Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nmaro Makari]

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.

[Desiderya]

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.

[orange]

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.

[Nmaro Makari]

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.

[Ibrahim Tash-Murkon]

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.

[Silas Vitalia]

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.

[orange]

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.  There is a short version.

[Nmaro Makari]

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:

[kalaratiri]

haaaah.

See that one blue hex in the bottom-middle-right of Yorkshire and Humber?

My town.

xD

[Ibrahim Tash-Murkon]

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.

[Louella Dougans]

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.

[Nmaro Makari]

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.

[Lyn Farel]

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 ? 

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. 

[Esna Pitoojee]

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.

[Nmaro Makari]

Introducing some levity here, I have a new and improved map of the UK and ROI here: