Trump's Horribly Failed Trip To Europe

Here in the U.S., Trump is the least popular American "president" at this point in his term. It's much worse in the rest of the world. Except for outright fascist countries like Hungary and dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Trump is almost universally hated. Even before he went to the U.K. and made an ass out of himself, YouGov polling showed him with an 11% approval rating. 67% of Britons say he's either a "poor" or "terrible" leader.

Scotland hates him even more than the rest of the U.K. and they're pissed off that his vacation/advertisement for his failed Turnberry golf resort, a money laundering machine, is costing them $6 million.

Before he flew up to Scotland, he did a 30 minute interview with right-winger Piers Morgan aboard Air Force One. Morgan wrote a long article about it for the Daily Mail but I'm just excerpting a tiny bit:

Trump spectacularly blew up his trip this week with an incendiary interview in The Sun that attacked Theresa May for watering down her Brexit plan to such an extent that it might kill off hopes of a trade deal with America.

It was the political equivalent of going to someone’s house for dinner and telling them their food is inedible.

He tried to rein back on his criticism when they appeared for a joint press conference on Friday, but a lot of the damage was already done with May’s critics leaping on the belief that her new Chequers plan which caused David Davis and Boris Johnson to resign, doesn’t allow Britain to do a bi-lateral deal with America.

I was curious if Mrs May had managed to change his mind during their series of private meetings.

‘No, no, I think my position is the same-- I just think it’s really their choice. And if you speak to the Prime Minister, she’s really saying: “No, it is Brexit, it is what it was, but we’re leaving certain things.”

‘Do you believe that?’

‘Well honestly it’s not for me to say.’

‘Most people don’t believe it.’

‘Well yeah, I know, but…’

‘They think it doesn’t allow for America to actually trade.’

‘Well that would be bad, I mean look, I think it’s worse for UK than it is for us because we’re doing very well, and we’re doing very well at trade, and we’re doing incredibly well overall, and we’re having the best numbers we’ve ever had as a country-- best employment numbers, best GDP numbers.’

‘If we were free, Britain, to do a genuine free trade deal...’

‘We would make a tremendously big deal.’

‘People say: “Come on. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, he wants to put America first, we’re not going to get a great deal.”

‘That’s true. Sure, but you’re going to put UK first, and we’re going to, you know, we’re going to argue, we’re going to fight, and we’re going to end up making a deal.’

‘Is it in your interests?’

‘We are putting America first but you have to put your country first, and other people have to put their country first.’

‘The sceptic in me would say: ‘What is the incentive for America to do a great deal with the United Kingdom?”

‘We would make a great deal with the United Kingdom because they have product that we like. I mean they have a lot of great product. They make phenomenal things, you know, and you have different names-- you can say “England,” you can say “UK,” you can say “United Kingdom” so many different-- you know you have, you have so many different names-- Great Britain. I always say: “Which one do you prefer? Great Britain? You understand what I’m saying?’

‘You know Great Britain and the United Kingdom aren’t exactly the same thing?’

‘Right, yeah. You know I know, but a lot of people don’t know that. But you have lots of different names. The fact is you make great product, you make great things. Even your farm product is so fantastic.’

Trump revealed at the press conference he had privately suggested Mrs May activate a ‘brutal option’ to bring the EU to heel.

I asked what it was.

‘Well I recommended her something, I gave her an option, I’d rather not tell you what that option is, but I think she might. I think it would’ve been great, but it’s not too late for her to do that necessarily.’

One more thing from Morgan's interview that was kind of hilarious-- and a little sad: When the ass-kissing Piers asked him about the hundreds of thousands of protesters, Trump told him that "Some of them are protesting in my favour, you know that? There are many, many protests in my favour." Among the imaginary pro-Trump protesters were not members of the royal family which largely boycotted Trump, although, poor Queen Elizabeth couldn't. Her husband, Prince Philip found something else to do and so did their son and grandsons, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry, who are all friends with the Obamas and who are still fuming that Trump threatened England if the Obamas were invited to Prince Harry's wedding.

Now, back to Piers' unanswered question on Air Force One, the one about the "brutal option" he had given Theresa May. Because he shot off his fat mouth and because Morgan wrote about it, the Prime Minister had no choice but to reveal it when Andrew Marr asked her about it on the BBC the next day.

