Scotland getting a "Divorce" from the UK?

Started by Remiel, September 17, 2014, 01:43:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Remiel

So I have CNN.com as my home page, and this is the headline I see:

Scotland's Vote on Independence: What You Need To Know

The first question that popped in my head was: what the fuck?  How did I not know about this?  Why is this not getting more media coverage?   I mean, sure, it may not be as huge as, say,  the dissolution of the USSR, but it's still pretty big damn news.  It's also, like the collapse of Communism, something I never thought I'd see during my lifetime.

Are there any Elliquian Scots, I wonder?  What do you guys think about this?

ambrosial

It's plastered literally all over the American news sites that I visit, so I suppose it's simply a matter of what the outlets choose to cover (as with everything, of course).

The vote isn't until Thursday the 18th, and should the referendum receive a "yes," well, nothing much will happen right away as it stands. It would take quite a bit of time to work out the fine details of a movement for independence, and should that happen, I believe the proposed "Independence Day" would be in March 2016. In the event of a "no," there would still be some not-insignificant changes to Scotland's authority.

This article also provides a very basic overview for those not already familiar with the topic.

I have no pony in this race, so I'll be stepping away now, but there's some more information in a quick summary if it helps.
We'll make the honeysuckle jealous.

Ambrosial's Wine Tasting - Original and Fandom Plots (Updated May 2014)
Ons and Offs and Current RP - Updated Sept. 12, 2014
Avatars- For a visual sampler (Updated June 2, 2013!)
Absences - Semi-Absent Through 01/20/15. Please read!

Ebb

NPR has being doing pretty consistent coverage of it.

It's encouraging to hear that regardless of the rhetoric before tomorrow's vote, the overwhelming consensus among Scots on both sides of the fence (as well as those undecided) seems to be "Well, if the vote goes the wrong way tomorrow, I expect we'll sit down, have a drink, and make the best of it."

My main concern (as a self-centered resident of the US) isn't so much for Scotland, which I expect will find a way to work things out as an independent country, though perhaps at great cost. It's that the departure of all of the generally more liberal Scottish representatives from the UK Parliament will drive that body pretty hard to the conservative end of the spectrum.

Cycle

Most of the time when I see something on the news the first question that pops in my head tends to be: what the fuck?

But that's neither here nor there.  I just wanted to clutter your thread.  Have a nice day.  :-)


consortium11

I intended to post about this a lot earlier and it kept sort of slipping past me.

Obviously it's huge news over here.

One of the key issues that has made the debate awkward and frequently pretty personal is that so many of the things you'd hope could be viewed as "facts" in this sort of debate are simply unknown. It's hard to debate the future of Scotland when the structure and situation it will find itself in are so unclear.

Let's take a simple example... Scotland's place in the EU.

Will it be automatically accepted or will it have to go through an application process?
What happens to free trade while it's being accepted?
How long would an acceptance process take... six months? Five years.
Does it have to sign up to the Euro if it wants acceptance?
Does it have to start to put it's economy on a path the Eurozone likes so it can be accepted for the Euro so it can be accepted into the EU?
Will it have to sign up to the Schengen Agreement to be accepted?
Will it keep any of the rUK's (rump United Kingdom) opt-outs?
Will it keep rUK's veto?

There's a couple of other EU countries notably Spain and Belgium who have their own issues with areas wanting independence and so may deliberately want to make life difficult for Scotland if it does go independent to discourage the movements in their own countries. Scotland can put some pressure on Spain to accept by causing issues for their fishing fleet but Belgium? Belgium could kick up a real stink without Scotland being able to do much about it.

There are a whole load of other areas where uncertainty reigns... will Scotland attempt to keep the pound? If it does will there be a currency union or will it be subservient to rUK fiscal policy? How will the national debt be split? What rights with Scotland have to North Sea Oil? If Scotland is, however briefly, out of the EU how will that affect businesses and prices? That's just a short list.

Because an independent Scotland would be pretty much the first country to be in that situation the simple fact is we don't know. We can make somewhat educated guesses but all too often the debate devolves into "oh yes we will", "oh no you won't" back and forth followed by personal insults.

Personally I'm largely ambivalent either way. I'm no great defender of the Union but I suspect Scotland may find life harder than it expects (or at least the SNP claim) once it breaks free. What does slightly concern me is that the UK's politicians have pretty much offered a bribe to Scotland to stay in with regards to more powers and more money being spent without the rest of us having a say. While I think it is fair and right that it is the Scots (although technically those living in Scotland as opposed to Scottish people) get the vote on independence I think the rest of the UK should have the chance to vote on a form of "super devolution" if it is offered.

Caehlim

My country went through the same process 113 years ago, so it can work and wishing all the luck to Scotland that things go well for them.

Anyway, as a commonwealth country it's all over the media here. Particular since it's yet another issue that our Prime Minister has made stupid comments on.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

Kythia

Quote from: consortium11 on September 17, 2014, 05:29:35 PM
Let's take a simple example... Scotland's place in the EU.

