Implications of Scottish Independence

[stokes234]

Time for the Welsh to vote accordingly then, sir, and make their way in the same direction.

Wales doesn't have any oil to find such a venture

 

[Rolfe]

Ivor, much as I love you, it's like beginning a discussion on homoeopathy with someone who is only vagely aware of the word. Books have been written about this. Long articles. It has been the subject of much discussion over many years.

So forgive us if we're not leaping to give a neat packaged answer to someone who knows bugger-all about it and has a track record of obsessively arguing minute details of sticks he's firmly grasping by the wrong end.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Wales doesn't have any oil to find such a venture

You don't need oil. Most other countries in the world don't have oil. You have what you have, and you make the most of it, like everybody else.

Lack of something England desperately wants is probably an advantage.

Rolfe.

 

[stokes234]

I'm sorry, but tough. You are suggesting that Scotland should sacrifice its own interests to provide a measure of protection for English voters - against themselves! We've had that from Labour for years. Oh, we can't have independence because it would be selling out the English working class.

If the English working class want a Labour government they can put down their Sun newspapers and stop voting Tory. Don't rely on someone else to do it for you.

Rolfe.

That is basically what i'm suggesting, yes - though instead of "against themselves", i'd have put it as "protecting some english from other english". Wales and the north of england have spent a sizeable portion of the last 100 years getting underfunded and screwed over so that the south of england can prosper. It's all very well saying "stop voting tory", but wales and the urban areas of northern england as a rule already don't, and murdoch has such a stranglehold on the news that places like essex are not going to change their ways.

In my head it was an appeal to solidarity, but you appear to have taken it differently.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Ivor, much as I love you, it's like beginning a discussion on homoeopathy with someone who is only vagely aware of the word. Books have been written about this. Long articles. It has been the subject of much discussion over many years.

So forgive us if we're not leaping to give a neat packaged answer to someone who knows bugger-all about it and has a track record of obsessively arguing minute details of sticks he's firmly grasping by the wrong end.

Rolfe.

No offence meant Rolfe, but you'd better start embracing this type of discussion as the SNP are going to have to have it roughly 5 million times over the next 3 or 4 years with people who know a lot less and are less likely to make the effort to understand the arguments than someone like Ivor.

If I were you, I'd welcome the practice and the opportunity to sharpen my wits against a decent opponent in a relatively safe environment.

 

[stokes234]

You don't need oil. Most other countries in the world don't have oil. You have what you have, and you make the most of it, like everybody else.

Lack of something England desperately wants is probably an advantage.

Rolfe.

Having what we have and making the most of it would be a far worse deal for wales than for scotland, because we don't have oil, while you do.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

That is basically what i'm suggesting, yes - though instead of "against themselves", i'd have put it as "protecting some english from other english". Wales and the north of england have spent a sizeable portion of the last 100 years getting underfunded and screwed over so that the south of england can prosper. It's all very well saying "stop voting tory", but wales and the urban areas of northern england as a rule already don't, and murdoch has such a stranglehold on the news that places like essex are not going to change their ways.

In my head it was an appeal to solidarity, but you appear to have taken it differently.

Its really difficult to say which way things would go. You may find that in the absence of Scotland, Wales would have a more prominent role in the UK and that there may be increased 'pandering to the plebs' by the Tories if they feared the complete disintegration of the UK.

I just don't see it as a viable solution for Scotland to stay in the Union so that we can show solidarity and be shafted together with Wales.

And, whisper this if Rolfe is listening, but despite the hype and the euphoria I think its a very long shot that the referendum will show a majority for independence so the likelihood is it's a purely academic discussion.

 

[Darat]

Whilst there has been a lot written about what would happen if a small part of the UK population made the decision to destroy my country (hey I can do hyperbole too!) it's been rather an academic exercise. I think it might be like many divorces, it starts with the best intentions but once the lawyers are involved it soon gets rather nasty.

