Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Scotland was told time and time again that if they went independent, the rest of the UK would still be the UK for the purpose of international treaties and agreements, so in effect, little would have changed for England, Wales, Northern Ireland.

The rest of the UK would certainly remain the UK. Unfortunately some in Scotland apparently didn't want to listen when told that they would have to start almost from scratch making their own treaties, would have to adopt something other than the UK sterling, could not automatically join the EU, would not be able to opt out of the euro if it joined the EU, etc...

Certainly I was half hoping for a 'yes' vote just to see what would happen.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Ok, the UK has several constitutions, many of which are unwritten. Please tell me where I can get a copy of these unwritten constitutions?

Nice attempt at misreading what was plainly written. The UK consitutional documents are written, there isn't one single text though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You say that 5% of the population shouldn't dictate the government of everybody else, but why should Scotland suffer the tyranny of the majority? The poll tax was a clear example of a minority suffering from the majority. Is that fair?

Majority will is not called tyranny,its called democracy.
Also because thne majority in Scotland agreed such.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You say that Federalism is the cause of this mess, but Federalism, is the only thing that can save the UK in my view.

I disagree for reasons given earlier.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Here's an example that will probably chime with American dakka members.
Texas is not a supporter of the democrats, they're Republican party through and through, and I doubt they're happy with Obama in office.
BUT
Because of their system, Texas gets Republican senators and congressmen (or women) because of the checks and balances in their system.
There is no such system in the UK, and in the long run, the UK will break up.

Laughable nonsense, these constituencies return MP's, those MP's vote. You also have tiers of local and regional government locally and regionally elected.

An MP for Glasgow in the House of Commons is equivalent to a Congressman for Texas in the House of Representatives.

Or do you assume that Scottish MP's get hit with the 'Tory rays' as soon as they enter Westminster, or that Texan congressmen dont get a vote because Obama?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


"You also have to remember that in the US each state has its own governing body with much more power than the UK."

So you're saying that individual US states have the same ability as the UK to declare war on another country? This makes no sense, but I'm sure Frazz would love Texas to be able to declare war on those liberal New England states.

That should have said, "counties within the UK"

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Scotland was told time and time again that if they went independent, the rest of the UK would still be the UK for the purpose of international treaties and agreements, so in effect, little would have changed for England, Wales, Northern Ireland.

The rest of the UK would certainly remain the UK. Unfortunately some in Scotland apparently didn't want to listen when told that they would have to start almost from scratch making their own treaties, would have to adopt something other than the UK sterling, could not automatically join the EU, would not be able to opt out of the euro if it joined the EU, etc...

Certainly I was half hoping for a 'yes' vote just to see what would happen.

Yeah, but some unionists didn't listen either when international experts said that iScotland would be liable for zero % of the UK's debt (it being a brand new nation) and some people didn't listen when experts said that as Sterling is an international currency, any country could use it. Currency union is one thing, but nobody could have stopped iScotland from using the £, the $ or even the rouble.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
some people didn't listen when experts said that as Sterling is an international currency, any country could use it.

No one ever said that. The Yes side willfully twisted people saying they couldn't have a unilateral currency union claiming they were saying that. No one was stupid enough to think that Scotland couldn't use almost any currency they wanted.

The argument about debt liability was not clear at all. The vast majority of people said that they could not walk away from all liabilities AND keep all assets. Only those with a strong political bias said they could have zero debt and keep all assets.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Ok, the UK has several constitutions, many of which are unwritten. Please tell me where I can get a copy of these unwritten constitutions?

Nice attempt at misreading what was plainly written. The UK consitutional documents are written, there isn't one single text though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You say that 5% of the population shouldn't dictate the government of everybody else, but why should Scotland suffer the tyranny of the majority? The poll tax was a clear example of a minority suffering from the majority. Is that fair?

Majority will is not called tyranny,its called democracy.
Also because thne majority in Scotland agreed such.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You say that Federalism is the cause of this mess, but Federalism, is the only thing that can save the UK in my view.

I disagree for reasons given earlier.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Here's an example that will probably chime with American dakka members.
Texas is not a supporter of the democrats, they're Republican party through and through, and I doubt they're happy with Obama in office.
BUT
Because of their system, Texas gets Republican senators and congressmen (or women) because of the checks and balances in their system.
There is no such system in the UK, and in the long run, the UK will break up.

Laughable nonsense, these constituencies return MP's, those MP's vote. You also have tiers of local and regional government locally and regionally elected.

An MP for Glasgow in the House of Commons is equivalent to a Congressman for Texas in the House of Representatives.

Or do you assume that Scottish MP's get hit with the 'Tory rays' as soon as they enter Westminster, or that Texan congressmen dont get a vote because Obama?

The imposition of the poll tax on Scotland, and the violation of the act of union 1707, as a result of this, clearly demolishes your tyranny argument. A majority imposed a tax on Scotland that violated the founding treaty of the UK, against the will of the Scottish people. We know from documents released under the 30 year rule, that Scotland was a test subject for the poll tax.

If that's not tyranny, tell me what is?

As to your other points about MPs, EVEL will eventually make Scottish MPs second class MPs, despite BT telling us for months, we're all a partnership of equals. And of course, Dave has said that an EU referendum vote will pull Scotland out of the EU even if it votes no...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


"You also have to remember that in the US each state has its own governing body with much more power than the UK."

So you're saying that individual US states have the same ability as the UK to declare war on another country? This makes no sense, but I'm sure Frazz would love Texas to be able to declare war on those liberal New England states.

That should have said, "counties within the UK"

An honest mistake. Fair enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
some people didn't listen when experts said that as Sterling is an international currency, any country could use it.

No one ever said that. The Yes side willfully twisted people saying they couldn't have a unilateral currency union claiming they were saying that. No one was stupid enough to think that Scotland couldn't use almost any currency they wanted.

