Scotland's Decision
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Crimea was the most interesting since it actually had the legal structure in place for a secession and if a proper referendum had been held it would actually have been a close call.
What happened was not actually a proper referendum though; even Russia's own internal sources indicated an actual turnout of only about 35% which is nowhere near enough to qualify for the legal way of seceding from Ukraine.
For Crimea, this referendum was like the real second coming of Christ for the bible belt of US of A. Would be surprised.
Here is an article of the leaked document I was referring to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/p...
The Forbes article isn't fair in that the polls indicated 55% in favor and a turnout of 30-50%, but it's to be expected that those that voted disproportionately voted in favor so the final tally of 22.5% voting in favor is probably not accurate.
It's also important to keep in mind that the current faux-referendum was not about independence but joining Russia. Independence would have gotten much more votes, also from the Tatar population.
What most people forget is that the Tatars were forcibly removed from Crimea in a mass deportation/genocide under Stalin and returned to Crimea, their original homeland, after the fall of the Soviet empire. They were understandably wary of accession to Russia, rightfully so since Russia almost immediately barred their main leader from (re-)entering Crimea, and would never have voted in favor of the referendum.
"Independence would have gotten much more votes"
I doubt this is true. Russians are not accustomised to living in tiny independent states. This is a dream of a few national theorists, to peacefully split Russia into more manageable states with local transparent government, more responsible fiscal policy - but there's not much ground under this idea.
There is no "Crimean nation" to build a successful state on.
Sadly, most off-block small states won't know what to do with their independence and will be forced to side up with some larger state sooner or later.
And tatars are a minority. A significant minority which is at risk of civil war and ethnic cleansings in the suggested independent state. Which they may eventually even win, but I think they seen enough pain already.
From what I understood Crimea was already very independent so it was already more a matter of degrees either way...
You're absolutely right though that independence would have meant becoming dependent on Russian influence in practice (which is what the world expected and why everyone was so shocked by the annexation.)
Yes it's possible to vote for greater autonomy, but how to make sure it is granted? Crimea has already voted this greater autonomy in the 90s - and it was promptly ignored by Ukraine.
Regarding independence - why would Crimean Ukrainians vote for it? They are content being part of Ukraine. Why would Tatars vote for independence of tiny state where they will still be a minority, maybe even the persecuted minority. Much safer bet is any stable large state. Why would Russians vote for independence? They don't consider themself "Crimeans", rather they consider themself Russians.
"which is what the world expected and why everyone was so shocked by the annexation"
You see the problem right here. World expects independent puppet states to be created, because that's how it works in the modern world. But this arrangement will be harmful to actual people living in Crimea. And that's what matters here.
Also I should remind that the situation in Crimea (and the conflict in Ukraine too) is not purely ethnic; many ethnic Ukrainians are pro-Russian, and some Russians are pro-Ukraine. It's not even ideological divide, rather different views on past and future history of the place.
I'm not that sure accession was better for Crimea though, since international tourism has all but dried up and after giving it a try this year Russians will be right back in Turkey next year... but that's just debating the finer points of punditry.
I don't think Crimea had much international tourism. When I checked two years ago, Crimea didn't have single plane or train scheduled from Poland, for example. It had some connections to hubs like Frankfurt, but I doubt many non-ex-USSR people ever considered Crimea. As for Russians, they always were the bulk of visitors. In the summer, trains from Moscow to Crimea departed like every 20 minutes, and you could meet all kinds of Moscow friends on the streets. This year, a lot of railway service were disrupted, understandably. I hope it returns once. I think that mainland Ukrainians will visit Crimea too once the situation stabilizes.
a) maintaining control over as much territory as possible, given Russia's original goals [1] and the huge importance a land-bridge to Crimea has to Russia (imagine having to ship water, food and oil for 2.5mln people by sea.)
b) preventing a Georgia-style frozen conflict, which is Russia's preferred technique of destabilization lately.
It seems they have only just given up on b) but they're still working very hard on a).
Either way; I doubt there are many parallels with Scotland at this stage of the conflict.
