I know! If only we'd throught of that...
Will you vote for independence?
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
I know! If only we'd throught of that...
geminisnake
a complex mass of conflicting ideas
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
Tell me about it and there's another 7 fecking months of blustering, bullying and bullshit to get through
Aye. Gimme the vote now.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
heat should die off around May when the english press waits to see and then examine just how badly UKIP stuff the tories in the Euro elections. Barring major incidents itll be back after that may madness.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I'm looking forward to the media scrutiny of the No camp. Lol, couldn't keep a straight face for long enough to keep that up.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Balls, Osborne and wee Alexander.What 'No' camp?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Wha?
Tell me about it and there's another 7 fecking months of blustering, bullying and bullshit to get through
Even worse is that my local 'experts' went to Edinburgh once for the weekend and are now Scotsplaining away.
Last edited:
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
scotsplaining 
they need to check the pr-r-rivilege
they need to check the pr-r-rivilegebutchersapron
Bring back hanging
The porridge?scotsplaining
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
OK, I'll be the High Court judge... "Scotsplaining"?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
it arises, m'lud, from a type of intersectionalist discourse where those deemed in a higher handed position to the other xxxsplain (could be 'mansplain- a man lecturing feminist women). The shorthand of it is to show how earnest lecturing from someone in a position not of the people they are talking to attempts to patronise the people in reciept of the speakers wisdom.
This being intersectional jargon we have yet to see prolesplaining make a big impact in terms of acknowledged priv checking
Erm, mansplaining == men explaining to women what it's like to be a woman and about the evils of the sexism women experience.
Scotsplaining(C) == non-Scottish people explaining to Scottish people what it's like to be Scottish and telling them what Scottish people want/experience.
(Okay, by that logic should be non-Scotsplaining
but hopefully the meaning is clear enough...)butchersapron
Bring back hanging
But the use here on this board is those in real other power concentrating on one thing to hide another.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I saw Cameron tell us on the news just then that Salmond's speech had been an angry one. I watched the whole thing and it really wasn't. Not even a little bit. Cameron on the other hand looked rattled.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I like this thread for getting a different angle to the mainstream media one on the Scottish independence thing.
So what's the deal with the pound then - do you get to keep it, or a bit of it, or have your own version that doesn't always work too well South of the border?
Or are you fancying a go with the Euro?
And the EU thing - are you getting a backstage pass or will there have to be all sorts of tests to check that you can be responsible with sausage casings and dairy products? I'd have expected the French might let you in round the back just to wind up the English, but I don't know what the deal is with the Germans.
And have you got anyone lined up for the Eurovision after the referendum? The Proclaimers on Eurovision would be tres coool.
So what's the deal with the pound then - do you get to keep it, or a bit of it, or have your own version that doesn't always work too well South of the border?
Or are you fancying a go with the Euro?
And the EU thing - are you getting a backstage pass or will there have to be all sorts of tests to check that you can be responsible with sausage casings and dairy products? I'd have expected the French might let you in round the back just to wind up the English, but I don't know what the deal is with the Germans.
And have you got anyone lined up for the Eurovision after the referendum? The Proclaimers on Eurovision would be tres coool.
BBC article here. Salmond stressing the negative effect of not having a currency union. I'm sorry, Alec, but you're plain wrong on this. British businesses regularly deal with foreign currencies. Adding an extra one is no big deal. A one-off modest cost. And the rUK economy would be mad to yoke itself to the Scottish economy. If Scotland wants to yoke itself to the rUK economy by continuing to use Sterling as a de facto standard, that's a different matter.
Last edited:
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I've not seen a poll, but I favour a separate Scottish currency, pegged initially to Sterling.
The SNP’s case has been discussed pretty thoroughly on the thread. The SNP points out that if an independent Scotland is to share the liabilities of the Union then it should take a share the assets, too. Remember that despite the name, the Bank of England is a *UK* institution.
No EU country, including Spain, has ever said it would expel Scotland from the EU, or vote to block membership.
Mogwai ?
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
That's what we've got already.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Ok - is that one of the things on the table?
Yes - I gather if Scotland remains part of the UK it remains under that umbrella. I'm not too sure what happens if it secedes but I figured having control over taxation and currency matters was part of the point of independence from Westminster (I'd quite like it if England and Wales also had the opportunity of independence from Westminster tbf).
To be expelled you'd have to be a member first - I'm not too sure whether England and Wales are EU members themselves or whether it's a UK thing - some of the news stuff implies the latter but I imagine it all turns into legal-speak pretty quickly. Why is Spain significant - is there some beef with Spain at the moment?
edit: Just seen Newsnight - can see why you mentioned Spain now. You've just underestimated the massive degree to which I haven't been paying attention these last few months (guess I see it as your business, really).
