Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Hit me. I usually fear change so it'd be good to hear people explain why it might be good for all concerned.
maybe have a look at the year-long, 200+ post rolling thread on it, like.
*Abandon Thread*. (if you're an admin you can delete it).
I mean if people want it, fine. But it feels a bit like your cool cousin telling you you can't hang out any more :(
When my career is a bit more settled and allows travel. Hoping it doesn't change much in that regard.
detailing post-independence Scotland, and one of the things expected to be in there is an open border policy.
Also are any of our DiSers from the highlands and islands? I'd be interested to hear their thoughts for sure. What's the quote from that historian about British vs Scottish rule? "At least the English simply ignore us. The Scottish *hate* us." Or something like that?
questioning if they wanted to be in an independent Scotland or to remain in the UK :D
i found this as well, which would be kinda funny http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/17/scottish-independence-islands-home-rule
also patronising english historians once again turning the screw
that was a Scottish historian who had interviewed highlanders. Will dig out the book. PO can remind me the name though.
think the one who is done is you?
is almost so frequent it's taken as read. It's nothing special.
ANYWAY. Aside from these hilarious japes (hi Japes), I will return to my original question.
But I did live in Aberdeen for several years.
dunno where I got that from then
Never liked Scotland anyway.
I guess Brewdog will do some even more obnoxious marketing when it happens and I'll get to enjoy the reaction to it.
Go to any of the picturesque coastal parts of Scotland now and they exist solely to serve holidaymakers and rich people from England, America, Canada, etc, and huge swathes of the nice parts are now foreign-owned. Go to the big cities, say, Edinburgh, and it feels as if at least three-quarters of people aren't Scottish. Not sure much really remains of a Scottish national identity, so if that can be preserved by whatever means then it's probably a positive thing, eh.
it's a combination of the financial services sector and the university. there are plenty of Scottish people here, just a lot of them live in horrible banlieues on the outskirts you have no reason to go to as a visitor.
I think Scottish cities have a pretty solid identity distinct from English ones though. they're much more European in design and form.
entire nations. What are your views on Gabon?
" Go to the big cities, say, Edinburgh, and it feels as if at least three-quarters of people aren't Scottish"
Jeez!!! If you swapped Edinburgh for London, you'd sound like a massively racist cab driver. Surely what's worth keeping in the 21st century is openness and lack of xenophobia?
foreign = bad
Living in England I'd probably slightly prefer Scotland to remain part of Britain (though I don't think it'd make that much of a difference) but I'd quite like to see a "yes" vote just because it'd piss off various dislikable people in the UK political establishment.
It's simplistic and assumes that voting habits never change.
given that, if you were to make that argument based on historical data, you'd be a numpty http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/samsa.jpg
I'm a banter MACHINE
Cause extrapolating historical data doesn't take into account the events of individual parliaments.
eg, if the Conservatives had won in 74, it would have been unlikely that there was a second election that year.
Similarly, in 92 Major would have had a larger majority, which would have considerably changed the narrative of the Parliament.
Because at present, despite only electing one Conservative MP, Scotland has a Conservative Prime Minister. Not really fair representation.
w/r/t major cities gaining more powers. mostly from local government but there were murmuring from central Government as well.
dunno how likely it is though. the Tories like to talk up their localist agenda but they also like to over-rule local authorities when it comes to their central policies.
Osborne has inferred he would not like them to influence "our" currency if they went independent. Salmond is assuming there will be a currency union.
I worked for one of the major Edinburgh based finance companies some years ago. It was well known that if Scotland had to transfer to an independent currency most major finance houses would move their HQs south of the border. It would cripple Scotland.
Just because a smaller voting population means my vote counts for more.
If you travel north from Land’s End to John O’Groats, you’ll notice the changes in regional identity happen very gradually. Yes, a Glaswegian might have a different cultural identity from someone from Buckinghamshire, but then so would a Mancunian or a Geordie. Britain has all kinds of overlapping accents and customs. That’s the nature of so many disparate people living in such a small space for a millennium or so. But we still have more in common with one another than we do with other countries. It would seem a bit of a sad reflection on humanity if such a small land mass can’t keep it’s shit together.
Also Scotland, please don’t leave us alone with the Tories!
Pretty much all the Scots I know seem against it.
Or, perhaps, in the words of Labour Lord Robertson: "Catalonia and Flanders have language and culture. We don’t have any of that."
The thing is, Scotland most definitely has it's own distinct/independent:
Come back when there's a movement for Lloegyr independence and then we can talk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloegyr
I absolutely think that the late-90s move towards devolution and regional assembly, instrumental in bolstering the health service, education system and legal setup you mention, is/was a good thing, especially following the Thatcher government’s full-scale undermining of local government in the 80s.
