Scottish Independence

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Illiander
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 5:26 am UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Illiander » Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:36 pm UTC

In the UK, "London" is the city ("The City" is also sometimes London) "Westminster" is the Government.

"Londoner" even has some working-class implication to it, or at least used to.

The Referendum is this Thursday, but postal votes have been being mailed in for a few weeks now.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby bigglesworth » Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:45 pm UTC

The City is the bankers, Westminster is the politicians, and London is the metropolis that has a good portion of the population of the whole of the UK.

Saying Westminster is probably most like saying "Capitol Hill" for USians, which I believe is done. But unlike countries with capital cities by design, you can't say London in the same way as you can say Canberra, Brasilia or even Washington.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

Illiander
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 5:26 am UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Illiander » Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:57 pm UTC

I'm going to break one of the rules when talking about the referendum, and go into some ancient history, because I find this little fact amusing:

Compare these two pictures:

http://www.slmc.uottawa.ca/content_images/313003e.gif
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/wp ... th-Gap.jpg

This isn't a particularly relevent factor, but it's amusing for discussing English politics.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Diadem » Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:06 pm UTC

"The City" actually refers to "The City of London", which is a small area (about 3 km^2) in the centre of London. Historically there were two cities, called London and Westminster, that ended up merging, and then kept expanding into a giant metropolis. This giant metropolis is, these days, called London. So the historic city of London is called "The City of London" or simply "The City" while "The City of Westminster" is called Westminster. The city actually has its own mayor, and a number of unique customs. Being English people like Traditions. The queen for example has to officially ask permission to enter The City from the mayor. She can freely go anywhere else in London though. Because Tradition.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:16 pm UTC

Looked it up on Wikipedia. Why is it a simple majority? Something like this is as big as if not bigger than changing the constitution; shouldn't it require 2/3 or 3/4 of the vote? I mean, if a simple majority was enough then 1/3 of the states would leave the US every presidential election.

Illiander
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 5:26 am UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Illiander » Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:25 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Looked it up on Wikipedia. Why is it a simple majority? Something like this is as big as if not bigger than changing the constitution; shouldn't it require 2/3 or 3/4 of the vote? I mean, if a simple majority was enough then 1/3 of the states would leave the US every presidential election.

We've got history on Westminster changing the rules at the last minute to get the answer they wanted. No-one would accept anything else but a simple majority. (Especially since this isn't "status quo" vs "change", this is "the changes that Westminster want" vs "the changes Hollyrood want")

Google "the 40% rule" for the history (and pay very close attention to the dates, it was added in by a Labour MP at literally the last minute, to give them an excuse to ignore the referendum).

Plus, it was agreed by the PM and FM, so Cameron obviously thought 50%+1 would be an impossible target to hit (He's also the one who refused to let "Devo Max" be on the ballot paper).

Edit: Also, the UK has no fixed constitution, all it requires to change what we do have is a majority of votes cast in both houses. Which is *significently* less than 50% of the population agreeing to it. (Or even voting for the MPs who vote for it, never mind the Lords)

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby setzer777 » Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:47 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
Derek wrote:
WilliamLehnsherr wrote:I'd say Westminster is commonly used to describe the UK government. Much more common than London. Kind of like how The Kremlin is used to mean the Russian government.

I don't think it sees much use in the US. Probably because Americans are less familiar with Westminster Palace, but everyone knows that London is the capital of the UK.

Yeah, here in oz, its much more likely to be London as a substitute for "the UK parliament/government", but I take the point. I was just pointing out why, I expect, it was mentioned by setzer777.


I also just found the frequency of that same term amusing. I'd find it odd too if people in a thread said "capitol hill" 53 times on one page.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:44 pm UTC

BeerBottle wrote:So Plan B is use the GBP anyway without any formal agreement. Great, everything seems the same as usual, you go to the supermarket and pay using GBP just like before. But your monetary policy is now run by a foreign country, and the rUK will be making decisions based on its interest not that of Scotland. That's fine if the rUK and Scottish economies are broadly similar, but you've been telling us all how Scotland will bootstrap it's economy in a totally different direction. Now, what might be a sensible monetary policy for financial services led rUK may be very bad indeed for the Saudi of the North / renewable energy superpower Scotland. Who knows? One thing is for sure, Scots won't have a say in their own interest rates or when and how much money to print. So if rUK decides it needs to hike rates to cool a booming London housing market and that means half a million Scots default on their mortgages, that is not the problem of the rUK government.


