mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Scottish Independence Yes Vote At 51%

Shocker new poll just out from, done for Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times: the yes vote for Scottish independence is up to 51% ahead of September 18th’s referendum. And the trend does not look heartening at all:

Is this the death of Britain?

Features Icon
show comments
  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    I believe this will be good for the UK, as UKiP will now grow even faster without all the leftists in Scotland. Also, Scotland is getting a disproportionate share of the welfare spending, and the UK’s finance’s will improve with them gone. Finally, Scotland will have to come up with their own currency, as the pound will stay with the UK. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Scotland in as terrible a state as the now crime ridden and decaying Venezuela in 10 years time. Scotland will serve as an excellent example of the evils of Socialism and Big Government.

    • Andrew Allison

      I don’t follow your logic here. UKIP is taking votes from the Conservatives, not Labour. Scottish independence would reduce the number of Labour MPs, thereby strengthening the Conservatives. Doesn’t this seem like swings and roundabouts?

      • Kevin

        One of the biggest obstacles the UKIP faces is that taking votes from the Tories will lead to a Labour govt. Without their Scottish MPs Labour will have a much harder time getting a majority in Parliament. This will give UKIP much more room to grow.

  • Andrew Allison

    No, but it will be the death of Scotland.

    • Pete

      Murdoch is probably practicing some propaganda using a ‘poll’ to bring out ‘No’ voters on the 18th.

  • Fat_Man

    “Is this the death of Britain?”

    No. Britain died in Rotherham. The Scotland vote is just the the beginning of the Probate.

    • Andrew Allison

      U.S. pandering to minorities puts Rotherham in the shade. Where’s the outrage regarding Black-on-Black and Black-on-White violence?

      • Fat_Man

        I think that Roterham is a whole different scale of evil, than sporadic violence, from which most middle class people can insulate themselves. Rotherham was systemic and long term.

        • Kevin

          Rotterdam also has a huge

          • f1b0nacc1

            This is the best description of the problem that I have seen in quite a while, though let me suggest that rather than Britain’s Rust Belt, a better description would be Britain’s California. The toxic alliance between undigested immigrants and gentry liberals would be quite familiar to Jerry Brown…

        • Andrew Allison

          Sporadic violence? Have you looked at the systematic Black-on-Black violence? Does the ability of the middle class to insulate itself change the fact that Blacks feel entitled to engage in it?

  • Stacy Garvey

    I want to say it’s a good thing anytime a people unite peacefully to self govern, but, after watching the recent debate on independence, I really fear for the Scots. Their future looks more Venezuelan than Swiss or Irish. They have what I’d call a socialist consensus. That won’t end well.

    • rheddles

      They deserve it. How’s Hadrian’s wall holding up?

  • B-Sabre

    It’s probably also the end of the UK as a nuclear weapons state. If Scotland goes independent, then the UK nuclear base at Faslane goes with it, and the RN will have to move it’s missile submarines out to somewhere. At that point the UK will have to chose between building new subs (their current fleet is coming up for replacement), or building a new infrastructure for those subs, and affording their new carriers. Something will have to give.

    One off-the-wall option: base them in the US. Rent pier-space from the Americans at King’s Bay, GA (irony, that) or maybe Bangor, ME. There might be some arguments about how you base a nuclear deterrent on another country’s soil, but we did it in support of NATO with tactical nuclear weapons for years.

    • PKCasimir

      The US has treaties with Russia limiting the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems each country can possess. I hardly think the Russians will accept the US allowing the UK to base its strategic nuclear submarines in Georgia and demanding that these weapons and weapons delivery systems be counted as part of the treaties.. In any event, I do not think it would be a very wise foreign policy for the US to allow another nation to base its independent nuclear strike force on American soil, a force outside of NATO, without the US having control over that strike force.

      • Kevin

        There might be considerable interest in building a base in Humberside. The area has a long shipbuilding tradition and is economically in bad shape. Portsmouth has a long RN tradition but NIMBYism in the South is likely to be much stronger where the economy is so much stronger and the attraction of jobs from building and maintaining a base so much lower.

        But the British defense budget is collapsing and there seems to be little appetite to revive it – no matter how much Putin tries.

        • B-Sabre

          The problem is that the RN was already looking at having to replace the boomers (or bombers in UK parlance) in the near-to-mid term anyway (they are working on a common missile section with the USN for the next gen subs). They have enough money to replace the boats, or replace the base – not both.

      • Fat_Man

        “The US has treaties with Russia”


      • B-Sabre

        1. What the Russians want has a lot less value today than it did recently. We could also point out their numerous infractions of existing nuclear treaties, and frankly tell them to pound sand. The UK boats would be under a separate, independent command-and-control system, not US operational control.
        2. If it was any other nation, you might have a point. Given the fact that the US supplies the missiles used by the UK in their submarines, and that there is already a great deal cooperation on development between the two countries, there is still a “special relationship” there.
        If anything, I would think objections would come from the UK side to the idea – especially since the Obama administration “ratted out” the number of Trident missiles we sold the UK as part of the recent “New SALT” talks, and the sworn objective of the administration to work towards “Nuclear Zero.”

      • B-Sabre


        EXCLUSIVE: Send British nukes to US if Scotland votes Yes say military chiefs

        “A recent report by the Royal United Services Institute think tank estimated that recreating the facilities to house Britain’s nuclear deterrent south of the border would cost around £3bn and take up to ten years. But the costs of “renting space” in the US would be relatively small.”

        “The obvious location, experts say, would be the US Naval Submarine Base at Kings Bay, Georgia, which already hosts the US’ Atlantic submarine fleet and a major Trident refit centre, the largest drydock in the world.”

  • rheddles

    And the trend does not look heartening at all

    For whom?

  • lehnne

    the party is over in Europe what we are witnessing now is the hangover

  • Federale

    Good riddance to bad rubbish. Let them live in their drunkeness, lassitude, welfare, and Islamists. This will mean a UKIP or Tory government in England for 30 years.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service