http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/an-independent-scotland-would-lose-its-hs2-warns-minister-9256659.html
QuoteAn SNP spokesman for Scotland's Transport minister, Keith Brown, hit back: "This is exactly the kind of high-handed, arrogant, patronising attitude from Westminster that is driving so many people across Scotland to the Yes campaign and towards a Yes vote in September."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27030447
QuoteCommenting after the defence secretary's speech, the SNP's leader in Westminster and defence spokesman Angus Robertson said: "Another day, another scare story.
"Scotland is a maritime nation but we have no maritime patrol aircraft. They used to be based here until they were all scrapped by the UK government.
Angus Robertson, leader of the SNP in Westminster, says the UK government does not take Yes plans for defence seriously
"We are a maritime nation but we have no maritime naval patrol vessels.
"Independence gives us the advantage of being able to make better decisions - so we have those maritime capabilities, so we have the things that we need as opposed to the things that we don't want, like Trident.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-26939252
Quotean independent Scotland could expect to lose subsidies to green energy investment from the rest of the UK, the UK government has warned.
It estimates the average Scottish bill would rise by between £38 and £189 per year, if Scots are to sustain the current plans for renewable power.
The paper added that a "continuing UK would not be obliged to purchase energy from an independent Scottish state."
The Scottish government said the paper was "yet more scaremongering
3 random examples, I don't have the energy to seek out more. But this is a reccurring trend with every article on Scottish independence I see. The SNP really do wind me up. Every single time someone raises a valid point against Scottish independence, instead of actually trying to argue against it , they instead moan about fear stories, the arrogant English (I envision them saying this with undertones of "you've seen Braveheart yeah!?"), and the like. In in only one of these 3 articles do the actually attempt an argument against the initial point.
Part of me wonders whether this broken record, never say anything of consequence approach, is all a plot to win by driving moderate nos to apathy.
The SNP leadership should be crucified on Culloden Moor.
England and Wales better get dredging some deep harbours and getting UN nuclear storage safety inspectors in pronto, otherwise the first time the Trident subs come in for a refit after the vote they won't have anywhere to go.
Quote from: Brazen on April 17, 2014, 05:24:18 AM
England and Wales better get dredging some deep harbours and getting UN nuclear storage safety inspectors in pronto, otherwise the first time the Trident subs come in for a refit after the vote they won't have anywhere to go.
England and Wales have plenty of ports deep enough for Trident subs to use. They just don't have the convenient access to the Norwegian Sea that Faslane has.
Come the referendum the SNP want the electorate to vote with their hearts rather than with their heads.
Of course it is nicer to to arrange matters at a more local level, the problem is one of practicality.
I'm more annoyed at cabinet ministers 'warning' Scotland that they might not get HS2 or green energy subsidies :bleeding:
Also from Sam Coates at the Times at the decent number of Tory donors who are pro-independence because they think it'd mean majority Tory government for the foreseeable future. Or for that matter Labour voters in Scotland tempted by the SNP's latest message that independence means they'd never be run by Tories again :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2014, 06:49:17 AM
I'm more annoyed at cabinet ministers 'warning' Scotland that they might not get HS2 or green energy subsidies :bleeding:
Indeed. It is clear that HS2 wouldn't go into Scotland, and the transport minister, when asked about it, should say nothing. Noting the truth is too upsetting to the Scots. Best not to allow them to be 'warned' by the truth.
Ditto for green energy subsidies. The truth is too threatening, so don't tell anyone the truth. :bleeding:
The truth is too obvious. Ministers either think Scots are all stupid or are just trying to base the campaign on threats. People aren't stupid and, generally, we like optimistic and hopeful messages.
The London response to the independence referendum is organised by George Osborne. On the one hand it's good because he's got the PM's trust, on the other hand I think the only time Osborne's visited Scotland was to burn some crofters out of their home.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2014, 07:09:12 AM
The truth is too obvious. Ministers either think Scots are all stupid or are just trying to base the campaign on threats. People aren't stupid and, generally, we like optimistic and hopeful messages.
But since the basic SNP message amounts to "nothing that could possibly inconvenience a Scotsman will change" ("we will use the pound, we will immediately be in Europe, nothing will cost more" etc.) should the "no" campaign just ignore issues such as these? Or avoid pointing out the places where Salmond and his cronies are, at best, guilty of extremely wishful thinking (such as the recent issue about RN shipbuilding?)
Given the level of support Salmond attracts despite the number of times his statements and assumptions have been called into question (or revealed to be outright lies) one has to consider the possibility that a large number of Scots are simply "stupid". :(
Yes.
What's the verdict on the sustainability of an independent Scotland?
Treason to the British Crown can never be forgiven.
Nationalists exploiting bigoted hatred for other peoples to manipulate the electorate to do things that hurt their own interests? Well what else did you expect?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2014, 07:09:12 AM
The truth is too obvious. Ministers either think Scots are all stupid or are just trying to base the campaign on threats. People aren't stupid and, generally, we like optimistic and hopeful messages.
The London response to the independence referendum is organised by George Osborne. On the one hand it's good because he's got the PM's trust, on the other hand I think the only time Osborne's visited Scotland was to burn some crofters out of their home.
The trouble is , no is by its very nature a negative position.
The SNP want a change where they promise all sorts of lovely things, its the duty of those opposing this to point out why its wrong. True that positive things appeal to people more, but you'd think with a serious decision like this it would be logic that would dominate.
Its just so annoying that there aren't any talented politicians in Scotland able to jump on the SNPs shallow transparent politics.
Unfortunately, like many such votes, there will be repeated referenda until there is a yes vote, but little option for reunification.
Quote from: Brazen on April 17, 2014, 08:12:02 AM
Unfortunately, like many such votes, there will be repeated referenda until there is a yes vote, but little option for reunification.
Can they do that? I mean national self determination is already a sham and a flawed principle but that just takes the absurdity to a new level.
Quote from: Norgy on April 17, 2014, 07:38:06 AM
What's the verdict on the sustainability of an independent Scotland?
All I know is my gut says maybe.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2014, 08:17:04 AM
Quote from: Norgy on April 17, 2014, 07:38:06 AM
What's the verdict on the sustainability of an independent Scotland?
All I know is my gut says maybe.
Turns out the guy is gay!
Quote from: Agelastus on April 17, 2014, 07:30:53 AM
Given the level of support Salmond attracts despite the number of times his statements and assumptions have been called into question (or revealed to be outright lies) one has to consider the possibility that a large number of Scots are simply "stupid". :(
No doubt explaining their stupidity will prompt them to vote to keep the union.
If the thrust of the pro-union argument is along the lines of "vote no or we will take away your green energy subsidies," then the stupidity may be a wider problem then you have indicated.
All you have is the status quo while the independence douches can promise the moon and the sky. Kind of hard to win an argument against sunshine and lollipops when you cannot even point out how the status quo benefits the other party without being stupid.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 17, 2014, 07:30:53 AM
Given the level of support Salmond attracts despite the number of times his statements and assumptions have been called into question (or revealed to be outright lies) one has to consider the possibility that a large number of Scots are simply "stupid". :(
Well, given the prescedent set by the AV referendum.....
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2014, 09:34:22 AM
No doubt explaining their stupidity will prompt them to vote to keep the union.
If the thrust of the pro-union argument is along the lines of "vote no or we will take away your green energy subsidies," then the stupidity may be a wider problem then you have indicated.
Indeed., though the stupidity isn't expressed the way the yes types indicate. The stupidity comes from insisting that all unpalatible truths are "threats."
Reading stories like this just keeps reminding me of our situation in Quebec.
Our experience has been is that the "non" side is best articulated by people within Quebec. The moment someone from outside Quebec would point out that "you know, maybe you won't get to use the loonie / stay in NAFTA / keep your current borders" the sovereignists would pounce. They wait for stuff like that so they can rile up passions about the big, mean english-speakers.
In modern democracies like Canada or the UK there really isn't an economic reason for independence - it's all about emotion and passion (not that there's anything wrong with that), so of course the "oui" side will make emotive pitches.
Tyr is well within his rights to be pissed off by the SNP, but as a nation, you can't afford to. Let the Scots have their referendum. Don't threaten or bully them. Let the negative consequences of independence be pointed out by other scots. Do, however, feel free to make the emotional positive arguments for the union too. There's over 300 years of union history too that has been almost overwhelmingly positive for scotland...
Well the Lowland Scots anyway.
The Scots seem to have a horrible sense of their own history, though that might be unfair since all I generally get is snippets and their history is almost absurdly complicated and Byzantine. I saw a documentary and read a book about Clan Donald and in both sources there were all these stupid statements concerning Clan Donald's traditional attempts to leverage the English and Scottish crowns against each other. 'Why would Clan Donald ally with their enemies the vile English against the Scottish Kings who were all goodness and light?' Oh for fucksake.
Quote from: Barrister on April 17, 2014, 09:50:37 AM
Don't threaten or bully them.
Are you suggesting that the Scottish are being threatened? Seems perfectly kosher to me to correct a misstatement by the SNP.
"When we are independent the English will send each Scot a million pounds a year."
"Well, no."
So what are the grievances of the Scots? :unsure:
Quote from: Monoriu on April 17, 2014, 10:26:25 AM
So what are the grievances of the Scots? :unsure:
From what I gather:
1. The English tend to vote more right wing than they do.
2. London tends to dominate the United Kingdom and its interests tend to dominate the rest of it.
3. General nationalist blahblah.
Independence would get the Tories out of Scotland sure. I get the second one but I do not think independence will make this problem better, London still dominates a lot of what goes on in Ireland and sucks talented Irish people into it. I think it is best for Scotland to be able to continue to dictate to Westminster to the extent it can and play for more autonomy to correct the first grievance. The third is the mojo the SNP needs to capitalize on in order to win.
Will the French take them back as allies against England?
Quote from: Monoriu on April 17, 2014, 10:26:25 AM
So what are the grievances of the Scots? :unsure:
Edward I. :D
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2014, 10:44:18 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 17, 2014, 10:26:25 AM
So what are the grievances of the Scots? :unsure:
Edward I. :D
He did seriously fuck things up. Talk about a bull in a china shop. Everybody was happy, Scotland got to pretend it was sovereign and the England got to pretend Scotland was its vassal and then Edward I had to go and wreck it all for the next four hundred years. But people really need to get over that, it was over 700 years ago.
It's clear who wears the pants in the relationship.
Quote from: Barrister on April 17, 2014, 09:50:37 AM
Reading stories like this just keeps reminding me of our situation in Quebec.
Our experience has been is that the "non" side is best articulated by people within Quebec. The moment someone from outside Quebec would point out that "you know, maybe you won't get to use the loonie / stay in NAFTA / keep your current borders" the sovereignists would pounce. They wait for stuff like that so they can rile up passions about the big, mean english-speakers.
In modern democracies like Canada or the UK there really isn't an economic reason for independence - it's all about emotion and passion (not that there's anything wrong with that), so of course the "oui" side will make emotive pitches.
Tyr is well within his rights to be pissed off by the SNP, but as a nation, you can't afford to. Let the Scots have their referendum. Don't threaten or bully them. Let the negative consequences of independence be pointed out by other scots. Do, however, feel free to make the emotional positive arguments for the union too. There's over 300 years of union history too that has been almost overwhelmingly positive for scotland...
Abraham Lincoln took a different approach, and closed off debate in this country for good.
So are the Tories hoping Scotland breaks away? Seems like it would help them in the next election.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2014, 10:22:22 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 17, 2014, 09:50:37 AM
Don't threaten or bully them.
Are you suggesting that the Scottish are being threatened? Seems perfectly kosher to me to correct a misstatement by the SNP.
"When we are independent the English will send each Scot a million pounds a year."
"Well, no."
Except it is seen as bullying.
Much better to get a scottish loyalist to make the same point.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2014, 10:47:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2014, 10:44:18 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 17, 2014, 10:26:25 AM
So what are the grievances of the Scots? :unsure:
Edward I. :D
He did seriously fuck things up. Talk about a bull in a china shop. Everybody was happy, Scotland got to pretend it was sovereign and the England got to pretend Scotland was its vassal and then Edward I had to go and wreck it all for the next four hundred years. But people really need to get over that, it was over 700 years ago.
I suggest opening the crypt of Edward I, wiring his bones to an English main battle tank, and driving it into Glasgow - just like Edward would have wanted. That will rally the no side! :D
QuoteIt is said that as Edward I lay dying he asked for his heart to be taken to the Holy Land and for the flesh to be boiled from his body so his bones could lead the English army in battle against the Scots.
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/warsofindependence/deathofedwardi/index.asp
Anyway, that would be much more entertaining than "bullying" the Scots by mentioning that perhaps England will not pay the green energy subsidy.
Quote from: Barrister on April 17, 2014, 11:18:22 AM
Except it is seen as bullying.
Much better to get a scottish loyalist to make the same point.
The folks who are going to interpret a simple statement of fact by an Englishman boy as bullying are probably not going to be any more amenable to the same message from a Scot.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2014, 09:34:22 AM
... then the stupidity may be a wider problem then you have indicated.
It's a global phenomenon. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2014, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 17, 2014, 11:18:22 AM
Except it is seen as bullying.
Much better to get a scottish loyalist to make the same point.
The folks who are going to interpret a simple statement of fact by an Englishman boy as bullying are probably not going to be any more amenable to the same message from a Scot.
I don't know what to tell you - that seems to be the lesson learned here in Quebec.
Yeah BB I think the best thing the Tories can do is simply say how much they love Scotland and basically STFU beyond that.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2014, 12:45:01 PM
Yeah BB I think the best thing the Tories can do is simply say how much they love Scotland and basically STFU beyond that.
Publicly.
