Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Implications for the rest of us if Scotland votes yes

ska invita said:
New Labour, to their credit, implemented a referendum on this already in 2004, and I was surprised and disappointed the NE didnt vote in favour (78% No) - do you think it would be different this time?

http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2014-07-18/north-east-devolution-is-it-time-to-think-again/
Click to expand...
The 2004 ref was a joke. It was so timid that it turned a devolution majority into a minority. It was a complete fuck up by Prescott. In some ways, the mirror opposite of what we are seeing in Scotland.
 
Wilf said:
The 2004 ref was a joke. It was so timid that it turned a devolution majority into a minority. It was a complete fuck up by Prescott. In some ways, the mirror opposite of what we are seeing in Scotland.
Click to expand...
can you explain more? what should have been proposed that wasnt?
 
farmerbarleymow said:
as far as I know, there is no international law that requires the names of nations to be accurate. I guess England, Wales & NI would continue to use the name UK for simplicity sake.
Click to expand...
Personally, I really like the German name for the U.K.: Grosse Brittanien. I also like their descriptive name for Britons: Inselaffen- "island monkeys". :)
 
ska invita said:
can you explain more? what should have been proposed that wasnt?
Click to expand...

Wilf might rember more than me but I remember it being seen as just another layer of politicians. More jobs for the boys etc. I recall being utterly underwhelmed by it but don't recall the details or even how I voted:oops:
 
I am a bit peeved by the (frankly ridiculous) attitude displayed by some Englanders that sees (coerced?) Scottish participation in the union as complicity with the three centuries of the imperial project. Most Scots gained little from union, and this that did benefit were the Scottish ruling classes, ,who have historically been inclined to take sphincter-wrenchingly large dumps on their own "lower orders" if it turned a profit.
 
krink said:
Wilf might rember more than me but I remember it being seen as just another layer of politicians. More jobs for the boys etc. I recall being utterly underwhelmed by it but don't recall the details or even how I voted:oops:
Click to expand...
Yeah, my memory of it too. No tax raising powers for one thing. Whole thing seemed like a reorganisation of local government which, in a sense, is exactly what it was. More politicians and bureaucracy, without it being a significant devolution from Westminster. Certainly not a devolution to 'the people' (whatever that might mean). Sorry, at work so can't dig out the specifics. From memory it was the only thing I've voted on in the last decade and that was only to add to Prescott's frustrations. Memories a bit hazy, but I think Yes had a pretty bad campaign and weren't able to answer the questons put to them about cost an how it would work.
 
ViolentPanda said:
I am a bit peeved by the (frankly ridiculous) attitude displayed by some Englanders that sees (coerced?) Scottish participation in the union as complicity with the three centuries of the imperial project. Most Scots gained little from union, and this that did benefit were the Scottish ruling classes, ,who have historically been inclined to take sphincter-wrenchingly large dumps on their own "lower orders" if it turned a profit.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Not sure you can separate things off in that way. By exactly the same token, you can say that most English people were also not active in the imperial project and were also shat upon from a great height by the ruling classes. I'm not sure how exceptional Scotland is here. And Scottish merchants most certainly benefited from such things as the slave trade - which was central to the growth of Glasgow, which was prominent in the trade of slave-grown tobacco and sugar. link on that
 
and those ruling classes sold scotlands soverignty for a mess of pottage because they'd sunk a fortune into that spice trading colony that didn't work.

