gosub
~#
No Schengen area is some thing UK opted out of, new member must accept look it up. Scotland has porus border rUK will require proper border to avoid joining Schengen by proxy
Scottish independence - as an Englishman, am I "wrong" not to give a crap?
- Thread starter ca-nami
- Start date
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
"Look it up"? I have looked extensively into this. And it doesn't take long before the claim falls apart. First, the UK already has a border with Ireland (Northern Ireland/Ireland border). Scotland proposes remaining in the Common Travel Area with England, as already exists between Ireland and the UK (and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands)
Scotland will not be required to join Schengen.
Secondly, there are many porous borders between EU countries an non EU countries. Here is the border between Leichtenstein and Austria, complete with fortifications and border guards:
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Nonsense on stilts.
Welsh lad
Active Member
As a Plaid Cymru supporter, I for one would welcome Scottish independence. Like Scots, we're sick of being controlled and told what do by the Tory-led Westminster government. We do not have a parliament that has to power to pass and repel all the laws we want to without having to go Westminster first. or instance, the SNP are vehemently opposed to the Bedroom Tax, yet can doing nothing about. The SNP are a social democratic party open to encouraging more migrants into Scotland and are far more left-wing than Labour currently are. It's about time the national interests of Scotland were protected.
Hi danny la rouge
Thanks for returning to this thread, you are the known expert here on all things Scottish Independence and otherwise related
Quick statement in advance of my question : I'm thoroughly in favour of Scottish independence in principle, but I post here from an entirely selfish POV.
Do you have at least some understanding of why it might seem totally counterintuitive to some of us lefties down here, that we're surely fated to live under a permanantly Tory majority for the indefinite election future, were Scotland to go their own way?
Counterintuitive : 70-ish MPs from Scotland, only one of which right now is Tory. Makes no difference to the rest-of-UK Westminster balance once they're gone? I laugh at that, and bitterly.
I don't buy that Independence-favouring Scottish clergyman's blog -- he argues from post war General Election history that Scotland makes no GE difference. It would have done in 2010 however as even he acknowledged, and my main fear is for the current and future political climate.
I suspect there's something of a 'Blame yourselves if you can't be arsed to get rid of the Tories and UKIP off your own efforts' mentality going on, which on most levels I fully understand -- Labour aren't much cop to say the least
,and Scotland want to go their own way which is fine and I support that -- why the fuck should Scots be in the slightest bit interested in helping stop South of the Border going permanently Tory anyway? It's not down to you, nor should it be.
But I'm literally desparately hoping that more Scots than not vote for the unavailable, at least not officially, option -- Devo Max. Those utterly incompetent 'Better Together' wankers should concentrate on bigging up that IMO.
Hope you understand
PS -- just seen the post above from Welsh lad ad and I do see his thinking. But I live in Swansea myself, may as an exile want to move back east of the border at some point, and I don't see a Scottish breakway giving non Tories in either England or Wales any favours -- at least not in the short term.
Thanks for returning to this thread, you are the known expert here on all things Scottish Independence and otherwise related
Quick statement in advance of my question : I'm thoroughly in favour of Scottish independence in principle, but I post here from an entirely selfish POV.
Do you have at least some understanding of why it might seem totally counterintuitive to some of us lefties down here, that we're surely fated to live under a permanantly Tory majority for the indefinite election future, were Scotland to go their own way?
Counterintuitive : 70-ish MPs from Scotland, only one of which right now is Tory. Makes no difference to the rest-of-UK Westminster balance once they're gone? I laugh at that, and bitterly.
I don't buy that Independence-favouring Scottish clergyman's blog -- he argues from post war General Election history that Scotland makes no GE difference. It would have done in 2010 however as even he acknowledged, and my main fear is for the current and future political climate.
I suspect there's something of a 'Blame yourselves if you can't be arsed to get rid of the Tories and UKIP off your own efforts' mentality going on, which on most levels I fully understand -- Labour aren't much cop to say the least
,and Scotland want to go their own way which is fine and I support that -- why the fuck should Scots be in the slightest bit interested in helping stop South of the Border going permanently Tory anyway? It's not down to you, nor should it be.But I'm literally desparately hoping that more Scots than not vote for the unavailable, at least not officially, option -- Devo Max. Those utterly incompetent 'Better Together' wankers should concentrate on bigging up that IMO.