Will it be automatically accepted or will it have to go through an application process?
What happens to free trade while it's being accepted?
How long would an acceptance process take... six months? Five years.
Does it have to sign up to the Euro if it wants acceptance?
Does it have to start to put it's economy on a path the Eurozone likes so it can be accepted for the Euro so it can be accepted into the EU?
Will it have to sign up to the Schengen Agreement to be accepted?
Will it keep any of the rUK's (rump United Kingdom) opt-outs?
Will it keep rUK's veto?

Plus of course the colossal fun and games a Brexit would cause (leaving aside for the moment what an incredibly stupid decision that would be).  That, to me, is the number one reason a currency union is impossible.  A currency union between an EU member and a non EU member simply isn't feasible and we won't have solidified our position on that by the time Scots start wondering what exactly they should buy their cigarettes and premium strength lager with.

Schengen simply doesn't some realistic to me but again the common travel area would be impossible if we left the EU.  I don't think anyone terribly wants border controls in the Borders but Salmond's flat out insistence that it won't happen is a step too far.  As are practically all of Salmond's proclamations that the world works precisely as he thinks it does and anyone claiming otherwise is trying to bully poor wee Scotland.  Dick.

I share consortium's concern about the major constitutional changes being proposed without consultation or a mandate and honestly feel there will be a fairly extreme backlash on that which can only favour the English Democrats, UKIP, etc.7

I personally want Scotland to leave, though I don't think they will.
242037

Missy

I'm an ethnic Celt and I like the idea of the Celtic nations breaking away and forming our own country/countries.

I also don't buy into the shared currency thing, especially after that debacle with the greek economy. I don't really think anyone should be sharing currency unless your federalizing your two countries.


EDIT:

I also don't get why it's such a big deal with the British Prime Minister being pressured to resign about it though, I'm just thinking wtf?

Kythia

I agree there'd be no reason for Cameron to resign.  The logic, such as it is, seems to be a variation on "He was in charge of four regions and lost one, why the hell would we trust him with the other three" coupled with his having committed so forcefully to a No vote.  Which seems superficially correct but in fact misses an awful lot.
242037

TaintedAndDelish


The impression that I am getting is that Scotland is perceived as a financial burden to England?  If this is true, then it seems a little contradictory that England would want Scotland to stay? It could just be that I'm not fully up to speed on things, but this bit smells a little fishy to me.


consortium11

Quote from: TaintedAndDelish on September 18, 2014, 06:45:00 PM
The impression that I am getting is that Scotland is perceived as a financial burden to England?  If this is true, then it seems a little contradictory that England would want Scotland to stay? It could just be that I'm not fully up to speed on things, but this bit smells a little fishy to me.

The financial situation is one of the great unknowns.

The amount of money spent on welfare in Scotland is extremely high per-capita but that's balanced out by North Sea Oil and other resources. Depending who you ask, what day of the week you ask, what hour of the day and what they had for breakfast you'll get different answers as to whether Scotland is a drain, asset or somewhere in the middle to the UK financially.

I'd also note that even if Scotland is a net drain that doesn't mean people would necessarily want it to go. The Union has been around for a long time and a lot of people have deep ties to it... there are sentimental as well as economic reasons why people might want to keep it. If a US State was contemplating leaving I doubt the only consideration would be to check the federal profit/loss account and see how it stacked up.

There's also some real-politique at work here. Despite the rise of it's nationalist part over recent elections, Scotland is a stronghold for the Labour party, tends to lean left politically and the conservatives have very little representation there. Labour has 257 MP's at Westminster, of which 40 represent Scottish constituencies. The Conservative party has 304 of which one represents a Scottish constituency. It's not a deathblow to Labour but losing around 15% of its MP's (and generally in safe seats) is going to hurt its chances of forming a government while the Tories barely suffer at all. As such there's been a bit of soul searching on the left... setting aside more serious and direct reasons for supporting or opposing independance many would quite like to see it happen because it could be seen as a punch in the face to a Prime Minister and government they dislike... but by doing so they make it more likely that Prime Minister and government remain.

Kythia

Quote from: TaintedAndDelish on September 18, 2014, 06:45:00 PM
The impression that I am getting is that Scotland is perceived as a financial burden to England?  If this is true, then it seems a little contradictory that England would want Scotland to stay? It could just be that I'm not fully up to speed on things, but this bit smells a little fishy to me.

This has been critiicised as one of the major failings of the "No" (Scotland stays) campaign.  A focus on economic benefits, risks, etc. rather than the nationalism and pride that the "Yes" campaign has had.  Too few people saying "I like the Union, I want Scotland to stay". 

My own personal point of view is that that's ridiculous - as I said above I want Scotland to go (though with about four hours until results are announced it doesn't look likely) because I am no more "loyal" to the UK than I am to NATO or G7 or any other political entity my country happens to be part of.  Great Britain is the name of the island I live on, the UK is one of many organisations my country belongs to, England is my country.
242037

consortium11

As Kythia says it's early days, but so far it looks like the No Campaign/Better together (i.e. stay in the United Kingdom) has it and may even have it by quite a significant margin. Of the four areas that have declared the No campaign has won all of them; while two were expected, the other two were seen as being likely Yes campaign wins.

A relatively small percent of the population has been declared so far so things could really change when the big urban centres pile in (as the referendum is on a pure numbers as opposed to constituency basis), but things aren't looking particularly good there; the turnout is low in comparison (reportedly 75% in Glasgow against 85% in many other areas for example) and the races reportedly close; the Yes campaign needs a high turnout and big victories by the looks of things.

