If the SNP won. A few questions....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suspect that if the SNP won by enough to be in a position where they could realistically try to call/argue for/whatever a referendum (which currently looks unlikely, but just about possible), Westminster would insist on something more than 50%+1=Indepedence.
You would probably be looking at either a demand for over two thirds to be in favour, or for over 80%, 90% (or whatever) of the electorate to have voted. Maybe both, or something similer.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course it all depends on who is exactly subsidising whom It is a myth that we are subsidised. The UK generates £12.2 bn in oil from off the Scottish coast. From 1982-2002 while the UK developed a £410 bn defecit, Scotland by itself produced a £24bn surplus.

Because that oil is clearly going to last forever

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course not. But Scotland has the potential to supply 90% of the UK's energy needs in wind and off shore wave power alone. And any energy surplus to sell is a good thing

I refuse to believe any and all claims about the wonder/white elephant that is renewable energy that include statistics higher than "20%"... and I get suspicious about those

Btw, I actually think that the SNP would be better off arguing for increased powers for Holyrood, rather than pushing for a referendum on Indepedence that would likely have enough strings attached to all-but guarantee defeat... the biggest mistake the PQ ever made was to call that referendum in the early '80's; and they had greater control over it than the SNP would have.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course, bear in mind this time next year we could be having this discussion for real....

Perhaps. But a lot of things would have to happen between now and then for it to happen.

It'd be stupid to rule it out completely, but it would be foolish to assume that a relatively clean and trouble free seperation could happen in just a few months.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There is also an increasing misplaced ‘anti-Scottishness’ south of the border that is annoying me.

Ever noticed the anti-Englishness in Scotland?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think of as an unfair string though? Westminster would never be so stupid as to allow Scotland to seperate based on 50% +1 in a referendum with a low, or even average, turnout; to expect that is just naive.
I suspect that the likely conditions would be a large margin in favour on a high turnout; or it's possible that a certain % of the population or electorate (rather than of votes cast), say 55%, would be required instead.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

50+1 with no restrictions on turnout was good enough for the Scottish (and Welsh) ’97 referenda, which bear in mind Labour wanted to pass So to move the 'goalposts' would be difficult to justify.

There is a big difference between devolution and seperation. Btw, I actually wouldn't mind giving Scotland (almost) everything but an actual seperation; I suppose going down the Quebec road. That's something that will probably happen at some point.

IMO the threat of a referendum to beat out more money and powers from Whitehall is a much better weapon for the SNP than a referendum would be; because if they were to lose a referendum, what then? The unhappy fate of the PQ after it's referendum defeats is something that Salmond must be aware of.