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.

 Hedgehog wrote:
Quite right, I forgot that 'nationalist' means something different in NI

Well, Sinn Fein are a nationalist party, actually.

So, as I understand it, your political spectrum tends to be the one of two steps left of American politics. Extreme left in The States would be considered center left in the the UK?

I know I could google it, and I will, but I wouldn't mind hearing what the party planks are for the big national political parties in the UK. As I understand it, the left/right binary, in addition to not really mirroring the US, also has some pretty significant shifts with such as Labour's support for foreign intervention etc.

Would love to hear about it from Albatross, MGS, or really any of you guys.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
So, as I understand it, your political spectrum tends to be the one of two steps left of American politics. Extreme left in The States would be considered center left in the the UK?

I know I could google it, and I will, but I wouldn't mind hearing what the party planks are for the big national political parties in the UK. As I understand it, the left/right binary, in addition to not really mirroring the US, also has some pretty significant shifts with such as Labour's support for foreign intervention etc.

Would love to hear about it from Albatross, MGS, or really any of you guys.

I'd like to hear from DreadClaw too...

I suspect we're not THAT different collectively.

Our Conservatives are fiscally about the same as the Republican party. They lack the same stance re social conservatism as the Republicans, mostly due to the Brits not being anything like as religious as the Americans.

Your Democrats would be next in the scale, just slightly to the right wing of our Liberal Democrats, fiscally and also, to an extent, socially, given their reporting to a nation of church goers as opposed to a nation of agnostics.

Then we have the Labour Party, it's on the left of our scale, still fairly middle left on the world stage, but left for us. In recent years it's moved from it's 'hard left' just prior to and during Thatcher's years, to a more palatable mid-left, competing on some issues with the Liberal Democrats and at one stage, during Blair's time, being accused of swinging further to the right than the Liberal Democrats. So, useful pictoral time:


Republicans...Conservatives.....Democrats...Liberal Democrats (UK).......Labour (post Blair)...................Labour (pre Blair)..Social Democrats (German).....................................Communists

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Our Conservatives are fiscally about the same as the Republican party. They lack the same stance re social conservatism as the Republicans, mostly due to the Brits not being anything like as religious as the Americans.

Hmm, fiscally I'd place the Tories somewhere between the Republicans and Democrats, actually. And yeah, I agree with you on the social conservatism thing. Those days are long gone in the Party - most of the new crop are more libertarian (but more pragmatic than US Libertarians) in outlook, and that extends to social liberalism insofar as matters of personal choice are concerned. That's certainly the case in my local Conservative association, though that could be just the area. Manchester is quite a socially progressive and liberal place.

Then we have the Labour Party, it's on the left of our scale, still fairly middle left on the world stage, but left for us. In recent years it's moved from it's 'hard left' just prior to and during Thatcher's years, to a more palatable mid-left, competing on some issues with the Liberal Democrats and at one stage, during Blair's time, being accused of swinging further to the right than the Liberal Democrats.

Yeah, they lurched to the right under the Blair-Brown-Mandelson trifecta. That's what kept the Tories out for so long - how do you fight a more glamourous and appealing version of yourself? That trend appears to be reversing, though probably not fast enough for the core voter-base. They're still far right of where they were prior to Thatcher.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
So, as I understand it, your political spectrum tends to be the one of two steps left of American politics. Extreme left in The States would be considered center left in the the UK?

Yes, I'd go along with that. Saying that, the Tories support the provision of a National Health Service (quiet at the back!), which is considered an extreme leftist trait in US politics, no?

 Albatross wrote:

Yes, I'd go along with that. Saying that, the Tories support the provision of a National Health Service (quiet at the back!), which is considered an extreme leftist trait in US politics, no?

That could be debated... a lot...


But, I'll say this, the NHS is beloved of the people, it is a sacred cow and any party openly saying 'we'll shut that down' would be un-electable. I know several Americans raised eyebrows at the NHS display at the opening of the Olympics, but we really do extol it that much. Parties to the right or left in the UK must be seen to be supportive of it or else.

I'm not sure I'd consider the Labour party particularly left anymore, considering the policies under Brown and Blair. It always seemed to me that in terms of economic and social policy, there was very little remaining of what I would call socialism.

And I can't really see that much has changed now either under Miliband.


Socialism in this country fell to pieces with the breaking of the unions. And in its place, we got PFI contracts, the destruction of the grammar schools, further privatisation of public services, further deregulation of the banks, and cash for honours.

Labour and the Conservative party are basically the same these days (centre right). Labour jeers very loudly about how terrible the Tories are doing, but their manifesto is basically the Conservative one with , 'Nuh-uh!' written next to each of the points, and an exclamation that they would do it all better somehow (with a failure to provide any detail on precisely how). They're both made up of the same rich boys, who went to the same schools, and entered politics straight off the bat as a career.

