Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Scottish independence - as an Englishman, am I "wrong" not to give a crap?

I just reviewed your posts in this thread, and could not find anything contradicting/answering gosub's point (other than a claim that the EU is pragmatically lax because Denmark uses the Krone)

A little help, please?
This is not the only thread gosub and I have discussed this on. There is also a very long thread here: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/will-you-vote-for-independence.287096/

But my 2 posts on this matter here were:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...t-to-give-a-crap.319994/page-16#post-13064394

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...t-to-give-a-crap.319994/page-17#post-13064530
 
Don't think it will be a veto, think as the Commision have told Holyrood it will be a rejoin. The whole EU thing sells itself on being about stopping nationalistic disputes developing (skeptical myself). To help catalyse fractures in existing nation states runs counter to stated proEuropean ideals, that's the politics real or otherwise.
A lot of disgruntlement the people of EUrope have with their political classes stem from the non democratic stuff coming out of EU and the hollowing out of national parliaments. Take Royal Mail that's EU for a start and third way privatisation of the Health Service - EU budgetary constraints and opening up to competition straight out of the Single Market play book. Westminster deserves a kicking for allowing itself to be the front man for these policies but Salmond just wants to wear the same mask and doesn't warrant support. Its the opposite of Littlebabyjesus its the removing the democratic accountable nation sate that warrants drawing a cock on the paper rather than fervent "nationalism'

well quite- and the processes you mention are two of the big reasosn I actually want to leave the EU, in the event of a yes vote. I just hope that is put befoe the Scottish people in a referendum.

As mentioned earlier the SNP's handling of EU policy has been pisspoor for a long time. I think they have rather cynically gambled that few in the electorate understand EU politics fully / are interested in them, therefore they can say what they like, as long as it sounds positive. That backfired pretty badly.

That said, the SNP's clumsiness (and subsequent cover up) is not evidence that Scotland will not be allowed in. For the pragmatic reasons mentioned I think the "re-join" will be a rubberstamp exercise. But this is uncharted territory. The last states to uncouple in Europe (Czech / Slovak Republics, Serbia / Montenegro) have both been outside of the EU altogether. A state fragmenting *within* the EU is a new thing altogether.
 
You have previously claimed that he's a wannabe dictator and once independence is won he will look to be aggressively expansionist.

Once again your lack of basic comprehension of English is displayed.

Nope. I've said it makes me think that he wants to be a dictator. Big difference. As for being aggressively expansionist, I said that he'd turn his ire elsewhere, which is nothing to do with being aggressively expansionist. Right now he blames England; after independence, he'll look for another scapegoat.
 
If NS takes over from Salmond that will send the naysayers into a total tailspin; though whilst Salmond is seen as too "smug" and "if he was chocolate he'd eat himself", Sturgeon gets dismissed by detractors as a "nippy sweetie" and other such derogatory terms.

Sturgeon is really the obvious candidate to take the SNP on.

There's an interesting debate to be had about Salmond (and to a lesser extent Sturgeon for a similar journey) as regards his political trajectory from left-wing 79 Group member to 'modern social democrat' with an eye to traditional Labour values. Not as 'extreme' as Blair but a similar modernising path, with Blair against any semblance of 'socialism' whereas with Salmond it was a battle with the (fundamentalists' some of whom, after he defeated them, are now loyal cabinet members and supporters). Sturgeons speech this weekend appealing to Labour voters to vote yes to get their party back is part of that appeal. She too made a move from her radical speeches and writings back in the post 1992 'Scotland United' period where she made near firebrand socialist speeches and her associating with the former SNP Leftist group at the time around the magazine 'Liberation'. The same magazine counted Roseanna Cunningham and Fiona Hyslop (both now Cabinet Ministers in the Scottish Government) among its supporters. Arguably it was Liberation who forced her adoption as the by-election candidate in Perth in 1995 against the gossipy and near slanderous opposition from the Ewingites and their more right-wing supporters in the NE of Scotland.
As an aside Cunningham, Salmond, Hyslop and Kenny MacAskill another Cabinet minister, were all expelled from the SNP for their 79 Group activities. All are now front benchers. Margo Macdonald, then a bit of an SNP hero for winning in Govan, resigned in protest at the expulsions.