The argument about debt liability was not clear at all. The vast majority of people said that they could not walk away from all liabilities AND keep all assets. Only those with a strong political bias said they could have zero debt and keep all assets.

George Osborne and E Balls said that if you walk away from the UK, you walk away from the pound.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Also funny how this in this "great debate" about the future of our nation - only 5% people actually got any vote in the matter - is that fair?

................and many in England are asking how much more money will we be required to send North as a result of the referendum?

Scotland was told time and time again that if they went independent, the rest of the UK would still be the UK for the purpose of international treaties and agreements, so in effect, little would have changed for England, Wales, Northern Ireland. Also, Scotland has been a net contributor for years. Only London and the SE out performs Scotland.

Actually not true. The UK would remain, but with possible further division due to a nationalism bomb. This would also touch off a lot of Europe, Spain in particular.

As for the UK staying the same in terms of treaties the difference may well be enough for the UK to lose its Security Council seat, that would be a total disaster and the UK would never forgive Scots for it when it happened and the consequences following. The referendum was all about Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, no thought to the immense damage it would cause for the UK.

That referendum has been conducted, and I was not balloted, fairs, fair, as there was no referendum at the signing of the Act of Union. Scots are entitled to one. But if this debate is to be continued then I insist on a say of my own future as we are all in the UK together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The imposition of the poll tax on Scotland, and the violation of the act of union 1707, as a result of this, clearly demolishes your tyranny argument. A majority imposed a tax on Scotland that violated the founding treaty of the UK, against the will of the Scottish people. We know from documents released under the 30 year rule, that Scotland was a test subject for the poll tax.

The poll tax was a legal and lawful act, it was unpopular, not illegal.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If that's not tyranny, tell me what is?

Alex Salmond centralising all Scottish police under centralised authority remioving local policing from local control.
Ales Salmond using the police to victimise residents of the Menie estate for being in the way of his buddy Donald Trump

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As to your other points about MPs, EVEL will eventually make Scottish MPs second class MPs, despite BT telling us for months, we're all a partnership of equals.

We are therefore if Scots can have laws passed by themselves for themselves, so should the English.
Or do you want English MP's voting on whether Scotland can choose to have university grants.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And of course, Dave has said that an EU referendum vote will pull Scotland out of the EU even if it votes no...

The EU referendum poll will include Scots. I thought Scots liked being consulted with referenda.


An honest mistake. Fair enough.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
some people didn't listen when experts said that as Sterling is an international currency, any country could use it.

No one ever said that. The Yes side willfully twisted people saying they couldn't have a unilateral currency union claiming they were saying that. No one was stupid enough to think that Scotland couldn't use almost any currency they wanted.

The argument about debt liability was not clear at all. The vast majority of people said that they could not walk away from all liabilities AND keep all assets. Only those with a strong political bias said they could have zero debt and keep all assets.

George Osborne and E Balls said that if you walk away from the UK, you walk away from the pound.

I voted for independence in the referendum, but I'm not sure I'll vote at all this year or simply spoil the ballot. I enjoyed the referendum as it felt invigorating. Everyone had an opinion. Local to national and even international interests were being considered. And even when the result was announced it still felt like there was an air of renewed political interest and engagement from all sides.

The general election just feels like same old, same old. With added EU hysteria. It's stale and tired. Maybe I'm spitting the dummy out, who knows, but it feels like all those good political vibes are spent.

Zond wrote:
I voted for independence in the referendum, but I'm not sure I'll vote at all this year or simply spoil the ballot. I enjoyed the referendum as it felt invigorating. Everyone had an opinion. Local to national and even international interests were being considered. And even when the result was announced it still felt like there was an air of renewed political interest and engagement from all sides.

The general election just feels like same old, same old. With added EU hysteria. It's stale and tired. Maybe I'm spitting the dummy out, who knows, but it feels like all those good political vibes are spent.

This I can sympathise with strongly.

 Orlanth wrote:

George Osborne and E Balls said that if you walk away from the UK, you walk away from the pound.

It was clear to me at least that they were talking of the pound in the same was as we talk of "joining/leaving the euro".

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Also funny how this in this "great debate" about the future of our nation - only 5% people actually got any vote in the matter - is that fair?

................and many in England are asking how much more money will we be required to send North as a result of the referendum?

Scotland was told time and time again that if they went independent, the rest of the UK would still be the UK for the purpose of international treaties and agreements, so in effect, little would have changed for England, Wales, Northern Ireland. Also, Scotland has been a net contributor for years. Only London and the SE out performs Scotland.

Actually not true. The UK would remain, but with possible further division due to a nationalism bomb. This would also touch off a lot of Europe, Spain in particular.

As for the UK staying the same in terms of treaties the difference may well be enough for the UK to lose its Security Council seat, that would be a total disaster and the UK would never forgive Scots for it when it happened and the consequences following. The referendum was all about Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, no thought to the immense damage it would cause for the UK.

That referendum has been conducted, and I was not balloted, fairs, fair, as there was no referendum at the signing of the Act of Union. Scots are entitled to one. But if this debate is to be continued then I insist on a say of my own future as we are all in the UK together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The imposition of the poll tax on Scotland, and the violation of the act of union 1707, as a result of this, clearly demolishes your tyranny argument. A majority imposed a tax on Scotland that violated the founding treaty of the UK, against the will of the Scottish people. We know from documents released under the 30 year rule, that Scotland was a test subject for the poll tax.

The poll tax was a legal and lawful act, it was unpopular, not illegal.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If that's not tyranny, tell me what is?

Alex Salmond centralising all Scottish police under centralised authority remioving local policing from local control.
Ales Salmond using the police to victimise residents of the Menie estate for being in the way of his buddy Donald Trump

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As to your other points about MPs, EVEL will eventually make Scottish MPs second class MPs, despite BT telling us for months, we're all a partnership of equals.

We are therefore if Scots can have laws passed by themselves for themselves, so should the English.
Or do you want English MP's voting on whether Scotland can choose to have university grants.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And of course, Dave has said that an EU referendum vote will pull Scotland out of the EU even if it votes no...