Kythia

Quote from: consortium11 on September 18, 2014, 09:23:35 PM
Of the four areas that have declared the No campaign has won all of them; while two were expected, the other two were seen as being likely Yes campaign wins.

Clackmannanshire was a deal more than "likely" even.  It was basically a certainty.  Just reading now that Credit Suisse rated it as 10/10 for the Yes campaign and there were the jokes about the "aye pods".
242037

consortium11

Quote from: Kythia on September 18, 2014, 09:26:58 PM
Clackmannanshire was a deal more than "likely" even.  It was basically a certainty.  Just reading now that Credit Suisse rated it as 10/10 for the Yes campaign and there were the jokes about the "aye pods".

In contrast Inverclyde was seen as 50/50 and ended up being pretty much exactly that (50.1% vs 49.9%)... in 50,000+ votes the difference was 86 votes. The no's still edged it but it's a demonstration how even if the on-going trend seems to be a somewhat comfortable No victory, things can go off script... and if one of the big cities really goes off script things could change radically.

Kythia

Yeah.  I think they're expecting Glasgow and Edinburgh at about five ish - until then it's basically just entrail reading.  Not that thats gonna stop me of course, but those two and Aberdeen will be when it becomes possible to say something with any degree of confidence.
242037

consortium11

Big win for Yes in Dundee but the low turnout means it isn't as big as people might have expected.

Expected result and it does show the impact the cities can have; that Dundee result reduces a gap that was getting towards 20k back to around three or four thousand. That said Dundee is on paper pretty much the most guaranteed Yes result one could have and only getting 57% of the vote on a 79% turnout has to be a disappointment for the Yes side; they would have likely wanted more and it's not the sort of huge blow they would have liked.

Kythia

QuoteAt the moment it is 178,811 NO, against 172,426 YES

According to the Telegraph.  Again, the big cities are where its going to be fought.
242037

Kythia

Some massive No results there.  If this holds true then we're keeping Scotland.  Ah well.  Going for a shower.

Also - I miss Dimbleby.  It's somehow not a proper election without him.
242037

consortium11

It's all over bar the screaming; a huge win in Glasgow was pretty much "No's" last chance. Edinburgh looks like to be at least 50/50 if not a No win and that's the only outside shot that yes has. In places the No vote was expected to win they've won by more than expected, in places where the Yes vote was expected to win they either haven't won or haven't won by as much as expected.

Some of these margins are wider than expected and the final percentage could be closer to 60/40 in favour of No... that's a pretty big win when most opinion polls had it as 55/45 at the widest.

It looks pretty certain at this point that the UK will remain. Attention now turns to the awkward question of what new powers Scotland will get... and what the other parts of the UK will push for themselves.

consortium11

You've got to love Nicola Sturgeon, even if nothing she says makes sense.

Scotland has just voted "no" (to all extents and purposes) to the question if it wanted change. She appears on TV and what is pretty much the first thing she says (slightly paraphrasing):

"This result shows an overwhelming attitude for change in Scotland".

No it doesn't Nicola. Some of the people who voted No may have been swayed by the promise of new powers that came late in the day but when there are two options on the referendum, one of which reads "change" and the other of which reads "no change", saying that people voting for "no change" actually shows the overwhelming wish for change is pretty much double speech.

Here comes another one...

"I'm not going to do the politician thing and try to spin this... I'm personally deeply disappointed by the result but exhilarated by the campaign and Scotland has changed forever."

Kythia

I was just thinking the same.  Not only have people actively voted against change, but they've voted against it in numbers far exceeding what anyone thought.
242037

consortium11

Quote from: Kythia on September 18, 2014, 11:29:37 PM
I was just thinking the same.  Not only have people actively voted against change, but they've voted against it in numbers far exceeding what anyone thought.

It also strikes me as somewhat counter-productive for the SNP. These days the SNP aren't the plucky outsiders riding a wave of popular momentum to victory in Scotland... they're the Scottish establishment. They have an absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament and the first minister. An argument against the status-quo in Scotland is an argument against the SNP.

I appreciate that it's the go to option when spinning a defeat to talk about how a message has been sent and how things will have to change but it rings a completely hollow note in these circumstances.

Kythia

Honestly I'm not clear - and I suspect they're not either - on the point of the SNP now.  Devo max in some form or another seems to be a given, independence isn't happening...what are the SNPs policies?  What is their platform?  Continuing to exist as the Scottish National Party seems to be nothing more than a constant reminder that they overwhelmingly lost the only battle they've ever really fought.  Salmond's position is untenable, I think, but I really could see this dragging the existence of the party down with it.
242037

Kythia

Salmond tweets:
QuoteWell done to Glasgow, our commonwealth city, and to the people of Scotland for such a incredible support

Is there not an elephant in the room with you there, sweetheart?  Honestly, from that tweet I can't tell if he actually knows he lost.
242037

consortium11

Quote from: Kythia on September 18, 2014, 11:48:38 PM
Honestly I'm not clear - and I suspect they're not either - on the point of the SNP now.  Devo max in some form or another seems to be a given, independence isn't happening...what are the SNPs policies?  What is their platform?  Continuing to exist as the Scottish National Party seems to be nothing more than a constant reminder that they overwhelmingly lost the only battle they've ever really fought.  Salmond's position is untenable, I think, but I really could see this dragging the existence of the party down with it.

