Scottish Independence

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

I just don't get it, Scottish Independence. What will it achieve? Will it be total? Can't really see how that can happen, they will surely have to join the EU, and as a condition of membership the Euro, which begs two questions really.

• What is the point in swapping one government for another, neither of which is Scottish?
• Who in their right mind in 2014 would vote to say, yeah lets join the Euro?

I think the English people saying why don't they get a say are missing the point of independence though, we don't get a say because it's not us that wants to leave, it really doesn't, shouldn't and won't ever work like that.

 

 

It's such an interesting time for Scotland and while I don't think they will go independent I can see the benefits.

At Uni I studied social policy, specifically funding, and I spent a fair bit of time studying policies in Scotland as well as Joseph Rowntree research, what I found interesting is the amount of third sector projects from Scotland that were helping to make communities better but a few years later were losing their funding or the control aspect removed due to decisions in Westminster.  

 

One such example is the company WorkDirections (now Ingeus) who as a failed organisation (failed in part due to shocking Government policy) were given huge contracts in Scotland despite the Scottish vehemently disagreeing. The Scottish wanted to do it their way but we said nope, we have the answers get on with it, yet this company are continuing to fail long term unemployment especially with the hardest to help. The cost is huge, the ability to make the most of the natural resources (people) is narrow and benefit claims cyclical, I think Scotland could do a lot more to tackle their own problems without paying over the odds and losing control to attain this. 

 

The same problems can be found in various other policy/funding control aspects and while a better solution might be to give Scotland more power I can see why independence is so appealing. 

 

On the EU, well it's a muddle, if Scotland goes independent and manages to join the EU (applies for membership) then Spain will be in real trouble and the EU will have a new horrible problem to deal with. Due to financial problems I can see the £ being shared and UK/Scotland preferring that.

 

However like you've pointed out if the EU condition is to join the euro then they could be in real trouble, I guess then we need to look at what the EU thinks about the UK leaving the EU. Is it more beneficial to have Scotland an EU country but sharing the pound with a country who might leave? Or have them using the euro and isolating the UK from Europe hopefully forcing our hand to stay? From the EU's point of view It might actually be better to share a currency rather than making Scotland an euro country, especially as they can claim it's an internal conversation thus furthering the chances of the Spanish getting restless.

 

Either way it will take a few years at least to attain membership (I think there's a rush application though isn't there?....,) and so Scotland might be politically influential in EU eyes and so might give them what they want....

 

There is so much to consider and it's a damned minefield especially as Scotland are a nation with the ability to stand on their own, unlike other nations who need EU support, whatever happens I think it'll hit England a lot harder than we think, especially if you're from a northern city.

[chrisp65]

Yep, I'm one that has said Alun Cairns my local MP has been very good locally. Beyond very good, he was exceptional. But that was on local issues. As soon as something bigger comes along, even just the need for a comment on foodbanks, he's forced to toe the party line and do as the whips tell him, which means on all the big stuff he votes and talks right wing.

 

So I can shake his hand, chat to him at the football and share his softmints. But I can't vote for him, which is very unfortunate.

 

I don't think that's 'dealing with a mindset', I think that's recognising how it works.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

Yep, I'm one that has said Alun Cairns my local MP has been very good locally. Beyond very good, he was exceptional. But that was on local issues. As soon as something bigger comes along, even just the need for a comment on foodbanks, he's forced to toe the party line and do as the whips tell him, which means on all the big stuff he votes and talks right wing.

 

So I can shake his hand, chat to him at the football and share his softmints. But I can't vote for him, which is very unfortunate.

 

I don't think that's 'dealing with a mindset', I think that's recognising how it works.

I was going to 'like this' but I realised I just couldn't....I can't like such a glaring error with our political system.

 

When asked what job I ultimately want I say politician, upon further discussion I'm usually told 'oh, so not a politician but a civil servant' (MP's have told me this too, sigh) I smile politely say 'perhaps' but also point out that it would be fantastic to be a politician who supports and seeks out good policy rather than one who puts the party first.

It's funny, Labour guys scoff, Lib Dem's smile and Tories wish me luck with my impossible task. 

 

Does Cairns say one thing but support it privately, for example fighting for the support of food banks on his own turf? Or does his quite literally toe the party line through local affairs too?  

[chrisp65]

When he's been ever so lightly challenged on this view that foodbank users are just con artists, alcoholics, drug users and the financially incompetent, he simply hasn't wanted to talk about it. Being lovely people, and all with a wide variety of views and not wanting to go political on our social time, we've never really pushed him on this. But there's an election coming, so in a different environment it will be ok to challenge him.

 

But this is way off topic. 

[KennyPowers]

I think a lot of people regard political parties as clubs and they support the same clubs as they were brought up to by their parents. Quite sad really but unless people go to University they aren't really encouraged to undertake independent thinking.  