The EU referendum poll will include Scots. I thought Scots liked being consulted with referenda.


An honest mistake. Fair enough.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
some people didn't listen when experts said that as Sterling is an international currency, any country could use it.

No one ever said that. The Yes side willfully twisted people saying they couldn't have a unilateral currency union claiming they were saying that. No one was stupid enough to think that Scotland couldn't use almost any currency they wanted.

The argument about debt liability was not clear at all. The vast majority of people said that they could not walk away from all liabilities AND keep all assets. Only those with a strong political bias said they could have zero debt and keep all assets.

George Osborne and E Balls said that if you walk away from the UK, you walk away from the pound.

You don't however walk away from the debt, that would be seen as a debt default, a bad first step for s sovereign state.
Also if Scotland threatened to default on debt after a Yes victory in the referendum, Scotland would not be independent yet, Westminster could legally offset Scotland's share of the debt by selling off oil fields and reclaiming the monies on the firesale of Scotland's oil wealth.

Also put it this way, I am not an American, this doesn't prevent me from legally owing $10K USD if ever I do.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

George Osborne and E Balls said that if you walk away from the UK, you walk away from the pound.

It was clear to me at least that they were talking of the pound in the same was as we talk of "joining/leaving the euro".

We could leave the EU tomorrow and still use their currency.

Why would you want to? The U is horribly unstable, especially with the spat between Germany and Greece.

In UK terms, leaving the EU is an outside possibility.
In Scottish terms, joining the EU as an independent state is a very remote possibility, due to vetos.

 Yodhrin wrote:


Now come on man, anyone who was paying serious attention to the nitty-gritty of the indyref knew from the moment he opened his gob Gordo was talking nonsense and had no authority behind his claims,

I agree.

but lets not pretend for even a moment that he just spontaneously put together a ready-for-live-BBC-broadcast press conference under his party banner without the knowledge or approval of the party leader or the other Labour figures like Darling and Blair McDougall who were running Better Together.

I agree here to an extent, although I'd make a distinction between A) Gordon Brown, B) The Labour party, and C) Better together. I think that there were certainly links between A & B, and links between B & C. I do not think it is unreasonable however, to say that A and C were far from inextricably linked.

It was a calculated propaganda exercise; shove the "big beast" up on stage to waffle on about how many amazing powers we'd get if we voted No, meanwhile the main campaign used the same basic terms(home rule, devo-max etc) without specifying what they meant by that, follow up with a few softball puff articles in your party's tame newspaper(topped off by "The Vow"), and they created the impression in people who mainly get their info from "traditional media" that Brown's soapboxing was an accurate presentation of the actual campaign, knowing they can wash their hands of it entirely after the fact.

I would agree that it was most likely a deliberate effort on the part of the Labour party. I would however, reiterate my point above, namely that what Ed Miliband himself said is barely worthy of consideration, not being in power, making what an Labour ex-prime minister says of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. And the man himself is such a puffed up self-obsessed hypocritical clown that I doubt that quite frankly anyone bar the local village idiot would have been paying attention to him anyway. He's like John Prescott but without the dubious charm of having clobbered someone. So I don't think quite frankly it would have swayed the referendum one way or another, making it something of a non-issue.

From what I can tell, the Government are following through on what they solidly pledged to, and a few things to which they merely implied. Several other things have become political footballs, or intertangled with other political issues. Others still have been kicked into the long grass. That's about as good a score as any political issue gets, I suppose.

In your shoes, I'd recommend voting for the SNP regardless. They're highly centralist, and quite frankly just as deceptive as the rest of them, but their meal ticket is on 'sticking up for Scotland' so on that basis, they're probably the logical choice to get as much funding as possible diverted northwards. I do hope that they develop some serious policies soon though, they've been given an excellent opportunity, but I have a feeling that they're merely going to squander it on cheap political point scoring. And Scotland badly needs some serious economic policies put in place. But time will tell.

Does it really matter who you vote for.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31589202
They're all liars.

Two former foreign secretaries have been suspended from their parliamentary parties after being secretly filmed apparently offering their services to a private company for cash.

Conservative Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Labour's Jack Straw both say they have broken no rules.

Reporters for the Daily Telegraph and Channel 4's Dispatches posed as staff of a fake Chinese firm.

The MPs have referred themselves to Parliament's standards watchdog.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has written to the prime minister calling for a ban on MPs having second jobs.

'Useful access'

It is claimed that Mr Straw was recorded describing how he operated "under the radar" and had used his influence to change EU rules on behalf of a firm which paid him £60,000 a year.

On the subject of payment, Mr Straw is heard saying: "So normally, if I'm doing a speech or something, it's £5,000 a day, that's what I charge."

Sir Malcolm is reported to have claimed he could arrange "useful access" to every British ambassador in the world.

The MP for Kensington and chairman of Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee was recorded saying: "I am self-employed - so nobody pays me a salary. I have to earn my income."

He said his usual fee for half a day's work was "somewhere in the region of £5,000 to £8,000".

IMHO The only way to get truly representative government in England. Is to buy a large amount of rope. And hang the current lot from lampposts, as a warning to the next group, who they work for.

What really annoyed me about that was the comment of the guy who is going to be "investigating" the whole thing which was along the lines of "these two people should have been able to see this was a sting!" - nothing about politicians being bought and the corrupting impact this has on the nation...

The national security implications of Rifkin talking to 'Chinese' companies in such a brazen manner, should warrant treason charges in my view. He should have known better.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
What really annoyed me about that was the comment of the guy who is going to be "investigating" the whole thing which was along the lines of "these two people should have been able to see this was a sting!" - nothing about politicians being bought and the corrupting impact this has on the nation...

When a person sells state secrets for money, it's treason. Putting personal wealth before country.
When a politician sells state related influence, for personal gain. It should be treason as well.