Hope you understand
PS -- just seen the post above from Welsh lad ad and I do see his thinking. But I live in Swansea myself, may as an exile want to move back east of the border at some point, and I don't see a Scottish breakway giving non Tories in either England or Wales any favours -- at least not in the short term.
Last edited:
geminisnake
a complex mass of conflicting ideas
From wiki
Current composition
Affiliation Members
Labour Party 41
Liberal Democrats 11
Scottish National Party 6
Conservative Party 1
Total 59
As for Devo max it was Wastemonster that took that OFF the fucking table!
Current composition
Affiliation Members
Labour Party 41
Liberal Democrats 11
Scottish National Party 6
Conservative Party 1
Total 59
As for Devo max it was Wastemonster that took that OFF the fucking table!
As for Devo max it was Westmonsterthat took that OFF the fucking table!
Not the first time you've mentioned this gemini, I should remind you that I also blame Westminster for that absence from the referendum myself. I'm really pissed off about it in fact.
Very far from a No-favouring argument this, except a little bit in realpolitik terms, but if Scotland does vote No, especially narrowly, the UK Govt would surely be panicked into Devo-Maxing it to Scotland quite large -- in his almost-but-not-quite-winning disappointment, Salmond would be in a very strong position to push for Max as well ....
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
That's not true at all. The Scotland Act will come into force in the event of a no vote. It's not devo-max, but it isn't the status quo either.
Is there any politician in Scotland, SNP or otherwise, who's seriously arguing that? Have my doubts ...
gosub
~#
http://europa.eu/legislation_summar...t_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33020_en.htm
from wiki :
Prior to 1999, the Schengen treaties and the rules adopted under them operated independently from the European Union; however, the Amsterdam Treaty incorporated them into European Union law, while providing opt-outs for the only two EU member states which had remained outside the Area: Ireland and the United Kingdom. Schengen is now a core part of EU law and all EU member states without an opt-out who have not already joined the Schengen Area are legally obliged to do so when technical requirements have been met. Several non-EU countries are also included in the area.
Last edited:
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Hi William of Walworth I’ll take your points in order.
Yes, because you’ve been led to believe that Scotland hits bigger in parliamentary terms than it actually does. Perhaps you even think that our 59 MPs all count against a Tory majority. (That’s 59 out of 650, or 9.07%). But remember not all are Labour, at the moment 41 of them are. (So that’s 6.3%). Labour’s majority in 1997 was 179 (albeit before boundary changes). In 2001 it was 167.
Even in 2005, where Labour (in the wake of the 2003 Iraq War) scored the lowest majority of any majority government in British history, it still managed a majority of 66, greater than the total number of seats in Scotland. Even had all the Scottish seats been Labour (which they weren’t), Labour would still have had a majority even then. Do the sums for yourself, if you don’t believe me.
Of course there might be some time or other that 41 seats might make a difference. But it hasn’t been very often.
Not 70, it’s only 59.
Yes, the difference in 2010 would be that instead of a Lib-Dem/Tory Coalition (and remember Scottish Lib-Dem seats counted towards the Lib-Dem part of that Coalition) there would be a Tory majority. So, what exactly do you imagine the difference would have been? Do you think that Clegg or Vince Cable has been holding the Tories back at all?
For many Scots, the main fear is also “the current and future political climate”. And, putting it in electoral terms, our tiny %age of Labour seats in Westminster makes no difference if England returns a majority of Tory seats. Which it did for 18 long years.
(I know that this is down to FPTP and the fact that Westminster is won or lost in only a handful of swing marginals, but the fact remains: many people here feel powerless in terms of Westminster elections).
Better Together has a huge credibility problem in general. Not even people who intend to vote No (which is still a majority in the polls) believe a word they say. Whether on the NHS, on currency, or George Robertson’s intervention, they are simply not credible to anyone, even their own supporters.
So, remembering that, here are the facts: Alex Salmond and the SNP were well aware that “devo max” was the most popular option. They suggested that the Unionist camp draw up proposals on Devo Max, and have that scheme put on the referendum ballot paper, as part of a three way vote. Independence, devo max, or status quo.
The Unionist parties all declined. They had a chance to have it on the ballot paper, but said no. Everyone agrees it would have won, and polling continues to suggest it would have won.
Indeed, the Better Together team even commissioned a poll in the last few days asking the three option question, and devo max won. Yes, that’s right, the Better Together parties who declined to offer devo max in a three question referendum are still commissioning polls as if there were such an option.
Again proving their lack of credibility.
