@Scotroutes asked myself that question and came up with an answer SNP for all it's faults remains the best political party to campaign for independence. It needs to change so staying in it to try to make the change happen. It's a sair fecht but I'm no quitting
Molgrips – have you ever lived in Scotland? I do really feel you do not understand the different social compact here
Since I pretty much agree with most of what molgrips says on this thread, I'll give my 2p worth:
I was born and lived in Cardiff for my first 18 years, then 5 years in Birmingham and 5 years in London, have been followed by over 30 years in Edinburgh. People in all these places are generally much the same. I'd say that there's more in common between the average person in Glasgow and Cardiff, than Glasgow and Edinburgh. We all have much more in common than separates us. There is little difference in the 'social compact' in my experience.
I’d say that there’s more in common between the average person in Glasgow and Cardiff, than Glasgow and Edinburgh.
My experience of living in different parts of the UK (but not Scotland) is similar. In cities and large towns there is not a huge difference except in terms of socio-economic class. In the more remote parts of Scotland I think things are probably different, but that is probably because of the remoteness. That said, it is still real. Life in parts of rural Wales has a somewhat different flavour but it's not any more dramatic than in rural England.
Not my experience at all. I see a very clear difference politically and socially - from the fact that Scotland has not voted for the tories as the largest party for 60 years to the stopping of deportations in Glasgow, to the voting in of an avowed tax raising government etc etc
I do not know enough about Wales to comment on that - my above comments refer to Enghland
I am not sure I should be de-railing this thread with a literary discussion though, unless anyone else is interested?
I think for the point you're trying to make, Iain Banks is a poor example. I think he's a product of Scotland, he was a supporter of Scottish independence (sharing the concerns about nationalism I think the majority of independence supporters have), and even though he wrote a few books based in England, they almost always had Scottish protagonists.
Claiming him for the UK as a whole feels kind of like when Scottish athletes start winning they graduate from being Scottish to being British 🙂
I think a better example of a British product would be 2000AD. The tone and style of the writers was definitely a product of Britain as a whole and the British Invasion that basically saved the American comic industry included writers from every nation in the UK.
However, I think these writers were a product of a time before the really serious cracks formed in the Union. Thatcherism was the real beginning of the independence movement as a force.
I'm not saying that we don't still have a lot in common in terms of culture, sense of humour, etc. I would say that Thatcherism, followed by Blair's war, followed by Brexit, followed by Johnson is just a steady increase in the differences between how our countries vote.
They are amplified by FPTP but I honestly see no feasible route to fixing this for the UK as a whole while there is a very obvious and attainable route for Scotland to fix this on it's own.
Power can be a heck of a glue, until the recent purges it managed to hold the very different wings of the Conservative party together for example. While the dissolution of the SNP (in its current form) is one potential outcome of independence I’m not sure I’d bet on it against the alternative (them staying together “for the sake of the majority”, with party politics somewhat being overshadowed by the factional politics within the ruling part).
But, if there is a vote in favour of Indy, once the other parties have accepted that they'll actually be able to start thinking what they stand for, how to differentiate from the old Westminster parties and reinvent themselves etc. I doubt there would actually be one dominant party to start with but rather smaller parties working together cooperatively which is actually what most people I speak to (in Scotland) think is good for politics. Its a more European style of politics driven by consensus and less by party whips. I'm not sure if the SNP would implode, or break into factions but certainly, it would need to come up with differentiators to succeed. Currently, it does well not just because of Indy, but because it is not a Westminster party and the shit show there. In a post Indy world they all have that claim.
But I can see a lot of Britishness in those books, as compared to the rest of the world. If you want to compare with English authors then you may well find differences but if you compare with the rest of the world you might well find more similarities.
An analogy for you - if you compare a Pink Lady apple with a Granny Smith you will find plenty of differences. But if you compare them both with a banana suddenly they look pretty similar.
Not my experience at all. I see a very clear difference politically and socially – from the fact that Scotland has not voted for the tories as the largest party for 60 years to the stopping of deportations in Glasgow, to the voting in of an avowed tax raising government etc etc
But once again you are averaging out English people.
None of the arguments for independence wash, except for the pragmatic desire to get a political system you like. Which, sadly, is valid.