True...but what affects Scotland will likely affect England to at least some degree, and thus, will be taken into consideration a little bit. Also, the UK isn't especially terrible with fiscal policy, so while goals may differ, it's still not a bad choice of currency overall. Using another nation's currency as a standard is reasonably practical, and a *lot* of countries do that heavily in practice, even if they have their own official currency. It's a workable solution, especially if it's short term.

Diadem wrote:It is only fair that Scotland would take over their share of the debt. You can discuss whether it should be in proportion to GDP or population, but they should definitely take over part of the debt. Honestly it seems entirely reasonable for rUK to demand that as a requirement before accepting Scottish independence.


What constitutes "their share" might be subjective, though. If most of the spending has been on "not Scotland", it might rankle to take over responsibility for that. Or at least, there is likely a perception among some that this is the case. I can see this being a potential area of significant disagreement, because, obviously, ditching it entirely is not likely to be popular with everyone else. SOME sort of compromise here is probably needed in practice.

leady wrote:As a general rule I treat any view point from someone in the UK who rants about Thatcher as essentially a local equivalent of Godwin.

I fully support Scotlands right to turn itself into a socialist hell hole and watch as an entire generation does an Ireland


*shrug* Can't really say how socialist it'll be, exactly. Sure, they're left leaning, but the nordic countries generally are too, and they usually don't rate as hellholes. Too cold, for starters. I'm not sure I'm fond of using "socialist" as a label for all leftist ideas. Feels overly broad.

I am curious as to the results, though. I imagine they can get away with being a bit light on defense spending, because seriously, what are the regional threats for invasion? Unless they take a heavily pro-interventionist approach, that might be a way to save some funds.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby eSOANEM » Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:58 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:The City is the bankers, Westminster is the politicians, and London is the metropolis that has a good portion of the population of the whole of the UK.


And fleet street is the press.

CorruptUser wrote:Looked it up on Wikipedia. Why is it a simple majority? Something like this is as big as if not bigger than changing the constitution; shouldn't it require 2/3 or 3/4 of the vote? I mean, if a simple majority was enough then 1/3 of the states would leave the US every presidential election.


Because Westminster thought it would be easily defeated in which case the lower pass level gives them more leverage to delay a subsequent referendum. Now that it's looking like it might pass, that overconfidence seems pretty foolish.

On the other hand, requiring a supermajority is dodgy too because then you could have a country, the majority of whom want to be independent whilst requiring a simple majority means you can have a country 49% of which don't want to be independent.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Diadem » Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:04 pm UTC

Yeah I'm not sure if requiring a supermajority is the way to go. But like I said in an earlier post, these kind of things should be decided over a long time period, with 2 referendums. This is a decision that is effectively irreversible, and one for which there is no hurry. Why not take the time to make absolutely sure that it is the will of the people.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

WilliamLehnsherr
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:58 am UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby WilliamLehnsherr » Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:31 pm UTC

I think a simple majority works. It would be nice if it were more decisive, but as others have said requiring 60% or 70% would very likely lead to a scenario where the majority want independence but can't get it.

jestingrabbit wrote:
Derek wrote:
WilliamLehnsherr wrote:I'd say Westminster is commonly used to describe the UK government. Much more common than London. Kind of like how The Kremlin is used to mean the Russian government.

I don't think it sees much use in the US. Probably because Americans are less familiar with Westminster Palace, but everyone knows that London is the capital of the UK.

Yeah, here in oz, its much more likely to be London as a substitute for "the UK parliament/government", but I take the point. I was just pointing out why, I expect, it was mentioned by setzer777.