Computron wrote:

Spoiler:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Computron wrote:
Maybe UKIP should get closer with SNP.
Both parties though seem to have contradictory approaches to their core goals. They're both broadly based on nationalist sentiment yet both support multi-culturalism and I don't think either has an upper limit on foreign immigration so you have to wonder why they exist in the first place.

Because the idea of self-government doesn't necessitate xenophobia? .

It assumes a national culture where one doesn't exist. It's silly, as Scotland is in reality just a line on a map, it doesn't matter who lives there as you say and the culture is so similar to that of England why differentiate between the two? The only arguments I've ever heard are based on history. Well who gives a rats about that? Scottish people are those who live there at any given time and not all of them have ancestry that goes back to William Wallace or wherever, doesn't make them less Scottish. So my point is, why pretend a national identity based on some fictional past culture that doesn't represents the modern population?
Which brings me back to my earlier point about UKIP and SNP who are both civic nationalists and neither one can really define what the respective culture of their goal nation is. They both claim to support a multi-cultural future, yet you get the impression they really mean the original population and a few lucky extras.
Now you mention xenophobia, SNP resents "English" interference, UKIP resents EU interference. Maybe UKIP have a point, but after 300 years of parliamentary union and there being more people of native Scottish ancestry living in England than Scotland, it's a bit rich to suggest that Scotland doesn't get a fair say via Westminster.
Sure, there's a higher concentration of socialist voters in Scotland, hardly a reason to form a separate country.

Every country is just a line on a map, borders are arbitrary; how is that an argument against changing them? If they're arbitrary, then the only conditions for their existence are the ones we choose to impose ourselves. Your problem is you continue to associate this with identity, with ancestry; that is not civic nationalism. Civic nationalism is concerned with governance and democratic will, nation states are simply a vehicle for the expression of democratic will and the administration of governance, and so who is part of any particular nation state or what borders it has or what cultures it shares are irrelevant, what matters is that the people within that nation state have an adequate level of social and political cohesion to ensure functional governance and represent their views and aspirations well.

The UK could be a nation state that fulfills those criteria, but a lot of people(evidently not yet a majority in Scotland, but a substantial minority) do not believe the establishment, or indeed a lot of the populace in other parts of the UK, want it to, and so they seek to change the paradigm.

UKIP are categorically not civic nationalists. They emphasise lineage(place of birth), culture, patriotism, heritage and so on; they don't resent the EU because there's some massive disparity in democratic voice between the UK and the other member states, they resent the EU because they see it as impinging on Britain's innate, territorial sovereignty. They are the dying breath of Imperialism.

Even that basic philosophical difference aside, the parties are nothing alike. Both support a skill-based immigration system(the SNP based on Canada, UKIP based on Australia), but beyond that the SNP want to close immigration detention centres, maintain the foreign aid budget at 0.7% of GDP, help asylum seekers into work, oppose fracking under residential areas without the residents' consent, want increased investment in renewables, support additional taxes and regulations on the financial services sector as well as limits on corporate bonuses, oppose the replacement of Trident and want the UK to drop nuclear weapons altogether(or at the very least, put them somewhere other than 30 minutes outside the centre of our most populous city), support the European Arrest Warrant and the ECHR, want a greater role in the EU, support gender quotas on public boards, want to make the Living Wage a central part of government contracts(and already do in Scotland), continue to support free tuition in higher education and want to bring back the grants system, want to lower the voting age to 16, want to stop cuts to in-work benefits, reform the Work Capability Assessment so it's an honest process rather than a way to force sick and disabled people off benefits, and expand construction of public sector housing. UKIP, by contrast, want to cut net migration to 50,000 a year regardless of other considerations, want to expand the UK Border Force, impose tougher English tests on immigrants, opt out of the Dublin Treaty so they can summarily deport asylum seekers back to mainland Europe, cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn a year, consider fracking to be "the greatest new economic opportunity for the UK in our lifetimes", want to abolish Inheritance Tax, want out of the EU entirely, but even if not then out of ECHR and the European Arrest Warrant, want to give companies the right to offer jobs to "British workers" over more qualified candidates without being subject to discrimination laws, want more grammar schools, a bigger focus on vocational education, and only support free tuition for limited numbers of people for certain subjects, want to stop paying Child Benefit if a family have more than two children regardless of circumstances, and want to move to a contribution-based unemployment benefit system.

You may think you're making a clever point with this comparison, but all you're really doing is coming across as the sort of person who compares European Social Democracy with the Stalinist USSR.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Because of their system, Texas gets Republican senators and congressmen (or women) because of the checks and balances in their system.

There is no such system in the UK, and in the long run, the UK will break up.

Last time I checked Scottish MPs represented their areas in the same way that English, welsh and northern Irish MPs do... Exactly as American congress people do for their states. Except that unliker the English, everyone else in the UK also has another layer of politicians who have certain powers over local issues.

Several areas in England were offered regional parliaments of their own; the offers were crap and people rejected them, and since there's been no great clamour for a better deal and another chance to vote on it. Polling consistently shows that the English consider Westminster "their" parliament. It is not within our power nor our responsibility to give England and its regions devolution, if you want it, do what we did and campaign for it. If you don't want it, then don't complain that we have it as if that's somehow unfair.

Having a party you didn't vote for doing things you don't like is hardly a unique thing to Scotland either. I didn't vote for the Tories or lib dems - doesn't mean I should get my own country though.

Two points. First, we're not talking about one election here, Scotland has been voting a certain way for 60 years now, continually, and for 60 years it's been irrelevant because England decided who ran the whole UK. That's not a dig, it's not a slight, it's just reality. The combination of FPTP with England having 80% of the population made the votes of people in Scotland, Wales, and NI largely superfluous in UK general elections; the most we could do was modestly affect how large a majority the winning party had.