Behinds the scenes they better be helping to organize the "no" side.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2014, 09:40:20 AM
Kind of hard to win an argument against sunshine and lollipops when you cannot even point out how the status quo benefits the other party without being stupid.
If that were the case, every country in the world would have a communist government.
Quote from: viper37 on April 17, 2014, 01:00:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2014, 09:40:20 AM
Kind of hard to win an argument against sunshine and lollipops when you cannot even point out how the status quo benefits the other party without being stupid.
If that were the case, every country in the world would have a communist government.
Well, we have several examples of communism failing to provide the sunshine and lollipops to point to, so it's easy to make that argument in concrete terms.
Quote from: Barrister on April 17, 2014, 12:44:12 PM
I don't know what to tell you - that seems to be the lesson learned here in Quebec.
Can you give me a concrete example?
Quote from: Tyr on April 17, 2014, 08:10:41 AMThe trouble is , no is by its very nature a negative position.
Yeah. But each of those examples could be spun in a far more positive way. Look how much better our infrastructure together can be, look how much more able we are to reduce emissions - as opposed to 'leave and your infrastructure will be shit and smoggy'.
QuoteThe SNP want a change where they promise all sorts of lovely things, its the duty of those opposing this to point out why its wrong. True that positive things appeal to people more, but you'd think with a serious decision like this it would be logic that would dominate.
Logic dominates nothing except our after-the-fact rationalisations of our gut instincts.
QuoteIts just so annoying that there aren't any talented politicians in Scotland able to jump on the SNPs shallow transparent politics.
This is a problem. Too many Scottish Labour and Lib Dem politicians would rather be in the shadow cabinet at Westminster than actual power in Holyrood. It's a shame and if they don't fix it they might well end up in Holyrood anyway.
QuoteWell, given the prescedent set by the AV referendum.....
Given the Ukip surge there's an irony that the Tories would probably benefit most from AV and could be most hurt by FPTP :lol:
QuoteTyr is well within his rights to be pissed off by the SNP, but as a nation, you can't afford to. Let the Scots have their referendum. Don't threaten or bully them. Let the negative consequences of independence be pointed out by other scots. Do, however, feel free to make the emotional positive arguments for the union too. There's over 300 years of union history too that has been almost overwhelmingly positive for scotland...
Exactly. The best negative points won't come from Westminster politicians - especially some rather well-fed Southern Tories whose personality doesn't even work in the North of England far less Scotland. I think Mark Carney as Governor of the Bank of England was very effective in simply laying out the BofE's view on Sterling union and I think the European Commission have been effective saying, chances are, Scotland would leave the EU and have to re-apply.
Having said all that I am amazed at the way that Westminster doesn't seem to care at the minute. It's total indifference. It's really baffling because I think Cameron's an absolute unionist and I think he doesn't want to go down in history as the Conservative and Unionist Prime Minister who lost Scotland, but I can't think of a thing he's done. In my view he should be up there every other weekend just making it clear to Scotland that it matters for us to that they stay, that we want them to stay. Because ultimately this affects our country too, but Westminster seems absurdly placid about it.
On the other hand Ed Miliband should probably sit this out. This is a genuine quote from his speech at the Scottish Labour Conference:
QuoteAlmost every family in Britain has a special story about their connection with Scotland.
This is mine.
My Dad came to Britain as a refugee from Belgium, fleeing from the Nazis.
He wanted to fight Fascism so he joined the Royal Navy.
Seventy years ago, he was stationed just 30 miles from here in Inverkeithing.
Where I was yesterday.
:mellow:
QuoteSo are the Tories hoping Scotland breaks away? Seems like it would help them in the next election.
Some Tory donors are. Personally I think they should be told if they want an independent Scotland they should probably stop backing the Conservative and Unionist Party :bleeding:
Having said that the Scottish Tories have started to impress me a little bit.
QuoteThe folks who are going to interpret a simple statement of fact by an Englishman boy as bullying are probably not going to be any more amenable to the same message from a Scot.
The medium is the message. Nancy Pelosi and Joe Manchin could say exactly the same thing and I bet they'd get a different response in their respective home states.
QuoteBehinds the scenes they better be helping to organize the "no" side.
Labour are very unhappy that they doing the organising and lots of the work, which is understandable because their voters will decide the referendum, on the 'no' campaign, but don't feel the Tories are even helping contribute to the funds that much. As I say there are Tory donors who are donating explicitly on the condition that their money won't go to the 'no' campaign :bleeding:
Ed Millipede doesn't seem that bright.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2014, 06:41:27 PM
Ed Millipede doesn't seem that bright.
Yeah, he's so smart he's not bright. As the Tories would say I think he's too clever by half. Probably a very good advisor, but I'm not convinced he's terribly good at this leadership business.
Edit: Also I just looked up that 'Scottish story' speech. When did we start writing political speeches like this?
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/blog/entry/speech-to-scottish-labour-conference-by-ed-miliband-mp
How are there so many paragraphs? :weep: :bleeding:
This section at the climax has no verbs:
QuoteFairness for the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom.
Together, not alone.
Neighbours, not strangers.
Friends, not competitors.
A race to the top, not a race to the bottom.
:bleeding:
It's clear the Economist hates his guts.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2014, 06:41:27 PM
Ed Millipede doesn't seem that bright.
Yeah, what do you think Sheilbh/other Britishers? Is he competent? Would he be competent as PM?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 17, 2014, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2014, 06:41:27 PM
Ed Millipede doesn't seem that bright.
Yeah, what do you think Sheilbh/other Britishers? Is he competent? Would he be competent as PM?
Are you trying to finagle one of my infamous lists out of me?
I don't know if he's competent but he forgot his history.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/ed-miliband-first-jewish-pm_n_5138405.html?utm_hp_ref=uk (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/ed-miliband-first-jewish-pm_n_5138405.html?utm_hp_ref=uk)
Quote from: citizen k on April 17, 2014, 10:13:10 PM
I don't know if he's competent but he forgot his history.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/ed-miliband-first-jewish-pm_n_5138405.html?utm_hp_ref=uk (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/12/ed-miliband-first-jewish-pm_n_5138405.html?utm_hp_ref=uk)
:rolleyes: That's so April 11th.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2014, 10:07:52 PM
Are you trying to finagle one of my infamous lists out of me?
:unsure:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 17, 2014, 10:23:31 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2014, 10:07:52 PM
Are you trying to finagle one of my infamous lists out of me?
:unsure:
I misread the question. I thought you was asking me what I thought of the British posters.
I'm a dummy.
Languishites who would make a good PM of the UK:
Jaron
Viking
Emperor Gupta
Whoever would export more Jaffa cakes to the US
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 17, 2014, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2014, 06:41:27 PM
Ed Millipede doesn't seem that bright.
Yeah, what do you think Sheilbh/other Britishers? Is he competent? Would he be competent as PM?
I suspect we are not going to find out, after several years of recession the Labour lead in the opinion polls is pitiful and will probably be wiped out at the ballot box; especially as the government can probably afford some nice pre-election bribes now that the economy is growing pretty strongly. One thing he could do is knife Ed Balls in the back, Balls is unpopular and a constant reminder of economic disaster (fairly or unfairly), he is also shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer............not good for votes.
One thing that does worry me is that, depending on the share of the vote gained by the other parties, it is possible for Labour to be elected with an absolute majority of seats with only 32% of the vote. The current constituency boundaries favour them over the Tories by 30 seats or more for equivalent vote shares, we can blame the Lib Dems for this as they stymied boundary redrawing in a fit of pique after AV was rejected in the recent referendum.
I don't know. Given the lib dems losing the left wing vote and UKIP eating away at the Tory right I think labour has a good chance.
The possible spoiler is UKIP taking away anti Europe traditional labour folks, but I think they'll hurt the Tories more
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2014, 01:19:14 AM
One thing that does worry me is that, depending on the share of the vote gained by the other parties, it is possible for Labour to be elected with an absolute majority of seats with only 32% of the vote. The current constituency boundaries favour them over the Tories by 30 seats or more for equivalent vote shares, we can blame the Lib Dems for this as they stymied boundary redrawing in a fit of pique after AV was rejected in the recent referendum.
I think the Tories will seriously regret campaigning against AV. It helped kill the boundary changes, but also I think they're the party who need it the most.
We could end up in a 1974 or 1951 situation where the Tories win the most votes but Labour win the most seats. But it's still very unclear. We don't know how much and where the Lib Dems have collapsed. We also don't know how well Ukip have done, even doubling their vote from 3% to 6% could have a big impact in several seats.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 17, 2014, 07:30:53 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2014, 07:09:12 AM
The truth is too obvious. Ministers either think Scots are all stupid or are just trying to base the campaign on threats. People aren't stupid and, generally, we like optimistic and hopeful messages.
But since the basic SNP message amounts to "nothing that could possibly inconvenience a Scotsman will change" ("we will use the pound, we will immediately be in Europe, nothing will cost more" etc.) should the "no" campaign just ignore issues such as these? Or avoid pointing out the places where Salmond and his cronies are, at best, guilty of extremely wishful thinking (such as the recent issue about RN shipbuilding?)
Given the level of support Salmond attracts despite the number of times his statements and assumptions have been called into question (or revealed to be outright lies) one has to consider the possibility that a large number of Scots are simply "stupid". :(
If you want Scotland to remain part of the UK, you have to fight them on the same battlefields.
Offer them your vision of the common past, how you came together to overcome adversity, what you have accomplished so far, how the sum of your parts make a stronger unit
What is to be gained currently from being a British citizen, from being a part of the United Kingdom: economics, culture, ease of trade, ease of travel, etc, etc,
What you will each lose by becoming seperate entities. How will the economy be different, realistically, how will the cultures evolve, how likely is it that a treaty prepares for "successor states" without hassle, etc, etc.
Or if you want to follow the Canadian example, cheat. Overspend the other party, lie, deceit, use scare tactics, organize illegal financing for the NO camp at taxpayers' expense, etc, etc.
You will win by a narrow margin but keep the question in the news for like, forever and risk another referendum in less than a quarter century.
Well, someone sounds bitter.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2014, 10:02:24 AM
Well, someone sounds bitter.
Canada is run by Machiavellian public officials.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2014, 10:12:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2014, 10:02:24 AM
Well, someone sounds bitter.
Canada is run by Machiavellian public officials.
You must crush the enemy within!
Or at least that's what they think we think :P
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2014, 10:12:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2014, 10:02:24 AM
Well, someone sounds bitter.
Canada is run by Machiavellian public officials.
Throw the frogs in gaol, eh?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2014, 08:53:35 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2014, 01:19:14 AM
One thing that does worry me is that, depending on the share of the vote gained by the other parties, it is possible for Labour to be elected with an absolute majority of seats with only 32% of the vote. The current constituency boundaries favour them over the Tories by 30 seats or more for equivalent vote shares, we can blame the Lib Dems for this as they stymied boundary redrawing in a fit of pique after AV was rejected in the recent referendum.
I think the Tories will seriously regret campaigning against AV. It helped kill the boundary changes, but also I think they're the party who need it the most.
We could end up in a 1974 or 1951 situation where the Tories win the most votes but Labour win the most seats. But it's still very unclear. We don't know how much and where the Lib Dems have collapsed. We also don't know how well Ukip have done, even doubling their vote from 3% to 6% could have a big impact in several seats.
One other factor, in these ideology-lite days, is that incumbent MPs can have more of an advantage/disadvantage than in the old days of the two-party system. I've seen quite a lot of chat saying that many Lib-Dem MPs are far more respected locally than their party for example; we shall see.
Quote from: Brazen on April 17, 2014, 05:24:18 AM
England and Wales better get dredging some deep harbours and getting UN nuclear storage safety inspectors in pronto, otherwise the first time the Trident subs come in for a refit after the vote they won't have anywhere to go.
My gut feeling is that if independence comes included in the "divorce" arrangement is a deal for the Royal Navy to continue to use the facilities at Faslane.
Life in the Faslane...
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2014, 11:23:22 AM
One other factor, in these ideology-lite days, is that incumbent MPs can have more of an advantage/disadvantage than in the old days of the two-party system. I've seen quite a lot of chat saying that many Lib-Dem MPs are far more respected locally than their party for example; we shall see.
Yeah. I mean look at the Eastbourne by-election, though I suspect if it had gone on for another week we'd have our first Ukip MP.
The Lib Dems are very good at turning marginal seats into strongholds though. I mean Norman Lamb in North Norfolk, he won with a 150 majority in 2001. In 2005 he had a majority over 10 000.
Because of evil political tactics?
Or are lib dems genuinely good MPs?
Just been on the phone to my dad. We talked about the independence referendum. Turns out he's been encouraging all of our Scottish friends to vote 'yes' including a few who were on the fence :lol: :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2014, 12:15:39 PM
Just been on the phone to my dad. We talked about the independence referendum. Turns out he's been encouraging all of our Scottish friends to vote 'yes' including a few who were on the fence :lol: :bleeding:
Why? Tory?
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2014, 11:32:40 AM
Life in the Faslane...
Surely make you lose your mines.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2014, 12:23:43 PM
Why? Tory?
Combination of Irishness and hating the Tories. 'They don't even care about the North of England. Who thinks they give a fuck about another country?' He claims to speak from his 'great experience' of living in the South :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2014, 12:27:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2014, 12:23:43 PM
Why? Tory?
Combination of Irishness and hating the Tories. 'They don't even care about the North of England. Who thinks they give a fuck about another country?' He claims to speak from his 'great experience' of living in the South :lol:
Of course they care about the North of England, lots of marginal constituencies up there.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2014, 11:23:22 AMOne other factor, in these ideology-lite days, is that incumbent MPs can have more of an advantage/disadvantage than in the old days of the two-party system.
What do you mean by this, exactly?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 18, 2014, 12:40:18 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2014, 11:23:22 AMOne other factor, in these ideology-lite days, is that incumbent MPs can have more of an advantage/disadvantage than in the old days of the two-party system.
What do you mean by this, exactly?
The personal vote, for or against an individual, is much greater than it was in the past. Back in the 60s and 70s it was insisted that a personal vote could only be +1000 at max, but that was in the days of ideological confrontation, there were few floating voters and we had a genuine socialist party vs a genuine conservative party. Nowadays there are merely different styles of management on offer, floating voters are vastly greater in number, and the potential for an individual MP to build up a following via sterling work/character is greater.
(speaking solely about the UK of course)
I'd add that the party identity within Parliament seems to have been collapsing. We have this myth of politicians being better and more honest in the 50s but the truth is that was a time when any rebellion was extremely unlikely. This current Parliament has had the most and the most substantial revolts in the modern era, before this one was the 2005 Parliament.
Lots of MPs, especially recent ones, don't seem so interested in climbing the greasy pole and are far more likely to rebel and to define themselves against their party.
Ironically it may have the opposite effect of the US where it seems like people break the party line to work together and it's more a thing centrists do. Here in the Tory party for example most MPs in marginal seats are loyalists. They know that voters don't like disunited parties and they don't like parties that seem more interested in their own fights than in government. The MPs in safe seats are more likely to rebel to pressure the government to take a more Eurosceptic/anti-immigration/austerity line.
I think it's more to do with the decline of class identity than ideology. I think the 70s and the 80s was the only time of really very significant ideological choice. I'm not sure lots of people saw the Tories of MacMillan, Heath and Churchill as a genuine conservative party - but they were the conservative party and they were the party for the middle class.
QuoteOf course they care about the North of England, lots of marginal constituencies up there.
Not so much. The Tories have a few safe seats in the North - Cheshire and Yorkshire especially - and a couple of marginals but it's really not their territory. They don't have a single seat in any of the big cities of the North: Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford or Newcastle. The Tories have two seats in the North-East (both are marginal) and one in Merseyside (again marginal). The won 12% less of the vote in the North than the rest of England and about 40% of people in the North say they'd never vote Tory.
The marginal seats that'll win the election are largely in the Midlands. The situation of the Tories kind of reminds me of the Liberals in the Gladstone era. They're still strong enough to win but you feel they're retreating to a geographical base. So the Liberals became the party of non-Conformists and the Celtic fringe. The Tories have vacated Scotland, the North and Wales (many of the SNP heartlands used to be safe Tory seats) and both urban areas and areas with large minority electorates. They seem to be becoming an increasingly South-Eastern party. It should be something that worries them.
Edit: Not so much that they're not winning everywhere but that they don't really seem to be speaking to the whole country.
The tories don't speak to me Sheilbh, and I must have clocked up 20 years living in London, Brighton and rural Suffolk. Made enough money to be comfortable too, should be a natural for them.
Not that the Labour party are any better of course, being a "Labour" party and hating the working class is not really a good way of going about things :hmm:
Who do the Tories speak to?
Quote from: Brazen on April 17, 2014, 05:24:18 AM
England and Wales better get dredging some deep harbours and getting UN nuclear storage safety inspectors in pronto, otherwise the first time the Trident subs come in for a refit after the vote they won't have anywhere to go.
I think they generally come in while surfaced.
Quote from: Maladict on April 18, 2014, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: Brazen on April 17, 2014, 05:24:18 AM
England and Wales better get dredging some deep harbours and getting UN nuclear storage safety inspectors in pronto, otherwise the first time the Trident subs come in for a refit after the vote they won't have anywhere to go.
I think they generally come in while surfaced.
Not Gunther Prien
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2014, 03:39:08 PM
Who do the Tories speak to?
No-one really. All politicians are hated and generally often deservedly so. I don't understand how we've ended up with a professional political class who seem really, really bad at politics :lol:
But I think the Tories are in danger of becoming a regional party. It's something to do with the tone and the message, perhaps. I was thinking of Jenkins' biography of Gladstone. It seems like Gladstone's vehemence and moral certainty played very well with some voters but in it was perhaps the seeds of decline in the more relaxed and latitudinarian Home Counties (and Villa Conservatism was there to take the place of the Whigs).
I think a Tory party with Cameron, Osborne and Boris as their most prominent figures doesn't translate in large parts of the country.
There are people in the UK who really like the Tories right? It just seems like I rarely hear from any of them.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2014, 04:16:54 PM
There are people in the UK who really like the Tories right? It just seems like I rarely hear from any of them.
No shit. Only two examples are TopCat and my friend's wife who in the last election said she'd probably vote Conservative.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2014, 03:03:29 PMThey don't have a single seat in any of the big cities of the North: Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford or Newcastle.
How do they do in the cities of the South and Midlands? Are they big in London, or just in the Home Counties/rest of the Southeast? The US is increasingly splitting on an urban/suburban vs. rural/exurban axis, I think, and I wonder if the same is going on in the UK or other European countries.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2014, 04:16:54 PM
There are people in the UK who really like the Tories right? It just seems like I rarely hear from any of them.
Most of this could go for Labour or the Lib Dems as well.
But Tory party membership has halved since Cameron took over. Their brand is still very toxic in the North, Wales and Scotland (though I think the Scottish Tories are beginning to recover, which is good). The current leadership is largely Tories from 1997-2010, so they're from Tory heartlands (much like Labour was full of Scots and Welsh until Blair) which means they face the same sort of problems Neil Kinnock would in the South-East.
Add into that that for various reasons the traditional Tory press really seem to have it in for David Cameron and the impression I get is that no-one really likes them. Even people I know who do like the Tories or are broadly supportive of Cameron routinely despair at the competence of number 10.
British politics is shit at the minute because of how poor all of the options look. But at the same time we're in a coalition which is weird. All the mainstream parties are insanely unpopular, which is weird. And we could soon have four party politics, which is weird. It's febrile and boring at the same time :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2014, 04:26:32 PM
Their brand is still very toxic in the North, Wales and Scotland (though I think the Scottish Tories are beginning to recover, which is good).
Interesting. I thought one of the big drives in the independence referendum was to escape the tyrannical Tory rule and ensure benevolent indefinite SNP powah.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2014, 04:26:32 PM
British politics is shit at the minute because of how poor all of the options look. But at the same time we're in a coalition which is weird. All the mainstream parties are insanely unpopular, which is weird. And we could soon have four party politics, which is weird. It's febrile and boring at the same time :lol:
Now you know how Americans feel. At least your system can make new parties.
I don't think UKIP will do as well as a lot of people seem to be projecting.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 18, 2014, 04:25:21 PMHow do they do in the cities of the South and Midlands? Are they big in London, or just in the Home Counties/rest of the Southeast? The US is increasingly splitting on an urban/suburban vs. rural/exurban axis, I think, and I wonder if the same is going on in the UK or other European countries.
They do okay in London. London's got about 70 MPs and in 2010 the Tories won roughly 30 or so. They do well in rich inner London like the City, Chelsea and Westminster and in the leafier suburbs like Richmond but also the outer boroughs that are heading towards Essex or Kent.
In the South-East I think they generally do fine. They have MPs in Reading, Swindon, Portsmouth, Southampton, Brighton and Hove even out in Bristol in the South-West.
They do less well in big university areas which have largely gone Lib Dem, though that may change now. They do very badly in constituencies with a large minority community.
They struggle a lot more in cities in the Midlands. There's 80 rural seats in the Midlands and North and the Tories have about 60 of them, but there's about 125 urban seats and the Tories only have 20. So I think they've got 1 seat in Birmingham.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2014, 04:37:57 PM
Interesting. I thought one of the big drives in the independence referendum was to escape the tyrannical Tory rule and ensure benevolent indefinite SNP powah.
Te SNP are in power. Their 'yes' vote is a given. They need to convince members of the major opposition party to vote 'yes' too, and that party's Labour. So of course they're emphasising the fact that Scotland could free herself from Tory rule.
But the SNP's heartlands are in areas of Scotland that, in England, would be solidly Tory. They used to be known as 'Tartan Tories'. The Tories used to win between 25-35% of the seats in Scotland (so around the low 20s). Since Thatcher (and especially the poll tax) and the devolution campaign they went to 0 MPs in Scotland, currently they have 1.
Also I think devolution has changed things. The SNP have become the anti-Scottish Labour Party which I think has elevated them at the expense of the Tories. Given the nasty tribal and corrupt elements in the Scottish Labour Party I think lots of sensible people who may well be unionists vote SNP just to keep Labour out. Chances are I would, it helps that Salmond's a very good politician and quite an effective First Minister which is more than can be said for any Labour leader since Donald Dewar died.
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2014, 04:39:26 PM
I don't think UKIP will do as well as a lot of people seem to be projecting.
They don't need to do that well though. I think Iain Martin is right on this, ' I have pointed out repeatedly, on and off, since 2010 that even just the 3.1 per cent the party got last time – when Farage was not leader – was more than 919,000 votes. Ukip does not need to get up to, say, 15 per cent. It just needs six, seven or eight per cent, perhaps a couple of million votes, to have an enormous impact.'
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2014, 11:28:53 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 17, 2014, 05:24:18 AM
England and Wales better get dredging some deep harbours and getting UN nuclear storage safety inspectors in pronto, otherwise the first time the Trident subs come in for a refit after the vote they won't have anywhere to go.
My gut feeling is that if independence comes included in the "divorce" arrangement is a deal for the Royal Navy to continue to use the facilities at Faslane.
They'll move to Devonport; the only reason HMNB Clyde (that includes Faslane) still exists was the political cost of closure. Scotland leaves the Union, the subs move; as they nearly did in the Nineties.
Which is probably something else Salmond is in denial about - which is odd since he was politically active at the time.
I know of one Englishman living in Scotland, who was against independence, but has become fed-up with the fear-mongering from south of the Border/Tory London, and is going to vote yes.
His partner, Scottish was initially also anti-independence, but she's moving towards a yes.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 18, 2014, 04:59:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2014, 11:28:53 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 17, 2014, 05:24:18 AM
England and Wales better get dredging some deep harbours and getting UN nuclear storage safety inspectors in pronto, otherwise the first time the Trident subs come in for a refit after the vote they won't have anywhere to go.
My gut feeling is that if independence comes included in the "divorce" arrangement is a deal for the Royal Navy to continue to use the facilities at Faslane.
They'll move to Devonport; the only reason HMNB Clyde (that includes Faslane) still exists was the political cost of closure. Scotland leaves the Union, the subs move; as they nearly did in the Nineties.
Which is probably something else Salmond is in denial about - which is odd since he was politically active at the time.
Is that move something that can be done immediately?
Quote from: Agelastus on April 18, 2014, 04:59:57 PM
They'll move to Devonport; the only reason HMNB Clyde (that includes Faslane) still exists was the political cost of closure. Scotland leaves the Union, the subs move; as they nearly did in the Nineties.
Which is probably something else Salmond is in denial about - which is odd since he was politically active at the time.
Actually, you have it entirely reversed; Devonport is the current base for the RN's SSNs, which are scheduled to move to Faslane over the next few years; Faslane is a much better base from which to operate, and it was political cost to leave Devonport which kept the subs there. The boomers have always been in Faslane.
Obviously, since the Tridents refit in Devonport anyway, they can get there and base there if Faslane is lost. The location sucks from a deployment view, though. You'd much rather have a port with deep water immediately available.
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2014, 06:32:40 PM
Is that move something that can be done immediately?
Other than possibly weapons storage facilities, yes. You might have some mooring issues (limited pier space, perhaps), but the number of units is small enough that this wouldn't stop anything.
I've heard it mooted that Hartlepool is a possible destination for the subs.
Probably due to nuclear ignorance.
One argument that I've never seen but I think has a lot of merit is in response to the shot termist anti-tory SNP crap.
Surely, if Scotland goes independent, then it would be even more exposed to the Tories screwing them over?
The Conservatives would dominate in England; the big economy next door to Scotland which they're completely tied in with. What happens in England will effect Scotland a lot. And Scottish views won't really matter too much since they're foreigners.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2014, 12:27:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2014, 12:23:43 PM
Why? Tory?
Combination of Irishness and hating the Tories. 'They don't even care about the North of England. Who thinks they give a fuck about another country?' He claims to speak from his 'great experience' of living in the South :lol:
So he decided he wants to completely fuck over the north of England by losing half of northern Britain? :bleeding:
Quote from: mongersI know of one Englishman living in Scotland, who was against independence, but has become fed-up with the fear-mongering from south of the Border/Tory London, and is going to vote yes.
His partner, Scottish was initially also anti-independence, but she's moving towards a yes.
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
Gods.
That is just crazy. The SNP are the prime fear mongers
Quote from: mongers on April 18, 2014, 05:24:36 PM
I know of one Englishman living in Scotland, who was against independence, but has become fed-up with the fear-mongering from south of the Border/Tory London, and is going to vote yes.
His partner, Scottish was initially also anti-independence, but she's moving towards a yes.
Wow. Horrible. I am just glad there are people out there who make Texans look smart.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2014, 04:16:54 PM
There are people in the UK who really like the Tories right? It just seems like I rarely hear from any of them.
My co-worker grew up in London and is very much pro-Tory. She thinks Thatcher is one of the best things to ever happen to the UK. She's only 26, though, so I think she may know better when she grows older.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2014, 08:11:18 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 18, 2014, 04:59:57 PM
They'll move to Devonport; the only reason HMNB Clyde (that includes Faslane) still exists was the political cost of closure. Scotland leaves the Union, the subs move; as they nearly did in the Nineties.
Which is probably something else Salmond is in denial about - which is odd since he was politically active at the time.