The prime minister was asked on the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show what the “brutal” Brexit negotiating advice was that Trump had talked about in their joint press conference outside the prime minister’s Chequers country retreat.

Revealing it for the first time, May said: “He told me I should sue the EU.” After being prompted by a surprised Marr, May repeated: “Sue the EU, not go into negotiations with them, sue them.

The prime minister smiled, and indicated she had disregarded the advice, saying “actually we’re going into negotiations with them”, in remarks that will be interpreted as a put-down of the president.

At least in Finland, not all the protests, scorn and hatred were directed at Trumpanzee. That was all shared between him and his buddy Putin-- and the weather, the hottest day (86 degrees) in years. Even before Trump arrived, Helsinki police were reporting that at least 10 16 demonstrations were planned to protest the two of them, primarily in support of human rights and democracy. During the Sunday rally, Heidi Hautala, a popular Finnish member of the European Parliament told the crowd of several thousand that "The current world order... has been challenged by admiration of force and an attitude of 'every man for himself.' And this is what these two men, Trump and Putin, have in common-- contempt for democracy, contempt for international agreements, contempt for human rights." The Finnish neo-Nazi party also organized a Welcome Trump event at Narinkkatori, a pedestrian plaza across from the train and bus station which also includes the Chapel of Silence, a church dedicated to the absence of sound, an odd place to hold a pro-Trump demonstration.

Before the meeting, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs tweeted that they agree with Trump that the bad relations with our country are the fault of... our country-- "U.S. foolishness" and the "witch hunt"-- a word for word interpretation of Señor Trumpanzee's morning tweet. America First?

Trump kept Putin waiting 20 minutes before the summit started, it lasted 90 minutes. That was some weird press conference! David Frum summed it up like this: "We still do not know what hold Vladimir Putin has upon President Trump, but the whole world has now witnessed the power of its grip. Russia helped Donald Trump into the presidency, as Robert Mueller’s indictment vividly details. Putin, in his own voice, has confirmed that he wanted Trump elected. Standing alongside his benefactor, Trump denounced the special counsel investigating the Russian intervention in the U.S. election-- and even repudiated his own intelligence appointees. This is an unprecedented situation, but not an uncontemplated one. At the 1787 convention in Philadelphia, the authors of the Constitution worried a great deal about foreign potentates corrupting the American presidency... The reasons for Trump’s striking behavior-- whether he was bribed or blackmailed or something else-- remain to be ascertained. That he has publicly refused to defend his country’s independent electoral process-- and did so jointly with the foreign dictator who perverted that process-- is video-recorded fact."

Senator John McCain, watching from home in Arizona, issued a statement that one could only hope some of his colleagues in DC will pay attention to: "one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake."

Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.

It is tempting to describe the press conference as a pathetic rout-- as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience. But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician. These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties, and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world.

Coming close on the heels of President Trump’s bombastic and erratic conduct towards our closest friends and allies in Brussels and Britain, today’s press conference marks a recent low point in the history of the American Presidency. That the president was attended in Helsinki by a team of competent and patriotic advisors makes his blunders and capitulations all the more painful and inexplicable.

No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are—a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. American presidents must be the champions of that cause if it is to succeed. Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility. One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain.

I wondered if any congressional candidates would have the courage to call it like it is. Kara Eastman (D-NE) sure did-- and fast! "Today, we all watched as Trump committed treason on live television. He sided with Russia over his own appointed staff, despite evidence of Russian meddling in our past election. He has continued to alienate our allies and ignore the advice of our intelligence community, while catering to dictators. This is not how our government is supposed to operate. We have a system of checks and balances, and right now, Republicans in Congress are not doing anything to stop the reckless and dangerous behavior of the president. Despite Trump’s actions, Don Bacon has promised to be a “firewall against impeachment” and has stood by Trump regardless of how far he debases the presidency and our democracy. We need principled leadership in this district-- a leader who will condemn this behavior and ensure the investigation into Trump’s possible collusion with Russia continues."

I want to leave you with one thought. Most people I know probably agree with the sentiment Karoli from Crooks and Liars told me after watching the shocking circus in Helsinki today: "I have never seen a press conference that made me cry, but that one did. It was absolutely treason and he should be arrested when his feet hit American soil."