If we were all voting the same way(by which I mean, the rough proportions of votes going to each party were similar in each country, not every single person voting for one party), that wouldn't be an issue. If the UK were willing to adopt a proper federal model with an elected upper-house including representation for Scotland, Wales, NI, London, and England broken down into regions rather than taken as a block, it wouldn't be an issue. But neither is the case, and so it is a problem.

And why shouldn't you get your own country? If you're a democrat who truly believes in self-determination as a principle, the only prerequisite for any group of people taking whatever level of control over their lives they want is that they gain enough support among that group. This time around supporters of independence in Scotland didn't persuade enough people, so we have to work within the existing system to gain the maximum autonomy we can until such time, if it arises, the majority support considering the question again.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Also funny how this in this "great debate" about the future of our nation - only 5% people actually got any vote in the matter - is that fair?

................and many in England are asking how much more money will we be required to send North as a result of the referendum?

I think I recall this point coming up during the actual debates, and I'm pretty certain I pointed out then that it's hardly self-determination if you allow the whole entity a group is considering departing from to have a say on whether they're allowed to depart. Would it be "fair" to have French, German, Spanish etc voters decide the outcome of a UK referendum on leaving the EU? What if we voted to leave and they voted we couldn't, would it be "fair" to force us to stay in? Equally, if we voted to stay but voters in the EU were sick of our posturing Euroskeptic politicians and voted to kick us out, would that be that?

As for "many in England", they might allay their fears somewhat by investigating the facts rather than listening to the Tory press, which by so doing they would quickly discover that Scotland contributes more to the UK than it gets back and is in fact the third most economically successful part of the UK behind London and the SE.

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


Now come on man, anyone who was paying serious attention to the nitty-gritty of the indyref knew from the moment he opened his gob Gordo was talking nonsense and had no authority behind his claims,

I agree.

but lets not pretend for even a moment that he just spontaneously put together a ready-for-live-BBC-broadcast press conference under his party banner without the knowledge or approval of the party leader or the other Labour figures like Darling and Blair McDougall who were running Better Together.

I agree here to an extent, although I'd make a distinction between A) Gordon Brown, B) The Labour party, and C) Better together. I think that there were certainly links between A & B, and links between B & C. I do not think it is unreasonable however, to say that A and C were far from inextricably linked.

It was a calculated propaganda exercise; shove the "big beast" up on stage to waffle on about how many amazing powers we'd get if we voted No, meanwhile the main campaign used the same basic terms(home rule, devo-max etc) without specifying what they meant by that, follow up with a few softball puff articles in your party's tame newspaper(topped off by "The Vow"), and they created the impression in people who mainly get their info from "traditional media" that Brown's soapboxing was an accurate presentation of the actual campaign, knowing they can wash their hands of it entirely after the fact.

I would agree that it was most likely a deliberate effort on the part of the Labour party. I would however, reiterate my point above, namely that what Ed Miliband himself said is barely worthy of consideration, not being in power, making what an Labour ex-prime minister says of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. And the man himself is such a puffed up self-obsessed hypocritical clown that I doubt that quite frankly anyone bar the local village idiot would have been paying attention to him anyway. He's like John Prescott but without the dubious charm of having clobbered someone. So I don't think quite frankly it would have swayed the referendum one way or another, making it something of a non-issue.

From what I can tell, the Government are following through on what they solidly pledged to, and a few things to which they merely implied. Several other things have become political footballs, or intertangled with other political issues. Others still have been kicked into the long grass. That's about as good a score as any political issue gets, I suppose.

Fair enough. I think we pretty much agree, I just use more cynical terminology And I have zero problems with using the government/civil service/better together's rhetoric against them to secure a better deal than was actually proposed at the time - if they didn't want folk pushing for more than they offered, they shouldn't have been using terms like home rule and devo-max, which have defined meanings that are much more extensive.

As for Gordo; I think it's a common flaw among folk who're interested in politics to assume the things we know are common knowledge. A depressing number of people still get their entire knowledge of politics from the evening TV news and whichever daily newspaper traditionally supports the party they've always voted for - folk like my Grandad will always believe the nonsense "big deal" Labour party types spout, because his entire experience of them is through softball BBC interviews and the cheerleading distortion of the Daily Record. Not to mention the "tribal" factor; it was hard for me to stop supporting Labour, they were part of who I was and who my family were, and for a lot of folk when the breaking point finally arrives they'll just retreat further into denial to avoid challenging a core part of their identity - that kind of voter will believe "the party" if they told them the sky is yellow and the sun is purple.

In your shoes, I'd recommend voting for the SNP regardless. They're highly centralist, and quite frankly just as deceptive as the rest of them, but their meal ticket is on 'sticking up for Scotland' so on that basis, they're probably the logical choice to get as much funding as possible diverted northwards. I do hope that they develop some serious policies soon though, they've been given an excellent opportunity, but I have a feeling that they're merely going to squander it on cheap political point scoring. And Scotland badly needs some serious economic policies put in place. But time will tell.

Oh agreed on the centralising aspect, the plan for a lot of us had we won the referendum was to immediately switch focus to supporting the Greens and groups like Common Weal in their efforts to ensure the written constitution fundamentally altered how power functions and where it lies, and to hold the SNP to their rhetoric about local democracy post-independence. Sadly our options for the moment are much more limited, and the main "enhanced local democracy" policy on offer right now is a Labour poison pill, designed to strip power from Holyrood and hand it directly to existing local authorities(in which Labour still have a large presence and amount of control) without reforming them in the myriad necessary ways. Ironically though, depending on exactly how much control over taxation we can wrestle away from Westminster, a No vote might have provided us with an opportunity to try something even more radical than we probably could have gotten away with right away in a written constitution; some folk are arguing that we should abolish Income Tax entirely in favour of Land Value Rating. I'm yet to be fully convinced myself, I want to see a more thorough examination of how that would function in our current context, but it's intriguing.

