Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Nmaro Makari on 30 Mar 2014, 13:47
-
Additional questions for everyone:
Answer some, all or none.
Most of us, certainly in the UK are aware that Scotland will be holding its referendum in September on secession and independence.
1) What do you think the result will be?
2) What do you hope it will be? (as the poll asks)
3) Will the European Elections (held approximately 4 months before) have an impact on the debate?
4) In the event of a yes, is it the end of the UK?
5) In the event of a no, is it the end of the independence movement?
BONUS QUESTION
Theory: "The Union is broken. How do we fix it?"
-
As an ignorant American of Scoto-Norman descent, I'm interested in the outcome of this referendum, but other than googling 'editorial scottish independence', I am not well-versed in the particulars of the debate. As the First Minister said, a highly complex set of negotiations would follow the referendum, comprised of many moving pieces.
-
1) What do you think the result will be?
65/30 No/yes
2) What do you hope it will be? (as the poll asks)
a strong No.
3) Will the European Elections (held approximately 4 months before) have an impact on the debate?
Maybe.
4) In the event of a yes, is it the end of the UK?
It screws things up for everyone.
5) In the event of a no, is it the end of the independence movement?
No, they've already said that they'll continue pressing for more referendums, until people "vote correctly".
The pro-independence movement contains some of the worst elements in contemporary Scotland. Including advocates of sharia law. This is because the pro-independence movement believes that "identity politics" is the key to this referendum, and have recruited members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organisation outlawed for terrorism, as experts in "identity politics". That is to say, creation of an "Us and Them" ideology. Whoever is not for independence is "Not Scottish".
It is the literal use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, unironically.
Remember that the Scottish National Party has its roots in parties that opposed the war on Nazi Germany, even after the events of Krystallnacht, the invasion of Poland, the extermination camps, all of that was "Englands imperial wars, nothing to do with Scotland".
The Nationalists wish to erase Scottish Lowland culture. Millions of pounds for Gaelic education, but not a penny for Scots language, the language of Robert Burns, the national bard. They trumpeted the opening of a Gaelic language school in Ayrshire, when Ayrshire was never Gaelic. It is an attempt to erase cultures that do not fit the nationalist myth of the oppressed Gael.
A common tactic of the Nationalists is to say that anyone who disagrees is "ill educated", and "doesn't know the real history". They seek to control the teaching of history, to create a national mythos, where the "truth" is taught to all. The "truth" of "hundreds of years of oppression". Where have we seen this before? The Balkans are the extreme example in modern times.
The Nationalists have just recently, written into law that all parents are suspected child molestors. Every family doctor, every school teacher, now has a statutory responsibility to inform the police and child protection services if they suspect abuse is occurring. There are named persons who have a legal responsibility to ensure that children are being "brought up correctly". The Nationalists say this "protects children", and is needed because of a handful of prominent abuse cases in recent years. It is nothing of the sort. It insults every parent, and there will be a great deal many parents who will be accused of abuse, because of the way the system works. By putting in a statutory responsibility to inform, then a family doctor cannot give a parent the benefit of the doubt. A bruise from falling out a tree, has to be reported, if only to cover the doctor's statutory responsibility, because they cannot jeopardise their career if they do not report things. Same for teachers - if a child has a bruise, it gets reported as abuse, because the teachers cannot risk their careers. So a whole lot of children are going to be taken into the care system for bruises from playing. And in the care system, as can be repeatedly seen on numerous occasions, the children end up being more at risk.
There's a lot more too.
-
I wouldn't mind embracing new Scotland in the big unhappy european family :P
-
The people pushing for Scottish independence then hoping to keep the pound strikes me as the same of making a big deal out of moving out of your parents' house but then moving into their guest cottage in the backyard.
As an outside relatively neutral observer, hope it doesnt go through. Think it would hurt everyone in the former Great Britain, including Scots.
-
1) What do you think the result will be?
To remain unified.
2) What do you hope it will be? (as the poll asks)
Continued solvency of the United Kingdom.
3) Will the European Elections (held approximately 4 months before) have an impact on the debate?
I doubt it.
4) In the event of a yes, is it the end of the UK?
By definition.
5) In the event of a no, is it the end of the independence movement?
No, because plenty of people continue to fight for lost causes the world over.
The movement does not make a whole lot of sense in the grand scheme of things since Europe is slowly moving further away from nation-states having sovereignty anyway. Scotland becoming "independent" of England has a whole lot of negatives and not a lot of positives going for it from an uninformed outsiders perspective. Unless it goes really into the negative category, chasing after weird neutrality, anti-West, type alliances, I really do not see what is to be gained other than pursuit of a "historical ideal," which is not real.
-
Every family doctor, every school teacher, now has a statutory responsibility to inform the police and child protection services if they suspect abuse is occurring. There are named persons who have a legal responsibility to ensure that children are being "brought up correctly". The Nationalists say this "protects children", and is needed because of a handful of prominent abuse cases in recent years. It is nothing of the sort. It insults every parent, and there will be a great deal many parents who will be accused of abuse, because of the way the system works. By putting in a statutory responsibility to inform, then a family doctor cannot give a parent the benefit of the doubt. A bruise from falling out a tree, has to be reported, if only to cover the doctor's statutory responsibility, because they cannot jeopardise their career if they do not report things. Same for teachers - if a child has a bruise, it gets reported as abuse, because the teachers cannot risk their careers. So a whole lot of children are going to be taken into the care system for bruises from playing.
I was with you up until this part.
For perhaps more years than I've been alive, Australia has had mandatory reporting laws when doctors and teachers suspect child abuse or neglect. None of the slippery slope arguments you are making have come to pass.
It has, within Australia, identified children at risk in the tens of thousands per annum.
It is not done on a whimsical 'child fell out of tree, must report it' basis. It follows a process of clinical judgement (in the case of trained doctors) and observational analysis (in the case of trained teachers). While hardly perfect in its specificity or sensitivity, this reporting process does form the basis for the first part of a safety net that includes further investigation (usually with the child and parents kept anonymous from the community by the government departments responsible for said investigation) and referral to police should it be found that there's sufficient likelihood of a child at risk and/or a criminal case to answer.
It is still not a perfect system - human systems never are. It is however a satisfactory system that identifies a large number of children at risk without significant numbers of innocent parents being unjustly accused or exposed before the criminal system.
Childhood abuse and neglect can cause significant long-term harm and is usually not reported by the child in question. Amongst other negatives, it leads to high rates of social and academic learning difficulties, higher rates of criminal offending and a high likelihood of eating disorders, substance abuse and depression. The latter of course are associated with elevated risk of self-harm and suicide above and beyond that found in the general population.
My own opinion as a medical professional is that the rights of the child to safety and protection supercede that of the parents or any other individual within the community. If, based on my own clinical judgement and expertise, I decide I am looking at a potential case of child abuse which I suspect (based on that same clinical judgement) to have been committed by someone responsible for the child's safety, there should never be a 'benefit of the doubt' for that adult.
Your nation or Scotland's proposed system may well be different from the one outlined above, Lou, but in my experience mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect really isn't the knee-jerk or 'It's my career on the line' reaction you're suggesting it might be.
And it does protect a lot of children with no voice of their own from a horrendous childhood experience that will likely impact significantly on the future quality and outcomes of their lives.
Addit: Also, sorry for going off-topic here.
-
yes Ollie, but in Australia, is every child assigned a civil servant who will record details of their life, onto a central government database ? which is exempt from Freedom of Information requests ?
Does the Australian government believe that "the community" should raise a child, rather than that child's parents ? Does the Australian government issue documents which state that the aim is to reduce parental rights and responsibilities, in favour of Government civil servants ? (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400779/SNP-bill-to-spy-on-parents-is-criticised-by-families)
-
Is that a bad thing ?
-
Is that a bad thing ?
It depends on what you think of other ideas.
Do you think parents have a responsibility to care for and raise children they have and should have the ultimate say in the child's up-bringing? Do you think the state should keep secret documents on innocents?
-
given that local authorities in Scotland have abused powers in the past, such as using Anti-Terrorism laws to install hidden cameras in employees houses, in order to look for evidence that the employee was leaving work 10 minutes early, then I think I have the right to consider secret central government databases where the details of what information is held and who has access to it are not revealed, a bad thing.
While the Express is sometimes an alarmist newspaper, I'm not sure why any government agency would need to know the name of a child's pet.
-
I was asking more from a purely academic point. About the responsibilities of parents in the upbringing of their children, I mean, not on security/databases vs individual privacy.
Out of a purely rational view, experts in raising children would prove a lot more efficient than parents that obviously are amateurs in such things (considering the results in half of the cases, it's not always pretty). However, it has to be taken in account the emotionnal side of the whole process, which makes it a complicated issue as a whole.
And very taboo too.
-
yes Ollie, but in Australia, is every child assigned a civil servant who will record details of their life, onto a central government database ? which is exempt from Freedom of Information requests ?
Does the Australian government believe that "the community" should raise a child, rather than that child's parents ? Does the Australian government issue documents which state that the aim is to reduce parental rights and responsibilities, in favour of Government civil servants ? (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400779/SNP-bill-to-spy-on-parents-is-criticised-by-families)
I will admit to not really understanding how these questions and the policies you've linked are relevant to the issue of mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse. I don't know anything about the SNP or their record within Scotland - you clearly know this party better and within the context of that knowledge might well be proven right about them. That doesn't change the potential that their proposal for mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse, in and of itself, might be good policy.
As to the questions themselves, it's a complex answer in Australia if we're being honest with ourselves on the differences between how child protection legislature is applied between predominantly non-indigenous urbanised populations and predominantly indigenous rural and remote communities.
The former have the process I described in my previous post.
A number of the latter were forced into agreements under a previous conservative government to submit to regular sweeps of their communities by civil servants within child safety government departments and police officers looking for signs of child abuse or neglect - if they refused they lost their welfare benefits which would have left them destitute, if evidence of child abuse was identified they risked having the majority of their children taken by child services. Rock-and-a-hard-place/Catch-22 stuff from a government that was, at the time, trying to exert as much control and influence over its indigenous population as it could in order to appease its right wing supporters and divert the political momentum its liberal opposition was gathering.1
I suspect there are similarities between the latter and what you might be inferring with regards to the SNP's plans, Lou. I understand some of your concerns: I do not agree with the need for a 'Named Person' approach which appears to be one of the SNP's proposals. I don't see the need for spending government resources on a central database to track the details of every child/family. Should the community/government be the ones to raise children where no suspicion of child abuse/neglect exists? No.
But should the community accept its role and responsibility for the protection of children? Yes - meaning be wary for signs of child abuse and report it to authorities charged with further investigation if you hold reasonable suspicions for the welfare of the child/children in question. That's all mandatory reporting really is.
** Again, sorry for the derailing Backstage. Lou/Lyn - if you want to continue this perhaps we should create a new thread or take it to messages?
1 It should be noted that this is a gross oversimplification of an issue whose pros and cons are still a point of contention for some people nearly a decade after it was introduced.
-
) What do you think the result will be?
Scotland will remain part of the UK.
2) What do you hope it will be? (as the poll asks)
Scotland will remain part of the UK.
3) Will the European Elections (held approximately 4 months before) have an impact on the debate?
Probably not.
4) In the event of a yes, is it the end of the UK?
Well, I guess Wales and Northern Ireland is still a part, so No.
5) In the event of a no, is it the end of the independence movement?
Of course not, because people can never leave well enough alone.
-
There was more arguing about the prospect of a currency union, with the nationalists claiming that a recent leak shows that the other parties statement that a currency union won't happen is just bluffing.
Except it's not.
It reinforces the statement by the senior civil servant at the Treasury, who said that a currency union is only ever workable when all parties to the union are fully and irrevocably committed to it.
So, on one side we have the nationalists who have said "we have a plan B, but we're not going to tell what it is, and we can use the pound anyway, you can't stop us, and we'll renege on all debts", thus demonstrating they don't have the commitment necessary to make a union work.
And on the other side, we have the official position from the unionist parties of a "No" to a currency union, and an apparent leak where someone seems to say yes to the idea of Scotland using the pound. This also demonstrates there isn't the commitment necessary to make a union work.
So when both parties to a potential union have shown they do not have the commitment to make it work, then it's not going to work, is it ?
And so, the senior Treasury civil servant's analysis is proven correct, no ?
-
So, some may know a poll came out last week putting Y/N neck and neck, with a still very wide margin of "undecideds".
So as an Englishman, I have to say that I am very worried. Not really for the hubris, the breakup of the Union etc, although that will be saddening. I am worried because without Scotland, the UK is basically destined to slide into a very Conservative dominated system, primarily centered around the South of England. Without Scotland, there is less effective counterbalance to the Tory heartlands.
-
There's only one solution. Get annexed by either Germany or Russia. Since you're no commies, welcome to the fatherland.
edit: let's not talk about the french.
-
I am worried because without Scotland, the UK is basically destined to slide into a very Conservative dominated system, primarily centered around the South of England. Without Scotland, there is less effective counterbalance to the Tory heartlands.
Which as a distant 3rd party is an interesting dynamic. In order to maintain a sufficiently diverse electorate to not tend towards a particular political philosophy at the scale of the United Kingdom, the population of Scotland is a counter-balance to the South of England.
But the very fact that the South of England holds such power and is political opposed to the wishes of the majority of Scots may be what drives Scotland towards secession in order to gain increased self-determination.
There's only one solution. Get annexed by either Germany or Russia. Since you're no commies, welcome to the fatherland.
edit: let's not talk about the french.
*tongue in cheek*
There is only one European solution. The Yankee* solution is to invade those members of the Union choosing to secede!
*Yankee in this case is not a descriptor of all Americans, but of Americans from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, and New England.
-
I am worried because without Scotland, the UK is basically destined to slide into a very Conservative dominated system, primarily centered around the South of England. Without Scotland, there is less effective counterbalance to the Tory heartlands.
