Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Vote on Scottish Independence
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose some Scots are asking the question, 'how do we get rid of Thatcherism?'
That cannot be done in Westminster, but it's also problematic for it to be done in Scotland. I mean, I don't see Salmond as left-wing at all; isn't he really putting forward a kind of dilute Thatcherite set of policies?
Maybe TINA.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Alan Cresswell quote: No, I would say the proposals from the Scottish government are very specific. Retaining membership of the EU is specific, as is currency union with the rest of the UK, maintain pensions and health service funding, encouraging inward investment of talent and people through relaxed immigration controls, getting rid of nuclear weapons from Scottish territory.
The issue isn't their specificity, it's whether or not they're realistically achievable.
- Retaining EU membership: the EU has already said that if Scotland becomes an independent state - regardless of whether or not under the umbrella of the UK monarchy - it will, by declaring independence from the rest of the UK, lose its EU membership. Jose Manuel Barroso further stated that Scotland would have to apply for membership and, although likely to succeed, it was not a given that this would happen. So there is no question of 'retaining' EU membership becaue the EU has said that can't and won't happen
- Currency union with the rest of the UK is also not a given. Bearing in mind the likely stability, or not, of an independent Scottish economy and its likely GDP/debt ratio there would be significant risks for the rest of the UK if it just 'rubber-stamped' a currency union. For the YES campaign to bank on currency union therefore is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
- Maintaining pension and health service funding - fine, if that is how an independent Scotland chooses to spend its tax revenues - but it could well be that there wil be little money left for anything else such as education.
- Encouraging immigration - they can encourage immigration all they want but if they don't have EU membership they may find it hard to attract high net worth individuals wishing to invest, or skilled younger people wishing to benefit from free movement into th EU because the newly independent Scotland won't automatically be part of the Schengen agreement area.
- Relaxed immigration controls - see above but also: it may well relax immigation controls - but that is only likely to lead to the rest of the UK adopting a less than relaxed attitude to people seeking to come into it from Scotland.
- Fine - hand back the nuclear weapons. In that case you won't want to contract in to any defence from the rest of the UK's forces - so that will mean you have to fund your own defence.
The problem with all of Mr Salmond's pie-in-the-sky pronouncements about an independent Scotland is that they sound good to a keen teenager - and that's as far as it goes.
All his fine words are based on the rest of the UK, and the present and subsequent governments in particular, behaving like the honourable gents that he's been busy pouring scorn on for the past three years. The trouble is if you keep on saying people - or nations - are frightful people you want nothing to do with then not only are they likely to take you at your word but, more importantly, there is going to come a point when they refuse to give you preferential treatment: and preferential treatment is what Mr Salmond and the YES campaign is banking on, not just from south of the border but from international bodies such as the EU, UN, etc, etc, etc. Dream on - these bodies have enough problems on their hands without taking on a small outpost at the top of the British mainland with no money, a bolshy attitude and an inability to recognise life's realities.
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I suppose some Scots are asking the question, 'how do we get rid of Thatcherism?'
That cannot be done in Westminster, but it's also problematic for it to be done in Scotland. I mean, I don't see Salmond as left-wing at all; isn't he really putting forward a kind of dilute Thatcherite set of policies?
Maybe TINA.
Well indeed. As we're frequently reminded this isn't a vote for the SNP, it's a vote for an independent Scotland.
Within the Yes camp......:
- The Greens want to keep all the oil where it is, under the sea - The SNP want to sell the oil at $113 a barrel - Tommy Sheridan's lot want more regulation - Business for Scotland want less regulation - Uncle Jim is fantasising about renationalising whole swathes of it
How can people possibly know what it is they're voting for? Especially the ones who are voting *yes* despite the SNP.
The no camp are selling complete uncertainty. The yes camp appear to be selling the bunfight to end all bunfights. What happens post yes when all these factions take their gloves off and go back to opposing each other?
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: What happens post yes when all these factions take their gloves off and go back to opposing each other?
Politics.
I'm not being glib. None of the issues and conflicts you mention are absent from current political discource in the rest of the UK, or indeed much of the rest of the world. People will take sides, Parties will form to represent those sides, and general elections will decide which one (or which coalition) gets to impose its view onto the country for the next howevermany years. It's just that it will all be done withion the context of Scotland qua Scotland, rather than Scotland as a small part of the United Kingdom.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Tubbs: quote: Two of those things on that list are mutually exclusive. Scotland can't have currency union with the UK and be a member of the EU. EU rules say that new members have to join the Euro.
