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

[littlebabyjesus]

Surely Salmond's whole position is that the best thing is for Scotland to sort out Scotland's problems. If the English are the ones at fault, that implies that England needs to do something to sort out Scotland's problems. I may be missing something here, but doesn't he go out of his way not to blame the English for exactly this reason?

 

[steeplejack]

No it isn't.

so what is it then?

either

1. Salmond has directly scapegoated the English for a Scottish political problem- in which case you will be able to produce a specific quote from one of his speeches or articles

or

2. Your fall back position, which is that Salmond is "too clever" and implies scapegoating of the English without actually specifically mentioning them- leaving it for the audience to read the obvious signs between the lines. In which case, again, you'll have specific examples to hand to back up such a claim.

there is of course

3. you have been talking complete pish from the beginning, but I'll be charitable for now and leave that off the table.

which is it, Quartz? 1 or 2? can't have it both ways.

 

[andysays]

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

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

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.

Given your magical powers to read between the lines of what Alec Salmond is saying, I'm surprised you don't recognise that when many non-Scots say "we'll muddle through" what they likely mean is "it won't actually make a blind bit of difference to us, but we don't want to hurt your feelings by saying that, so we'll pretend it will".

 

[Quartz]

Given your magical powers

Heh.

to read between the lines of what Alec Salmond is saying, I'm surprised you don't recognise that when many non-Scots say "we'll muddle through" what they likely mean is "it won't actually make a blind bit of difference to us, but we don't want to hurt your feelings by saying that, so we'll pretend it will".

I'm sufficiently aware to know the difference, thank you.

 

[steeplejack]

so...any chance of a shred of evidence to back up your claims?

 

[Quartz]

so...any chance of a shred of evidence to back up your claims?

I regret that I don't transcribe what I see on TV.

 

[steeplejack]

...or are able to use google /youtube/news websites, clearly.

sadly it seems to be option 3- you have been talking utter pish from the beginning.

 

[Quartz]

...or are able to use google /youtube/news websites, clearly.

sadly it seems to be option 3- you have been talking utter pish from the beginning.

I respect your right to be wrong.

 

[steeplejack]

oh I'm wrong? good-o then.

so where is the evidence for your claims about Alex Salmond? shouldn't be hard for you to find.

 

[danny la rouge]

I regret that I don't transcribe what I see on TV.

Alex Salmond never, ever scapegoats, blames or points the finger at the English, either directly or "cleverly". Never.

Neither he nor the SNP have any grievance, overt or cryptic, with the English. Around 6% of SNP members were born in England, which is the same as the proportion of English people living in Scotland. (Mitchell, Bennie & Johns, 2012, The Scottish National Party: Transition to Power, Oxford: Oxford Uni Press, p65).

The SNP is not an ethnic nationalist party. Its aim is to build a social movement representative of modern Scotland - including Asian Scots, Irish Scots, Anglo Scots and others - seeking a democratic mandate for the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. Not versus anyone, but exercised on behalf of those who live here.

This is the bit that London based journalists often don't get. They imagine it must be "against us". But it really isn't. (It's against the Westminster system. But it also sees that as failing the people of the rUK).

Now, I'm an anarchist communist. I disagree with the SNP on a number of levels (not least on the nature of sovereignty). But if I thought they were in the least bit bigoted towards the English, I would say so. Not just on a political level, but a personal level: Mrs la rouge is English, my children are therefore half English, my in-laws (whom I am visiting later in the week) are English.

 

[Quartz]

Alex Salmond never, ever scapegoats, blames or points the finger at the English, either directly or "cleverly". Never.

Really? I've heard him 'refuse to blame', by which he really means he blames.

This is the bit that London based journalists often don't get. They imagine it must be "against us".

Maybe it's all the alcohol I've had tonight but that seems ironic, because that's equivalent to the position many pro-independence Urbanites hold: if you're not rabidly pro-independence, then you're against it.

 

[butchersapron]

Top notch buffooning quartz!

 

[danny la rouge]

When I read London based journalists saying Salmond has a grievance against the English, my reaction is always that it tells me more about them than it does about Salmond. It tells me the journalist is self-absorbed (it's not about you!) and ill-informed about Scottish politics (as London journalists often are, on both counts).

The pro Yes movement is not a flag-waving nationalist movement, with identity politics to the fore. It's a movement that wants to give expression to what it believes is a social democratic consensus in Scotland. By contrast, the Better Together side is a flag-waving nationalist movement, obsessed with identity, and with very little else to say (except increasingly bizarre scares stories).

I was at a referendum debate hosted in Stirling Uni tonight, and the Yes side was (as always) putting forward instrumental arguments (get rid of Trident, stop welfare cuts, and so on). The Better Together side was all about pride in being British. All three of them said, often more than once: "I'm a proud Scot, and also proud to be British". The Yes side had an SNP minister (Angela Constance), who never even mentioned her nationality or whether she was proud of it.

 

[danny la rouge]

that's equivalent to the position many pro-independence Urbanites hold: if you're not rabidly pro-independence, then you're against it.

No it isn't.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

The SNP is not an ethnic nationalist party. Its aim is to build a social movement representative of modern Scotland - including Asian Scots, Irish Scots, Anglo Scots and others - seeking a democratic mandate for the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. Not versus anyone, but exercised on behalf of those who live here.

The SNP, and the wider "Yes" movement, do have a certain amount of ethnic nationalists attached, but they've both as organisations done a good job of marginalising those voices, and rightly so. But I suppose any sort of movement contains all sorts.