And I think it’s absolutely fine for people to be patriotic about their Englishness or Scottishness or Welshness, but nationalism always strikes me as daft at best, especially on such a tiny land mass. As an Englishman who’s never lived further south than Manchester, places like Brighton or Norwich seem much more alien to me than, say, East Lothian or Fort William. Obviously I’m not viewing the situation empirically here, but I never feel like I’m abroad in Scotland, the way I do in Ireland or France.
Britain is a place with a complex history. It’s littered with arcane languages, dialects and superstitions. Does religious history and language really a separate nation make? I honestly don’t know. But I know I don’t want Scotland to go.
I feel alien from it and I'm from there
and subsequently knows an awful lot of stuff that isnt public. He thinks the snp are complete charlatans who don't have a clue, make stuff up that has no factual backing and favour the highlands disproportionately just cos they vote snp. Told me the other day he was in a meeting with nicola sturgeon, and she tried to tell everyone there that the glasgow conurbation accounted for 1/6 of scotland's gdp when they all knew it was a 3rd, meaning she was trying to justify a potential net-spend from govt of half what it's due (glasgow is overwhelmingly labour-leaning, incidentally).
this sounds like i'm licking his bum but yeah i don't have strong opinions apart from generally favouring the union for left-wing purposes, so thought i might as well bring in the opinions of someone who's pretty smart but also quite a lot more knowledgeable that the average disser.
Also apparently in terms of cultural identity, glaswegians etc share more in common with people in northern england than in the highlands, so whatevs.
Also also, i don't really have any respect for civic nationalism as a concept and especially as a practice.
Think that one through again, and consider what might be wrong with it.
cos its something i dont care enough about to write in depth about...
between cities and rural communities, and then equating that with nations. Which is wrong.
(Also I used to live on Radnor Street - it is lovely round there!)
you've lost me.
I assume you vote Labour for the same reason? The party of the people who couldn't be arsed to turn up to vote to scrap the bedroom tax. Yeah ok. It's about fairness, to rid scotland of nuclear weapons, to eradicate child poverty, a right to free healthcare and education, to have a written constitution...the list goes on. Stop making it about the SNP/Sturgeon/Salmond. This isnt an election.
Nah let's just moan about currency, borders, all this uncertainty, claiming everything is an SNP front and the rUK becoming FOREIGNERS, god forbid.
labour never did any positive things whilst in power, they were identical to the tories...
You say you care about poverty etc, but that's pretty spurious given that you're willing to sacrifice the welfare of the rest of britain's poor for the sake of greater self-determination for a centralised state (although in terms of sovereignty the net-gain would probably end up being fairly minimal). Seems a fairly poor trade-off imo if you actually care about people rather than stupid concepts like nation-building or civic nationalism.
There's also the issue about funding, which I am totally unqualified to answer. I have, though, asked aforementioned very-knowledgeable person about it and he's extremely sceptical that scotland would have anywhere near enough funding to do what the snp says it wants to. Also, worth pointing out that all those things you want an independent scotland for are clearly stated snp policies, so dont get your point that this isnt about the snp. It's entirely about the snp, given its the only party for independence.
With that in mind, then, probably worth pointing out that this extra spending on public services will go disproportionately, as i said, to the highlands etc i.e. the snp's power base. It's politicking, and has nothing to do with high-minded ideals like equality etc.
Devolution is fine for scotland, as far as i can tell. I honestly don't care about anything in your last paragraph.
Having said all this, not gonna vote in the referendum despite living here, you'll be pleased to know (i'm english). Tbh dunno why i've written so much about something i've spent so little time thinking about, but so much of what pro-independence people say seems really really badly thought-out so whatever.
I just left :(
it's pretty great round here. lovely restaurants that i'm currently too poor to eat in.
up by yorkhill hospital, brew dog was my local until I got bored of it
i'm closer to the islay inn/park bar. Sort of in between them (dont stalk me)
but yeah know exactly where you mean, close friend of mine lives just round from there. Islay Inn is a nice enough pub, never went to Park Bar.
it's great. also the view to the uni over the river from that bridge (partick bridge?) is like the prettiest thing in the world at the end of summer/autumn. Like a painting or something. Would live there for that alone.
I moved to the east end for money reasons, and cuz the dude in the flat below died...
Sorry to be thewza about this, but...
"you're willing to sacrifice the welfare of the rest of britain's poor for the sake of greater self-determination for a centralised state" - begging the question
"I have, though, asked aforementioned very-knowledgeable person about it and he's extremely sceptical" - appeal to authority
"It's entirely about the snp, given its the only party for independence." - Just factually incorrect. The greens and the SSP are both behind the yes vote, as well as a couple of independents (incl. jean urquhart in the highlands/islands)
you're being very wza.
i realise that, having made an annoyingly long post, people are gonna want clarity from me, but i didn't mean to come across like i wanted to give it. Just kind of throwing some ideas around really, cg-esque.
but comprehensively addressing pretty much any point raised so far requires an extensive, deep analysis that i'm not gonna pretend i'm able to give in a messageboard post made in about 10 minutes.