Which as a distant 3rd party is an interesting dynamic. In order to maintain a sufficiently diverse electorate to not tend towards a particular political philosophy at the scale of the United Kingdom, the population of Scotland is a counter-balance to the South of England.
But the very fact that the South of England holds such power and is political opposed to the wishes of the majority of Scots may be what drives Scotland towards secession in order to gain increased self-determination.
Undoubtedly. Excluding Northern Ireland, which requires its own separate political status, the UK is dominated by English interests. E.g. Euroscepticism, majority of English people are. In Wales or Scotland, people are much more pro EU.
Guess which way the govt in swinging right now?
It's absolutely untenable, and reform in the event of a no is inevitable. The only thing is that it may end up being a yes.
-
I am opposed, in general, to the Balkanization of states (because that never works) and I recognize that there are a great many shortcomings in the devolution situation in the United Kingdom. England is disproportionately influential among the countries just as Southern England is more influential than Northern England. However, on the whole everything works out. There's no sectarian violence, streets aren't on fire, bombs aren't being planted outside of government buildings. The effort devoted to dividing the nation should be directed at correcting the problems that prevent a good unification.
My opinion is slightly colored by two biases. 1) I am in favor of a unified world government which means consolidate, consolidate, consolidate. 2) I am a bit of a Anglophile that cannot bear to see the Kingdom divided.
-
As an American,
We tried that once. Didn't work out too well.
We do live in interesting times though, with very contradictory global trends towards increasing interdependence and globalization running parallel with increasing personalization and individuality in all aspects of our lives.
Our little flags and lines on maps will continue to mean less and less as the digital tentacles touch all of us equally and irremovably. Once real time seemless soft AI language translation kicks in for real in another ten years or so....
Anyway I can't decide if we're headed for one world government, or one world with 7.5 billion governments of individuals.
-
We do live in interesting times though, with very contradictory global trends towards increasing interdependence and globalization running parallel with increasing personalization and individuality in all aspects of our lives.
Interesting document to read is the Global Trends 2030 (http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/global-trends-2030). There is a short version (http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Interactive%20Le%20Menu.pdf).
-
I am opposed, in general, to the Balkanization of states (because that never works) and I recognize that there are a great many shortcomings in the devolution situation in the United Kingdom. England is disproportionately influential among the countries just as Southern England is more influential than Northern England. However, on the whole everything works out. There's no sectarian violence, streets aren't on fire, bombs aren't being planted outside of government buildings. The effort devoted to dividing the nation should be directed at correcting the problems that prevent a good unification.
My opinion is slightly colored by two biases. 1) I am in favor of a unified world government which means consolidate, consolidate, consolidate. 2) I am a bit of a Anglophile that cannot bear to see the Kingdom divided.
By technical definitions, South Africa was a much more peaceful state under apartheid. But quiet injustice is still injustice.
Also it's a bit blase to just say "well everything seems quiet enough, so why change?", mostly because that statement itself is inaccurate. There have been riots, bomb threats, actual bombs, sectarian sentiment on the rise, a vast swathe of the electorate totally disenfranchised from the political process, and you may or may not be aware that one part of the UK is still dealing with the direct threat of homegrown terrorism. To be frank, why should they be enfranchised by this system?
Four main political parties, each led by a Southern Englishman, in a Parliament disproportionately made up of Southern Englishmen, all of them mostly focusing on issues in Southern England, catering to their concerns. The majority outside Southern England still favor the "Post-War Consensus" by technical definition if not by name, the careful management of the economy and a well supplied and organised welfare state, yet for the past 40ish years governments elected by a disproportionate system have chipped away at it, and suddenly as of the 1990s "We are all Thatcherites Now". Despite all the outcry, we still hear stories of the outrageous excesses of our elected representatives, and the voting system means that you have one opportunity every 5 years to cast a vote which, if in a safe seat, has a high likelihood of being a totally wasted vote.
Frankly, if I were Scottish, I'd be leaning towards independence too.
Also, Informative Map of the UK's Electoral Makeup:
(http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20130420_FBM926.png)
-
haaaah.
See that one blue hex in the bottom-middle-right of Yorkshire and Humber?
My town.
xD
-
By technical definitions, South Africa was a much more peaceful state under apartheid. But quiet injustice is still injustice.
Also it's a bit blase to just say "well everything seems quiet enough, so why change?", mostly because that statement itself is inaccurate. There have been riots, bomb threats, actual bombs, sectarian sentiment on the rise, a vast swathe of the electorate totally disenfranchised from the political process, and you may or may not be aware that one part of the UK is still dealing with the direct threat of homegrown terrorism. To be frank, why should they be enfranchised by this system?
Four main political parties, each led by a Southern Englishman, in a Parliament disproportionately made up of Southern Englishmen, all of them mostly focusing on issues in Southern England, catering to their concerns. The majority outside Southern England still favor the "Post-War Consensus" by technical definition if not by name, the careful management of the economy and a well supplied and organised welfare state, yet for the past 40ish years governments elected by a disproportionate system have chipped away at it, and suddenly as of the 1990s "We are all Thatcherites Now". Despite all the outcry, we still hear stories of the outrageous excesses of our elected representatives, and the voting system means that you have one opportunity every 5 years to cast a vote which, if in a safe seat, has a high likelihood of being a totally wasted vote.
Frankly, if I were Scottish, I'd be leaning towards independence too.
My feeling (as worthless as it might very well be) is not that "everything seems quiet enough" but that things are continually getting better. I freely admit that there are problems (though comparing the Scottish unrest with the Irish unrest doesn't seem entirely fair) but any multicultural country is going to have a problem with group disagreement and disenfranchisement that it has to work past and this is a multinational country. The optimum outcome, as I see it, is a united England, Scotland, and Wales (Northern Ireland can go either way, I think a United Kingdom that contained all of Ireland would be nice but that ship has sailed). A United Kingdom, with Scotland, can be achieved and the process of devolution and even this national discussion of sovereignty is a step on the path to an equitable and beneficial unification of the countries.
Also, I think it makes the maps look nicer.
-
comparing the Scottish unrest with the Irish unrest doesn't seem entirely fair
In the 1970's, during some of the bloodiest times in Northern Ireland, elements of the Scottish Nationalist Party, including the current Justice secretary, and the First Minister himself, explored links with Sinn Fein, and they voted on making formal links, which they rejected. While you can spin it that the rejection shows a moral stand against violence, the fact that it was even an issue counters that.
There are terrorist elements in Scotland, the Scottish National Liberation Army as an example, but they have been little more than a handful of malcontents.
I was talking to one of Mum's friends the other day, and I learned some interesting things. Mum's friend is Jewish, and she told me that in the 1960's, the Scottish National Party was led by someone who was a pro-Nazi activist during the second world war, and who had had ambitions of being the leader of a puppet Scotland state, should the UK be invaded by the Nazis. And as such, would have signed the orders deporting the Scottish Jews.
One of the founders and early leaders of the Scottish National Party, was also a Nazi sympathiser, who opposed Scottish people being recruited into jobs in armaments factories, and into the armed forces, to "fight England's wars".
This was in 1942, long, long after the events of the likes of Krystallnacht, and the expulsions of the Jews, were public knowledge.
So, yeah, Mum's friend will never, ever, vote for the SNP.
Elements of the current Scottish National Party, were active in supporting the campaigns by various groups, to "remove incomers", that is, anyone who was not "Scottish", from the Highlands and islands, by arson attacks on houses and businesses.
Scotland, is not a multicultural country. The SNP government is attempting to create a monocultural country, through suppression of non-Gaelic Scots culture, such as the lowland Scots language, that Burns wrote his poetry in. Because it does not fit the mythos of the oppressed Gael, driven from their land and out of their traditional clan society, by the English oppressor.
They make a big deal about how after the 2nd Jacobite Rebellion, that the clan system was destroyed.
The clan system whereby the clan chief, could order the killing of any of his tenants, for whatever reason the chief so wished. Judge, jury and executioner. Anyone who was unjustly accused of a crime, and there were legions, had only two options. Become an outlaw, and thus have no legal rights at all. Or to murder the clan chief before the clan chiefs accomplices murdered them.
The removal of the clan system, and the establishment of the uniform rule of law, was a good thing.
But you won't hear that from the Nationalists.
Their support for Sharia law is the clan system resurrected in a new form. Where certain types of people are not equal under the law, and can be murdered with less consequence.
-
For the record, I was not comparing Scotland to Northern Ireland, what I was doing, but unfortunately seemed unclear, was dispelling the notion the the UK is stable as the house built on rock.
Comparing Scotland to NI politics would be grossly insensitive and ignorant, given the obvious issue of the bodycount.
-
E.g. Euroscepticism, majority of English people are. In Wales or Scotland, people are much more pro EU.
When do these gentlemen take over already ? :yar:
By technical definitions, South Africa was a much more peaceful state under apartheid. But quiet injustice is still injustice.
lol, South Africa never got rid of apartheid. They just swapped their evil white colonial overlords for native black tribal overlords. :roll:
-
Speaking purely from a 'murican point of view, I take a rather dim view of this for similar reasons to what others have stated: It encourages factionalization and deep political splits (often along geographical lines), because of the idea that you can just go "You know what? I don't like the rest of you, I'm going to pick my toys up and go home with my friends." It's not a mindset that encourages reasonable interaction with other parties, which does not bode well for further interactions down the line (before we even get into the colorful figures it tends to attract to the new governments).
In the US, we cling very closely to the idea that if you're in the Union, you're in the Union for life. Is it entirely, totally fair? No. Do I still think it's an important rule to keep governments intact? Yes, I rather do.
-
Introducing some levity here, I have a new and improved map of the UK and ROI here: (http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-04/enhanced/webdr02/17/12/original-8872-1397753386-12.jpg)
-
Introducing some levity here, I have a new and improved map of the UK and ROI here: (http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-04/enhanced/webdr02/17/12/original-8872-1397753386-12.jpg)
Wait what... no geordies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb_iehxYCcU)?
(http://alphadesigner.com/wp-content/uploads/europe-according-to-uk-tories.png)
(http://alphadesigner.com/wp-content/uploads/europe-according-to-britain.png)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TjSgnjT6eVs/UVi4on4JB4I/AAAAAAAAFX4/emlU9mwMMzo/s1600/SkELnr2.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/aQnIvKv.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/f37QKQW.png)
Edit: I see now... Shirtless men :D Is almost as good as the old wifebeater. :P
-
I am worried because without Scotland, the UK is basically destined to slide into a very Conservative dominated system, primarily centered around the South of England. Without Scotland, there is less effective counterbalance to the Tory heartlands.
I have to say that it is my main concern if we get an independent Scotland. Still, we get Tories no matter what anyways: New Labour are basically Tories masquerading as the Labour Party. :(
-
don't forget, it was the Scottish Nationalists that voted with Mrs. Thatcher in 1979 in the vote of No Confidence that triggered the 1979 General Election that put Mrs. Thatcher into power.
So their cries of how badly Scotland suffered during the Thatcher years are somewhat silly, as it was they that caused it.
And as if it was only Scotland that suffered, and Tyneside, Yorkshire, Wales and many, many more places did not.
And now, they say "If we abandon our friends, relatives and neighbours, we'll be better off".
"I'm all right, Jack", the attitude of some in "Middle England", the attitude that allegedly was the cause of Scotland's woes in the Thatcher era, it's "wrong" for English citizens to vote that way, but "patriotic" for Scottish citizens to vote that way ?
As for political opportunism, the Nationalists criticised Blair for "focus group politics", and yet, they decide policy based not on what is right, but what is popular.
Establish links with Irish terror groups, because of "common Celtic heritage", no, let's not do that, it would be unpopular.
Establish links with Islamic terror groups, because "Scots-Asians are a key demographic", yes, lets do that, it will win votes in key constituencies.
Use established devolved powers to counteract the "bedroom tax", relieving the many families who are in dire circumstances? No, let's not do that, because "we don't want to let Westminster off the hook", and those impoverished citizens may then vote the "correct" way.
Three cheeks of the same arse, as a politician described the parties.
-
because of "common Celtic heritage"
I always find that an interesting one, as it's my understanding that the vast majority of the population of the British Isles are descended from those few thousand people that crossed the land bridge when the ice started retreating in the Mesolithic. All those later incursions by Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Romans and Normans only account for a minority of the population genetically. So yeah, very much a common ancestry for everyone on these islands. Of course, 'heritage' is a very flexible term and people like to cherry pick the commonalities they desire.
-
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
In the UK, the police force has traditionally not been routinely armed with firearms, unlike many other police forces in the world.
In Scotland, there were several police forces, but these have now been amalgamated, and now instead of Strathclyde Police, Highland Constabulary, Grampian Police, and so on and so forth, there is now Police Scotland.
In the previous system, when there was a problem that was severe enough in say Lothian and Borders Police, then a different force, such as Strathclyde, would have its officers investigate the problem. As such, those investigating officers careers were not dependent on keeping a good relationship with the Lothian and Borders chief constable.
All change now. With a single police force, then everything is always going to be an internal investigation, conducted by officers whose careers are dependent on keeping in with the chief constable and other senior officers.
With a single police force, there are no others to compare and contrast policing methods, no challenge to correct failings, or make improvements. Compare with England&Wales, where anti-terrorism policing is done under the Metropolitan Police, and can be subject to review by any of the other police forces in England&Wales. In Scotland, there is just Police Scotland, and again, internal review only.
And now back to firearms. Previously, police firearms were kept in a locked safe, which could only be opened, with the authorisation of a senior officer, in response to a specific incident. Armed response vehicles also had their firearms in a locked safe, again, it could only be opened when authorised, when responding to a specific incident. Firearms officers could also only use their weapons with the authorisation of senior officers.
Now, particularly in what was the Highland Police region, the firearms officers, are routinely carrying their handguns and tasers, in response to all incidents. Highland region had the lowest violent crime rate in the entirety of the UK.
The chief constable and the Justice Minister at the Scottish Parliament, feel that this is OK, that these officers are police officers first and foremost, and that having to authorise firearms officers was 'too slow' because the firearms officers would have had to go to their police station, or stop their vehicle, to arm themselves.
So, in say Inverness, when it is pub and club closing time, firearms officers who are on duty at the time, may be called to support other officers engaged in street policing of rowdy drunk people. They did this before, but now, they are doing it while carrying weapons, and have the authority to fire those weapons of their own volition.
Now, in the rest of Scotland, if you have reason to request the assistance of a police officer, there is a chance that the ones that turn up, will turn up wearing body armour and carrying firearms.
And the Justice Secretary, and the SNP, do not believe that this is in any way, a change in policing or a change in the public's relationship with the police.
"Why should anyone calling on a policeman feel uneasy if body armoured officers with firearms turn up? Unless they have something to hide." seems to be the attitude now.
-
Now, in the rest of Scotland, if you have reason to request the assistance of a police officer, there is a chance that the ones that turn up, will turn up wearing body armour and carrying firearms.
And the Justice Secretary, and the SNP, do not believe that this is in any way, a change in policing or a change in the public's relationship with the police.
"Why should anyone calling on a policeman feel uneasy if body armoured officers with firearms turn up? Unless they have something to hide." seems to be the attitude now.
As an American I find this firearm/police discussion completely fascinating.
It makes me have to re-evaluate how I see the situation here to hear overseas perspectives.
-
Now, in the rest of Scotland, if you have reason to request the assistance of a police officer, there is a chance that the ones that turn up, will turn up wearing body armour and carrying firearms.
And the Justice Secretary, and the SNP, do not believe that this is in any way, a change in policing or a change in the public's relationship with the police.
"Why should anyone calling on a policeman feel uneasy if body armoured officers with firearms turn up? Unless they have something to hide." seems to be the attitude now.
As an American I find this firearm/police discussion completely fascinating.
It makes me have to re-evaluate how I see the situation here to hear overseas perspectives.
Yeah, it's different, because of the difference in policing traditions.
Maybe an equivalent would be, that you phone the police, because you come home and noticed your door was ajar, like there was a break-in, and instead of a patrol car, it's the SWAT van, and SWAT officers in armoured helmets so you can't see their faces and so on.
Would that not make you feel like there had been some change in policing ? Wouldn't that make you somewhat uneasy ? That the police response to an otherwise routine incident has been substantially upgunned, for no readily apparent reason ?
-
Sounds scary. :(
-
Now, in the rest of Scotland, if you have reason to request the assistance of a police officer, there is a chance that the ones that turn up, will turn up wearing body armour and carrying firearms.
And the Justice Secretary, and the SNP, do not believe that this is in any way, a change in policing or a change in the public's relationship with the police.
"Why should anyone calling on a policeman feel uneasy if body armoured officers with firearms turn up? Unless they have something to hide." seems to be the attitude now.
As an American I find this firearm/police discussion completely fascinating.
It makes me have to re-evaluate how I see the situation here to hear overseas perspectives.
Yeah, it's different, because of the difference in policing traditions.
Maybe an equivalent would be, that you phone the police, because you come home and noticed your door was ajar, like there was a break-in, and instead of a patrol car, it's the SWAT van, and SWAT officers in armoured helmets so you can't see their faces and so on.
Would that not make you feel like there had been some change in policing ? Wouldn't that make you somewhat uneasy ? That the police response to an otherwise routine incident has been substantially upgunned, for no readily apparent reason ?
Funny you should mention that, there has been an alarming trend over the last decade or so in the States, the 'militarization' of the police. With our foreign wars winding down there's been a lot of money being made selling heavy armaments to local police forces.
We also have a great tradition in the USA of using SWAT teams to kick in doors and hogtie entire non-violent families at automatic weapons gunpoint for selling things like Marijuana. Now even for some civil fines they will bring in the tactical armed teams.
Long story short if the police force doesn't find uses for the commandos, they stop having justification for buying all the weapons and having the commandos in the first place.
Here's an example, a small town in New Hampshire was about to spend $200,000 to purchase an armored personnel carrier, a town that had seen all of two murders in the last 15 years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/police-tank-purchase-new-hampshire_n_1279983.html
" the war on terror has accelerated the trend toward militarization. Homeland Security hands out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns, many specifically to buy military-grade equipment from companies like Lenco. In December, the Center for Investigative Reporting reported that Homeland Security grants totalled $34 billion, and went to such unlikely terrorism targets as Fargo, N.D.; Fon du Lac, Wisc.; and Canyon County, Idaho. The report noted that because of the grants, defense contractors that long served the Pentagon exclusively have increasingly turned looked to police departments, hoping to tap a "homeland security market" expected to reach $19 billion by 2014."
-
Now, in the rest of Scotland, if you have reason to request the assistance of a police officer, there is a chance that the ones that turn up, will turn up wearing body armour and carrying firearms.
And the Justice Secretary, and the SNP, do not believe that this is in any way, a change in policing or a change in the public's relationship with the police.
"Why should anyone calling on a policeman feel uneasy if body armoured officers with firearms turn up? Unless they have something to hide." seems to be the attitude now.
As an American I find this firearm/police discussion completely fascinating.
It makes me have to re-evaluate how I see the situation here to hear overseas perspectives.
Yeah, it's different, because of the difference in policing traditions.
Maybe an equivalent would be, that you phone the police, because you come home and noticed your door was ajar, like there was a break-in, and instead of a patrol car, it's the SWAT van, and SWAT officers in armoured helmets so you can't see their faces and so on.
Would that not make you feel like there had been some change in policing ? Wouldn't that make you somewhat uneasy ? That the police response to an otherwise routine incident has been substantially upgunned, for no readily apparent reason ?
Fundamentally it is a question of whether or not the police are willing to treat you as an equal or not. If they bring a gun to a knife fight, they will probably win. It is a matter of power.
Also, what Silas said.
-
Yeah.
My feeling is that, in Scotland, it's like, this casual arming of police officers is like, the first tiny step on a road that only leads to an authoritarian police state, and it has been taken without any democratic discussion.
couple this sort of thing, with other stuff like, establishing a central government database on all children in Scotland, and the presumption of parental neglect, and a duty to inform authorities, then I feel that, far from Scotland needing to be rescued from the English, that it is instead, Scotland needs rescuing from the Scots.
Which is just terrible.
-
While I'm personally not a fan of police militarization (as Silas put it), there are probably some communities in this country where a SWAT team being called in to respond to something as theoretically benign as the posed scenario of an open door indicating a possible break-in, actually would be the absolute minimum expected response - and not inappropriately so. :P
-
Where do you live?
Fallujah?
-
Where do you live?
Fallujah?
Chicago. Despite what the media would tell you 90% of the city is perfectly safe, non-violent, regular people living their lives.
Certain specific areas, however, see something like 500 murders a year, something like 20 people shot every weekend. Ironically this is the lowest rate in about 30 years.
The violence is a direct result of systemic city planning policies that concentrate poverty and lack of resources in virtually walled-off, isolated neighborhoods though.
Unsurprisingly, if you segregate a huge number of people in extreme poverty for 50 years and deny them access to public resources, education, etc. and then throw a majority of the young males in and out of prison, you just might end up with an extremely violent and lawless part of town.
-
Where do you live?
Fallujah?
My father, who went to Iraq 2-times, makes comparisons between there and the Alabama inner city school in which he currently teaches 8th grade math.
-
So veering off topic, but what's the latest with the actual thread topic?
-
The polls show a mixed story. Earlier, they put the Yes (that is to Imdependence) side at just a few points off the No side, but one about a week later showed them at their lowest for 8 months.
It's the EU Parliament and some Local Council elections today, which may have some additional knock-on effects in the referendum. Particularly so if the Scottish National Party can increase their number of seats, or if a hard right party, the UK Independence Party, tops the polls. Most people seem to duck this issue, but personally, I think a win for UKIP in Europe is likely to reinforce concerns about Scotland being forced to leave the EU as the result of a majoritarian referendum, and also it's problematic because UKIP is still grossly unpopular and vehemently opposed in Scotland, while in England their popularity is only increasing. It is pretty much, despite its name, an English party.
Aside from that, economics continues to be the primary issue, Alex Salmond thinks he can just wave a wand and Scotland will use the Pound post-UK, whereas the Westminster leaders seem to believe England is the sole proprietor of all things Union. Legally it makes sense, Scotland is leaving the UK, which will still exist (at least for a while) without Scotland, buts it also belies an ignorance of what the Union is. It was established, primarily by a Scottish king , as a partnership of equals, and since then it would not be unfair at all to say that two fifths of British history is Scottish history, and the pound has been a shared part of the Union in all that time. While legally within our right to deny them use of the pound, it's politically short-termist, and will be seen as intimidation and scare-mongering by the Westminster establishment in the long term.
There have been some mumblings about defence. Scottish soldiers currently in the British Army are thought to be very un-persuaded by the idea of a Scottish Defence Force, and it's thought that as many as 90% would opt to stay in the British Army given a choice, in a manner similar to Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland soldiers in the army. Oh, and there's the issue of moving the UK's entire nuclear arsenal to a new base. Also, shipbuilding for the Royal Navy will be on quite a few minds.
In terms of big names, the Yes campaign seems to be reeling them in. Actors, writers, musicians, they seem to be going for Yes. The No campaign has found a few English people, Eddie Izzard and David Bowie, but struggles to pull in any Scot with a big name. There have been murmurings that Gordon Brown, former UK Prime Minister and Scottish Unionist, will take a more high-profile role in days to come. While unpopular in England and Wales, he is still respected a great deal in Scotland, and is one of the biggest believers in the Union in any of the UK's states. It might all go tits up still, but it remains to be seen.
-
It's the EU Parliament and some Local Council elections today, which may have some additional knock-on effects in the referendum. Particularly so if the Scottish National Party can increase their number of seats, or if a hard right party, the UK Independence Party, tops the polls. Most people seem to duck this issue, but personally, I think a win for UKIP in Europe is likely to reinforce concerns about Scotland being forced to leave the EU as the result of a majoritarian referendum, and also it's problematic because UKIP is still grossly unpopular and vehemently opposed in Scotland, while in England their popularity is only increasing. It is pretty much, despite its name, an English party.
Everyone I know hates UKIP with a passion. Then again, I grew up in an area with a very large number of Polish and other European immigrants, so it may just be due to geography. We're all voting Green Party instead :D
-
There won't be a currency union, should there be a yes vote.
Whenever he is asked about what happens if the other parts of the UK don't want a currency union, and if there is a "plan B", then Salmond always says "we have a plan B, we have a plan c, d, e, f, as well" and that it is all bluff and bluster from the unionist parties.
In recent days, Salmond has said there would be a Scottish "Observer" on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, which amongst other things, sets interest rates. This is a climbdown from previously, when he insisted there would be a Scottish seat on the committee.
In the past, he's said that the 58m people of N.Ireland, Wales and England, "don't have the right to a referendum on a currency union", because it would be "undemocratic", to say to Scotland that there won't be a currency union.
So, with the existence of "plan b,c,d,e,f", then it is clear that at the first point at which the Monetary Policy Committee makes a decision to benefit the 58m people which they are accountable to, and that decision is neutral or detrimental to the 5m people of Scotland, then that is when a currency union falls apart, because Salmond will not take actions necessary for the currency union that are detrimental.
Which shows there is not the commitment necessary to make a currency union work. The senior civil servant to the Treasury said as much, that for a currency union to work, then there has to be an absolute commitment to it, and that this has to be seen to be credible to the outside world.
And "Plan b,c,d,e,f" shows that there is not the commitment, and that the union would not be credible to the outside world.
With only an observer, and thus, no influence on the MPC, this is a worse situation than present, where the MPC takes into account what would benefit all 63m people.
As for not allowing the people of N.Ireland, Wales and England to decide if they want to enter a currency union, then that is ludicrous.
Which means that the idea of a formal currency union is just not going to happen.
Leaving an informal sterling zone, with no regulator of the Scottish banks and other financial institutions, and no guarantor of savers deposits, pensions, and all that.
Joining the Euro means abandoning the whole idea of the distinct Scottish banknotes, and the culture of them, the EU does not allow any member state to have their own designs on the Euro notes or coins.
A Scottish Currency, call it the Groat, the Unicorn, whatever, is a giant "Kick Me" sign to all the financial speculators out there. To have it pegged at a certain exchange rate with the £, is a tempting target to financial speculators, to see how much they can push it before the exchange rate mechanism breaks - we've been there before, many, many times. Look at some other countries of the world, I think one of the SE Asian countries ran into this in the past few years - their exchange rate against the $ was massively changed to their detriment, simply because some currency traders thought they could make lots of money doing this.
So the options for currency in an independent scotland would mean either having no guarantee that your money will still be in the bank tomorrow, having no Scottish cultural identity on the banknotes, or a currency that will be a speculators toy.
Super.
As for defence, those shipyards on the Clyde will not build future RN warships.
It would be cheaper for the UK, to joint-procure ships with the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Bundesmarine, or the French Navy, when the roles for the ships are similar enough. It would be a saving for any of the partner nations as well, by spreading design&development costs across more units.
There is such a thing as "technology transfer", which the SNP don't seem to understand. They point at how Brazil bought some warships from the Clyde yards not so long ago, and say "this is proof of the Clyde yards being able to win export orders". What they don't say, is that Brazil bought something like 4 ships from the Clyde, while having the Clyde yards train some of their workforce, and share knowledge, such that Brazil built, in Brazil, another 8 or so of that class, and will be building the successor class as well.
Warships for export is a dead industry - the only long-term buyers are regimes who have no interest in a domestic shipbuilding industry, which means dictators.