There no longer is a left in this country in mainstream politics.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm not sure I'd consider the Labour party particularly left anymore, considering the policies under Brown and Blair. It always seemed to me that in terms of economic and social policy, there was very little remaining of what I would call socialism.

And I can't really see that much has changed now either under Miliband.


Socialism in this country fell to pieces with the breaking of the unions. And in its place, we got PFI contracts, the destruction of the grammar schools, further privatisation of public services, further deregulation of the banks, and cash for honours.

Labour and the Conservative party are basically the same these days (centre right). Labour jeers very loudly about how terrible the Tories are doing, but their manifesto is basically the Conservative one with , 'Nuh-uh!' written next to each of the points, and an exclamation that they would do it all better somehow (with a failure to provide any detail on precisely how). They're both made up of the same rich boys, who went to the same schools, and entered politics straight off the bat as a career.

There no longer is a left in this country in mainstream politics.

QFT. Labour doesn't really have any policies or direction just now. And while the Conservatives aren't openly destroying the NHS or our education system, they're slipping little wedges in here there and everywhere to help it fall apart on its own.

'Free schools' being built on the Academies model, for example. The Academies system was set up under New Labour, as a way for extra money to come to struggling inner-city schools, to give them a leg up. First move of Gove, the new Conservative Education Secretary? Give the same status - by force in some cases - to all successful, elite schools that don't need the help. This both reduces the special status and support of those needy schools, pours yet more resources towards the successful, and also reduces the mutual support that schools were able to give each other under the local authorities model due to making them all independent, therefore unionise less... (I was in teacher training when this happened, so still have a bee in my bonnet)

And with regard to the original topic, having lived in rural and urban Scotland, and urban England, I attribute the 'social conservatism' of most Scots primarily to population density. I grew up in central Manchester until I was 9, then moved to a village near Perth - a town of 45K people that serves a wider rural population. Before I moved to Perth I'd never heard anyone use the racist slurs that begin with P & N, or heard any kind of homophobia. I got in a lot of fights because I was convinced I'd moved to 1940's Germany. Then living in places like Glasgow and Bristol again, I came to theorise it's just about population density. Are there no gay or brown people where you live? Then they're the unknown, so they're not really people... say what you like about them, racism and homophobia are a given when living in ignorance and a wee bit of fear. I've just got back from a town in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is an even more rural country, with even less racial diversity - and most young people there couldn't see what was wrong with saying {anagram of Ginger}, because they'd only seen black people on TV... and if they say it all the time in rap songs, it must be ok, right?

Now Scotland's only got half as many people as London, so most of the population is pretty rural. Therefore social conservatism is the norm. It's the same in Taunton, way in the south.

However, Scotland's always been quite a socialist nation, since before socialism existed - I'm guessing part of that is due to just how bloody poor, and bloody proud we've always been. Even our nobles couldn't get very far from the poor bugger working in the field. Our kings were first among equals, not standing above. Admittedly those 'equals' were all nobles, but still, there's a case to be made that it's hardwired into our culture.

Hell, the army was sent to Glasgow in 1919 to stop Scotland becoming a commie state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Battle_of_George_Square

So, to summarise from my rambling, Scotland's politically lefty because it always has been, but socially conservative due to lack of exposure and ignorance.

Oh, and one of the many reasons I'm against leaving the Union... Imagine the sh*tehole England will become when our current cabinet has 30 years of their own way. They're already against the European Court of Human Rights because they want to lower worker's rights. gotta make the rich richer, right? I see it as a humanitarian obligation for Scotland to protect the poor of England from such horrors.

Disclaimer: sorry, I may have expressed many opinions in there. I've tried not to have a rant but I might've. I don't want to start a big argument.

Perth isn't exactly the most racially diverse place, I grew up there but it was getting more diversity in the last couple of years

I've only been back 2 weeks, so I haven't seen much of a change yet. I went to the grammar from 96 to 02 so I'm sure you can imagine the enlightened souls I encountered...

I basically would have to agree with Ketara and Captain Roderick.

The Labour Party under Blair/Brown was more like the Tory Party than the traditional socialist party of the mid-20th century.

The Conservatives, though, dare not openly attack the NHS or education system and have simply continued the subtle chipping away that was done under the previous Labour government. (Increasing university fees, for example, and handing the spending contracts to GPs instead of unit trusts.)

On the other hand, socially the Conservatives are not very conservative. They pay lip service to the importance of marriage while doing nothing practical to support it in terms of the tax code. They are relaxed about gay marriage and abortion, for instance. (In general, obviously there are Conservatives who oppose all that. I am talking about practical government policy.)

