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.

 Orlanth wrote:
You are in the United Kingdom.

For now.

Two things:

1. Why does everybody in this thread dislike UKIP so much?

2. About the difference between leftwing and rightwing politics what I have read about different countries and their political systems it seems to be a pattern that economic and political stagnation are common in left wing countries. Albeit rightwing politics also have their fair share of problems, but a right leaning mixed economy seems to be the best option.

The Green began with a very bad start. Announcing their republicanism ideology in the wrong time (but maybe right space) where the world is on The Baby Princess hype! so AFAIK they got FOUR.

The Labour might enter its own 'reform' program soon, the party lost the election since the end of Tony Blair era. Did his hawkish policy doomed The Labour?

 Sienisoturi wrote:

1. Why does everybody in this thread dislike UKIP so much?

2. About the difference between leftwing and rightwing politics what I have read about different countries and their political systems it seems to be a pattern that economic and political stagnation are common in left wing countries. Albeit rightwing politics also have their fair share of problems, but a right leaning mixed economy seems to be the best option.

1. UKIP, when they have been given seats (as in the European elections) have proven that they do not do the work they were sent to do (they have the worst voting record in the whole thing). Add to that that the party has more than it's share of racist nutbags, sexist nutbags and general nutbags, and UKIP begin to look a little shady. Some of their ideas are probably pretty decent, and the decent ideas will probably be co-opted by less embarrassingly tone deaf parties in future.

2. I'd say a left leaning country is a nicer place to live, I don't see political stagnation as being related to left or right wing views. Germany is pretty politically stagnant, and it's a centre-right leaning country. I'd argue that's more to do with demographics (Germany is full of cranky old people) than it is to do with political ideology. No doubt we could argue this back and forth with argument and counter argument, but I would say that I'm generally okay with a "centre-something" government, even if I'd prefer centre-left over centre-right. To me, the Tories are a proper right wing party, and do not occupy what I consider to be the centre ground.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
You are in the United Kingdom.

For now.

Do you think you are going to get another referendum from a Con majority Government?

Perhaps after 2020.

Depends on how much more of a victim complex the SNP can push.

Personally I'm looking forward to the SNP being shut out and for them to hopefully evaporate as quickly as they have surged to power.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Do you think you are going to get another referendum from a Con majority Government?

No, but the foundations are built and now all we need to do is build the rest of the structure. If the SNP had come up with a realistic currency plan before the indyref there is a good chance that Scotland would soon be leaving the Union. As it is Yes support has held steady at around 50% and I am sure that the SNP will do everything in their power to capitalise on their political and popular success.

The direction of travel is clear and the clock is ticking.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Do you think you are going to get another referendum from a Con majority Government?

No, but the foundations are built and now all we need to do is build the rest of the structure. If the SNP had come up with a realistic currency plan before the indyref there is a good chance that Scotland would soon be leaving the Union. As it is Yes support has held steady at around 50% and I am sure that the SNP will do everything in their power to capitalise on their political and popular success.

The direction of travel is clear and the clock is ticking.

You do realise the price of oil just crashed right? If the SNP come into power and independence rules, taxes will have to go up a fair bit.


@ Da Boss

What do you think the outcome would be of Britain leaving, both for Britain and the EU?

 reds8n wrote:
Oh :





Gracious as ever there George !

edit :

http://news.channel4.com/election2015/05/08/update-5634/

.. WTF ?

Good riddance George!!

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Do you think you are going to get another referendum from a Con majority Government?

No, but the foundations are built and now all we need to do is build the rest of the structure. If the SNP had come up with a realistic currency plan before the indyref there is a good chance that Scotland would soon be leaving the Union. As it is Yes support has held steady at around 50% and I am sure that the SNP will do everything in their power to capitalise on their political and popular success.

The direction of travel is clear and the clock is ticking.

That's a timebomb you're hearing mate.

It's counting down to the ruination of Scotland at the hands of the SNP.

 Ketara wrote:


You do realise the price of oil just crashed right?

Whats your point? The oil market is inherently volatile, oil fields are finite and Scotland makes only a fraction of its GDP from oil.

Oil prices are rising, there are large and currently untapped fields of the West coast (estimated to be worth £1trillon) and most importantly of all Scotland would be a prosperous country even without oil.

There will be economic uncertainty in the early years of any independent nation although it is highly likely to be fairly short lived in the case of Scotland. There will probably be tax rises in an Independent Scotland as well (there should be tax rises in the UK as a whole anyway). That's a small price to pay though.

 Medium of Death wrote:

It's counting down to the ruination of Scotland at the hands of the SNP.