If it was the case that Britain had to purchase some warships from the Clyde, then it would be on a technology transfer basis. There's something like 12 Type 26 frigates planned. Currently the plan would be to procure all 12 from the Clyde yards. In a yes-vote situation, the UK government will do no such thing. They'll order 2 or 3, and have the other 9-10 built in a re-opened shipbuilding yard somewhere else, on a technology transfer basis.
And there is nothing the SNP can do about that. The UK defence procurement decision makers wouldn't be responsible to the people of Scotland. It's that simple.
And yes, the Scottish Defence Forces, which the SNP say will be part of NATO. NATO is a nuclear organisation. Something to note in this instance, was that when POLARIS and later Trident were being procured, the Scottish MPs lobbied intensely, to have those facilities based in Scotland, because of the jobs they entailed.
Anyway, the Trident weapon system, in another interesting note, is not actually the UK's nuclear deterrent. As part of the treaties that resulted in the UK having Polaris and later Trident, then all the nuclear weapons operated by the UK, including other systems such as the now defunct bombs once used by the RAF, are part of NATO's nuclear deterrent, not the UK. The weapons cannot be used independently unless the situation in the UK is extremely dire. They are NATO weapons, and are to be used in support of NATO.
Being part of NATO, but insisting that NATO weapons not be based there, is plain NIMBYism.
As part of the SNP "ethical foreign policy", then "illegal wars" will not be something that Scottish forces would participate in.
Which means sitting idly by, while atrocities are committed, because Salmond's idol Putin uses the UN Security Council veto on any intervention, such as the Kosovo crisis, which Salmond said intervening to stop massacres was "unpardonable folly", because Russia had vetoed UN intervention.
And, when Scottish forces are involved, they will always, in perpetuity, take a junior role. Example would be any naval forces - the most senior Scottish naval officer would likely have no experience of commanding multiple ship formations, which means there will never be a Scottish naval officer in command of a multinational task force.
Amongst other things, the plan is for one fast jet squadron, using Eurofighters, to be based at Lossiemouth iirc.
One squadron means that should any Scottish forces be deployed abroad, as part of a European or other multinational force, then they would be entirely reliant on air support from other nations. Communication difficulties abound in that situation, as do friendly fire incidents, because of misunderstandings and equipment problems.
Actors, writers and musicians opinions are fluff. Millionaire tax exiles who decided that the people of Scotland are beneath them, and do not deserve to benefit from any taxation of their income.
The plan to have independence wrapped up before 2016, is simply to try and get it done before the next election to the Edinburgh parliament, so that the millions allocated for commemorative heroic scale statues of the "First Minister of the New Scotland" are going to be of the "correct person".
So, with the "I'm all right Jack" and NIMBY attitudes, the SNP have become what they claimed to be against, the "Tory Middle England voters".
-
It's the EU Parliament and some Local Council elections today, which may have some additional knock-on effects in the referendum. Particularly so if the Scottish National Party can increase their number of seats, or if a hard right party, the UK Independence Party, tops the polls. Most people seem to duck this issue, but personally, I think a win for UKIP in Europe is likely to reinforce concerns about Scotland being forced to leave the EU as the result of a majoritarian referendum, and also it's problematic because UKIP is still grossly unpopular and vehemently opposed in Scotland, while in England their popularity is only increasing. It is pretty much, despite its name, an English party.
Everyone I know hates UKIP with a passion. Then again, I grew up in an area with a very large number of Polish and other European immigrants, so it may just be due to geography. We're all voting Green Party instead :D
If only it was the case for me...
They all vote far right and do not give 2 shits about green. :bash:
Joining the Euro means abandoning the whole idea of the distinct Scottish banknotes, and the culture of them, the EU does not allow any member state to have their own designs on the Euro notes or coins.
What ? I thought most countries had their own designs on their coins and notes in the euro zone...
It would be cheaper for the UK, to joint-procure ships with the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Bundesmarine, or the French Navy, when the roles for the ships are similar enough. It would be a saving for any of the partner nations as well, by spreading design&development costs across more units.
Navy designs are more and more being developed jointly in Europe these days. There is a huge cooperation on joint military developments between the Royal Navy, the French Navy and the Italian Navy these days.
Last frigate designs are done jointly between the too later (where UK had different requirements, true), but the next aicraft carrier is being developed jointly between the RN and the FN despite the reluctance of FN to get an non nuclear aircraft carrier design. The UK being without one currently is by the way currently training and operating jointly on the FN carrier and rafale navy planes until 2020.
While amphibious assault ships are still not being developped together, I wouldn't be surprised to see the next navy big projects to be the case.
Warships for export is a dead industry - the only long-term buyers are regimes who have no interest in a domestic shipbuilding industry, which means dictators.
Well that may be true for dictators (if we can consider Singapore, Taiwan, India, Malaisya or Russia dictatorships...), but that's maybe one of the most prolific military industry for France atm. DCNS is doing rather well on that side.
-
There's a national side to some of the Euro large coins, but all the Euro notes are the same designs.
for purchasing warships, I meant in like, 20-30 years or so. Few countries buy new-build warships over that period of time without developing their own shipbuilding industry. India for example - when they have their own space program and nuclear weapons, then it is only a matter of time when they stop buying warships from foreign suppliers completely.
-
Maybe yes, but I think you may be overly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on the point of view) concerning the ability of countries to suddenly be able to produce their own piece of technology. It mostly boils down to what they intend to invest and how much into that specific field of research, like they probably already do in their space program. And even with that investment, it takes time to catch up with all the years they lack in said technology (if they even have any to begin with...).
If only a few countries have an edge on strategic technologies like these, it's also because all the other ones deeply lack the knowledge, and more importantly, the required practical expertise needed to do something. And that no matter how much you spend, takes decades or centuries to build up.
So maybe they will indeed be able to build their own warships in 20-30 years, from subs to aircraft carriers, it all depends on what they intend to invest in terms of researchers, designers, doctrines, and industrial capacity to that goal.
Unless you plan to be a blue water superpower of some kind, I don't think it is really in any country's interest to invest such colossal means into building their own military stuff...
-
Definitely yes. When it comes to defence, consistently it's shown that the only reason to totally outsource any major item is that using the domestic industry is unlikely to produce anything of the same quantity/quality without astronomical additional costs.
Just look at it logically, in shipbuilding for instance why would India favor foreign contracts when using a growing domestic industry a) provides employment for Indians b) allows more design freedom and tailoring for their needs c) reduces reliance on foreign labor and expertise, and earns expertise for its own shipbuilders.
They won't suddenly become "Made In India" only overnight, all nations, even the the US, outsources some items. But relying on the foreign market pretty much alone, to keep open a Shipyard like the one on the Clyde, which is currently building the largest and most complex warship in Royal Navy, is totally a non starter. The Chinese only managed to purchase a vessel of equivalent size because the Russians happened to have a spare.
-
Maybe for India though, I don't know, they may still be a potential future superpower after all.
You mean that the shipyard in Clyde would not be of interest anymore for an independent Scotland without the RN since they would not have the domestic fleet to build for if I understand right ?
-
Maybe for India though, I don't know, they may still be a potential future superpower after all.
You mean that the shipyard in Clyde would not be of interest anymore for an independent Scotland without the RN since they would not have the domestic fleet to build for if I understand right ?
Well in short, a UK without Scotland is likely to want to use Portsmouth, which although recently hit by budget cuts has a naval history, capable shipyards manned by experienced people, and is also the home of the majority of the Surface Fleet, including the two supercarriers after their construction.
So this affects Clyde in that yes, the Scottish Navy would not yield the business that they would need to keep the shipyards open as they are. There is the possibility of switching to civilian manufacture, but this is widely seen as a step down, into a field with already very well established competitors.
Specifically addressing "Europeanised" procurement, that, theoretically at least, I must concede does offer Scotland a lifeline in this regard, however there are some fixed obstacles here. The most important one to remember is that EU membership will not be instantaneous or easy, in fact it's likely to be the opposite, even if fast-tracked. This will impede business, but given determination can be overcome. But it also must be said that while vital components may continue to be manufactured in Scotland, it's a fair bet that the biggest customers, UK, France, Germany, Poland, will want to do the actual shipbuilding in their own shipyards.
I would like to amend my original position though, and change it from "It can't happen" to "I wouldn't risk it". It's a dice roll, not total suicide but a risky dice roll with a lot in the balance. In all other areas, I think in all honesty, Scotland would be the big winner and the UK the loser in the event of independence, but it must be remembered that things will not be business as usual on either side after this.
-
Thread bump
Any new thoughts/news?
-
As a complete outsider, I observe the situation with great interest. My most pressing question is: Does Scotland really want to give up this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=041nXAAn714)?
-
Could one of you good United Kingdom members assist in describing the relationship to us out of EU folks?
I'm looking for an appropriate analogy as to the sort of connection or bond you feel with Scotland if say you are living in England.
Is it like someone in California and another person in Texas, where they both have very different lifestyles but are part of the same larger national framework?
Or is it more like someone in the US and then someone in Puerto Rico where it's basically an entirely different country and social organization but part of the same overall group on paper?
-
England, Scotland and Wales as far as the actual "living there" goes may as well be one country already. I live in England and visit both Scotland and Wales at least once a year, and it's almost impossible to tell when you've changed from one country to the next (apart from the sign posting [stupid Welsh language]).
In terms of the attitudes of the people living in each country, it seems to me to be a sort of 'love to hate' type relationship. The Scottish grouch about the English, the Welsh grouch about the English and the English grouch about everyone, but there doesn't seem to be too much actual dislike involved.
Relevant image
(http://i.imgur.com/Dwio54q.jpg)
Then again, I am some kind of international mutant, (born in England to the Kiwi son of a Glaswegian), so nationalism and patriotism is something I'm almost completely unaware of.
-
Any new thoughts/news?
the European elections and the new European commission show the futility of independence, and also, the danger to the whole of the EU.
With an integrationist at the head of the EU, then defence and foreign policy will be increasingly decided by Brussels, and by the European Parliament. Scotland has 6 MEPs, out of 750. And Scotland will in future, have 5 MEPs out of 750, due to population growths in other countries. Scotland used to have 8 MEPs.
So, what would be the point of gaining control of foreign policy, only to surrender it entirely ?
The danger to the EU, can be seen in places like Italy. There is a great difference between Northern and Southern Italy. Southern Italy has big problems with organised crime (the Mafia and Albanian gangs), and huge numbers of immigrants arriving from N.Africa on boats.
Northern Italian regions, such as Milan, there are some politicians who want to secede from Italy, because they resent their taxes being spent in Southern Italy. If Scotland gets entry to the EU, then that would give those politicians some impetus. And if the prosperous northern Italian regions secede, leaving Southern Italy to cope with all the problems, then there is the prospect of S.Italy turning into A Failed State, collapsing under the weight of organised crime and unmanageable numbers of immigrants. And that would be a disaster for all of the EU.
70 years of peace in Europe would be put at risk. And Italy isn't the only place where that could happen. Catalonia and Spain is another area of concern - resent by Catalans at their taxes paying for things in Madrid and so on.
Even if such dire events do not come to pass, Scotland being independent sets back social progress greatly, in the forms of university education. Scotland has no motor industry. If a Scottish engineering student wishes a career in the automotive industry, they have to leave Scotland. Placing a passport barrier obstructs that. Instead of being able to apply for automotive jobs across the UK, they'll now need to have work permits. This wouldn't be an isolated thing. Independence closes off options for Scottish people to find employment and education outside of Scotland, and is particularly damaging to people from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds. When the London Olympics were being prepared for, there were thousands of construction jobs. Those would be closed to Scottish tradespeople, because of work permits and immigration issues.
The rise of the right wing across Europe, as shown by the EU elections, is a cause for concern. More prosperous regions, such as Lombardy, want to leave the poorer regions to their own devices, setting back social progress across all of Europe, and raising the prospect of yet another European civil war. Fan-tas-tic. :|
-
Could one of you good United Kingdom members assist in describing the relationship to us out of EU folks?
I'm looking for an appropriate analogy as to the sort of connection or bond you feel with Scotland if say you are living in England.
Is it like someone in California and another person in Texas, where they both have very different lifestyles but are part of the same larger national framework?
Or is it more like someone in the US and then someone in Puerto Rico where it's basically an entirely different country and social organization but part of the same overall group on paper?
It's a fair bit complex.
One simple issue that resonates strongly, with all nations of the UK and what is defining the relationship right now, is that things, everything, economics, politics, society etc, are all way too London-centric.
Being strictly technical, London is a part of England, but it's its own city state in all but name. It's the main cash-cow for the economy, it has its own administration as well as being the seat of national government, house prices and rents are extortionate but people keep buying them because London has a massive pull factor, sucking in wealth and wealth creation from the rest of the UK. Which wouldn't be a problem if British industry was strong, but after 70's Labour govt, then 80's Tory government, industry collapsed and most Northern cities never recovered
So, within just England you have England/London, as well as North/South.
The theory behind the Act of Union which created the UK from England (and Wales) and Scotland is that it would be a partnership of two powers, but as things worked out, due in no small part to constitutional neglect, England grew while Scotland still grew but at a much slower rate, thus terms of an equal partnership grew to favour the larger party, politically and constitutionally.
The majority of Scots, I don't think, see themselves as oppressed but as the recipients of a bad deal, which isn't without some very good ground.
A lot of English folk outside of London sympathise because they are in a similar situation; Central
government is profoundly disinterested in their affairs, and because the English have no devolved administration they have only two real avenues for politics; Local Councils, which are basically just elected admin bods and treasury agents, and one house of the national Parliament which rarely if ever manages to come across as sympathetic to the interests of regular folks.
Wales, while erring less towards Scottish style independence was not recognised as a proper state of the UK until the late 20th century and still by and large feels part of an unequal deal. Particularly since a great deal of industry disappeared thanks to decisions made by London governments over the 70's and 80's. My own grandfather worked in the steel industry at Port Talbot and left just as the industry began to decline.
Northern Ireland has a mire of issues that would need and essay to address, and should be considered as kind of special case in comparison to Scotland and Wales.
As opposed to the States of America where states grew with each other, developing like links in a chain, these Nations have distinct identities and intertwined but very individual histories, growing into each other as opposed to growing together.
On the basic social interaction level of people, strangers friends and family etc, by and large we get along just normally with no issues. The British people are nothing if not disposed towards minding their own business.
In short, socially we're all just content and happy with each other, jokes aside, but politically, economically and historically we're divided.
-
You should have annexed them centuries in the past, it works wonders. 8) :P
-
Here's something interesting I've noticed today:
http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=12675&article=www.thinkscotland.org
Basically, a book about the defence plans for Scotland in 1940, has been used by pro-independence campaigners, to whip up anti-english sentiment, to say that Churchill planned to abandon Scotland to the Nazis to save England, and so on and so forth.
It's All Lies. The book says absolutely nothing of the sort.
but this is what the pro-independence campaign is. The mythic "English" who has all the secret plans to do bad things to Scotland.
Right out of a certain historical continental politician's propaganda playbook, that sort of thing. Fan-tas-tic.
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker (http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker)
I found that one (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26173004)interesting.
-
Don't worry Scotland, it's cool. If you declare independence we'll just hook you up to some trawlers or something drag you up here and you can come hang with us. You're practically Scandinavian as it is. Besides, we're running low on Russian immigrant workers here so there's plenty of room for what may very well be the coolest bunch of foreigners I know of.
Barely even joking, I've never had anything but fantastic experiences with Scotsmen up here.
-
Don't worry Scotland, it's cool. If you declare independence we'll just hook you up to some trawlers or something drag you up here and you can come hang with us. You're practically Scandinavian as it is. Besides, we're running low on Russian immigrant workers here so there's plenty of room for what may very well be the coolest bunch of foreigners I know of.
Barely even joking, I've never had anything but fantastic experiences with Scotsmen up here.
Heard England was talkin' shit. (http://satwcomic.com/part-of-the-gang)
-
people are trying to get votes by playing the Jew card, i.e. "Jews out of Glasgow".
intimidation and harassment of people is commonplace. to the tune of organised groups to violently prevent political opponents from speaking.
pro-yes campaigners call for surveillance of no campaigners, for "files" to be kept on them, to "ensure justice" after a yes vote.
yes campaign happy to endorse the views of homophobes, in return for large sums of money.
yes campaigners happy to say all no voters are full of "lies, stupidity and cowardice". google that phrase.
The yes campaign are happy to use the far-right as deniable assets, because this referendum is the only thing that matters to them, not the consequences of re-invigorating the far-right.
Modern Scotland.
-
Good luck to everyone on this site caught up in this thing.
Regardless of what happens (I have my own hopes for the vote, but not important), wishing the best for y'all.
-
Don't worry Scotland, it's cool. If you declare independence we'll just hook you up to some trawlers or something drag you up here and you can come hang with us. You're practically Scandinavian as it is. Besides, we're running low on Russian immigrant workers here so there's plenty of room for what may very well be the coolest bunch of foreigners I know of.
Barely even joking, I've never had anything but fantastic experiences with Scotsmen up here.
Heard England was talkin' shit. (http://satwcomic.com/part-of-the-gang)
Well, as a Scandinavian, I can't even begin to explain how true that comic is. I don't actually have a solid opinion on the independence bit, even though I'm leaning towards them going "fook all o'ye" to the imperialist bastards. It's a bit more complicated than that, sadly, so I guess I'll just have to wait and see what the Scots themselves think. Lou actually putting Diana Kim to shame in here just might tip me over to the independence side on general principle though.
-
... I'm not sure where you're reading that.
If anything, Lou is suggesting that the yes/pro-independence groups make Diana Kim-c look like a productive goodposter.
-
Well, it's the impression I'm getting. All that's missing is "And this is why the rebels must be destroyed" at the end of each post.
-
Imperialist bastards... :roll:
-
... I'm not sure where you're reading that.
If anything, Lou is suggesting that the yes/pro-independence groups make Diana Kim-c look like a productive goodposter.
Imperialist bastards... :roll:
I agree... :roll:
-
I don't own a house. All I have in the way of assets are my bank accounts.
The currency thing, means the yes campaign are asking me to gamble everything I own, on the chance that "things would be better", that "control of our destiny" means something other than a bunch of minority politicians sat in Edinburgh, thinking up new ways to be an authoritarian state, and that I would have to prove I have a right to be there, should I visit anywhere in the UK.
The yes campaign say the Westminster parties cannot be trusted to provide new powers, but we're supposed to trust them to follow the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement ?
They say that Westminster cannot be trusted to act in Scotland's interests, but we're supposed to still share a huge variety of institutions, such as the university research funding council, and stuff like the Police National Computer, and trust Westminster with those ?
They say that Scotland didn't vote for the parties that are in power in Westminster, but... most of Scotland didn't vote for the party that's in power in Scotland.
They say that it is unfair, that Scotland has "33% of the landmass of the UK but only 9% of the MPs", while S.E. England has "~10% of the landmass, but 35% of MPs". S.E. England has close to 40% of the UK population. Scotland has 8%.
A currency union commits a Scottish first minister, to on occasion act against the 5m people of Scotland's interests, in the interests of the 58m people who also use the currency. It's a dumb idea. Yet that's what's proposed.
also, intimidation of university academics that endorse a no vote - when the St.Andrews university principal said that a yes vote would threaten funding, Alex salmon'ds "chief of staff", phoned up to demand, demand, that the principal renounce that, and sign a document stating that independence would be good for universities.
"chief of staff", who is this person, by whose authority are they doing these things? Special advisors are everywhere. At the SNP cabinet meetings, there are hordes of these "advisors", from god knows where, and they sometimes are the ones who decide policy. They're not accountable to the electorate, why are they even there ?
The public bodies of Scotland have had numerous senior positions filled by people who are not qualified to be there, and are purely there to be yes men.
There are dozens of "community groups", which have received Government funding, to campaign for a yes vote.
It's not grass-roots, it's Astroturf.
The No campaign, are simply asking me to take a chance on the next lot of politicians in 2015 being less objectionable than the current lot.
-
An academic was saying something in the lines : if Scotland gets independence, it shares 8% (iirc) of the UK debt, which would mean 70% ++ of public debt, which would be rather bad for a new country.
Also, I hear that the main arguments for this independence is a difference of political views between Scotland and the South, where Scotland has always been a lot more left wing, and that there is also the problem of their representation politically, since as Lou pointed it's directly tied to the demographics.
Well then, maybe their issue is not so much with independence and more with democracy, or the autocracy of the majority ?
-
This had me in stitches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YkLPxQp_y0
"This is the face of a man who fast-forwards through the servant parts of Downton Abbey"
Anyway interesting stuff. I'm sure there are plenty of rational reasons why a 'no' vote might be better in the end, but sometimes the irrational self-determination bug gets people motivated.
From the outside it looks like Scotland doesn't have much of a say with how its own resources are being spent by London?
The once Scottish guy I know from EVE was telling me how he'd been waiting for this his whole life, sounds like it's a big deal to a lot of people either way
-
I have now been living in Aberdeen for just under two weeks. Most of the people I know who are voting, are voting 'no'. However, the city as a whole appears to have more 'yes' voters.
Neither side is covering themselves with glory. One friend of mine got his window smashed for putting a 'no thanks' poster up. Another got head butted in a bar for saying he was voting 'yes'.
The younger the person is, the more likely they are to vote no (from my experience). The further south the person is, the more likely they are to vote no (from the people I talk to). Aberdeen is both northern, and full of oil money so they don't see themselves as at risk from independence.
I walk around trying to look Scandinavian with my long hair and beard. I worry that my (incredibly) English accent might get me some uncomfortable attention. There have been multiple hundreds of people gathering in the square outside my building for "vote yes" rallies, and there are currently barriers and policemen set up around anything that could be climbed upon or smashed.
Tonight is going to be fun :|
-
I do not live in the area and have not properly studied the situation fully yet so I will not vote in the poll, but as a political science academic I just want to say that this could change everything. There are EU questions and situations this would bring up that have never happened before. My department is waiting with baited breath, articles are being written with multiple versions to be sent out to academic journals, television stations are getting professors on call for talk shows. For the field, this could be big.
-
the ballot papers are tissue thin, you can see how people voted, even when they're folded over.
-
The English get all the good ballot paper.
-
if there is a yes result, and scotland goes into the EU, then the EU will be tied up in argument for years if not decades, as other regions try for independence. It means the treaties and other stuff, which require unanimous agreement of all member nations, would have to be revised, to a majority agreement. Because having umpteen member nations means umpteen possibilities for vetoes, and for demands for concessions and special treatments. Concessions and special treatments mean why even bother with an EU at all ? what is the point of an EU regulation if 95% of the member nations are exempt from it ?
It means a reduction in social welfare, and less opportunities for people from poorer regions. E.g. look at say, North/South Italy. iirc, Berlusconi or one of his associates wants some bit of n.Italy, i think round Milan, to be independent from south Italy, which has a lot of social problems (immigrants, organised crime, organised criminal immigrants). they want Milan to be independent, so Milan taxes don't get spent on "the wrong kind of people". that makes s.Italy less able to afford to deal with the problems, and as such the EU would have to become involved directly, because having society collapse would be a huge problem. So you'd have a bunch of the small prosperous regions, and they'd complain about having to contribute to the EU, because they see the EU as spending money on "the wrong kind of people". And those regions would have a veto power on EU action. So all those little regions with right wing governments, end up screwing over the entire rest of the EU, and we're looking at a reversal of decades of social progress, and the resultant political violence, which will screw everything up for decades.
the whole point of the EU is that nationalistic sentiment is to be curbed, because europe has had enough of european wars.
for the american posters, the member nation veto power would be like... take the US Senate. Now, imagine that instead of a majority of senators voting for something, it required unanimity, that every single senator had the ability to veto any piece of legislation. that's what the EU has at the moment, kind of.
-
I wouldn't underestimate the latent desires of many Scots to give the proverbial finger to the Brits, no matter tomorrow's potential consequences.
There was an article here in the states (a pro-yes article mind you) saying that if the Independence movement here in the 1770s had taken a more rational look at the potential economic and social pitfalls of breaking away from Britain it wouldn't have happened, either.
Food for thought.
-
Same thing with us and the Danes. It wasn't the most stable and "safe" solution, but it wasn't exactly the worst decision we ever made.
-
Being rather far removed from my Scottish and English (among others!) roots, I don't a stake in this, but as a student of history I found this article interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11102126/Scottish-referendum-Alone-Scotland-will-go-back-to-being-a-failed-state.html
-
Imperialist bastards... :roll:
I agree... :roll:
I was late for work again today, because of there being another roadblock by the Grenadier Guards. I saw some masked soldiers pulling four motorists from their vehicles and beating them, for wearing tartan. I considered this about average for the time of year.
When I got to my workplace, a facility in the shadow of one of the sniper towers, I found that there was a shortage of petrol for our tools, because our guy who gets petrol was arrested for possession of articles likely to be of use to terrorists, i.e. the jerrycans. Even though he had permits and everything. So we didn't do much work today.
Then on my way home, I was stopped by the soldiers and questioned. Fortunately for me, on account of my dark skin, caused by going outside in the sunlight, I don't look Celtic, so wasn't beaten or sexually abused.
Except none of that actually happened. Because Scotland isn't occupied, scottish people aren't oppressed, and this whole stupid nationalism thing is about people who think THOSE FUNNY LOOKING OTHER PEOPLE are to blame for everything.
-
I hope they say yes and go for it.
I'm Welsh and I see Scotland as having an opportunity that we never had and will never have. Our country is completely subservient to England; it would be a shame to see Scotland end up like us.
Oh! Oh! If Scotland leave the UK, the Union Jack would need a makeover, and maybe, just maybe, they might actually consider representing Wales in the new design! \0/
-
Well, re reading my posts above it would seem that I am somewhat in favor of the no. Actually i'm far from having a clear opinion on the matter and i'm not even english or scot to begin with.
I think that independence is a great opportunity for them, mostly politically since it's the root of the problem : I was listening to a well versed and really composed yes militant this evening and the ideal was here, it was vibrant, even if well... idealistic. They seem to be extremely opposed politically to the central government, totally anti austerity (which I approve since i'm concerned too), and very pro EU to the contrary of England proper. I would be lying if I was not hoping to see them back into Europe a bit more than what the UK is these days. It's amusing to think that there is another referendum planned in a few years supposed to ask to all UK members if the UK should stay or leave the EU. They already think that without Scotland the UK would lose a lot of its EU supporters and such its independence could completely throw that other referendum in a radical direction and thus UK out of the EU altogether.
However i'm rather concerned for the scottish economy, and have to look honestly at how us latin countries would react to independentists, either Spain or France. Especially towards Catalonia currently, that is already rather autonomous, and then the Basque country (Navarre) or Corsica, where independentists are a smaller minority (but a terrorist one at times). Since our governments are totally different and centralized, that will never, never end well if such a thing were to happen. Especially in Spain since for France it's really nothing, just a few individuals, but still. Sometimes you just need a spark and... Contrary to Scotland, we don't need that here, really. Either for Catalonia because it's the same shit than for Northern Italy, people being too selfish to carry on with their southern bros, or either for Navarre/Corsica precisely because nobody out there want to be independent, just a few radical nutcases.
-
They already think that without Scotland the UK would lose a lot of its EU supporters and such its independence could completely throw that other referendum in a radical direction and thus UK out of the EU altogether.
This is another perspective that polisci folks are paying attention to. Scotland leaving would swing domestic politics severely in the UK, never mind all the details of Scotland and the EU.