 

[Rolfe]

No offence meant Rolfe, but you'd better start embracing this type of discussion as the SNP are going to have to have it roughly 5 million times over the next 3 or 4 years with people who know a lot less and are less likely to make the effort to understand the arguments than someone like Ivor.

If I were you, I'd welcome the practice and the opportunity to sharpen my wits against a decent opponent in a relatively safe environment.

Oh, we're going to have the discussion no doubt. But soon there will be new articles with up-to-date statistics, written by better people than me, and we can link to them and discuss them rather than trying to re-invent the wheel right here.

Rolfe.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

That is basically what i'm suggesting, yes - though instead of "against themselves", i'd have put it as "protecting some english from other english". Wales and the north of england have spent a sizeable portion of the last 100 years getting underfunded and screwed over so that the south of england can prosper. It's all very well saying "stop voting tory", but wales and the urban areas of northern england as a rule already don't, and murdoch has such a stranglehold on the news that places like essex are not going to change their ways.

In my head it was an appeal to solidarity, but you appear to have taken it differently.

Where does the south of England start?

 

[qayak]

Where does the south of England start?

Where the north ends? . . . or was that a trick question?

 

[stokes234]

Where does the south of England start?

I duno, probably from about... bristol downwards on the west, cambridge on the east.

 

[Rolfe]

I just don't see it as a viable solution for Scotland to stay in the Union so that we can show solidarity and be shafted together with Wales.

Well put.

And, whisper this if Rolfe is listening, but despite the hype and the euphoria I think its a very long shot that the referendum will show a majority for independence so the likelihood is it's a purely academic discussion.

I don't know. How long a shot would you have put it that the SNP was going to get an overall majority last week? We're sailing in relatively uncharted waters here, and I think anyone who is very sure which way it will go is probably being unwise.

The behaviour of the unionist advocates is very interesting. They spent years insisting that a referendum was the last thing we needed, absolutely not, no way. The time is not right and all that. Then suddenly by Friday afternoon it was "bring it on!" all over again. The speed of the U-turns was dizzying. Why?

Face it, the reason is clear. They feel their best chance of winning is to bounce the Scottish people into a vote before they've had a chance to think about it properly, and before the YES campaign has had a chance to get established. The NO campaign has of course been running for decades - we're too wee too poor and too stupid, don't get ideas above your station.

The unionists seem to have no confidence in their ability to make their case in the face of a well-funded and well-organised YES campaign. I find this strangely comforting.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Where does the south of England start?

Where they start to talk as if they have plums in their mouth!

 

[richardm]

One of the more unfortunate implications is that you may be condemning the rest of britain to tory governments for the foreseeable future. Apparently, england on its own has only ever voted in a labour government twice in the history of the party.

It's impossible to be certain of course, but I think that Scottish independence would change the political dynamics of the whole UK so much that an everlasting Tory reign is unlikely. Either way it's not really an argument designed to make Nationalists go "Oh, okay then, we'll not bother"

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm sorry, but tough. You are suggesting that Scotland should sacrifice its own interests to provide a measure of protection for English voters - against themselves! We've had that from Labour for years. Oh, we can't have independence because it would be selling out the English working class.

If the English working class want a Labour government they can put down their Sun newspapers and stop voting Tory. Don't rely on someone else to do it for you.

Rolfe.

Didn't people north of the border pick up their Sun and started voting SNP?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Whilst there has been a lot written about what would happen if a small part of the UK population made the decision to destroy my country (hey I can do hyperbole too!) it's been rather an academic exercise. I think it might be like many divorces, it starts with the best intentions but once the lawyers are involved it soon gets rather nasty.

This feels like groundhog day, I always seem to contribute to these threads only by saying this, but no-one else ever seems to mention it.