Funnily enough I'm from Australia and have heard Westminster used much more than London (in a political context). Then again, it rarely comes up in casual every day conversation.

Illiander
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 5:26 am UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Illiander » Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:22 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Yeah I'm not sure if requiring a supermajority is the way to go. But like I said in an earlier post, these kind of things should be decided over a long time period, with 2 referendums. This is a decision that is effectively irreversible, and one for which there is no hurry. Why not take the time to make absolutely sure that it is the will of the people.


We won a referendum for more localised power in Scotland in 1979. (Then a Labour MP changed the rules so they could claim we lost)
We won a referendum for more localised power in Scotland in 1997. (Then a Labour MP set up the voting system in the Scottish parliment so that the SNP could never get a majority (Labour *really* don't like the SNP))
If a hard commitment for "Devo Max" was on the ballot paper, general concensus amoung Yes supporters is that it would have won by a landslide.

This referendum was announced over *two years* ago, and the conversation has been going on for longer. People are making up their minds. And if you believe the trend from the polling companies,then a second referendum in a year or so would be a landslide Yes.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby leady » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:03 am UTC


*shrug* Can't really say how socialist it'll be, exactly. Sure, they're left leaning, but the nordic countries generally are too, and they usually don't rate as hellholes. Too cold, for starters. I'm not sure I'm fond of using "socialist" as a label for all leftist ideas. Feels overly broad.


The SNP are considerably left of even the labour party and Scotland has some truly awful demographics. Plus I can't help but notice that in the Anglosphere we don't really make a scandanavian model work - we just sit back and suck away

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Zamfir » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:29 am UTC

If a hard commitment for "Devo Max" was on the ballot paper, general concensus amoung Yes supporters is that it would have won by a landslide

Why is more devolution not on the table? As you say, there is plenty of Scottish support for further devolution, but independence appears an uncertain proposition even at 50%.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby leady » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:28 am UTC

The idea at time was to maximise the gulf in order to maximise the uncertainty of the decision + plus devo max is very unfair to all the rest of the UK. Its kind of backfired though, apparently the Scottish are pretty contrarian - who knew? :)

Illiander
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 5:26 am UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Illiander » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:04 am UTC

Ask the Tories why they didn't want it to be an option.

And a Devo Max option would be essentially unenforceable, since it would require concensus from both Tory parties in Westminster, and they can't bind their successors anyway.

Plus it would have meant that the tactic they're trying now of "No means Devo Max" wouldn't have been available.

@Leady: How would Devo Max be unfair to the rest of the UK? Ok, Wales, Northern Ireland, Cornwall and Northumberland would love Devo Max for themselves as well, but using Scotland as a pilot program for it wouldn't go down badly at all.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby leady » Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:12 pm UTC

Well devolution already gives Scotland extra democratic power by head of population, devo max just gives Scotland and Scotland alone the ability to do dangerous things without taking all the consequences. Lets just bite the bullet and go fully federated for all and see how well that works out :)

Illiander
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 5:26 am UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Illiander » Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:28 pm UTC

What version of Devo Max are you talking about leady? (There have been far too many to count)

Which powers would stay at Westminster?

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:22 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
If a hard commitment for "Devo Max" was on the ballot paper, general concensus amoung Yes supporters is that it would have won by a landslide

Why is more devolution not on the table? As you say, there is plenty of Scottish support for further devolution, but independence appears an uncertain proposition even at 50%.


Because the tories don't want any further devolution. They thought the referendum would be decidedly defeated and Westminster would be able to use that defeat as 'evidence' that further devolution wasn't necessary.

Now that the referendum looks like it could pass, the tories are rushing to put forward a plan for further devolution in the case of a no-vote because they reckon doing so will decrease the expected amount of devolution because it may help draw people towards a no vote.

Illiander wrote:@Leady: How would Devo Max be unfair to the rest of the UK? Ok, Wales, Northern Ireland, Cornwall and Northumberland would love Devo Max for themselves as well, but using Scotland as a pilot program for it wouldn't go down badly at all.