-
There are a myriad of economic conundrums which would face an independent Scotland. Frankly, even as someone opposed to dissolution of the union, I don't think they should matter all that much. The monetary conundrum will be tough whether they keep the pound or try and convert to a new currency (maybe the euro? keeping the pound or pegging a new currency to it would be terrible), the fiscal irresponsibility of putting too much stock in North Sea oil revenue is borderline criminal (those reserves are over half tapped out, slightly more than half is owned by the Norwegians, and of the remaining reserves some of it is in English waters anyway, that does not an economy make). All this gets piled on top of the dangerous precedence for other independence movements (just as easily could be called Balkanization movements).
I think it doesn't just make economic and political sense to maintain the union, I think generally England and Scotland (and Wales but maybe not Norther Ireland) are better off for being united (though the south really needs to change its tune on some issues when it comes to equality of importance on issues between the countries). However, in the end I fundamentally believe in the free determination of people, even if on many metrics I think the move is objectively bad the Scots have the right to make what I think are poor decisions. So, no matter the vote, I'll support their right to do whatever they choose to do.
-
Imperialist bastards... :roll:
I agree... :roll:
I was late for work again today, because of there being another roadblock by the Grenadier Guards. I saw some masked soldiers pulling four motorists from their vehicles and beating them, for wearing tartan. I considered this about average for the time of year.
When I got to my workplace, a facility in the shadow of one of the sniper towers, I found that there was a shortage of petrol for our tools, because our guy who gets petrol was arrested for possession of articles likely to be of use to terrorists, i.e. the jerrycans. Even though he had permits and everything. So we didn't do much work today.
Then on my way home, I was stopped by the soldiers and questioned. Fortunately for me, on account of my dark skin, caused by going outside in the sunlight, I don't look Celtic, so wasn't beaten or sexually abused.
Except none of that actually happened. Because Scotland isn't occupied, scottish people aren't oppressed, and this whole stupid nationalism thing is about people who think THOSE FUNNY LOOKING OTHER PEOPLE are to blame for everything.
Nationalism isn't always stupid; sometimes those other people are horrible :P
-
What sort of representation does Scotland get in the UK for decision making in exchange for their membership and sending oil/etc to Westminster?
Honest question
-
for the american posters, the member nation veto power would be like... take the US Senate. Now, imagine that instead of a majority of senators voting for something, it required unanimity, that every single senator had the ability to veto any piece of legislation. that's what the EU has at the moment, kind of.
Actually, and not to argue against your point so much as to just point out something interesting, thanks to anonymous holds and tag team holds, in practice a single senator can make sure a bill never reaches the floor for a vote without the public knowing who it is and two or more senators can make sure it's kept off the floor forever and in secret.
-
What sort of representation does Scotland get in the UK for decision making in exchange for their membership and sending oil/etc to Westminster?
Honest question
Off the top of my head:
59 seats in the House of Commons (this number was reduced when they established a Scottish Parliament for a chunk of domestic policy), out of about 650, small but Scotland also has 11% (roughly) of the population and also I believe about 10% stake in the Bank of England (lender of last resort). Under-representation would be a bigger issue if the last Prime Minister and Chancellor (moneybags) hand't been Scots, and also if there weren't Scots in key positions in the opposition and the government. Scots are also very well represented in industry, business and trade unions.
It would be a strong mitigating factor IF the upper chamber, the House of Lords was a) elected or partially elected) and b) if it went on equal representation for the 4 nations, i.e. 50 lords for Wales, 50 for Scotland etc. Right now governments just cram the Lords full of anyone who'll accept the seat, so it doesn't really factor in, especially because since it is an unelected chamber it's powers are clipped severely.
-
What sort of representation does Scotland get in the UK for decision making in exchange for their membership and sending oil/etc to Westminster?
Honest question
Off the top of my head:
59 seats in the House of Commons (this number was reduced when they established a Scottish Parliament for a chunk of domestic policy), out of about 650, small but Scotland also has 11% (roughly) of the population and also I believe about 10% stake in the Bank of England (lender of last resort). Under-representation would be a bigger issue if the last Prime Minister and Chancellor (moneybags) hand't been Scots, and also if there weren't Scots in key positions in the opposition and the government. Scots are also very well represented in industry, business and trade unions.
It would be a strong mitigating factor IF the upper chamber, the House of Lords was a) elected or partially elected) and b) if it went on equal representation for the 4 nations, i.e. 50 lords for Wales, 50 for Scotland etc. Right now governments just cram the Lords full of anyone who'll accept the seat, so it doesn't really factor in, especially because since it is an unelected chamber it's powers are clipped severely.
Incredibly stupid question, but the house of lords members aren't elected? Hereditary title? I thought you guys got rid of that stuff when the Monarchy stopped making the laws?
-
house of lords members are appointed. The hereditary peers no longer sit in the house of lords.
-
What sort of representation does Scotland get in the UK for decision making in exchange for their membership and sending oil/etc to Westminster?
Honest question
Off the top of my head:
59 seats in the House of Commons (this number was reduced when they established a Scottish Parliament for a chunk of domestic policy), out of about 650, small but Scotland also has 11% (roughly) of the population and also I believe about 10% stake in the Bank of England (lender of last resort). Under-representation would be a bigger issue if the last Prime Minister and Chancellor (moneybags) hand't been Scots, and also if there weren't Scots in key positions in the opposition and the government. Scots are also very well represented in industry, business and trade unions.
It would be a strong mitigating factor IF the upper chamber, the House of Lords was a) elected or partially elected) and b) if it went on equal representation for the 4 nations, i.e. 50 lords for Wales, 50 for Scotland etc. Right now governments just cram the Lords full of anyone who'll accept the seat, so it doesn't really factor in, especially because since it is an unelected chamber it's powers are clipped severely.
Incredibly stupid question, but the house of lords members aren't elected? Hereditary title? I thought you guys got rid of that stuff when the Monarchy stopped making the laws?
There were a mix of hereditary and "Life Peers", up until about 1997(?), and some time before that I think, there was a ban on creating more hereditary titles. Oh, explaining a little more, a "Life Peer" is someone who is given their peerage, which lasts as long as they live but comes with no lands or associated power, and can't be inherited. 1997 was when hereditary peers were told only a handful could sit in the lords, about 80 something I think, out of about 750
Life Peers are appointed, technically by Her Majesty the Queen, but in reality the parties in the Commons send her a list and she signs it off without much of a glance. They're a mixed bag, along with all the political grandees and hasbeens looking for a retirement home with fancy garb, they also include scientists, writers, lawyers, actors, military leaders, industry leaders and basically anyone with some kind of professional achievement. Oh and the Bishops of the Church of England.
It's a bit fucked, to be honest. Quite a few peers don't even turn up much, not least because there's so many they couldn't even fit in the chamber.
Edit: In my ideal fantasy world, Lords would be elected and loose their title when they leave, and the house would function much like the US Senate, only instead of 2 for each state, somewhere in the region of 50-75. We have fewer states.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-polling-station-graffiti-sparks-accusations-of-voter-intimidation-during-referendum-vote-9741015.html
" a polling station was sprayed with graffiti warning: “Vote Yes – or else"."
"one Yes supporter, aged 44, was arrested by police after allegedly assaulting a man he believed would be voting No. "
"One RIC organiser said his organisation and others couldn’t be held responsible “for what would happen if there is a No vote. Will there be trouble? I hope not – but there are no guarantees.”"
"an elderly man who is registered blind and who usually carried a white walking stick is reported to have been punched in the face by a Yes supporter. The incident yesterday is said to have occurred when the man was handing out pro-union leaflets in the city’s George Square."
Scotland. Democracy. PICK ONE.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-polling-station-graffiti-sparks-accusations-of-voter-intimidation-during-referendum-vote-9741015.html
" a polling station was sprayed with graffiti warning: “Vote Yes – or else"."
"one Yes supporter, aged 44, was arrested by police after allegedly assaulting a man he believed would be voting No. "
"One RIC organiser said his organisation and others couldn’t be held responsible “for what would happen if there is a No vote. Will there be trouble? I hope not – but there are no guarantees.”"
"an elderly man who is registered blind and who usually carried a white walking stick is reported to have been punched in the face by a Yes supporter. The incident yesterday is said to have occurred when the man was handing out pro-union leaflets in the city’s George Square."
Scotland. Democracy. PICK ONE.
You guys are amateurs at this voter intimidation/ disenfranchisement thing, come to the South here and be black; they still pass actual laws here to make certain classes and races of people less likely to vote.
It was less than 60 years ago people were getting shot here for trying to get some of our underclass to register
:P
le sigh.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-polling-station-graffiti-sparks-accusations-of-voter-intimidation-during-referendum-vote-9741015.html
" a polling station was sprayed with graffiti warning: “Vote Yes – or else"."
"one Yes supporter, aged 44, was arrested by police after allegedly assaulting a man he believed would be voting No. "
"One RIC organiser said his organisation and others couldn’t be held responsible “for what would happen if there is a No vote. Will there be trouble? I hope not – but there are no guarantees.”"
"an elderly man who is registered blind and who usually carried a white walking stick is reported to have been punched in the face by a Yes supporter. The incident yesterday is said to have occurred when the man was handing out pro-union leaflets in the city’s George Square."
Scotland. Democracy. PICK ONE.
You guys are amateurs at this voter intimidation/ disenfranchisement thing, come to the South here and be black; they still pass actual laws here to make certain classes and races of people less likely to vote.
It was less than 60 years ago people were getting shot here for trying to get some of our underclass to register
:P
le sigh.
Not satisfied with making it difficult to vote. Virginia has technically made it illegal for minorities (technically anyone but minorities are affected disproportionately) to rent,gain employment, as well as vote without state ID and a background check. Best of all, we're one of those "battleground" half-liberal states.
Back on subject: I hope Scotland stays in the UK. I'm not certain the "yes" crowd fully understands the social and political capital they have simply by being members of the UK.
-
Most Yes people I have talked to are responding with "We'll never get this chance again."
-
The sentiment seemed similar in the mid-90's when I was spending summers in Quebec. I agree that it's a historic occasion. The significance doesn't necessarily warrant a vote either way in my opinion. Though I'm admittedly an outsider and my opinion should be treated as such.
-
BBC is now calling the election for "no", that is Scotland remains.
Of course votes are still being counted.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-29270441
-
Yeah, it is going to be a no. How boring.
-
there's still lots of votes to come in
teh divisions are going to take a long time to heal.
a tiny minority on both sides brought shame to all of scotland.
the world was watching, an d they chose to be an ass.
-
Most of the pollsters I saw were giving it an astronomically low chance of passing. So this was expected at this point.
-
Latest figures from the local papers here say 55% for no and the yes side admits defeat, but still expect the promises made to Scotland to be kept. Let's just hope Scotland can mend the tears that have come along during this struggle, and handle that this may very well have been their last shot at this.
It's a bit heavy to see parents crying in the street, saying they'd hoped their kid would get to live in a free Scotland.
-
I would have voted no, but this is still a deeply unhappy day for me. This only came about through negligence and something must be done for the entire UK.
Today was only ever going to end in tears. The question is; what now.
-
This only came about through negligence and something must be done for the entire UK.
So much this. Well said!
-
Most Yes people I have talked to are responding with "We'll never get this chance again."
According to some historians, even if they lost the referendum, they won on the long run, which i'm inclined to agree with. Not even a few months ago the yes was around 25%. Then got above 50% before getting down again, maybe through a movement of fear playing on a catastrophic rhetoric at the last minute. But still 45%. That's huge. It remains to be seen if the trend is going to stay that high now.
It made Cameron panic, and that's completely amazing in itself since it was Cameron that said lol nope to the devolution max to powers in Scotland. He denied it completely since he was sure to win the first referendum idea that was to propose actually a 3 way vote including yes, no, and devolution max. And now, look at where he is.
There is also the case of Wales, that never got the same autonomy as Scotland and continued again and again to press the matter. Now that Scotland is going to gain even more autonomy, it sure is going to cause ripples in Wales as well.
Eventually, even if the no thanks won, a seed is planted, I think.
there's still lots of votes to come in
teh divisions are going to take a long time to heal.
a tiny minority on both sides brought shame to all of scotland.
the world was watching, an d they chose to be an ass.
I don't know honestly, everything I read seems to tell that everyone behave nice and that the divisions are rather well taken.
Maybe that's not the case, I couldn't know, but I don't think Scotland brought shame on itself to the world.
-
It's a bit heavy to see parents crying in the street, saying they'd hoped their kid would get to live in a free Scotland.
For me it's quite weird to see people equate 'free' with 'independant'. First, independance is always only had in grades, never fully. Even if Scotland would have left the UK, it would have been dependant on England to some non-trivial degree, dor socio- and econo-geographical reasons.
Also, that may be the federalist speaking out of me and the particular german tradition of federalism at that, but I wouldn't think that, e.g., a Lower Saxony or Bavaria outside of Germany would be any bit more 'free'.
But then the vibes I get are that many scots didn't and still don't see Scotland as a federal partner on equal footing with especially England. It appears to me to be an inheritance of how the UK came to be and wasn't intended to be a federall community of states... vOv
I think it's a good thing for Scotland to remain in the UK, though.
-
That is indeed a significant part of the problem. When compared to, say the US, where most of the States "grew up together", Scotland, Wales and such very much didn't. It's always been a rather lopsided arrangement which hasn't been helped much by the way politics have been centered around a very English core.
What is best for Scotland long and short-term will remain to be seen, but for now we'll just have to hope half the country can get over this result.
-
I'm not sure the real root of the issue in Scotland is a yearning for the past and their national pride. I'm pretty sure that it's political inclination problem engulfed into misrepresentation intricacies.
I mean, there are countless of counter examples of regions that went under the exact same fate than Scotland, lived up as part of the new entity for centuries now, and most people consider themselves citizens and natives of that entity.
-
Never underestimate the need for a cultural identity, and more importantly the need for that identity to be perceived equally (politically, culturally etc) to your peers.
-
Just for the sake of posterity, here's the results of Backstage's informal poll
SHOULD SCOTLAND BE AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY?