The generous view is that the SNP has moved beyond being a single issue party (despite retaining the name) to be a more "normal" political party with their own ideals and positions. It's something UKIP have been trying to do, moving beyond simply being a single issue get-out-of-the-EU party to being a somewhat libertarian minded fully fledged party. Whether that's actually the case is a further point to consider... as is the question as to what's the point in the Scottish Nationalist Party if it can't deliver independence?

(Side note... Salmond can't even carry his own constituency)

Salmond's strength and weaknesses are one and the same; he built and ran a very effective cult of personality. But how does a cult of personality work when the person it was built around is defeated? Salmond is far from popular with the powers that be in his own party and, having restrained themselves till now because of the referendum, they will be starting to sharpen knives. However that same cult of personality means that outside of Salmond and Sturgeon most SNP figures are basically unknown. As such the SNP is stuck behind a rock and a very hard place; it's raison d'être is seemingly gone, it's leader and figurehead is a lame duck and there is no-one seemingly in position to replace him.

Kythia

National

But yes, this is my point.  Regardless of whether they are, on paper, more than a single issue party their name - in exactly the same way as UKIP - says otherwise.  They can never really be viewed as a wider party under that name, I don't think.  Changing the name is an admission of failure and is exactly the same, in practical terms, to disbanding and reforming the party. 
242037


Kythia

Ah my apologies.  My friend and I had a text argument (which I lost) about it earlier so I'm probably super sensitive.
242037

consortium11

When discussing the result it's also worth noting the advantages the Yes campaign had coming in:

1) They got to choose the question to be asked (a huge one on referendums)

2) They got to choose when the referendum was held.

3) The got to choose the constituency who could vote in the referendum.

I'd argue that such things are worth at least 5% in any referendum and possibly even more. Without exit polling it's hard to get any quantifiable data out of the voting patterns but I'm fairly confident that with a little cunning and a little skill if the No campaign had got to set the above things they'd have pulled 60-65% of the vote.

Kythia

Yeah, I've seen Cameron criticised for allowing his preferred option to be "No" not "Yes" if that makes sense.  "Should Scotland be an independent country" vs. "Should Scotland remain part of the UK"

I'm going for a run.  I had dared to dream that one day I could raise my children in a world free of Scotland. 

That if foreigners asked whether we were the same country I could stand tall, look at the horizon and say "No" rather than shuffling my feet awkwardly and saying "It's a little complex.  Technically: we're the same sovereign nation but the UK government, the UN and a variety of other international bodies describe the UK as two countries, one principality and a province.  The thing you have to remember is..." and so on - such discussions inevitably devolve into Venn diagrams and complicated explanations of long dead monarchs that really could have been avoided if Scotland had voted to release us.  Ah well.
242037

Hades

So what is this "federalized" United Kingdom I kept hearing the BBC talk about while covering the vote results?

consortium11

Quote from: Hades on September 19, 2014, 04:04:05 AM
So what is this "federalized" United Kingdom I kept hearing the BBC talk about while covering the vote results?

It's an attempt to answer the West Lothian question.

The West Lothian question is this; under devolution (and certainly under the sort of devolution max that is now being talked about) Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments and powers separate to MP's at Westminster. As such an MP representing a Scottish constituency can vote on issues at Westminster that don't have any impact on his constituency, because that policy area is controlled by the Scottish parliament. This seems self-evidently unfair; if a law would only (technically and practically) apply to England and/or Wales and/or Northern Ireland why should a Scottish MP get to vote on it?

The currently favoured solution is generally called "English votes for English laws" and essentially means that if a law would only impact on England, only English MP's could vote upon it, in essence turning the House of Commons into a de facto English Parliament for such measures (how the House of Lords would work is still an open question). This would seemingly federalise the UK; laws that only impact Scotland decided by a Scottish parliament, Wales a Welsh parliament, England an English parliament and the whole UK the current UK parliament. Following the UK's proud political tradition it's a bit of a fudge (Scotland would have seperate MP's and MSP's, England would only have MP's) but on the face of it it's a fair solution.

Hades

Quote from: consortium11 on September 19, 2014, 08:21:56 AM
It's an attempt to answer the West Lothian question.

The West Lothian question is this; under devolution (and certainly under the sort of devolution max that is now being talked about) Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments and powers separate to MP's at Westminster. As such an MP representing a Scottish constituency can vote on issues at Westminster that don't have any impact on his constituency, because that policy area is controlled by the Scottish parliament. This seems self-evidently unfair; if a law would only (technically and practically) apply to England and/or Wales and/or Northern Ireland why should a Scottish MP get to vote on it?

The currently favoured solution is generally called "English votes for English laws" and essentially means that if a law would only impact on England, only English MP's could vote upon it, in essence turning the House of Commons into a de facto English Parliament for such measures (how the House of Lords would work is still an open question). This would seemingly federalise the UK; laws that only impact Scotland decided by a Scottish parliament, Wales a Welsh parliament, England an English parliament and the whole UK the current UK parliament. Following the UK's proud political tradition it's a bit of a fudge (Scotland would have seperate MP's and MSP's, England would only have MP's) but on the face of it it's a fair solution.