Steeplejack would know more about some of the shennanigans in that part of the world but there's some interesting parrallels with Salmond and Sturgeons journeys and an interesting 'understory'to the SNP as opposed to the sweeping 'Tartan Tory' generalisation.
 
...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.

I was hoping you would expand on this, but the discussion has gone back to focussing on what independence would mean for Scotland.

Do you really think it will have "very profound consequences" for those of us in southern Britain? I can't see it myself.
 
There's an interesting debate to be had about Salmond (and to a lesser extent Sturgeon for a similar journey) as regards his political trajectory from left-wing 79 Group member to 'modern social democrat' with an eye to traditional Labour values. Not as 'extreme' as Blair but a similar modernising path, with Blair against any semblance of 'socialism' whereas with Salmond it was a battle with the (fundamentalists' some of whom, after he defeated them, are now loyal cabinet members and supporters). Sturgeons speech this weekend appealing to Labour voters to vote yes to get their party back is part of that appeal. She too made a move from her radical speeches and writings back in the post 1992 'Scotland United' period where she made near firebrand socialist speeches and her associating with the former SNP Leftist group at the time around the magazine 'Liberation'. The same magazine counted Roseanna Cunningham and Fiona Hyslop (both now Cabinet Ministers in the Scottish Government) among its supporters. Arguably it was Liberation who forced her adoption as the by-election candidate in Perth in 1995 against the gossipy and near slanderous opposition from the Ewingites and their more right-wing supporters in the NE of Scotland.
As an aside Cunningham, Salmond, Hyslop and Kenny MacAskill another Cabinet minister, were all expelled from the SNP for their 79 Group activities. All are now front benchers. Margo Macdonald, then a bit of an SNP hero for winning in Govan, resigned in protest at the expulsions.

Steeplejack would know more about some of the shennanigans in that part of the world but there's some interesting parrallels with Salmond and Sturgeons journeys and an interesting 'understory'to the SNP as opposed to the sweeping 'Tartan Tory' generalisation.

Yes it is an interesting story, the whole '79 Group scenario. Looking back now, that was the last twitch of the old romantic-nationalist SNP and the 80s (a bleak decade of purposeless opposition and near-total irrelevance) was the last decade when they wielded real power in the party. When Salmond took over the leadership in 1990, with Gordon Wilson stepping down, the Ewingite influence dropped year on year. The last redoubt of Ewing-ite nationalism is probably in Perth and parts of Angus, territory that used to be held by Tories like Fairbairn and Bill Walker (who if he had lived would undoubtedly be in UKIP today- a total loon).

The roots of the SNP were in the aristocracy and middle class intellectuals- the Duke of Montrose, and RB Cunnighame Graham, with a bonkers fringe represented by Hugh MacDiarmid and Fionn MacColla. The from the mid 30s under Andrew Dewar Gibbs leadership (and with Wendy Wood as an eminence grise) it became a solidly Tory formation with a nationalist fringe. A streak of radicalism was there with people like the pacificst Douglas Young, and the idealistic hot air of the post war Scottish Covenant, but it never amounted to very much.

The socialist / social democratic tradition in the SNP really gained traction under Billy Wolfe in the 60s, but the generation of my parents used to criticise the SNP for facing both ways- being radical in the central belt and Tory in Perthshire, Angus and the Highlands. "Tartan Tiry" was a Labour criticism specific to the context of the dying days of Callaghan and was a convenient generalisation that stuck.

Briefly, the left wing tradition was decimated by the failure of 1979 and the subsequent political infighting in the party. It rebuilt around Salmond after the brief expulsion episode (Salmond was first elected to Westminster in 1983 IIRC). I think we have to be careful in presenting it as a parallel to Kinnock and the rise of New Labour, though.

In the SNP, it was always about "fundamentalism" (i.e. old-right wing UDI style nationalism which had no truck with devolution) and "gradualism". That was at the root of the Salmond-Sillars fissure after the '92 general election, a fissure that never has been resolved. the fundies were swept away by the realities of devolution- something that required very careful internal negoatiations within the SNP to accept- and from then on, the fundies have been like an extinct volcano. They may very occasionally emit ome white smoke still, but there won't be any more eruption from them. the last "white smoke" was in the elderly Wilson's bigoted comments about gay / samesex marriage a few years back, but the speed and unanimity with which he was slapped down shows how far that tendency has fallen.

Fundamentalism was of its time and was an ideology born of a period of hopelessness in the SNP's history, when a Scottish parliament seemed light years away, let alone independence. The Salmond / Sturgeon wing has been about maneovering much more nimbly through successive rapidly changing sets of political realities than anything else.
 
I was hoping you would expand on this, but the discussion has gone back to focussing on what independence would mean for Scotland.

Do you really think it will have "very profound consequences" for those of us in southern Britain? I can't see it myself.

well it will mean pretty profound constituional changes, yes.

There will be demands for a written constitution, for a start.

Energy costs may well go up.

What will rUK's view be on the Northern irish question? I think the relationship between the "mainland" and NI will alter very quickly.

Will England continue to be governed centrally from Westminster, or will there be a call for regional parlaiments to offset some of the consequences of Scottish independence?

Will the English trajectory away from EU membershiop continue?

what will be the cultural consequnces of a yes vote? with the English / British conflation over, how will the English people redefine themselves and in what ways and with what consequences? Not a matter for anyone but the English, but it will be interesting to observe.

If the vote is for Scottish independence then it might be argued that part of the reason for the failure of the Union was because the English never really got beyong the cricket/warm beer/oldmaids cycling to evensong/ Spitfire aeroplanes / knotted hankies on the beach at Margate cliches about themselves.

just off the top of my head, but the idea that Scottish independence will largely be an irrelevance to people in England is mistaken, i think.
 
well it will mean pretty profound constituional changes, yes. There will be demands for a written constitution, for a start.

Energy costs may well go up.

What will rUK's view be on the Northern irish question? I think the relationship between the "mainland" and NI will alter very quickly.

Will England continue to be governed centrally from Westminster, or will there be a call for regional parlaiments to offset some of the consequences of Scottish independence?

Will the English trajectory away from EU membershiop continue?

what will be the cultural consequnces of a yes vote? with the English / British conflation over, how will the English people redefine themselves and in what ways and with what consequences? Not a matter for anyone but the English, but it will be interesting to observe.

If the vote is for Scottish independence then it might be argued that part of the reason for the failure of the Union was because the English never really got beyong the cricket/warm beer/oldmaids cycling to evensong/ Spitfire aeroplanes / knotted hankies on the beach at Margate cliches about themselves.

just off the top of my head, but the idea that Scottish independence will largely be an irrelevance to people in England is mistaken, i think.

I really can't see that there will be any significant constitutional changes or moves to greater regional autonomy. You would need to make some sort of argument for each of the things you've suggested. I'm not saying they're impossible, but I don't think, personally, that any of them will follow as a result of Scotland voting yes to independence.

As far as the cultural changes go, you may be interested to learn that the picture of stereotypical English culture which you paint doesn't actually exist anymore, if indeed it ever did. It's about as accurate as the crass stereotype of Scottish culture which I'm sure I don't need to spell out to you.
 
sorry, I am writing quickly, I dont actually believe that stereotype of Englishness (and John Major was rightly ridiculed when he invoked it). Nonetheless, it must be said that the English have never really come to an accommodation of what "English" actually means, the different ways in which it is defined, the basis from which these conclusions are drawn, etc. That is a fairly fundamental process which England will certainly go through if the current UK ceases to be come March 2016.