Actually, you have it entirely reversed; Devonport is the current base for the RN's SSNs, which are scheduled to move to Faslane over the next few years; Faslane is a much better base from which to operate, and it was political cost to leave Devonport which kept the subs there. The boomers have always been in Faslane.
Obviously, since the Tridents refit in Devonport anyway, they can get there and base there if Faslane is lost. The location sucks from a deployment view, though. You'd much rather have a port with deep water immediately available.
The argument at the time was that it would be cheaper to modify the old dreadnought docks at Devonport than to expand Faslane; the plan was to close one of them and Faslane as the costlier was the favourite to close throughout most of the review period. Of course they compromised and split the work in the end.
Of course, there's been two more Defence Reviews (at least) since the period I'm talking about.
And since the surface ships were always going to stay at Devonport whereas Faslane only had the Subs I don't see where you are getting the idea from that Devonport was only kept as a submarine base due to the political cost; Faslane was under threat, not Devonport.
------------
While writing the above I discovered that the incorrect on the Kindle Fire replaces dreadnought with deadweight! :lol:
Nevermind, I'm getting Rosyth and Faslane mixed up; although I was talking about the Tory, not Labour, defence review Grumbler.
Interesting discovery.
The RN says that it can't use Devonport as of 2012 for "safety reasons" (they're "not willing" to get the safety certification upgraded due to the number of people in the area, or something like that.)
The Scottish government has said (back in 2012) that they'd kick nuclear weapon armed submarines out of Scotland as soon as possible after independence.
Milford Haven, anyone?
I blame my dad for this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.spectator.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fblogs.dir%2F11%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F04%2FScreen-Shot-2014-04-20-at-15.01.39.png&hash=58594c70edee5c6b4d01a270d9089df58dc2f601)
QuoteAlex Salmond is within striking distance of victory. Why hasn't England noticed?
We could be seven months away from the end of Britain. It's time to worry
710 Comments 8 February 2014 Alex Massie
A century ago, with Britain in peril, Lord Kitchener's stern countenance demanded that every stout-hearted Briton do their bit for King and Country. 'Your country needs you' rallied hundreds of thousands to khaki and the Kaiser's War. Today, with Britain in peril again, you could be forgiven for asking where Kitchener's successor is. A new recruiting poster might cry: 'Britons: Wake up! Pay attention! Your country really is at risk!' The threat, of course, is domestic rather than foreign (for now, at least). It is beginning to be appreciated, even in London, that Alex Salmond might just win his independence referendum in September. The break-up of Britain will have begun, David Cameron will have to contemplate being Prime Minister of a rump country — and HMS Britannia will be sunk, not with a bang but a whimper. It will be due as much to English indifference as Scottish agitation.
The battle for Britain is being conducted on a wavelength which unionist politicians in London struggle to pick up. The nationalists have been preparing for this vote all of their political lives — and know that it is a fight like no other. The unionists seem rather worse prepared. Like hockey players sent on to play a game of rugby, they have a rough idea of the game — but many, especially those based in London, don't properly understand its rules. The unionists can babble on about the Barnett formula and a hundred other details but, in the end, these are mere details. Salmond's nationalists offer a tryst with destiny. And the future.
It is easy to assume, in England, that Salmond is sunk. After all, aren't all other major political parties uniting against him? It is less appreciated that the other parties are the same ones Salmond has outmanoeuvred at every turn since 2011, when the SNP first won an absolute majority in the Scottish parliament. As referendum day draws closer, a formerly formidable unionist advantage is being whittled away. Since Salmond published his 'white paper on independence', six successive opinion polls have shown a swing towards a 'yes' vote. At present, more than 40 per cent of decided voters plan to vote for independence. It does not take a psephologist to work out that Salmond may win.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.spectator.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2F4520623211.jpg&hash=52b0a66fce666db84002da8d001276de04401e0e)
If momentum is with the nationalists, so is organisational muscle. 'Yes Scotland' groups have sprung up in almost every small town in the land. Every night, somewhere in Scotland, nationalists meet to plot their strategy — with a morale and determination not to be found among the grassroots of any Westminster party. Last week, for example, the second issue of a nationalist propaganda newspaper — imaginatively called YES — was delivered to thousands of households. Even now, Alistair Darling's 'Better Together' campaign seems quieter than a Stornoway playground on the Sabbath.
Unionists raise procedural, legalistic difficulties such as the precise nature of an independent Scotland's relationship with the European Union, or how much representation, if any, Salmond should expect on the board of the Bank of England. These concerns, while real, can seem tangential to the greater issues: what kind of Scotland is being fought for? And what kind of Britain, too? Salmond assures Scots that technical difficulties should certainly not be used to bar the march of the nation. Or, as he put it recently, 'Let's not wake up on the morning of September 19th and think to ourselves what might have been'..
Real Scots vote 'yes'; timid Scots vote 'no' — and doubtless, in time, will fill a coward's grave. This might seem a form of emotional blackmail, but it is a mightily effective one.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.spectator.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2F451550795-1.jpg&hash=f409fe8eaf231ec6310d6c24ceb54fd1d643f5fd)
At the same time, Salmond argues that very little will change. The nationalist campaign might be subtitled 'Project Reassurance'. Nevertheless, despite presenting his case as a question of fiscal accountancy and common sense, the true appeal of independence is still emotional. What kind of country, Salmond and his colleagues will ask, rejects the chance to govern itself? It is a good question. The answer, of course, is a country that rejects as false the choice between two identities. You can be a Highlander, Scottish and British — just as you can be Cornish, English and British. Even so, Salmond articulates a vision of a better, purely Scottish future in ways that no unionist politician has yet matched.
England has spent so long regarding separatist movements as a joke that it struggles to accept how potent the threat is now. Once a voter has crossed the Rubicon to join the nationalist camp, it is devilishly difficult to persuade them to retrace their steps. It is difficult work finding voters who have moved from yes to no — whereas the reverse is more common, and certainly more widely discussed.
Moreover, the unionist campaign has the dysfunctionality that you would expect from a hybrid beast: Tory money for Labour men. This, manifestly, is an alliance of temporary convenience. The Tories, bashful as ever, are reluctant to campaign vigorously for the Union lest their unpopularity in Scotland weaken the overall case for unionism.
Labour are reluctant to be seen within spitting distance of any Tory. Moreover, the unionist alliance allows the SNP to argue that there is no functional difference between the Labour and Conservative parties. Only the SNP will stand up for Scotland's interests by putting Scotland first.
Indeed, the SNP's strategy is, in part, based upon creating the impression that Scotland and England have become such vastly different places that it is impossible for them to remain together. They argue that a distinctively 'social democratic' Scotland is now hopelessly out of step with — and held back by — a 'neoliberal' consensus at Westminster.
The question then becomes not whether Scotland can afford to leave the Union but whether she can afford to stay. In this way, the burden of proof is transferred to unionists. Similarly, nationalists ask unionists to spell out their plans for what happens after a 'no' vote. As yet, none has chosen to do so, allowing the SNP to claim this demonstrates that there are no such plans.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.spectator.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2F154151341.jpg&hash=3d897e3a938db11d846abad6ad3d97e9eaaa7f69)
Unionism is further handicapped by David Cameron's disinclination to play a part in the referendum. I'm told that he caveated his Christmas cards by saying it would only be a 'happy new year' with a 'large No vote'. But he believes that he can best help the 'no' cause by steering clear of it — this week, he chose London as the venue for his speech on Scotland. Asked to explain the benefits of independence in a single sentence, Blair Jenkins, the chief of 'Yes Scotland', has taken to summarising the essence of the issue as 'No more Tory governments. Ever.' The target is swithering Labour voters and the message is powerful because it is simple.
The Prime Minister is not the only hesitant campaigner. Many businesses — much to the irritation of leading unionists — have been reluctant to intervene in the referendum campaign. The chief executive of BP this week urged Britain to stay together, but this was unusual. Other business leaders don't want to make an enemy of the man who may well be running the whole country. Financiers know that any attempt to question the wisdom of independence is met with accusations of 'talking Scotland down.' If only, nationalists sigh, our opponents shared our faith in the Scottish people.
This is another example of how well the SNP have framed the debate. They make it sound like a bureaucratic no-brainer: why shouldn't the decisions that affect Scotland be taken, wherever possible, in Scotland? It is the same logic that drives Tory Euroscepticism, an irony that will not be lost upon a Prime Minister who is fighting wars in Edinburgh and Brussels.
Salmond is fond of borrowing John Steinbeck's reply to a letter from Jackie Kennedy in which the novelist wrote, 'You talked of Scotland as a lost cause and that is not true. Scotland is an unwon cause.' Salmond has the advantage of knowing what he fights for. Can unionists say the same?
They do have one powerful card to play: Britishness. The SNP do not, in fact, want to talk about losing this identity — at least, not openly. Perhaps because, despite everything, Britishness still has a surprising appeal: Scots cheered Jessica Ennis at the Olympics as a countryman. Andy Murray draped himself in a Union flag at Wimbledon last year. This is still the country of Shakespeare and Burns, Dickens and Scott. What unites us — in culture, politics and temperament — is far greater than anything that divides us. Salmond argues that England should prefer a good neighbour to a 'surly lodger', forgetting that many Scots do not think themselves mere lodgers in Britain. It is their home.
In any case, if Britishness were really finished, Salmond would have no need to talk of the 'social union' that would survive — and, he says, flourish — after independence. Identity matters, but so does economics. The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey has shown that Scots' commitment to the Union is provisional and subject to a cost-benefit analysis. They — we — would support independence if it left Scots £500 a year better off and reject it if independence cost £500. Bought and sold for half an ounce of gold, if you will. A depressing thought, but a reminder of why the referendum remains too close to call.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.spectator.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2F451350671.jpg&hash=5a6695abba72443570c0d33b4e06be44d4f27f41)
This is an unusual argument, then, in which it is the unionists who stand to benefit from wrapping themselves in the flag and the nationalists who are surprisingly disinclined to do likewise. Salmond also benefits from the fact that most unionists are reluctant to pursue a scorched earth campaign based wholly upon the proposition that Scotland is too weak, too small, too poor to survive as an independent country. Insulting the electorate's ability to run its own affairs would be a pitiful, demeaning strategy. But this concedes that independence is feasible, and shifts the question to whether it is desirable. 'We could but shouldn't' is a harder case to make than 'We can't and mustn't'.
Salmond is also a formidable late-stage campaigner. Two months before the 2011 Holyrood election, he languished 15 points behind in the polls — but went on to win an outright majority, in a voting system designed so no party would ever win an outright majority. No wonder senior strategists in No. 10 are said to believe Salmond's victory is not just possible, but likely.
It is not too late to stem the nationalist tide, but time is not on the side of the Union. The length of the campaign itself offers ample time for Scots to become less fearful with the prospect of independence, and once the idea is planted, it grows. Yet, all the while, too many unionists think their case is so self-evident that it doesn't need to be made with the same passion or verve. They should be afraid — their country may just slip away from beneath their feet.
Alex Massie lives in Edinburgh and blogs at spectator.co.uk/massie
Incidentally I also loved this Massie piece on George Galloway's one man campaign to save the union:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9077391/union-man/
QuoteGeorge Galloway is unhappy. One of his interlocutors on Twitter has told him to 'Fuck off back to England'. Gorgeous George is in Glasgow for the first in a series of roadshows in which he sets out his case for Scotland remaining part of the Union and he's not going anywhere. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Not even to England.
This will disappoint his many critics. But Galloway has a new, higher calling: saving whatever remains of the British left. To do that he must first save Britain. Which means persuading his fellow Scots they should remain a part of the United Kingdom. Like a latter-day Othello, he loves us not wisely but too well.
...
So George Galloway is David Cameron's friend in this fight. Perhaps even Cameron's 'useful idiot'. Not that Galloway is a Unionist. 'My flag is red,' he says, which is why independence is an act of betrayal. Worse, it is a proclamation of false consciousness. A factory worker in Coatbridge has more in common with a factory worker in Consett than either does with their bosses. Class still matters more than bloodlines or borders.
...
But George isn't afraid to bring a knife to a public meeting, even his own public meeting. No Roman Catholic should vote for independence, he suggests. Catholics would become scapegoats for Scottish failure. He insists an independent Scotland would be an Orange Scotland. 'If you're not afraid of that, you should be.' He hints that pogroms and perhaps even ethnic cleansing might follow.
Apparently they've managed to convince Gordon Brown (who is relatively popular in Scotland) to come out and campaign.....Which could help.
Man this is going to be a nail biter. It is amazing how fickle and reactionary the public is on such a big issue.
Let them vote yes then offer then really shitty terms when they come crawling back.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2014, 07:41:02 PM
Man this is going to be a nail biter. It is amazing how fickle and reactionary the public is on such a big issue.
According to James Forsyth the psephology of referendums is that generally the longer the campaign lasts, the stronger the 'no' vote gets. One exception: Quebec :ph34r:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2014, 07:42:30 PM
Let them vote yes then offer then really shitty terms when they come crawling back.
Why would they come crawling back? Why would we offer shitty terms? What shitty terms could we offer?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2014, 07:42:30 PM
Let them vote yes then offer then really shitty terms when they come crawling back.
I think it will be a bitter bitter divorce if it happens. The English, Welsh, and Northern Irish will not let them back, and Scotland would never admit it was a mistake in the first place. This is going to be really bad for everybody involved.
Maybe my borderer cousins can start raiding again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2014, 07:43:15 PM
Why would they come crawling back?
No rich bankers to sponge off of.
QuoteWhy would we offer shitty terms?
Spite.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2014, 07:49:48 PM
Why would they come crawling back?
Royal Bank of Scotland? Momentarily the world's biggest bank.
Edinburgh's got a very strong financial sector. But they do also have oil and gas and some of the world's best engineering firms in that sector too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2014, 07:54:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2014, 07:49:48 PM
Why would they come crawling back?