Well the Tories managed that already, at least Scots actually voted for the SNP.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

It's counting down to the ruination of Scotland at the hands of the SNP.

Well the Tories managed that already, at least Scots actually voted for the SNP.

In what sense?

How is voting for a party that will pass debt on to the next generation a good move for Scotland?

Reduced prices on low remaining amounts of oil.

Wanting to take land off of the landowners.

A party that requires an oath and seeks a one party state.

A party that preaches, or at least actively fosters, English hatred.

 Medium of Death wrote:

A party that preaches, or at least actively fosters, English hatred.

LOL

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

A party that preaches, or at least actively fosters, English hatred.

LOL

Can't refute it can you.

Ketara:
Hmmm. Good question. I don't really know what to expect if it happens, but here's what I think MIGHT happen.
- Britain suffers economically as the EU is not going to let them leave without a fairly heavy price in terms of trade, and you guys have a trade deficit with the EU. The two million (?) brits living in the EU will be put in a difficult position, though I would hope arrangements would be made for them. Similar for Europeans living in the UK. It's possible I'm wrong, and the savings you guys make on not being part of the Union make up for the costs of leaving though. Too complicated for me to know.
- The EU suffers politically, perhaps disintegrating in slow motion as the British exit emboldens Eurosceptics in other countries to press for the same thing. This is the worst outcome in my opinion, and one reason why I am so against a british exit. Most likely, we would end up with a shrunken Union, and I'm not sure which countries would stay in.
- From a selfish point of view, I think it would be a definite negative for Ireland, since you guys are sort of "in the way" for us in all of our interactions with the continent (diplomatically as well as geographically). Ireland is pretty pro-EU and has done well out of it, the last 5 years notwithstanding, but Britain is our biggest trading partner, emigration destination and source of immigrants. I've no doubt a british exit would complicate matters in the North, and make it more difficult for us to trade with the EU. Most likely we'd have to make a whole load of new agreements with Britain, which would be a bit of an administrative nightmare for us if other countries in the EU didn't do the same.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Can't refute it can you.

Show me anything from the SNP that supports your claim. Anything.

On the other hand this election campaign has introduced the term 'jockophobia' into the lexicon.

 Ketara wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Do you think you are going to get another referendum from a Con majority Government?

No, but the foundations are built and now all we need to do is build the rest of the structure. If the SNP had come up with a realistic currency plan before the indyref there is a good chance that Scotland would soon be leaving the Union. As it is Yes support has held steady at around 50% and I am sure that the SNP will do everything in their power to capitalise on their political and popular success.

The direction of travel is clear and the clock is ticking.

You do realise the price of oil just crashed right? If the SNP come into power and independence rules, taxes will have to go up a fair bit.

You do realise it's already recovered to approx $70/barrel, right? And that as a commodity it has always trended upwards over time despite large fluctuations, right? And that the fact we're so vulnerable to those fluctuations is a failure of the UK state to properly manage that resource and so is, in fact, a point in favour of us controlling those decisions ourselves in future, right? And perhaps most importantly that the SNP have very specifically NOT fought this campaign on a platform of independence, right?

Seriously, that last point needs to be hammered into people's heads, particularly the media; the only people banging on about independence during this election campaign were Unionists. The SNP only ever discussed it when it was brought up by others, and only then to state outright that even all 59 seats would not be seen as a mandate for independence or for calling another referendum, and that there would have to be substantial and material change in the circumstances of the UK and its relationship to Scotland before they would even consider proposing one. The SNP won this election by running on an anti-austerity, anti-Trident, anti-Tory, pro-more-devolution platform and they won it with over 50% of the popular vote. People have to pull their heads out of the sand and stop believing this is some frivolous protest vote, transient fever of nationalism, or mass delusion because the SNP aren't going anywhere, and that applies doubly so for Unionists because at this point pretty much the only two things that could push Scotland out of the UK are an utterly massive chasm of voting disparity between Scotland and rUK come the EU referendum(which is unlikely), or pig-headed Unionists continuing to patronise the SNP and those who voted for them.

EDIT: Don't bother Puffin, when it comes to the SNP MoD is just not interested in anything other than the fantastical imagined version of the party he has in his mind's eye.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Do you think you are going to get another referendum from a Con majority Government?

No, but the foundations are built and now all we need to do is build the rest of the structure. If the SNP had come up with a realistic currency plan before the indyref there is a good chance that Scotland would soon be leaving the Union. As it is Yes support has held steady at around 50% and I am sure that the SNP will do everything in their power to capitalise on their political and popular success.

The direction of travel is clear and the clock is ticking.

You miss the point of the referendum.
Yes or No the decision is FINAL.

I just read this whole thread! WOW... you guys are DEEP!

Good stuff.

 Orlanth wrote:

Yes or No the decision is FINAL.

There is no such thing as a FINAL referendum. They are called according to the prevailing political winds, there will be another referrendum on Scottish independence unless the support for the Yes camp dwindles away to almost nothing. That isn't going to be happening for the foreseeable future. It won't be for a good few years (unless we are forced out of the EU) but I am optimistic that Scotland will be a Sovereign nation again within my lifetime.

The ball is in David Cameron's court though, lets see if he fumbles it.

 Da Boss wrote:
Ketara:
Hmmm. Good question. I don't really know what to expect if it happens, but here's what I think MIGHT happen.
- Britain suffers economically as the EU is not going to let them leave without a fairly heavy price in terms of trade, and you guys have a trade deficit with the EU. The two million (?) brits living in the EU will be put in a difficult position, though I would hope arrangements would be made for them. Similar for Europeans living in the UK. It's possible I'm wrong, and the savings you guys make on not being part of the Union make up for the costs of leaving though. Too complicated for me to know.
- The EU suffers politically, perhaps disintegrating in slow motion as the British exit emboldens Eurosceptics in other countries to press for the same thing. This is the worst outcome in my opinion, and one reason why I am so against a british exit. Most likely, we would end up with a shrunken Union, and I'm not sure which countries would stay in.
- From a selfish point of view, I think it would be a definite negative for Ireland, since you guys are sort of "in the way" for us in all of our interactions with the continent (diplomatically as well as geographically). Ireland is pretty pro-EU and has done well out of it, the last 5 years notwithstanding, but Britain is our biggest trading partner, emigration destination and source of immigrants. I've no doubt a british exit would complicate matters in the North, and make it more difficult for us to trade with the EU. Most likely we'd have to make a whole load of new agreements with Britain, which would be a bit of an administrative nightmare for us if other countries in the EU didn't do the same.

If we can ensure that we're no worse off financially then, doesn't it logically make sense for us to do so? Or do you think it comes down to more than pure economics? And why do you think a federalist EU superstate is a good thing? I'm genuinely curious here, think of it as a chance to potentially persuade an undecided voter in the upcoming referendum.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Yes or No the decision is FINAL.

There is no such thing as a FINAL referendum. They are called according to the prevailing political winds, there will be another referrendum on Scottish independence unless the support for the Yes camp dwindles away to almost nothing.

No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted. No more special snowflake. Sturgeon's comments of Scotland will no longer be ignored must be backed by equality for all rather than regional privilege, Scots are entitled to no more a share of the pot as any other Briton, greater devolution for Scotland must go hand in hand with greater devolution for the whole UK the ending of the West Lothian question, and not a jot less.
There was no referendum in 1707 which justified the need for one now. However just referenda are not a case of repeat until one side gets the outcome it wants.

Oh man! Big ask. I'll do my best!
Well, yeah, I do think it comes down to more than a financial decision. Ultimately, the EU has meant there have been no armed conflicts between the various member states since it's introduction. We've had peace in Europe (at least, those parts in the EU) for longer than ever before in history. It's easy to dismiss this, or say it's due to other factors, but I think the closer ties between EU states economically, socially and politically are the main driver, and the EU facilitates all of that.

Elements within the EU are destructive to citizens interests, no argument on that from me, but I would argue that it's main actions have been positives for the people of Europe. Free movement of labour is a good thing in my case, and the intermixing of cultures it facilitates is the best thing (though as a fella engaged to a German lady I would say that )
The EU has championed consumer protection and data protection when national governments were slow to do so.
Though it is a separate institution, it comes up in these arguments a lot, and I would say the ECHR is a tremendous force for good in the main, allowing people who are not getting a fair hearing from their state governments to appeal to another body to get some help.

In the modern world, we need to connect more to each other and be more open to co-operation, not close ourselves off. Europe has the chance to make a bigger positive impact on the world if we work together than if we act as a bunch of separate and competing interests.

Despite what many say, the EU has also been a great force against inequality - Ireland was a backward, practically Third World nation before we joined, ruled by a theocratic and backward status quo. Not only did joining the EU do wonders for us economically due to help with structural funds and so on, it also opened us to trade with others and helped our economy open up. We developed socially and are now more progressive than we've ever been. I see this as a good thing, others may disagree.

Though we may find the movement of people between Eastern and Western Europe with irritation, it provides the same broadening of perspectives and helps to winnow away at inequality.