 

[Pickman's model]

The SNP, and the wider "Yes" movement, do have a certain amount of ethnic nationalists attached, but they've both as organisations done a good job of marginalising those voices, and rightly so. But I suppose any sort of movement contains all sorts.

the mainstream lot are concerning enough as they've their snouts in the trough just like their westminster counterparts - an independent scotland a) won't be independent in more than name under the snp independence-lite, but b) would offer scottish politicians the chance to show they're just the same greedy shits as politicians in the united states or england or ireland

 

[danny la rouge]

The SNP, and the wider "Yes" movement, do have a certain amount of ethnic nationalists attached, but they've both as organisations done a good job of marginalising those voices, and rightly so. But I suppose any sort of movement contains all sorts.

Ah, that's a different thing. There are of course bigoted idiots who might be voting Yes. As there are bigoted idiots voting No.

 

[danny la rouge]

the mainstream lot are concerning enough as they've their snouts in the trough just like their westminster counterparts.

Yes, if you wanted to talk about Salmond's actual shortcomings rather than imaginary ones, there are plenty to be found.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, if you wanted to talk about Salmond's actual shortcomings rather than imaginary ones, there are plenty to be found.

i am talking about alex salmond's actual shortcomings. - see the picture in the post.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

the mainstream lot are concerning enough as they've their snouts in the trough just like their westminster counterparts.

Well yes. Also, John Swinney doesn't get on the telly much, but he's got an interesting history in corporate finance.

 

[danny la rouge]

i am talking about alex salmond's actual shortcomings. - see the picture in the post.

I know; I agree. My peroration was aimed in the direction of Quartz.

 

[Quartz]

The pro Yes movement is not a flag-waving nationalist movement

Really? It certainly seems to be a large part of it. And Salmond isn't above waving the Saltire.

I was at a referendum debate hosted in Stirling Uni tonight, and the Yes side was (as always) putting forward instrumental arguments (get rid of Trident, stop welfare cuts, and so on). The Better Together side was all about pride in being British. All three of them said, often more than once: "I'm a proud Scot, and also proud to be British". The Yes side had an SNP minister (Angela Constance), who never even mentioned her nationality or whether she was proud of it.

Defending the status quo is rather difficult without waving the Union flag. After all, so many policies are decided not in Westminster but Holyrood which is under the control of the SNP, and you can hardly have them promote the SNP, can you?

 

[danny la rouge]

The main criticism of Salmond is that he is too close to the banks. He was an RBS economist (way back, before his political career).

 

[danny la rouge]

Really? It certainly seems to be a large part of it. And Salmond isn't above waving the Saltire.

No, he isn't above it. But that isn't the meat of his case, or of the wider Yes case. It does seem to be the meat of the BT case, those.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Defending the status quo is rather difficult without waving the Union flag. After all, so many policies are decided not in Westminster but Holyrood which is under the control of the SNP, and you can hardly have them promote the SNP, can you?

I don't think that is quite true. But defending the union without also acknowledging the popularity of devolution in Scotland and the constitutional imbalances that this has produced across the rest of the UK is hard. There is a principled case for a properly federal state that could be made, but that would involve Westminster devolving powers to the English regions, and they don't want to do that - none of them wants it.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

The main criticism of Salmond is that he is too close to the banks. He was an RBS economist (way back, before his political career).

Say one thing for him and Nicola Sturgeon though, if it is a Yes vote, I'm glad those two will be on our side. I doubt I'll ever warm to Salmond, and I used to not rate Sturgeon, but she's demonstrated a really cool and calm head in governing. I think it was one of the potential flu pandemics, the one that started in Mexico. She was available, giving out info in the best way "This is what we know", "This is what we plan to do about it", "This is what you may need to do". Anyway...

 

[Quartz]

I don't think that is quite true. But defending the union without also acknowledging the popularity of devolution in Scotland and the constitutional imbalances that this has produced across the rest of the UK is hard.

To acknowledge the popularity of devolution would be to surrender the argument, wouldn't it?

There is a principled case for a properly federal state that could be made, but that would involve Westminster devolving powers to the English regions, and they don't want to do that - none of them wants it.

I think I've made a similar suggestion here before, but restricted to England / Scotland / NI / Wales.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

To acknowledge the popularity of devolution would be to surrender the argument, wouldn't it?

Not if you were having a grown-up conversation about federalism, no. Local government has still not recovered from Thatcher's profoundly undemocratic attacks on it, and continues to be undermined in England/Wales - see education and 'academies'. There could be a space for a genuinely left of centre party to make a case for reinvigorating it and really devolving real powers to the regions.

I think this would have a positive effect, and I would cite Germany as an example. It is no coincidence that the bit of the UK with a devolved parliament responsible for education is the bit with no tuition fees. In Germany recently, tuition fees have been scrapped, and they were fought and rescinded state-by-state within Germany. Once one state has successfully been fought and scrapped fees, then people in the next state say 'hang on, not here either, thanks'. Fighting austerity is more possible in such a system. Here in the (r)UK, we do not have such democratic avenues open to us.

It's the people of England who should be most pissed off with the status quo.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Is there no subject that Quartz is not deeply wrong about?

 

[steeplejack]

Really? I've heard him 'refuse to blame', by which he really means he blames.



Maybe it's all the alcohol I've had tonight but that seems ironic, because that's equivalent to the position many pro-independence Urbanites hold: if you're not rabidly pro-independence, then you're against it.