That sounds somewhat analogous to the division here in the US between the state government and federal government then.  Which works well in principle, but I suspect that making it work in practice is where the whole thing has the potential to explode like a giant powder keg.  Still, it does sound on the surface at least like a reasonable and fair direction to go. 

gaggedLouise

#34
Quote from: consortium11 on September 19, 2014, 08:21:56 AM
It's an attempt to answer the West Lothian question.

The West Lothian question is this; under devolution (and certainly under the sort of devolution max that is now being talked about) Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales and Northern Ireland have their own parliaments and powers separate to MP's at Westminster. As such an MP representing a Scottish constituency can vote on issues at Westminster that don't have any impact on his constituency, because that policy area is controlled by the Scottish parliament. This seems self-evidently unfair; if a law would only (technically and practically) apply to England and/or Wales and/or Northern Ireland why should a Scottish MP get to vote on it?

The currently favoured solution is generally called "English votes for English laws" and essentially means that if a law would only impact on England, only English MP's could vote upon it, in essence turning the House of Commons into a de facto English Parliament for such measures (how the House of Lords would work is still an open question). This would seemingly federalise the UK; laws that only impact Scotland decided by a Scottish parliament, Wales a Welsh parliament, England an English parliament and the whole UK the current UK parliament. Following the UK's proud political tradition it's a bit of a fudge (Scotland would have seperate MP's and MSP's, England would only have MP's) but on the face of it it's a fair solution.


Wouldn't England (a "rump England" constituency, though still being part of the UK along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) need a setup with two tiers of parliaments as well? One for "only English" affairs and one for "larger British/UK affairs"? I agree it sounds very strange though - it would both serve to sneakily drop the status of Westminster, in popular perception, and bring with it ordinary people thinking, we don't want all these new politicians and their henchmen and assistants.

No doubt that the top people in British politics and the royal family (still the figurehead of the nation and a kind of uniting bond) are very wary of stirring the idea of a "federalized kingdom". Thrones and lifelong offices ´don't sit too easily together with the outline of a federal state.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

consortium11

Quote from: gaggedLouise on September 19, 2014, 09:04:52 AMWouldn't England (a "rump England" constituency, though still being part of the UK along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) need a setup with two tiers of parliaments as well? One for "only English" affairs and one for "larger British/UK affairs"? I agree it sounds very strange though - it would both serve to sneakily drop the status of Westminster, in popular perception, and bring with it ordinary people thinking, we don't want all these new politicians and their henchmen and assistants.

That's what I mean about it being a fudge; there's seemingly little support for the idea of a separate English parliament with a host of new politicians. Instead the current MP's representing English constituencies would essentially take on two roles; when purely English matters were being voted for they would be Members of an English Parliament while when matters that covered the whole UK came up they would be full Members of Parliament, essentially condensing the roles that a Scottish MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) and MP into one.

Chris Brady

Quote from: Kythia on September 18, 2014, 11:29:37 PM
I was just thinking the same.  Not only have people actively voted against change, but they've voted against it in numbers far exceeding what anyone thought.
Uh, welcome to humanity.  Where change is looked at as the worst thing that can happen to anything.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Kythia

Quote from: Chris Brady on September 19, 2014, 11:31:07 AM
Uh, welcome to humanity.  Where change is looked at as the worst thing that can happen to anything.

I think you're kinda missing the point, there?  Not entirely certain what you mean?  We were discussing Sturgeon lauding people's desire for change and her saying so many people wanting it was a positive thing when in fact people had said they didn't want it. 
242037

Kythia

Anyway.  The "problem" with English votes for English laws is that it could create two classes of MPs.  Imagine if Labour won a general election but failed to secure a majority in England itself - that would lead to the situation where Labour could create laws that applied to the UK as a whole, but not to England specifically.  Some people seem to think this is an undesirable situation, I personally don't see an issue with it.
242037

consortium11

Quote from: Kythia on September 19, 2014, 11:45:52 AM
Anyway.  The "problem" with English votes for English laws is that it could create two classes of MPs.  Imagine if Labour won a general election but failed to secure a majority in England itself - that would lead to the situation where Labour could create laws that applied to the UK as a whole, but not to England specifically.  Some people seem to think this is an undesirable situation, I personally don't see an issue with it.

It's the same with Scotland already though; the Conservatives/Liberal Democrats can create and pass laws that apply to the UK as a whole but not for Scotland specifically. If the SNP vote holds up it will be the same for Labour if they get into power. All the fudge does would make it a single MP rather than MP and MSP.

Salmond's resigned as leader of the SNP. I wouldn't be surprised to see him try for a Westminster seat for the next election with a brief to be an attack dog for getting more devolution for Scotland... interesting to see if the rest of the SNP let him, especially if Sturgeon doesn't get the leadership.

Kythia

I agree totally, as I say I think its a weak argument.

50,000 signatures demanding a recount.  Because of course there is.
242037

consortium11

Quote from: Kythia on September 19, 2014, 01:36:30 PM50,000 signatures demanding a recount.  Because of course there is.