And honestly, I think you're being somewhat unfair to the SNP on the policy front. I'm not a fan of all the decisions they've made or all the plans they had for an independent Scotland, but considering they've been in power since 2007 without any direct control over macroeconomics, employment law, or banking regulation, and powers over tax and borrowing so limited as to be nonexistent, they've not done that badly. As for their UK-level policies going forward, whether you like them or not will depend on your politics, but they do have them. Nicola Sturgeon's recent talk at UCL will give you a flavour or what their manifesto will probably end up looking like.

 Yodhrin wrote:


As for Gordo; I think it's a common flaw among folk who're interested in politics to assume the things we know are common knowledge. A depressing number of people still get their entire knowledge of politics from the evening TV news and whichever daily newspaper traditionally supports the party they've always voted for - folk like my Grandad will always believe the nonsense "big deal" Labour party types spout, because his entire experience of them is through softball BBC interviews and the cheerleading distortion of the Daily Record. Not to mention the "tribal" factor; it was hard for me to stop supporting Labour, they were part of who I was and who my family were, and for a lot of folk when the breaking point finally arrives they'll just retreat further into denial to avoid challenging a core part of their identity - that kind of voter will believe "the party" if they told them the sky is yellow and the sun is purple.

This much is true actually. I never cease to be amazed by the number of people who let others do their thinking for them. I have blazing political rows with my parents and enjoy every minute of them, as do my parents.

Then again, I suppose I've been blessed with a good education, upbringing, and a few scattered brain cells to allow me to bring the things I read about together. Not everyone is lucky enough to have that.

Oh agreed on the centralising aspect, the plan for a lot of us had we won the referendum was to immediately switch focus to supporting the Greens and groups like Common Weal in their efforts to ensure the written constitution fundamentally altered how power functions and where it lies, and to hold the SNP to their rhetoric about local democracy post-independence.

That would have been a good move. It always seems to become troublesome when a party wins independence with a massive majority, it always seems to quickly dissolve into, 'Big Brother knows what is best' and a determination to cling onto office at any cost.

Sadly our options for the moment are much more limited, and the main "enhanced local democracy" policy on offer right now is a Labour poison pill, designed to strip power from Holyrood and hand it directly to existing local authorities(in which Labour still have a large presence and amount of control) without reforming them in the myriad necessary ways. Ironically though, depending on exactly how much control over taxation we can wrestle away from Westminster, a No vote might have provided us with an opportunity to try something even more radical than we probably could have gotten away with right away in a written constitution; some folk are arguing that we should abolish Income Tax entirely in favour of Land Value Rating. I'm yet to be fully convinced myself, I want to see a more thorough examination of how that would function in our current context, but it's intriguing.

I haven't heard of that. It sounds interesting. If it works, implement it nation wide!

And honestly, I think you're being somewhat unfair to the SNP on the policy front. I'm not a fan of all the decisions they've made or all the plans they had for an independent Scotland, but considering they've been in power since 2007 without any direct control over macroeconomics, employment law, or banking regulation, and powers over tax and borrowing so limited as to be nonexistent, they've not done that badly. As for their UK-level policies going forward, whether you like them or not will depend on your politics, but they do have them. Nicola Sturgeon's recent talk at UCL will give you a flavour or what their manifesto will probably end up looking like.

I was talking more along the basis of their economic policies with regards to attempts to stimulate Scottish industry and employment. The North (newcastle, etc included) don't have a huge amount going for them economically of late. I know there's been a conscious effort to promote the Scottish food and drinks trade that's gone reasonably well, but that alone can't sustain the Scottish economy. Especially not with the beating that it's been taking with the oil prices skydiving. To be frank, all politics aside, I think Scotland dodged a bullet on that score by not going independent.

 Ketara wrote:


I was talking more along the basis of their economic policies with regards to attempts to stimulate Scottish industry and employment. The North (newcastle, etc included) don't have a huge amount going for them economically of late. I know there's been a conscious effort to promote the Scottish food and drinks trade that's gone reasonably well, but that alone can't sustain the Scottish economy. Especially not with the beating that it's been taking with the oil prices skydiving. To be frank, all politics aside, I think Scotland dodged a bullet on that score by not going independent.

In that regard it's kind of hard for them to have concrete policies until they know what powers we'll actually end up getting once the already watered-down Smith Commission crawls its way through a post-election UK parliament. Using our limited powers over food & drink and local planning to encourage exports and the renewables sector, and encouraging SMEs through government contracts and manipulation of small business rates via our local government powers is pretty much the extent of what they can do right now. Depending on what powers we do get, I believe Common Weal is currently working with politicians from various parties to try and adapt their post-independence industrial plan to function under devolution, and that has a good chance of being adopted at the SNP's next party conference given most of their new membership(they're up to 90,000+ members now) come from the anti-austerity "wing" of the Yes campaign.

The oil situation would have been a short-term pain in the arse certainly, assuming the prices remain low through to 2016 which was the proposed date of independence, but thanks to the perception of Scotland created by the media as "scrounging Jocks" people often forget our economy is, per-capita, 99% of the UK average even without oil. We'd have had to delay the implementation of the oil fund and stabilisation fund until the price picked up again, and it would have set back the Greens' plans had they been elected to divert oil revenues into a drastic expansion of our renewables sector, but we wouldn't have turned into Greece or anything.

 Yodhrin wrote:


In that regard it's kind of hard for them to have concrete policies until they know what powers we'll actually end up getting once the already watered-down Smith Commission crawls its way through a post-election UK parliament. Using our limited powers over food & drink and local planning to encourage exports and the renewables sector, and encouraging SMEs through government contracts and manipulation of small business rates via our local government powers is pretty much the extent of what they can do right now. Depending on what powers we do get, I believe Common Weal is currently working with politicians from various parties to try and adapt their post-independence industrial plan to function under devolution, and that has a good chance of being adopted at the SNP's next party conference given most of their new membership(they're up to 90,000+ members now) come from the anti-austerity "wing" of the Yes campaign.