They are amplified by FPTP but I honestly see no feasible route to fixing this for the UK as a whole while there is a very obvious and attainable route for Scotland to fix this on it’s own.
Bruce - I think you are wrong on this. I think its completely fixable. The issue is it needs the rUK (voting populations) to WANT to fix it. I don't detect the desire from politicians or population to reform in order to prevent the breakup of the Union. I really don't understand why not.
<But I can see a lot of Britishness in those books,
Fair enough, although having done some writing, one thing I can say is that people project a lot of their own ideas into books. It's entirely possible for two people to read the same work in completely different ways.
You might find a lot of Britishness in Iain Banks books but I don't think they can be objectively described as quintessentially British.
Unlike 2000AD 🙂
But I can see a lot of Britishness in those books, as compared to the rest of the world.
In what way? Please explain because I do not see it at all.
Edit - I see it much closer to the russian and east european SF of the 70s and 80s. there was tbhe "new wave" of SF in britain in the 60s which moved awy from the rocketships and cowboys and indians in space to a more thoughtful examination of society but I do not even see Banks books in that light
None of the arguments for independence wash,
Which arguements do not wash? I am sure you mean in your opinion because in my opinion many of them do
How are those carrots TJ?
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/SK1Q2skk/20220307-122124.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/SK1Q2skk/20220307-122124.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Do you think now is the time for a referendum Colin?
I blame the arsehole who resurrected the thread after a two month hiatus.
😀
I can’t even partially quote that scene now for fear of being labelled by the bickerati.
I didn't know that a second Independent Referendum had actually been agreed, how do you delay something that isn't even planned yet?
Promised by the end of '23. Blackford is a fud
If Sturgeon disnae get one organised scotroutes will be round to have a stern word 😉
I was discussing independence with someone on Twitter who was adamant that Russia invading the Ukraine changed everything and no way could Scotland get independence, ever.
They flounced off when I reminded them that Ireland obtained its independence shortly after WW1 while India/****stan did the same after WW2.
I reminded them that Ireland obtained its independence shortly after WW1
So did Finland and I think Poland.
I reminded them that Ireland obtained its independence shortly after WW1
Nope Irish free state 1922
Republic declared 1949.
Since most folk now accept 1921 as the start of the Republic (including celebrating it last year), I'm happy with me statement, but to be totally correct I guess we've to actual 'split' the difference go with 1931.
Not sure what this has to do with Scottish independence though, Ireland is ever so slightly different, same with India and ****stan, and we're in an extremely different time now.
Would be useful if the SNP actually gave the plan on how they were going to get and manage a second referendum, as well as the prospectus for what the actual benefits would be for Scotland and its population.
It would also be prudent for them to pick the right time, i get the feeling from speaking to friends and family up the road and recent visits that the SNP and Scottish Parliament in whole isn't as lauded as it once was, lots of negativity over recent decisions and policies, the last referendum was meant to be pretty much 55/45 for independence beforehand, and ended in disaster for them, they need to factor in a lot before using up their last chance!
Do you think now is the time for a referendum Colin?
Do I believe that a Scotland would have better off being in the EU? Yes.
Do I believe that Scotland would be better off rejoining the EU asap? Yes.
Do I believe that an independent Scotland would have handled the Covid pandemic better? Yes.
Do I believe that an independent Scotland would be better placed to implement policies to improve our exit from this pandemic? Yes.
Do I believe that an independent Scotland would have less corruption in government? Yes.
Do I believe that an independent Scotland would be accepting more than 50 refugees from a war-torn country? Yes.
At what point do we have to accept the fact that democracy does not go to sleep during crises and that control over our own resources and destiny would be better than being tied to a corrupt and self-serving UK government?
Do I believe that Nicola Sturgeon has any intention of risking a loss of control as a result of a Yes vote? No.
That pretty much covered the whole lot. Can we just close the tread now please.
Why would you want the thread closed, it's about asking questions, not blindly following empty statements, that is why any prospectus from the Scottish Parliament is key, joining the EU isn't a simple fill in the form process, especially at present when other countries are looking for membership and key EU members are struggling with the funding.
When they do release it, and it is audited and checked by independent sources, then there will be a bit more to either support independence, or the status quo, as for corruption, that happens with power and position, we won't know until it happens unfortunately, same that happens the world over.
Do I believe that an independent Scotland would have less corruption in government? Yes.