So, when the polls started to show the gap closing and the Unionist parties started to mutter about promising “something better” and “enhanced devolution”, even people who would prefer that are disinclined to trust the offers.
Many also remember Lord Home’s intervention in the 1979 referendum. On February 14th, the former PM, Sir Alec Douglas-Home (then Lord Home), appeared on TV to say that pro-devolution Scots should vote No to the Wilson/Callaghan scheme, as it was weak and flawed. A No vote would not kill off devolution; no, on the contrary, the Tories would ensure a better, stronger Act, with taxation powers and PR. So, you see, a No vote would deliver “something better”.
No such scheme ever emerged.
So when Brown appeared to talk about his proposals for “something better”, many said, why now? And, if you were so committed to “something better”, why didn’t you enact it when you were actually PM? How long was Labour in power? 13 years? If you felt so strongly about enhancing devolution, why didn’t you find the time to do something about it?
So yes, devo max is popular, but it isn’t on offer. And Better Together isn’t agreeing on what they’re offering if there is a No vote. And why should we believe them anyway?
Well, in a way. But also, I hope you understand that this is a rare chance for us to do a number of things that aren’t otherwise do-able. We can get rid of WMD (Labour in Westminster doesn’t offer that). We can re-nationalise the Royal Mail (Labour doesn’t offer to re-nationalise, they only say the sale was botched). We can defend the Welfare State (Labour voted for the Tory Welfare Cap). We can defend the NHS (Labour has proven useless at doing this). We can make a stand against austerity ideology (Labour has promised to retain all the austerity measures if it is elected).
If you lived in Scotland, what would you do?
Do you have at least some understanding of why it might seem totally counterintuitive to some of us lefties down here, that we're surely fated to live under a permanantly Tory majority for the indefinite election future, were Scotland to go their own way?
Yes, because you’ve been led to believe that Scotland hits bigger in parliamentary terms than it actually does. Perhaps you even think that our 59 MPs all count against a Tory majority. (That’s 59 out of 650, or 9.07%). But remember not all are Labour, at the moment 41 of them are. (So that’s 6.3%). Labour’s majority in 1997 was 179 (albeit before boundary changes). In 2001 it was 167.
Even in 2005, where Labour (in the wake of the 2003 Iraq War) scored the lowest majority of any majority government in British history, it still managed a majority of 66, greater than the total number of seats in Scotland. Even had all the Scottish seats been Labour (which they weren’t), Labour would still have had a majority even then. Do the sums for yourself, if you don’t believe me.
Of course there might be some time or other that 41 seats might make a difference. But it hasn’t been very often.
Counterintuitive : 70-ish MPs from Scotland, only one of which right now is Tory. Makes no difference to the rest-of-UK Westminster balance once they're gone? I laugh at that, and bitterly.
Not 70, it’s only 59.
I don't buy that Independence-favouring Scottish clergyman's blog -- he argues from post war General Election history that Scotland makes no GE difference. It would have done in 2010 however as even he acknowledged, and my main fear is for the current and future political climate.
Yes, the difference in 2010 would be that instead of a Lib-Dem/Tory Coalition (and remember Scottish Lib-Dem seats counted towards the Lib-Dem part of that Coalition) there would be a Tory majority. So, what exactly do you imagine the difference would have been? Do you think that Clegg or Vince Cable has been holding the Tories back at all?
For many Scots, the main fear is also “the current and future political climate”. And, putting it in electoral terms, our tiny %age of Labour seats in Westminster makes no difference if England returns a majority of Tory seats. Which it did for 18 long years.
(I know that this is down to FPTP and the fact that Westminster is won or lost in only a handful of swing marginals, but the fact remains: many people here feel powerless in terms of Westminster elections).
But I'm literally desparately hoping that more Scots than not vote for the unavailable, at least not officially, option -- Devo Max. Those utterly incompetent 'Better Together' wankers should concentrate on bigging up that IMO.
Better Together has a huge credibility problem in general. Not even people who intend to vote No (which is still a majority in the polls) believe a word they say. Whether on the NHS, on currency, or George Robertson’s intervention, they are simply not credible to anyone, even their own supporters.
So, remembering that, here are the facts: Alex Salmond and the SNP were well aware that “devo max” was the most popular option. They suggested that the Unionist camp draw up proposals on Devo Max, and have that scheme put on the referendum ballot paper, as part of a three way vote. Independence, devo max, or status quo.
