Scotland Indyref 2

[quote=aracer ]for me the fundamental issue is whether being ruled from Holyrood rather than Westminster will make a substantive difference (let alone a positive one) to people's livesYou don't consider that remaining or leaving the EU is a substantive difference?

It's a substantive difference politically - what difference will it make to your day to day life? And if you think it will make a negative difference, then will leaving the UK be positive or negative?

molgrips - Member
'piss of English Tory scum' which is what it seems sometimes

I'd disagree there, it's view by a lot as an available out to get away from tory-ism. Rather than sticking 2 fingers up.

Which is only partly true, we'll get away from tory dominance of politics, but scotland has a share of its own tories.

Exactly...

aracer - Member
then will leaving the UK be positive or negative?

Depends on who gets power, and the successive governments there after. It's an impossible question to answer.

You can only really argue about what the starting point for an IS would be. And we can all agree that is a country with a large deficit and debt.

Otherwise, it'll be down to "scottish" democracy and it's people to make what they will of it and to decide whether it turns out better or worse. You'll need a chrystal ball to know that. There will always be an element of faith involved there.

A good general answer, but I was trying to compare it with UK leaving the EU. I think most of us here see that as being distinctly negative - it seems easy to draw parallels with Scotland leaving the UK, which would have similar effects on both economies. Just trying to generate a new argument here rather than reprising all the old ones - of course we don't know what would happen in the future, but the starting point would not only be a country with a large deficit and debt, but one with trade barriers between it and it's majority trading partner.

The thing is though, to come back to the point I was trying to make, the most significant difference constitutional change makes to the life of an ordinary person is to the performance of the economy which directly relates to the amount of money in your pocket. Other than that what real difference would it make to people's lives?

Well that's one of the reasons I now favour a wait and see approach. As how many trade barriers go up between the EU and the UK will be fairly indicative of what would happen between england and scotland.

My instinct is not very many in any real sense.

Basically, I think the wait and see approach is prudent, because the brexit thing will basically answer alot of questions, that right now, are basically open ended and can only be answered via wild speculation.

The brexit negotiations will help the IS argument.

there is nothing at all undemocratic about how Scotland is [s]represented in governments[/s]always governed by who the english vote for

The english just voted for brexit as they dont like to be ruled by foreigners though they then seem to think it weird that the scottish feel the same

I suspect the most Brexitee folk are also the most Unionist as well and critical of "ultra nats"- let not have a sidebar on this please.

I dont really get why you dont understand why a substantial number of a country will be irked by constantly getting a govt that england votes for an often one that is diametrically opposed to how they generally vote
there is an obvious democratic deficit, that partial independence tried to cure, that fuels all this talk.

Until that is addressed either by westminster or independence it will remain

I have no westminster based solution other than federalism

Junkyard - lazarus
there is nothing at all undemocratic about how Scotland is represented in governmentsalways governed by who the english vote for

its does not read that well really does it
The english just voted for brexit as they dont like to be ruled by foreigners though they then seem to think it weird that the scottish feel the same

I suspect the most Brexitee folk are also the most Unionist as well and critical of "ultra nats"- let not have a sidebar on this please.

I dont really get why you dont understand why a substantial number of a country will be irked by constantly getting a govt that england votes for an often one that is diametrically opposed to how they generally vote
there is an obvious democratic deficit, that partial independence tried to cure, that fuels all this talk.

Until that is addressed either by westminster or independence it will remain

I have no westminster based solution other than federalism

I don't not understand it. I get it and it's probably one if my main motivators in wanting independence, I'd like away from the tory dominance, myself...

I just don't think it's correct to call it undemocratic. Democracy by it's very nature leaves a lot of people unhappy.

If you're going to reprise that argument JY, I'll just go and find another constituency which has voted Liberal for the last 100 years. Or maybe just a voter who has voted Green all their life. Because democracy is working just as poorly for them as it is for Scotland. Which doesn't make the system undemocratic in any way.

Maybe it's just that I have trouble seeing Scottish people as foreigners.

edit: actually joseph has it - it may be an argument for independence, but it would be helpful if people stopped calling it undemocratic when it isn't.

aracer - Member

Maybe it's just that I have trouble seeing Scottish people as foreigners.

I think this is an important point to make, but post IS I wouldn't view English Welsh or Irish as foreigners.

Tbh I don't really view anyone as foreigners, it's an alien concept in my mind. I'd probably have had an awkward time eating my curry tonight if I did! 😆

England dominates because it has way more people than the other 3 combined. So in some ways it is perfectly fair that the majority gets its way.

And don't forget Wales also wanted Brexit.

I'll just go and find another constituency which has voted Liberal for the last 100 years. Or maybe just a voter who has voted Green all their life. Because democracy is working just as poorly for them as it is for Scotland.

Obviously in a democracy you wont always wn
Obviously in an Independent scotland that will still happen
I am not aware of anyone who thinks
1. Countries should not have a democracy
2. people who think an individual should always have the govt they pick

Its a specious argument as comparing people or towns to counties is ludicrous.

Maybe we should discuss whether IS supporters are more or less racist than Brexit supporters? 😈

It would be more rational 😉

aracer - Member
IS supporters are less racist than Brexit supporters.

That should have been a statement, i feel. 😆

The thing is though, to come back to the point I was trying to make, the most significant difference constitutional change makes to the life of an ordinary person is to the performance of the economy which directly relates to the amount of money in your pocket. Other than that what real difference would it make to people's lives?

Money, money, money. It's sad that for so many people this is all that matters to them and indeed drives their decisions. One real and immediate difference it would make for me is that I have friends and people I care about worried about whether or not they will continue to be welcome in the UK right now. Full power to Holyrood means that immigration policy can be decided from there and be specific to our own needs as opposed to Westminster who sees a different path.

aracer - Member
He did suggest that those against it were racist though, tj

Those who oppose democratic self-determination in a country do so because of either they have a vested interest in the status quo, or because they do not think the people of that country are capable of running it themselves. The latter is racist.

I've heard all this stuff before when the colony I was living in was trying to get independence. Same arguments, same superior and "better informed" stances. I've seen it in Australia with the land rights issues for the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

At the bottom of the opposition is always a vested interest or racism.

If you want to see some real racism, read your English papers on-line and read the comments whenever anything pertaining to Scotland is mentioned.

Is this the same racism of those who oppose Brexit?

Of course those who oppose it have a vested interest 🙄 otherwise you'd just not be bothered. My vested interest is that just as with Brexit the economies of both Scotland and rUK will suffer. The point km seems to be missing is that when the economy of a country suffers it's the ordinary people who feel it in the pocket, ordinary people who need money to pay the rent and put food on the table.

What other sort of vested interest do you imagine people have?

I'd rather not read the online comments on newspaper articles if it's all the same with you. I already know that lots of DM readers are racist without having to subject myself to that.

aracer - Member
Is this the same racism of those who oppose Brexit?...

Not sure I follow the logic in that question.

I fully support England's democratic decision to Brexit, so long as it does not affect Scotland's democratic decision to Remain. That's a vested interest. 🙂

Basically the 2 countries have voted to part.

BTW you don't have to read the DM or DE, try the Telegraph or Guardian or any other English paper.

If Scots think leaving the UK is going to piss off Tories they are wrong, I would expect the UK will just move on quite quickly with the hard style exit being favoured for speed and simplicity. As noted that would be a far smaller change than leaving the EU.

As much as the SNP are pushing their raison d'etre its a dead issue. UK will be outside the EU (long) before there is another Referendum (if there is ever) and in any case the UK Government now or in the foreseeable future isn't going to recognise one.

jambalaya - Member
...As much as the SNP are pushing their raison d'etre its a dead issue. UK will be outside the EU (long) before there is another Referendum (if there is ever) and in any case the UK Government now or in the foreseeable future isn't going to recognise one

I think you'll find there's measures in place for a very quick mobilisation for a referendum if necessary.

As for not recognising it, that would be an exceedingly stupid move.

bencooper - Member 
Thanks for that, I just spat out my Ovaltine.

POSTED 7 HOURS AGO # SHARE

It's a pleasure Ben and sorry it's such a long time since you were enjoying your nightcap. Ovaltine at your age and at the time!!! I'm afraid it's been rather wonderful Lebanese reds all night for me, but an Ovaltine would be rather nice now.

But a final reality check especially for poor Bruce who seemed to be getting a little hot under the collar earlier. Conclusions on the 2014 economic case - from which little has changes except for the story getting worse

Salmond's policy chief: "deluded"
The Nobel price winning economist on a retainer: "mistaken"
Jo and TMH: "naive" - so we seem to be the most forgiving of all

But never mind wee Brucie knows better than all the above...."and I said to myself, what a wonderful world.........."