Also as i said in another thread the other day, politics is fucking boring. Hate this sort of top-down reasoning about politics and society. Would much rather have political beliefs that grow organically from other things, almost as afterthoughts. In that sense i have no idea why i bothered, in retrospect. Just wanted to point out i know a guy that knows things and that those things contradict thewza's arguments, i guess.
because you either have to speculate wildly or base it on current economic policy, which is driven from London and wildly favours the south east over the regions.
and I don't know about Glasgow but Edinburgh is forecast to grow by around 20% over the next quarter century, so there's really only so long they could ignore them.
but really the entire political makeup of the country could change. i've seen people say that the Scots are actually quite a conservative bunch, they just don't vote that way because they hate the Tories so. I do wonder what'll happen with the existing party structure if there is independence?
given no one votes for the Tories (or equivalent centre-right party) now, that wouldn't be any different?
Scots (particularly older/Northern ones) can often be more socially conservative, but the difference is in economical opinion, i.e; Scots don't have the same sense of entitlement/are (or at least like to think they are) far more egalitarian when it does to money, hence why Labour hold it comfortably. SNP weirdly are the Scottish Tories in some ways, but then also the opposite in that they stand for independence
even if they are a bunch of penny-pinchers sometimes.
I guess I'm just thinking along the assumption that an independent Scotland will be some kind of of social democratic wonderland counterpart to England, and if some kind of home-spun centre right party will emerge that occupies the same rough space as the Tories but without the negative connotations that party has.
both parties for independence along with a growing number of Labour voters. You just haven't grasped anything that's going on have you?
Why would the SNP get into power post independence?
I'd hope it was a reformed real Labour movement led by the likes of Allan Grogan that took this country forward.
The SNP can say a lot of things that they would like to happen after independence, IF they got elected! These are just ideas and opportunities. After independence we vote for how we want to shape this country. I really don't understand how you think that devolution is just fine for Scotland, this country could be so much better. Getting a government we actually vote for and making sure our votes actually count in every election (unlike WM)
Imagine wanting to run your own affairs.
Your nationality has nothing to do with this debate.
If you don't like Salmond or the SNP there will be ample chance to vote them out after the referendum. Often feels like people somehow think the referendum is a vote on whether to create a one party state. (Which is probably due to the No side, helped along by a compliant media, being apparently happy to run with the idea of 'Salmond as dictator, and destroyer of democracy'.)
I'm no SNP apologist but as long as we're disregarding people's views because of unrelated political affiliations...
but you're having an absolute shocker in this thread.
'Unnamed senior GCC Labour bod in alleged disagreement with Sturgeon about independence' is such a wonderfully pointless premise for anything that it raised a genuine chuckle at this end, though. So thanks for that.
The 'cultural identity [...] civic nationalism' thing you've got going on is phenomenally thin ice to be treading. More of that kind of stuff please.
re: "she tried to tell everyone there that the glasgow conurbation accounted for 1/6 of scotland's gdp when they all knew it was a 3rd"
-From p6 of the Glasgow City Council's own Strategic Plan @ www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4568
"Glasgow alone generates 17% of the country's jobs [and] 17% of the value of goods and services produced in Scotland."
1/6 = 17%.
Glasgow output per head is a third above the Scottish and UK average. Perhaps your contact was getting their "third" thing from that?
there are other issues for scottish taxpayers etc as well, for example in the short term finding an extra estimated £220m+ in fulfilling free uni fees for existing students from elsewhere in the UK. It would all be a bit of a scary wobble at first whatever happens with it, for both the UK and Scotland.
(personally I'd like Scotland to remain part of the UK, but it is not up to me)
much mainstream reporting on independence/the referendum thus far.
Write a semi-reasonable, but ultimately, flawed article. Tack a spurious opinion onto the end as some sort of summary payoff. Make that the basis of an attention grabbing scary headline, no matter how jarring it is once you've actually read the article. Leave the comments section to mop up much of the mess and correct the errors. It works in short campaigns, but wears thin in an extended campaign like this, leaving reporters to choose between becoming ever more ridiculous or, y'know, get their act together and do their job properly.
not hyperbolic at all :'D
"How the fuck did you get a job? Eh? I love you babyy!"
Co there's obviously already devolution in Wales and NI. D'ya mean an English regional thing or a UK federal thing or summats else?
kernow bys vyken
I don't know what the populace make of it but a lot of anecdotal polling to those close to me is very mixed. Mostly folk don't know enough.
I am against the current shitshow that the coalition is putting us through and do feel very happy to know that we are able to control a lot of it and stop it spreading north which makes me think that independence might be a good idea because of the autonomous nature.
But then there are odd practicalities like defence, currency and taxation that worry me. The parity with the pound is an odd one. Still having the bank of England is charge of your independent nations currency is an anomaly. But also the differences in the taxation formula and stuff make for big key parts of what will determine my decision.
