Freedom for Tooting! And other similar nutty fringe communities

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Why don't they wait until after the next election?  Assume the Tories have a complete blow out under Boris, Labour win but are just short of a majority, go in for a coalition with the promise of a referendum towards the end of the parliament but in the mean time get a bit more devolved power anyway.  I don't see the point in rushing it with the worldwide economy on a bit of a knife edge as well.  There just don't seem to be many pros for doing it next year to me.

Devolved powers are an illusion.

As soon as Westminster fancy, they remove them.

Wales passed legislation 5 years ago banning agency workers breaking strikes (very very simplified version that) Westminster have now decided to repeal that legislation. They didn’t even tell the Welsh Government they were doing it.

So it would be a bit of a risk to strategise who wins the next election, by how many seats, and who they will form a coalition with.

[tonyh29]

In the first instance Scotland need to be sure there is a path for them back into the EU , it’s not 100% sure there is ? unless  they are banking on Putin rocking  up on the Isle of Skye with his navy so the EU will fast track them? 

But if not , As I read it , under international law Scotland becomes a new state and has to go through the whole article 49 process , during which time they wouldn’t even be privy to the the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (as far as I’m aware ? )

then there are the SNP’s fantasy dreams that they can opt out of the euro , opt out of Schengen , not have a hard border with England ( guess they could avoid this by joining the EEA ?)

But if the SNP win the mandate to do so then let them crack on with whatever they want I’m sure they know what they are doing 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Yep it's called the European Union. Freedom of movement of people and open borders between the countries 

But what if I live in Yemen? Can I still walk to Yeovil and get a job and health care?

[CVByrne]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

But what if I live in Yemen? Can I still walk to Yeovil and get a job and health care?

In time no reason why Yemen couldn't be included in a Union. Not in my lifetime though.

But the point is bring people together in a political Union like the EU and not try find ways to divide people. The populist politicians want to divide for their own personal gain. 

[Mark Albrighton]

16 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Why don't they wait until after the next election?  Assume the Tories have a complete blow out under Boris, Labour win but are just short of a majority, go in for a coalition with the promise of a referendum towards the end of the parliament but in the mean time get a bit more devolved power anyway.  I don't see the point in rushing it with the worldwide economy on a bit of a knife edge as well.  There just don't seem to be many pros for doing it next year to me.

If Scotland do leave, I want it to happen on Johnson’s watch. 

Sure we would know he’s assembled the ingredients for a shit sandwich, but I’d want him to be the one to eat it.
 

[sharkyvilla]

7 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

If Scotland do leave, I want it to happen on Johnson’s watch. 

Sure we would know he’s assembled the ingredients for a shit sandwich, but I’d want him to be the one to eat it.
 

If Scotland do leave we would have Tory government for eternity most likely.  Johnson's reputation is already in tatters and couldn't get any lower, but once it sinks in they'd probably consider him some sort of martyr if anything.

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, Mark Albrighton said:

If Scotland do leave, I want it to happen on Johnson’s watch. 

Sure we would know he’s assembled the ingredients for a shit sandwich, but I’d want him to be the one to eat it.
 

Well I suppose it makes a change from VT blaming Thatcher for everything

 

[Mark Albrighton]

1 minute ago, sharkyvilla said:

If Scotland do leave we would have Tory government for eternity most likely.  Johnson's reputation is already in tatters and couldn't get any lower, but once it sinks in they'd probably consider him some sort of martyr if anything.

Losing Scotland would take it lower among some of his core base. All those union flags that will need replacing. Will live long in the memory that will. Then have PR voting once the tories are out.

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Well I suppose it makes a change from VT blaming Thatcher for everything

 

He’ll have played his part, should it happen, Brexit alone has secured that. Although who knows, maybe he’ll win them over when he’s on the campaign trail north of the border and cease being a walking advert for independence.

[mykeyb]

The Crankie woman and her country can go as soon as they like.

They will have to do a Brexit style campaign to get it through because the truth won't cut it.

