters have the support of most media, the professional classes, and most large businesses. This election may very well hinge on turnout and a get-out-the-vote effort. {Ed.'s note: As do many elections, of course.}

The YES campaign has billboards up throughout Glasgow.

YES voters are much more visible.

You can find YES signs in windows everywhere. I'd estimate that YES signs outnumber NO signs in Glasgow by at least a 20 to 1 margin, and I'm probably underestimating that ratio by a large amount. I could see a 50 to 1 margin. It's rare to see a NO sign.

My anecdotal, man-on-the-street impression is that YES supporters are everywhere. They seem to vastly outnumber the NO voters. I ask just about every Scot I know about independence, and many tell me they have moved from a NO vote to undecided. What that means in reality is that many were likely undecided but leaning toward NO, and some may now lean a bit toward YES. Polls don't reflect the YES visibility on the ground. My guess is that NO voters are keeping their heads down, afraid of rowdy YES supporters hectoring them, calling them unpatriotic, or some other confrontation.

What is the Scottish independence referendum?

Scotland will vote in a referendum to answer a solitary yes/no question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" If the electorate votes yes, then Scotland will leave the United Kingdom.

When is the vote?

September 18, this coming Thursday. The polls will be open from 7:00 am until 10:00 pm. Approximately 789,000 voters requested and were sent postal ballots at the end of August.

Who can vote?

The following groups of people can vote on September 18, so long as they are over the age of 16 and have registered to vote:

         - British citizens living in Scotland (including any English, Welsh, or Northern Irish);

         - service personnel posted outside of Scotland, as well as spouses and children (aged 16 or over);

         - European Union citizens living in Scotland; and

         - certain qualifying Commonwealth citizens living in Scotland.

That means about 800,000 Scots who live outside Scotland cannot vote, while about 400,000 English, Welsh, or Northern Irish can vote in the referendum.

A total of 4,285,323 people have registered to vote. That makes it the largest electorate ever in the history of Scotland, for any election or referendum.

As an American expat living in Scotland, I cannot vote. I'm happy about that. It doesn't seem like a question I should answer. If I did have a vote, I'd probably vote against independence, though I'm a lot less certain about it than I was several months ago. I think Scotland definitely can succeed as an independent nation, perhaps even thrive. But I think Scotland certainly will suffer in the short term from transitional costs, and quite possibly suffer in the long term. I see no truly compelling reason for Scotland to leave its 307-year old participation in Great Britain (and then the United Kingdom). As a practical reality, Scotland has been tied to England for 411 years when the nations were unified under one king. Scotland has thrived because of its involvement in the U.K., not in spite of it.

When will we know?

We almost certainly won't know the result of the referendum until the next day, September 19. Votes will not be counted until the polls close at 10:00 pm on September 18. The voting will not be reported until all precincts have finished their counting.

I haven't lived in the U.K. long enough to know how they usually handle elections, but I suspect that the various political parties involved in the referendum will have a decent idea of the results before the end of voting on the 18th. I assume they'll have their own exit polls. We may or may not get hints of the outcome from the statements or demeanor of politicians, reporters, and talking heads.

What happens if Scotland votes YES?

Scotland will leave the United Kingdom and become its own independent country.

But nothing will happen immediately. Scotland and the rest of the U.K. -- often abbreviated in the press here as "rUK" -- will negotiate many issues, notably what currency Scotland will use, how much of the U.K.'s debt it will take on, who gets the oil fields in the North Sea, and so on.

Salmond, serving as Scotland's First Minister, would like to resolve all issues and have independence by March 2016. That may be optimistic. Both sides, however, have incentives to end uncertainty and get divorced as soon as possible. No one knows how long it will take, but within two years seems pretty likely.

Scotland will retain Queen Elizabeth II as its monarch. But given Scotland's generally left-leaning politics, don't be surprised if there is a somewhat near-future referendum as to whether to retain the monarch. I'd be stunned if this happened while Queen Elizabeth is alive, but broaching the subject with the less popular Prince Charles on the throne makes it easier.

What happens if Scotland votes NO?

Somewhat ironically, a lot will happen fast. Scotland will remain part of the U.K. But the major political parties -- Tories, Lib Dems, and Labour -- have all pledged to give Scotland and its parliament substantially enhanced powers as soon as possible. This is generally called devo-max (i.e., maximum devolution). These powers will include enhanced abilities to tax and spend, more power over the National Health Service in Scotland, and so on. Some political leaders have called for these powers to be in place within just a few months.