Scotland and Northern Ireland (and the "Troubles") are fairly intimately intertwined and you only have to look at the utterances from the likes of the Orange Order, Trimble, John Taylor (ludicrously calling for a "partition" of Scotland in the event of a yes vote) to see that. I wonder what appetite there will be in England for the continuance of a "Union" if Scotland goes.

I think if Scotland does go then a lot wll be learned from this putative EU referendum- if of course it is ever delivered upon. If England decides to leave then that may have consequences for the "re-calibration" process of what Englishness might be, with some seeking to portray it as isolationist, Little Englander, etc etc. Also, would a Yes vote north of the border animate or galvanaise an English radical tradition?

Like you say none of this necessarily follows, but equally I'll be astonished if rUK just carries on as though nothing has happened if Yes is the outcome.

I also think the fault-lines between London (now a global city which could easily declare UDI tomorrow and leave the rest of England to rot) and the rest of England will come into much sharper and more painful focus, which in my view will re-invigorate calls for devolution of power to the regions.

another interesting question might be, if yes- why did Scotland bother leaving a 300 year old union? This will particualrly be asked in the north, midlands and far south west, which share many of ex-industrial Scotland's chronic economic problems.
 
sorry, I am writing quickly, I dont actually believe that stereotype of Englishness (and John Major was rightly ridiculed when he invoked it). Nonetheless, it must be said that the English have never really come to an accommodation of what "English" actually means, the different ways in which it is defined, the basis from which these conclusions are drawn, etc. That is a fairly fundamental process which England will certainly go through if the current UK ceases to be come March 2016..
I think you make very good points about the potential for changes in England. However, I don't think this is right at all. Speaking as a Welsh person living in England, I can tell you that most English people already talk of 'England' when what they really mean is 'Britain'. They will no doubt continue to do just the same, except that it will just be Welsh people who notice, not Welsh and Scots. (When I point this out to English people, they generally haven't even been aware that they've been doing it. Normally I don't bother, tbh.)
 
sorry, I am writing quickly, I dont actually believe that stereotype of Englishness (and John Major was rightly ridiculed when he invoked it). Nonetheless, it must be said that the English have never really come to an accommodation of what "English" actually means, the different ways in which it is defined, the basis from which these conclusions are drawn, etc. That is a fairly fundamental process which England will certainly go through if the current UK ceases to be come March 2016.

Scotland and Northern Ireland (and the "Troubles") are fairly intimately intertwined and you only have to look at the utterances from the likes of the Orange Order, Trimble, John Taylor (ludicrously calling for a "partition" of Scotland in the event of a yes vote) to see that. I wonder what appetite there will be in England for the continuance of a "Union" if Scotland goes.

I think if Scotland does go then a lot wll be learned from this putative EU referendum- if of course it is ever delivered upon. If England decides to leave then that may have consequences for the "re-calibration" process of what Englishness might be, with some seeking to portray it as isolationist, Little Englander, etc etc. Also, would a Yes vote north of the border animate or galvanaise an English radical tradition?

Like you say none of this necessarily follows, but equally I'll be astonished if rUK just carries on as though nothing has happened if Yes is the outcome.

I also think the fault-lines between London (now a global city which could easily declare UDI tomorrow and leave the rest of England to rot) and the rest of England will come into much sharper and more painful focus, which in my view will re-invigorate calls for devolution of power to the regions.

another interesting question might be, if yes- why did Scotland bother leaving a 300 year old union? This will particualrly be asked in the north, midlands and far south west, which share many of ex-industrial Scotland's chronic economic problems.

I don't think there is any great need or desire for "the English" to come to an accomodation about what it means to be English. Maybe I'm not best placed to judge (my family moved from Scotland just before I was born, and to the extent I think about it, I think of myself as British, not English or Scottish). I suspect that many people living in England identify more with their region than with England as a whole, and there are also, of course, many people living in England who* identify with another part of the world that their parents or grandparents came from.