Of course, the Scottish government would claim that Scotland is not really a new member because (as part of the UK) it has been in the EU for several decades. But I think you're right; the EU is likely to insist on Scotland adopting the Euro as a condition of membership.
Quetzalcoatl: quote: I mean, I don't see Salmond as left-wing at all; isn't he really putting forward a kind of dilute Thatcherite set of policies?
I don't think he's left-wing either. Not if he's convinced Marvin to vote for independence
Mind you, even the Labour party isn't particularly left-wing nowadays...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would think that with a yes vote, there would be a determination to go for the Nordic model; that is, a lavish welfare state with business-friendly taxation and so on. So this is both Thatcherite and non-Thatcherite! Who knows if it will work.
Incidentally, on the issue of teenagers liking the idea of jam tomorrow, I think the under 18s are tending to vote no, aren't they? I did see a headline saying 'teens save the Union', but that's probably hyperbole.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I suppose some Scots are asking the question, 'how do we get rid of Thatcherism?'
That cannot be done in Westminster, but it's also problematic for it to be done in Scotland. I mean, I don't see Salmond as left-wing at all; isn't he really putting forward a kind of dilute Thatcherite set of policies?
Maybe TINA.
Well indeed. As we're frequently reminded this isn't a vote for the SNP, it's a vote for an independent Scotland.
Within the Yes camp......:
- The Greens want to keep all the oil where it is, under the sea - The SNP want to sell the oil at $113 a barrel - Tommy Sheridan's lot want more regulation - Business for Scotland want less regulation - Uncle Jim is fantasising about renationalising whole swathes of it
How can people possibly know what it is they're voting for? Especially the ones who are voting *yes* despite the SNP.
They know - or should - that they're voting for an independent Scotland. i.e they're not voting to settle those issues, they're voting on the context in which those issues will be decided in the future.
This is a once in a generation thing and it really shouldn't be decided on these relatively short term issues, especially not who happens to be the leader of the currently biggest party.
quote: The no camp are selling complete uncertainty. The yes camp appear to be selling the bunfight to end all bunfights. What happens post yes when all these factions take their gloves off and go back to opposing each other?
Then they get to fight it out within the context of an independent Scotland. Or they go back to fighting it out in a devolved UK Scottish parliament.
All you've really done there is define the terms of the real issue.
[cross-posted with Marvin, obviously] [ 17. September 2014, 14:49: Message edited by: Late Paul ]
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I suppose some Scots are asking the question, 'how do we get rid of Thatcherism?'
That cannot be done in Westminster, but it's also problematic for it to be done in Scotland. I mean, I don't see Salmond as left-wing at all; isn't he really putting forward a kind of dilute Thatcherite set of policies?
Maybe TINA.
Isn't that rather fighting yesterday's battles? It reminds me of the British military establishment of the first half of the last century who were forever preparing to fight the last war.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Tubbs: EU rules say that new members have to join the Euro. The EU is likely to insist on that as new Euro memmbers would be seen as a positive after the events of the last few years.
Yes, the rules for new Euro members are clear. There are no rules on whether the parts of an existing EU member nation that divides are still members of the EU. The rhetoric given during the campaign from some senior EU politicians has been that they would consider one part of the divided nation to still be part of the EU, and one part not. But, rhetoric during an election campaign doesn't always translate into what happens after the votes are in.
If it is decided that Scotland doesn't retain EU membership that creates a massive headache for the rest of the EU. Do companies in other EU nations currently employing Scottish workers need to sack them, or go through a lengthy and expensive process of seeking visas and work permits? Do EU nationals currently working in Scotland get sent home (or, likewise go through the process of getting visas)? Would German, French or Spanish politicians relish the thought of having disgruntled businesses who have had to spend money or loose valued employees? Do they relish the thought of people coming home after losing jobs in Scotland? Will that be reflected in the next election in the rest of Europe? Which is, of course, the bottom line for politicians. Then there's the question of trade, and the sudden imposition of costs when dealing with someone outwith the common market.
It seems obvious that there needs to be either a smooth transition in which Scotland gains full membership of the EU immediately following independence, or some form of unique interim arrangement cooked up - but, if you're going to the trouble to formulate an interim arrangement you might as well use that time and effort to do it properly.