Increased powers for Scotland, however, may lead to calls for increased powers to Wales and Northern Ireland. Some in the Republic of Ireland have already speculated on a referendum for Northern Ireland to leave the U.K. and join the rest of Ireland.

England does not have its own parliament, and there are a few voices calling for such a body. Will this referendum increase a desire by the English to have their own parliament? We don't know.

In political terms, Scotland will be very much a federalized state within the U.K. It will have more power on some issues than U.S. states have within the U.S. federal system. Scotland will have control over most of its domestic questions, but foreign policy and national defense will still be controlled by the U.K.

If Scotland votes NO, will there be a "neverendum"?

Some folks speculate that if Scotland votes NO but the vote is close, then we'll see another independence referendum fairly soon. Perhaps independence will be a never-ending political football, with multiple future referendums. Don't count on it. In fact, Salmond has publicly stated that the independence referendum is a once-in-a-generation question, at best. And the U.K. is very unlikely to agree to another referendum for a good long while, so any near-term Scottish referendum on the issue would not have the legitimacy (or legality) that this referendum has.

Which side is going to win, YES or NO?

Nobody knows. As I noted above, the polls show a tight race, with a strong cohort of undecided voters.

My best guess is that the NO side will win narrowly. But my prediction is of course made with my own political bias as background, my lack of time in the country, my sense of the polls, and an educated guess on how undecided voters may flinch at voting for the risk of the unknown.

But don't be surprised at a YES vote. Scottish independence just might happen.

The YES voters are more vocal and more passionate. But the quieter NO voters have a slight lead in the polls.

The U.K. is poorer than each of the 50 U.S. states

Read the title of this post again, and let it sink in.

One more time.

If you're like me, you initially may not believe it. Surely, the data must be manipulated, the numbers exaggerated, the conclusions faulty.

But it's accurate. The numbers are widely available, the methodology is mainstream.

Take the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of each U.S. state. Divide each state's GDP by its population. That renders a GDP per capita (i.e., per person). Now compare each state's GDP per capita to the U.K.'s GDP per capita. That is the approach taken by Fraser Nelson in a recent column for The Telegraph, a conservative-leaning newspaper in the U.K. Nelson is the editor of The Spectator, a conservative British magazine, and he expanded on his column in a follow-up blog post there.

By Nelson's unremarkable measurement -- which of course rendered some remarkable gnashing of teeth on Twitter and other media -- the U.K. would rank ahead of only one state, Mississippi.

If you take Nelson's methodology and refine it a bit further, the U.K. falls behind Mississippi. That's because when you adjust the numbers for purchasing power parity (PPP) -- which adjusts for differences among the value of currencies, somewhat akin to a cost-of-living analysis -- the U.K. is a bit worse off. Though some things in the U.K. are cheaper, such as health care, other things are more expensive, like food, gasoline, and many consumer goods. These PPP measurements are shown by a Forbes follow-up to Nelson's calculations. If you want to delve even a little further into the numbers you can read more here.

The U.K. flag flies above Edinburgh Castle.

All of these calculations surprised me a bit, though admittedly I hadn't given a specific thought to them prior to the article and blog posts. But it's quite eye-opening in light of Scotland's upcoming independence referendum on September 18.

I've written before about the scale of Scotland's economy. With a projected 2014 GDP of $250 billion, and a population of approximately 5.3 million, Scotland has a GDP per capita of roughly $47,000. That ranks well above the U.K. as a whole; only London and part of southeast England outperform Scotland on a GDP per capita basis. I haven't located any PPP analysis for Scotland by itself, since the calculations are generally made only for the U.K. as a whole. Nevertheless, even with a sizable PPP adjustment, Scotland would rank in the middle tiers of U.S. states.

So, if the U.K. as a whole were a U.S. state, it would rank 51 out of 51. By contrast, if Scotland were a U.S. state, it would rank somewhere in the middle.

With the independence referendum now imminent, the polls have tightened considerably. According to the latest polls, the pro-independence movement has quickly closed to within about 6 percentage points (53% to 47%) of the pro-union forces. One of the main arguments made by those who want Scotland to stay in the United Kingdom has been to foretell economic doom and gloom for an independent Scotland. It's a bad economic move, they say, and possibly a catastrophe. Why would Scotland leave the U.K.'s market, its protection, its overall economic powerhouse position? Surely Scotland would be diminished, right?