 

I also think to too many people, politics is quite a distant, remote idea. That's why we get all these comments about Westminster being out of touch. If you think that go to one of your MP's surgeries and talk to them about an issue. Politics is just not real to a lot of people but there's really not much of an excuse, there's not a lot of competition in local elections, if you want to start lower, start going to your town or parish council, most of them struggle to get anyone under 50 to turn up. 

 

How many people have ever gone to a council meeting? They're open to the public. People can't really keep saying we want more of a local say in politics and then do nothing consistent on a practical level consistent with that statement. 

Edited September 3, 2014 by KennyPowers

[Jon]

'To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation.' (George Monbiot)

 

Can't really argue with that statement, on its own merits (though there is obviously more to it than that alone)

 

Full article:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

 

Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self-harm

 

Imagine the question posed the other way round. An independent nation is asked to decide whether to surrender its sovereignty to a larger union. It would be allowed a measure of autonomy, but key aspects of its governance would be handed to another nation. It would be used as a military base by the dominant power and yoked to an economy over which it had no control.

It would have to be bloody desperate. Only a nation in which the institutions of governance had collapsed, which had been ruined economically, which was threatened by invasion or civil war or famine might contemplate this drastic step. Most nations faced even with such catastrophes choose to retain their independence – in fact, will fight to preserve it – rather than surrender to a dominant foreign power.

 

So what would you say about a country that sacrificed its sovereignty without collapse or compulsion; that had no obvious enemies, a basically sound economy and a broadly functional democracy, yet chose to swap it for remote governance by the hereditary elite of another nation, beholden to a corrupt financial centre?

What would you say about a country that exchanged an economy based on enterprise and distribution for one based on speculation and rent? That chose obeisance to a government that spies on its own citizens, uses the planet as its dustbin, governs on behalf of a transnational elite that owes loyalty to no nation, cedes public services to corporations, forces terminally ill people to work and can’t be trusted with a box of fireworks, let alone a fleet of nuclear submarines? You would conclude that it had lost its senses.

So what’s the difference? How is the argument altered by the fact that Scotland is considering whether to gain independence rather than whether to lose it? It’s not. Those who would vote no – now, a new poll suggests, a rapidly diminishing majority – could be suffering from system justification.

 

 

System justification is defined as the “process by which existing social arrangements are legitimised, even at the expense of personal and group interest”. It consists of a desire to defend the status quo, regardless of its impacts. It has been demonstrated in a large body of experimental work, which has produced the following surprising results.

System justification becomes stronger when social and economic inequality is more extreme. This is because people try to rationalise their disadvantage by seeking legitimate reasons for their position. In some cases disadvantaged people are more likely than the privileged to support the status quo. One study found that US citizens on low incomes were more likely than those on high incomes to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary.

It explains why women in experimental studies pay themselves less than men, why people in low-status jobs believe their work is worth less than those in high-status jobs, even when they’re performing the same task, and why people accept domination by another group. It might help to explain why so many people in Scotland are inclined to vote no.

The fears the no campaigners have worked so hard to stoke are – by comparison with what the Scots are being asked to lose – mere shadows. As Adam Ramsay points out in his treatise Forty-Two Reasons to Support Scottish Independence, there are plenty of nations smaller than Scotland that possess their own currencies and thrive. Most of the world’s prosperous nations are small: there are no inherent disadvantages to downsizing.

Remaining in the UK carries as much risk and uncertainty as leaving. England’s housing bubble could blow at any time. We might leave the European Union. Some of the most determined no campaigners would take us out: witness Ukip’s intention to stage a “pro-union rally” in Glasgow on 12 September. The union in question, of course, is the UK, not Europe. This reminds us of a crashing contradiction in the politics of such groups: if our membership of the EU represents an appalling and intolerable loss of sovereignty, why is the far greater loss Scotland is being asked to accept deemed tolerable and necessary.

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City.

To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable.

Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of power. It has failed to reform the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance and first-past-the-post voting (another triumph for the no brigade). It is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing their editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every opportunity. The concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies outweigh those of the majority; the concerns of corporations with no lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken, corrupt, dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this?

Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an opportunity to rewrite the political rules. To create a written constitution, the very process of which is engaging and transformative. To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice.

To deny this to yourself, to remain subject to the whims of a distant and uncaring elite, to succumb to the bleak, deferential negativity of the no campaign, to accept other people’s myths in place of your own story: that would be an astonishing act of self-repudiation and self-harm. Consider yourselves independent and work backwards from there; then ask why you would sacrifice that freedom.