Time will tell, but I can't see how Scotland would be left outside the EU. We'll either be in, or we'll be so close to in that we might as well be in for all the difference it makes.
quote: [ETA: I'm also completely confused about why a country seeking independence would want currency union with the country it's leaving. It leaves them with less economic control].
As I understand it, an independent currency is also not something a government can have full control over either - at least not without adopting draconian measures relating to currency trading. Trade conditions, currency exchange, financial speculation and investment all affect a currency, sometimes with a central bank being powerless to do anything. The larger the economy that supports that currency, and probably diversity is as important as actual value, the less influence outside financial forces have on the currency and the more control central banks and governments have. A currency union surrenders some control to gain stability and control in other parts of the economy.
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I suppose some Scots are asking the question, 'how do we get rid of Thatcherism?'
That cannot be done in Westminster, but it's also problematic for it to be done in Scotland. I mean, I don't see Salmond as left-wing at all; isn't he really putting forward a kind of dilute Thatcherite set of policies?
Maybe TINA.
Isn't that rather fighting yesterday's battles? It reminds me of the British military establishment of the first half of the last century who were forever preparing to fight the last war.
I don't see why it's yesterday, since some Scots seem to believe that without independence they are faced with 3 Thatcherite parties in Westminster.
However, if the ideas of devo-max are genuine, then quasi-independence is going to happen anyway, as long as perfidious Albion doesn't rat on it.
But then they may be faced with dilute Thatcherism at home! Well, the Nordic model combines neo-liberal economics with a full welfare state.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Late Paul: quote: The no camp are selling complete uncertainty. The yes camp appear to be selling the bunfight to end all bunfights. What happens post yes when all these factions take their gloves off and go back to opposing each other?
Then they get to fight it out within the context of an independent Scotland. Or they go back to fighting it out in a devolved UK Scottish parliament.
Though, the evidence of devolution is that the Scottish government can manage to run things with rigorous debate but not the fighting we see in Westminster. We've even had some great examples of coalition government - indeed, coalition doesn't describe it well, cooperative government would be a better term. It's one of the big differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK - we can manage mature, intelligent political discourse whereas Westminster barely manages to struggle above the level of mud wrestling.
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jane R: I don't think he's left-wing either. Not if he's convinced Marvin to vote for independence
My views on independence are not determined by whether the person calling for it is on the left or right of politics. I support the principle of self-determination, which means I do not - cannot - oppose independence if that be the will of the Scottish people.
As to why I would personally vote yes, that's due to my preference for smaller countries in general. The smaller the electorate, the more say each individual voter has in the running of his or her country. I cannot but see that as a good thing in and of itself, and in fact it is for exactly the same reason that I oppose further moves towards a single, massive, European Superstate.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: ...we can manage mature, intelligent political discourse whereas Westminster barely manages to struggle above the level of mud wrestling.
I didn't hear mature, intelligent discourse from Alex Salmond on the Today programme. I heard overt lying about what Darling said about currency in the second debate. And I also heard a further attempt to pull the wool over our eyes about what the Spanish have said repeatedly about Scotland and the EU.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
(following Marvin's post), I think that's one of the arguments for the Nordic model, that small countries can adapt quite quickly to changing economic circumstances, whereas big countries are a bit like oil-tankers trying to turn.
However, whether or not the Nordic model can be transplanted to Scotland seems to be a gamble. [ 17. September 2014, 15:13: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: If it is decided that Scotland doesn't retain EU membership that creates a massive headache for the rest of the EU. Do companies in other EU nations currently employing Scottish workers need to sack them, or go through a lengthy and expensive process of seeking visas and work permits?
Does anyone have an idea of how many Scottish workers there actually are in the rest of the EU (barring the UK, of course)? It may not be as big a problem for them as you're suggesting.
quote: Do EU nationals currently working in Scotland get sent home (or, likewise go through the process of getting visas)?
That would be up to Scotland, not the EU. Given the stated intention to be pro-immigration I can't imagine they'd start by kicking out a bunch of immigrants!
quote: Then there's the question of trade, and the sudden imposition of costs when dealing with someone outwith the common market.
How much trade goes directly between the EU (again, not counting the UK) and Scotland at the moment? Is Scotland a massive importer of Spanish or German goods, or a massive exporter of goods to France and Italy?
In short, is Scotland really as important to the EU as you're making out?
quote: A currency union surrenders some control to gain stability and control in other parts of the economy.
Tell it to Greece.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Spawn: And I also heard a further attempt to pull the wool over our eyes about what the Spanish have said repeatedly about Scotland and the EU.
The attitude seems to be that Spain can't possibly mean what it's saying about not letting an independent Scotland just waltz into the EU on its own terms, because that would be bad for Scotland and who could possibly want bad things to happen to Scotland?
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Marvin: quote: My views on independence are not determined by whether the person calling for it is on the left or right of politics. I support the principle of self-determination, which means I do not - cannot - oppose independence if that be the will of the Scottish people.
As to why I would personally vote yes, that's due to my preference for smaller countries in general. The smaller the electorate, the more say each individual voter has in the running of his or her country. I cannot but see that as a good thing in and of itself, and in fact it is for exactly the same reason that I oppose further moves towards a single, massive, European Superstate.
Fair enough. Thanks for explaining your position in more detail.
But that's not exactly what the Yes campaign are saying, is it? One of the arguments they are using is 'Vote Yes to avoid being dragged out of the EU by the English.'
Of course, the trouble with politics is that nobody ever is exactly in agreement with your own position... so you're right, the vote is about the future context of Scottish politics, not just the things people are worried about now.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: perfidious Albion
will you *please* stop saying that, on what must be, not that I've been counting, the fourth or fifth time you've written it in the last couple of days on this thread? I'm not going to claim to be speaking for all English people here, what with not being all of them, but, as per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
*I* and I'm sure probably others, find it racist and demeaning.
Even wikipedia, God of all sources, calls it "anglophobic and pejorative."
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: As to why I would personally vote yes, that's due to my preference for smaller countries in general. The smaller the electorate, the more say each individual voter has in the running of his or her country. I cannot but see that as a good thing in and of itself, and in fact it is for exactly the same reason that I oppose further moves towards a single, massive, European Superstate.
There is a simple reason why people band together into larger units, and the reason is that might makes right and in general the bigger the mightier. If you have a Europe of regions with one actual nation left, and Germany is ironically a good candidate for that, then guess who will be calling the shots politically and economically? If Europe seriously splinters into regions, then I predict the de facto rise of a German empire.
Furthermore, the reason why we we absolutely need a European superstate is that top level international politics is dominated by the superpowers. We need a political institution at the level of the USA, Russia, China, and soon perhaps India and Brazil. Maybe you think it's sufficient for the UK to play lapdog of the USA, but I think that is a rather shortsighted plan.
What we can discuss is how these various hierarchies should be built up. Having grown up in a Federal Republic (with considerable power given to the counties), and being a Catholic, I'm all for an aggressive use of the principle of subsidiarily, which demands that all decisions are assigned to the lowest level that can handle them. There should be a "devomax" throughout the entire system, from top to bottom.
But to wish for a small country as such is simply to wish for being somebody else's political toy. It's naive to believe that there will be some kind of fair consideration of every small nation on the international stage. Money talks, military talks, natural resources talk, population size talks. Fairness is the spin that gets put on the deal after all that talking has been heard...
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
Is it not the case that Scotland is already *in* the EU? All the European law required to join the EU became part of Scots law separately from English law. I wonder could the EU even keep Scotland out?
-------------------- I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names, I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Alan Cresswell quote: It seems obvious that there needs to be either a smooth transition in which Scotland gains full membership of the EU immediately following independence, or some form of unique interim arrangement cooked up - but, if you're going to the trouble to formulate an interim arrangement you might as well use that time and effort to do it properly.
Why obvious?
Scotland by population would rank 20th in the EU, just ahead of Ireland, the Baltic states, Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Slovenia.
If it were a country the size of, say, Germany splitting up more or less equally then I can see that the EU might want to dedicate precious time, energy and money to cook up something but Scotland? At less than 1% of the EU's population why should they bother? Especially since they've given ample warning that EU membership can't be split and seen the YES campaign deny what they've been told.
No, Scotland will have to apply - and I can tell you there are real concerns within the EU about taking it on for all sorts of reasons.
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jane R: But that's not exactly what the Yes campaign are saying, is it? One of the arguments they are using is 'Vote Yes to avoid being dragged out of the EU by the English.'
I've posted several times before about the (to me) ludicrous nature of wanting to leave one Union because it's too big for you to have a significant say in how it's run, only to in the same breath call for membership of an even bigger Union where you'll have even less of a say in how it's run. Swapping London for Edinburgh I can understand, swapping it for Brussels I can't.
But what the hey, it's not my country that will be doing it - in fact, my country will be getting a little bit smaller, meaning I'll have a slightly bigger say in how it's run. I mean, we're talking a fraction of a fraction of a percent here, but every little helps .
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: perfidious Albion
will you *please* stop saying that, on what must be, not that I've been counting, the fourth or fifth time you've written it in the last couple of days on this thread? I'm not going to claim to be speaking for all English people here, what with not being all of them, but, as per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
*I* and I'm sure probably others, find it racist and demeaning.
Even wikipedia, God of all sources, calls it "anglophobic and pejorative."
Well, I keep hearing Scots people saying that the offers on devo-max from the 3 main parties are as trustworthy as a plastic haggis. Or if you like, that they will rat on these offers. That is summed up by 'perfidious' isn't it?
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Peppone quote: Is it not the case that Scotland is already *in* the EU? All the European law required to join the EU became part of Scots law separately from English law. I wonder could the EU even keep Scotland out?
No, Scotland is not already *in* the EU: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the EU member.
No, membership of the EU, and subsequent treaties, have not been enacted separately for Scotland - for the purposes of things affecting the whole of the UK laws are put onto the UK statute book only with no separate Acts for Scotland.
It won't be a question of 'keeping Scotland out' - in fact by seeking to leave the UK the YES campaign is, effectively, seeking to leave an EU member.
Knowing this, and having been warned by Brussels that that is how it is perceived, the YES campaign's blithe assurances vis-a-vis the EU are just whistling in the dark - and they know it.
I suspect Salmond and friends are hoping to call the EU's bluff over this but there is a growing feeling in Brussels that they don't need another bolshy member across the English Channel from mainland Europe and that since they've given fair warning of the consequences of, effectively, voting to leave the EU they won't be bounced into anything.
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: quote: Originally posted by Late Paul: quote: The no camp are selling complete uncertainty. The yes camp appear to be selling the bunfight to end all bunfights. What happens post yes when all these factions take their gloves off and go back to opposing each other?
Then they get to fight it out within the context of an independent Scotland. Or they go back to fighting it out in a devolved UK Scottish parliament.
Though, the evidence of devolution is that the Scottish government can manage to run things with rigorous debate but not the fighting we see in Westminster. We've even had some great examples of coalition government - indeed, coalition doesn't describe it well, cooperative government would be a better term. It's one of the big differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK - we can manage mature, intelligent political discourse whereas Westminster barely manages to struggle above the level of mud wrestling.
Oi. 'The rest of the UK' =/= Westminster. We've had coalition government here in Wales, too- in fact I'd say that the Labour/Plaid coalition of 2007-2011 was maybe our best government so far. And the whole business of arranging the coalition in 2007- in fact, there were two options on the table, the other being a serious possibility of a PC/Tory/LD coalition- was a fascinating process of learning a new style of politics from which all parties (except the Lib Dems, who decided they didn't want to go into government at all) came out well.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: perfidious Albion
will you *please* stop saying that, on what must be, not that I've been counting, the fourth or fifth time you've written it in the last couple of days on this thread? I'm not going to claim to be speaking for all English people here, what with not being all of them, but, as per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
*I* and I'm sure probably others, find it racist and demeaning.
Even wikipedia, God of all sources, calls it "anglophobic and pejorative."
Well, I keep hearing Scots people saying that the offers on devo-max from the 3 main parties are as trustworthy as a plastic haggis. Or if you like, that they will rat on these offers. That is summed up by 'perfidious' isn't it?
It may well be, but, in the context of "perfidious albion", it's a loaded trigger-word. We could go and have an argument about trigger words in the styx, but rather than wasting thousand of innocent megapixels it could just not be used. Perfidious/untrustworthy England, just because it's England, as something inherent/pejorative is crass racial stereotyping. You could just say, "they don't trust the Westminster parliament" for example. Why does there always have to be the slur that *it's because they're English*?
Even the Yes campaign haven't come out and said that (to their credit). Some within it may be telegraphing such sentiments madly but very few are being that blunt....
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: There is a simple reason why people band together into larger units, and the reason is that might makes right and in general the bigger the mightier.
Independent countries entering freely into mutual trade and defence agreements (EEC, NATO, etc) meets that need just as well as erasing their existence and setting up a single superstate, and has the benefit of not erasing their existence and setting up a single superstate.
It also, of course, enables any particular country to decide it would be better off allied to one of its "enemies" rather than its mere neighbours. Maybe, in some putative future, the UK could decide that its interests were better served by being in a close political alliance with China or Russia rather than Germany or France. Acting on that decision would not be possible if it had been subsumed into a European Superstate - it would be forced to stay with Germany and France whether that was in its own interests or not.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: perfidious Albion
will you *please* stop saying that, on what must be, not that I've been counting, the fourth or fifth time you've written it in the last couple of days on this thread? I'm not going to claim to be speaking for all English people here, what with not being all of them, but, as per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
*I* and I'm sure probably others, find it racist and demeaning.
Even wikipedia, God of all sources, calls it "anglophobic and pejorative."
Well, I keep hearing Scots people saying that the offers on devo-max from the 3 main parties are as trustworthy as a plastic haggis. Or if you like, that they will rat on these offers. That is summed up by 'perfidious' isn't it?
It may well be, but, in the context of "perfidious albion", it's a loaded trigger-word. We could go and have an argument about trigger words in the styx, but rather than wasting thousand of innocent megapixels it could just not be used. Perfidious/untrustworthy England, just because it's England, as something inherent/pejorative is crass racial stereotyping. You could just say, "they don't trust the Westminster parliament" for example. Why does there always have to be the slur that *it's because they're English*?
Even the Yes campaign haven't come out and said that (to their credit). Some within it may be telegraphing such sentiments madly but very few are being that blunt....
For me, Albion doesn't mean English, it means British. This is actually important, since many of the people who have been hawking devo-max around are themselves Scots - Brown, Darling, Reid, Murphy, et. al.
But I don't mind saying 'fucking treacherous Westminster twats' instead.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: I suspect Salmond and friends are hoping to call the EU's bluff over this
That does rather rely on it being a bluff in the first place. I'm not convinced that it is.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: perfidious Albion
will you *please* stop saying that, on what must be, not that I've been counting, the fourth or fifth time you've written it in the last couple of days on this thread? I'm not going to claim to be speaking for all English people here, what with not being all of them, but, as per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
*I* and I'm sure probably others, find it racist and demeaning.
Even wikipedia, God of all sources, calls it "anglophobic and pejorative."
Well, I keep hearing Scots people saying that the offers on devo-max from the 3 main parties are as trustworthy as a plastic haggis. Or if you like, that they will rat on these offers. That is summed up by 'perfidious' isn't it?
But it's not acceptable when linked to 'Albion', which as has been said is Anglo-phobic. Not quite as racist perhaps as the "lying, thieving gypsy bastards" that got Viz into hot water some years ago, but on the same continuum.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that 'perfidious Albion' is British-phobic. Anglo-phobic would not make sense, since the major advocates of devo-max (as I said above), are Scots, esp. Gordon Brown, who is scurrying here there and everywhere.
But as I said, I am quite happy to use another suitable phrase, and I have suggested, 'fucking treacherous Westminster twats'; hopefully, that pleases everyone.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
It has been suggested that this thread is one of the best on the issue on the Interwebs. If it descends into a slanging match, it won't stay that way. A very dim hostly view will be taken of posters perceived to be contributing more heat than light.
/hosting
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I thought that 'perfidious Albion' is British-phobic. Anglo-phobic would not make sense, since the major advocates of devo-max (as I said above), are Scots, esp. Gordon Brown, who is scurrying here there and everywhere.
'Anglo-' can mean British too, though? If we talk of 'Anglo-American relations' we're not talking about relations betwen England the US.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Anglican't: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I thought that 'perfidious Albion' is British-phobic. Anglo-phobic would not make sense, since the major advocates of devo-max (as I said above), are Scots, esp. Gordon Brown, who is scurrying here there and everywhere.
'Anglo-' can mean British too, though? If we talk of 'Anglo-American relations' we're not talking about relations betwen England the US.
True. I think 'Albion' has been taken both ways; certainly, in the context of my original post, 'Anglo-phobic' is absurd (meaning English), since Labour is busy sending Scottish spokesmen around, promising heaven on earth. Let's say that there is a certain amount of skepticism about this.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I always thought that 'perfidious Albion' was a turn of phrase used by less fortunate nations eager to explain how we tended to get the better of them and have always taken it as a compliment. Sort of the 19th Century equivalent of calling Omar a cocksucker when he's just put a cap in your ass and walked off with your stash, again.
-------------------- How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
If there is a No vote then it's going to hard to persuade the English to fund whatever is required to appease, as they will see it, the Scots.
If there is a Yes vote, then any policy that appears to be a concession to Scotland will be unsupportable.
All totally unnecessary.
(As for border controls, I've said enough, and attracted enough derision, already.)
Oh, and it does occur to me that release from the domination of an "empire" has a very high correlation with a subsequent civil war. I dare to hope that the England/Scotland split (now or whenever) will be an exception.
-------------------- Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I think civil wars often follow independence movements and revolutions, e.g. Ireland, the US, Russia.
I don't think it would happen in Scotland, since there has been no armed revolt against England. In case of a yes vote, there would probably be a realignment in Scottish politics, with an emerging right-wing, and possibly Salmond would disappear after several years.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: Yes, I think civil wars often follow independence movements and revolutions, e.g. Ireland, the US, Russia.
I don't think it would happen in Scotland, since there has been no armed revolt against England. In case of a yes vote, there would probably be a realignment in Scottish politics, with an emerging right-wing, and possibly Salmond would disappear after several years.
FFS against the UK ! (Not England)
Also, you mean - not recently.
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Pedants' corner: there has never been an* armed Scottish revolt against the UK. There were two substantial Scottish revolts which might be construed as being against the Kingdom of Great Britain (which existed from 1707 until 1801).
*insert 'at all substantial' just to cover myself in case someone pops up, as is quite likely on the Ship - and tells me that Hamish McDougall and four of his cousins tried to raise a rebellion in Auchtermuchty in 1842 but went home when it started to rain and someone told them that the militia were on their way
-------------------- My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought you were going to talk about the Rough Wooing, as I've always wanted to know more. I know, google!
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Incidentally, good luck tomorrow to all Scots; be brave, keep calm, and vote yes!
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: Yes, I think civil wars often follow independence movements and revolutions, e.g. Ireland, the US, Russia.
I don't think it would happen in Scotland, since there has been no armed revolt against England. In case of a yes vote, there would probably be a realignment in Scottish politics, with an emerging right-wing, and possibly Salmond would disappear after several years.
Hah!
Before the Union made England and Scotland behave we fought each other whenever we could find time between England fighting the French!
-------------------- "The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: Incidentally, good luck tomorrow to all Scots; be brave, keep calm, and vote yes!
I think on balance I agree. Vote Yes. We English could do with a few good laughs.
-------------------- "The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl wrote: quote: In case of a yes vote, there would probably be a realignment in Scottish politics, with an emerging right-wing, and possibly Salmond would disappear after several years.
That bit is almost inevitable. There is effectively no right-wing party available now (the conservative party being currently toxic, and unionist). But there is plenty of small-c conservatism in Scotland. It could be (and has been in the past) more conservative than England.
I'm less sure about the civil war correlation. Without pulling detailed stats., it seems to me that there have been as many civil wars well after revolutions and independence movements than there were directly or closely following. Maybe some other analysis might yield a more convincing answer on that.
-------------------- Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
This is an issue which has incited 97% of those eligible to vote to register - that's 97%.
This is what politics should be like.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Talking about civil wars, would it be terribly inflammatory to point out that the so-called English civil war in the 17th century came about when we had a Scottish king?
Of course, the Scots were bound to be on the winning side seeing how the Covenanters were pro-parliament while Montrose and friends were for Charles. [ 17. September 2014, 20:38: Message edited by: L'organist ]
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Yes
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: Talking about civil wars, would it be terribly inflammatory to point out that the so-called English civil war in the 17th century came about when we had a Scottish king?
Of course, the Scots were bound to be on the winning side seeing how the Covenanters were pro-parliament while Montrose and friends were for Charles.
I shouldn't really point this out but a previous civil war in England, the War of the Roses only came to an end when you had a Welsh king, Henry V11 to sort the warring English out.....
( Yes I know his son made a mess of things but that wasn't his father's fault!)
-------------------- Best Wishes Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: Incidentally, good luck tomorrow to all Scots; be brave, keep calm, and vote yes!
Hmm. My good wishes are accompanied by "be brave, keep calm, and vote no!"
Whatever the result, things aren't going to be the same after tomorrow.
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|