There are many other things, like the split of oil, the move of companies south, the entrance to the European union and nato, the nuclear deterent , and the fact that Shetland and Orkney are considering that they could stay in UK if we left... Then I don't know.
It is very interesting indeed though. I am more interested now than ever. I do have a few Radical Yes vote friends though who put me off the whole ducking referendum, though he is actually a bit of a dick for the whole.
What I am saying is I don't know. But I am more for it than I thought I would ever be at this point, and I am interested and engaged to see how much more or less I change in the coming months. Next week's white paper is key I think, and will change the discussion greatly.
Also, funk the Tories.
This other guys is a fucking toolshed.
Thought about going to the radical indy conference thing this weekend, but it was a tenner to get in and too likely to be a day of shouty socialists being shouty. (Maybe I'm being unfair, but I had free tickets to the capitalist utopia of the Christmas shopping thing at the SECC, so I went there instead, bought some presents and ate all the tasty food samples).
To respond to sheeldz:
-The split of oil is fairly well established. Did that not get discussed to death in a previous thread? Nothing's set in stone, but plenty of precedents exist.
-The move of companies south is pretty a baseless scare tactic. Try http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk for something more thoughtful than 'dey all gon go 2 lundun!'.
-The entrance to the European Union is not a hurdle to worry about. The EU would gladly embrace any country like Scotland willing to join up and bolster it's ranks. Talk of 'countries having their reasons to veto membership' is all a bit too nudge-nudge wink-wink to be credible. The EU has stated that the UK gov could clear up any confusion, on request, but it choses not to. There's a reason for that.
-Nato - The proposal is to fulfil a membership of a type identical to that held by of many other countries. No great shakes.
-Nuclear deterent - Time to get rid. Not needed. Not the armageddon to military jobs some would claim either. There will still need to be /a/ military. just not a nuclear one. And the dosh saved can be spent so much more productively.
-Shetland and Orkney - Don't believe the hype. A few gobby lib dems getting column inches isn't the same thing a genuinely popular or viable uprising. xyloLOL has hit a dead end with his diversionary subthread on it up ^there.
tl;dr - http://i.imgur.com/2sa4Ide.png
sn't arguing those cases - just that they were things i read about. reading my post back it makes no mention of that.
wasn't an exercise in trying to prove you wrong or owt. more a case of saying 'hey, these are things that shouldn't really be seen as an impediment to leaning Yes-ward'.
the currency thing is certainly understandable as something that requires clarification, though. not gonna pretend i have all the answers, or any 100% guarantees. but then nothing of this nature is ever that certain. without really putting a decent amount of research into it i'm of the understanding that, despite a few irked voices, no permission is required to use the pound. the bank of england is a uk institution, which sets interest rates independently of the uk gov, and does so with the best interests of the currency (and the economy/economies that use it) in mind. an indeprndent scotland might not be able to throw it's weight around to call the shots on a britain-wide monetary policy - but does it even do that at the moment? and it would be counter-productive for the bank of england to act to the detriment of one of it's biggest trading partners. up to a point, ireland falls into this category. and they had a currency workably tied to sterling (in a formal monetary union, and then more loosely) for many years. dunno. not perfect, but not enough to nix things, from what i've seen. would be good to know more about it, though. i suppose tomorrow should clear things up a little.
*the gay gordons
but ultimately it's a matter for the Scottish to decide. I'm not convinced by the arguments that Scotland would not be a vibale state - of course it would, there are much smaller and poorer staes in the world that get on (relatively) ok. Whether it would work out financially better for Sctoland to be independent is perhaps more questionable, and the suggestion of them retaining the pound in the long term seems unlikely (the UK would have to agree to this, which seems unlikely, our First Minister has already suggested that he'd veto it).
by "our" you mean Wales right
Scotland doesn't need permission to use the pound.
It would need the agreement of the remaining UK to be part of a formal currency union with it, though.
the liabilities of that currency aren't shared either.
kinda miss the #last thing in threads like this
I've got real doubts that his government could keep Scotland the way I like it. And I say that as a recently-converted Caledonophile.
It's lovely up here and I don't really want it to change.
Don't like Salmond or his government? Cool. Vote 'em out in the election after the referendum.
PS: A No vote probably isn't a vote for no change. In the words of Nicola Sturgeon: "A No vote would relegate Scotland to the bottom of the Westminster agenda – the idea that Holyrood would gain new powers in these circumstances is fanciful. Scotland cannot afford the risk of a No vote – or the loss of opportunity for renewal and revival that a Yes vote offers." cf: Thatcher after the 1979 devolution referendum
and have integrity
But then it seems a bit strange to warn people a risk that they've created.