Love to read all the V Englànd stuff. Why do the ardent nats always seem to forget the Welsh and the N Irish!!!! Tartan myopia is a very short sighted version indeed 😉

Ironic that, isn't it THM? Guardian is not an English paper!

Anyway, can someone explain why national boundaries are so important?

teamhurtmore
...Why do the ardent nats always seem to forget the Welsh and the N Irish!!!! Tartan myopia is a very short sighted version indeed

Forget? What have they done to us? Tartan myopia may be short-sighted, but it's very accurately focussed.

As has been posted before:

[url= https://c5.staticflickr.com/2/1672/24666365604_f28c1ddbd5_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://c5.staticflickr.com/2/1672/24666365604_f28c1ddbd5_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/DzFz8A ]12798832_956076307809119_4458645859628725853_n[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/82598458@N05/ ]jamesanderson2010[/url], on Flickr

Salmond's policy chief: "deluded"
The Nobel price winning economist on a retainer: "mistaken"
Jo and TMH: "naive" - so we seem to be the most forgiving of all

Jimbofacts! Evidence please. Ctrl-c then ctrl-V. Can't comment on your final answer if you don't show your working.

As far as getting hot under the collar goes I was actually just stating a fact which is that you're being a dick. I'm not going to copy and paste examples of you being a dick in this case. What I'm going to do is invite people to read your contributions from page 15 onwards. That way they can check my fact and decide if it's wrong or not.

See how easy it is?

Anyway, can someone explain why national boundaries are so important?

Like it or not Scotland is a separate country rather than just a region in the UK. There's been a union for three hundred years now and despite that they are two distinct countries with their own legal system, education system, and most importantly distinct attitudes that go beyond regional differences in attitudes in England.

If the UK was genuinely one country then you would expect them to have integrate much more closely over the past three hundred years. Compare the UK to Italy which has only really been united since 1871. Since then Italy has been a single country with all systems integrated and no distinct border. You have the Northern League but their movement is unfocused and more based around the general idea that the South doesn't pull its weight economically. There's definitely an element of racism as well.

In terms of attitudes there's a definite disconnect between Scotland and England around the conflicts of the period. Politics has changed and the ideological divide is only just becoming apparent. The left and right used to be defined by labour (small l) vs capital with the left on the side of labour and the right on the side of capital. The conflict hasn't been fully settled and Scotland still leans more towards labour while England is more in favour of capital but a compromise has more or less been arrived at where the left accepts that people who invest in business should be allowed to profit from the worker's efforts and the right accepts that the workers deserve a certain level of rights including safety, protection from unfair dismissal and collective bargaining.

This is why many people are struggling to differentiate between Labour, the Tories, Lib Dems and dare I say it the SNP. They all support economic and social policies that any one of them could have introduced.

The conflict now is based on openness vs closed societies. In Scotland the SNP has laid out it's position clearly. It wants society to be as open as possible with immigration and free trade encouraged. Even Scottish Labour, Conservatives, and Lib Dems are in favour of open borders.

All the major parties in England talk about controlling immigration. No party is in favour of openness to the extent that Scotland is. This means that Scotland doesn't have a party to vote for. A vote for anyone other than the SNP results in policies that they don't agree with.

Openness is the dividing issue of our time. Scotland is on one side of that divide and England is on the other. It was the same thing when the divide was labour vs capital.

That's why we are two separate countries.

Tell you what Bruce, why don't you do the eyes opening? Try googling (see how easy it is?) and watch the TV interview with Stiglitz - I posted fhe link many pages back (you see I like facts) with the time of the exact words (go back and check), - you won't like the answer though - then google Bell's comments and you can read Jo and my comments here. After that come back and repost the same nonsense if it makes you feel happy.

Alternatively you can also read this well-argued piece from one of your more rational politicians

https://www.ft.com/content/ae8475da-9216-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78

(and yes, it's worth paying for)

Yours again at large,

Dickie xxx

Nicola on Marr this morning

Nicola anything BUT clear on how her new ideas might work on Marr but promised some detail to come. Don't hold your breath.

Still smart politics by being vague so she can keep all her options open and avoid scrutiny on what really matters. Masterful if distasteful. But linking grammar schools to Barnett shows an amazing level of mental dexterity. No wonder she can confuse so many.

Good enough reason to avoid the show this week then

I think you'll find there's measures in place for a very quick mobilisation for a referendum if necessary.
As for not recognising it, that would be an exceedingly stupid move.

No doubt you can have a quick locally organised vote without a 2 year campaign this time. What you wouldn't have is an Edinburgh Agreement making it legally binding nor sufficient time to act upon an "out" vote before the UK is long gone from the EU.

So UK ignores a locally organised referendum with no Westminster recognition - yup people will be very grumpy but so what, what are they going to do about it ? I fail to see why that would be "stupid"

Openness is the dividing issue of our time. Scotland is on one side of that divide and England is on the other. It was the same thing when the divide was labour vs capital.

Might this be something to do with Scotland having had far less inward migration than England over the past few years? The Brexit vote seems to have been driven largely by immigration; if Scotland had seen the same levels, that egalitarian attitude might slip a tad, no?

I know that immigration is a net positive etc etc, but you've got plenty of, shall we say, less enlightened folk up there who wouldn't see it that way in the event of a big influx, just as we do down here. Unless you think that Scots are inherently more outward looking and less parochial than their English neighbours? Having grown up there, I'd struggle with that!

The results of the EU referendum were non binding and based on a non-rational 'gut reaction' which has now been reinterpreted a as mandate to take the UK back to something like Hitler's Germany so why shouldn't the Scot's be allowed their own opportunity to 'take back control' and take the view that that's not a path they want to follow. I'm not a Scot or living in Scotland and would, on balance probably have voted in last time but would most certainly vote out now irrespective of the fiscal consequences predominantly based on the fact the I wouldn't want to be associated with the prevailing cult of Little England and out of sheer embarrassment that other parts of the word thought I was if nothing else.

The sooner that Little England and the Little Englander's are disabused of its/their notion that we are a super power or even that important on the world stage ( we have Bojo as Foreign Secretary ffs) the better - that slipped away in 1945 and was confirmed at Suez when the US firmly put us in our place as part of the new world order. If the break up of the Union hastens that that then all to the good.

Britannia Rules the Waves - Britannia isn't capable of running a small duck pond it just that the likes of your average Brexiteer doesn't know that yet.

Unless you think that Scots are inherently more outward looking and less parochial than their English neighbours? Having grown up there, I'd struggle with that!

Indeed

Scotland's view (SNP's half) seems to be that their industrial decline was due to "Westminster / Tories" rather than a global trend. Ships are much cheaper to build in Asia etc.

Scotland actually needs more immigration and jobs for them. The best way to achieve this is by setting our own policy on immigration and our own economic policy

Gordimor do you not have sufficient tax raising and law making powers to set your own economic strategy at the moment ? Have you actually used any of the powers you have ?

If you are in the EU you have zero control over immigration

airtragic - Member

Might this be something to do with Scotland having had far less inward migration

I know that immigration is a net positive etc etc, but you've got plenty of, shall we say, less enlightened folk up there who wouldn't see it that way in the event of a big influx, just as we do down here.

That's a nonsense argument. The most anti immigration parts of england are the part with the least immigration. Attitudes and levels of immigration in cities like glasgow, liverpool, manchester etc isn't all that different, neither are the attitudes in the cities.

Places with most immigration ae generally the most accepting of immigrants, imo. Obviously not always the case but it's a general trend.

Gordimor do you not have sufficient tax raising and law making powers to set your own economic strategy at the moment ?

If we are in the UK and out of the EU we will have an immigration policy which Scotland rejected in the EU referendum.

BruceWee - Member

The conflict now is based on openness vs closed societies. In Scotland the SNP has laid out it's position clearly. It wants society to be as open as possible with immigration and free trade encouraged. Even Scottish Labour, Conservatives, and Lib Dems are in favour of open borders.

If it's just down to that, then it's a single issue, you don't need full independence, you juts need to campaign for scotland to control it's own immigration.

The immigration arguments are bunkum anyhow, it's just subterfuge to get the masses chattering about irrelevant issues.

There always has been and always will be immigration.

Scotlands problem is attracting them, not that they aren't allowed in, particularly in rural areas.

If scotland can't even get people to move out of the cities(that have plenty of immigrants) to these places they've got little hope of attracting people directly from other countries.).

That becomes even more obvious when you look at the status quo, there's a pool of 500 million people that can freely move to scotland just now, they aren't queueing up.

Immigration isn't factored on policy, it's factored on job opportunities. If the scottish government wants more people in the highlands and islands. Create the jobs, housing and infrasture to attract people.