 Captain Roderick wrote:
I've only been back 2 weeks, so I haven't seen much of a change yet. I went to the grammar from 96 to 02 so I'm sure you can imagine the enlightened souls I encountered...

I went there as well, there has been a couple more Kenyan families move there but not much else (And I hate the muirton 'people')

Small world! I suppose another aspect of British Social Conservatism might come from our desperate need to classify everyone... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973

And I managed to get on with those classified as 'Minks' in the end, but Perth is anything *but* ethnically diverse.

 Ketara wrote:
Labour jeers very loudly about how terrible the Tories are doing, but their manifesto is basically the Conservative one with , 'Nuh-uh!' written next to each of the points, and an exclamation that they would do it all better somehow (with a failure to provide any detail on precisely how)

That's just being in opposition, people accused Cameron of exactly the same thing before he took office.

 Albatross wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:
Quite right, I forgot that 'nationalist' means something different in NI

Well, Sinn Fein are a nationalist party, actually.

More Irish Republican. The SDLP would be Nationalist

 dæl wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Labour jeers very loudly about how terrible the Tories are doing, but their manifesto is basically the Conservative one with , 'Nuh-uh!' written next to each of the points, and an exclamation that they would do it all better somehow (with a failure to provide any detail on precisely how)

That's just being in opposition, people accused Cameron of exactly the same thing before he took office.

Very true, but at least Cameron had a theme to his 'nuh-uh'ing. He constantly rambled on about waste. While it was an important new article yesterday that Milliband actually said he would spend more than the Coalition. Because up until now, even that hadn't been made clear. That should be pretty obvious. 'Our symbol's a rose, and we're red, and we spend more than Tories, right?'

That shows Labour are getting their act together. It's a normal part of the political process.

 Captain Roderick wrote:

Oh, and one of the many reasons I'm against leaving the Union... Imagine the sh*tehole England will become when our current cabinet has 30 years of their own way. They're already against the European Court of Human Rights because they want to lower worker's rights. gotta make the rich richer, right? I see it as a humanitarian obligation for Scotland to protect the poor of England from such horrors.

The horrors of democracy? Jog on, you patronising idiot. You're living in a fantasy world.

I am always momentarily surprised when people break Rule #1 of Dakka. No personal attacks is part of Rule #1. - Lorek

It's not like those great Scottish socialist humanitarians have prevented several generations of Scotland's youth from slipping into benefit dependent smack-addled squalor, is it?

 dæl wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Labour jeers very loudly about how terrible the Tories are doing, but their manifesto is basically the Conservative one with , 'Nuh-uh!' written next to each of the points, and an exclamation that they would do it all better somehow (with a failure to provide any detail on precisely how)

That's just being in opposition, people accused Cameron of exactly the same thing before he took office.

Not convinced of that, at least with regards to the last election anyway.

The economy was just beginning its slide, and we were playing off Brown vs Cameron. In terms of economic policy, there was a substantial difference. Brown wanted to borrow even more exceptionally large and staggering sums of money to kick-start the economy, Cameron wanted to do the opposite and reduce the deficit. You'll note that it turned out after the election that apparently Brown had thought the whole thing would blow over in ten months.

Cameron also disagreed with Labour with regards to the open door immigration policy (something which has been severely cracked down upon during their time in power thus far).


As Brown's idea has been proved wrong, Miliband hasn't really been left with anywhere to run on economic policy. He can't say cutting the deficit is a bad idea, as its blatantly obvious ramping up more debt is bad by this stage of the game. So instead, all he can do is mumble something about how he wouldn't have done it so hard and fast, and try and change the subject.

The facts are pretty simple though. Like the Labour Government prior to Thatcher, the last Labour Government ridiculously overspent, and now we as a nation have to deal with ten to fifteen years of poverty and hardship whilst we get our house in order. Then the boom will start again. All the parties are aware of this, but saying, 'We're all economically screwed for the next eight years regardless' doesn't win many votes.

I'd vote for that party. I reckon more people would than either group expects.

New Labour was bloody awful though. Their paw prints all over education were a pretty distressing part of teaching in the UK, and the weirdo management drone types that got ahead in that environment, well, the less said the better.

I don't like the Tories much at all, either, and I think they showboat a lot. But I don't know that I wouldn't have voted for them, last election, if I'd been able to.

What's the Scottish Independence Party like when it comes to left/right? I assume sort of lefty, since most scots are like that anyway, and they're ridiculously populist?

From what I've seen of the SNP their only real policy is get independence - the rest of their policies are vote-currying exercises. That does mean that, being in Scotland, they're pretty liberal.

I'm sure someone could pick that statement apart though, it's just an opinion based on what I've noticed myself.

Albatross - thanks for that. I'm guessing you're for reducing worker's rights then?