Royal Bank of Scotland? Momentarily the world's biggest bank.
Edinburgh's got a very strong financial sector. But they do also have oil and gas and some of the world's best engineering firms in that sector too.
Halliburton and Schlumberger are Scottish? Well I guess they should be ok then. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2014, 07:54:01 PM
Royal Bank of Scotland? Momentarily the world's biggest bank.
I imagine all their money making folk live and work in London.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2014, 07:43:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2014, 07:42:30 PM
Let them vote yes then offer then really shitty terms when they come crawling back.
I think it will be a bitter bitter divorce if it happens. The English, Welsh, and Northern Irish will not let them back, and Scotland would never admit it was a mistake in the first place. This is going to be really bad for everybody involved.
Or maybe the rest of us British could be adult-like, generous and neighbourly in reaction to a yes vote ?
You act neighborly to your neighbors. Be kinda hard to go back to being family.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2014, 08:46:56 PM
You act neighborly to your neighbors. Be kinda hard to go back to being family.
I'm not getting why there needs to be hate or disdain in any future dealings with an independent Scotland.
Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2014, 08:50:37 PM
I'm not getting why there needs to be hate or disdain in any future dealings with an independent Scotland.
I don't think there would be :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2014, 08:51:13 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2014, 08:50:37 PM
I'm not getting why there needs to be hate or disdain in any future dealings with an independent Scotland.
I don't think there would be :mellow:
I know, but one or two of our American friends seem to think there should be.
Personally, whilst seeing it as a sad turn of events, I think it's up to the rest of us in Britain to show our class if Scotland votes independent or if ultimately their experiment fails.
Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2014, 08:50:37 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2014, 08:46:56 PM
You act neighborly to your neighbors. Be kinda hard to go back to being family.
I'm not getting why there needs to be hate or disdain in any future dealings with an independent Scotland.
Of course there will be strife and conflict since when independence comes it won't be the panacea for all of scotland's ills. Salmond is right in the sense that very little will change.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2014, 08:19:19 PM
I imagine all their money making folk live and work in London.
Some do, especially because they own English (and Irish and American) banks but around 10 000 work in Edinburgh. But I doubt all the money-making bankers of UBS or Credit Suisse live in Geneva.
It's not that odd or difficult for a connection with Edinburgh and London. I mean Standard Chartered are based in London, but they're a mostly Asian bank.
And I think it's very unlikely that we'd go back to tariffs or border checks.
I don't think Cameron getting involved would help matters. Salmond has been pushing for a debate with him for a while, He would just love that, it would give him an opportunity to squarely paint no as the Tory vote.
The more people realise this referendum has nothing to so with the current government the better
Independence really does worry me. It would fundamentally fuck up my country. It may be far away and unimportant to London but to the north east it would literally be like our country breaking in half.
Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2014, 09:08:40 PM
I don't think Cameron getting involved would help matters. Salmond has been pushing for a debate with him for a while, He would just love that, it would give him an opportunity to squarely paint no as the Tory vote.
He shouldn't debate him. But it hardly helps that it doesn't look like the PM cares. I mean he gives his first big speech on Scotland in London :bleeding:
Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2014, 08:31:30 PM
Or maybe the rest of us British could be adult-like, generous and neighbourly in reaction to a yes vote ?
Divorces typically do not go this way. Americans would certainly not be that way in the event of such a slap in the face. Hopefully we will never find out.
What happens if it gets a 51% yes vote? Is that really enough?
I think, at a minimum, scotland should have to prevail in at least one pitched battle with england before becoming free.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2014, 09:15:49 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2014, 08:31:30 PM
Or maybe the rest of us British could be adult-like, generous and neighbourly in reaction to a yes vote ?
Divorces typically do not go this way. Americans would certainly not be that way in the event of such a slap in the face. Hopefully we will never find out.
Depends on the states begging for leave...:shifty:
Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2014, 11:00:09 PM
What happens if it gets a 51% yes vote? Is that really enough?
I think, at a minimum, scotland should have to prevail in at least one pitched battle with england before becoming free.
There was Stirling Bridge.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2014, 11:08:32 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2014, 11:00:09 PM
What happens if it gets a 51% yes vote? Is that really enough?
I think, at a minimum, scotland should have to prevail in at least one pitched battle with england before becoming free.
There was Stirling Bridge.
Bannockburn was better.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2014, 11:03:27 PM
Depends on the states begging for leave...:shifty:
Yeah right. The Federal Government would make our lives miserable.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2014, 11:10:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2014, 11:03:27 PM
Depends on the states begging for leave...:shifty:
Yeah right. The Federal Government would make our lives miserable.
The People aren't really the Government. :(
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2014, 08:06:11 PM
Halliburton and Schlumberger are Scottish? Well I guess they should be ok then. :P
I was confused there for a second. Schlumberger is also the name of an Austrian producer of Sekt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekt#Sekt).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.viennabarcommunity.at%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fschlumberger-3.jpg&hash=a8bb6a9100474621bd980f3e9a4f05d0265a6f78)
I suspect that most English people will react to an independent Scotland in much the same way that they react to Scotland now........indifference. Of course that would appear to be the most irritating attitude to the Scots that we could possibly have :P
I've talked to a lot of Scots over the years, both friends and relatives, and one of the primary gripes of SNP-leaning Scots is that Scotland gets so little attention in the national media; try coming from the North of England I tell them. Scotland has slightly less than 1/12 of the UK's population, the old counties of Lancashire (pre '71 boundaries) and Yorkshire each have populations of around 5 million, the same as Scotland. But I don't think that most Scots see it like that; it is a bit like the "Texan's map of the USA", in their hearts they seem to think that Scotland maybe has half or a third of the population of England, so feel slighted by the lack of attention.
Anecdotal I know, but I've had that conversation a fair few times over the years and throw it in for what it is worth.
I am absolutely in balance as far as my preferred results of the referendum, despite being half-Scot by ancestry (two grandparents born there). Not because I feel like "a pox on both your houses," but, rather, because I can see good coming from either outcome of the vote. An independent Scotland would have to face its social and economic challenges squarely, rather than allowing southern money to paper over the cracks, while a British Scotland would have to adjust to the idea that they need to make what they have work, rather than putting off reforms until they gain independence and can "make our own decisions." In neither case to the problems seem so overwhelming that they only admit of a single solution, or an immediate one.
Grumbler I am fairly certain that any challenges an independent Scotland would face will be blamed fully on England.
Has anyone made the math to see if Scotland is a net beneficiar of the UK budget, or they would be better off financing themselves?
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 09:24:52 AM
Grumbler I am fairly certain that any challenges an independent Scotland would face will be blamed fully on England.
Has anyone made the math to see if Scotland is a net beneficiar of the UK budget, or they would be better off financing themselves?
They have Oil...
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 09:24:52 AM
Has anyone made the math to see if Scotland is a net beneficiar of the UK budget, or they would be better off financing themselves?
I thought it was common knowledge that they are a huge net beneficiary.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2014, 09:28:13 AM
They have Oil...
Sort of. It is out in the North Sea. How much would be the UK's and how much would be Scotland's has not yet been determined.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2014, 09:28:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 09:24:52 AM
Grumbler I am fairly certain that any challenges an independent Scotland would face will be blamed fully on England.
Has anyone made the math to see if Scotland is a net beneficiar of the UK budget, or they would be better off financing themselves?
They have Oil...
Not as much as international success story Venezuela, so that ain't guarantee for nothing
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2014, 09:28:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 09:24:52 AM
Has anyone made the math to see if Scotland is a net beneficiar of the UK budget, or they would be better off financing themselves?
I thought it was common knowledge that they are a huge net beneficiary.
Any figures on that subject are not trustable both sides has an agenda to promote.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2014, 09:48:17 AM
Any figures on that subject are not trustable both sides has an agenda to promote.
Seriously? Tax in versus government spending on. How is that hard to figure?
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2014, 09:28:47 AM
I thought it was common knowledge that they are a huge net beneficiary.
It depends.
It's worth remembering we have a budget deficit. So we're all net beneficiaries in that if you calculate English, Welsh or Scottish revenue per head and spending per head there will be a substantial gap.
If you look at just revenue and spending then Scotland receives more spending than she pays in revenue - about 9% of spending to about 8% of revenue. Part of that is that Scotland has slightly higher unemployment and worse health.
But that excludes oil. It's dropping as a part of revenue but is still £6 billion a year and the SNP argue that 90% of that should be considered Scottish because about 90% of the oil is what would be Scottish territorial waters. If you add in oil then Scotland contributes more revenue than she takes in spending.
It's also worth remembering that an English average hides significant disparities. Scotland receives less spending per head than, say, London or the South-West. The Midlands and the South-East on the other hand receive significantly less than the English average.
QuoteI've talked to a lot of Scots over the years, both friends and relatives, and one of the primary gripes of SNP-leaning Scots is that Scotland gets so little attention in the national media; try coming from the North of England I tell them
Scotland is a separate country though and I remember from when I lived there how annoying it was to see the media (in the UK or abroad) referring to 'England' and the 'English' when they meant Britain :bleeding:
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2014, 09:28:13 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 09:24:52 AM
Grumbler I am fairly certain that any challenges an independent Scotland would face will be blamed fully on England.
Has anyone made the math to see if Scotland is a net beneficiar of the UK budget, or they would be better off financing themselves?
They have Oil...
Oil production is costly and falling, though there is great expertise in offshore skills etc
I think their best asset is whisky. It is not a depleting asset and every year, as the world grows richer, the number of consumers grows. They exported £4.5bn of the stuff last year, that is a tremendous amount for a country of only 5 million.
God bless the Chinese nouveau riche and their taste for luxury consumer goods :lol:
Edit: I wonder if Scotland's tried to market tweed to China yet? :o
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 09:49:02 AM
It's also worth remembering that an English average hides significant disparities. Scotland receives less spending per head than, say, London or the South-West. The Midlands and the South-East on the other hand receive significantly less than the English average.
Well of course.
QuoteBut that excludes oil. It's dropping as a part of revenue but is still £6 billion a year and the SNP argue that 90% of that should be considered Scottish because about 90% of the oil is what would be Scottish territorial waters. If you add in oil then Scotland contributes more revenue than she takes in spending.
The oil is not in their territorial waters. It is in the claim by the UK which has not been negotiated between Scotland and the UK. If it was in their territorial waters it would all be within 12 nautical miles of their coastline.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 09:49:02 AM
Scotland is a separate country though and I remember from when I lived there how annoying it was to see the media (in the UK or abroad) referring to 'England' and the 'English' when they meant Britain :bleeding:
Viper does this all the time and man it is annoying.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 21, 2014, 09:53:27 AM
I think their best asset is whisky. It is not a depleting asset and every year, as the world grows richer, the number of consumers grows. They exported £4.5bn of the stuff last year, that is a tremendous amount for a country of only 5 million.
The Kingdom of Booze they shall be known.
One other thing is that Scotland GDP per capita is more or less exactly the UK average. Only the South-East and London are richer.
Scotland's roughly somewhere between Ireland and Finland in terms of population and GDP.
Quote from: Syt on April 21, 2014, 12:24:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2014, 08:06:11 PM
Halliburton and Schlumberger are Scottish? Well I guess they should be ok then. :P
I was confused there for a second. Schlumberger is also the name of an Austrian producer of Sekt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekt#Sekt).
The name of the company is actually a family name from alsace-lorraine. The Schlumberger brothers were ethnic germans living in alsace after it was returned to france after ww1. The were in the business of electrical prospecting for water when they found out they could use the same process they used to find water to find oil. Their big break through came in teh 30s when they used resistivity measurements to find oil in romania. During the fall of france in 1940 they packed up their files and technology and fled to the us, where they bulk of their activity was.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 09:48:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 21, 2014, 09:48:17 AM
Any figures on that subject are not trustable both sides has an agenda to promote.
Seriously? Tax in versus government spending on. How is that hard to figure?
If my local experience is any indication. Very hard.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 10:01:04 AM
One other thing is that Scotland GDP per capita is more or less exactly the UK average. Only the South-East and London are richer.
Scotland's roughly somewhere between Ireland and Finland in terms of population and GDP.
Then where is all this neglect driving them to independence? This makes it sound like they should have no grievances at all.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 10:12:39 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 10:01:04 AM
One other thing is that Scotland GDP per capita is more or less exactly the UK average. Only the South-East and London are richer.
Scotland's roughly somewhere between Ireland and Finland in terms of population and GDP.
Then where is all this neglect driving them to independence? This makes it sound like they should have no grievances at all.
It is a feeling of alienation from government and a non-inclusion of englishmen in the scottish feeling of who "us" is.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 10:12:39 AMThen where is all this neglect driving them to independence? This makes it sound like they should have no grievances at all.
It's not really about grievances though. As I say I think it'd be a very amicable divorce.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 10:29:52 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 10:12:39 AMThen where is all this neglect driving them to independence? This makes it sound like they should have no grievances at all.
It's not really about grievances though. As I say I think it'd be a very amicable divorce.
Ok if everybody is so amicable and super happy then why all the accusations of English Arrogance and hostility? The accusations that they do not care about us? The language seems nationalistic and confrontational not amicable.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 10:29:52 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 10:12:39 AMThen where is all this neglect driving them to independence? This makes it sound like they should have no grievances at all.
It's not really about grievances though. As I say I think it'd be a very amicable divorce.
Agree. The Scottish feeling seems to be that the Southeast of England has moved away from being "British" and that, to stay British themselves, Scots need their own country. I don't think that they have a general feeling of ill-will towards England or the UK, just a feeling that they don't like where the London money is taking the UK.