But an independent Scotland would be -- in terms relative to U.S. states as well as European nations -- fairly wealthy. Not everything would be rosy, and Scotland would be forced into extremely tough negotiations with the U.K. as it departed. But all told, Scotland would not be in a terrible position. This is especially easy to see when you compare a potentially independent Scotland with the newly-freed Eastern European nations following the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s. Most of those nations are now doing passably well, particularly aided by their inclusion in the European Union and its large market. If Scotland votes for independence, even with hardship following departure from the U.K., it would be in a much better position than those Eastern European nations were in the early 1990s.

I don't want to make too much of these economic figures. GDP per capita is not a perfect measurement. Nor is adjustment for purchasing power parity, which is not an exact science. Let me stress that again: these are not perfect measurements of the U.K.'s wealth in comparison to those of the U.S. states. But in the broad brush tools of macroeconomics, it's no more objectionable than saying many other countries are poorer than U.S. states, such as Peru, Russia, South Africa, or Vietnam, to name countries at random.

Nonetheless, the calculations do provide a rough comparison. One which surprises me. I'm open to arguments that these figures are bogus or grossly misleading, if you're so inclined. Any takers?

Any bounce for independence?

Over the past two weeks, sales of haggis skyrocketed as much as 80%. Whisky sales increased 30%. And consumption of the nation's favorite soft drink, Irn Bru, increased by 15%.

My haggis and Irn Bru lunch from several weeks ago.

All this, of course, because Glasgow was hosting the Commonwealth Games. Team Scotland captured its highest number of medals ever (53), ranking in fifth place. Scotland has been on display across the Commonwealth nations. The weather was exceedingly good (for Scotland). Games-related tourism has boosted the local economy. Scottish pride naturally has been exercised as the nation competed against the other Commonwealth countries, most especially the auld enemy, England.

As the games drew to a close on Sunday, the question vexing the politicians is whether the Games will provide much of a bump in the polls for Scottish independence.

The short answer is no.

At least, not much.

I've written previously about Scotland's upcoming September 18 referendum, asking a single yes/no question: Should Scotland be an independent country? Polls have shown a consistent lead for the "no" vote, though that lead has dipped a little bit over the past several months. Most voters seem to be basing their decision on economics, or how they think the economics will turn out, a point on which the "no" campaign has played hardball quite effectively.

Current polls show the "no" vote in the lead with roughly 46 to 48 percent of the vote. The "yes vote garners 39 or 40 percent. That leaves approximately 12 to 14 percent of the vote undecided.

No one was naive enough to think the Commonwealth Games would provide a major boost in the polls, or even necessarily a bump that could be traced to it. But the Games have provided an economic boost, not to mention the hundreds of millions of pounds for construction and infrastructure improvements preceding the event. Glasgow's metropolitan area produces about one-sixth of Scotland's economy. The Games have increased pride and patriotism and confidence. And they come amidst a slightly brightening economic forecast generally, as well as other upcoming events like the Edinburgh Festival and Edinburgh Fringe Festival, the Ryder Cup, the World Pipe Band Championships, and so on.

Scottish pride.

Moreover, the "yes" vote is receiving a tiny uptick. Undecided voters have been asked whether the Games will have any impact on their vote. Of those undecided voters, 14% said the Games have made them more likely to vote "yes," while only 4% say it has made them more likely to vote "no."

That tiny uptick from undecided voters, however, isn't about to sway the tide.

I think it's still a little early to see a Commonwealth Games boost. Pollsters may be jumping the gun on trying to get a read on the populace's psyche. It takes a while -- certainly more than a day or two -- for renewed confidence (if any) to be expressed on political questions. These kinds of events can have a lasting halo effect. Two years on, Brits wax proudly about the 2012 London Olympics as a showcase for the nation.

The pollsters are trying to measure the Games now, though, because tonight will showcase a major television debate between the leader of the "yes" movement, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, and the chair of the "Better Together" campaign for "no," Labour MP Alistair Darling. If the pollsters see a swing in their polls after tonight, they'll likely (and possibly correctly) attribute the swing to tonight's debate.

Scottish nationalists are hoping Salmond, their fiery and witty leader, will shine in the debate tonight and move the polls. Those against independence don't need much from Alistair Darling, only that he neither embarrass himself nor provide anything incendiary for the opposition.

The major political parties -- Tories, Lib Dems, and Labour -- are all united against Scottish independence. Although they've consistently led in the polls, they're leaving no stone unturned. Just today, they announced that if Scotland votes "no" on independence, it'll be granted a new devolution of powers. Assuming Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom, it will receive increased powers of taxation and more control over some social security programs.

Whither Scotland? (Photo courtesy of the BBC.)

The independence referendum is just over six weeks away. Will the "yes" vote get a bounce this week? We'll know soon.

