There is something quite surreal about the prospect of a vote, by those who happen to reside in Scotland at the moment, on whether or not the 300-year-old Union of Great Britain should continue. Despite the opinion polls, I have a sneaky feeling that it will be a fairly clear \u201d\u02dcNo\u2019 vote. Because of the emotive nationalism, my sense is that people are reluctant to tell anyone that they are planning to vote \u201d\u02dcNo\u2019, and so the pollster results are skewed towards \u201d\u02dcYes.\u2019<\/p>\n
But whatever the result, there are going to be some serious recriminations about the way the whole process has been conducted. It is breathtaking to consider the misjudgements, incompetence and constitutional wrecking that has marked the whole process. These are the most obvious blunders:<\/p>\n
\u201d\u00a2 Cameron insisting that the vote was a straight \u201d\u02dcyes\u2019 or \u201d\u02dcno\u2019, out of hubristic confidence that Scots would not dare to vote \u201d\u02dcyes\u2019, instead of including a third option.<\/p>\n
\u201d\u00a2 Allowing the \u201d\u02dcbetter together\u2019 position to be called \u201d\u02dcNo.\u2019 Not surprisingly, this looks rather negative, as does any campaign to maintain the status quo. If there had been any thought at all about this, the vote would have been cast as between \u201d\u02dcyes to independence\u2019 versus \u201d\u02dcyes to union\u2019\u201d\u201dor, better still, \u201d\u02dcyes to union\u2019 versus \u201d\u02dcno to union.\u2019<\/p>\n
\u201d\u00a2Putting that third option (the so-called \u201d\u02dcdevo max\u2019) option on the table the week before the vote, which looks to everyone like a cross between a panic measure and a bribe.<\/p>\n
\u201d\u00a2The sloppy definition of who can vote, so that residents in Scotland with no long-term stake can vote, whereas those who have a long Scottish heritage but happen to have moved to England or another country cannot.<\/p>\n
\u201d\u00a2The notion of making constitutional change on a mere 50% of those voting. Even a debating society has a 2\/3 threshold for constitutional change\u201d\u201dand if there is less than 100% turnout, this change could happen with a minority of the electorate voting for it, let alone a minority of all Scots.<\/p>\n
\u201d\u00a2The idea that one part of the United Kingdom can vote itself independent regardless of the will of the rest of the Union. Scotland comprises 8% of the UK population\u201d\u201dso why couldn\u2019t other areas with 8% also decide to secede? At what percentage does the other half have a say?<\/p>\n