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2014, 10:35:13 AM
Agree. The Scottish feeling seems to be that the Southeast of England has moved away from being "British" and that, to stay British themselves, Scots need their own country. I don't think that they have a general feeling of ill-will towards England or the UK, just a feeling that they don't like where the London money is taking the UK.
London and its money are still going to be there having a large influence over everything. Wouldn't it be better for Scotland to have a say in that? Polls in Scotland do not indicate that they feel very British though so I am not sure where you are getting this from.
Do what thou kilt is the whole of the law.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 10:34:15 AM
Ok if everybody is so amicable and super happy then why all the accusations of English Arrogance and hostility? The accusations that they do not care about us? The language seems nationalistic and confrontational not amicable.
I think you're just a bit sensitive :P
There's always a base level of anti-Englishness which is inevitable because England is so big. I mean England's one country with 50 million, Scotland's got 5 million and the Welsh have 2.5 million. If you're in Wales or Scotland you're always going to want the English football/rugby team to fail and be annoyed at how self-involved they are. And both the Welsh and the Scots are probably annoyed that the English care far more about beating the French or Germany than them.
In addition to that I think there's a lot of frustration and resentment all over the UK about how London-centric and self-involved our media and politics and economy are. Which is, I think, a fair criticism and one that lots of people in Wales and other bits of England would echo. Alex Salmond referred to London as a 'dark star' of the British economy sucking in resources and people.
But the basic SNP argument is that this is a tryst with destiny and an independent Scotland can decide exactly what sort of country she wants to be in a way that she can't within a union and why shouldn't decisions about Scotland be taken by Scots, elected by Scots in Scotland?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 10:54:11 AMI think you're just a bit sensitive :P
What? You and Tyr were the one complaining and bitching about it. Now it is no big deal just because I ran with it? :P
QuoteBut the basic SNP argument is that this is a tryst with destiny and an independent Scotland can decide exactly what sort of country she wants to be in a way that she can't within a union and why shouldn't decisions about Scotland be taken by Scots, elected by Scots in Scotland?
Except the new Scottish Kingdom will not exist on the moon, there will still be a UK down there making big decisions that have a big impact on Scotland. To the extent that decisions about Scotland can be taken by Scots this can be achieved by devolution, which is already happening.
QuoteIn addition to that I think there's a lot of frustration and resentment all over the UK about how London-centric and self-involved our media and politics and economy are. Which is, I think, a fair criticism and one that lots of people in Wales and other bits of England would echo. Alex Salmond referred to London as a 'dark star' of the British economy sucking in resources and people.
It is a fair criticism but London is not going anywhere and its tremendous impact will still exist. And besides this is something everybody in every country in the world complain about, though granted few of them have a gorilla quite as enormous as London. New Scotland will have its Edinburgh after all. The solution is not to just keep creating more countries until there is no more regional or capital favoritism.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2014, 11:09:46 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2014, 11:08:32 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2014, 11:00:09 PM
What happens if it gets a 51% yes vote? Is that really enough?
I think, at a minimum, scotland should have to prevail in at least one pitched battle with england before becoming free.
There was Stirling Bridge.
Bannockburn was better.
I was thinking to get independence. Those happened before the UK formed.
Braveheart was a good film, but is a bit dated. We need material for a film, and a referendum really isn't so exciting.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 10:59:56 AMWhat? You and Tyr were the one complaining and bitching about it. Now it is no big deal just because I ran with it? :P
I think most of my bitching has been about the unionist campaign.
QuoteExcept the new Scottish Kingdom will not exist on the moon, there will still be a UK down there making big decisions that have a big impact on Scotland. To the extent that decisions about Scotland can be taken by Scots this can be achieved by devolution, which is already happening.
Nonsense.
First of all this is true of all European countries. England and the UK will still be affected by the decisions of the Eurozone, even if they're not a member. The Polish economy will be affected by the German, and the Belgians by the French, and the Northern Irish by the Republic. That's part of existing and being a country not an argument against it. The difference is if the rest of the UK (and remember Scotland's only 1/12 of it) decide to do one thing then currently Scotland has to go along with that. If they're independent then they can choose their response.
Secondly there are all sorts of things Scotland can't do with devolution. For example they can't vary their tax rates. The SNP are already promising to follow the Irish and have a 12.5% corporate tax, exactly with an eye to poaching business from the City of London (they'd be very well placed to do so if, for example, a rump England then voted to leave the EU while Scotland stayed in or was on the brink of joining). Similarly they've different ideas for personal tax and for welfare reform which they can't do as a devolved government. This is why, though I'm unionist, I support home rule for Scotland.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 21, 2014, 11:07:44 AM
I was thinking to get independence. Those happened before the UK formed.
Braveheart was a good film, but is a bit dated. We need material for a film, and a referendum really isn't so exciting.
Well then you probably need something from the Jacobite era. Prestonpans maybe.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 11:17:24 AM
I think most of my bitching has been about the unionist campaign.
Yes. Nothing about it sounds very Amicable from either side.
QuoteNonsense.
First of all this is true of all European countries. England and the UK will still be affected by the decisions of the Eurozone, even if they're not a member.
Sure but it is a matter of degrees. London is a tremendous magnet for talent and money in that part of the world.
QuoteThe Polish economy will be affected by the German, and the Belgians by the French, and the Northern Irish by the Republic. That's part of existing and being a country not an argument against it.
Of course it is an argument against it. It is a matter of what is in your best interest. Poland would benefit from having a say in how Germany does things that impact them, of course. But it is not the only factor.
QuoteThe difference is if the rest of the UK (and remember Scotland's only 1/12 of it) decide to do one thing then currently Scotland has to go along with that. If they're independent then they can choose their response.
And that will be true of 1/12th of Scotland when the other 11/12ths want. Are their ideas on these matters so particular to Scotland that they cannot get support for them from anybody else in the UK? But they can also choose their response as a government inside the UK.
QuoteSecondly there are all sorts of things Scotland can't do with devolution. For example they can't vary their tax rates. The SNP are already promising to follow the Irish and have a 12.5% corporate tax, exactly with an eye to poaching business from the City of London (they'd be very well placed to do so if, for example, a rump England then voted to leave the EU while Scotland stayed in or was on the brink of joining). Similarly they've different ideas for personal tax and for welfare reform which they can't do as a devolved government. This is why, though I'm unionist, I support home rule for Scotland.
Wait wait. What does this mean? They cannot do this with home rule but this is why you support home rule? I guess I had something in mind like an American state government which does have considerable ability to give tax incentives and the like. I think we already discussed this before and we were agreed that more power to tax needed to be ceded to Wales, NI, and Scotland. I asked if something like this might be proposed to give incentive for the Scots to stay but from the response that was out of the question for some reason.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 11:17:51 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 21, 2014, 11:07:44 AM
I was thinking to get independence. Those happened before the UK formed.
Braveheart was a good film, but is a bit dated. We need material for a film, and a referendum really isn't so exciting.
Well then you probably need something from the Jacobite era. Prestonpans maybe.
But they lost. Maybe a really good director could make it work like Braveheart, where the hero dies, but the movement lives on to eventually triumph.
I'm skeptical though that an effective connection can be made to the Jacobite rebellion and a 21st century referendum. Beyond of course their common thread of stupidity.
It is funny that I have read two Englishmen here being all "so what" about Scottish independence, while the two Scotts I have talked about it (admittedly both living in England) were rather agitated about how an utterly stupid idea it is
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 11:34:59 AM
It is funny that I have read two Englishmen here being all "so what" about Scottish independence, while the two Scotts I have talked about it (admittedly both living in England) were rather agitated about how an utterly stupid idea it is
That reminds me, do the half million or so Scots living in the non-Scotland part of the UK get a say in this?
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 11:26:10 AM
And that will be true of 1/12th of Scotland when the other 11/12ths want. Are their ideas on these matters so particular to Scotland that they cannot get support for them from anybody else in the UK? But they can also choose their response as a government inside the UK.
No they can't. London decides to raise taxes, Scotland must follow. London decides to limit student visas, Scottish universities are hit.
If Scotland were independent they could drop taxes, they could encourage immigration, they could try and be more pro-business than the English and poach the City. Or they could raise taxes even more and build Cuba-on-the-Clyde. Neither of those options are open to Scotland in the Union.
One area where there is a difference in opinion is immigration. The Scots still think it should be reduced, but they're far less excited by it than the English. In England it's always a top 3 priority, whereas in Scotland it tends not to be. The government's policy of cutting immigration to tens of thousands not hundreds of thousands has an effect on Scotland. The SNP are broadly pretty pro-immigration. And immigration is a big driver of Ukip, which I think are an English SNP in some ways.
QuoteWait wait. What does this mean? They cannot do this with home rule but this is why you support home rule? I guess I had something in mind like an American state government which does have considerable ability to give tax incentives and the like. I think we already discussed this before and we were agreed that more power to tax needed to be ceded to Wales, NI, and Scotland.
They can vary personal income tax up to 3p in the pound from the UK rate, but that's it in terms of tax powers.
The Scottish Parliament has power over, from Wikipedia, 'agriculture, fisheries and forestry, economic development, education, environment, food standards, health, home affairs, Scots law – courts, police and fire services, local government, sport and the arts, transport, training, tourism, research and statistics and social work'.
'Abortion, broadcasting policy, civil service, common markets for UK goods and services, constitution, electricity, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, defence and national security, drug policy, employment, foreign policy and relations with Europe, most aspects of transport safety and regulation, National Lottery, protection of borders, social security and stability of UK's fiscal, economic and monetary system' are reserved to Westminster
I actually think this is a problem for Holyrood's system because they basically have a political set-up that's just about how to spend the money they get from Westminster. I also think it's why, outside of the SNP, no front-rank Scottish politician is in Holyrood, they're all in London trying to become cabinet ministers.
The trouble with home rule is if you give the Scots all of those power do you still have Scottish MPs? What areas can they vote on? A government can (and did under the last Labour government) pass measures that only affect England with Scottish MPs even if a majority of English MPs vote against it. We don't have a federal system so it's difficult to work out.
I actually think the big difference in recent years is the rise of English nationalism and a sense of Englishness becoming acceptable.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 11:40:34 AM
The trouble with home rule is if you give the Scots all of those power do you still have Scottish MPs? What areas can they vote on? A government can (and did under the last Labour government) pass measures that only affect England with Scottish MPs even if a majority of English MPs vote against it. We don't have a federal system so it's difficult to work out.
Well you would have to. So Constitutional issues would have to be sorted out. As an American I think they should give the historic English provinces their own assemblies with a federal one in Westminster and then everybody would be electing three parliaments.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 21, 2014, 11:31:22 AM
I'm skeptical though that an effective connection can be made to the Jacobite rebellion and a 21st century referendum. Beyond of course their common thread of stupidity.
Part of the reason the referendum's this year is that it's the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn.
QuoteIt is funny that I have read two Englishmen here being all "so what" about Scottish independence, while the two Scotts I have talked about it (admittedly both living in England) were rather agitated about how an utterly stupid idea it is
I think it's a dreadful idea, but I also think Scotland would be absolutely fine if they were to go independent and there's no point in arguing against it from a sort of doom-mongering point of view. They're a rich country with a solid economy and they'd be fine.
Having said that I'm more worried about England and have recently applied to get a new Irish passport, just in case :ph34r:
QuoteThat reminds me, do the half million or so Scots living in the non-Scotland part of the UK get a say in this?
No. I think it would be incredibly difficult given that there's no such thing as 'Scottish citizenship' at the moment.
The 500 000 or so British citizens born elsewhere, living in Scotland can vote. So can Commonwealth or EU citizens who are resident in Scotland.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 11:44:53 AM
Well you would have to. So Constitutional issues would have to be sorted out. As an American I think they should give the historic English provinces their own assemblies with a federal one in Westminster and then everybody would be electing three parliaments.
That was the last Labour government's idea. They proposed regional assemblies in England. They planned three referendums for them in the North-East, the North-West and Yorkshire and the Humber. In the one referendum they had in the North-East only about 20% voted yes. So the idea got shelved. Trouble is people don't feel 'North-Eastern' in the way they feel Scottish or English. Even the counties get their borders moved around as reorganisations of local government.
So in the US you have coherent states with identities which can work as a basis for a federal government. I don't think England has that, maybe some counties like Yorkshire but that's it. So it'd be like a federal government with a state the size of California and Illinois combined, plus Nevada, New Mexico and Alabama.
These show the difference of view on immigration:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F72877000%2Fgif%2F_72877801_scotland_survey_464_3.gif&hash=7b8153d3b6231bb5e83ee3fedc5198245b0c2ab6)
Roughly 60% of English people think it's a bad thing that people from outside the UK want to come and live here, roughly 60% of Scots think it's a good thing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F72877000%2Fgif%2F_72877800_scotland_survey_464_2.gif&hash=6f01ed51dc569bed5f53139cf92295bfaece7117)
Would a federal system with Wales/Northern Ireland/Scotland/England be politically feasible in order to avoid the West Lothian question (and thus make increased devolution easier)?
Quote from: celedhring on April 21, 2014, 11:58:05 AM
Would a federal system with Wales/Northern Ireland/Scotland/England be politically feasible in order to avoid the West Lothian question (and thus make increased devolution easier)?
Maybe theoretically. But I don't see how you can make a federal system work when one member has a population of 55 million and the others have 5 million, 3 million and 2 million.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 11:55:43 AM
These show the difference of view on immigration:
Roughly 60% of English people think it's a bad thing that people from outside the UK want to come and live here, roughly 60% of Scots think it's a good thing.
That's because Immigrants aren't going to scotland
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/born_abroad/html/overview.stm
But that's from 2001, prior to the EU expansion which saw the number of immigrants in Scotland double and has caused a lot of the English palpitations on immigration.
The percentage of people living in Scotland who are foreign born is about half the UK average at 6% but that's around the sort of number you get with many English regions.