2014 Commonwealth Games primer

The biggest sporting event in Scotland's history -- the XX Commonwealth Games -- starts tomorrow in Glasgow. Organizers expect to sell roughly 1 million tickets to 261 sessions of competition. This massive sporting event, held over 11 days of competition, is second only to the 2012 London Olympics in size and scope of sporting event ever held in the United Kingdom.

The 2014 Commonwealth Games logo.

So, what are the Commonwealth Games?

To answer that, you have to understand the Commonwealth of Nations. Originally known as the "British Commonwealth," and then simply "the Commonwealth," it is now a collection of 53 member states across the world which mostly -- but not all -- are former colonies of the United Kingdom. The member nations share cultural and historical ties with the U.K., and generally share English as a common language. In theory, the member states all support and promote geopolitical goals such as democracy and the rule of law.

The flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Besides the U.K. itself, some of the other "major" countries in the Commonwealth of Nations include Australia, Canada, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, and South Africa. But there are many small countries, as well, such as Barbados, Fiji, Kiribati, Lesotho, and Papua New Guinea. Moreover, there are British territories and other participating nations, such as the British Virgin Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and Samoa, as well as the member nations of the U.K.: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

This map courtesy of http://www.mapsofworld.com/commonwealth-games/countries.html.

In total, 71 nations and territories will participate in the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Almost one third of the world's population resides in a Commonwealth nation, spanning all continents and approximately one fourth of the world's landmass. Half of the Commonwealth's population of 2.3 billion is under the age of 25, and a quarter of its population is under 5 years of age.

Queen Elizabeth II sits as the Head of the Commonwealth, though each member state is freely associated and can elect to leave. The nations are all equal members. Queen Elizabeth, however, is the constitutional monarch of 16 member nations, including Australia, Belize, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, five other Commonwealth nations have their own monarchs: Brunei, Lesotho, Malaysia, Swaziland, and Tonga.

The Commonwealth Games were first held in 1930 with 400 athletes, though a precursor "Inter-Empire Championship" was held in 1911. The games run every four years, except for 1942 and 1946, due to World War II. Only Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, Scotland, and Wales have participated in every Commonwealth Games. Although England was the top medal winner in six games, and Canada the top medal winner in one, Australia has dominated as the top medal winner in 12 games, including the last six in a row and nine of the last eleven. The 2010 games had 6,700 participants, and 2014 expects a higher number.

All Commonwealth Games include 10 "core" sports, with another seven selected by the host country. The "core" sports are: athletics (i.e., track and field), badminton, boxing, field hockey (called simply "hockey"), lawn bowling, netball, rugby sevens, squash, swimming, and weightlifting. As you can see, this list certainly gives the games its own distinct British character. Cycling, diving, gymnastics, shooting, and wrestling have been included in nearly all of the games. For 2014, Scotland has dropped archery and tennis, while adding triathlon and judo.

Why not soccer (i.e., football)? Well, team sports were added for the first time in 1998, so there's not a long tradition of including football. Much more importantly, the World Cup is held just a month before each Commonwealth Games, and the inclusion of national football teams for the latter event is not feasible.

How do the Commonwealth Games differ from the Olympic Games? Not by much, other than the number of countries participating and the scale of the event. They both feature opening and closing ceremonies -- Rod Stewart and Susan Boyle will be featured in this year's opening ceremonies -- as well as a mascot. However, for the Commonwealth Games, disabled participants are full members of their national teams and their medals are included in the medal count.

A mascot competition for ages 6-15 received 4,000 submissions. This is the winner, by a 12-year old girl from Cumbernauld.

The 2014 mascot, "Clyde," named for Glasgow's primary river. Clyde is a thistle, the national flower of Scotland.

Just like the Olympic Games, the Commonwealth Games includes a baton relay. Called the Queen's Baton Relay, it has covered more than 118,000 miles around the world. As you might expect, the baton relay has been all over Scotland recently. This past Saturday morning, we took a short drive up the road to Bearsden, just north of Glasgow, to watch the baton go by and to let Jackson play at a small fair celebrating the games:

The baton was scheduled to go by at 8:15 am.

We got there a bit early for coffee and a croissant.

The baton strolled by.

Cuisine from various Commonwealth countries was available.

Flags from the various nations were on display.

Jackson made a "hat." Rather, dictated to Kate what to make.

The wee ones had mini games to play, with assistance.

Then the baton went by again. First, the security detail, this member with Clyde . . .

. . . and then the baton.