If there is a legally-held and popularly-supported vote in Scotland which decides in favour of independence, it would end badly if Westminster somehow decided to declare it null and void or just pretend it didn't happen.
LDs will back the outcome of the referendum whatever happens. Labour are the only party that might attempt to ignore the referendum because Scottish independence will end their existence.
My main concern is what does this mean for the position of Wales and NI in the union? I think that it will diminish Wales as an entity, and lord alone knows how it will play in NI.
I'm English, I think England will muddle along, a bit like a sort of very militant and eccentric version of Holland. No bad thing that...
Labour would have gotten elected quite frequently discounting Scottish votes. This link has been posted further downstream by nmeofthestate but worth reposting here: http://theweebluebook.com/principles-and-politics.php
Without the scottish seats, the only real difference in the last 50 years is that the current coalition would be pure-tory.
See http://theweebluebook.com/assets/images/uk-govts.png
(from http://theweebluebook.com/principles-and-politics.php referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_Kingdom_general_ele...)
What, any more than Maggie? I agree that it would be extremely unpopular in Scotland, but there's ways to spin independence referendum results for propaganda in the outside world. Claims of unclear/biased question, claims of voter eligibility "irregularities", claims of bad faith independence negotiations, etc.
If push comes to shove who's going to ostracize UK over 5 million people? U.S. wants HMNB Clyde to stay, big European countries will be afraid of UK leaving EU, and the UK doesn't listen to the rest anyhow.
If UK wants to hold onto Scotland against its will they will, but let's hope they don't.
(I favour independence if Scots wish.)
But even the UK hasn't cared about popular sentiment for independence in the past. Look at the United States, Ireland, and India. But I think the UK has changed a lot and recognizes that it can get much of the same benefits without needing to rule over places. Frankly, it's a mature attitude to notice that you can succeed without force.
And it's that maturity that's going to make this a mostly good experience regardless of the result. If Scotland becomes independent, the UK will try to make it as easy as possible so that Scottish and other British people will barely notice a change. It's best for the UK if an independent Scotland has no barriers for their people and firms. Similarly, if Scotland remains in the UK, politicians seem to recognize the desire for even more devolved powers to the Scottish Government.
Normally, countries don't recognize a piece of their land becoming independent easily. Popular sentiment and even riots often don't deter countries from asserting dominance. Heck, sometimes countries even want to take over pieces of land that are currently independent where popular sentiment is 95%+ against being taken over. Yes, the UK government is doing the pragmatic thing where "it doesn't have any other choice". But loads of other countries are faced with the same issue and they're not facing it with that sort of logical pragmatism.
http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap...
No. The only thing they could do (and are doing) is attempt to undermine and scare everyone out of it.
- "You don't even have a currency figured out!" - "You are not getting to use the pound, no way!" - "You are not getting into the EU either, we've checked and got the big wigs in the EU to say as much, publicly, as well." - "... and there'll be no more commonwealth for you either!" - "Your north sea oil wells are drying up, you'll all be starving to death in a decade. The horror!" - "It's a big world and you'll be in it on your own. Be afraid!"
...etc.
*PS. The above quotes are a summation of actual quotes made by the opposition.
By that you of course mean caricatures of real arguments with valid points.
The Yes side have sidestepped questions where they dont have answers or provided partial answers or over simplified things to make the yes decision seem like the better decision.
Anyone voting on this issue should read this book:
http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap...
90 page PDF explaining both sides of the biggest questions, providing the Yes and No side and then an analysis by independent experts.
Even if you are not voting it is a worthwhile read. I am not eligible to vote as i dont live in Scotland but this give me a much better understanding of the issues at hand. Personally i would like to see a Yes vote, partially because it will be interesting to see how it all pans out, but also because there is a genuine feeling in Scotland that they may be able to make a difference to the lives of residents of Scotland, who lets be fair, are usually at the bottom of the pile in terms of health, employment, life expectancy etc.
These stats may not improve in an independent Scotland, but it's clear that given our history, it's unlikely things will improve in the union and actually, I'm pretty sure the feeling is the devolved government has been doing a better job since the SNP won power.
Apparently, polls suggest those who are educated are more likely to vote yes. I guess it comes down to whether those who aren't are going to fall for the fear tactics of the "better together" campaign.