[desensitized43]

12 hours ago, Davkaus said:

It was 45-55 last time with an 85% turnout. There will be a significant turnout even if they tried to go down this route that is, frankly, conniving and shameful. 

If you think "the only way for the Union side to come out well" is to try an anti-democratic method to discredit the vote, rather than winning a fair fight, maybe it's time to accept that Scotland ought to be able to decide their own destiny. If we're so short on compelling arguments all we can try to do to persuade them to stay is attack the process and make it appear illegitimate, I can't think of a better argument for them to leave.

I suppose it depends on whether you think this vote has any chance of having democratic legitimacy at all. It's a non-binding consultative vote which will all but certainly guarantee a lower turnout than last time which will favour the Yes side. Has there been any discussion on the terms of engagement for each side? What are they allowed to spend? Who'll enforce that? Who's going to monitor the vote for any irregularities? Who qualifies for a vote? Are they allowing those scots living in other places to vote? It's all pretty murky.

FWIW I agree with you that it's up to the Scots to decide their own destiny. I hope they get independence. Personally I'd love nothing more than for a vote that ensured I'd never have to take another Tory government I didn't vote for ever again. We've had a decade of successive referenda and elections that have essentially broken our society. I don't know how we repair the bonds anymore and there's people on all sides, but particularly on the SNP side who have no interest in even trying to make it work.

 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

8 hours ago, mykeyb said:

The Crankie woman and her country can go as soon as they like.

They will have to do a Brexit style campaign to get it through because the truth won't cut it.

I have sort of changed my mind on this overall,  let them vote if they want.
I would like to see what the plans are if Scotland achieved Independence though,  really simple things like currency,  border and interest rate control.  I think everyone at least deserves to know what they are going to do or at least what they have as options if they were to win.

 

[blandy]

18 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

So that’s it, others have decided Scotland’s fate outside the EU permanently tethered economically to what Westminster wants, and it’s too difficult to do anything else.

Scotland's voters decided Scotland's "fate" when they decided, all by themselves, to stay as part of the UK for the next generation, at least. Scotland's voters decided to stay as part of the UK, with the UK Gov't being in Westminster and all that entails.

I don't like this (nationalist) "another country decides what we can do, it's not fair" type of appeal to people. Democracy should be more localised in so many regards, I agree. But the ultimate end of that line is that each individual decides for themself, which is obviously untenable for major stuff. The divisive aspect of us v them, whether it's a generational us and them, or a Brexit one, or an Indie ref one, or whatever else - it's bad for society and for people generally. It targets the wrong people for blame, too.

It's as frustrating for someone in England, who didn't vote tory, to have a tory Gov't as it is for someone in Wales or Scotland. Wales and Scotland have the advantage (Scotland in particular) of having an alternative to the Tories which they felt able to vote for in large numbers and have win loads of seats. Kinda like the tories in a way - they got loads more seats than their vote percentage merited 45% of the vote and but 80% of the seats available. Change the voting system in the UK and to me that's a far better solution to getting Governments that represent the will of the people than is breaking the UK up into bitter smaller parts all blaming each other for the state of things.

[chrisp65]

18 minutes ago, blandy said:

Scotland's voters decided Scotland's "fate" when they decided, all by themselves, to stay as part of the UK for the next generation, at least. Scotland's voters decided to stay as part of the UK, with the UK Gov't being in Westminster and all that entails.

I don't like this (nationalist) "another country decides what we can do, it's not fair" type of appeal to people. Democracy should be more localised in so many regards, I agree. But the ultimate end of that line is that each individual decides for themself, which is obviously untenable for major stuff. The divisive aspect of us v them, whether it's a generational us and them, or a Brexit one, or an Indie ref one, or whatever else - it's bad for society and for people generally. It targets the wrong people for blame, too.

It's as frustrating for someone in England, who didn't vote tory, to have a tory Gov't as it is for someone in Wales or Scotland. Wales and Scotland have the advantage (Scotland in particular) of having an alternative to the Tories which they felt able to vote for in large numbers and have win loads of seats. Kinda like the tories in a way - they got loads more seats than their vote percentage merited 45% of the vote and but 80% of the seats available. Change the voting system in the UK and to me that's a far better solution to getting Governments that represent the will of the people than is breaking the UK up into bitter smaller parts all blaming each other for the state of things.

 

I think there’s 2 points made there.

The first one, I recall they were told their only way of staying in the EU was to stay in the UK? That was the top and bottom of the unionist pitch.

That was the Gordon Brown roadshow tour.

Of course, it later transpired, that with no mandate from Scotland and only 38% of the UK wide vote, Cameron got elected had a Brexit referendum and took us out of Europe. So it really is disingenuous to use the ‘decided 8 years ago’ line that the tories are trotting out today.

On the second point, I’m just not seeing this ‘nationalist’ line. It has quite a deliberate undertone. Wales currently wants to take more refugees, but that isn’t a ‘devolved’ power. So the ‘not’ nationalists in Westminster can stop them. I think maybe the problem is (and this is an absolute guess as I’m not in those shoes) perhaps some England based people sort of take it personally that others don’t really want their assistance? We get handed down some money to play with via the Barnet formula and its a surprise to some that perhaps people think they could do a better job themselves and raise their own money and spend it how they see fit. No amount of proportional representation or regional list changes to the voting system stops Wales being 5% the size of England. So there is no system where we don’t get handed pocket money and told how we can use it. But it absolutely isn’t about not liking England, that’s a false argument or a false fear. I don’t dislike Ireland, I just don’t think the Irish should have the final legal say on whether you can strike in Wales.

To spin it another way, if England wanted to become independent, would it be acceptable for Northern Ireland to be able to unilaterally say no? And then tell England what it’s budget will be, what England is allowed to spend it on, and what England is legally allowed to do to raise additional money?

That would be ridiculous. Wouldn’t it? It would also be impossible, as matters of the union are decided in Westminster, and 83% of Westminster will be English constituencies. 83%

It is not a partnership of equals, when one partner gets to decide who stays and who leaves and has sole control of the bank account. There’s a different name for that relationship.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The first one, I recall they were told their only way of staying in the EU was to stay in the UK? That was the top and bottom of the unionist pitch.

Yeah, if they'd have voted to leave the UK, then they'd have been out of the EU straight away.

Sure the circs are now different if they have another referendum on leaving the UK in that the Tories took all of us out, anyway, but back then absolutely they'd have been immediately out of the EU.

I agree the current Tory gov't seems to care as little for Scotland as Scotland does for the UK/England and that also the Tories don't care much for anyone, other than their donors. Whether in Wales or Northern England or the West of England, we're all kind of gaslighted, or whatever the word is, and spoken down to.

And I also agree that there are aspects of the combined UK kind of national things that Wales or Scotland don't control - but not that many. I mean defence is one obvious one, and it seems like broadly that's something people are happy with. 

I accept that if people in (say) Wales feel that they are Welsh, that therefore Wales is the defining facet that determines who should control everything in Wales, that's fine. It's not something that can be debated, really - it's a feeling with complete validity. Same as if (say) someone in Lancashire or Cornwall or Yorkshire feels that their location should be self governing. Whatever happened to the Kingdom of Mercia? Why shouldn't the Midlands be self governing like they used to be? We could break up the whole islands of the UK into little kingdoms.

[chrisp65]

53 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yeah, if they'd have voted to leave the UK, then they'd have been out of the EU straight away.

Sure the circs are now different if they have another referendum on leaving the UK in that the Tories took all of us out, anyway, but back then absolutely they'd have been immediately out of the EU.

I agree the current Tory gov't seems to care as little for Scotland as Scotland does for the UK/England and that also the Tories don't care much for anyone, other than their donors. Whether in Wales or Northern England or the West of England, we're all kind of gaslighted, or whatever the word is, and spoken down to.

And I also agree that there are aspects of the combined UK kind of national things that Wales or Scotland don't control - but not that many. I mean defence is one obvious one, and it seems like broadly that's something people are happy with. 

I accept that if people in (say) Wales feel that they are Welsh, that therefore Wales is the defining facet that determines who should control everything in Wales, that's fine. It's not something that can be debated, really - it's a feeling with complete validity. Same as if (say) someone in Lancashire or Cornwall or Yorkshire feels that their location should be self governing. Whatever happened to the Kingdom of Mercia? Why shouldn't the Midlands be self governing like they used to be? We could break up the whole islands of the UK into little kingdoms.

It could break down in to small enough pieces for the People’s Republic De Cymru to invade them one by one, establish a United Tribes of Big Britain and dictate to all the others when to send us water and energy, but then (and this is the brilliant bit) charge them for the upkeep of the infrastructure that directs everything across the border. 

Drakeford crowned Emperor and touring the dominions in the finest purple jumper.

I think we’re several years off the Lancashire independence referendum. But if ever they did want one, I wouldn’t think it was in Wales power to refuse it.

 

[MakemineVanilla]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Why shouldn't the Midlands be self governing like they used to be?

Probably because I've seen The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil, and Train Spotting too many times, I had a lot of sympathy with Scotland going independent.

But then I looked up the GDP figures and found that Scotland is a lot richer than the West Midlands, which was about the same as some country like Slovenia, back in the pre-banking-crisis days.

So I outed myself as a patronising sassenach and concluded that the West Midlands was as dependent on the London shekel even more so than chilly Jockoland.

The trouble with Scotland is the inequality, and the extremes are egregious to say the least -  there are islands of London-like prosperity around the financial district and Aberdeen, but the poverty elsewhere is eye-watering.

Male the average life-expectancy is 60.9 and the lowest is 54.4 - in India it is 69.5.

The bad news is that the SNP's socialist utopia hasn't managed to fix this, and look unlikely to do so, so far.

We've seen what has been achieved in the Republic of Ireland, which has a higher GDP per capita than Blighty ($102 v $49k), but the question is whether an independent socialist government could achieve the same for Scotland?

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

but the question is whether an independent socialist government could achieve the same for Scotland?

Why would the government of an Indie Scotland be socialist?

and this...

Quote

The bad news is that the SNP's socialist utopia

The SNP are not now nor ever have been Socialist, not in any description of the word.

They are a single issue collective of many centre left and right strands. They only have one unifying policy. If Independence was ever achiueved they would split many ways as their job was done and they have no underlying political phiosophy. Socialist? Not a chance. Further right than Kier Starmer in the main

[blandy]

27 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

The bad news is that the SNP's socialist utopia hasn't managed to fix this, and look unlikely to do so, so far.

I wouldn’t say Scotland is any such thing and there’s quite a lot the SNP have got wrong plus they’re as sleazy and self interested as any other party, but they are, as I said in a previous post, sort of Laboury, but without the Iraq war / financial crash / Corbyn stigma. They’ve done ok running Scotland, I guess. Better than the tories here, for sure.

[chrisp65]

52 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

The bad news is that the SNP's socialist utopia hasn't managed to fix this, and look unlikely to do so, so far.

15 years of SNP government under limited devolution, with limited tax and finance raising powers, you’d have thought they’d have fixed everything by now.

 

 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

10 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

15 years of SNP government under limited devolution, with limited tax and finance raising powers, you’d have thought they’d have fixed everything by now.

 

 

It is still going along so with the limited tools at their disposal its not a total disaster.

I wonder if it would be a lot better if their eye wasn't 100% on Independence though.

Question to anyone really : Is there an estimate of the GDP of an independent Scotland ? I think The Netherlands is approx. 950 B.  Approx. 50% population in Scotland,  I guess it as 500 B? (This is Austria / Belgium / Ireland level)

Edited June 30, 2022 by Amsterdam_Neil_D
Spelling