And there are enough people for whom the answer is "no", for it to become an issue that will be voted on. Remember, the SNP gov was re-elected on an improved share of the vote. That's not something that normally (ever?) happens in UK elections. And they were elected on a majority, in a system designed to make majorities highly unlikely. Now, I'm not going to make spurious claims about their integrity. I have no real ideological or emotional link to the party in the way that many Labour types seem to feel wedded to their party. And I won't claim that everyone who voted for the SNP to be elected at Holyrood is pro-independence. But the Scottish gov was voted in with a mandate to hold a referendum. So that's what they're doing.
The task at hand is to weigh up the risks and decide whether Scotland is best governed from Westminster, or from Holyrood.
Personally, I'm confident that it's not too wee, not too poor, and not too stupid. And that UK governance from Westminster is a corrosive and failed political construct.
It's important to note that the flaws in the UK setup have been evident for many years. I could easily have been sold on some sort of Federalism. But those in the position to push that agenda have shown themselves to be spineless and cowardly. Rght up to the point where it was offered as an option on the referendum ballot paper, if anyone was prepared to step up and grasp the nettle, but they preferred to try and engage in political manoeuvring rather than state their case. So we're in a position where next year provides the option of a straightforward Yes or a No vote. Anyone voting No needs to be sure that they'll wake up the morning after, be happy with their lot, look themselves in the eye, and not regret seizing a genuinely once in a lifetime opportunity to create a better future.
Ultimately any referendum comes down to who makes the case most convincingly. If the SNP fail to convince people of the need for independence, which results in a 'no' vote then that won't be the fault of the people in Scotland for failing to vote for independence but the fault of the independence movement for failing to make their argument successfully enough.
Whether they like it or not, the SNP are taking a massive gamble here. I hope they're right to be confident they can pull it off.
The SNP are one of many different groups and individuals campaigning for a Yes vote. You even refer to the SNP and 'the independence movement' as if they're one and the same in the same sentence!
Of course the burden of proof lies with the Yes camp as they're proposing a break from the status quo, but to say a No vote means a failure on their part is to imply that 'the facts' are out there somewhere and they've failed to harness them properly. The outcome of this vote is never going to be the expression of some sort of logical algorithm weighing up the Yes and No camps that the public can either accept or ignore. It's always going to be a bubbling cauldron of pragmatism and sentimentality, truth and propaganda, hope and fear, and I don't think any outcome will be invalidated by saying "well we only voted no because we're scared of change" because that's saying something valuable in its own right.
Basically there are many forces at work and its not simply a case of who wins the argument.
Or at least it is in a case of a straight popular vote. If the majority of people are persuaded by you, then you win. If the majority are persuaded by the other side then, you lose. That's basically how democracy work.
Of course, that's not to say anything you've said is incorrect - and I apologise for impyling the SNP and the independence movement as though they're the same thing - That was very poorly phrased. But I do think, of all the groups involved, the SNP probably stands to lose the most from a no vote and, fairly or not, it will be publicly perceived as 'their' failure.
Obviously it's not a particularly fair argument - who has the most money to make their case, where the media falls and a huge number of other factors.
And, of course, it's not merely a logical algorhythm (though I'm not sure where yout think I've claimed that - it is indeed exactly as you say - an argument that also involves "pragmatism and sentimentality, truth and propaganda, hope and fear". And I agree that voting no out of reluctance to change is a perectly valid outcome in its own right (as any democratically reached decision is, regardless of whether or not I or any other individual agres with the outcome) but it's a stil ultimately a no vote.
Should say "it comes down to who has the most money..." etc.
It sounds like you're prepared to blame one elected party for the actions of another elected party.
Have I got that right?
A large majority would support independence if it made them, as individuals, £500 better off. But a large majority would oppose independence if it made them, as individuals, £500 worse off.
Then it doesn't really sound like the deep felt issues of self determination some in the independence camp want it to be.
Yes there are thousands who do feel the yoke of England and Westminster upon them very painfully, but this is not the Basque country or Kurdistan really is it?
there's a strong preference for independence, and all that it entails. Just as long as you don't call it independence.
The political landscape has shifted monumentally in Scotland in the past fifteen years and I think the rising trend is only going to move further toward independence. But this is why I think calling the Referendum now is a risk for the independence movement - come 2018 or 2020 I reckon there'd be a clear and comfortable majority but right now, whilst I reckon support will grow for independence between now and the election, I think it'll still wind up in a narrow defeat that could set things back significantly.
Obviously I could be wrong on all this of course.
when as wza says, they actually increased their voter share and won a near-impossible majority, so if not now with all this momentum, when?
and if they hadn't taken the opportunity to do it now they'd be portrayed as cowards. and rightly so.
just look at the (false indignation) flak they've taken for picking a date in the second half of their second term.
And, to be fair, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that flak is more do with fear than anything else. It's a fair point about the majority and I'd nto factored that in so I guess maybe they do need to do it now but it's still going to be a risky strategy. The more I think about it, the more I hope the independence movement do win and I reckon they've got a chance (especially as the question's favourably-worded and today's document will hopefully start to make the whole thing look plausible and like a tangible possibility which is where the AV moment fell short). I do reckon it's going to be tight.