I'm not sure any of those other regions want DevoMax at all. Wales seems to be broadly happy with its current situation (as evidenced by Plaid Cymru only having 11 seats out of the 60 in the Welsh assembly and similar proportions of other welsh votes) and Northern Ireland is divided broadly into people who want to be part of Ireland and people who want more integration into the UK. The Northern Irish assembly is a political tool used by Westminster to weaken the argument that they are lording over NI to try and reduce Sinn Féin support; it's also a hostage to good behaviour (as seen from the way it and its predecessors's have been suspended due to breakdowns in peace processes or outbreaks of violence).

Cornwall does have a movement for greater autonomy (based on the makeup of the Cornwall council this is somewhere between 3% and 34% of the vote, it's hard to tell because it's unclear how much of the liberal democrat vote derives from the support of their cornish candidates for devolution) but even their nationalist party, Mebyon Kernow, isn't in favour of devomax, instead wanting a Cornish Assembly, similar to that currently in Wales.

It's also worth noting that the Cornish language actually died out completely in the 19th century (with almost of its written literature appearing as it died in the 18th and 19th centuries). The language went extinct in the 19th century and even by 2011, only 557 claim revived Cornish as their main language (from census data). The language going extinct for 100 years, is a pretty good indication that the culture and identity died; the modern notion of Cornish identity or nationalism is a fiction. If they want autonomy then that's fine, but they shouldn't pretend to be something they're not.

Northumberland though? Seriously? That movement's so tiny it doesn't even have a wikipedia page. The only reference I could find was to a 2004 referendum on whether there should devolution to the NE. Even the places where this did best had over 60% no and that was for a greater london council style assembly. There's no support whatsoever for devomax.

So, I'm pretty sure none of those places you just listed actually want devomax and you're just pulling things out of your arse.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Illiander
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 5:26 am UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Illiander » Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:50 pm UTC

So if no-where else in the UK wants devo except Scotland, how is it unfair to them to give Scotland farther devolution?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Diadem » Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:53 pm UTC

Illiander wrote:So if no-where else in the UK wants devo except Scotland, how is it unfair to them to give Scotland farther devolution?

Because it would be unfair?

"Only California wants to reduce federal income tax by 30%. All the other states want to keep it at its current level. So why not reduce the federal income tax only for Californians". You see nothing wrong with that reasoning?
(Apart from the fact that the statement is blatantly false)
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Illiander
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 5:26 am UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Illiander » Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

*How* would it be unfair?

You're sounding like you're saying "It's unfair that Fred is eating peanuts. No, I don't want any peanuts (I'm allergic), but it's still unfair that Fred is eating some. He should stop eating them, because I don't want to eat them."

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby bigglesworth » Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:29 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:"Only California wants to reduce federal income tax by 30%. All the other states want to keep it at its current level. So why not reduce the federal income tax only for Californians".
It wouldn't be like that at all - there would be no federal income tax or Union income tax. The Californians would have to pay for certain Washington organisations and everything out of the Pentagon but they'd be able to raise the money to do so however they want.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Diadem » Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:32 pm UTC

Illiander wrote:*How* would it be unfair?

You're sounding like you're saying "It's unfair that Fred is eating peanuts. No, I don't want any peanuts (I'm allergic), but it's still unfair that Fred is eating some. He should stop eating them, because I don't want to eat them."

Did you actually read what I posted?

Your peanut metaphor misses the essential issue that Fred is not buying the peanuts with his own money. In a democracy you decide things together, you spend money together. You can't just opt out of laws that you dislike, or adopt laws you like. To use your example: If in a household with 10 people, Fred wants to buy peanuts, but the other 9 people want to save money this month, then Fred buying peanuts just for himself would indeed be unfair. He should either go along with the majority, or convince them having peanuts is more important than saving money. Or leave the household, I suppose, after which he can do with his own money whatever he wants.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby leady » Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:36 pm UTC

worse the current devo max proposal maintains the Bartlett formula from 74? that gives Scotland 1.1? pounds for every UK pound in terms of income to spend at will now...