When I say the baton has been everywhere, I mean it. Highlands, islands, lochs, rivers, canals, villages, cities. We found out on Monday the baton passed by just one street over from our house. Oops. We missed it.

The Commonwealth Games are not quite in the same league as the Olympics, of course, nor of the World Cup. But the Commonwealth Games are the next biggest sporting event in the world. Scotland is intent on showing it has the stature to host such major events. At the same time, I'm sure the pro-independence movement is hoping for a patriotic bump in the polls ahead of September's independence referendum.

We're excited to be attending three events over the next eleven days: rugby sevens; the marathon (in which one of Kate's friends/coworkers is running for Scotland); and track and field. I'll update you on our experience. And huzzah for Team Scotland!

A turning point for Scottish independence

We're at a turning point regarding Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. A major turning point, by my reckoning.

But we don't know which way the Scots will turn.

The background:

As I have previously explained (and I suggest reading that post before this one), Scotland will hold a referendum on September 18 to answer a yes/no question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" If the majority votes "no," then nothing changes and Scotland remains in the U.K. If the majority votes "yes," then Scotland will become an independent country (but within the British commonwealth of nations, such as Australia or Canada).

The British Isles in coins. (Photo courtesy of the BBC.)

The referendum question seems simple, but the consequences of independence are complex and unknown. Although independence would not come immediately -- some undetermined number of years would pass before Scotland secedes -- much of Scotland's future relationship with the remainder of the U.K. would be negotiated. How open would access and trade be across the border between Scotland and England? Who pays the pensions, and in what system, for current U.K. government employees who are Scottish and live in Scotland? What military materiel from the U.K. would Scotland retain, if any? Who keeps the rights to the oil fields in the North Sea? And so on.

Perhaps the most important immediate question is what currency Scotland will use. Should Scotland create its own currency? Adopt the Euro? Or stick with the British pound sterling?

Polls show a slight majority of Scots identify themselves as either wholly Scottish or primarily Scottish, and not wholly or primarily British or as members of the United Kingdom. That may indicate a sentiment or desire for separation from the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, polls demonstrate economic and currency questions are the number one issue for the voters regarding independence. For major sectors of the economy -- such as financial services, manufacturing, oil and gas, tourism, etc. -- the currency question must be answered. Many voters who might desire independence seem inclined to do so only if they are confident about the practicalities of doing so. Right now, many voters seem to think a vote for independence is too economically risky, or at least decidedly unsettling. Consequently, polls show the "no" vote leading the "yes" vote by roughly 10%, with a sizable "undecided" segment which could possibly tip the balance either way.

Scotland's ruling party, the Scottish National Party (SNP), is the main driver behind the independence movement. Last November, they issued a lengthy "white paper" declaring their proposed policies on what they think should happen if Scotland votes for independence. In their white paper the SNP asserted an independent Scotland should retain the British pound sterling as its currency. Moreover, they proposed Scotland should reach an agreement with the remainder of the U.K. about how to share and regulate the currency, including having the Bank of England as Scotland's lender of last resort. Essentially, the SNP avidly seeks independence for Scotland but also a currency union with the rest of the U.K.

Keep the British pound sterling as Scotland's currency? (Photo courtesy of the BBC.)

The SNP's declaration was surprising. Their leader, Alex Salmond, the current First Minister of Scotland, declared back in 1999 that the British pound sterling was a "millstone round Scotland's neck" and Scotland should seek its own currency. While no one seems to argue Scotland should join the Eurozone -- it's still unclear whether the Euro will survive -- it is startling the SNP calls for Scotland to retain the British pound rather than create its own currency. With a currency union, Scotland would surrender its freedom to set its own monetary policy and severely limit its freedom of action on public finance.

Of course, creating a currency is complex, cumbersome, and risky. How would a Scottish currency be valued against the U.S. dollar, the British pound, the Euro, etc.? What kind of borrowing power would the Scottish government have? What would interest rates be? Scotland could create its own currency. But there necessarily would be a disruptive transition period which could cause significant economic hardship. Almost certainly, things would get worse before they might get better. Or things could go from bad to to really bad.

Remember all those voters who will vote for independence only if the economics seem beneficial? They're the impetus behind the SNP's declaration for seeking a currency union with the U.K. Keeping a unified currency is the safest and smoothest means of transition to independence, even if it leaves Scotland partly tied to the rest of the U.K. Some within the SNP complain that a currency union would leave Scotland as more of a federal entity within a reformulated U.K. instead of a truly independent nation. I'm sure those malcontents are being told to take a gradualist approach: first worry about getting independence, and then in the future they can seek their own separate currency.