What? The man your team would have made the president of an independent Scotland has been busy taking Russian money for years. Less corrupt? Aye right.
Been a wee while since he was leader of the SNP...While a brutal Babbage I am not sure he has quite plumbed the depths that the neighbours first choice has either. And you could also look at how support for him vanished after the Russian TV and the sexual assault allegations. Neither of those seem to have hindered Boris.
@argee If by independent you mean unbiased or without an association to one side or the other I would say there are none. The indepence issue goes back many times longer than the 15 years the snp have been in power. So on that basis I would look for a wide range of views from all sides.
For me it's this I want to be governed by a government that has all the powers of a modern nation-state and that is elected by people living in Scotland.
Also I think the Scottish Government l, not the Parliament would produce any "prospectus" on independence. That was the case in 2014
Yeah, government (SNP/Greens) rather than parliament, but they need to provide real proof that independence would be beneficial for the people in Scotland, even more so now than in 2014, as the UK, and the World has changed significantly since then, and not in a good way unfortunately.
but they need to provide real proof that independence would be beneficial for the people in Scotland
Why doesn't the UK government have to produce proof that maintaining the Union would be beneficial for the people in Scotland?
If anything, Indy with a prospect of far closer ties to the EU (even if Scotland doesn't end up with full EU membership) is far more of a known outcome compared to whatever magical unicorn journey the UK government plans to take the country on.
Independence itself is in national terms really just us picking up the tool box. It's what we do with it that will shape the future Scotland.
So no prospectus can be definitive. I would agree though that some kind of document for the very early stages could be produced. In my opinion that should be about our constitution and the institutions of national and local government as well as currency and rejoining the EU etc
Independence itself is in national terms really just us picking up the tool box. It’s what we do with it that will shape the future Scotland.
Good analogy but it also depends on what's actually in the tool box and what materials you have to work with. These are also factors.
Why doesn’t the UK government have to produce proof that maintaining the Union would be beneficial for the people in Scotland?
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for anyone to pick up that poisoned chalice. It'll be interesting to see what replaces 'The Vow' and guaranteed EU membership this time round though...
but they need to provide real proof that independence would be beneficial for the people in
Define "beneficial for the people".
And don't say it's simple, and everyone knows - define it.
@molgrips We'll have the same toolbox as all the other independent countries. We'll have more raw materials than some and less than others. You can read up about employers and study for your chosen profession but ultimately you learn most about the job when you actually go to work. Isn't a workers greatest tool their own knowledge and experience?
Why doesn’t the UK government have to produce proof that maintaining the Union would be beneficial for the people in Scotland?
You need to measure it against something, without any prospectus then what do the UK government produce their benefits against?
Define “beneficial for the people”.
And don’t say it’s simple, and everyone knows – define it.
Exactly what it says on the tin, that it is of benefit to the people of Scotland, so the provision of services don't decrease, or cost increases, same with taxation, or if so what is the long term benefit of such, i.e. initial costs being offset by long term increases in services, support, etc.
These aren't trick questions, nobody i speak to up North wants to vote for independence without knowing what the benefits are, most are worried of increases to tax to pay for the initial costs and what happens to the companies, departments, services, etc that will be affected by a hard border between Scotland and England, and the potential loss of relationships between them between the two countries.
So in short, with everything costing more, is independence going to take more money out of their pockets or not, and will services be the same level, or will there be reductions for some, or many?
Exactly what it says on the tin, that it is of benefit to the people of Scotland, so the provision of services don’t decrease, or cost increases, same with taxation, or if so what is the long term benefit of such, i.e. initial costs being offset by long term increases in services, support, etc.
Of course there are other measures of "better" other than how much money is in your pocket or even the subjective judgement about quality of services, eg. the feeling of autonomy to make decisions more locally on things like tax and services; the potential to live in a fairer society which is less about money in the pockets of the lucky; the ability to distance yourself from the political chaos currently found in Westminster; the potential to access the EU/EEA and have free movement for yourself or your kids etc.
These aren’t trick questions, nobody i speak to up North wants to vote for independence without knowing what the benefits are, most are worried of increases to tax to pay for the initial costs and what happens to the companies, departments, services, etc that will be affected by a hard border between Scotland and England, and the potential loss of relationships between them between the two countries.
And yet 45% of voters in Scotland voted for it last time - where the white paper implied lots of things but of course, was unable to determine the outcome of future negotiations. I don't think anyone has suggested there would not be a similar white paper this time.
So in short, with everything costing more, is independence going to take more money out of their pockets or not, and will services be the same level, or will there be reductions for some, or many?
Do couples only get divorced where the parties think its financially a good decision?
Do businesses only divide when the parties are certain that both parts will be better off separate (and do some parts actually thrive more free from the bigger part)?
Thanks poly, saved me.
But you missed:
Not having my taxes used to prop up a corrupt regime (only in power by a minority of the vote).
Why doesn’t the UK government have to produce proof that maintaining the Union would be beneficial for the people in Scotland?
I believe they have a Scot working on something, the man brought up in Aberdeen, the one that Scots treat like Voldemort because they don't say his name
Not having my taxes used to prop up a corrupt regime
Because of course Scotland would never have corruption, you're so much better than those scumbag English, right? 😉
Because of course Scotland would never have corruption, you’re so much better than those scumbag English, right? 😉
1 Who says we wouldn't
2 But it's a fact that the Westminster Tories are corrupt - are you going to try and deny it?
3 Our (Scotland) electoral system at least means if they are corrupt, a majority has ACTUALLY voted for them - so it's our fault.
And I'm English born & bred, why are YOU calling ME a scumbag?
MODS - can you note who is calling who a "scumbag".
The notion that somehow the provision of public services would suddenly get more expensive/ less competent when run by an independent Scottish Government clearly hasn't paid much attention to the machinations of Westminster - £8Bn of PPE procurement for starters. Lots of anti-IS briefing going on about things like pensions and stuff - funny how they always focus on the negative stuff, much like Brexit they can't come up with any positive benefits except when appealing to their fan base. Of course there's the survey commissioned by Gove at taxpayers' expense where the results have been quietly shelved, like the Russia report.
And I’m English born & bred, why are YOU calling ME a scumbag?
Winking emoji. Just prompting people (not necessarily you) to think about any biases they might not realise they have.
Because of course Scotland would never have corruption, you’re so much better than those scumbag English, right? 😉
He didn't say either of those things. You know he didn't say them. You know his point was that Scottish taxpayers are helping prop up the criminal cabal of Tories in Westminster (not all of whom are English). In that knowledge, you chose to suggest that Scotland regards our southern neighbours as 'those scumbag English'. Nothing but tedious trolling with precious little understanding of the actual drivers behind why many in a small country, long governed by a widely despised political party repeatedly chosen by it's much larger neighbour, wish for it to forge it's own, very different, path. The wink emoji doesn't excuse your deliberate trolling either. Grow up.
Of course there are other measures of “better” other than how much money is in your pocket or even the subjective judgement about quality of services, eg. the feeling of autonomy to make decisions more locally on things like tax and services; the potential to live in a fairer society which is less about money in the pockets of the lucky; the ability to distance yourself from the political chaos currently found in Westminster; the potential to access the EU/EEA and have free movement for yourself or your kids etc.
This is the issue, this response isn't giving folk any positive feel, getting independence won't change the fact you'll have a country of 5.5 million people, with the demographics that go with it, the above response won't make folk who have large mortgages, kids, etc happy, all they'll think is i'm paying more tax to someone different, chaos will follow as well, 5.5 million, of that some right wing, some left wing, the unionists going mental, others not happy when they don't get what they wanted through independence, chaos is just human nature!
Do couples only get divorced where the parties think its financially a good decision?
Do businesses only divide when the parties are certain that both parts will be better off separate (and do some parts actually thrive more free from the bigger part)?
There's a good percentage that do, businesses aren't charities, and lots of unhappy couples stay together because of finances and the effect it would have on the family.
On the above, would you go to a job interview without knowing the pay and conditions, or the role and what it entails, would you accept it if successful without still knowing the pay and conditions, with only a 'we think it'll be better than you are on currently' as comfort?
He didn’t say either of those things. You know he didn’t say them... The wink emoji doesn’t excuse your deliberate trolling either.
Not for the first time on this thread either. There’s a persistent pattern from one or two posters of deliberately seeking to misrepresent this as motivated by an ‘anti-English’ attitude which, for the most part, it quite clearly isn’t.
