The Scottish independence referendum polling thread

[redsquirrel]

Understanding the concept of national interests does not make someone a nationalist.

No that's true but you've been using those "national interests" as an argument for an independent Scotland.

 

[butchersapron]

Understanding the concept of national interests does not make someone a nationalist.

Arguing that it should be followed no matter what does. August 4th 1914 - all you nationalist socialists made sure ww1 happened.

 

[DairyQueen]

No that's true but you've been using those "national interests" as an argument for an independent Scotland.

Did I? I am sure butchersapron will be able to find some post and tell you that is what I have done.

 

[DairyQueen]

Arguing that it should be followed no matter what does. August 4th 1914 - all you nationalist socialists made sure ww1 happened.

I'm a Nazi. Right. Classy.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm a Nazi. Right. Classy.

A nazi from ww1.Your problem now.

 

[DairyQueen]

A nazi from ww1.Your problem now.

A nazi from ww1. My god, the depths you have now reached.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I'm a Nazi. Right. Classy.

Er no he's calling you a nationalist socialist, not a national socialist

 

[redsquirrel]

Did I? I am sure butchersapron will be able to find some post and tell you that is what I have done.

... or YOU can accept that convincing the Scottish population to vote for independence won't happen in two years, and that to achieve 45% of the vote considering the massive institutional prejudice (the press being the most obvious) the campaign overrall was an achievement. Scots are only now grasping these issues, and how we want to be governed, our politics will be formed over time. I think there is more positives that we, as a country, can take from this campaign. It was people power like I have never seen. The state hates us, and will be unwilling to change anything.

From here, that's a nationalist argument.

 

[danny la rouge]

Let us suppose for the moment that you are right, and Scotland is in receipt of a net subsidy from London (your claim is not that it is from the rest of the UK, but from London) – you are not right (See for example: 1., 2.), but let us for a moment suppose you are – what do you think is the fundamental difference between Scotland, a country you imply uniquely incapable of providing an economy to sustain its populace, unlike the other countries its size and smaller? Why is Scotland incapable of making a go of it?

The truth is that if there is indeed a net subsidy from London – if, mark you – then this is a state of affairs Scotland finds itself in as part of the Union. The Scotland we see today is a Scotland that is part of the UK, a product of 300 years of Union. Why then do you not decry the Union, rather than insisting Scotland is incapable of independence? The Union is clearly failing Scotland if it has reduced it to such a level of dependency, unlike the other independent countries its size and smaller.

This line that Scotland is simply not able to support itself is a line that Better Together repeatedly deploys, and even many Unionists feel it is not credible or useful.

A far better tack is the point made some years ago now by Gordon Brown, that Britons together can be proud, for example, of their role in creating the National Health Service. It’s an appeal to intra-British solidarity; those post-war institutions - wrought by the struggles of the ordinary people of these islands - are indeed achievements we should value.

Except, of course, many (north and south of the Border) will rightly say that the government in Westminster is now intent on dismantling that very Health Service. There, one might say, following Gordon Brown’s logic, goes one more reason for maintaining the Union.

As an aside, I’ve seen the figures suggesting “London” subsidises the rest of the UK. They are, though, very crude figures. They are based on the tax take per head. What they do not take into account are the jobs and infrastructure in London that the UK tax payer pays for: the jobs in Whitehall, including rafts of high paid mandarins; bodies with huge staff details in London, such as the Cabinet Office, Crown Prosecution Service, Department for Communities and Local Government, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty's Treasury, Ministry of Justice, UK Statistics Authority, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, boundary commission of England, Home Office, Ministry of Defence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for Work and Pensions, Department of Health, Department for Transport, Department for Education, department for Culture, Media and Sport, DFID, Attorney General's Office, Treasury Solicitors, Government Equalities Office, The Supreme Court. Those employees pay tax, yes, but their wages and departments are paid for by the whole of the UK.

That's without the considerable BBC presence still in London, the Unions with headquarters in London, the charities and NGOs with headquarters in London and so on.

What about the infrastructure that serves London? The Olympic stadia and infrastructure? The rail networks feeding London? The Channel tunnel? The Millennium Dome? And what food does London produce? And so on.

London does not subsidise the UK, it is an integral part of it. It is indivisible from it, whether that be the UK as it is today, or a possible future UK without Scotland. London could not go it alone. Scotland could.

1. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

2. http://newsnetscotland.com/index.ph...conomist-says-scotland-subsidising-rest-of-uk

How will all those things in London be emblazoned? "Paid for by everyone else"?

 

[pogofish]

That idea will come back to bite them badly IMO.

Not least because it could well draw attention to all the neglected/underfunded works in Scotland that Westminister turned a blind-eye to for decades.

Then the near-certainty that whenever a sign appears, its modification won't be far behind!

 

[danny la rouge]

The Government is trolling us.

We are, after all, UK taxpayers here, too. This seems to suggest all our stuff is paid for by other people. Which is not only incoherent nonsense, it is divisive incoherent nonsense.

 

[brogdale]

Interesting comments (admission?) from Darling:-

Alistair Darling, who is standing down as an MP at the election, gives an interview to the Times in which he questions whether the scars left by the independence referendum will ever heal. He also argues that the referendum campaign has fundamentally altered the public mood. “Scotland has been in a state of election since about 2010, and all that electioneering has raised people’s hopes and expectations against a background of austerity. It’s the backwash of the financial crisis and if you ask me what is happening, a lot of people in Scotland just want change, they want things to be better.”

 

[Quartz]

Hopefully we'll get change on Friday morning. But not the change the SNP wants.

 

[brogdale]

So, one year gone.
How long till the next? Wonder what position Corbyn will take?

 

[J Ed]

Remember how just over a year ago today Gordon Brown and David Cameron promised instant devo max

 

[Teaboy]

So, one year gone.
How long till the next? Wonder what position Corbyn will take?

A long time I suspect. It will be interesting to see what Sturgeon comes up with regarding events that would trigger another referendum beyond the EU stuff.

 

[brogdale]

Remember how just over a year ago today Gordon Brown and David Cameron promised instant devo max

Almost like they didn't really mean it...?

The "vow"

 

[DotCommunist]

the stick looked like it might not suffice so they got brown out to offer a measly, infested carrot

 

[weepiper]

 

[Teaboy]

How much does the surge in support for the SNP translate into support for independence?

 

[gimesumtruf]

Scots look after their own better than anyone else. Foreign politicians make bad gatekeepers. Sorry to say the obvious but it's often ignored.

 

[Rob Ray]

How much does the surge in support for the SNP translate into support for independence?

53% now in favour, according to the latest Mori poll, which is probably why the SNP's gone on the offensive. Though I doubt they think for a second they'll get it, this is pretty much just showboating for their supporters and brinkmanship with Westminster to try and pull in a few more concessions.

 

[DotCommunist]

I suppose one question would be how much of the SNP's recent surge was down to dissafected Slab voters who finally had enough after seeing Darling and co in action, standing 'never had a real job' Jim etc

Based on noting at all other than what I recon, I think it'll hold up.

 

[Teaboy]

Thing is, on the face of it the argument for independence looks less strong than it did 12 months ago, well certainly the economic argument. The proposed currency union looks a decidedly risky thing to do (certainly for the smaller economy) having seen Greece flushed down the toilet, the price of oil has slumped making the SNP's already optimistic income figures look total pie in the sky and there is no sign of that changing in the immediate future. The job losses that have been linked to the oil industry have been bad, I've read that 5,000 direct and 65,000 indirect oil industry jobs have been lost. All this has also affected the tax take, which is at its lowest for 40 years.

I know that it was said here a lot that independence was more a heart thing then cold economic forecasting but at the moment I cannot see a good economic argument for independence. That being said the people who make economic arguments are normally dicks so I've come full circle.

 

[Celyn]

So, one year gone.
How long till the next? Wonder what position Corbyn will take?

Corbyn = not keen on Scottish independence, although I think he said some nice fluffy thing like 'but if that's ends up being what people really really want etc...

Sorry for brevity, shouldn't really be on here right now.

 

[steeplejack]

There's precious little point calling for another referendum until;

1. the people of Scotland demonstrate that they actually want it (easy to conflate "people of Scotland" with "noisy Yessers on social media")

*or*

2. there is some serious material change (rUK votes to get out of EU, Osborne passes the Slaughter of the Innocents (Firstborn) Act

3. The pro-Yes camp sorts itself out a little; i.e. the pro-Yes movement should not be broadly SNP, but a range of voices with different views on how to take Scotland forward post- yes-vote. Yes Scotland turned out to be a very troubled model last time.

I see today also that Patrick Harvie is calling for no further referendum until the currency issue is properly researched and sorted out, as it really hampered Yes last time around. If another referendum is held soon on what was a pisspoor economic programme then it will be lost, again.

I very much doubt there will be another referendum before the 2020s and it is pointless speculating what social conditions might look like then, beyond the obvious fact that they will be worse for most working people.

Few in the yes camp beyond Tommy's Solidarity lot and the right wing of the SNP are actually calling for a re-run as soon as possible, and these small factions have no influence on the decision making process anyway.

A lot of work needs to be done tactically before the next referendum is called, otherwise it will just waste everyone's time.