The turning point:

Now, after all that exposition, let's talk about the turning point: The U.K. just said no.

It will not enter into a currency union with Scotland.

In a major speech last week -- delivered in Edinburgh, not far from the Scottish parliament, essentially in the lion's den -- the U.K.'s Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that if Scotland became an independent nation, it would not be in the interests of the U.K. to share its currency and its economic policy. Even more significantly, Chancellor George Osborne's declaration is supported not only by the governing Tory party, but also by the other two major parties, the Liberal Democrats (currently in a coalition with the Tories) and Labour (the ardent opposition). That's a united political front against the SNP.

According to Osborne, although the rest of the U.K. would suffer from increased transaction costs if Scotland had its own currency, the U.K. would suffer more if its own economic policies had to be negotiated with another country. The transaction costs are merely an inconvenience. A currency union, by contrast, could be economically stultifying, and possibly dangerous. Moreover, why would the U.K. want to take on the financial risk of underwriting the financial institutions of independent Scotland? If Scotland had an economic crisis, the rest of the U.K. would be on the hook to save it.

Osbourne said the best way for Scotland to keep using the pound sterling is to vote against independence. (Duh.)

A political commentator pointed out that the combined economies of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland do only 10% of their trade with Scotland, but 40% with countries using the Euro, and 20% with the United States. Thus, it would make more sense for the U.K. to seek a currency union with the U.S., or to adopt the Euro, than to agree to a currency union with Scotland.

This move by the Tories, Labour, and Lib Dems is a haymaker to the jaw of the SNP.

The SNP's leader, Salmond, has responded that Osborne's declaration is a bluff. It is meant to scare Scottish voters. He thinks U.K. businesses would be more than just inconvenienced by a lack of currency union, but instead would feel it as a heavy tax (the "Osborne tax") on their activities. According to Salmond, the costs would run to the hundreds of millions of pounds. He describes Osborne's tactics as "bullying."

Alex Salmond, the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. (Photo courtesy of Getty Images and the BBC.)

But Salmond had a punch of his own to throw. He stated that if the U.K. rejected a currency union, then an independent Scotland would not take on any of the national debt owed by the U.K., leaving the U.K. to pay any debt that proportionately would be owed by Scotland.

As Salmond argues, the British pound sterling has been built in part by Scots, and they have a right to it: "To be told that we have no rights to assets jointly built up is as insulting as it is demeaning. To be told there are things we can't do will certainly elicit a Scottish response that is as resolute as it is uncomfortable to the No campaign – it is yes, we can." The left-leaning SNP apparently is drawing from the Obama slogan handbook.

According to Salmond, under international law the debt of the U.K. was created by the U.K. and if the U.K. continues as an entity (i.e., with England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) then it will still be responsible for that debt. Scotland, on the other hand, will be an independent nation. It will have no duty toward the debt, which is owed by a separate nation. Although the SNP's white paper offered that an independent Scotland would take on its fair share of the U.K.'s debt, Salmond now says it would not do so unless it was in a currency union with the U.K.

If Scotland became independent without any national debt, it would have a freer hand economically, with significantly greater borrowing power and less worry from financial ratings agencies. Such a stance could make it easier to implement its own currency.

Or, an independent Scotland could keep using the British pound sterling even without a currency union with the U.K. Just as some nations use U.S. dollars as their currency, either officially (e.g., Panama and El Salvador) or unofficially (e.g., parts of Mexico), Scotland could continue to use the U.K.'s currency. That would make it easier for many Scottish businesses, as well as pensioners and others reliant upon the British pound. But it would leave much of Scotland's economics beyond its control, with the U.K. acting in its own best interest without regard for Scotland, or even with deliberate intent to affect Scotland.

That's not a recipe for successful independence. At least, not in the long term. But in the short term, it might work. And doing so would create a drag -- not crippling, but more than just a nuisance -- on the U.K.'s economic policy. So the U.K. might be better off negotiating a currency union with Scotland instead of having a free rider on its economic policy. (The U.S. doesn't really have this concern with countries like Panama or El Salvador given the massive GDP disparities, as well as the dollar's fading but still-preeminent place as the world's reserve currency.)

David Cameron, the U.K.'s Prime Minister, has said the SNP doesn't have a "Plan B" if it can't get Scotland into a currency union with the U.K. His obvious message to Scottish voters is it's too risky to vote for independence.

The Tories, Labour, and Lib Dems are ready to play hardball with Scotland and its ruling Scottish National Party. They might try to woo voters, but they'll also bring a hammer down. Salmond says their hardball tactics will backfire. Scots don't like being pushed around by the English (see, e.g., the "Rough Wooing" period during Henry VIII's reign). One of the thrusts of Scottish independence is predicated on the idea that its needs and desires are frequently ignored, downplayed, or deflected by its bigger neighbor to the south. Salmond predicts an upswell in "yes" votes for independence.

Another recent wrinkle:

Just a few days ago, the president of the European Union stated it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the E.U. A failure to join the E.U. would be a significant blow to Scotland. Trade, travel, and a host of other considerations would be harmed. The E.U. president, Jose Manuel Barroso, said Scotland would need to apply to be a member of the E.U. To be accepted, a new nation must be unanimously approved by all the E.U.'s member states, and Barroso apparently thought such approval would be tough to get.

He noted Spain has refused to accept Kosovo, which it regards as a breakaway province from Serbia. Though Barroso did not say so directly, he apparently thinks Spain might have similar concerns regarding Scotland. If you've read my earlier posts about Barcelona, you know Spain struggles with its own province of Catalonia, where a majority of citizens favor independence. Spain may not want a precedent set by Scotland, which could encourage Catalonia.

The SNP responded by calling Barroso's remarks "preposterous." They noted Spain's foreign minister has indicated that so long as Scotland departs the U.K. through a politically-agreed process (i.e., the September referendum), then it would not have concerns. Furthermore, Scotland is already a nation -- it's one of four nations within the United Kingdom -- and already has been a part of the E.U. for more than 40 years. By contrast, Kosovo sprang from a nation which was not already part of the E.U.

Regardless of his accuracy, Barroso's remarks are a second front on which the SNP must battle. They have predicted an independent Scotland will not face tremendous difficulty in joining the host of international organizations and agreements which it currently enjoys as a member of the U.K. Barroso's statements are a shot across the bow that things may be tougher than the SNP predicts.

Whither Scotland?

Between the U.K. and the SNP, who's bluffing, and who's not? Both sides? Neither?

Is the U.K. trying to bully the Scots? Will the Scots feel bullied, or simply forewarned?

It is hard to tell what's a turning point in political decisions, except in retrospect. But Osborne's speech, and Salmond's response, feels like one.

"Should Scotland be an independent country?"

Next fall, on 18 September 2014, the people of Scotland will vote in a referendum to answer a yes/no question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

Yesterday, the ruling party in Scotland -- the Scottish National Party (SNP) -- put forth a "white paper" advocating for independence and explaining what might happen and what policies they would pursue if Scotland voted to remove itself from the United Kingdom. The SNP is a left-leaning party that has a majority of seats in Scotland's unicameral parliament. It's opposed by both the Tory and Labour parties, as well as the Liberal Democrats and other smaller parties.

Titled "Scotland's Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland," the white paper is 670 pages long. You can read it here, if you have a lot of time on your hands. It's not a scholarly analysis of the issues. Rather, the white paper is a campaign document full of pledges to spend more money here, reduce spending there, make life better in these ways, etc. For Americans, it's kind of like reading a Republican or Democratic party convention platform -- hopes and aspirations, but not all of it will, or even can, come to pass. Most of the positions in the white paper will have to be either passed by the Scottish parliament (often referred to as "Holyrood," since the parliament building is adjacent to the Queen's Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh) or, much more precariously, negotiated with and agreed by the United Kingdom.

White paper on independence. (Photo courtesy of the BBC.)

You should keep in mind that the white paper is not what is being voted on by the public. At the polls next September, voters will only answer the yes/no question of whether Scotland should be independent from the United Kingdom. What happens after that is, to some extent, unknown. The SNP has put forward its white paper to reassure and convince a skeptical public that if they vote for independence their lives will not be greatly disrupted and they face a brighter future. The opposition parties, of course, predict dire outcomes.

To me, the most striking thing about the white paper is the SNP's position that it would retain the pound sterling and keep the Bank of England as the "lender of last resort," somewhat akin to the U.S. Federal Reserve. Certainly not joining the Euro. Not creating an independent Scottish currency. Instead, Scottish monetary policy, interest rates, borrowing power, and so on, would be under the strong influence of the rest of the U.K. Of course, keeping this "sterling zone" has advantages such as easy trade with the rest of the U.K. It keeps economic changes to a minimum. It reassures businesses. It makes it easy to continue pensions and other cross-border benefit schemes. I think it's a sensible course to follow, but it also takes away some of the power -- and the very point -- of Scottish independence. Moreover, the decision to allow Scotland to keep the pound sterling and rely on the Bank of England is up to the U.K., not Scotland. My assumption is that the U.K. would allow it, but not without some hemming and hawing, and perhaps some further negotiating concessions.