I might go as far as to say that this is an example of true leadership. Not the findings of focus groups being presented as policies that are intended to offend or startle the smallest possible demographic. Not a purely academic vision of what might be if only we could ignore pesky realities.
You mentioned the AV referendum. What a half-arsed offering that was. And that's why it was knocked back. The LibDems played it safe. But ended up with nothing. What was the point in bothering at all? Did more harm to the cause than good.
What's on offer in September next year is a bold but workable opportunity. Not entirely risk-free - but then... what is? What long-term guarantees can the UK truly offer?
Which is why I'm not surprised it was criticised. On its own, it makes the whole thing sound more like a definite vision.
With the AV thing, I think the LibDems made several errors - as you say it was too tame an offer, plus the advertising was genuinely awful, the ballot papers made AV+ sound far more complex than it was and I think they were completely unprepared for how vitriolic and ruthless their opponents would be. If nothing else, I think the SNP (don't know enough about the Independence movement to comment) are canny enough to know what to expect. And, for all the criticisms above that some SNP politicians are a bit arsehole-y and cling to and regurgitate 'facts' regardless of how true they actually are, that's probably the exact qualities they're going to be up against so it probably won't do 'em too much harm.
what to expect from their opponents. The YesScotland campaign has been criticised (from a few quarters, for and against) for being too defensive, and not going on the attack enough. Everyone has an opinion innit.
Grangemouth petrochemical plant.
Hardly an endorsement of how good the Union is for Scotland. Better Together? Aye, right.
no one's gonna let them starve
Cut corporation tax to nowt and bring in a load of billionaires, then reopen all the pits and get a proper 2 tier society goin
That'd be a laugh.
so I'm assuming we'd still have to elect MPs as Westminster would still be our parliament until then.
might as well go out in style and all vote Tory if independence has been confirmed by then #votebants
Guess there'd have to be another election...
The votes for England, Wales and Northern Ireland would still hold. It'd be a bit weird and awkward seeing one party go out of power and another form a government mid-term - especially as whoever got in in May 2015 would know that was going to happen - but there's no logical reason for a whole new general election.
Pretty certain that, in that instance there would be an election.
didn't the current lot wave through fixed term parliaments?
two-thirds majority in parliament required to overrule the fixed term if i iirc correctly
If the next parliament votes on anything it is law no matter what the previous parliament voted on.
This 5 year parliament rule is only good for this parliament.
And vice versa in the Scottish one?
That's that then, I suppose.
Scotland should vote Yes. I'd love for Wales to be independent but it'll never happen... at least a quarter of the population is English and they'll never vote for it. I want more devolution to Y Fro Gymraeg from Cardiff.
than 'a bunch of English people live here'.
English immigration (along with Welsh emigration) is the major cultural/political issue in many parts of Wales especially what remains of y Fro Gymraeg.
Just take a look at this map:
If current trends continue, the Welsh will be a minority in our own country within my lifetime. This demographic transformation is ignored by the Welsh and British media.
There are many Welsh people who oppose independence on economic grounds but are very patriotic would like to see independence in an 'ideal world'. However, in my experience, people with English roots don't share have this desire at all, they see themselves as being culturally British/English and will never vote for independence. Welsh independence isn't possible without the Welsh!
From a general stand point we should be trying to avoid petty nationalism. I'd prefer if the UK became part of Europe properly. Of course, the fact that 90s economists were completely arseheads when integrating the poorer nations means that's pretty much fucked now, I suppose.
Still, I broadly oppose segregation on outmoded nationlist ideologies. We should instead strive to stop London being the place where everything has to be, to spread the economy out around the country again.
(if not the methods of achieving them). And phrases like "petty nationalism" & "outmoded nationalist ideologies" are difficult to knock back or have any gripe with when taken at face value.
BUT... (depending on which measure you choose) there are 200-odd countries (or nations, if you will) in the world. This number has risen hugely, for various reasons, over the last century or two. http://i.imgur.com/RJlk6hd.png There aren't many people harking back to the time of Empires.
I don't seek independence for insular/isolationist reasons. I'm keen to see Scotland as country active within Intergovernmental Organisations, etc. And I believe that offers a better representation and an improved version of democracy than what is currently provided by the UK (and I don't have any faith that the UK has any drive to resolve this).
To be more blunt about it: what is the preference for the UK if not UK nationalism?
To be facetious about it: Have fun watching Pendulum in "petty, outmoded" Ireland.
To be pseud about it: there are some very interesting philosophical debates to be had about nation states and their future role in a worldwide context.
To be real about it: there's a very real vote next year, and there's a very real opportunity to set a new course for Scotland, if a sufficient number of people within it can find it within themselves to take it. 5% swing required. Defo do-able.
if so I guess the average temperature in the UK would go up a few notches. it'll actually get warmer! i'm all for that
If the people want independence, give it to them!