[Corcaigh]

Touching on one of the themes of Monbiot's article, the issue of land ownership in Scotland is quite extraordinary. I'm not sure if it's an issue that's been touched upon during the referendum campaign, or even much can be done about it, but It's quite bizarre a 21st century state can retain what is effectively a pattern of land ownership from the Middle Ages.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

Touching on one of the themes of Monbiot's article, the issue of land ownership in Scotland is quite extraordinary. I'm not sure if it's an issue that's been touched upon during the referendum campaign, or even much can be done about it, but It's quite bizarre a 21st century state can retain what is effectively a pattern of land ownership from the Middle Ages.

This issue is starting to get coverage which is great, I guess independence would give Scotland a chance to manage house building in a more innovative manner plus put policy based pressure on land owners.

Edited September 3, 2014 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[bickster]

Touching on one of the themes of Monbiot's article, the issue of land ownership in Scotland is quite extraordinary. I'm not sure if it's an issue that's been touched upon during the referendum campaign, or even much can be done about it, but It's quite bizarre a 21st century state can retain what is effectively a pattern of land ownership from the Middle Ages.

C'mon, Paul McCartney and Ian Anderson from Jethro Tull own half of Scotland between them, whats so backward ab… oh

[tonyh29]

Yep, I'm one that has said Alun Cairns my local MP has been very good locally. Beyond very good, he was exceptional. But that was on local issues. As soon as something bigger comes along, even just the need for a comment on foodbanks, he's forced to toe the party line and do as the whips tell him, which means on all the big stuff he votes and talks right wing.

 

So I can shake his hand, chat to him at the football and share his softmints. But I can't vote for him, which is very unfortunate.

 

I don't think that's 'dealing with a mindset', I think that's recognising how it works.

 

tbf you were one of a few who said similair

 

personally I'd vote on local issues over country issues  , someone trying to build a waste dump on my doorstep is more relevant to me than games at Westminster

 

I wrote to my MP about the great rip off that is airport tax .. he wrote back and said as a member of the cabinet the only way he could vote / rebel  against the government on anything was to resign from the cabinet ( which he wasn't prepared to do )  ... and that is probably all that is wrong with politics  .. career over doing the right thing

[chrisp65]

somebody deciding in westminster they can frack wherever they want has slightly undermined the local tory MP here, we've a few posh villages not quite sure what the frack to do about it 

 

anyway, way OT

[lapal_fan]

Fracking is good.

 

Get with the times hippy.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Nuclear is better.

[lapal_fan]

No it's not you white collar Hitler.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

So, um, what if this happens?

[Awol]

So, um, what if this happens?

No currency union, no EU membership,austerity max, revolution, Scotland applies to join the UK.

[Jon]

Given that Scindependance would probably mean many years of continuous Tory rule, could that be a reason they've made such a pigs ear of the 'no' campaign.

 

If the result is hanging in the balance in the final week, expect plenty of Gid and Dave in the final few days in the media, telling the Scotch to vote No, cause it's good for 'em and they must bow down to their rich southern overlords, to put the final nail in the coffin of the Union.

[lapal_fan]

If they do gain independence, will we start seeing adverts about sending money to the poor scotch people?

 

"If you give a scotch a fish, it will feed him for a day.  If you give a scotch a rod, he can fly fish for his family for up to a year..."

 

"For only £3 a month, you could help teach a scotch how to catch his own haggis, for £6 a month, you could wean a scotch family off smack for a month.."

[Awol]

Given that Scindependance would probably mean many years of continuous Tory rule, could that be a reason they've made such a pigs ear of the 'no' campaign.

If the result is hanging in the balance in the final week, expect plenty of Gid and Dave in the final few days in the media, telling the Scotch to vote No, cause it's good for 'em and they must bow down to their rich southern overlords, to put the final nail in the coffin of the Union.

First point, the No campaign has been led by Alistair Darling, not the Tories...

Second point, if Scotland's attachment to the union rests on which party will govern in Westminster for the next five years then it's not much of an attachment at all.

Third point, no UK politician of any stripe wants to be the Prime Minister who "lost" the UK. Pretending otherwise simply to indulge in some Tory bashing is a bit silly.

[tonyh29]

Given that Scindependance would probably mean many years of continuous Tory rule, could that be a reason they've made such a pigs ear of the 'no' campaign.

 

If the result is hanging in the balance in the final week, expect plenty of Gid and Dave in the final few days in the media, telling the Scotch to vote No, cause it's good for 'em and they must bow down to their rich southern overlords, to put the final nail in the coffin of the Union.

 

that's actually (a bit of ) a myth

 

On no occasion since 1945 would independence have changed the identity of the winning party and on only two occasions would it have converted a Labour majority into a hung parliament (1964 and October 1974). Without Scotland, Labour would still have won in 1945 (with a majority of 146, down from 143), in 1966 (77, down from 98), in 1997 (139, down from 179), in 2001 (129, down from 167) and in 2005 (43, down from 66).