Yes - 12 - (31.6%)
No - 15 - (39.5%)
Yes, If the political situation doesn't look like it will change - 1 - (2.6%)
No, But the political situation needs to change - 3 - (7.9%)
Undecided - 7 - (18.4%)
In the UK it's sometimes considered a faux pas to ask people how they voted, but nevertheless, if you feel like sharing why you voted how you did, how you'd vote now, or if/why you switched to a different answer, or if you moved from undecided and why, please do share your stories.
-
in this backstage poll ? I voted no. nationalism is divisive, causes people to see other people as "them", and assign all the problems of society onto "them", and creates false solutions by attempting to remove "them" from society.
nationalism has caused hundreds of years of european wars, including some of the most self destructive wars the world has seen (the great war as the major example).
what the united kingdom shows, if you look at all the Scots inventors and thinkers that are often brought up as examples of Scottish ingenuity and such, they all appeared after the Union, because it meant that people in both countries could cease plotting and preparing for war with their immediate neighbour, and turn to other endeavours.
-
In the UK it's sometimes considered a faux pas to ask people how they voted
and yet it doesn't stop people coming to my door and asking me how I'm going to vote around elections :evil:
none of your business, it's a secret ballot - get off my doorstep.
...and don't phone me, either.
My view is not dissimilar from Neil Gaiman's:
I worry that for the Scots, the YES vote has become essentially a gigantic Vote of No Confidence in Westminster and the Westminster Party system, which I share. As someone who has a house in Scotland, lives in Scotland when he can, and adopted his wife’s clan name as his middle name when we married, I hope that, in the case of a YES vote, life in Scotland continues to be as good or better than it is right now; and that in the case of a NO vote, the fractures between people of different opinions heal rapidly and that Westminster’s recent offers of concessions to Scotland are real.
I don’t get a vote, which is a good thing, as I’d probably be a Don’t Know until I got to the ballot box, and would then choose based on a hundred different reasons, including how much I disliked any particular politicians and whether the sun was shining that day and whether I was particularly missing Iain Banks.
Er, well sort of anyway.
I also have no confidence in the Westminster system, mind.
-
I only voted undecided so I could see the poll results.
Never underestimate the need for a cultural identity, and more importantly the need for that identity to be perceived equally (politically, culturally etc) to your peers.
Are you saying that the british/Uk cultural identity is a non existing entity ? Or that Scots do not have one at the moment ?
-
I'm saying the Scots have one the same as we did while under the Danes. It's not entirely the same, but I can just see an attempt at holding Scandinavia together as one. We have a Scandinavian identity, but it comes after our Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Icelandic identities.
I voted yes, because it's not about nationalism. It's about being yourselves, governed by yourselves, THEN forming and maintaining bonds outside of that. The drawbacks are worth it.
-
I disagree that the Scots have a national identity.
-
Quite a few scots I know and worked with disagree quite vehemently with that.
-
were they Highlanders, Aberdonians, Dundonians, or what ?
-
I've never known them to identify themselves as other than Scots when asked, so I wouldn't know. They worked on an LNG plant on an island up here, living there with the rest of us. My view of Scotland is largely entirely based on them, and they were just beyond awesome people.
-
well you see, it's like this.
Tartan, kilts, bagpipes, caber tossing are all a highlander thing.
Speaking Gaelic is a highland and western island thing.
Haggis may originally be a Norse thing.
Burns poetry is a lowland thing.
the Doric is a north-east thing.
The highlanders play shinty instead of football, so shouting at the television when the footballs on isn't a thing common to all the people of Scotland.
There are a number of Scottish identities, but there isn't A Scottish identity. There isn't anything, other than being born within somewhat arbitrary geographical boundaries, that all the people of Scotland have in common.
-
That's like saying Nordlendinger doesn't have a Norwegian identity. Every country has different regional features and cultural influxes from different sources, but we still have a national identity. Dismissing Scottish identity like that is rather disrespectful.
-
Well then, tell me what I have in common with a Gaelic speaking Highlander.
-
In other news:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum)
Russia has said the conduct of the Scottish referendum "did not meet international standards", with its observers complaining the count took place in rooms that were too big and that the procedure was badly flawed.
In an apparent attempt to mirror persistent western criticism of Russia's own elections, Igor Borisov – an accredited observer – said the poll failed to meet basic international norms.
Borisov and three other Russians arrived in Edinburgh on Wednesday evening, the state news agency Ria Novosti reported. The team from Moscow's Public Institute of Suffrage watched voting take place in the Scottish capital and the surrounding area. It also met with Scottish politicians, voters and representatives from non-governmental organisations, Ria said.
Borisov said he was unimpressed by what he saw. He said the room where he watched the count on Thursday night was a cavernous "aircraft hangar" next to an airfield. It was difficult to see what was going on, he said, adding: "The hangar is approximately 100m by 300m. There are tables, with voting papers stacked upon them, but the observers are stuck around the perimeter. Even if you want to, it's impossible to tell what's happening. It's also unclear where the boxes with ballot papers come from."
Borisov said the US state department, the UK and other western countries loudly hectored the Kremlin about Russia's supposed democratic deficiencies. But in this instance, he said, London and Edinburgh had not "fully met" the requirements of a proper referendum.
"Nobody was interested in who was bringing in the voting slips. There were no stamps or signatures as the bulletins were handed over," he said.
Supporters of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, had been fervently hoping for a yes vote. Some Russian nationalists had even fixed yes badges to their Twitter profiles, with one –Konstantin Rykov – adding a "Mc" to the front of his Cyrillic surname. (The badge and "Mc" had disappeared by Friday morning). The Kremlin apparently saw Scottish independence as a way of justifying its own hasty annexation of Crimea in March, following a "referendum" conducted in just three weeks and condemned by the west, as armed Russian forces and irregulars swarmed over the Crimean peninsula. Moscow also felt that a yes vote would weaken the UK and bring to power a post-independence Scottish government more amenable to Moscow's wishes. Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, expressed qualified admiration for President Putin in an interview with GQ in March.
The Kremlin propaganda channel RT, meanwhile, speculated that the result might have been rigged and expressed surprise at the "North Korean" levels of turnout.
Afshin Rattansi, the presenter of RT's Going Underground show, said there were "international considerations", such as the UK's nuclear deterrent, which had affected the outcome. He said: "With the vote as close as this, with the mainstream media on one side, with a massive amount of people from Westminster running up to beg Scotland the other way, and certain recounts in certain bits of the poll, which way did the vote go, really?"
He added: "It is normally the sort of turnout you would expect in North Korea. Usually media here would go 'we don't believe it. How can it be nearly 90%?'".
And then suddenly Tu-95s (http://"http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/raf-fighter-jets-scrambled-intercept-4287410")!
-
Well then, tell me what I have in common with a Gaelic speaking Highlander.
The same thing I do with a Sami. Besides, it's not your place to erase an entire national identity because you don't share it. If that Gaelic speaking Highlander identify as a Scot, then there's a national identity. That guy? He's got a whole lot of friends who do the same, all over Scotland. Dismissing the national identity is an odd way of going about things.
-
The thing with cultural identities is that it is the right of the people claiming them to define them, not outsiders
-
I agree, which is why I went by what I was told by the Scots I know. Maybe they're no true scotsmen, but I'll take their word for it.
-
Well I typed a wall of text about the case of Brittany, that like Scotland is part of the 6 celtic nations and share a similar history towards a greater power, and how their stance turned out to become now quite different to their Scottish old bros due to the difference in environment... And how it is completely different to the case of the Danes too but...
Whatever. If people want their independence and do not recognize themselves in the ruling nation identity, fine, I couldn't say I can blame them... I just don't comprehend their feeling.
And then what do you make of the others ?
-
The thing with cultural identities is that it is the right of the people claiming them to define them, not outsiders
obviously I, being scottish, am wrong and cannot possibly know anything about there not being a common scottish cultural identity, because obviously I know nothing, and Mizhara is right because of having talked to some dudes this one time.
-
Besides, it's not your place to erase an entire national identity because you don't share it.
Uhm. I dunno, I think being a Scot, it kind of is her place. Certainly more than mine.
(Until another Scot comes and contests it, ofc - but then it's still both of their places).
But yeah. She has the right to talk about her own country, I would've thought...?
Whether that echoes your ideas of a Scottish national identity or not?
-
The No True Scotsmen thing that's happening tickles the hell out of me.
-
The No True Scotsmen thing that's happening tickles the hell out of me.
talk to Mizhara then. They're the expert on knowing who is Scottish. Not me.
-
No True Scotsman (or -woman) would put up with some outlander telling them what is and isn't Scottish. :)
(Joking. Seriously. Mostly.)
-
I'm pretty sure no one has tried to deny anyone else their right to an opinion here, nor actually invoked No True Scotsman other than in obvious jests. I think if some fairly casual talk about these things raises blood pressures as far as they're getting here though, it's time to take a few steps back and not take things quite so seriously.
It's a simple enough statement. There are Scots identifying themselves as such, quite the same as others are Englishmen, French, etc etc and it's not up to anyone, even other people from Scotland to deny them that. If someone came along and said I had no Norwegian identity because I'm a nordlending (we barely have the language in common with the southern fairies), I'd either be exceedingly confused or angry.
Feel free to disagree, obviously, but I think that sort of thing is up to each and every Scot rather than one individual deciding it for all of them.
-
Never said people didn't have A Scottish identity.
I said there wasn't a common Scottish identity that everyone can identify with.
-
I am from Ayrshire, I speak English, I read Burns poetry at school, I watch football on the telly, and wear clothes.
Duncan McLeod of the clan McLeod, is from Wester Ross, speaks Gaelic, read Gaelic poetry at school, watches shinty on the telly, and wears a kilt.
I've met Duncan. Other than being born in the same geographical area, according to the lines on the maps, I didn't have anything in common.
-
That applies to pretty much every country. There is not a single identifying feature, dress style, concept, value or whatever that I share with all other Norwegians other than being born and raised here. Hell, we don't even share that if we count adult immigrants, which I personally do. The nation itself has an identity though. One borne from history, internal and external, with conflicts, differences, unifying events and god this is a lot of commas. The identity of a nation may be difficult to pin down to a nice list of bullet points (or holes, in some cases), but I'm having serious trouble coming up with one that doesn't have one.
-
That's something I don't understand... If through History, a nation gets an identity, then why Scotland identity would prevail over UK's identity ?
Or are we speaking about the concept of Nation States ?
-
That's something I don't understand... If through History, a nation gets an identity, then why Scotland identity would prevail over UK's identity ?
I think the idea was for UK identity to stop prevailing over the Scottish one.
-
Politically I suppose ?
-
That applies to pretty much every country. There is not a single identifying feature, dress style, concept, value or whatever that I share with all other Norwegians other than being born and raised here. Hell, we don't even share that if we count adult immigrants, which I personally do. The nation itself has an identity though. One borne from history, internal and external, with conflicts, differences, unifying events and god this is a lot of commas. The identity of a nation may be difficult to pin down to a nice list of bullet points (or holes, in some cases), but I'm having serious trouble coming up with one that doesn't have one.
Yes. Exactly.
Because that's very much what she was telling you - that there is no single identifying feature, dress style, concept, value etc in Scotland.
Though I'd disagree with your last part and your distinction between a nation itself having an identity, and there not being any single unifying feature. This is the reason why it's difficult to pin down to a nice list of bullet points. I'm having trouble coming up with a nation that does have a solid unified unfractured idea of it's own identity - apart from ones where such ideas are actively enforced.
Thing is though, from the outside - a unifying National Identity can be formed by cultural stereotypes or othering.
For England, for example, those cultural stereotypes might be sarcasm, queueing and complaining about the weather. And we might be othered (or other ourselves) as a unifier - for example, we are what these people are not, they are what we are not, etc. Americans tend to see us as 'quaint' and polite in relation (certainly not the shared experience of certain popular European cheap holiday destinations) whereas the Aussie's tend to see us as stuck up poms. Which are all generalisations, ofc, and depend on the subject position or who the comparison is with.
And yes, a nation's history and culture will shape an idea of itself. But that as well cannot be pinned down to any one unifying perspective. For example, many people will view the British Empire as one of pride and accomplishment. Others a sense of shame for our colonial past.
But from the inside, that view changes somewhat. You pick up on all the little differences (some quite big differences) that you refer to. Class is quite a big one. The perspective of 'England' from the upper, middle and working classes are all going to be fairly different. Race is another. There might be an idea that England is a 'white' country (particularly from the far-right) who're being invaded by foreigners. So how does that work if you're born in England, your family were born in England, you view yourself as English, but you aren't white so other people deny your Englishness? (which end up with some fairly ridiculous conversations like, "Oh, where are you from?" "Liverpool." "Yes, but, where are you from originally?" "...Liverpool?" "Yes, but, what I mean is, where do your family come from?" "...Liverpool?!") And how does it work when, if you look at our place names, we don't actually have a cohesive identity, but have been informed by various invaders, such as Normans, Saxons, Romans and Vikings?
Aside from *that* there's regional distinctiveness and all the cultural stereotypes that go along with that. The different characters of our cities. The different accents in our counties. There's a reason, for example, why Yorkshire accents are used in advertisements. For whatever reason, a Yorkshireman is considered trustworthy. Maybe the rural idyll of one-man-and-his-dog from Last of the Summer Wine or something, I'm not sure. And really, they were all part of separate Kingdoms anyways, once. The Isle of Wight, for example, will happily other itself by describing the rest of the country in it's entirety as 'the mainland'. While Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland can rightfully call themselves other countries within the UK, Cornwall and Northumberland (and whoever else) also kind of seem like separate principalities or kingdoms. (and in fact, Northumberland - being the borders, are in a bit of an awkward position in all of this being so close to Scotland. It's not really like they have that much to do with the rest of England, given that the wealth and power is concentrated in London and the South East).
So yes, when unified or othered externally, all these disparate characters can be generalised, but that's not necessarily an accurate depiction of 'one' identity that everybody shares. But you can't always see that from the outside. When you just see the generalised characteristics.
So when Louella tells you, from the inside, what some of these differences are in the different areas that trouble the idea of one unified identity, and you dismiss that as talking for all Scottish people, I can see why that might get her goat. I don't think you intended it that way, but yes, it did seem like you were saying that your idea of a Scottish national identity from an outsider perspective where you don't see all these individual details, are more valid than her idea of a more complex, detailed and distinct Scotland from the inside.
I get as well that you're doing it out of a positive place; love for Scotland and the Scots, and view it as a shared Scandinavian identity in terms of acceptance (i.e you can see some commonality), and that you've met and genuinely liked some Scottish people. But if you're saying she can't speak for all Scots on what a national identity is or isn't, I would suggest that you can't either - and, in fact, if either of you were to generalise in this manner, she would be in a better 'place' to do so.
I think the idea was for UK identity to stop prevailing over the Scottish one.
Valid, but I don't think the issue is the UK gobbling up Scotland's identity and distinctiveness by amalgamation.
It's more, within the UK, England having a significant amount of power over Scotland, given the power base is concentrated in Westminster.
(Though frankly, if they could, I think a lot of England would want independence from Westminster also).
Edit:
Duncan McLeod of the clan McLeod, is from Wester Ross, speaks Gaelic, read Gaelic poetry at school, watches shinty on the telly, and wears a kilt.
I've met Duncan. Other than being born in the same geographical area, according to the lines on the maps, I didn't have anything in common.
Fuck me, and I thought he was a fictional character :D
-
Norway also has national service, which gives Norwegians of all sorts, a bond.
Scotland does not have national service.
-
National service is hardly universal. In fact, in later years it's the minority that serves.
Kala hit the nail on the head though, so I have little else to add.
-
Kala hit the nail on the head though, so I have little else to add.
Oh, cheers, that's nice to hear :)
I actually just asked my partner to look over it, and he felt it was too wordy and I wasn't getting to the point. When I asked what I should take out, he said "paragraph 3, 4, 5, 6..." but people have already seen it now so I won't bother editing it down :P
-
No need. You went into the level of detail and nuance no one else bothered with, so kudos.
-
That's what I was hinting at through Nation States above. The only identity that Scots can gather behind currently is a political one, rising out of political necessity regarding their balance of power and representation vs Westminster. That's not a question of cultural identity.
Nation States started up XIXth century and went to their apex in the last century. The concept and very definition of it is a nation corresponding to its ethnicity perfectly. Well, in reality, it's quite fucked up since you will always find differences, unclear bonds, etc.
Actually all the Nation States that heavily leaned on that doctrine are not actual Nation States, aka the UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc. The national identity that rose up from the Nation State ideal was a constructed one, imposing an unifying identity over various ethnics, cultures, etc. Some went deep into it (France, Japan, Russia, Bismark Germany, etc) while others were a lot more moderate about it (UK, modern Germany, etc).
So I would maybe dare say that Scots that actually think about a national identity might be flirting with the idea again. Because otherwise, it's just various people living in the same place, especially now in our age of globalization.
Because if you get far enough in the past, you have tribes, ethnic groups, that compose certain regions. For example, Scotland, with Highlanders and so on. Which added Scotland as an upper layer after through feudal regimes and kingdoms. And then got integrated into something bigger, the UK, that replaced Scotland as a national identity. Or, did it ? Not totally.
Here in France, I was speaking about Brittany that is a similar case. Well, it got integrated a few centuries ago into the kingdom, and the national identity of France completely replaced the Britton one. It's different due to the national leverage and environment.
But you can also leap a bit into the future, or even today, and look at Europe as a whole new identity starting to emerge above. I may be taking a big leap of faith in saying so, but maybe someday we will be europeans and not brittish, germans, etc. And those will actually be the ones trying to emancipate, and we are already starting to see such movements emerging right now in various right wing parties.
Norway also has national service, which gives Norwegians of all sorts, a bond.
Scotland does not have national service.
We had national service too and it never really gave any bond. All people that speak about it speak about it very negatively.
-
I am from Ayrshire, I speak English, I read Burns poetry at school, I watch football on the telly, and wear clothes.
Duncan McLeod of the clan McLeod, is from Wester Ross, speaks Gaelic, read Gaelic poetry at school, watches shinty on the telly, and wears a kilt.
I've met Duncan. Other than being born in the same geographical area, according to the lines on the maps, I didn't have anything in common.
I met an Osloværing once, born and raised in my own nations capital. His weird clothing sense, his weird dialect (I swear I've never heard that barely understandable thing he spoke anywhere else in the country, NOT EVEN IN OSLO (seriously I understand SWEDES better than I understood this guy)), his bizarre taste in foods and the political leaning and understanding he had was completely alien to me.
I live several hundred kilometers north of the polar circle, I dress in a simplistic and practical manner, I enjoy a lot of fish and meat products, and I speak in a thick 'typical' Nordlænding accent that's a dead give-away anywhere I go in the kingdom that I am from the northern half of the nation.
I'd never say anything like I disagree that the ScotsNorwegians have a national identity.
when what I mean is ..there [isn't] a common ScottishNorwegian identity that everyone can identify with.
because well, that can easily be misunderstood. And I would never even consider the idea that the dude from Oslo and me don't have anything in common that we can both relate to.
Because at the end of the day, if nothing else, Nationality itself is a part of culture. I have as much right to call myself a Norwegian as the dude from Oslo does, and I honestly believe that with very few exceptions anyone born and raised in a nation get nothing less than a BIRTH-RIGHT to call themselves citizens of that nation.
If anything, having a culture so wide that people from one end of the nation is completely different from another end is a strength born from diversity, not a reason to openly question if you should even be considered to have a national identity at all.
---
Now, for the topic at hand:
I was the second to vote Yes - If the political situation doesn't look like it will change
This is because in my opinion what's Good for Scotland and it's people is not automatically what will happen if they remain as part of Britain. I voted this way AFTER it was clear that the Yes side lost with about a 45% vs 55% population divide.
The only thing this tragic event (yes, tragic - it's basically divided the whole nation politically almost along the middle) will do for the future is remind the people who voted yes why they did so in the first place, regardless of how it goes. Same goes for the no voters. If the UK manage to slowly fix whatever conditions that led nearly half the population of Scotland to want out of the UK to begin with, then good on them, the Scots will be relieved that they stayed. But the very fact that they saw the need to vote round a GTFO option to begin with and the fact that this divided the population as much as it did is nothing short of tragic.
I can only hope that the yes voters won't feel a need to be angry with their no-voting brethren in a decade or two, cause at this rate if nothing is solved it's likely going to come to another vote like this come a decade and the yes side will be bigger that time around.
The UK has had very long to prove itself an effective political solution for everyone in it, and I for one hope for all citizens of Britain that it proves itself vindicated of the faith that those 55% of Scots have placed in it following this whole affair. The majority voted, basically, to let the UK fix this as a unified entity. Let us hope that that actually happens. Fast.
-
Heard rumblings about Westminster apparently backpedaling on their promises already. I haven't found a reliable source on it as of yet, but I wouldn't be surprised. Time for an England referendum to try and gain independence from Westminster, yeah?
-
Heard rumblings about Westminster apparently backpedaling on their promises already. I haven't found a reliable source on it as of yet, but I wouldn't be surprised. Time for an England referendum to try and gain independence from Westminster, yeah?
The elections for Westminster are in May 2015. The legislative timetable up to that point, laid out in the Queen's Speech has already been made. It's not really possible to get much done, by any of the Westminster parties, until after that election.
there are some Scottish nationalists who would be extremely opposed to any kind of devolution for the regions of England, such as Yorkshire, Cornwall, Northumbria and the like, because they view it as diminishing Scotland's status, by making it equivalent to "a mere region".
Its the classic politician's behaviour dilemma:
Do you A: do something to benefit everyone? B: stab your political rivals in the back?
almost every politician I've ever seen on the telly in the UK, has chosen B. :|
-
Quote from: Louella Dougans on 19 Sep 2014, 10:18
I disagree that the ScotsNorwegians have a national identity.
when what I mean is
Quote from: Louella Dougans on 19 Sep 2014, 15:12
..there [isn't] a common ScottishNorwegian identity that everyone can identify with.
I'm not sure how they are entirely different statements. A common identity within a country was my understanding of what national identity means.
Wiki gives me:
"National identity is a person's identity and sense of belonging to one state or to one nation, a feeling one shares with a group of people, regardless of one's citizenship status. Yoonmi Lee sees national identity in psychological terms as "an awareness of difference" - "a feeling and recognition of 'we' and 'they'"
It also suggests "The national identity of most citizens of a state or nation tends to strengthen when the country or nation is threatened militarily, economically or culturally"
This idea of 'we' and 'they' is also known as 'othering'.
The concept of identity becoming nationally unified when under threat by something else external, is important I think.
It also suggests identity is fluid, rather than a concrete concept.
Because at the end of the day, if nothing else, Nationality itself is a part of culture. I have as much right to call myself a Norwegian as the dude from Oslo does, and I honestly believe that with very few exceptions anyone born and raised in a nation get nothing less than a BIRTH-RIGHT to call themselves citizens of that nation.
Sure. But national identity is not the same as citizenship.
Identity is a fairly nebulous concept.
Being a citizen of a nation seems less so. It will be on your passport, for example.
-
Yeah, it is going to be a no. How boring.
Late reply, but I've not had wifi for several days.
Fuck this attitude. I'm sorry if the country I live in and the country I'm from deciding that maybe they don't hate each other quite that much after all isn't entertaining enough for you. I mean god damn.
-
Pretty sure he meant from a polsci standpoint, not from your average spectator's.
Similar to how I can find complicated trauma incredibly interesting as a paramedic, but I'm obviously not pro car wrecks as a person.
-
Yeah, it is going to be a no. How boring.
Late reply, but I've not had wifi for several days.
Fuck this attitude. I'm sorry if the country I live in and the country I'm from deciding that maybe they don't hate each other quite that much after all isn't entertaining enough for you. I mean god damn.
As Miz said, I was saying this from the perspective of my field. In my earlier post I already mentioned that I have no personal or emotional investment in the situation but that it was very interesting from a political science perspective.
-
Now, the yes campaign have said that they're going to ignore the result of the referendum, and press for unilateral declaration of independence, as a republic. They call for companies to be punished for not supporting the yes campaign. Blaming people aged over 50 for the result.
Neither Mr. Salmond or Ms. Sturgeon turned up for the Church of Scotland Special Service of Reconciliation, while the other political leaders did.
so much for "the sovereign will of the scottish people".
civil war and terror bombings aren't a completely unrealistic prospect now.
-
Now, the yes campaign have said that they're going to ignore the result of the referendum, and press for unilateral declaration of independence, as a republic. They call for companies to be punished for not supporting the yes campaign. Blaming people aged over 50 for the result.
Neither Mr. Salmond or Ms. Sturgeon turned up for the Church of Scotland Special Service of Reconciliation, while the other political leaders did.
so much for "the sovereign will of the scottish people".
civil war and terror bombings aren't a completely unrealistic prospect now.
And right there, folks, is tyranny showing its true colours.
-
if they thought that the UK government was bad, they know nothing.
What UDI means, after having a referendum where the result was against independence, is that nobody except Russia and North Korea, maybe Argentina as well, would recognise it. The EU wouldn't. The UN wouldn't.
It'd mean sanctions, blockade of trade, refusal of credit. That oil ? not going anywhere.
It'd mean all the IRA supporters at Celtic Park, and all the Orange Order, would be going to actual war against each other.
The aftermath would be, that Scotland would forever be a backwater, despised and reviled by the international community.
But no, a bunch of old men, sore at losing, want independence in their lifetime, even if that means killing hundreds of thousands of the people of Scotland.
-
if they thought that the UK government was bad, they know nothing.
What UDI means, after having a referendum where the result was against independence, is that nobody except Russia and North Korea, maybe Argentina as well, would recognise it. The EU wouldn't. The UN wouldn't.
It'd mean sanctions, blockade of trade, refusal of credit. That oil ? not going anywhere.
It'd mean all the IRA supporters at Celtic Park, and all the Orange Order, would be going to actual war against each other.
The aftermath would be, that Scotland would forever be a backwater, despised and reviled by the international community.
But no, a bunch of old men, sore at losing, want independence in their lifetime, even if that means killing hundreds of thousands of the people of Scotland.
45% is more than 'a bunch of old men'. I think there's something that needs fixing.
-
the bunch of old men, I was meaning the politicians.
this talk of UDI, by the politicians, is to say "The voters voted the wrong way, we must take steps to ensure they can never do that again".
-
Well as much as I can understand that voters vote the wrong way most of the time (tongueincheek), that is a terrible excuse.
-
the bunch of old men, I was meaning the politicians.
this talk of UDI, by the politicians, is to say "The voters voted the wrong way, we must take steps to ensure they can never do that again".
Heh, in democracy, there is only the wrong way to vote.
-
if they thought that the UK government was bad, they know nothing.
What UDI means, after having a referendum where the result was against independence, is that nobody except Russia and North Korea, maybe Argentina as well, would recognise it. The EU wouldn't. The UN wouldn't.
It'd mean sanctions, blockade of trade, refusal of credit. That oil ? not going anywhere.
It'd mean all the IRA supporters at Celtic Park, and all the Orange Order, would be going to actual war against each other.
The aftermath would be, that Scotland would forever be a backwater, despised and reviled by the international community.
But no, a bunch of old men, sore at losing, want independence in their lifetime, even if that means killing hundreds of thousands of the people of Scotland.
Well you are doing a wonderful job dehumanizing the political opposition, basically talking like they are a tiny minority or stuck-up fools angry about losing their privileges or whatever and that they are devolving into terrorism.
Wait and see, will you? Disagreeing and assuming horrible intentions on the opposition's part are very different things.