Traitor! by Chip Proser

Scotland-- Another Brexit Complication

When the U.K. voted to leave the European Union, the results were fairly close-- 17,410,742 votes to leave (51.9%) to 16,141,241 to stay (48.1%). It wasn't that close in Scotland, however, where most people wanted to remain in the EU. This was the breakdown in the U.K.'s constituent parts:

• England: leave- 53.4%, stay 46.6%
• Scotland: leave- 38.0%, stay 62.0%
• Wales: leave -52.5%, stay- 47.5%
• Northern Ireland: leave 44.2%, stay 55.8%

London also voted to remain in the EU. The city has 32 boroughs-- ten for Inner London and 20 for Outer London. All of Inner London voted to stay and only 5 boroughs voted to leave, all boughs on the edge of the city-- Havering,Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Sutton, and Hillingdon. Bet you never stayed in any of them. Boroughs you're probably familiar with-- as a tourist or businessperson-- wanted nothing to do with the Brexit movement. Westminster, for example, voted 53,928 to remain and 24,268 to leave. Kensington and Chelsea voted 37,601 to stay, 17,138 to leave. Camden was 71,295 to stay, 23,838 to leave. Lambeth was 111,584 to remain, 30,340 to leave.

But London isn't threatening to secede from the U.K. and stay with the EU. Scotland, however, is. Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon warned that unless they can stay in the EU-- without England, Wales and Northern Ireland-- they'll hold a new independence referendum. Monday she wrote an OpEd for the Financial Times that must have driven U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May bonkers. "This week," she wrote, "the Scottish government will publish proposals aimed at securing Scotland’s place in Europe, and specifically our continued place in the EU’s single market."

Our hope is that the UK will remain within the single market. The advantages of doing so are clear and obvious. Unfortunately, the rhetoric emanating from a UK government that appears ever more in thrall to hardline Brexiters does not inspire great optimism that this option will be chosen.

If the UK government opts not to remain in the single market, our position is that Scotland should still be supported to do so-- not instead of, but in addition to free trade across the UK-- and the paper we will publish will outline how that could be achieved. This would involve the devolution of new powers to Edinburgh. Not remaining in the single market would be deeply economically damaging for Scotland, with independent analysis from the University of Strathclyde’s Fraser of Allander Institute suggesting up to 80,000 jobs would be a lost over a decade.

...The political reality is that Scotland, by a decisive 24-point margin, chose to remain in the EU, with voters in every single one of the country’s 32 local authority areas opting to remain.

It remains my view, and that of the government I lead, that the best option for Scotland remains full membership of the EU as an independent member state. Indeed, had we already achieved such status we would not find ourselves in our current situation, facing being taken out of Europe against the strongly expressed view of our electorate.

As such, independence must remain an option for safeguarding our European status, if it becomes clear that our interests cannot be protected in any other way.

Therefore, the proposals we will publish this week involve a substantial degree of compromise on our part. It is hoped they will find a similarly open mind from the UK government, who have already pledged to consider them. Theresa May, prime minister, has given that explicit undertaking, so a failure to properly engage would represent a breach of faith.

To be clear, it is not the Scottish government’s position that we expect to negotiate directly with the EU institutions or other member states. Rather, our intention is for the proposals to be agreed with the UK government, which will then take them forward as part of their overall negotiating position around Article 50.

However, while we will not be formally negotiating with EU partners, we will continue to engage with them. So it will also be for governments and others across the EU to consider our proposals and how they might be implemented. In doing so, they should know that they come from a nation deeply rooted in the best traditions of European solidarity and co-operation, and from a country which is determined to protect its place in Europe.

Meanwhile, Theresa May's government is furiously tap-dancing around the complex and divisive Brexit question. She's now talking about a transitional period to allow UK businesses to adjust and assures the Brexit fanatics that it is neither a stalling tactic nor part of a strategy to rob them of their referendum win. Her Conservative government says it expects to complete withdrawal negotiations and set out future trading arrangements with the EU within two years after triggering Article 50 and that she's not backing a bid to give Parliament a final vote on whether to implement Brexit or not.

If Putin ordered the truck attack in Berlin Monday, would he have informed Trump?

The Week Wraps Up With More Adventures Of Trumpy The Clown

Yesterday Trumpy the clown left the campaign trail to fly to his failing golf course in Scotland, driven soley by his business interests and unrelated for his crashing-and-burning presidential campaign. Wednesday the Washington Post reported that "[t]o many people in Scotland, his course here has been a failure. Over the past decade, Trump has battled with homeowners, elbowed his way through the planning process, shattered relationships with elected leaders and sued the Scottish government. On top of that, he has yet to fulfill the lofty promises he made. Trump has also reported to Scottish authorities that he lost millions of dollars on the project-- even as he claims on U.S. presidential disclosure forms that the course has been highly profitable.

At least Trump will have some time on the plane across the Atlantic to contemplate how he's going to fight--other than just bribing-- the growing Dump Trump movement breaking out among right-wing convention delegates. Ironically, the Republican Establishment is actually resigned to Trump's nomination and they're against the grassroots plots against him. Or at least that's the party line.

Or Trump could skip that and contemplate something else-- like the wipeout awaiting him. The latest predictions from Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia's Center For Politics. They forsee a crushing electoral college defeat for Trump-- 347-191. And they have no toss-up states! They show Hillary winning in all the traditional swing states: New Hampshire, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia. If Sabato is correct and Hillary wants to play rough, the battleground states for 2016 will be Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Utah and Arizona, traditional GOP bastions.

Almost all the momentum-- Pennsylvania is the exception and Hillary is ahead there too-- is against Trump.

Currently, we show every Obama 2012 state at least leaning to Clinton, along with North Carolina, the one state won by Mitt Romney where we currently see a Democratic edge. Obama carried North Carolina in 2008 along with Indiana, a traditionally conservative state that has long been the most Republican state in the Midwest. If Clinton’s national lead does grow further, it’s far from impossible that she might be able to carry Indiana, as well as Missouri, which Obama did not carry in either of his elections. But as of now, we think that is unlikely, and Trump remains the favorite in both.

Two Republican-leaning states where Democratic chances might be better are Arizona and Georgia. Both states typically vote several points more Republican than the nation, but they are both becoming more diverse: Arizona has a growing Hispanic population that will in all likelihood be quite hostile to Trump, an anti-immigration hardliner, while Georgia has a significant and deeply Democratic bloc of African-American voters as well as a growing, educated, white-collar professional class that might be turned off by Trump. While Trump is still a favorite in both places, we see Clinton having the potential to grab one or both if she ends up winning a big national victory, so we’re moving Arizona and Georgia from Likely Republican to Leans Republican.

Our ratings are premised to a large degree on a belief that we are not going to see dramatic changes in the electoral performance of the states this year. In other words, we think the states that have been the most Democratic in recent elections will continue to be among the most Democratic, the most Republican states will continue to be the most Republican, and the states that have voted closest to the national average in recent elections-- the swing states-- will continue to reflect the national average.

...We’re moving [Utah] from Safe Republican to Likely Republican.

Several 2016 polls have shown the state to be competitive. While Utah is very Republican, it also stands apart from other states because of its heavy Mormon population (58% of the state, according to the American Values Atlas), a religious group whose members were notably cool to Trump during the primary season. (Trump only got 14% in the state’s caucus, held on March 22.) Ultimately, Utah seems most unlikely to vote Democratic for president, but Trump could wildly underperform there and bleed votes to Johnson’s Libertarian ticket or perhaps someone else-- the independent filing deadline is Aug. 15. The reasons for Trump’s troubles with Mormons are legion, according to BuzzFeed’s McKay Coppins, including his apparent hostility to religious freedom (his proposal to at least temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States) and hardline anti-immigration message. Additionally, Coppins argues, “pitchfork populism doesn’t hold the same visceral appeal for a religious community with above-average education levels, relatively stable families, and comfortable middle-class incomes.” Perhaps more important, if Trump does indeed perform poorly with Mormons, it could also hurt him in more competitive states such as Utah’s neighbors (Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada). These are places with above-average Mormon populations where Trump’s potential underperformance with Hispanics may do him further harm.

If most of the Sanders vote is gradually re-absorbed into the Democratic column-- a reasonable expectation-- Clinton will get a boost of a couple percentage points nationally and in swing-state polling. Should the Democratic convention be a harmonious show-- not a certainty-- and Clinton’s choice for VP be well-received across the party and nation, Clinton’s poll gains should harden.

The same thing could happen for Trump, of course, but party unity within the Republican family is a non-starter. Two former presidents (both Bushes), the previous party nominee (Romney), and a host of other top GOP officials, donors, and commentators will never get on the Trump bandwagon. News media coverage is bound to stress who does not come to Cleveland, not just who does. It’s also doubtful that senior officials who have been publicly lukewarm about Trump are suddenly going to start singing his praises in or after Cleveland. They know that on any given day, some new or renewed Trump controversy could force them to stand down and backtrack.

The watchword for much of the party establishment is extreme wariness, although we’re skeptical of a possible coup attempt in Cleveland. As much as many Republicans dislike Trump and fear he will lead to catastrophic losses in the fall, he won the nomination fair and square, and previous attempts to derail the Trump train have failed. If Trump isn’t the nominee, who would it be? The anti-Trump forces have no candidate to rally around, and they almost certainly couldn’t agree on one. Bluntly put, the GOP is stuck with Trump. And a substitute nominee, should one be installed somehow, would be asked to lead a viciously divided party with no real chance of victory.

Nothing here or anywhere is carved into stone in a most unorthodox presidential year. We recognize that Clinton has loads of weaknesses, too. Personally, she isn’t much liked or trusted. She’s also heavily dependent upon President Obama’s job approval, and thus must fear a reversal of his majority standing. Obama’s ratings could take a nosedive on account of a surprise recession or more domestic terrorism. And as we all know, Clinton might face the email music, courtesy of the FBI at an inopportune time. Scandals and controversies are part of the Clinton tapestry over a quarter-century in national politics. Why would 2016 be any different?

Let's ignore this as much as possible and think about something just as important-- fighting for a more progressive Congress, one dedicated to the interests of ordinary working families, rather than to wealthy special interests and to its own members' career trajectories.

So that wretched doofus David Cameron won't go down in history as the British PM who "lost Scotland"

Does this make Scots, or anybody else, feel better? You could laugh or you could cry -- don't ask me.

by Ken

As the polls were coming in last night predicting a "no" vote on Scottish separation from the United Kingdom (which as we know now was indeed defeated by 55 to 45 percent, with more than 85 percent of eligible voters voting), Ian Welsh wrote:

I think this vote is a mistake, and I note that having been given a clean vote to leave and a chance to live their own values, but having given in to fear; for me, at least, Scottish complaints about privatization of the NHS and other cuts to the social state will now ring rather hollow.

However, as with Greece voting to have its economy destroyed by refusing to take a chance on Syriza, people are voting their fear and for the status quo.  Older folks seem to want to just hang on, and are unwilling to take chances for a better future and they can’t really believe that their own elites are intent on impoverishing them, and, effectively, in many cases, killing them. (Because that’s what deliberate austerity policies do.)

The Great Complacency will come to an end; but people aren’t going to like how that happens.  Oh well.

I think Ian is utterly correct. But I noticed that when I heard the news this morning on the radio, I felt a certain measure of relief -- a "yes" vote would have involved such a leap into the unknown.

And I think this isn't just fear-driven clinging to the status quo on my part. Or maybe what I mean is that it's justifiable fear-driven clinging to the status quo. Yes, all sorts of changes would have opened up as possibilities for the Scots if they had taken the leap, but does anything in 21st-century history-to-date suggest that any of the good changes would have happened? If we've learned anything, isn't it that all over the world there are rich and powerful (or violent and soon-to-be-powerful) forces lying in wait to seize any opportunity? If I were a Scottish voter, would I have been eager to take that risk?

Or to put it another way: If it isn't the Koch brothers, isn't it just going to be somebody else? There will be some entertainment value in seeing how eagerly PM Cameron fulfills his campaign promises to Scotland -- with all the same concessions presumably going to Wales and Northern Ireland (and, um, England, I guess?) as well. My guess is that by the time the dust settles, the usual elites will have figured how to cash in, with maybe some token kickbacks to rising regional predators.

#

If Scotland Gets Independence, Will Quebec Be Next? Catalonia? Wales? How About Texas?

Last time we checked in with the Scots, it didn't look like a majority would embrace independence. Every force for conservatism on the planet-- from Sir Mick Jagger, Simon Cowell and Hillary Clinton to Nigel Farange, Steve Stockman (R-TX) and Steve Israel (D-NY) were aligned against it, with just a few public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, Bill Bragg, Morrissey and Chuck D on the pro-independence side. But a poll-- or as The Guardian put it, a shock poll-- by YouGov published in the Sunday Times today, shows the pro-independence forces with momentum and pulling ahead of the conservatives. And the conservatives are panic-stricken and looking to cut a deal. A turnout that is looking to go as high as 80% now has the pro-independence forces at 51% and the wankers at 49%.

The people of Scotland are to be offered a historic opportunity to devise a federal future for their country before next year's general election, it emerged on Saturday night, as a shock new poll gave the campaign for independence a narrow lead for the first time.

The plan, in the event of a no vote, is that people from all parts of Scottish society-- rather than just politicians-- would be invited to take part in a Scottish conference or convention that would decide on further large-scale transfers of power from London to Holyrood.

…With momentum now strongly behind Alex Salmond's push for full-blown independence, the no campaign is desperately searching for ways to seize back the initiative in the last 11 days of campaigning. A win for the yes campaign would represent a stunning turnaround, and unleash the biggest constitutional crisis in the union's 300-year history: it was 14 points behind in polls taken less than a month ago.

…A senior government minister close to the Better Together campaign said a pledge to set up a new Scottish conference or convention, after a no vote, was imminent. The intention is to demonstrate to the Scottish people that they themselves would be able to "finish the job" of devolution if they reject independence. "Watch this space. You can expect something in the next few days," said the minister.

It is understood that there have been intensive cross-party talks in recent days to finalise the plans. The minister said the conference should be able to complete its work before the May 2015 general election, and in time for the three main Westminster parties to commit to implementing its recommendations in full in the first Queen's speech of a new parliament. Alex Salmond's SNP would be invited to take part.

The move is designed to reassure voters that by rejecting independence they will not be left with the status quo-- but that more far-reaching constitutional change and devolution will definitely follow a no vote.

Before the latest poll results were revealed, Rupert Murdoch, the boss of News Corp, said they would be seen as a "black eye" for the British establishment. He said the poll would "shock Britain" and reveal that "everything [is] up for grabs."

"Scottish independence means huge black eye for whole political establishment, especially Cameron and Milliband [sic]," he tweeted.

With the yes campaign in buoyant mood, the no team aims to focus on a message that Scots can have the best of both worlds if they remain in the UK, with more powers, including over tax and their budget, but with the financial security of staying in the UK and EU.

A senior European commission official issued a new warning that an independent Scotland could have to wait five years before getting back into the EU. The high-placed Brussels source said that the internal estimate for the time it would take for Scotland to receive new member status would be around five years, contradicting Salmond's claim that Scotland could negotiate its new membership terms from within the EU.

She said: "It is accepted across the commission that Scotland will need to reapply and every member state will need to agree to them being admitted. There will be a significant wait of at least five to six years. For many Catalans, for example, it is this delay and the disruption to business that is in their mind when they consider independence."

Key figures involved within Better Together have been hinting at a major announcement on further devolution in recent days. The shadow foreign secretary, Douglas Alexander, who represents Paisley and Renfrewshire South, told an audience at Glasgow University on Saturday that the time had arrived to make clear to the Scottish people that real change would follow a no vote.

"One of our challenges in the dozen days ahead is to find new ways of setting out clearly to people just how the process for further devolution following a no vote would work, how civic society will be engaged, and on what sort of a timetable the new powers will be delivered, whichever of the main parties wins the general election." He said the choice was "between greater devolution and irreversible separation". Some critics of Better Together have said it has focused too much on which currency Scotland would use if it voted yes, and too little on how it could change for the better inside the UK.

On Friday, Gordon Brown, the former prime minister, said he wanted to lead a debate in the House of Commons on more devolution as soon as possible after the referendum if Scotland voted no. He said it was time to recognise that it was not just Scotland that would feel the effects of devolution, but England, Wales and Northern Ireland, too.

"The United Kingdom is moving as close to a federal state as is possible in a country where 85% of the population comes from only one of its four parts," he said.

Brown said it had already been agreed that Scotland would have more power to set its own income tax rate, and that there would be more borrowing powers for the Scottish parliament, but he expected more power to set benefit levels and transport policy to be handed to Holyrood.

Reactionary And Corrupt DCCC Chairman Steve Israel Opposes An Independent Scotland

Don't bet on an independent Scotland next month. Scottish residents-- anyone over 16 years old-- go to the polls September 18 for a referendum that asks one simple question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Before 1603, when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, Scotland was a fully independent kingdom. In 1707 the two countries were formally joined to form the United Kingdom. Although Scotland kind of did vote for independence in 1979, the referendum failed because not enough people participated. Since 1998 Scotland has had its own Parliament with some degree of local autonomy. Next month they could pull it off-- at least in theory. Betting houses are all offering odds that the referendum will lose-- and most more traditional polling firms show the same thing… most but not all.

YouGov’s latest survey, for The Times, shows that a large majority of Scots intend to reject independence in the referendum on September 18. Among those who take sides, 39% intend voting Yes and 61% No. TNS and Ipsos MORI have recorded similarly decisive verdicts in recent weeks.

However, ICM (45% Yes, 55% No), Survation (47%-53%) and Panelbase (48%-52%) say the race is much closer. What is going on?

Tomorrow evening the two main spokespersons for the pro-Independence and anti-Independence forces, respectively Scottish National Party leader and First Minister Alex Salmond and Better Together leader Alistair Darling, face off again for a 90 minute debate that is expected to be widely watched. The media declared Salmond the loser of the first debate, August 5, largely because he "refused to state what his 'plan B' would be if Westminster failed to let Scotland continue to use the pound."

Last week Joseph Stiglitz explained why that argument is nothing but a red herring-- something that would be a bargaining chip between the two sovereign governments… and that would disappear long before actual independence.

The Nobel-prize winning economist, speaking in a Bloomberg Television interview today in Lindau, Germany, said that it’s in the interests of all parts of the U.K. to reach a “stable transition” on monetary arrangements post-independence. Stiglitz is a member of a panel advising Scotland’s nationalist government on the finances of independence which recommended Scotland seek to retain the pound as its currency.

“The position of England today is obviously bargaining, trying to change the politics of the electoral process,” Stiglitz said. “Once they get independence, if that happens, then I think there would be a very different position.”

…“Countries can work with many different monetary arrangements,” said Stiglitz. “The concern here really is can they achieve a stable transition. I think it’s in the interests of the U.K., of England and everybody to have that kind of stable transition. And I think that can be accomplished.”

The chairman of the Scottish advisory panel that Stiglitz sits on said yesterday the proposed currency union remained the best option, though the argument had become political rather than economic. Crawford Beveridge told an audience in Glasgow that the U.K. might not behave “rationally” in negotiations following a Yes vote, the Herald newspaper reported.

…The debate over Scotland illustrates how areas of the country are diverging over issues such as university tuition, which is free is Scotland and not in England, said Stiglitz, who was attending a conference for Nobel laureate economists.

“These are two parts of the U.K. moving in different directions,” he said, also citing spending priorities on such things as defense. “There’s a different set of priorities.”

Celebrities and political figures from all over the world have been weighing in. Establishment figures and conservatives, of course, tend to oppose independence. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Li Keqiang, the Prime Minister of China, and Tony Abbott, the extreme rightist who runs Australia, joined U.K. politicians-- from Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Ed Miliband to David Cameron and neo-Nazi Nigel Farage-- in urging a NO vote. And plenty of U.S. congressmembers have jumped in-- all opposing independence-- from neo-fascist/domestic terrorist Steve Stockman (R-TX) to DCCC Chairman/Blue Dog Steve Israel (D-NY).



Other anti-independence backers include Sting, David Attenborough, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Mick Jagger, Helena Bonham-Carter, Simon Cowell, Bryan Ferry, David Bowie, Richard Dawkins, Anish Kapoor, George Galloway, J.K. Rowling, Cilla Black, Eddie Izzard, Judi Dench, Cliff Richard, Susan Boyle, Simon Callow, Mike Meyers, Bobby Gillespie, and Rod Stewart.

Pro-independence backers are a more interesting group and include Noam Chomsky, Sean Connery, Brian Cox, Billy Bragg, Sigur Rós, Frankie Boyle, Chuck D, and Morrissey who said "They must cut ties with the United King-dumb. I love Scotland, and I love the Scottish spirit and they do not need Westminster in the least."




UPDATE: The Second Debate

This time Pro-Independence leader Alax Salmond won the debate-- hands down. Polls right afterwards showed that 71% of those who watched felt that Salmond won. But will it be enough to overcome Sir Mick Jagger's and Sir Cliff Richard's endorsement of the anti-Independence side.

Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University, a polling expert, also deemed Salmond had won. But he questioned whether the nationalist leader's rhetorical victory would translate into a win at the ballot box.

"A debate doesn't necessarily win you votes," said Curtice, saying it had been notable for its lack of proper discussion about wider economic questions.

"My glance at the flash poll is that while Salmond was the obvious winner, it doesn't seemed to have moved votes at this stage," he said.

Salmond got more cheers in Glasgow, Scotland's biggest city, than Darling, 60, who attracted the odd groan.

…Several recent polls have shown support for independence climbing a few points, but the most recent "poll of polls," on Aug. 15, which is based on an average of the last six polls and excludes undecided respondents, found support for a breakaway stands at 43 percent against 57 percent for staying in the UK.

If Secession Is Good Enough For Scotland, Why Not Texas?

We'll never know for sure how deeply involved Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) was in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people and injured another 700. But we do know that the militia groups involved were in touch with his office about the bombing and that he has been highly sympathetic to their paranoid-- if not psychotic-- cause. And now he seems to be gaining traction on the far right fringes of the Texas Republican Party in his deranged primary run against John Cornyn.

A former drug addict and derelict who dropped out of school for what he calls "partying syndrome," the Michigan-born Stockman would love to see Texas and other Confederate states secede from the United States. And with Scotland getting ready for secede from the U.K., don't be too surprised if a Stockman victory against Cornyn leads to a more open discussion about Texas leaving the Union again. Wait… you didn't know Scotland is in the process of breaking up with the rest of the U.K.? David Bowie asked them not to last night-- though he himself abandoned the U.K. for NYC long ago and didn't even attend the award ceremony where he "made" the remark.

Texas departing-- hopefully with Mississippi-- doesn't have to be as wrenching as it was the first time they tried going it alone. And, writing for the Financial Times yesterday, Gideon Rachman offers Scotland as the example of a good breakup, while admitting that "there are remarkably few examples of nations breaking up in a civilized way."

George Osborne, the UK chancellor, had travelled to the Scottish capital to give a speech warning that an independent Scotland would not be allowed to keep the pound as its currency. A few days later, José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said that it would be “very difficult, if not impossible” for an independent Scotland to join the EU. This is tough, even brutal, politics-- and it has provoked complaints of bullying from pro-independence campaigners.

The international reaction to the Scottish debate makes me think that the prime minister got something wrong in his speech on February 7. Mr Cameron argued: “If we lost Scotland... we would pull the rug from our reputation.” On the contrary, I think the UK government’s willingness to allow the centuries-old union to be dissolved peacefully is a boost to the country’s reputation. To adopt Mr Cameron’s marketing speak, the British brand is built around tolerance, the rule of law and democracy. There is no better demonstration of those values than the Scottish referendum.

There are remarkably few examples of nations breaking up in a civilised way. The most famous is the velvet divorce between the Czechs and the Slovaks in 1993. A better analogy to Scotland’s situation may be Norway’s referendum on independence from Sweden in 1905. After briefly contemplating war, the Swedes thought better of it and negotiated a divorce.

Given its brutal history, the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 was surprisingly peaceful-- but the Russians have since fought a savage war to prevent the secession of Chechnya. Even in democratic Europe, Spain is refusing to contemplate the idea of an independence referendum for Catalonia. The US, of course, fought a civil war to save its union. If modern-day Texas decided to secede from the US-- as Rick Perry, its governor, once hinted that it might-- my guess is that Washington would once again fight to keep the country together.

So why is the UK government behaving differently? Why has it decided to imitate Canada, which allowed Quebec to hold a referendum on independence, rather than China or the US which take a harder line with Taiwan and Texas? Probably because the government in Westminster recognises that the UK is a union of separate nations with historically distinct identities: morally and practically it can only be kept together on the basis of consent. Britain did put up a fight to prevent Irish independence, almost a century ago, and that was clearly a mistake. Ending the long-running Troubles in Northern Ireland also involved making it explicit that the province’s destiny is ultimately up to the people who live there.