Nul points, obviously, but a very fucking stylish nul points.
Last edited:
8ball
Decolonise colons!
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
This has all been discussed fairly thoroughly several times, including over the last few pages. (Except Mogwai for Eurovision). However, seeing as it's you, here's a couple of links:Ok - is that one of the things on the table?
Yes - I gather if Scotland remains part of the UK it remains under that umbrella. I'm not too sure what happens if it secedes but I figured having control over taxation and currency matters was part of the point of independence from Westminster (I'd quite like it if England and Wales also had the opportunity of independence from Westminster tbf).
To be expelled you'd have to be a member first - I'm not too sure whether England and Wales are EU members themselves or whether it's a UK thing - some of the news stuff implies the latter but I imagine it all turns into legal-speak pretty quickly. Why is Spain significant - is there some beef with Spain at the moment?
edit: Just seen Newsnight - can see why you mentioned Spain now. You've just underestimated the massive degree to which I haven't been paying attention these last few months (guess I see it as your business, really).
Nul points, obviously, but a very fucking stylish nul points.
1. The report from the Scottish Government's Fiscal Commission Working Group on currency options - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/02/3017/10
2. Some points on EU membership by a constitutional law specialist, Professor Michael Keating - http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/about/people/michael-keating
Please just read back over the last few pages. It's not my position, and I'm fed up explaining it.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I'd gathered that these things would have been discussed here, and I'm well aware that I'm the least knowledgeable person on the thread, though I was really after some personal opinions as much as the documented arguments. Not least to get an understanding of what kind of overlap/disjunct there is between what Salmond is proposing and the aspirations of those who are pro-independence but have a different vision of how they would like things to go.
I got the impression much earlier in the thread that Salmond was considered as much a liability as an asset wrt independence. I don't know whether the situation has changed.
One thing that's hard to pick up from these links and from the media I have access to is to what degree Salmond's idea of independence overlaps with what people really want - whether it is a weak second cousin to the kind of independence envisaged, ie. whether it is broadly supported as a 'first step' or whether it delivers most of what the pro-independence constituency wants.
Thanks for the links,though - I'm aware of the broad sweep of the situation described in the first one judging from a quick scan, though there will be stuff in there I've missed. I haven't looked at the second one yet.
I'll take a look back over the last few pages with regard to the currency question. It's not something that was foremost in my mind but I was actually a bit surprised that continued currency union was part of the plan.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The thread, she cannae take it.
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
Set phasers tae 'malky'.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
OK, 8ball, I’ve got my grumpy hat off now. I’ll see what I can do you cover some of your questions.
Let’s take Alex Salmond first. I think he is generally admired rather than liked. Most people regard him and Nicola Sturgeon as extremely able politicians and effective debaters. There has been one poll linked to on this thread that shows that while people rate Salmond highly, they also don’t particularly trust him. (John Curtice cautions, though, that this question wasn’t asked about the other party leaders, and he isn’t surprised that politicians aren’t trusted even when they have high satisfaction ratings). But I think that pretty much sums it up. People don’t warm to him, but think he has plenty of ability.
Is his version of independence the same as the one people want? That’s hard to answer. Polls show that most people aren’t actually aware of many of the powers the current devolved parliament has. I personally don’t think the demand for independence comes from people having a wish list of parliamentary powers. I think it’s more general than that.
On the face of it, you’d think I was unusual (no sniggering at the back, madam) in that I’m a Yes supporter but not an SNP supporter or even a nationalist. However, I’m not so sure it’s unusual. Mrs la rouge, for example, was born and raised in England, and regards herself as English. She is going to vote Yes, not for nationalist reasons, but because she sees it as a way of countering the tide of Tory measures here where she lives and works. She isn’t a politico. But she despises the bedroom tax, privitisation, and nuclear weapons. She sees voting Yes as a tool to get rid of all that, here at least. She is pretty cynical about politicians, and is under no illusions that an independent Scotland will produce a saintly bunch.
People like me try to work out what monetary union will mean for tax and spending. Mrs la rouge thinks I’m a political anorak. She’s more interested in not having to change currency when we visit her Mum (which we do several times a year). And in that, she’s no different to any other Scot (by which I mean people who live in Scotland). We all have friends and family in England. We all go South to take holidays in the Lakes or Blackpool, or wherever. Alex Salmond knows that. He knows that keeping practical things like the cash in your pocket familiar will play well.
He thinks that you can have formal currency union (which means a common bank of last resort) and still have divergent tax and spending policies. I think he’s right, you can. But I still worry that having such a large single partner (rUK is ten times Scotland’s size, and would be our only partner in the currency) wedded to austerity ideology could cause Scotland problems.