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:50 pm UTC

I hadn't picked up on the sarcasm in your post. I thought you were seriously suggesting those places would be in favour of their own devomax.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby kingofdreams » Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:41 pm UTC

Whatever perceived imbalance there is may be in danger of being overcorrected. I would like to see a greater push for decentralization for regional government in the north and midlands of england as a result of this just to forestall the 'some of us seem more equal than others issue,' and hopefully provide a permanent solution to the west lothian problem.
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

operagost
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby operagost » Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:45 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:Can't speak for the States, but the news has hardly been talking about anything else over here.


Outside of entities with major financial interests, do most non-Scottish people have strong feelings on the subject?


A lot of the non-Scottish Brits don't care that much.

Personally I have a weak preference that they stay because I don't see them being viable as an independent nation. On the other hand, them being independent and joining the EU would mean the end to their illegal fees for UK students (EU law requires that all EU citizens pay the same fees for uni as locals, which in Scotland is none. The Scots charge British students claiming that as they're not foreign EU citizens it's fine).

freezeblade wrote:If it does go through, I'm quite interested if it will be a push for other areas of countries to split off into their own new countries.

Like, perhaps Jefferson. I would start the line a but further south if it was me though, starting somewhere around the Central Coast of California, and ended up at the Canadan border, and it be a country instead of a state. There's also Cascadia.


The historical context's very different though. Scotland was its own independent sovereign state for hundreds of years and, for almost all that time, was a major rival to England (they were allies of France for most of the middle ages, including the hundred years war IIRC) and only got unified because of dynastic shenanigans.

Even after the acts of union, Scotland and Ireland (to a slightly lesser extent Wales) have pretty much constantly been considered separate countries (the situation with Ireland is now complicated because the south is now independent and the north is now considered a separate country within the UK). Living, as I do, near London, if someone talks about the country to me, I'd assume they meant England (or the countryside); if they said the nation on the other hand, I'd assume they meant the UK.

This is different from my understanding of how many USicans Americans see their states where, despite legal precedents for the states being sovereign entities within a federation, people don't perceive as being countries in their own right and "the country" is assumed to refer to the whole US.


A little scuffle in the mid-19th century, caused by some self-interested folks who did it for the wrong reason, ruined that aspect of our culture.

It is quite legal for states within the USA to split and join at will, but the chance of any state seceding barring a total collapse of the federal government is somewhere between 0% and NOPE.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:19 pm UTC

Buzzfeed have some stats from surveys carried out by yougov for them suggesting that many no-voters feel marginalised by the yes campaign (far moreso than yes-voters feel marginalised by the no campaign). Regardless of how the vote goes or what side you support, this should say something damning about the yes campaign and/or its supporters.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby kingofdreams » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:40 pm UTC

If the union does break up it will be interesting to see how long it takes for the disaffected to start talking about out of touch Hollyrood and Edinburgh elitists.
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Derek » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:58 pm UTC

It is quite legal for states within the USA to split and join at will, but the chance of any state seceding barring a total collapse of the federal government is somewhere between 0% and NOPE.

I'd appreciate seeing what clause of the Constitution (or other law) that interpretation comes from.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Zamfir » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:10 pm UTC

Let's stay on topic, please. There's been a bit too many threads lately that wander off to US history

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby kingofdreams » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:23 pm UTC

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Getti ... landgroups

The above doesn't get a whole lot of press.

The SNP historically performs poor in the area to the advantage of the libdems, the inhabitants of the area see their heritage Scandinavian not Scottish, and the Scottish parliament as equally removed as Westminster.

They could seemingly be entitled to a great deal of the North Sea oil and gas.

What are the chances this referendum is permitted?
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

User avatar
3fj
Posts: 1715
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:13 pm UTC
Location: Land of Whisky and Bagpipes (LOWAB)
Contact:

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby 3fj » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:27 pm UTC

WilliamLehnsherr wrote:Would Scotland remaining in the EU as an independent State make Scottish Gaelic an official language of the EU (as opposed to a semi-official language)?