First Minister Alex Salmond, head of the SNP. The "First Minister" is the "prime minister" of the Scottish Parliament. (Photo courtesy of the BBC.)

I'm also struck by the total value of budgets and budget concerns here. Coming from America, and having worked on Capitol Hill for several years doing defense and foreign affairs work, I'm accustomed to much larger sums of money to be in play. The U.S. total budget for 2013 was approximately $3.8 trillion (though too much of that was deficit spending that adds to the debt). The U.S. defense budget for 2013 was around $682 billion. By comparison, according to the white paper, Scotland's defense budget at the start of its independence would be around around £2.5 billion (approximately $4 billion). In other words, Scotland's entire defense budget would be a rounding error in the U.S. defense budget. That £2.5 billion would support 15,000 troops and 5,000 reserves. 

Furthermore, I'm struck by the assumption that the EU and NATO will have no problem with Scotland breaking away from the U.K., and will simply immediately accept Scotland into the fold as just another country. Now, it's my assumption that both the EU and NATO will accept Scotland. But doing so without making Scotland jump through some hoops runs the risk of inflaming and emboldening separatist movements in other countries, such as Catalonia in Spain, the Flemish in Belgium, or perhaps folks in Northern Ireland again fighting about whether to join the rest of Ireland. The more that the current countries splinter, the more seats will be at the table, and the harder negotiating and operating will become. I'd guess that Scotland's assumption is basically correct, but it won't be perfectly smooth. For example, will the EU let Scotland join as a member but allow it to not join the Euro? The U.K. is a big bargaining partner and can keep itself out of the Euro. Scotland doesn't have that kind of leverage.

The media here focus on a variety of economic concerns, including the currency, but the main headline is the SNP's pledge to provide up to 30 hours of childcare for 38 weeks per year (the same as the school year) for all 3 and 4 year olds, as well as "vulnerable" 2 year olds. By providing more childcare, the SNP says it will get more people to work and therefore incomes will rise and government revenue will grow. Why does Scotland need to be independent for such childcare spending to happen? The Labour party here snipes that the SNP could pass such a law now, but is using this proposal as a carrot (i.e., bribe) for votes. That's true, of course. But it's also just politics.

Here is what the BBC says are the main provisions of the white paper:

• Thirty hours of childcare per week in term time for all three and four-year-olds, as well as vulnerable two-year-olds.

• Trident nuclear weapons, currently based on the Clyde, removed within the first parliament.

• Housing benefit reforms, described by critics as the "bedroom tax", to be abolished, and a halt to the rollout of Universal Credit.

• It would be in Scotland's interest to keep the pound, while the Bank of England would continue as "lender of last resort".

• BBC Scotland replaced at the start of 2017 with a new Scottish broadcasting service, continuing a formal relationship with the rest of the BBC.

• Basic rate tax allowances and tax credits to rise at least in line with inflation.

• A safe, "triple-locked" pension system.

• Minimum wage to "rise alongside the cost of living".

The "key extracts" from the white paper can be found here.

Also keep in mind that "independence" means Scotland will become just another of the "commonwealth of nations" with the Queen as its (nominal) head, like Canada and Australia. The United Kingdom will still continue, comprised of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, there will be no "Great Britain," since that refers to the island of Britain and is made up of England, Wales, and Scotland.

Current polling about Scottish independence tends to put the "No" vote around 45%-47%, the "Yes" vote around 35%-38%, and the "undecided" vote around 15%. If those numbers remain steady until next September, it doesn't look like independence is likely. Although undecideds in the U.S. tend to break toward the challenger -- which I think is the pro-independence position here -- it would take nearly all of the undecideds to vote "Yes" in order for independence to win. That's unlikely. (Of course, I don't know how undecideds usually end up voting in the U.K. generally or Scotland particularly.)

However, it is significant that independence is not dependent on a majority of the population support, but rather on a majority of those showing up to vote. I haven't seen polling here about the passion of voters on either side, but my sense is that the pro-independence crowd is much more passionate than the keep-the-status-quo crowd. If a lot of "No" voters think their side will easily win and thus they don't need to vote, then the vote tally could be a lot closer than it looks now.

And, of course, we'll also have to see how things progress over the coming year. What gaffes will either side commit? Will there be an upswell of nationalist feeling after Glasgow hosts the Commonwealth Games in late summer? Will there be any major surprises nationally or internationally that shake up the electorate?

Stay tuned...