 Albatross wrote:
Jog on, you patronising idiot.

The irony is palpable.

The SNP are an odd case, I find. You've got the whole independence bluster thing from the leadership of the party but then the actual candidates seem rather different.

To indulge in some stereotypes....

You've got the labour candidates, backed by some shifty unions.
You've got the Tory candidates backed by some shifty investment firms or old money or whatever.

Then you've got the SNP guy, who can very well be described as a 'typical' Scot, with all the challenges and maybe even advantages that entails... Eg close family with drink/drug problems and having to deal with that in their lives, or being made redundant before going into politics or other 'normal' stuff that means they're more on the same level as the voters.

I have to say that the desperate bid to get Scottish independence by making it so that the hothead, easily led 16 and 17 year old group can vote was a pretty low move.

Ah well, I very much doubt even that will get them a yes. If somehow it does, I really hope that our government bargains hard to look out for the rest of the UK rather than just caving to anything Scotland wants (like it probably will).

I have to say that the desperate bid to get Scottish independence by making it so that the hothead, easily led 16 and 17 year old group can vote was a pretty low move.

It was lower by not giving proper Devolution in the first place, which is why the Independence movement is growing fast.

In fact, it was discriminatory.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Jog on, you patronising idiot.

The irony is palpable.

Not really, Albatross is a fairly sensible guy (at least what I've read from him) he's just at times get's a little heated or acts strange with certain things (but then again who doesn't).

The SNP is the perfect example of a party gaining power by promoting divisiveness and infighting. Their entire manifesto is written on the basis of, 'screw the English, and educate the young that the English have screwed us so they vote for us'. I've heard that anti-english sentiments have grown far worse in the last ten years in Scotland than they were forty odd years ago, and they're one of the primary causes. That and Braveheart.


Despite all that, I don't think that the Scots will go independent. They may be antagonistic towards their southern neighbours (who bizarely have nothing but affection for them), but they know which side their bread is buttered on. Without the political and economic clout of Great Britain, they're reduced to a two bit second world nation that won't be able to afford all those lovely healthcare, benefits, and education perks they currently enjoy.


I find it quite entertaining that after the EU told them they'd have to re-apply and the euro crashed, Salmond suddenly has this great idea that they'll retain the sterling as a currency. Considering the controls for that particular money are set within the bank of England, it would hardly be a good mark of 'independence, allowing your inflation rates and more to be controlled by another power.

No, I'm 95% certain that the Union will hold together. Had there been a devo max option, that would undoubtedly have won out, but full independence? Too many problems at just about every level for it to be worth the bother for the average scot.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
It was lower by not giving proper Devolution in the first place, which is why the Independence movement is growing fast.

So you can't take one step at a time? Everything has to be all or nothing?

In fact, it was discriminatory.

Rightyho...

So you can't take one step at a time? Everything has to be all or nothing?

One step at a time is fine, but what should be done then if nothing is happening to improve the rate of Devolution? No other party has anything about this on their manifesto so its not surprising the SNP is doing well.

Perhaps other parties should start looking at this seriously if they want to save the union.

 Ketara wrote:
The SNP is the perfect example of a party gaining power by promoting divisiveness and infighting. Their entire manifesto is written on the basis of, 'screw the English, and educate the young that the English have screwed us so they vote for us'. I've heard that anti-english sentiments have grown far worse in the last ten years in Scotland than they were forty odd years ago, and they're one of the primary causes. That and Braveheart.

Despite all that, I don't think that the Scots will go independent. They may be antagonistic towards their southern neighbours (who bizarely have nothing but affection for them), but they know which side their bread is buttered on. Without the political and economic clout of Great Britain, they're reduced to a two bit second world nation that won't be able to afford all those lovely healthcare, benefits, and education perks they currently enjoy.

I find it quite entertaining that after the EU told them they'd have to re-apply and the euro crashed, Salmond suddenly has this great idea that they'll retain the sterling as a currency. Considering the controls for that particular money are set within the bank of England, it would hardly be a good mark of 'independence, allowing your inflation rates and more to be controlled by another power.

No, I'm 95% certain that the Union will hold together. Had there been a devo max option, that would undoubtedly have won out, but full independence? Too many problems at just about every level for it to be worth the bother for the average scot.

I actually find the Scots and the Welsh to be deluded moaning minnies tbh. They can currently influence politics in England via Parliament and have their own governments so that the English cannot do the same.

As a Cornishman, all I and most other Cornish I know have ever wanted was a colour change on the map and the same recognition they already enjoyed. Recognition of our status as a country of Great Britain instead of a county of England.

They should count their blessings, realize it's a big world and they have far more in common with the English and each other and hold Great Britain together as greater than the sum of it's parts.