I just thought I'd throw that question out there.


There's a pretty minute amount of the Scots population that speaks Gaelic, so probably not. Might see it boosted a bit more than it currently is, though probably through nothing more than a little country-wide soul-searching that young nations tend to get.

Diadem wrote:
Illiander wrote:So if no-where else in the UK wants devo except Scotland, how is it unfair to them to give Scotland farther devolution?

Because it would be unfair?

"Only California wants to reduce federal income tax by 30%. All the other states want to keep it at its current level. So why not reduce the federal income tax only for Californians". You see nothing wrong with that reasoning?
(Apart from the fact that the statement is blatantly false)

Diadem wrote:Your peanut metaphor misses the essential issue that Fred is not buying the peanuts with his own money. In a democracy you decide things together, you spend money together. You can't just opt out of laws that you dislike, or adopt laws you like. To use your example: If in a household with 10 people, Fred wants to buy peanuts, but the other 9 people want to save money this month, then Fred buying peanuts just for himself would indeed be unfair. He should either go along with the majority, or convince them having peanuts is more important than saving money. Or leave the household, I suppose, after which he can do with his own money whatever he wants.

Further analogy.
Spoiler:
The important part of your equation is the way the funding works currently. The best analogy is the classic flatmate food-bill:
10 people live in a flat together, each earning 100 Riyals and putting SAR50 in a pot marked "For Food".
They then go shopping together. For the shopping, 400 of the 500 is utilised on a common meal plan and other household goods (toilet paper, bleach, washing up liquid, light bulbs, etc.), whilst the remaining 100 is split 10 ways and handed back to the flatmates.
Fred fucking loves peanuts and no driving license. Mary hates peanuts, and is trying to save up for a motorbike. They each have SAR100 to attempt to meet those goals.

Fred walks into the dining room one day and finds that the meal for today is spaghetti bolognese, and he's kind of sick of it. He's been sick of it for a long while, and it's grown worse and worse over the years. A little part of him hates spaghetti with a loathing passion usually reserved for someone who murdered your budgie, but the rational part of him just doesn't fancy it.

When this is brought up at the house meeting, and he tables the solution that he'll cook for himself from now on; but would pay less on the input.

Now, Steven hasn't been listening. He thinks house meetings are for dicks because he loves the daily menu and everything else. The only part he hears is Fred saying "I want to pay less money into the pot", and has nothing but the rudest words for him. And there's this other debate going on about the heating. Steven's room has no windows and is the easiest to heat in the house, so how is an even split of the heating bill fair? Just cause that Fred guy has a drafty window making it harder to heat!

And on, and on, and on.


I agree with those of you who would like to see a more federalised version of the UK, but I don't see that anywhere in this country's future. There's just no need for a nation who has nearly ten times as many seats in parliament to give much of a shit about the rest of us on non-devolved issues. The main parties have been pandering to a large, nation specific drift to the right while Scotland remains very left wing on the whole.

Economics takes up a fairly tiny portion of the fucks I have to give. It's important, but I believe we have enough natural resources to be getting on with. I expect a hit to the economy in the beginning, and I think it's delusional to think otherwise, but I think it's also delusional to think that we're going to end up bankrupt and starving to death.

For me, it's an argument of self-determination and the direction of politics that Scotland as a nation is heading. As part of the icing on the cake: I don't want to be tied up in international conflict, I want an NHS that is free at the point of service, and I want free tuition to remain; and I'd gladly pay higher taxes for it.

kingofdreams wrote:What are the chances this referendum is permitted?

And what are the chances of Yorkshire splitting off from the UK? That's as big as Scotland, per head!

So's Malta. We're not forming a new country, we're splitting two currently co-existing ones.
Everything's dead until it's alive. Man will exist, and then he will die. Just take the ride!