Fair enough. I also don't forget that it is the responsibility of the UK Government to try and promote ALL of British industry, something which I find every mainstream political party distinctly lacking in imagination in.

The oil situation would have been a short-term pain in the arse certainly, assuming the prices remain low through to 2016 which was the proposed date of independence, but thanks to the perception of Scotland created by the media as "scrounging Jocks" people often forget our economy is, per-capita, 99% of the UK average even without oil. We'd have had to delay the implementation of the oil fund and stabilisation fund until the price picked up again, and it would have set back the Greens' plans had they been elected to divert oil revenues into a drastic expansion of our renewables sector, but we wouldn't have turned into Greece or anything.

I disagree on this however. Per capita doesn't begin to explain the complexity of economics. Oil companies have been firing employees and shelving plans for expansion in Scotland left, right & centre, and many new rigs declared unviable at current prices. The knockon effect doesn't just hammer the oil and gas industry, but all the maritime, construction, metal & service industries that go along with it. The longer the oil price stays low, the greater that knockon effect will be. You can't just measure these things purely by circling the 'oil and gas' sector of the market and calculating the relative amount of GDP it accounts for.

If the oil price bounces back in the next six months to a year or so, the ripples won't be too bad, but if extends past that point, Scotland's economy will start to get hit by it in greater amounts. I'm not saying it'll be catastrophic (beyond certain geographical regions), but it will knock away a crucial support from Scotland's economy. And as a part of Britain, that knocks away one of our crucial supports as well.

It might sound strange, but I hope things get better up there soon. I wouldn't wish economic hardship on any of my countrymen.

 Yodhrin wrote:


Every country is just a line on a map, borders are arbitrary; how is that an argument against changing them? If they're arbitrary, then the only conditions for their existence are the ones we choose to impose ourselves.

How indeed, so how confused must people be to support a party that wants independence yet don't vote for it themselves when the time comes. Of course perhaps independence should be done from a regional perspective rather than Scotland as a whole. Why not let the majority form their own country if they live in a geographically compact state. Scotland's current form is a quirk of history and does not need to continue forward in the same form. It could become independent with different borders, why make it an all or nothing proposition? Or...
perhaps the locals that want independence just have to realise that you don't get to form your own country because you represent a minority viewpoint within your current one.

UKIP are civic nationalists by the way, it's only the far left that say otherwise. Yes, they've soaked up supporters from the BNP since the collapse of that party, but it doesn't make them the BNP, they were around during the time of the BNP when Griffen was predicting their demise and claiming them agents of the government. Time has proved that claim false. Their primary platform is getting away from the dictatorship of the EU.

Computron wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


Every country is just a line on a map, borders are arbitrary; how is that an argument against changing them? If they're arbitrary, then the only conditions for their existence are the ones we choose to impose ourselves.

How indeed, so how confused must people be to support a party that wants independence yet don't vote for it themselves when the time comes. Of course perhaps independence should be done from a regional perspective rather than Scotland as a whole. Why not let the majority form their own country if they live in a geographically compact state. Scotland's current form is a quirk of history and does not need to continue forward in the same form. It could become independent with different borders, why make it an all or nothing proposition? Or...
perhaps the locals that want independence just have to realise that you don't get to form your own country because you represent a minority viewpoint within your current one.

Or perhaps you just have to realise that you're trying to argue against my position by stating my position. Scotland got the opportunity to vote for its independence because people who wanted that independence formed a political party, won a majority with that political party at the level of governance relevant to the polity in question, negotiated the holding of a referendum, and campaigned for it. If Orkney & Shetland, or Glasgow, or the residents of Morningside in Edinburgh do the same, good for them and I would support their inherent right to self-determination.

As for why people would be so "confused" as to vote SNP if they don't support independence; the SNP are also, it might shock you to learn, democrats who support self-determination. Scotland voted to remain within the UK, and the SNP have acknowledged that reality and stated they will put aside their own preference that Scotland become independent until such time as the majority of our population want to put the issue to a vote again, and will focus instead on maximising devolution, something that has been consistently extremely popular in Scotland even among No voters. Given that neither of the two "main" UK parties are particularly hot on the idea of additional devolution, and factoring in that the SNP in government have been the centre-left party that most people up here seem to want while Labour in government were Thatcherites in red ties, is it that difficult to understand why people who want more devolution and a left-leaning government but don't support independence would vote for them?

UKIP are civic nationalists by the way, it's only the far left that say otherwise. Yes, they've soaked up supporters from the BNP since the collapse of that party, but it doesn't make them the BNP, they were around during the time of the BNP when Griffen was predicting their demise and claiming them agents of the government. Time has proved that claim false. Their primary platform is getting away from the dictatorship of the EU.

I think this leg of the conversation must come to an end, because there's no way to properly respond to such a fantastical distortion without stepping outside Rule 1.

Um. Sorry. The conversation has moved on (probably thankfully) from my interjection. But I wanted to say:
Yodhrin: I don't think there is a great single blog for Irish political news, but I do think that the Irish Times is a newspaper that covers things fairly even handedly. The Irish Independent is a rag posing as a broadsheet, but all the quality journalism comes from the Irish Times, if you can get past their focus on Dublin.

They have an excellent Politics Podcast every wednesday, if you're ever out of things to listen to and want to give it a try.

OT, I am reading this all with interest. Some good posts ITT.

"You don't however walk away from the debt, that would be seen as a debt default, a bad first step for s sovereign state."

Actually you can as the debt is the UK's which is still around and you can't transfer it. If you're not part of the UK you're not part of the debt. The SNP did however offer to pay some which they didn't have to do. This was shown during the split of the balkan state's where the both had to agree to a split dependent on the size of said countrie's population's. Other's walked away allowing the original debt holder to pay it all. As is the correct procedure due to international law's.

Scotland couldn't have defaulted on someone else's debt. Scotland would've only have had to have paid any debt's after coming to an agreement with westminster and if they didn't then they could have walked away Scot free lol.

Computron wrote:

UKIP are civic nationalists by the way, it's only the far left that say otherwise. Yes, they've soaked up supporters from the BNP since the collapse of that party, but it doesn't make them the BNP, they were around during the time of the BNP when Griffen was predicting their demise and claiming them agents of the government. Time has proved that claim false. Their primary platform is getting away from the dictatorship of the EU.

This is correct, however its good copy for Labour especially to paint them as racists or fascists.
As for BNP members joining, I doubt they are welcome, but UKIP doesn't have the resources of the established parties for rooting out scumbags, still they get rd of them quickly enough when found. Want to become a Labour or Tory candidate they will get vetting from the security services, UKIP doesn't have those contacts yet

Also dont believe the derp comments on this thread about UKIP being anti EU because of nationalism, they are opposed to the EU because of it's inherent corruption. Farage has been on record about this several times. It generally best to work from recorded quotes and manifestos rather than hearsay.



Farage is mostly interested in the unaccountability of the process of raising high officials to the EU, inclusion of democratis process in the EU, oppositin to squandering and gravy training. He has a point. The people didn't elect Juncker, or other leaders thy were imposed.

The only nationalism that Farage uses is pro democracy. A civic nationalism as you quite rightly state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kryczek wrote:
"You don't however walk away from the debt, that would be seen as a debt default, a bad first step for s sovereign state."

Actually you can as the debt is the UK's which is still around and you can't transfer it. If you're not part of the UK you're not part of the debt. The SNP did however offer to pay some which they didn't have to do. This was shown during the split of the balkan state's where the both had to agree to a split dependent on the size of said countrie's population's. Other's walked away allowing the original debt holder to pay it all. As is the correct procedure due to international law's.

Scotland couldn't have defaulted on someone else's debt. Scotland would've only have had to have paid any debt's after coming to an agreement with westminster and if they didn't then they could have walked away Scot free lol.

Scotland would have to take share of the debt to take share of any assets. Scottish assets are also UK property. If iScotland refuses then during the transitional period the debt would be tied to Scottish assets while still under UK administration.
If Scotland threatened default, I would have 0% trouble with the UK selling off UK oil reserves in what would later be Scottish territorial waters to raise capital to service a portion of the national debt proportionate to Scotlands population. It would be a legal act. The oil fields could be sold with drilling rights to somewhere with the clout to outbully any attempts to nationalise them, China being a good example.
Remember we are in most of this mess because of a Scottish Prime Minister, and Scotland not paying its fair share is not an option.

Blair and Brown were both born in Scotland, Cameron has Scottish ancestors. It's not like people from Scotland don't get represented so quite what the SNP are trying to achieve is anyone's guess. Personal power would be the usual suspect.

Computron wrote:
Blair and Brown were both born in Scotland, Cameron has Scottish ancestors. It's not like people from Scotland don't get represented so quite what the SNP are trying to achieve is anyone's guess. Personal power would be the usual suspect.

To be fair to the SNP, Sturgeon i much better at it than Salmond was.

Alex Salmond was in it for the power trip, and it went to his head.
Nicola Sturgeon is far more competent and responsible. I don't know her motives are, she may well be just as greedy, but if so she hides it better. She is certainly far more dangerous.

Computron wrote:
Blair and Brown were both born in Scotland, Cameron has Scottish ancestors. It's not like people from Scotland don't get represented so quite what the SNP are trying to achieve is anyone's guess. Personal power would be the usual suspect.

I don't think anyone claims that Scottish people are discriminated against in politics. It's more to do with the fact that all the mainstream political parties take a very english-centric view of things with regards to policies, primarily because most of the population lives in England. This leads to Scottish people, like the rest of the North of England, Wales, etc, feeling that they get left out whilst all the funding, big infrastructure projects, and industrial support all goes to London. And unlike say, Newcastle, due to there being a separate sense of nationalism (namely, being Scottish), there's less of a tendency to accept that this status quo is part and parcel of having a democracy (namely, that the weight of your voice in the halls of power should be proportionate to the number of people making that voice). The SNP draw that support from that.

What the personal attributes of the SNP politicians are is almost irrelevant. The grievance is genuine, there are many places in Britain that desperately need investment and some TLC from government. I just wish the SNP embodied less of a 'Feth anyone south of the border' attitude to things.

 Ketara wrote:

I don't think anyone claims that Scottish people are discriminated against in politics. It's more to do with the fact that all the mainstream political parties take a very english-centric view of things with regards to policies, primarily because most of the population lives in England.

I would change that justa tad, Scots are ot discriminated against, but cn be specialsnowflake status from the pointof view of those south of the border. There isnt an acual Englih centric view, there is a London-centric view with counterbalance to look to counteralance attention onto Scotland and to a smaller degree Wales.
Northern Ireland is a different case because of the pece process agreements which locks in place what has been agreed.
However England beyond London, and then a small subsection of london is largely ignored. There is some clout to grant influence and attention on ethnic grounds but that doesn't effect the majority either.

 Ketara wrote:

What the personal attributes of the SNP politicians are is almost irrelevant. The grievance is genuine, there are many places in Britain that desperately need investment and some TLC from government. I just wish the SNP embodied less of a 'Feth anyone south of the border' attitude to things.

Some SNP pokespersns have been very vocal on the feth anything south of the border. When Cameron proposed a day in parliament discussing English only votes to counterbalance a Scottish parliament, shortly after the referendum last year one senior SNP interviewee on BBC news claimed he couldn't care about EVEL, he demanded instead that Cameron solely concern himself with providing increased devolution for Scotland, to him nothing else had any relevance. It did not go down well south of the border. I will try and find a link.
I would go as far as to say a good proportion of the SNP are racist against the English, Salmond certainly was from reports of those whom knew him. He didnt actually like certain types of Scot, notably the landed nobility. This is backed up to an extent from experiences of English people living in Scotland when SNP canvassers come around. One I know was treated by the local SNP like he had an infectious disease.