If at first you don't succeed...

...claim the vote was rigged...


Ephiral

Quote from: gaggedLouise on September 19, 2014, 09:04:52 AMNo doubt that the top people in British politics and the royal family (still the figurehead of the nation and a kind of uniting bond) are very wary of stirring the idea of a "federalized kingdom". Thrones and lifelong offices ´don't sit too easily together with the outline of a federal state.

Um. The Queen of England already sits the throne of a federal nation, as the Queen of Canada.

As to the SNP's point... well, I'm reminded of the Parti Quebecois here. They came into power on a platform of independence for Quebec, lost the referendum, and basically became a spoiler party that screws with national issues by voting solely in Quebec's interests. Eventually, their voter base fled, mostly for the mainstream centrist and left-wing parties, and now they exist pretty much in name only.

Polymorph

#44
Quote from: Ephiral on September 19, 2014, 08:40:26 PM
Um. The Queen of England already sits the throne of a federal nation, as the Queen of Canada.

Several countries that the queen serves as head of state are federal I believe. Australia certainly, not certain how many others are.

Quote from: Ephiral on September 19, 2014, 08:40:26 PMAs to the SNP's point... well, I'm reminded of the Parti Quebecois here. Eventually, their voter base fled, and now they exist pretty much in name only.
We can but hope!

Kythia

What I find quite amusing - and both the lateness of this thread's creation and it's relative lack of participants are examples - is how few shits anyone who isn't Scottish seems to give about this whole thing.  Independence seems like it would have been greeted with the same deafening "Meh.  What else is on TV" as lack of.
242037

Hades

Quote from: Kythia on September 20, 2014, 07:53:49 AM
What I find quite amusing - and both the lateness of this thread's creation and it's relative lack of participants are examples - is how few shits anyone who isn't Scottish seems to give about this whole thing.  Independence seems like it would have been greeted with the same deafening "Meh.  What else is on TV" as lack of.

I think part of that is because it lacks the sensationalism that the American media system thrives on.  There's the perception of "Well they voted to keep things how they were, so on to the next story about the Kardashians" or the like.  The time of the news being informative rather than entertainment has long passed in this country.   I think if the vote had gone the other way, at least for a few days the media would have covered it a bit more until they got bored trying to explain complicated things and gone back to business as usual.

Kythia

Over here as well though.  At least to my eyes.  I live just north of London which is, granted, some way away from Scotland, but while the media has been full of it, people's conversations and suchlike don't seem to have been.  I stayed up to watch it and it seems like consortium11 did to, but we are massively in the minority.  In the run up, and even more so now we're in the post match, noone seemed to actually be interested.  Let alone care.
242037

consortium11

I wasn't even intending to stay up... but as I went to bed I thought "you know what, there's an outside chance it may be history, I probably should watch", so I lay in bed with the TV on.

I put more focus into the local elections than this.

For much of the rest of the UK this referendum happened to a silent chorus of shrugs.

Hades

I admit the only reason I watched the results come in was because I was working the midnight shift that night and while flipping through the channels I came across the BBC coverage of it.  If it had been a night I was off, I wouldn't have stayed up to watch and would have just read the headlines in the morning.

Beorning

Quote from: Kythia on September 20, 2014, 07:53:49 AM
What I find quite amusing - and both the lateness of this thread's creation and it's relative lack of participants are examples - is how few shits anyone who isn't Scottish seems to give about this whole thing.  Independence seems like it would have been greeted with the same deafening "Meh.  What else is on TV" as lack of.

Actually, I did care about the issue :) I just didn't have time to post... or anything important to contribute.

Quote from: Kythia on September 19, 2014, 12:37:02 AM
I'm going for a run.  I had dared to dream that one day I could raise my children in a world free of Scotland. 

So... what did Scotland do to you, Kythia? ;)

kylie

#51
         Disclaimer:  I haven't read every post (nor most of them).  But mostly since people are saying stuff to the tune of, 'apparently this [lack of posters from other regions] means no one elsewhere cares.' 

         I didn't pick up very much of this in even Guardian headlines until fairly recently...  Maybe it was on more British domestic pages somewhere, or I just spent most of my time time on other International news, what with stuff like Ukraine and now Ebola going down.  I don't pay a great deal of attention to some of the US (or Chinese for that matter) domestic news either, if it's any consolation.  It generally takes something of an explosive policy crisis report (or maybe a really incisive society critique) to get me off the international pages, and even the Guardian was not very eager to turn the referendum into a regular front-page event until it was already upon us.  So, mostly I've just been catching up, and not catching my breath much as it unfolded.

         I was hopeful that Scotland might separate.  It's not every day you see a referendum where part of a country is suggesting vastly different foreign policy and some hope of relief from the neoliberal dystopia that seems to be shrouding the West this past generation.  While I haven't read very widely on it and I'm sure there has been more complexity (both in problems of planning and sometimes, perhaps even in rightist violence against the independence movement?) ...  That has really been something to watch. 

         I'm saddened that so much of the No campaign was led by cynical claims of 'We'll take away all the jobs if you do' or 'Never mind that we haven't been here before, we know Europe won't let you deal with them like that.'  But probably all that was to be expected.  It does seem telling that the establishment had to offer some concessions at the last minute when the polls had been more leaning against them...  And it really remains to be seen whether that is something that anyone is really going to be very serious about actually delivering.

 
     

Beorning

Speaking of news, I can say that the Scottish vote was consistently on the news during the last few days. So, it's not like anyone here cared about it...

Polymorph

Quote from: kylie on September 20, 2014, 12:16:09 PM
         

         I'm saddened that so much of the No campaign was led by cynical claims of 'We'll take away all the jobs if you do' or 'Never mind that we haven't been here before, we know Europe won't let you deal with them like that.'  But probably all that was to be expected. 

Actually the statements on EU membership came from Jose Manuel Barroso, the head of the EU commission. His statements came in response to Mr Salmond's assertions that Scotland would automatically be an EU member, would retain the UK's opt out clauses and would retain British sterling as it's currency. Mr Barroso said all three of these claims by Mr Salmond were incorrect. Scotland would need to apply for membership (which could take years to achieve even if no other country vetoed Scotland's membership), would not as a new member be permitted to have any opt outs and would need to commit to adopting the Euro as it's currency to even be considered. I would assume as head of the EU commission he knew better than Mr Salmond what the EU's rules on membership would be.

Kythia

Quote from: kylie on September 20, 2014, 12:16:09 PM
While I haven't read very widely on it and I'm sure there has been more complexity (both in problems of planning and sometimes, perhaps even in rightist violence against the independence movement?) ...  That has really been something to watch. 

I'm not certain what you mean here, could you expand a little?  All the violence/harassment/intimidation/etc. I've heard of has come from some of the supporters of independence.  And I'm not aware of any planning problems.
242037

Polymorph

Violence? Despite the passion felt by both sides in the referendum the conduct of the Scottish has really been a credit to the people. There were a few posters daubed with paint, a table got pushed over and the worst incident I heard reported was a women got punched by another woman in the queue outside one polling station for having an English accent.

consortium11

Quote from: kylie on September 20, 2014, 12:16:09 PMI'm saddened that so much of the No campaign was led by cynical claims of 'We'll take away all the jobs if you do' or 'Never mind that we haven't been here before, we know Europe won't let you deal with them like that.'

To be fair here there were likewise a lot of Yes campaign claims that were pretty cynical and based on fear; especially towards the end the battle-cry of the Yes campaign was "save the Scottish NHS from the evil Torys" while not mentioning 1) Scotland already runs its own NHS and 2) the SNP were intending to cut around £450 million from it.

I also think you're misstating some of the Yes campaign arguments; they tended not to be "we'll take your jobs away" and more "there's a chance jobs will leave Scotland". Even in areas where the rUK could have directly taken jobs away I'm not exactly sure why that's unfair or unreasonable... to give a simple example if Scotland had become independant there's no reason for the rUK government to give Scottish shipyards preferential treatment when it came to orders compared to other countries let alone shipyards in the UK.

Likewise most of the comments about how the EU would treat an independent Scotland were Yes campaigners repeating what people either in the EU or who would be involved in any acceptance process had said/written. Polymorph's already pointed out how it was Barroso who poured cold water on most of Salmond's ideas that Scotland would be given unique privileges and treatment.

I'd also be a little cautious about pointing at Salmond and the SNP leading an independent Scotland as a chance to see the "neo-liberal dystopia" broken. While Salmond, the SNP and the Yes campaign in general made a big deal (and were effective at) painting themselves as outsiders attacking the establishment and offering something new, it doesn't really hold up under evidence. Salmond is an ex-banker who's about as establishment as they come and has been deep in Murdoch's pockets for years. The SNP's been the party of government in Scotland since 2007 with a considerable remit... and in that time not a vast amount has changed. Frankly when it comes to policy outside of independence it's not particularly easy to find many differences between them and Labour.

Oniya

Out of curiosity, could someone explain what the term 'rump UK' means?
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

consortium11

Quote from: Oniya on September 20, 2014, 08:26:51 PM
Out of curiosity, could someone explain what the term 'rump UK' means?

It was used during the campaign/debate for what would be left of the United Kingdom if Scotland became independent; it would be what was left behind (a similar usage of the term to the Rump Parliament)

TaintedAndDelish

Quote from: Kythia on September 20, 2014, 08:33:52 AM
Over here as well though.  At least to my eyes.  I live just north of London which is, granted, some way away from Scotland, but while the media has been full of it, people's conversations and suchlike don't seem to have been.  I stayed up to watch it and it seems like consortium11 did to, but we are massively in the minority.  In the run up, and even more so now we're in the post match, noone seemed to actually be interested.  Let alone care.

I stayed up to watch and leaned a little as a result, but it didn't seem like it would be that big of a deal if the yes camp succeeded. Also, the election looked like it was pretty much decided after the first few counties/districts weighed in. As an American viewer, I really didn't feel any strong sense of consequence either way. 

gaggedLouise

#60
Quote from: Oniya on September 20, 2014, 08:26:51 PM
Out of curiosity, could someone explain what the term 'rump UK' means?