I'm sure I may eventually think of more to say, but that is the thrust of my argument- the EU is not an economic project but a social one, and though it is not perfect by a long way, on balance it's influence has been more positive than negative.

Edited to Add: On the federalist angle- the current crisis and democratic deficit in the EU, the technocratic way things are handled and the general feeling of disconnect from the EU are all huge problems. Rather than pull apart and destroy the union, I think the best way to confront these issues is with a much stronger pull together, where the issues can be addressed thoughtfully and carefully and proper democratic structures can be put in place to protect the interests of different regions. The current system works to an extent, but the Euro Crisis showed that national interests are not always going to lead us down the right path. I would prefer a proper federal arrangement with responsibilities, powers and roles properly spelled out, bringing us closer together and resolving the issues at the same time. Ambitious maybe, but why settle for anything less?

The democratic deficit in the EU is not felt only by the British, of course. There are more ways to address than than getting out.

But as regards referenda, if the Scottish one is definitive we don't need another EU membership referendum and Cameron has already broken is first promise.

Orlanth, referendum decisions are not set in stone. The UK had a referendum on joining the EU, now it's going to have one on leaving it. If the original had been set in stone, we wouldn't be here. People change, situations change. If the rUK votes to leave the EU, but Scotland votes to stay in, then that's justification for another independence referendum in my view.

Ketara, in reply to a point you made earlier, you're making the classic mistake of thinking that because London and the SE have a problem with immigration, then the whole of the UK has a problem with immigration. It doesn't Scotland's population is ageing, and only recently did it reverse population decline. It needs some immigration. There is no, one size fits all immigration policy for the UK.

Back to the main point I wanted to make. The next 5 years are a dream come true for the SNP. Anything that goes right in Scotland, the SNP claim credit. Anything goes wrong, blame it on the Tories and tell people that we warned you this would happen if you voted no.

The SNP can't lose. They are the plucky underdog standing up to the 'cruel' Tories in London. It's a narrative that will play well in Scotland. If Westminster takes a hard stance, it only boosts the independence cause. If Westminster grants more powers to Edinburgh, it only hastens the path to independence.

If the Tories were serious, I'm sure they could craft a plan in time to stymie the SNP, but time is something Cameron doesn't have.

Why, because he made the blunder of saying he will stand down in a couple of years, thus weakening his authority,

and

If the Conservatives do what I suspect they'll do, then Tory backbenchers will distract Dave with their fixation on the EU. I can see the SNP taking advantage of this distraction. Dave's fighting a war on two fronts. He may not win.

I am not sure the EU can claim the credit for the lack of war - I think the aftermath of WWII including the Marshall Plan and the Cold "War" that followed prevented a "Hot" war not the EU - - be better to complement NATO than the EU in this case?

I am not against imagration - its almost always been a good and neccesary thing - I am hoeever deeply suspicious of the EU politcal and governmental system - its bad enough trying to find out and do something about the corruption in our own parliment - let alone a massive and dubiuously funded institution that wanders between two massive palaces built to celebrate the EU's excess?.

I am not even against a Federal Europe - IF it actually looked like it was going to be better than what we have in nation state s- but it appears to be a even deeper cess pool with even less chance of being drained.

What is a general election but a recurring referendum on the conduct of the government?

 Orlanth wrote:

No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.

No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.

The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The democratic deficit in the EU is not felt only by the British, of course. There are more ways to address than than getting out.

But as regards referenda, if the Scottish one is definitive we don't need another EU membership referendum and Cameron has already broken is first promise.

I'm working on the assumption that you remember the Major years when Tory backbenchers made his life hell. I can see that happening again. Cameron will not have his troubles to seek.

But the referendum will happen. The idea that the French and Germans will cave in to British demands on EU regulations is laughable nonsense IMO

and even if they did, some Tories like John Redwood will never be satisfied.

If Dave doesn't give the Tories their referendum, he's toast. They got rid of Thatcher, they'll have no hesitation of giving Dave the boot.

Yes, you are very correct, of course Cameron will probably have a lot of trouble from his anti-EU backbenchers especially now the UKIP safety valve has been welded shut for a few years.

The reason I mentioned the EU referendum was to contrast people's attitudes on re-running a referendum depending on whether the first result suited them or not.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.

No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.

The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?

Scotland has already had one referendum, until most of the people who voted in that referendum are dead, they shouldn't get another.

I'm also of the view that the whole of the UK should decide if Scotland can stay or go. You willingly entered this union, it should be up to the union to finish it.

At least your country wasn't conquered. And if Scotland is so intent on going back to the old ways, then Wales should get the lands that were taken by the English, which is most of the west.