Scottish Independence

[Josquius]

 

[The Brain]

Indeed.  And from what I can read here, now that the panic over a possible Yes has dissipated, I daresay the Brits will renegade on their promises... As I had predicted.  That's how human nature works: you are afraid and if the fear doesn't materialize you want revenge on whoever induced the fear in the first place.  Witness the 'toy parliament' argument above.  The Scots will soon rue their choice.

Well yes, obviously there will have to be clearances with regards to Glasgow, so that the land can be more efficiently used for sheep farming.

I liked my idea of a limited nuclear strike better.

Your idea.

[Admiral Yi]

Because federalism is crazy when one state is bigger than all the others combined five times over.

Please elaborate.

[Barrister]

So Salmond is resigning?  I'm quite surprised at that.

[Razgovory]

Local government is good idea no matter the forms.

Sadly that hasn't proven the case.  See American South 1876-1964.

[derspiess]

Yes.
England broken up into 5 or 6 bits gives a more comparable size to the other nations.

Why do they need to be a comparable size?

There's a point to that.  A mix of federal and unitary doesn't quite work.  Either go one way or the other.

[mongers]

That 'map' make no sense, what does someone in Oxfordshire or Berkshire have more in common with a Cornishman, as opposed to elsewhere in the UK?

[Admiral Yi]

There's a point to that.  A mix of federal and unitary doesn't quite work.  Either go one way or the other.

Squeeze's comment was made in the context of a discussion about federal "states," including England (or portions of England) handling local matters while a unitary government handles higher level matters.

The main argument against different size states in the US is that senators from small states have disproportionate power; that would not be an issue in the UK, with its unelected upper house.

[Viking]

having not followed the debate, given that it is about identity rather than actual politics... I did have a look at what the debate looked like when the "yes" camp started surging in the polls.. and holy mother of flying spaghetti monster, the Yes people are idiots. Seriously their argument in all cases about what would happen after independence was basically "don't worry it will be fine" simultaneously campaigning on ending tory rule and asserting that the tories would be perfectly reasonable and pro-scottish in dealing with them when they couldn't even theoretically get their votes.

[MadImmortalMan]

having not followed the debate, given that it is about identity rather than actual politics... I did have a look at what the debate looked like when the "yes" camp started surging in the polls.. and holy mother of flying spaghetti monster, the Yes people are idiots. Seriously their argument in all cases about what would happen after independence was basically "don't worry it will be fine" simultaneously campaigning on ending tory rule and asserting that the tories would be perfectly reasonable and pro-scottish in dealing with them when they couldn't even theoretically get their votes.

So you're saying it's not about identity rather than actual politics. It's completely about politics.

[Josquius]

having not followed the debate, given that it is about identity rather than actual politics... I did have a look at what the debate looked like when the "yes" camp started surging in the polls.. and holy mother of flying spaghetti monster, the Yes people are idiots. Seriously their argument in all cases about what would happen after independence was basically "don't worry it will be fine" simultaneously campaigning on ending tory rule and asserting that the tories would be perfectly reasonable and pro-scottish in dealing with them when they couldn't even theoretically get their votes.

Lots of nats seem to be taking victory from the fact 45% said yes.
I do wonder though. If this vote had taken place in 3 or 4 years time under a labour government...how much smaller would that percentage be? Quite a lot I do imagine.

[Eddie Teach]

Even so, it's worryingly high.

[Razgovory]

There's a point to that.  A mix of federal and unitary doesn't quite work.  Either go one way or the other.

Squeeze's comment was made in the context of a discussion about federal "states," including England (or portions of England) handling local matters while a unitary government handles higher level matters.

The main argument against different size states in the US is that senators from small states have disproportionate power; that would not be an issue in the UK, with its unelected upper house.

You mean the house of Lords?  They don't actually do anything.

[Warspite]

Because federalism is crazy when one state is bigger than all the others combined five times over.

Please elaborate.

He's right. Federalism is not generally considered suitable where one state is significantly preponderant over others without any balance. The US has 50 states of varying size; the UK would have one state of 50 million with three other states of 5 million or fewer.

[Admiral Yi]

He's right. Federalism is not generally considered suitable where one state is significantly preponderant over others without any balance. The US has 50 states of varying size; the UK would have one state of 50 million with three other states of 5 million or fewer.

With all due respect, this is just a restatement of the assertion.

*Why* does it matter?