so sayeth a bbc4 docu I saw anyway
 
littlebabyjesus said:
most English people were also not active in the imperial project and were also shat upon from a great height by the ruling classes.
Click to expand...
I think that's absolutely right. Which is why Geldof's contribution that "the Scots were up to their necks in running the Empire and slavery" is politically inept, ahistorical racist nonsense. Yes, you read that correctly: racist.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Hmmm. Not sure you can separate things off in that way. By exactly the same token, you can say that most English people were also not active in the imperial project and were also shat upon from a great height by the ruling classes. I'm not sure how exceptional Scotland is here. And Scottish merchants most certainly benefited from such things as the slave trade - which was central to the growth of Glasgow, which was prominent in the trade of slave-grown tobacco and sugar. link on that
Click to expand...
Of course "by the same token" the mass of the English, Welsh and Irish weren't complicit - that's my point: that to say "the Scots were up to their necks in it" is at best historically ignorant, and at worst, actively politically a malicious.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Of course "by the same token" the mass of the English, Welsh and Irish weren't complicit - that's my point: that to say "the Scots were up to their necks in it" is at best historically ignorant, and at worst, actively politically a malicious.
Click to expand...
Some Scots were up to their necks in it. Perhaps I misread you, but the point here is that it was very much a British empire, not an English one, and the likes of Glasgow merchants participated every bit as much as, say, Bristol or Cardiff ones.
 
danny la rouge said:
The front page of the Daily Record cares. (One of the big 2 tabloids in Scotland).
Click to expand...
Well I certainly agree with you that this is a product of confused thinking.

It is true that the proceeds of the slave trade, for instance, were used among other things on civic projects that we all benefit from now. The proceeds of exploited labour here also went towards such projects. But there was a fight among those here who were exploited working in the factories, mines, etc, to gain a share in that wealth. And seeing that ought, imo, to lead to an internationalist position - the descendants of slaves and exploited workers in the UK are on the same side. The fight for economic justice of, say, Caribbean people is the same fight as the fight for economic justice of British people.
 
DotCommunist said:
and those ruling classes sold scotlands soverignty for a mess of pottage because they'd sunk a fortune into that spice trading colony that didn't work.

so sayeth a bbc4 docu I saw anyway
Click to expand...

Scots who own and Scots who rent,

Scots who sold their parliament,

Built an empire for some gent,

Way below the tweed.
 
ska invita said:
can you explain more? what should have been proposed that wasnt?
Click to expand...

Yep it was a total mess. Most people I have spoken to want an English parliament AND regional assemblies.
Essentially an English parliament made up of regional seats, with a central seat of power where regions would come together to decide which policy should be devolved to a regional level, and what's required at a national level. Germany would be a good example of a Federal structure like this for example.

The Lib Dems had a policy to pursue this very setup (so we can take it as given that they have done absolutley nothing to advance that)!

Prescott's NE assembly proposal was exactly what you would expect from New Labour - half baked.
Here is an outline of what they proposed the Assembly would do:

The draft bill would have given the assemblies the following powers:
  • Promotion of economic development
  • Promotion of social development
    • Promote health, safety and security of the community
    • Reduce health inequalities
    • Enhance individual participation in society
    • Improve the availability of good housing
    • Improve skills and the availability of training
    • Improve the availability of cultural and recreational activities
  • Improvement and protection of the environment
  • Additional functions and duties that the Secretary of State thinks appropriat
Click to expand...

So no tax raising powers for example! How do you reduce health inequalities and promote economic development if you can't realign your tax raising methods to meet those goals? There is no flexibility, just another layer of government without any real power.

Imagine one giant council, like Doncaster or Rotherham covering the whole North East. That's essentially what was being proposed.
 
Andrew Hertford said:
Labour are better than the tories and having 40 to 50 less seats by default at each GE is obviously going to make beating the tories that much harder... of course it is.
Click to expand...
Saying Labour is "better" than the Tories is meaningless. Anything is "better" than the Tories. Apple pie is better than the Tories. So what?

Like so many people, you seem to forget that, historically, Scotland returned more Tory MPs than Labour MPs. This only changed fairly recently.

I read an interesting article yesterday on this very subject but until I find it, this will have to suffice.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/01/scotland-labour-majority-win
From a slightly more partial source.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bingoman
SNP Government in Scotland on the verge of collapse?
Replies
4
Views
348
geminisnake
geminisnake
RubyBlue
Who to vote for?
Replies
14
Views
496
dessiato
dessiato
Elpenor
My tactical voting dilemma - and yours if you have one
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
JimW
JimW
L
“Be Lazy. Just Vote”
Replies
3
Views
2K
Monkeygrinder's Organ
M
Pickman's model
us presidential election of 2024: implications for the uk
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
8ball
8ball
Back
Top Bottom