The UK after a completed secession/breakout of Scotland - a scenario which didn't happen of course, but it's very interesting as a hypothesis looking at constitutional issues in Britain. Since the UK doesn't really have a unified written constitution codified and set apart at any one time, and the formal lynchpin of UK/British constutional theory is the monarch (an unelected figurehead, even if the PM, the parliament and the cabinet do the effective ruling and roadmapping), the scenario where Scotland opts out would raise some serious questions about the status of Wales and Northern Ireland vs England. Or even the Shetland and Orkney islands - they are more or less a fringe part of Scotland historically, not classic "clan land", and the people there voted overwhelmingly for staying in the UK. If Scotland had opted out they might have lodged a demand to break out of Scotland and keep with Britain, arguing that they had been colonized from Britain, not from Scotland. Edinburgh and the SNP would have hated that; those islands are crucial to the North Sea oil field claims.

Any of those "non-English UK lands" could have said "if Scotland had a parliament of its own as part of the UK, even before it went its own way, we want one too, for each of us! We need to talk about how to balance our rights and duties, and our citizenry, within the UK framework" (because England would have become the giant in the UK family). I understand that's been a non-issue on the national scene up till now, but with Scotland getting even more transfer of powers to Edinburgh, as Cameron promised at the last moment, that kind of constitutional debate could be likely to raise its head within a couple of years.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Oniya

Thanks for that - I wasn't sure if it was a slang term for a specific portion of Parliament. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

kylie

#62
Quote from: Kythia on September 20, 2014, 05:23:01 PM
I'm not certain what you mean here, could you expand a little?  All the violence/harassment/intimidation/etc. I've heard of has come from some of the supporters of independence.  And I'm not aware of any planning problems.

      Well I have to say I've read through overview pieces quickly (mostly just trying to catch up as I said)...  But the gist I gathered was that some feel the Yes campaign had not really spelled out how some policies would be practical...  Although I think some of that is hard to do with much certainty before you actually have independence and see what interests or people actually stay or go.  It's one thing to go on about it before a vote, and quite another to see what actually happens if you're independent.

      While there are examples of violence from the other side (or perhaps both) on the Guardian around now, if not sooner.  And there were some mentions of bullying or beatings in private comments about earlier times, though I'm not all too sure how widespread it was.  My general sense was that things were pretty peaceful, but I'm not too versed in where to look for that sort of thing in the UK media (if it even gets reported well, I dunno). 

Quote from: Polymorph
Actually the statements on EU membership came from Jose Manuel Barroso, the head of the EU commission. His statements came in response to Mr Salmond's assertions that Scotland would automatically be an EU member, would retain the UK's opt out clauses and would retain British sterling as it's currency.
Fine...  Since you put it that way:  I can see that the EU would probably have its own procedures, so Salmond was probably too optimistic on some angles.  Although there's also a fair bit of opposition saying things just 'couldn't' be done because of the size or newness of Scotland.  And there I'm not sure it's all written out in someone else's rules.  Or even that someone else's rules are really unbendable when in fact you would have a new country just beside England on the fringe of Europe.  The rules might feel a bit silly in the actual situation, depending.  Not getting specific I know, but the whole tone of argument there still vexes me a bit. 

Quote from: consortium
I also think you're misstating some of the Yes campaign arguments; they tended not to be "we'll take your jobs away" and more "there's a chance jobs will leave Scotland". Even in areas where the rUK could have directly taken jobs away I'm not exactly sure why that's unfair or unreasonable... to give a simple example if Scotland had become independant there's no reason for the rUK government to give Scottish shipyards preferential treatment when it came to orders compared to other countries let alone shipyards in the UK.

      Well if so, then I'm mostly relating how commentaries I read felt about the tone of those arguments.  But really in a situation like this, it can be quite hard to tell what the intended tone is.  Seems to me it's also often very easy for people in privileged groups to consciously or unconsciously end up invoking a logic of "I don't have any agenda or preference that favors my own interests really, this is just the reality others have to live with."  Isn't it?  Probably it would take some poking around other things that some of the people making those arguments may have said or hinted at.  Certainly some have felt that the intent was to pressure Scotland with unnecessary (or at least, slightly contemptuous even if realistic) warnings of economic collapse. 

      I don't know...  Would it really be more efficient for England to build its ships elsewhere?  Shrug.  But this also happens to often be the language of empire and big business:  You should do what we want simply because we control the jobs.  And some people may justly resent any hint of that tone of argument.  Sometimes it's just preferable to come up with some other line of positive argument for staying...  If one can.
     

Kythia

Quote from: Polymorph on September 20, 2014, 06:54:35 PM
Violence? Despite the passion felt by both sides in the referendum the conduct of the Scottish has really been a credit to the people. There were a few posters daubed with paint, a table got pushed over and the worst incident I heard reported was a women got punched by another woman in the queue outside one polling station for having an English accent.

Yes, I certainly don't want to give the impression it was a violent campaign, I was just responding to Kylie's claim that there had been violence against the independence movement.
242037

Polymorph

Yes I understand. Without a link to this "Rightest violence" I can't really imagine where the claim came from. Certain UK newspapers ran stories which frankly exaggerated any minor criminal incidents to give the impression that Scotland was the next Ukraine just waiting to happen. Both sides in the referendum and the Scottish police did step in to ridicule those reports and stress that although passionate both sets of supporters were remarkably well behaved apart from isolated idiots from both camps.