A little bit about UK assets. Scotland, as a partner in the Union, helped to build up the assets we as the UK enjoy. If Yes wins, there will be a period of divvying up the assets. And, despite the name, the Bank of England is a UK asset. (Just, incidentally, as the bail out of the “Scottish” banks was a UK liability). But anyway, there is no contradiction in two sovereign states having a formal agreement to have the same bank of last resort. There is no such thing as complete independence; all countries pool sovereignty in some area or other, all countries rely on others for trade, for mutual endeavour, for alliance and treaty. If you were a civic nationalist (as Alex Salmond is), you’d say the important factor was having the decision in your own hands as to where and when to pool sovereignty. (I could muddy the waters here with my own views on states and sovereignty, but I don’t think it’d assist in the discussion). There is no contradiction in wanting a separate legislature with powers over all the areas a state has powers over, but still wanting to share a currency. (I don’t oppose the idea because of any notion of contradictions over sovereignty, but because I don’t agree with Salmond and the SNP that in these circumstances, or more specifically in this ratio, it best suits Scotland).
In simple arithmetic, though, you’re adding considerable powers to Holyrood by adding those reserved powers it would gain come independence, even with currency union. Within those powers, Scotland’s policy can diverge dramatically from rUK’s in a number of ways that in practical ways benefit the ordinary worker here. I don’t imagine some sort of socialist utopia. I don’t believe in a parliamentary road to socialism. But just as I support the post war welfare state, which is now being dismantled, I also welcome this tactical measure to defend it here. To rid our lochs of weapons of mass destruction. To reverse the privitisation of the mail service. And so on. And in that, I don’t think I’m that different to most Yes supporters. Maybe that loses me purist points with some anarchists, but I don’t care. This is a rare tactical opportunity, not a panacea.
Salmond when he chose this year for the referendum was not, as some London-based commentators like to think, focussed on the anniversary of Bannockburn. He knows that is of interest rather than political significance to the ordinary Scot. Indeed, it isn’t of significance to the modern SNP. (Incidentally, it is in just this sort of caricature and lazy assumption that shows London-based journalists up as being poorly briefed, uninformed and disconnected from the debate here in Scotland. Peston and Robinson on the day Mark Carney spoke in Edinburgh, just sounded like Martians on a day visit to anyone here who has followed the debate these past few years).
No, Salmond chose this year because when he won his majority in 2011 (the first majority government Holyrood had ever had), he knew that Scots would be sick to the back teeth of the Coalition government in Westminster by now. He also knew that he needed some distance between the Olympics and the referendum. He is gambling that he has correctly balanced the two.
That’s because there is no positive case being made for the Union. We get no leaflets telling us how we benefit in practical ways. What Better Together plays on is two things: first and foremost, fear and confusion, and secondly the hope that enough Scots have enough sense of British identity to feel attachment to the status quo. That’s their case.
Personally, I think that even if we vote No in September (which, incidentally, I no longer think the certainty I once did), the Union is in its dying days. It has outlived its purpose. Asymmetric devolution (a major and assembly in London, but nowhere else; the set-up in Wales, in Northern Ireland. All with differing sets of powers, all with their own version of the “West Lothian question”) is fundamentally unstable. Its demise set in not in ‘99, when Holyrood opened its doors, but the early ‘90s, when Labour Unionists – Donald Dewar, John Smith - started talking about a “democratic deficit”, the idea that Scotland can vote for one party in Westminster elections, but still get another. That was a very strange thing for Unionists to disseminate. A UK parliament election is won by whoever holds the majority of seats in the UK. Majorities imply minorities. However, that idea has now taken hold here: the idea that whatever Scotland votes, we could still get Tories in Westminster. It took root in Scottish civil society, and is here to stay. And its result will be the end of the Union, cleanly in September, or by messy, protracted degree should we vote No.
The referendum is discussed here by ordinary people. Whatever earnest far left radicals and anarchists tell you, it actually is. Every social gathering I am at, people discuss it. People talk about it in pubs. The customers awaiting a haircut in the barber’s shop I go to were discussing it last time I was there (last week). Nobody discussed AV. And the reason that most people give when they say they’re voting Yes is “to get rid of the Tories”, or, in one memorable phrase I heard the other day, “to cure Scotland of Tories”. (Please note, I think I’ve discussed the notion enough to distance myself from this particular fallacy, but if you don’t know my views on this, I’m reporting here, not agreeing).
I think Cameron and Osborne’s big mistake last week was not so much what they said, but that in intervening they reminded people of those democratic deficit ideas. “Oh, yes”, the electorate remembered, “We can get rid of you”. That’s exactly what Salmond was hoping for. The Tories hoped to limit that effect by having Ed Balls and Danny Alexander say they agreed. I’m not so sure it helped.
Anyway. These are interesting times.
Similar threads