But as with everything you need to account for London which is 34% foreign born. Most English regions and Wales and Scotland are within 5-8% foreign born. London's at 34% and the South-East, East and West Midlands are around 10%.
And Scotland (and Northern Ireland, interestingly) have the highest rate of arrival (as a percentage of the foreign born population) in the last 10 years (since EU expansion).
I'm almost certain if you asked people in the South-West which is also 6% foreign born, or the North-East at 5% that question their results would be similar to the English not the Scottish. Especially as both areas are currently big targets for Ukip.
Edit: For example I think it's very unlikely posters 1 or 4 here would work in Scotland, while 2 and 3 could be used against Westminster:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_national_billboard_campaign
And predictably those posters were attacked as bigoted. Which allowed Farage to claim that debate about this gets shut down and get lots of free publicity for them - ie exactly what he wanted.
My God those are horrible billboards. I think only Arizona could get away with that here. Well among the border states. You could probably put that up in Tennessee or something.
What does 'rate of arrival' mean? Rate of total immigrants to the UK? Rate of immigrants versus total population of the country?
You have stated an independent Kingdom of Scotland is a horrible idea, could you tell me why you believe that? You have probably stated this before so sorry if that is annoying.
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 11:34:59 AM
It is funny that I have read two Englishmen here being all "so what" about Scottish independence, while the two Scotts I have talked about it (admittedly both living in England) were rather agitated about how an utterly stupid idea it is
Yeah, the Scots I know who live in England are pretty annoyed about it too. They know they are Scots, have no intention of leaving England and are totally pissed off about their future pasports and citizenship.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 21, 2014, 01:34:37 PM
Yeah, the Scots I know who live in England are pretty annoyed about it too. They know they are Scots, have no intention of leaving England and are totally pissed off about their future pasports and citizenship.
The fact they have no say in it is pretty crap I must say.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 12:00:42 PM
Maybe theoretically. But I don't see how you can make a federal system work when one member has a population of 55 million and the others have 5 million, 3 million and 2 million.
I don't see why it is more difficult to work than a centralized system. The main country who would be screwed (well not really but in compared to their potential power) in that arrangement would be the big one.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 01:40:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 12:00:42 PM
Maybe theoretically. But I don't see how you can make a federal system work when one member has a population of 55 million and the others have 5 million, 3 million and 2 million.
I don't see why it is more difficult to work than a centralized system. The main country who would be screwed (well not really but in compared to their potential power) in that arrangement would be the big one.
Yeah we make it work with California's 38mil to Wyoming's 500k.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 12:25:57 PM
But that's from 2001, prior to the EU expansion which saw the number of immigrants in Scotland double and has caused a lot of the English palpitations on immigration.
The percentage of people living in Scotland who are foreign born is about half the UK average at 6% but that's around the sort of number you get with many English regions.
But as with everything you need to account for London which is 34% foreign born. Most English regions and Wales and Scotland are within 5-8% foreign born. London's at 34% and the South-East, East and West Midlands are around 10%.
And Scotland (and Northern Ireland, interestingly) have the highest rate of arrival (as a percentage of the foreign born population) in the last 10 years (since EU expansion).
I'm almost certain if you asked people in the South-West which is also 6% foreign born, or the North-East at 5% that question their results would be similar to the English not the Scottish. Especially as both areas are currently big targets for Ukip.
Edit: For example I think it's very unlikely posters 1 or 4 here would work in Scotland, while 2 and 3 could be used against Westminster:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_national_billboard_campaign
And predictably those posters were attacked as bigoted. Which allowed Farage to claim that debate about this gets shut down and get lots of free publicity for them - ie exactly what he wanted.
holy shit my disdain for UKIP grows by the day
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 02:05:31 PM
holy shit my disdain for UKIP grows by the day
Yeah those are appalling.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 01:08:59 PM
My God those are horrible billboards. I think only Arizona could get away with that here. Well among the border states. You could probably put that up in Tennessee or something.
Come on. In Georgia we had a candidate for governor that ran in the last election on an Arizona style immigration program and said the line in his ads "we need to take care of our own". That was the democrat. And he lost amid criticism that he was too soft on immigration.
http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/government/elections/georgia-elections/2010-10-26/barnes-targeted-immigration
Quote from: alfred russel on April 21, 2014, 02:18:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 01:08:59 PM
My God those are horrible billboards. I think only Arizona could get away with that here. Well among the border states. You could probably put that up in Tennessee or something.
Come on. In Georgia we had a candidate for governor that ran in the last election on an Arizona style immigration program and said the line in his ads "we need to take care of our own". That was the democrat. And he lost amid criticism that he was too soft on immigration.
http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/government/elections/georgia-elections/2010-10-26/barnes-targeted-immigration
Yeah that was the reason for my edit. Away from the border things are different.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 12:25:57 PM
But that's from 2001, prior to the EU expansion which saw the number of immigrants in Scotland double and has caused a lot of the English palpitations on immigration.
The percentage of people living in Scotland who are foreign born is about half the UK average at 6% but that's around the sort of number you get with many English regions.
yes and that makes scotland compatible to english regions as they were in 2001 before they too got immigration boosts from the eu. Scotland doesn't have equivalents like london and bradford etc.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 02:20:52 PM
Yeah that was the reason for my edit. Away from the border things are different.
Sorry, didn't notice the edit.
But don't we just have like 4 border states? Cali, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas? :P
Quote from: alfred russel on April 21, 2014, 02:29:21 PM
But don't we just have like 4 border states? Cali, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas? :P
Until Canadians start sneaking into Montana, yes :P
Seriously though that Georgia shit is fucked up. Do they really have that many illegal immigrants that this is an issue? It is always amazing to me how people flip the fuck out about them when, here in Texas, we have shitloads of illegal immigrants and it does not really effect anything. What is the big panic about?
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 02:35:48 PM
Until Canadians start sneaking into Montana, yes :P
Seriously though that Georgia shit is fucked up. Do they really have that many illegal immigrants that this is an issue? It is always amazing to me how people flip the fuck out about them when, here in Texas, we have shitloads of illegal immigrants and it does not really effect anything. What is the big panic about?
We have a lot of illegal immigrants. Especially before 2008.
Unlike a lot of the country, our draconian immigration laws seem to be doing better in the courts than say Arizona. Immigrants began leaving in large numbers. Farmers were like, "wft? Now we don't have a labor force." The governor said "no problem, I have a plan".
He had a plan. It was to send newly released convicts that couldn't find jobs to work as field hands in rural Georgia. Some news teams documented this. It was hilarious. At the beginning of the day, the prisoners were like, "this is great, I'm thankful for the opportunity, I'm glad someone is giving me a chance." By lunch they were like, "fuck this. I'm out of here." The farmers were like, "I'm supposed to pay these guys for a days work when they haven't done the work a normal guy gets done in a half hour? Fuck that."
Quote from: alfred russel on April 21, 2014, 02:47:50 PM
He had a plan. It was to send newly released convicts that couldn't find jobs to work as field hands in rural Georgia. Some news teams documented this. It was hilarious. At the beginning of the day, the prisoners were like, "this is great, I'm thankful for the opportunity, I'm glad someone is giving me a chance." By lunch they were like, "fuck this. I'm out of here." The farmers were like, "I'm supposed to pay these guys for a days work when they haven't done the work a normal guy gets done in a half hour? Fuck that."
Nothing demoralizing about being sent to Rural Georgia to pick cotton. Nope.
Are those videos online? They sound hilarious.
When I get home, I'll try to find one.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 01:08:59 PMWhat does 'rate of arrival' mean? Rate of total immigrants to the UK? Rate of immigrants versus total population of the country?
What I mean is if you look at the population who are foreign born and when they arrived then Scotland, Northern Ireland and the North-East have the highest rate arriving in the last 10 years (a huge chunk in 2004-7). It's part of the exceptional nature of immigration after EU expansion that previous immigrant groups have behaved like immigrants do all over the world and moved to where there's a pre-existing community.
The Eastern European migrants, exceptionally, went everywhere. Which is possibly why Ukip are doing so well in the polls it was far more visible.
QuoteYou have stated an independent Kingdom of Scotland is a horrible idea, could you tell me why you believe that? You have probably stated this before so sorry if that is annoying.
For me there's two chunks of reasons. Firstly is the purely emotional side of things. I spent ten years growing up in Scotland. My brother was born in Scotland. I've got loads of memories of family holidays camping round the Highlands. Even in the past few years Scotland's the bit of the UK I visit the most, aside from Dorset where my mum and dad live. So I feel a strong personal connection to Scotland and I hate the idea that this would somehow become another country for me and I wouldn't even qualify for Scottish citizenship. In addition to that I don't really have that sort of feeling for England (except for Liverpool and London). So I also hate the idea that I'd end up a citizen of the UK of England and Wales. They'd be buggering my current country too.
In addition to that, of course, is our three hundred years of history. We're the country of Rabbie Burns and Shakespeare, Hume and Mills, Stevenson and Brunel. We've fought wars together and built the welfare state together. It seems incredibly sad to abandon that heritage of what we've achieved together in favour of slightly smaller ambitions and expectations for the future. It seems like settling.
Secondly is more political. I worry about Scotland having to rejoin the EU without the UK opt-outs, so promising to join the Eurozone for example, and also that they've got a very good financial sector but they'd be fucked like Ireland if it weren't for the UK in 2008.
In terms of the UK I think without Scotland England will become more parochial. People moan about the SNP promising Irish style Celtic tiger economics and Scandinavian social democracy, which is fair. But there's a huge chunk of England that wants to reject the EU in favour of global buccaneering free trade while also wanting to effectively close our borders to all immigration. Which if anything is even less plausible. I think England, without Scotland, will be a more closed, insular and a less liberal place.
In addition to that I think England and Scotland together are able to do more on climate change, more in foreign and defence policy, better social welfare and a more solid and sustainable economy - we can buttress and strengthen each other and I genuinely believe the UK is greater than the sum of its parts.
QuoteYeah we make it work with California's 38mil to Wyoming's 500k.
You've got 48 other states to help. If the USA was California, Oregon, New Mexico and Maine I think there'd be far more difficulties of what's democratic and legitimate.
Quoteyes and that makes scotland compatible to english regions as they were in 2001 before they too got immigration boosts from the eu. Scotland doesn't have equivalents like london and bradford etc.
I'm comparing 2011 census numbers. So Scotland's got 6% and most English regions have 5-8% in 2011 after they've all had the EU migrants.
QuoteMy God those are horrible billboards. I think only Arizona could get away with that here. Well among the border states. You could probably put that up in Tennessee or something.
I don't like them, but I'm not the target and I suspect they'll be very effective for the people Ukip are aiming them at. They've been helped by all the free publicity they've been given by outraged liberals which will just increase the sense, which Ukip love, that they say what the political class won't say.
Meanwhile Gordon Brown enters the campaign with more doom-mongering about Scotland's pensions timebomb :bleeding:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/21/scotland-independence-gordon-brown-pensions-timebomb
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 03:50:27 PM
I'm comparing 2011 census numbers. So Scotland's got 6% and most English regions have 5-8% in 2011 after they've all had the EU migrants.
LONDON!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
QuoteI think England and Scotland together are able to do more on climate change
To be fair, I think they have exactly the same chances about that regardless of being together or separate. :p
:lol: We can do more to reduce our emissions and more comfortably place the blame elsewhere.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 03:54:45 PM
Meanwhile Gordon Brown enters the campaign with more doom-mongering about Scotland's pensions timebomb :bleeding:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/21/scotland-independence-gordon-brown-pensions-timebomb
I thought Gordon Brown was supposed to use his vast popularity to lead the together cause to victory?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 03:54:45 PM
Meanwhile Gordon Brown enters the campaign with more doom-mongering about Scotland's pensions timebomb :bleeding:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/21/scotland-independence-gordon-brown-pensions-timebomb
Is he right about it or not? If he is wrong, then it is fearmongering. If he is right, he is only warning about facts.
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 03:59:18 PMIs he right about it or not? If he is wrong, then it is fearmongering. If he is right, he is only warning about facts.
My problem with the 'no' campaign is that they're too negative. And here they have a former British Prime Minister from Scotland looking like a pootling actuary. Unpublished statistics from the Registrar General will not save the union :bleeding:
So we need an emotional appeal? Like Scots, English, and Welshmen defeating Hitler together.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 04:02:01 PM
For me there's two chunks of reasons. Firstly is the purely emotional side of things. I spent ten years growing up in Scotland. My brother was born in Scotland. I've got loads of memories of family holidays camping round the Highlands. Even in the past few years Scotland's the bit of the UK I visit the most, aside from Dorset where my mum and dad live.
Wait so you are an Irishman who grew up in Scotland and lives in England? Sheilbh is Britain personified.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 04:04:32 PM
So we need an emotional appeal? Like Scots, English, and Welshmen defeating Hitler together.
Maybe not that, but something like that. Nations are emotional tribal things that are about our national stories. The SNP have a very clear vision of what Scotland should be. The unionists are saying they're not sure about that but the average elderly person would be 20p a week better off.
Imagine the founders still chatting about revenue and stamp duties in the declaration of independence, or if the Estates General spent their first year anatomising the accounts. When the argument is about whether you want your country to seize her destiny as an independent state or not, I'd suggest unfunded public pension liabilities is not the strongest to make.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 04:06:18 PM
Wait so you are an Irishman who grew up in Scotland and lives in England? Sheilbh is Britain personified.
I was born in Liverpool so I'm English born - but I do have Irish citizenship (I need to renew my passport actually now I'm stressing about the union and the EU). I also have Welsh and Manx grandparents. So yeah I am very British :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 04:09:43 PM
Imagine the founders still chatting about revenue and stamp duties in the declaration of independence, or if the Estates General spent their first year anatomising the accounts. When the argument is about whether you want your country to seize her destiny as an independent state or not, I'd suggest unfunded public pension liabilities is not the strongest to make.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We have determined we would save 2 pence a year on tea and tax duties a head.
We, therefore, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 04:10:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 04:06:18 PM
Wait so you are an Irishman who grew up in Scotland and lives in England? Sheilbh is Britain personified.
I was born in Liverpool so I'm English born - but I do have Irish citizenship (I need to renew my passport actually now I'm stressing about the union and the EU). I also have Welsh and Manx grandparents. So yeah I am very British :lol:
I would say you are more British than the Queen but that is not too difficult.
But would Britain honestly do something as stupid as leave the EU? Sir Humphrey would be outraged.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 04:24:28 PM
But would Britain honestly do something as stupid as leave the EU? Sir Humphrey would be outraged.
I don't think it's necessarily stupid. We'll get a referendum, I think that's inevitable. At the minute I'm more or less 50-50 myself.
Edit: And England is mildly more anti-European than Scotland. Currently I think the most likely outcome is that we stay in 45-55%, if Scotland left I'd possibly swap those figures. You could even end up with a situation where England voted to leave the EU (so won the referendum) but Scotland voted to stay (and lost) :bleeding:
I hate referendums <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 04:29:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 04:24:28 PM
But would Britain honestly do something as stupid as leave the EU? Sir Humphrey would be outraged.
I don't think it's necessarily stupid. We'll get a referendum, I think that's inevitable. At the minute I'm more or less 50-50 myself.
Rational reasons against UK's EU membership are:
???
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 04:31:20 PM
Rational reasons against UK's EU membership are:
???
Somewhere out there is an unemployed English gamer with an IT background saying, "They took our jobs!!!" :P
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 04:31:20 PM
Rational reasons against UK's EU membership are:
???
I think this piece by Clive Crook is spot-on:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-05-14/u-k-exit-from-eu-may-really-happen
And towards the end of this piece too:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-27/will-britain-and-germany-get-a-divorce
QuoteChaotic muddling through -- the characteristically European approach -- will be the way forward. To be clear, this needn't mean economic collapse or enormous political upheaval. Something less dramatic is more likely: With its fundamental defects unaddressed, the EU will stay prone to crisis and continue to underperform.
Whether Britain should remain a member of this chronically dysfunctional group is a close call. On the plus side, the U.K. opted out of the euro system, sparing itself the consequences of that egregious error. In addition, it has a lot to lose from quitting the union if the other members decide to punish the rebel, for instance by withdrawing its trade privileges. (Of course, that would be against the EU's interests too -- but that's a frail basis for optimism.)
Nonetheless, it's a close call because the long-term drift of political power in Europe is likely to be toward, not away from, Brussels, and that's something the British will resent. Historically, entrenched bureaucracies gather power rather than relinquish it. Also, further centralization -- "integration," as it's called -- is the natural implication of repeated ad hoc policy fixes, whether voters like it or not. If the Brits don't care for the EU today, they'll like it even less 10 years from now.
If the EU is no longer capable of standing back to ask where it's headed and whether it wants to go there -- and that's what Merkel said, in so many words -- it's moving in a direction that the U.K. won't like. At some point, the only remedy for irreconcilable differences is divorce.
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2014, 04:31:20 PM
Rational reasons against UK's EU membership are:
???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIYP1ibYdZI
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 04:24:28 PM
I would say you are more British than the Queen but that is not too difficult.
I'm as British as Queen Victoria.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2014, 01:19:14 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 17, 2014, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2014, 06:41:27 PM
Ed Millipede doesn't seem that bright.
Yeah, what do you think Sheilbh/other Britishers? Is he competent? Would he be competent as PM?
I suspect we are not going to find out,
Speaking of Ed Milliband not being bright and/or not winning... this may be old news, but I just read that he's hired David Axelrod as his adviser, presumably to propel him to Obama '08 style success. :lol: :bleeding: What could go wrong?
He's got Axelrod and Arnie Graf. Cameron's got Jim Messina and John Howard's old strategist Lynton Crosby. Nick Clegg's got the DA's Ryan Coetzee from South Africa.
British jobs for British political consultants :ultra:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 07:09:36 PM
British jobs for British political consultants :ultra:
"26 million political staffers in the Anglosphere are looking for work. And whose jobs are they after?"
Another for the pile
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/21/scotland-independence-gordon-brown-pensions-timebomb
Quote
Eilidh Whiteford, the SNP's work and pensions spokesperson, claimed that Brown was scaremongering.
"Gordon Brown is simply repeating the same economically illiterate claims the Tories and Lib Dems made over a year ago," she said.
"On this backwards logic, the UK pensions bill is 25 times the value of its oil and gas – making it impossible for the UK to afford to pay for pensions."
"The only new thing in this contribution is that Gordon Brown has finally ended the charade and joined his Labour colleagues in the Tory no campaign.
"Far from relaunching as a positive campaign, this contribution is negative, repetitive and lacks any credibility."
:bleeding:
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 03:04:16 PM
Nothing demoralizing about being sent to Rural Georgia to pick cotton. Nope.
Are those videos online? They sound hilarious.
A found a bunch of articles, this is a good one:
http://www.cherokeetribune.com/view/full_story/14430504/article-Georgia-probationers-to-harvest-crops
Here is a sample:
QuoteOn the first two days, all the probationers quit by mid-afternoon, said Mendez, one of two crew leaders at Minor's farm.
"Those guys out here weren't out there 30 minutes and they got the bucket and just threw them in the air and say, 'Bonk this, I ain't with this, I can't do this,"' said Jermond Powell, a 33-year-old probationer. "They just left, took off across the field walking."
Mendez put the probationers to the test last Wednesday, assigning them to fill one truck and a Latino crew to a second truck. The Latinos picked six truckloads of cucumbers compared to one truckload and four bins for the probationers.
I only found one video, which isn't really funny - it isn't going into results of how it is working. I have to give the guys credit for giving the work a shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRTmk6vMENU
I'm somewhat amused by the thought of what convinced the governor to do this.
Man so it looks like the Scots are going to leave the UK and the UK is going to leave the EU. Fuck I liked it better in 1989 when our enemies were collapsing.
Five monts is an eternity in an election like this. It'll swing back and forth a few more times before shaking out one way or the other.
Seriously, though, if neccessary the Brits should use force to keep the country together.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 08:58:31 PM
Five monts is an eternity in an election like this. It'll swing back and forth a few more times before shaking out one way or the other.
I have to agree with Tim (-_-), give it a few months before getting upset.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 08:52:29 PM
Man so it looks like the Scots are going to leave the UK and the UK is going to leave the EU. Fuck I liked it better in 1989 when our enemies were collapsing.
Voters in middling 1st world democracies are like teenage girls. Sometimes they need to cut themselves to feel alive.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 08:58:31 PM
Five monts is an eternity in an election like this. It'll swing back and forth a few more times before shaking out one way or the other.
Two reasons.
As I mentioned according to psephologists historically referendum polls generally strengthen the 'no' vote. As campaigns go people tend more to the status quo. The only example of that not being the case is Quebec. The final result there: yes - 49.42%, no - 50.58%. It's not a promising precedent.
Second reason is mentioned in that Massie piece:
QuoteSalmond is also a formidable late-stage campaigner. Two months before the 2011 Holyrood election, he languished 15 points behind in the polls — but went on to win an outright majority, in a voting system designed so no party would ever win an outright majority. No wonder senior strategists in No. 10 are said to believe Salmond's victory is not just possible, but likely.
Look at the polls here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Scottish_Parliament_election,_2011
Five months before that election the SNP were in the low 30s. He won that election with 45% of the vote (a Westminster PM would kill for that sort of mandate). Salmond's the most formidable politician in the country and this is the vote he's been getting ready for all his life.
At the minute the 'yes' vote is 3 points behind 'no' and as Massie points out once someone's decided they're voting for independence it's far more difficult to get that vote back. That person's Overton window has shifted. It's definitely time to panic and throw everything at it.
QuoteSeriously, though, if neccessary the Brits should use force to keep the country together.
:bleeding: :P
Force. Hilarious. 5 bobbies with nightsticks.
WOTS ALL THIS THEN?
What is Valmy going to throw at it? :hmm:
I can only hope the natural northern british inclination to say one thing to appear hard whilst you actually think totally different as it play with the poll numbers.
It really defies logic how such terrible and transparent SNP campaigning is changing people from being sensible to idiocy (which IMO Scottish independence would be nothing short of)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 08:58:31 PM
Five monts is an eternity in an election like this. It'll swing back and forth a few more times before shaking out one way or the other.
Seriously, though, if neccessary the Brits should use force to keep the country together.
Tim, with all due respect, you're a Fucking Idiot.
Sheilbh, the betting odds indicate that the independence cause is a clear underdog.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 21, 2014, 10:23:28 PM
Sheilbh, the betting odds indicate that the independence cause is a clear underdog.
Definitely. The no vote's had a consistent lead in the polls and at heart Scotland's a conservative country. I'd bet that they'll stay.
But I think that's meant the no campaign have been very complacent. I think London's only just waking up to the fact that the SNP could win. Salmond's a great politician and very good at finishing campaigns strongly. The polls are going down the Quebec route which is itself worrying. The no lead is narrowing in most polls.
It's not likely yet, though apparently that's what No. 10 are thinking, but it is alarmingly possible.
Quote from: mongers on April 21, 2014, 10:10:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 08:58:31 PM
Five monts is an eternity in an election like this. It'll swing back and forth a few more times before shaking out one way or the other.
Seriously, though, if neccessary the Brits should use force to keep the country together.
Tim, with all due respect, you're a Fucking Idiot.
Poll incoming.
You really don't want to ask these people to rule on whether you're an idiot or not. :lol:
Thankfully that's not the question under consideration. -_-
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2014, 08:58:31 PM
Seriously, though, if neccessary the Brits should use force to keep the country together.
To achieve their life long dream of immitating Vladimir Putin?
If the British were gonna go down that route, they shouldn't let the Scots have the plebiscite in the first place.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 04:10:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 04:06:18 PM
Wait so you are an Irishman who grew up in Scotland and lives in England? Sheilbh is Britain personified.
I was born in Liverpool so I'm English born - but I do have Irish citizenship (I need to renew my passport actually now I'm stressing about the union and the EU). I also have Welsh and Manx grandparents. So yeah I am very British :lol:
Yes, there's a lot of that sort of thing about. My wife is half-Scots and half-Irish but was born and brought up in England, with innumerable holidays in Scotland. I'm English but have lived in Scotland and spent much of my childhood on British army bases with people from all over the British Isles and even the wider Commonwealth. Our kids are from Lancashire, a county which has nothing to do with either of our families; they are British through and through and risk their country being partitioned and have no say.
I'm 3/8s Irish, used to live there even. Getting an Irish passport is something I've always considered for the coolness factor but never done as it was pointless. But yes, if Britain leaves the EU then I'll need to get it.
If Britain leaves the EU and Scotland leaves then :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
I'm fucking emigrating.
QuoteFive monts is an eternity in an election like this. It'll swing back and forth a few more times before shaking out one way or the other.
Seriously, though, if neccessary the Brits should use force to keep the country together.
Surely you can't be serious :blink:
Quote from: Tyr on April 22, 2014, 04:55:19 AM
Surely you can't be serious :blink:
I would absolutely be in favor of using force to keep the UK together. Unless the minority in question is legitimately be oppressed I am always opposed to secession. I don't think this is an unusual American stance. We believe secession is bad and should be crushed.
See the poll I made.
Bloody hell. :bleeding:
That's beyond disagreeable. Thats just.... What the fuck?
Democracy=good.
Quote from: Tyr on April 22, 2014, 05:24:01 AM
Bloody hell. :bleeding:
That's beyond disagreeable. Thats just.... What the fuck?
Democracy=good.
This is Timmmay you are talking to. WTF are his middle initials.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2014, 10:29:52 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2014, 10:12:39 AMThen where is all this neglect driving them to independence? This makes it sound like they should have no grievances at all.
It's not really about grievances though. As I say I think it'd be a very amicable divorce.
Sorry to drag this up from page XX, but c'mon Shelf, you can't be serious.
It will be a horrendous divorce which wil take up the focus of both countries for years. There will be massive rows about the apportionment of debt and of assets, about trident, about the currrency union, the BBC, oil rights etc etc.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 22, 2014, 01:31:41 AM
Yes, there's a lot of that sort of thing about. My wife is half-Scots and half-Irish but was born and brought up in England, with innumerable holidays in Scotland. I'm English but have lived in Scotland and spent much of my childhood on British army bases with people from all over the British Isles and even the wider Commonwealth. Our kids are from Lancashire, a county which has nothing to do with either of our families; they are British through and through and risk their country being partitioned and have no say.
You people imposed that awful partition on India and Pakistan, and now it is your turn. You probably never thought it would happen to you. The refugees, the divided families, the violence and border conflicts. Great Britain, 2015. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on April 22, 2014, 10:01:17 AM
You people imposed that awful partition on India and Pakistan
That is not exactly how that went down.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 10:09:17 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 22, 2014, 10:01:17 AM
You people imposed that awful partition on India and Pakistan
That is not exactly how that went down.
Dorsey isn't exactly the sharpest history tool in the shed. Just laugh and move on.
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2014, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2014, 10:09:17 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 22, 2014, 10:01:17 AM
You people imposed that awful partition on India and Pakistan
That is not exactly how that went down.
Dorsey isn't exactly the sharpest history tool in the shed. Just laugh and move on.
I am like an old rusty shovel. I just beat you over the head again and again. Eventually you have a horrible headache and probably an infection like tetanus. :P