The Great Scottish FREEEEEEEEEDOOOMMMMM!!!!1!!! vote

[regexcellent]

I got the link, Dauphin, it was in the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2.../17/nhs-health

The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Surely the reason why people in UK live a year longer on average than in the US.

Interesting wording though.

[Hauldren Collider]

Crime is almost certainly the reason that brits live longer, not healthcare.

[Fake Boris]

Except it is, because they've already all very publicly agreed to it, and not acting would just mean there'd end up being another referendum in about 5 years. Please stop being ridiculous, the UK is a democracy.

I don't think you have a good grasp of the dynamics at play.

The whole scenario is a repeat of Quebec-Canada.

First, the federal government promises constitutional amendments to Quebec if it votes no.

Quebec votes NO, federal government announces: "whoops! we didn't realize we needed the agreement of all provinces to amend the constitution."

Talks begin. The federal government and provinces sit at the table. Discussions progress at turtle pace. Any provincial or federal election jeopardizes draft deals.

In the meanwhile, the SNP's popularity erodes as it sinks into daily management of a regional administration. Factions (left & right) who stood united for independence break apart. Some people will want to give negotiations a chance. Others will want another referendum. Some will want an unilateral declaration of independence.

Let's go back to the negotiations. If an agreement is ever reached, it will have to be approved by referendum. English nationalists will vote against devolution; and so will "liberty or die" bred Scots and Welsh nationalists. This means that devolution referendums are likely to fail.

In 10 years from now, Scotland won't have gotten anything. Or very little at best. All 3 UK leaders know this. It's the plan.

[Dr Strangelove]

Irrelevant. It's not risk.

How are you defining risk?

[Imran Siddiqui]

In 10 years from now, Scotland won't have gotten anything. Or very little at best. All 3 UK leaders know this. It's the plan.

If that's actually the plan, it's ****ing brilliant. The problem with conspiracy type thinking is that it starts off wrong. It thinks that governmental leaders are intelligent enough to concoct James Bond villain schemes.

[kentonio]

I don't think you have a good grasp of the dynamics at play.

The whole scenario is a repeat of Quebec-Canada.

First, the federal government promises constitutional amendments to Quebec if it votes no.

Quebec votes NO, federal government announces: "whoops! we didn't realize we needed the agreement of all provinces to amend the constitution."

Talks begin. The federal government and provinces sit at the table. Discussions progress at turtle pace. Any provincial or federal election jeopardizes draft deals.

In the meanwhile, the SNP's popularity erodes as it sinks into daily management of a regional administration. Factions (left & right) who stood united for independence break apart. Some people will want to give negotiations a chance. Others will want another referendum. Some will want an unilateral declaration of independence.

Let's go back to the negotiations. If an agreement is ever reached, it will have to be approved by referendum. English nationalists will vote against devolution; and so will "liberty or die" bred Scots and Welsh nationalists. This means that devolution referendums are likely to fail.

In 10 years from now, Scotland won't have gotten anything. Or very little at best. All 3 UK leaders know this. It's the plan.

The SNP has not just come into office, it's been in office for years now. It's just recieved a big boost from the independence campaign, and guess what? If the promises made by Westminster are not kept, that is going to give the SNP a continuing huge boost as they can wheel it out as an excuse every single time something goes wrong in Scotland.

As for votes against devolution, devolution already exists for crying out loud. The new powers (devo max) have been promised by all 3 major parties, and will be delivered but will almost certainly go hand in hand with some form of devolution for England and probably some expanded powers for Wales/NI (although Wales haven't traditionally been anywhere near as eager for it as the Scots). The 'liberty or die' nationalists you're talking about are the ones currently insisting that Westminster follow through on its promises, so they're not about to vote against it and then have to go home and explain why to their own voters.

I don't think you have a good grasp of the dynamics at play.

This is not Quebec-Canada.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Crime is almost certainly the reason that brits live longer, not healthcare.

To reduce the average life expectancy of all Americans by one year due to homicides you'd need about 1 in 80 Americans to be murdered in their lifetime. That equates to around 45,000 homicides per year.

[Ben Kenobi]

To reduce the average life expectancy of all Americans by one year due to homicides you'd need about 1 in 80 Americans to be murdered in their lifetime. That equates to around 45,000 homicides per year.

Actually, if you were to control for race, Americans live longer. So that means that you're actually incorrect to state that the greater overall longevity of folks in the UK is due to the NHS.

[Ben Kenobi]

What difference? No one has presented any facts and most rankings I have seen in the past have the U.S. a long way behind the UK and other European nations.

My experience is that American care dominates Canada's.

[kentonio]

Actually, if you were to control for race, Americans live longer.

I know it upsets you, but African Americans are American too.

[Fake Boris]

The SNP has not just come into office, it's been in office for years now. It's just recieved a big boost from the independence campaign, and guess what? If the promises made by Westminster are not kept, that is going to give the SNP a continuing huge boost as they can wheel it out as an excuse every single time something goes wrong in Scotland.

We'll see. It's naive to assume that politicians would necessarily stand to lose something for not keeping their promises. The point of devolution is not to bolster the SNP; it's to undermine it. If, say, devolution doesn't happen because English nationalists refuse it, then the opposition to the SNP will campaign on the basis that SNP, being separatist, has no credibility dealing with the central government.

As for votes against devolution, devolution already exists for crying out loud. The new powers (devo max) have been promised by all 3 major parties, and will be delivered but will almost certainly go hand in hand with some form of devolution for England and probably some expanded powers for Wales/NI (although Wales haven't traditionally been anywhere near as eager for it as the Scots).

The SNP has been in office for how long, 7 years already? Why did a devo offer only come about 11 days before the referendum? It's a panicked response in the face of a threat. Now that SNP has lost a referendum, its position is not strengthened, it's weakened. Why would the central government offer concessions when the threat has diminished?

The 'liberty or die' nationalists you're talking about are the ones currently insisting that Westminster follow through on its promises, so they're not about to vote against it and then have to go home and explain why to their own voters.

Not at all. They're the ones pushing for another referendum, or even unilateral independence, ASAP.

I don't think you have a good grasp of the dynamics at play.

This is not Quebec-Canada.

No one in politics likes to give up its powers. London is trying to buy time and wait for the SNP to lose an election to erosion. This aspect, at least, is very similar to Quebec-Canada. Have you seen those media reports that Jean Chretien, former Canadian PM, personally advised Cameron on dealing with the SNP? Well guess what, the NO campaign is a carbon copy of the NO campaigns in Quebec. I've been following it.

[Dauphin]

I got the link, Dauphin, it was in the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2.../17/nhs-health

Certainly amusing. The cited report is available here.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf

UK came 10th in "keeping people alive" as the Guardian put it. Guess who came last? That's right, the U.S.

[Dauphin]

It's also worth reading the definitions of each measure.

[kentonio]

We'll see. It's naive to assume that politicians would necessarily stand to lose something for not keeping their promises. The point of devolution is not to bolster the SNP; it's to undermine it. If, say, devolution doesn't happen because English nationalists refuse it, then the opposition to the SNP will campaign on the basis that SNP, being separatist, has no credibility dealing with the central government.

Except it won't, because the opposition in the Scottish government is the Labour party. Not only one of the three parties who made the promise in the first place, but also the face of the Better Together campaign, and quite probably our next UK government as well.

The SNP has been in office for how long, 7 years already? Why did a devo offer only come about 11 days before the referendum? It's a panicked response in the face of a threat. Now that SNP has lost a referendum, its position is not strengthened, it's weakened. Why would the central government offer concessions when the threat has diminished?

The threat hasn't diminished, the major parties were pushed into a corner where they had to promise something they hadn't wanted to give, because the alterative was breaking up the UK. As soon as that happened, the SNP won. They didn't get independence but they got to walk away having won the promise of new powers that are now either met or provide them with a solid foundation for demanding another referendum.

Not at all. They're the ones pushing for another referendum, or even unilateral independence, ASAP.

Except they aren't, because both sides had to agree to accept the decision of the referendum which was that it would be the only time for a generation. The only thing that will break that is if either the UK doesn't follow up on it's promises for further devolution or if there's some massive unexpected event that sends things out of control.

No one in politics likes to give up its powers. London is trying to buy time and wait for the SNP to lose an election to erosion. This aspect, at least, is very similar to Quebec-Canada. Have you seen those media reports that Jean Chretien, former Canadian PM, personally advised Cameron on dealing with the SNP? Well guess what, the NO campaign is a carbon copy of the NO campaigns in Quebec. I've been following it.

The No campaign was an absolute failure that only managed to struggle home because of those promises made and because Gordon Brown (of all people) produced possibly the best speech of his life at the very last moment. When the campaign started the Yes vote was around 30-35%, and at it's height was allowed to reach a potentially winning percentage despite the entire nationalist argument being build on a foundation of misrepresentation and outright lies. Are you sure Jean Chretien isn't secretly a nationalist?