So if you are voting yes because of these issues you may want to look into them further. Of course if you just want to rationalise an emotional decision then people will assume what ever suits them I. E. London is to blame for ill health in Scotland.
Still:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26681098
It'd be nice to back that with cause and effect, but it seems it's untrue that there's been no change.
I do hope that something like Alcohol minimum pricing[1] will have a positive effect in Scotland, time will tell. However, I very much believe we'd never get legislation like that without a Scottish Government serving the interests of the Scottish people[2], something I neither believe Westminster nor devolution with Scottish arms of UK parties in power would get us.
[1] I generally don't like such legislation, I very much believe in flat tax and letting people spend it on what they want, but Scotland sadly us have a cultural problem and I think the pragmatic view is it's worth doing.
[2] This is obviously just an example. It's hard to quantify a feeling, and that's not thet point. I'm just trying to describe how I feel, which is basically the rUK parties cultrually will bend to big business in an attempt to have the best economy possible, which I don't believe reflects Scottish values, nor common sense unless you're already rich.
In Spain, where a Yes result in Catalonia seems likely, there is opposition to a referendum. In the UK the opposite is true.
One of the great confusions of separatist movements is they seem to always want to pull away from a host that needs to be seen to want them at all costs. The idea that the host may push them away or act indifferently is met with moral indignation.
In practical terms: if Labour gets into power in 2015 then Scottish independence will not happen regardless of the outcome of this referendum, because Scottish independence would eliminate Labour as a political force in the UK (Tories would win all UK elections, SNP would win all Scottish elections).
It's not over yet.
Sorry no - one way or another the people of Scotland will make the decision. Whether the government of the UK lives up to that decision is up to them, I honestly believe they would abide by what the people say.
Labour would still be able to win elections in the UK without Scotland (in fact Blair would still have been PM without Scotland), At most some policies would change, or worst case another party rises as competition.
If this would happen, I'm pretty sure some or other power-hungry fractions of the party would try to make a new party, so you'd again have two (or more) competing.
That is incorrect, all 3 parties (not individuals within the parties) gave a promise to respect the outcome of the referendum. So even if a labour govt gets in at the next General Election they will respect the decision. The dificulty will come in negotiations for the exit, that will be impacted by the format of any new government, but the decision to allow independance will not.
http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap...
In the past (post-Empire, pre-EU), national borders have meant a lot. Your citizenship gave you a very limited area that you could live and work in. Today, if Scotland is separate, what is the downside? Europeans have the right to live and work in Europe. Keeping the pound, things would look much as they always have for Scots. Even things like consular representation wouldn't change rapidly: Europeans can already use the embassies and consulates of other EU countries if they don't have their own representation in a country. And for all of the posturing, I think that any rump-UK government would allow and, in fact, want an independent Scotland to be as close and integrated as possible.
In some ways, it feels like the world is trying to figure itself out. In the past, empires brought lands together. If you were part of a tiny country, you could be at a distinct disadvantage. Empires broke up for many reasons into a more fractured world. Today, I think we're trying to build institutions that allow for independence while getting the benefits of trade, freedom of movement, etc. For non-Scots, the question somewhat becomes, "does it make a difference to us whether Scotland is independent or not?" If one is English and will have the right to live, work, vote, etc. in Scotland, aren't those the same privileges you have now?
And ultimately this campaign, on both sides, has (seemingly unknowingly to anyone in it) laid some of tracks of what our future might look like (worldwide). I think the Yes campaign has been a rebuke of nationalism based on race and hatred, while showing that nationalism can still be relevant when it's based on governance and values. Similarly, the No campaign has recognized the importance of democratic governments not simply imposing themselves on people and the flexibility and changing landscape of modernity. No matter how the vote goes later this month, the UK should be really proud.
Unlike other nationalist movements, the UK-Scotland situation feels so modern, regardless of the result. They're almost to that point of asking themselves what it means to be a nation, in which ways are locations important to be independent and in which ways should they be integrated, and how do we best provide for happiness and prosperity in the modern world.