The Unionist parties all declined. They had a chance to have it on the ballot paper, but said no. Everyone agrees it would have won, and polling continues to suggest it would have won.
Indeed, the Better Together team even commissioned a poll in the last few days asking the three option question, and devo max won. Yes, that’s right, the Better Together parties who declined to offer devo max in a three question referendum are still commissioning polls as if there were such an option.
Again proving their lack of credibility.
So, when the polls started to show the gap closing and the Unionist parties started to mutter about promising “something better” and “enhanced devolution”, even people who would prefer that are disinclined to trust the offers.
Many also remember Lord Home’s intervention in the 1979 referendum. On February 14th, the former PM, Sir Alec Douglas-Home (then Lord Home), appeared on TV to say that pro-devolution Scots should vote No to the Wilson/Callaghan scheme, as it was weak and flawed. A No vote would not kill off devolution; no, on the contrary, the Tories would ensure a better, stronger Act, with taxation powers and PR. So, you see, a No vote would deliver “something better”.
No such scheme ever emerged.
So when Brown appeared to talk about his proposals for “something better”, many said, why now? And, if you were so committed to “something better”, why didn’t you enact it when you were actually PM? How long was Labour in power? 13 years? If you felt so strongly about enhancing devolution, why didn’t you find the time to do something about it?
So yes, devo max is popular, but it isn’t on offer. And Better Together isn’t agreeing on what they’re offering if there is a No vote. And why should we believe them anyway?
Hope you understand
Well, in a way. But also, I hope you understand that this is a rare chance for us to do a number of things that aren’t otherwise do-able. We can get rid of WMD (Labour in Westminster doesn’t offer that). We can re-nationalise the Royal Mail (Labour doesn’t offer to re-nationalise, they only say the sale was botched). We can defend the Welfare State (Labour voted for the Tory Welfare Cap). We can defend the NHS (Labour has proven useless at doing this). We can make a stand against austerity ideology (Labour has promised to retain all the austerity measures if it is elected).
If you lived in Scotland, what would you do?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yes, for example Ian Davidson (Labour MP) has said: “Once we get our No vote in 2014, we’ll rip so many powers from those neo-Nats that they might as well meet once a month above a pub, for all they’ll have left to talk about”.
Tom Harris, Labour MP, is also openly campaigning for powers to be removed from Holyrood to Westminster.
It's true that technically the Scotland Act (2012) would be enacted if there's a No vote, but nobody on the No side is mentioning that any more. Try and find any news coverage where it is even mentioned, never mind promoted by a Better Together figure.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Thanks for those answers danny. Will return to this when I have time to do them justice (busy today).
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
rick astley weighs into the debate in song
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
lets have it right, see the cons take a beating in the euros, preide over the break up of the union and then lose the GE so badly it goes down in history as the tory parties most crushing defeat.
lets have this hatrick pls
lets have this hatrick pls
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Can I answer that for me?
I have a lot of sympathy for what dotcom says above. But any reasoning for voting yes would only come from such negative motives. If I lived in Scotland, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be voting, or if I did, it would just be to draw a big cock on the ballot paper. I don't think I could bring myself to vote with the nationalists. The situation isn't desperate enough for that.
But if yes wins, I don't think that would necessarily be such a big blow to the tories in the fUK. Yes, they're the most strongly unionist party, but all the major national parties are in the no camp. You could have the horrible vision of Labour getting behind Cameron in the subsequent negotiations. That would harm Labour, as the perceived need to get behind the tories over the Falklands harmed them - it removes a point of difference between them, but sets up the Tories as the primary champions of a shared position.
Last edited:
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
voting out of spite is the only logical choice. Annoyingly enough with the current lead Labours got this next GE so I have no spiteful option, except of course LBJ's spunking cock and balls suggestion
Riklet
procrastinación
As an english lefty i think its frankly embarrassing calling upon the scots to keep things new labour for us.
Sounds utterly pathetic and handwringy to me, and assumes that Scotland unlike England is some lefty paradise without its own internal conflicts n struggles.
Frankly if we need scottish labour to save us, it's almost like we deserve nothing better than what we got. Up to us to demand better and to live it,tbh.
Sounds utterly pathetic and handwringy to me, and assumes that Scotland unlike England is some lefty paradise without its own internal conflicts n struggles.
Frankly if we need scottish labour to save us, it's almost like we deserve nothing better than what we got. Up to us to demand better and to live it,tbh.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Of course.
My choices are voting Yes or abstaining. I could never vote No.
I think the situation is pretty fucking desperate.
http://www.bigissue.com/features/3637/atos-deaths-and-welfare-cuts
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I must say that it still appears to be the case that every time a 'no' camp person speaks, the 'yes' option gets a boost. Warmonger Robertson absurdly trying to scare Scots is the latest example of this. Possibly the strongest scare tactic is over the currency. The prospect of a nominally independent Scotland having its economic agenda dictated to it by Tory fUK is a very real one, and the example of Ireland's decades tied in to the pound isn't encouraging on that score.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It's worth remembering that whichever way you vote, you're voting with nationalists. The Unionist camp is the side most relying on identity politics, too. It relies heavily on British nationalism.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, that's a good point. For me, it just reinforces the cock-and-balls option, though.
"You can both fuck off."
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
Personally I hope there is much more hysteria from the likes of Ringpiece Robertson, "Lord" Foulkes, Michael Forsyth et al, I hope there are more dire yet strangely nebulous threats from Osborne & co on the currency.
The more Bitter Together open their mouths, the worse it gets for them. The old Welsh Labour adage of "Bash the Nats, the Nat vote goes up" seems to have been lost on the buffoons at BT Towers.
A vote for Bitter Together is a vote for extended austerity, nukes, fracking, the further "rolling out of a market agenda" in what used to be known as public services, and so on.
The SNP are a long way from perfect but then voting Yes is not really a vote for the SNP. With a yes vote in place I'll be very happy never to vote for them again. A successful no vote means that in Westminster and for a semi-tolerable Holyrood government, the SNP will continue to be the only game in town.
Drawing cocks and balls on the ballot paper is just juvenile narcissism really. What's your alternative? A yes vote is not a vote for the SNP. A no vote is very much a vote for the corrupt neoliberal circus at Westminster. An independent Scotland will not be a land of milk and honey, but we will have the chance to make it better - much better- than the alternative.
The more Bitter Together open their mouths, the worse it gets for them. The old Welsh Labour adage of "Bash the Nats, the Nat vote goes up" seems to have been lost on the buffoons at BT Towers.
A vote for Bitter Together is a vote for extended austerity, nukes, fracking, the further "rolling out of a market agenda" in what used to be known as public services, and so on.
The SNP are a long way from perfect but then voting Yes is not really a vote for the SNP. With a yes vote in place I'll be very happy never to vote for them again. A successful no vote means that in Westminster and for a semi-tolerable Holyrood government, the SNP will continue to be the only game in town.
Drawing cocks and balls on the ballot paper is just juvenile narcissism really. What's your alternative? A yes vote is not a vote for the SNP. A no vote is very much a vote for the corrupt neoliberal circus at Westminster. An independent Scotland will not be a land of milk and honey, but we will have the chance to make it better - much better- than the alternative.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
Worth adding that on the point of the original question- most English folk that I know couldnt care less. There is a residual bad feeling about it amongst some, particularly the further south you go, where the far-right anal dribblings regarding Scots being "subsidy junkies" are still given credibility.
However in the event of a Yes vote then a series of events will be set in motion which will have very profound consequences for the average English voter, which will play out over many years.
However in the event of a Yes vote then a series of events will be set in motion which will have very profound consequences for the average English voter, which will play out over many years.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I think the consequences of a yes vote are very hard to predict - both for Scotland and the fUK.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
well the future is very hard to predict. But I think the current permanently-raging unionists of BitterTogether will all of a sudden become conciliatory and "accepting of the will of the people" in the event of a Yes vote; the group working on independence negotiations will be cross party; behind the scenes briefing and position papers for those negotiations have already been drawn up by civil servants; I see few issues causing a major headache on either side.
The bluster and hot air about sending bobbies over the border to recover all pounds on sight from the Jocks, "pro-Russian activists" emerging in all major centres and turning indyScotland into an international terrorist haven, etc. will dissipate and become an embarrassing footnote in history. "Lord" Robertson's evildoers globally will toast Scottish independence and then quickly realise it matters not a jot in whatever agenda it is they have.
The bluster and hot air about sending bobbies over the border to recover all pounds on sight from the Jocks, "pro-Russian activists" emerging in all major centres and turning indyScotland into an international terrorist haven, etc. will dissipate and become an embarrassing footnote in history. "Lord" Robertson's evildoers globally will toast Scottish independence and then quickly realise it matters not a jot in whatever agenda it is they have.
Similar threads