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby kingofdreams » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:41 pm UTC

point made but that distinction certainly doesn't seem to matter to their MSPs and that is hardly the internationally accepted condition for seccession

if the scottish referendum can be held as a model to catalonia and flanders etc as is receiving so much attention, why not the northern islands? they have the electoral mandate that was the precedent for the scottish referendum

and with all the rhetoric of self-determination and being in control of their destiny, doesn't their hijacking seem hypocritical?


also it appears the matter has been addressed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... tland.html

i must admit I'm continuously pleasantly surprised by the civility of the political process involved in these referendae if not in the campaigning
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Lazar » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:43 pm UTC

3fj wrote:There's a pretty minute amount of the Scots population that speaks Gaelic, so probably not. Might see it boosted a bit more than it currently is, though probably through nothing more than a little country-wide soul-searching that young nations tend to get.

And it's a pretty minute share of the Irish population that natively speaks Irish, but that's irrelevant – every official language of an EU member state is an official language of the EU. If Scotland follows Ireland's example and makes Gaelic co-official with English, then that's how it will be.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
3fj
Posts: 1715
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:13 pm UTC
Location: Land of Whisky and Bagpipes (LOWAB)
Contact:

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby 3fj » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:47 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
3fj wrote:There's a pretty minute amount of the Scots population that speaks Gaelic, so probably not. Might see it boosted a bit more than it currently is, though probably through nothing more than a little country-wide soul-searching that young nations tend to get.

And it's a pretty minute share of the Irish population that natively speaks Irish, but that's irrelevant – every official language of an EU member state is an official language of the EU. If Scotland follows Ireland's example and makes Gaelic co-official with English, then that's how it will be.

Huh. I didn't know that. I thought an official language was mutually-exclusive. Cool.

kingofdreams wrote:point made but that distinction certainly doesn't seem to matter to their MSPs and that is hardly the internationally accepted condition for seccession

if the scottish referendum can be held as a model to catalonia and flanders etc as is receiving so much attention, why not the northern islands? they have the electoral mandate that was the precedent for the scottish referendum

and with all the rhetoric of self-determination and being in control of their destiny, doesn't their hijacking seem hypocritical?


also it appears the matter has been addressed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... tland.html

For the record, if that wasn't on the cards then they would be welcome to their own independance should they want it in my opinion; though I wouldn't envy their position.

kingofdreams wrote:i must admit I'm continuously pleasantly surprised by the civility of the political process involved in these referendae if not in the campaigning

The people on the streets (i.e, supporters, ground-level campaigners) have been fairly pleasant too.
Everything's dead until it's alive. Man will exist, and then he will die. Just take the ride!

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:08 pm UTC

Elaborating on stuff above re:official languages.

It's already an official autochthonic language of the EU (as is Scots) so would probably get promoted were scotland an independent member. I imagine you'd end up with a similar situation to Ireland with Gaelic expanding but still being a minority language. The more interesting question is whether an independent Scotland would have English as an official language or opt for just Gaelic and Scots (on the grounds that formal registers of Scots are mutually intelligible with English) and the effect independence would have on the number of Scots speakers.

Personally, I'd be very surprised if English wasn't still an official language of an independent Scotland (if nothing else, it'd be useful for business) but I'd expect an increase in the speakership of both Gaelic and Scots with Scots doing the better of the two.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby Diadem » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:51 pm UTC

I have to say the Spanish premier is rather pathetic. In a single interview he first states that the 'European spirit' is integration, and then that an independent Scotland shouldn't be allowed in the EU. What a fucking blatant hypocrite.

I know very little about the Scottish situation, but I find myself hoping they vote yes just to fuck with Spain.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Scottish Independence

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:16 pm UTC

Eh, Spain's stance is consistent and that's to make independence seem as bad an option as possible for Catalunya.

Besides, there are perfectly legitimate reasons that, despite integration being the European spirit, a newly independent region of an EU member might be denied membership. The key one of these is if this region doesn't satisfy the economic criteria.

As things stand, Scotland probably would. if the Northern Isles stay part of the UK on the other hand, this becomes a much less certain claim until we've actually seen whether Scotland can fend for itself.
Last edited by eSOANEM on Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:59 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests