littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Sure. I agree with all that. I was thinking more about the kinds of changes in society that might happen in Scotland and the fUK.
Scottish independence - as an Englishman, am I "wrong" not to give a crap?
- Thread starter ca-nami
- Start date
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
such as?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Such as the continuation and deepening of 'austerity' measures in an independent Scotland.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
well, the evidence so far doesnt back that up. The NHS is still free, so is higher education, there has been a good focus on long term care for the elderly. The SNP can be criticised for a cosy relationship with one or two big business figures (Donald Trump was particualrly disastrously ill advised), their addiction to road transport, and happy-clapping zero hours jobs being "created". But as I have said already, voting Yes does not mean voting Alec Salmond president for life. it is much easier to try and ameliorate / reverse the austerity agenda as part of a country of 5 million people than pissing in the wind in the vague direction of London.
what will be guaranteed is a deepening and extending of austerity through a NO vote. The reasons for voting NO seem to be split between not liking change, being feart, being worried about being worse off, specious comparisons of Salmond to Mugabe / Kim Il Sing, fantasy island bullshit about needing your passport to go to Carlisle / becoming a haven for international terrorism, , and Orange Order / Glasgow Rangers Britnattery. Not really compelling stuff.
what will be guaranteed is a deepening and extending of austerity through a NO vote. The reasons for voting NO seem to be split between not liking change, being feart, being worried about being worse off, specious comparisons of Salmond to Mugabe / Kim Il Sing, fantasy island bullshit about needing your passport to go to Carlisle / becoming a haven for international terrorism, , and Orange Order / Glasgow Rangers Britnattery. Not really compelling stuff.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It is generally the case with regional assemblies that they will provide more in the way of public services than the national govt would have provided, not less. That way they have clear things that they can point to showing how voters should feel good about their regional assembly. With independence, this point of contrast is taken away.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
That may well be true of "regional assemblies".
what about Scotland's parliament?
what about Scotland's parliament?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
... is a regional assembly, with some powers devolved to it from the national UK parliament, others not.
Lemon Eddy
Disliked by dwyer
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
well, devolution is a process not an event...as is national self determination.
Scotland's parliament never was a "regional assembly" in the way that it could be argued Wales was when it was first set up.
anyway, aside from the fact that "nationalism" gives you the boak, what is your issue with Scotland going independent?
Scotland's parliament never was a "regional assembly" in the way that it could be argued Wales was when it was first set up.
anyway, aside from the fact that "nationalism" gives you the boak, what is your issue with Scotland going independent?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ok, we're obviously defining terms differently. I really don't think it matters whether you call it a parliament or a regional assembly. It's an elected body in one section of a larger polity with certain powers devolved to it, others not.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
the passports are a question of interpretation, and there is absolutely no appetite for border controls and passports on the Scotland -England border (the same as there are none on the border between RoI and NI.)
whether Scotland will have to "rejoin" the EU is also open to interpretation and legal opinion is divided. Realpolitik will win the day. Why would the EU want to exclude an energy rich and wealthy independent contributor?
Neither side of the debate has really covered itself in glory in terms of "honest discussion" so far, to be honest.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
well, as Scotyland is in no sense a "region" then the Scottish parliament cannot be be dismissed as a "regional assembly".
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
'region', 'nation'. Same difference.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
well no, not really. but whatever.
I find it strange that the EU issue is seemingly always regarding whether the EU will have Scotland and not whether Scotland wants the EU. The example of Norway is bandied around a lot until the EU question comes up.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You say that, but here is exactly where I have a problem with both sides of the debate.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
I agree with you.
as soon as the negotiations for independence are concluded, in the event of a Yes vote, there should be a referendum on whether Scotland wants to stay / rejoin the EU, do a Norway, or stay away altogether. It is too big a decision, to be left to be nodded through by Holyrood politicians.
At present Scotland would vote to remain in the EU, pretty comfortably, although I am one of the minority who would vote against.
as soon as the negotiations for independence are concluded, in the event of a Yes vote, there should be a referendum on whether Scotland wants to stay / rejoin the EU, do a Norway, or stay away altogether. It is too big a decision, to be left to be nodded through by Holyrood politicians.
At present Scotland would vote to remain in the EU, pretty comfortably, although I am one of the minority who would vote against.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm not interested in nationalist arguments that imagine communities based on vertical lines, in which rich and poor, powerful and dispossessed all somehow have something in common with each other that means they should divide along those vertical lines. It is generally a con trick.
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
well true, but then I'm a pragmatist, and for me a Yes vote is the only way to slip away from the Westminster model which invites me to assume kinship with Eric Pickles, Fred Goodwin, and Nigel Farage under a fluttering Union Jack.
The time for abstruse Jesuitry about how many working class anarchists can dance on the head of a pin can wait for later.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
We're in agreement then. I'm a pragmatist too, and I understand why the likes of Danny la rouge are likely to hold their noses and vote yes.
fwiw I have found the 'no' arguments in the press infinitely more vile than the 'yes' arguments. I'm about as neutral on it as is possible, really. A 'yes' vote would shake things that need shaking. I would merely caution those who might expect positive outcomes from independence. I fear they will end up bitterly disappointed.
Proper tick box exercise there from the mail:
Baby George - Tick
Kate - Tick
Sly digs at someone because their relationship does not conform to mandated standards - Tick
Thinly veiled dig at Scottish - Tick
etc etc
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
well the outcomes from a No vote are pretty clear.
the outcomes of a Yes vote are not so clear...there is a chance that a yes vote may well improve things in Scotland (if that is what the people want).
Of course it's also possible that things could not get better. If they don't, we will only have ourselves to balme for it.
I'm well aware that there are pretty nasty right wing neoliberal elements in the SNP (Swinney, Mike Russell) who will likely leave the SNP and join a rebranded Tory party in the event of independence. Either that, or try and steer the SNP in a Fine Fail type direction when Salmond steps aside. In an independent country, many more people will return to the Tory standard, as the Thatcher stigma will finally be gone for them (and there are plenty of right wingers in Scotland). There is of course the romantic nationalist Ewingite fringe who ran the SNP in their years of irrelevance in the 80s, who havent gone away, even if their power within the party largely has.
There are many imponderables and many arguments to be had and won in that situation. I am not a nationalist, but there are plenty of non-nationalist reasons for voting yes. I am really struggling to process much beyond the fuckwitted arguments listed a few posts above for voting no.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
There is lots to like in the above post, but not this. If you are not rich or powerful now, you still won't be in an independent Scotland.
Hahahahaha! Salmond won't step aside until he dies or is incapacitated or a better position presents itself. And I think the only way upwards for him would be Secretary-General of the UN.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
..again, it is a process not an event.
Yes if you live in Darnley, Muirhouse or a run down part of Methil things will not change overnight in the event of a Yes vote.
In an independent Scotland there will be the possibility to try and enact a range of policies and measures to try and improve the lives and expectations of folk living in these and other areas blighted by neglect and poverty.
In the UK, all you get to choose is who administers more or less identical policies. the chances of a UK cabinet minister going near methil or Muirhouse is close to non existent (IDS was carried about Easterhouse in a sedan chair a few years ago and wrote a bonkers report about it- that's Easterhouse's lot for the next 50 years i think).
If in an independent Scotland, in 20 years time, people are still living socially excluded and marginalised lives, then that will be the fault of Scottish politicians, elected by Scottish voters alone. I am struggling to process what is controversial about that point.
What is clear is that if we vote no then nothing whatever will change, except for the worse. There is a chance of improvement with yes and in my view it is worth taking.
Yes if you live in Darnley, Muirhouse or a run down part of Methil things will not change overnight in the event of a Yes vote.
In an independent Scotland there will be the possibility to try and enact a range of policies and measures to try and improve the lives and expectations of folk living in these and other areas blighted by neglect and poverty.
In the UK, all you get to choose is who administers more or less identical policies. the chances of a UK cabinet minister going near methil or Muirhouse is close to non existent (IDS was carried about Easterhouse in a sedan chair a few years ago and wrote a bonkers report about it- that's Easterhouse's lot for the next 50 years i think).
If in an independent Scotland, in 20 years time, people are still living socially excluded and marginalised lives, then that will be the fault of Scottish politicians, elected by Scottish voters alone. I am struggling to process what is controversial about that point.
What is clear is that if we vote no then nothing whatever will change, except for the worse. There is a chance of improvement with yes and in my view it is worth taking.
If Scotland votes yes I think your point above will be the overriding reason. As far as I can see the No camp has failed to form a single coherent argument for the Union beyond 'Yes, it's a bit shit but it could be worse'.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
what do you base this on?
Similar threads