As far as the suggestion of regions wanting more political autonomy goes, there were referendums a few years back which spectacularly failed to excite - has anything changed since then? Will anything change as a result of Scotland gaining independence? I can't see it, though others may be better placed to judge (I'm in London).

ETA I should say who also identify
 
well, the referendums that did happen took place in a *very* different political context to the one that would host future *possible* referendums on regional devolution in a future rUK. I don't think that point is terribly relevant to be honest.

If you are in London you will probably notice any yes vote the least- London is pretty much insulated from developments elsewhere in the UK, as already stated. All that will change is that Ken Livingstone won't be able to call for the repatriation of funds from the sponging Jocks to a credulous electorate anymore.
 
well, the referendums that did happen took place in a *very* different political context to the one that would host future *possible* referendums on regional devolution in a future rUK. I don't think that point is terribly relevant to be honest.

If you are in London you will probably notice any yes vote the least- London is pretty much insulated from developments elsewhere in the UK, as already stated. All that will change is that Ken Livingstone won't be able to call for the repatriation of funds from the sponging Jocks to a credulous electorate anymore.

How is it different now, and how is that difference actually significant?

Is there really a massive groundswell of demand for autonomy in the north, the midlands or the south west? Can anyone living in those areas actually point to such a thing?
 
you're missing the point- there isn't *now*

over time, such demands *may grow* *possibly* in the context of an rUK England seeking to redefine itself in a post GB era.

no one really knows what will happen. Nothing at all, seems by far the least likely outcome, however.
 
you're missing the point- there isn't *now*

over time, such demands *may grow* *possibly* in the context of an rUK England seeking to redefine itself in a post GB era.

no one really knows what will happen. Nothing at all, seems by far the least likely outcome, however.

In the post of yours I first quoted you said

...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.
You seem now to be backtracking, or at least unwilling to actually back your statement up with specific examples and, most importantly, justifications for those examples.

I don't think most people in the rest of the UK will suffer some sort of existential crisis, either political, constitutional or cultural, should Scotland vote for independence.

Scotland is in many ways a special case within the UK, which is what makes independence possible in the first place. Scottish independence needn't result in any wider constitutional change, and it needn't be the impetus for people in the rest of the UK changing the way they think about themselves or the way they relate to the UK state, unless you can actually explain why.
 
No I'm not backtracking really- you invited me to speculate what might happen, I gave some answers, you don't agree.

That's about the size of it I think.
 
No I'm not backtracking really- you invited me to speculate what might happen, I gave some answers, you don't agree.

That's about the size of it I think.

I was hoping you'd come up with something a bit more substantial than just speculation, but fair enough ;)
 
Please provide one quotation from a speech or article, where Salmond uses the English as a "scapegoat", for a political problem in Scotland.

He's clever and never does it directly, but it's ever-present behind the scenes and between the lines.

There will be demands for a written constitution, for a start.

I don't think there will be an increase in demand; there have been demands for some time.

just off the top of my head, but the idea that Scottish independence will largely be an irrelevance to people in England is mistaken, i think.

I agree. Generally, those to whom I've spoken respect our right to choose, but have either given little thought to the impact on England or been phlegmatic and said something along the lines of, "We'll muddle through." Politically, it will be disastrous for the Tories - 'the party that lost the Union' will be the cry.
 
He's clever and never does it directly, but it's ever-present behind the scenes and between the lines.

so that's a humiliating "no quote exists where Salmond scapegoats the English for a Scottish political problem" climbdown, then? Glad we cleared that up, cheers.

Given that you found your original position indefensible, perhaps you can give examples of Salmond's "cleverness", where he implies a scapegoating of the English for a political problem in Scotland, without actually stating it plainly?

Again, a quote from a speech or article will do. Be very specific.
 
Back
Top Bottom