IMO the SNPs stance on immigration and backing individually families and highlighting their cases is opportunism. Nothing more.

Of course, once we have successfully left the EU, we can give Scotland the independence they so desire.

It should only take the EU seven or eight years to fully process their application (if they even qualify, which remains unsettled) by which time they will be so heavily in debt that the Scottish pound will be trading like the Zimbabwean dollar long before they are forced to adopt the euro.

Full of win I reckon

IMO the SNPs stance is opportunism. Nothing more.

FTFY :

The vast majority of powers over economic policy remain at Westminster The powers that have been devolved are too little to have any real effect on the economy and would achieve nothing except to make any government that used them unpopular as taxes would increase with no visible improvement in the economy or services so basically the new powers are just a sham.

So devolved powers over

agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
many aspects of transport

are a sham and the idea of raising taxes to improve {?} services might be unpopular

perhaps we should close Holyrood and save the money?

gordimhor - Member
Scotland actually needs more immigration and jobs for them. The best way to achieve this is by setting our own policy on immigration and our own economic policy

Out of interest, how will being a member of the EZ help you achieve these goals?

THM All your spinning is making you dizzy. I clearly referred to powers over economic policy
"The vast majority of powers over economic policy remain at Westminster"
I also clearly referred to new powers.
" basically the new powers are just a sham"
So I cant really see why you went away back to 1998 for this quote
"agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
many aspects of transport"
Not really new is it, being 18 years ago and a lot of it is not really powers over economic policy either.
As for the new powers ,you know the 2016 ones being a sham well this is what Reform Scotland thought
http://stv.tv/news/politics/1345472-think-tank-concludes-new-tax-powers-for-holyrood-are-useless/
As for raising taxes to improve services being unpopular well if you try to do it without the correct powers for the task you will fail and imposing ineffective tax rises will be unpopular So yes the "new powers" are a sham

You may find this helps clear your head

@thm Freedom of movement within the eu will help for a start

Ok 15 all - your opening line which I quoted suggested that the vast majority of powers remain in Westminster. That is patently untrue but we may come back to that.

Ok, fair cop, I missed the "new" bit so lets re-address that point (but note that the list of devloved powers comes form the current S Gov webpage, so I went as far back as 2016 not the date you suggest but that is minor detail.

So these "sham" new powers - lets have a wee look. Better still lets see what experts (ok, ok) say rather than simple MTBers

The Holyrood government [b]has always had control over much of public spending[/b] in Scotland. From next spring, i[b]t will have control over taxes, including most of income tax, which raises 40 per cent of the revenues required to cover devolved spending.[/b] From 2019, half of the VAT raised there will also be assigned. [b]Half of Scottish spending will then be paid for by taxes devolved or assigned to Scotland. That is a remarkable change. [/b]Scotland will have far more control than now over its tax affairs and over the size of its budget.

This idea of Bruce's to use google to check facts is quite good isnt it? What were the words - "R E M A R K A B L E C H A N G E" thats really quite different from sham

And lets see why I propose spending more time on SNPs delivery rather than their hot air and fluff

The Scottish budget will now enjoy the upside and suffer the downside of economic performance that differs from that in the rest of the UK. [b]The incentive on the Scottish government to focus on growth is much sharper than ever before.[/b] Even small differences will compound over time into big differences in the money available.

One worry is that in the short term the economics don’t look to be working in Scotland’s favour. In part as a result of a declining oil industry, economic growth in the past year has been significantly less than that in the UK as a whole and it is expected to do less well again next year. The direct effect of falling oil prices, the collapse in revenues from taxes on North Sea oil and gas production, won’t affect the Scottish budget. These taxes are not devolved. The effects of their loss are shared across the UK. But the Scottish budget will suffer to the extent that the earnings and spending of those working in the industry, or in related industries, suffer

So it should be obvious where attention should be focused. Sadly, instead we have I2 coming to a panto stage near you.

So yes, you will get freedom of movement. Now explain to me about the important bits - monetary and fiscal policy and as an aside how do you feel about the inevitable political integration that must accompany fiscal union?

You may have some legitimate complaint about the some influence from the SE of England (you are not alone in that) but at the moment monetary and fiscal policy is set within a context of highly synchronised economies (albeit that one - no need to guess - is currently underperforming). Instead you seem to prefer to have policy set by economies that are far less synchronised with the Scottish one. [b]That is folly at its most extreme. [/b]