If Scotland stays in the UK and the UK leaves the EU, Scotland is out as well. If Scotland becomes independent, the Spanish might block their EU membership to deter Catalan independence.
As an American, what I find truly fascinating is that they trust democracy with such a substantial issue. Can you imagine how things would be if we had a simple up/down vote on abortion or gay marriage or the war on terror?
Edit: One interesting part of this story is that the Union was pretty much bought - the English bailed out Scotland and the institution that was created to handle the payments eventually evolved into the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).... famous for briefly being the largest bank in the world and one of the largest casualties of the recent financial crisis, requiring a vast bailout from UK taxpayers....
I actually expect some morning radio stations in the southwest USA will declare "it's time for Azltan's independence", millions will simultaneously just refuse to comply with existing sociopolitical infrastructure, and those in authority will simply have no idea what to do about it - or may even support it, given the developing tribalism. We'd lose about half the land of at least three states in the process. Individual states not having their own armed militia, they could not stop it (the "National Guard" troops of each state can, and would, be "called out" by the central gov't as a trump move for purposes to defuse their influence). Things would get very tense, but separation would ultimately be peaceful.
Texas has long been considered to have some ill-understood legal standing to ease secession (being the only state to volunteer for annexation as a former independent country), but I don't see that actually happening. It's akin to an oft-angry spouse who frequently threatens divorce but never actually will.
[1] YouGov. Different polling companies appear to have different systematic errors in their results, meaning that polls are spread fairly widely. This particular polling company has until recently been showing large leads for No. In their most recent poll the lead had been cut down to 6%, reflecting a feeling 'on the ground' that there's a genuine shift happening. Personally I am still totally unsure what result we'll get in two weeks (two weeks!)
However, that group is fairly equally split (45% Yes/44% No). I reckon they underestimated how strongly popular culture, which is focused on London, influences the 16/17 age group.
Edit: Whoops this was meant to reply to cstross below as a general point about unpredictable youth voting intentions not the intentions of Scots youth in particular.
Support for votes at 16 is long-standing. As is support for the same measure by most UK parties.
On the subject of 16-24s being 'equally split' - note the same could be said of other age-groups (apart from the more strongly No cohort old people), so 16-24s being the same doesn't say much for a resurgence of Britishness amongst the young.
Not suggestion that it isn't any more than hocum but it's quite easy to deduce this from the media and the pollster statistics (which is something that YouGov do).
Thanks for submitting it! :)
The opposite for me, I had to use Clearly (restyling extension for easier reading) to remove all their distracting and annoying, erratically moving backgrounds (especially together with the semi transparent text background, if it was opaque at least).
The article itself was a great read though.
Maybe I've got funny eyesight.
Compare these results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_ele...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_ele...
The disproportionate Westminster system - where a reasonably sized body of Scottish Conservatives currently have 1 representative out of 304 in the London-based party - contributes to major underrepresentation of Scotland in the existing government.
That's a bit like saying that you only believe in democracy when it's your own party that wins the election, otherwise you'll take your ball and go home.
One thing to note is that prior to the current Conservative coalition, we had a huge Labour majority for 13 years that was largely Scottish. So the Scots were ruled by a party that they voted for.
When we talk about independence, we're not talking in the same way as say, India for example. Where we had one nation that was immensely ethnically and culturally different, being ruled by people who had no interest except in what they could squeeze out of it. This is two countries that have far far more in common than they do apart. Not one country being consistently screwed by the other; the Empire and the Union was fantastic for Scotland, as the article states.
So the argument here is - are the Scots so different from the rest of the UK that they need to be ruled separately? To a greater degree than now that is; they already have their own parliament to set most Scottish laws.
NB: I'm pretty neutral on independence. I think it'll be a bureaucratic disaster if it happens, but equally, if it's what the Scots want then fair enough.
I'm going to bite the bullet and agree with you here. But the situation is worse than that: even if your chosen party won at this flavour of democracy, you should still consider taking the ball home.
400,000 Scottish people voted for the Conservative party - and yet these voters are unbelievably underrepresented or unrepresented within the Conservative government with only 1 MP and quite probably 0 again in the future (I concede that Scottish voters were overrepresented in the recent Labour era of government, although this was only slight)
The present UK government has no commitment to Scotland and limited reason to represent Scotland's interests, and that's likely to continue to be the case in future governments. It's not healthy or sustainable for Scotland.
Why wouldn't you choose self-rule over being locked out of government?
So to my mind, wouldn't it be better to work at improving Scotland from within the UK rather than just abandoning both it and the democratic principle?
For example, instead of voting SNP, Labour or Conservative - vote Scottish Coalition. If the Scot MPs had been a united block, independent of the major UK parties, they could have easily taken the junior party position in the current coalition. They would also have had enough seats to do the same to the previous Labour government. Then you'd see some real change, without the all the potential downsides that independence could bring.
It's a third solution that nobody even seems to be mentioning or even trying. It seems to me anyway, that people have just given up as soon as the Conservatives got in. Will there still be this same sentiment after the next election when Labour probably get back in power? Or is it just a protest vote against the Conservatives? In which case, isn't independence a seriously drastic measure that's nigh on irreversible and has a large number of potential downsides?
PS: My personal favourite idea for the future of the union is actually devo-max (not independence) for every region big and small, with the Lords being replaced by a regionally elected House with longer terms. But if you want to work within the current system, a Scot Coalition is the way I'd go.
Yet 6 of those 13 general elections, including the most recent, have resulted in a Conservative Prime Minister.
Source: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp20...
What's truly amazing about this referendum is the engagement. It's projected to be an 80% turnout, with many, many people becoming involved in politics for the first time. There were queues to get registered to vote over the last few days. The level of awareness amongst the electorate is staggering compared to previous elections. It's an exciting time to live in Scotland; no matter the result, Scottish politics won't be the same again :)
Do you mean that Scotland has voted Conservative in 6 general elections? If so, with a maximum of 5 years between elections, they voted for a Conservative govt for up to 30years of those 38. That's quite a misleading way to represent that statistic isn't it?
Is the 6 times: 6 parliaments or 6 years? Is the 68: 68 parliaments or 68 years? Are units being mixed for exaggeration?
Granted it didn't change the ruling party, however our system isn't just the ruling party there is also the consideration of the majority of the house.
From the linked source on your page [1] we see: 41 Labour MPs were sent to Westminster 11 Liberal Democrats 1 Conservative
From the overall election we know that there was a total of 646 MPs in Westminster [2]. So combine the (41 + 11) - 1 is a combined swing to a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. That's giving the Conservatives about an 8% greater majority.
Whilst Scotland didn't pick the Westminster parliament, they certainly had a hand in providing opposition to any Conservative government.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_Kingdom_general_ele... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election...
On the other hand, the No campaign are very open about the fact that they expect that Scotland can take more powers from the UK without becoming independent, which is a huge deal for those of us who consider ourselves British, and consider the UK to be our country which we have rights to.
Fair point about "think of the children" - though I'd say that it happens on both sides[2]. Not that there's a lack of arguments for independence - again, the Wee Blue Book I linked to above presents them quite well!
[1]: http://wingsoverscotland.com/when-youre-happy-and-you-know-i...
[2]: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/01/scottish-independ...
Whereas the "No" campaign can only say the upside is it will be exactly the same as today, just the boring status quo. So they've been kinda forced into negative campaigning just by the nature of the decision to be made.
They could've tried some bribery perhaps, "Hey, we'll invest billions more in Scotland", but that would be really transparent on both sides and probably lose them more than they'd gain.
http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap...
Betfair's probability of a majority yes vote (NOT a poll of fraction who will vote yes) over time: http://uk.sportsiteexweb.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoC...
The University of Edinburgh has a guide to the debate: http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/guidetothedebate
It also has a MOOC(!) https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/indyref/
> You can see why there’s little room in the Scottish national discourse for a party that says “vote for us and we’ll cut your taxes; vote for us and we’ll make government smaller”.
I'm not sure how this follows. Can someone clarify?
Scotland is essentially a socialist country (and socialist isn't a dirty word here). There is a sense of fair play and looking after the poorest in society - a party that would propose a tax cut for a smaller gov. wouldn't do well in the popular vote in Scotland.
Does that help?
The Barnett formula determines the size of the block grant, not the spending of it. The Scottish Government spends the grant according to its priorities. At the moment these include: free healthcare (including prescriptions), free higher education, and free care for the elderly.
For people not in the UK: people in England pay for each item on a prescription. The charge is currently £8.05 per item. You can get discounts if you need multiple items. There are a bunch of exemptions - people with a thyroid problem for example - which mean that about 90% of items are free.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-charges-from-april-20...
http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/scottish-cancer-patients...
At the very least, an expansion and improvement of the existing equivalent system in Scotland (individual treatment request) would offer a better solution for the need to fund individual specific treatments that haven't been widely approved.
[Hint: they all begin with V and float]
The UK Trident submarine fleet based in a sea loch (fjord) quite close to Glasgow, the largest city in Scotland.
Thus, if you were a party who wanted to promise cutting taxes to the population you could, but you'd have very little impact on the taxation's bottom line. I actually don't know what the Barnett formula says about money the Scottish government doesn't spend from Westminster (wondering if you could in theory as a party in Holyrood decide just not to spend the money you were given, as a forcing tactic).
Regardless, all parties (in both London and Edinburgh) and the Scottish population are in agreement, the situation of controlling spending but not tax raising is an unfit state for a government to be in.
[edit - make my 'all parties' comment clearer]
Are we talking about the UK parliament cutting taxes, or the Scottish parliament? I get the impression that the article is talking about the UK parliament: the author is trying to explain why the Conservatives have limited support in Scotland, and why they're trying to make the Scottish parliament responsible for raising their own taxes.
But if the UK parliament cuts taxes everywhere (including Scotland), and that has little effect on Scottish spending, then it seems like incentives are such that the Scottish population would most likely support that.
OTOH if it has disproportionate effect on Scottish spending, they would oppose. But if I read you correctly (do I?), you're saying that's not true; and a priori I have no particular reason to expect that the effect would be small or large relative to the cut.
Overall Scottish spending is not related to UK tax levels directly, but is directly related to spending in England and Wales[1]. So the argument is that there is little point in a party trying to get voted into Holyrood (the Scottish parliament) promising a smaller states and fewer taxes at the moment, because they have little proportionate control on the taxes (although again, on the spending they do in theory).
The reverse is not true for Westminister - the more they spend in England and Wales, the more is available for Scotland to spend, and vice versa.
Hope that clarifies what I was saying!
http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap...
there is no way they can cut taxes in the short term, not without risking the scottish economy, they may be able to offset some tax cuts at the lower rate with an increase for higher and highest rate payers.
They may be able to make a smaller government that is more streamlined than whitehall however. This is not a tax based argument but basically a way of finding efficiencies in a new civil service/government that the UK parliament (as the dinosaur it is) cannot.
It's going to be very interesting to see what happens to the UK post-referendum, regardless of what way the vote goes.
It doesn't matter who wins, if either side does not win with at least 60% of the electorate, it's going to undermine their position going forward. We could see Referendum v2.0 in 2-10 years, quite easily.
Nobody on either side wants that, but it's starting to feel inevitable.
The SNP may have successfully engineered the divisive conditions that the Parti Quebecois never quite managed, with the PQ example being that the uncertainty is almost more damaging than what is being debated.
What they don't do is run directly biased stories; they're "neutral" in the content they put out, and any perceived bias is the result of their tendency to hold off on running boat-rocking stories. You could easily argue that this is a bias in itself, but it's not a partisan bias and it's hard to see how they could do this differently; it comes from their entirely legitimate fear that if they annoy any current government too much then they might lose the license fee advantage.
That said, since accusations of bias have arisen there has seen some fairly cutting questions pointed at the UK Govs lies on the matter from the BBC and others, and we've started to see a much more interesting and closer debate.
I don't live in Scotland anymore though, so I can't say I know what things look like from within the country at the moment.
So, in my entirely biased view, the Beeb is very much on one side of this argument. Not as a result of some silly straw-man conspiracy theory, but just because the views of its people are bound to seep into coverage.