Although here's my view: I'd feel sad if the UK ended but I get why. It's only fair to let a nation rule itself. But independence means independence.
So their own currency. Their own funding of things like hospitals - so a new NHS for Scotland. Having to reapply to Europe as an independent nation. Having no shared funding of personnel with military.
My concern is that they'll keep all the benefits of the UK whilst being also separate, which is a bit shit for England and Wales.
There, I said it.
Also, there's so much talk about how oil rich they are but two points: 1) It's a finite resource. 2) It's not Scotland's, it's the oil companies. Big difference.
Almost all my family are Scottish, my thin veiled is Scottish and some of my friends are Scottish. It's a country close to my heart but still, if you want independence, it has to be everything or nothing. And I can't see how "everything" will work.
But if I lived in Scotland, I'd be voting yes whatever. Of course you would!
Scotland already get a lot of benefits from being in the UK outweighing England and Wales, that's the main argument for staying in the Union
Glad you can see some of the positives. You seem to have some things a bit muddled up, though. e.g. NHS Scotland is already (and always has been) an independent entity. So the comment on that seems odd. There are similar niggles in that post I could spout on about (you've half-presented half a point about oil, no real explanation of how an independent Scotland would be detrimental to England and Wales, etc), but there's little point in dwelling on them here any more than I already have.
you should allow a Scottish referendum. And a referendum on our EU membership too.
At least Cameron half gets this by allowing one in this Parliament, and the other in the next (if his party wins, of course). Miliband on the other hand is just being a hypocritical dick about the whole thing.
If Scotland want independence, they should be allowed to have it (if you believe in localism).
despite both parties being equally vociferous in their supposed support.
Both parties passionately believe in localism because feigning to give a shit about local issues is what gets them into power so they can attend swanky lunches with heads of states of other countries.
is about playing politics rather than principle, but at least Cameron/the Tories have backed it up with a bit of substance. Labour had a crack at it with the whole devolution lark, but that was under the old guard - the current leadership's approach is embarrassingly hypocritical.
not complete substance. At least the Tories are offering up a few referendums to support the principle. Haven't Labour opposed both of these?
"a bit of substance"?
is far more significant than the secondary transference of those powers from Westminster to council level.
The referendum itself is the 'bit of substance'.
in favour of controlling as many 'academies' as possible from the DoE. For everything they give, they take back elsewhere.
Either way, one man's 'localism' is another's 'postcode lottery'.
but this seems as good a place as any for it.
This is pre glancing at the white paper (and to be honest reading the thing seems a bit redundant as I'm unlikely to be living in Scotland so will have no vote) but I've yet to see enough compelling reasons to vote for independence. I don't believe it would be a disaster but I do believe it'll result in a horrendous amount of money being spent to effect very little change. While the idealist in me would like to think otherwise I sincerely doubt an independent Scotland would improve the wealth gap or any of the other reasons I might be tempted to vote for it. Realistically we'd be our own country and very little actual change will occur. The Tories will continue to struggle in Scotland, the Socialists will go through their usual "make some headway then fragment through infighting" cycle and we'll be governed by the same flawed but reasonably OK as things go slightly left of centre parliament. To think otherwise strikes me as the same sort of delusional thinking that actually led people (myself included) to believe the Lib Dems would actually rein in the worse excesses of the Tories by forming the coalition. So I can't help but be incredibly cynical towards the idea that independence will somehow be a salve to our social ills regardless of who ends up in power after the dust settles.
The pragmatist in me says independence will be too costly and cause too much upheaval for too little positive benefit to be worth undertaking. I don't think an independent Scotland will be any better or worse off so in a way having no vote probably accurately ends up reflecting my current view on the matter, though I remain open to being convinced either way but I can't help but feel the best result of all this would be a few extra powers over taxation etc for the devolved parliament.
I also have a natural inclination that things that lead to greater division when it comes to relationships between countries are to be avoided and that closer trade agreements, alliances and membership of bodies (like the EU and so on) are much more valuable so that probably would be enough to leave me in the no camp.
I'm more drawn towards staying as part of the UK,
I read something like Karine Polwart's excellent piece on why she supports the yes campaign - http://www.scotsman.com/news/karine-polwart-imagination-vital-to-telling-the-yes-story-1-2795982
and find myself mostly nodding in agreement but instead of ultimately being convinced that a "yes" vote is the way to go the idealist in me asks; "why not strive for something better for the whole of the UK? Then having done that, why not reach further?"
Lofty ideas, way too lofty, too unrealistic, not going to happen but if you're going to have them, why stop at Scotland?
Or if your point is that countries who have split from others have gone on to be successes in the past then I'm certainly not going to argue with it. However (and I have to admit to limited knowledge on this front) I can't see too many parallels between Norway and Sweden's situation and Scotland/England's.
WZA has done a great job shooting down most of the nay-sayers up there ^^^ so far.