Been there, done that, in 1922, and you are right that it turns nasty (although to be fair, in Ireland's case it started nasty too ). I can understand why the SNP don't want to draw attention to the parallels with Ireland at the moment, but I think they'd be fooish not to learn lessons from them, particularly:

• Don't get hung up on the details of exactly what kind of independence you want. (separate armed forces, monarchy or no etc) once a country is independent it can negotiate all these things as required.
• Good luck getting perfidious Albion to negotiate in good faith.

 

[Darat]

Well put.




I don't know. How long a shot would you have put it that the SNP was going to get an overall majrity last week? We're sailing in relatively uncharted waters here, and I think anyone who is very sure which way it will go is probably being unwise.

The behaviour of the unionist advocates is very interesting. They spent years insisting that a referendum was the last thing we needed, absolutely not, no way. The time is not right and all that. Then suddenly by Friday afternoon it was "bring it on!" all over again. The speed of the U-turns was dizzying. Why?

...snip..

I thought Labour was making that call long before the election, back to at least 2008. In fact I recall you taking them to task for that on this very board back then... quick search throws this up http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3683932#post3683932?


And really it is a rather meaningless complaint Rolfe - as you are engaging in the same behaviour you are castigating them for! Both sides will want to to have the referendum when they think they have the best chance to get the result they want, so you think that means to have it in a little while and they want it sooner.

 

[Darat]

This feels like groundhog day, I always seem to contribute to these threads only by saying this, but no-one else ever seems to mention it.

...snip..

I doubt I'll be in the thread very much longer (some folks get very, very nasty and personal when discussing this topic so rather than lose respect for them I tend to drop out) so I was glad to see someone else shares my view!

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I don't know. How long a shot would you have put it that the SNP was going to get an overall majrity last week? We're sailing in relatively uncharted waters here, and I think anyone who is very sure which way it will go is probably being unwise.

The behaviour of the unionist advocates is very interesting. They spent years insisting that a referendum was the last thing we needed, absolutely not, no way. The time is not right and all that. Then suddenly by Friday afternoon it was "bring it on!" all over again. The speed of the U-turns was dizzying. Why?

Face it, the reason is clear. They feel their best chance of winning is to bounce the Scottish people into a vote before they've had a chance to think about it properly, and before the YES campaign has had a chance to get established. The NO campaign has of course been running for decades - we're too wee too poor and too stupid, don't get ideas above your station.

The unionists seem to have no confidence in their ability to make their case in the face of a well-funded and well-organised YES campaign. I find this strangely comforting.

Rolfe.

Well, I certainly wouldn't say I know how it would go. Realisitically though I think getting a majority for independence will be very difficult.

More so than getting a majority in the Scottish Parliament when the Tories, Labour and Lib Dem are all a busted flush. I fully expected the SNP to do very well in this election, though probably not as well as they did.

Bear in mind though that even then they didn't get a majority of the vote, something they would need to get for independence. A different question yes so not comparable but it puts it in some perspective.

A straw poll of people around me suggests that quite a few voted SNP in the past election who either don't support independence or who are indifferent to the idea.

Also bear in mind the maths of the situation. I'm assuming that all registered voters in Scotland will be eligible to vote. So that's about 4m give or take.

Many of these are going to be non-Scots, specifically several hundred thousand of them will be English. I can't see many English (very very few) voters living in Scotland voting for independence.

You also have the rabid loyalist/unionist vote. You have about 50,000 in the Orange Order and at least the same again, if not more, unaffiliated who share the same feelings. By comparison you have about 15,000 SNP members.

It's a bloody big ask to convince the majority of 4m people to vote for independence when you probably have at least half a million who are unpersuadeable. (is that a word?)

I'm not sure whether the push for a quick referendum is driven by fear that independence might actually happen as it is by a political motivation to undermine the SNP. If they were to have a referendum tomorrow and the vote is 60% against then Salmond and the SNP become lame ducks.

As it stands I support Independence and hope it happens. I don't think we should kid ourselves about how far away from reality we are with it - it's going to take a minor miracle to push it over the line.