How about Ireland? "Unprecedented global financial" whatevers haven't been enough to prompt any serious suggestions of a recreation of the pre-1927 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
I just meant there was far more pressure pulling Norway and Sweden apart than there is with Scotland/England. We have our different outlooks for sure, but they're not on the same scale as Norway at the time of their independence when there was some (albeit slim) chance of war. There's certainly not going to be any war between England/Scotland any time soon.
Just to be clear I'm not saying that there has to be the threat of armed conflict for independence to be an option worth considering, just that their are significant differences between the two situations.
As for Ireland, it's a fair point and not one I have any argument with; our ties with them as trading partners and in the EU are enough and if Scotland was to become independent are ties with England as trading partners and in the EU would also be enough.
But just as I don't particularly see a need to be reclaiming Ireland I remain unconvinced about an actual need to split up from England.
headline about the white paper was something like "white paper details break up of the UK" along with a little icon of a document whose title was "UK separation guide" or something.
I know it's sky news and all that but... on a huge screen in the busiest station in the city? Bit weird.
impermeability would lessen.
I like scotland and I think of its landscape of being part of the country that I am part of.
I like Edinburgh and am proud to boast about how beautiful it is to American colleagues and how they should visit Edinburgh and the Highlands and Islands whilst that are this side of 'the pond'
whether or not creakyknees wished to be independant of all other sovereign states. 100% were in favour of devolution, whats more with a 100% participation.
So the question is...if it is just a matter of the will of the people (as some people suggest it is with scotland...if the majority of scottish people say they want independance it should be a thing) then why should the same apply if an individual wished to do this (maybe say on an island, or on land they 'owned' ....see also 'Sealand')
you seem to have an appropriate username to do it
he used to seem so right.
For all of my life, for about the last year, increasingly I've been thinking I might vote yes. I know it's going to take an extra push to actually make me vote yes though and I'm not sure the white paper does it for me.
All of us floaters still have plenty of time to make our minds up though *gets belted and tosses a coin*
Help to push you towards the "yes" side.
I know it doesn't for my imaginary vote, as the day I let Hopkins and Madeley influence me is the day I give on having opinions.
Also out of interest how much of the White Paper did you peruse? I know that if my vote wasn't imaginary I'd be reading it now to see if it convinced me (as it is I'd rather read something more entertaining and have just browsed the key points). Where do you think it's lacking and was there anything there that almost convinced you?
No more subsidising pie-in-the-sky ideas (HS2)
Lots of oil
No porn wall
OK I never expected any fucking sense from the wonderful combination of Richard Madeley and Katie Hopkins (who could anger any right minded person debating whether breathing was a good thing), but to have such an unbalanced panel, with the only Scot there also being against independence and failing to challenge them on their patronising bullshit took it to an extra level of stupidity above and beyond what I'd anticipated.
Listening to such ignorant and patronising garbage hasn't change my mind of course, plus living in England I know that most English people I talk to who are interested in independence actually want to know what Scottish people think about it and realise we're big enough and sensible enough to make our own decision over the matter.
If I was in the "no" campaign though I'd be worried about tripe like this; if my facebook feed is anything to judge by it's not only irritating those in favour but also perhaps having an effect on those who haven't yet made up their minds.
good to hear jeremy edwards wants us to be happy though
It's a weight off my mind for sure.
As far as I can tell she is now peddling her ignorant opinions on panel shows or doing some superb trolling (quite possibly a combination of both - she cropped up recently promoting a book she'd written on baby names by being really snobby about kids called Chardonnay and things like that).
when her daughter is called India. got ya
I'd vote yes- Scotland punch above their weight culturally and economically.
As an Englishman I want them to vote 'no' so we don't lose all those non-Conservative voters.
voting is (sort of) proportional so it doesn't really matter whether Scotland are voting non-tory or not
Third STV head to head debate just finished: Nicola Sturgeon and Alistair Carmichael (Scottish LibDem Deputy Leader, MP for Orkney and Shetland, and the latest LibDem to be lumped with the Secretary of State for Scotland job after Michael Moore was given the push*).
If you want to see a man being totally eviscerated on live telly, that was it. Felt kinda sorry for him at one point, when it looked like he was about to do a small cry.
*Moore was in the first STV debate and fared similarly. Anas Sarwar (deputy Scottish Labour Party leader) was in the second one, and was cornered into creating a bedroom tax policy live on air, which UK Labour then had to adopt formally to spare any blushes.
Margaret Curran was on, too. Such a shame for a warm and lovely person like her to be made to look like a venomous idiot in front of so many people. No-one watches STV at gone 11pm* on a Wednesday, but people actually see you get torn apart on QT.
*here http://player.stv.tv/summary/st-referendum/ - the second half is brutal.
but only lasted about 30 seconds before I remembered how terrible it is
Or with the humans in the highlands/Island and small remoter towns?
but that doesn't completely translate to pro-independence/it has plenty of support in the lowlands/central belt these days too