(non-Scottish) britishers, how do you feel about the Scots and their indipendence

[Comrade Quixote]

There seems a recurring theme in threads relation to Scottish independence implying that the non-Scottish portions of the UK have a negative feeling towards the Scottish and thus towards their independence I thought it might be interesting to run a poll to gauge the spectrum of opinion.

I apologise in advance that the special and unique snow flake option that you feel represents you is not there.

 

[Lensman]

I feel it would be a mistake for the Scots to become independent, but it's their mistake to make.

 

[Craig B]

There seems a recurring theme in threads relation to Scottish independence implying that the non-Scottish portions of the UK have a negative feeling towards the Scottish

I don't think that's really true to any significant extent. The hostility towards independence comes mainly from the established UK political structures which want no event to occur which might affect the existing balance of power. If you are already in the elite, any and all constitutional change is undesirable. Either it leaves you where you are, in which case it is irrelevant, or it results in your demotion, in which case it is obnoxious. It can't result in your promotion to the top, because you're already there.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think that's really true to any significant extent. The hostility towards independence comes mainly from the established UK political structures which want no event to occur which might affect the existing balance of power. If you are already in the elite, any and all constitutional change is undesirable. Either it leaves you where you are, in which case it is irrelevant, or it results in your demotion, in which case it is obnoxious. It can't result in your promotion to the top, because you're already there.

Hahaha so you're suggesting that from a self-preservation perspective, a Conservative Prime Minister of the UK would not be delighted to see Scotland removed from its contribution to the UK parliament? You're aware that currently Scotland returns 40 Labour MPs, 11 LibDem MPs, 6 SNP MPs and only ONE Conservative MP?

If one were to follow your "argument", Cameron and everyone else in the Conservative party ought to be strongly in favour of Scottish independence - it would shift the balance of power in rUK significantly towards the Conservative party and away from its main challenger for power, the Labour party. Yet Cameron is not in favour of Scottish independence! How can one marry these apparently disparate and contradictory points of view.....?

 

[Nogbad]

Hahaha so you're suggesting that from a self-preservation perspective, a Conservative Prime Minister of the UK would not be delighted to see Scotland removed from its contribution to the UK parliament? You're aware that currently Scotland returns 40 Labour MPs, 11 LibDem MPs, 6 SNP MPs and only ONE Conservative MP?

If one were to follow your "argument", Cameron and everyone else in the Conservative party ought to be strongly in favour of Scottish independence - it would shift the balance of power in rUK significantly towards the Conservative party and away from its main challenger for power, the Labour party. Yet Cameron is not in favour of Scottish independence! How can one marry these apparently disparate and contradictory points of view.....?

Equally, one might ask the question that if Scotland is the land of deep fried heroin munchers and benefit scroungers that people like Simon Heffer in the Daily Mail seek to portray us as (but only in English editions of the paper) why are they so desperate to retain us in the Union. The UK Government have spent a tidy sum on producing No material from over 1,200 pages of official reports telling us how great the Union is to a glossy brochure pushed through every door in Scotland. All the big wheels of the establishment from the BBC to the CBI are behind the Tories on this.

In discussions I have had in the office where it has to be said there are more Yes supporters than No supporters the undecided element have on several occasions said that the one thing that makes then suspicious is the desperation to retain us in the Union. The UK has shown no such sentimentality in the past in ditching dead weight in terms of colonies and dependencies.

 

[LondonJohn]

Equally, one might ask the question that if Scotland is the land of deep fried heroin munchers and benefit scroungers that people like Simon Heffer in the Daily Mail seek to portray us as (but only in English editions of the paper) why are they so desperate to retain us in the Union. The UK Government have spent a tidy sum on producing No material from over 1,200 pages of official reports telling us how great the Union is to a glossy brochure pushed through every door in Scotland. All the big wheels of the establishment from the BBC to the CBI are behind the Tories on this.

In discussions I have had in the office where it has to be said there are more Yes supporters than No supporters the undecided element have on several occasions said that the one thing that makes then suspicious is the desperation to retain us in the Union. The UK has shown no such sentimentality in the past in ditching dead weight in terms of colonies and dependencies.

There's nothing "suspicious" about it whatsoever! Those who are determined to believe that there is some nefarious ulterior motive are, I'm afraid, being either paranoid or ignorant.

Here's the fact: both Scotland AND England/Wales/NI would be better off if Scotland remained part of the UK. I mean "better off" in the important areas of the economy, geopolitics and military strength, but also in softer areas such as cultural diversity and the arts.

Now, if the majority of those Scottish voters who vote on 18th September place their emotional desire to be separate from the rest of the UK (and, it appears, primarily England) above the near-inevitable detriment to the areas mentioned above, then that is their prerogative. If the majority of voters on referendum day have the same desire for Scotland to be a "proud, independent nation" standing on its own two feet in the World, then that's perfectly fine. But they need to understand that there will be measurable downsides to that course of action as well.

And that is why almost all non-Scottish UK politicians and commentators would prefer for Scotland to remain part of the UK. As I've already pointed out, it would rather suit the Conservative party to get rid of 40-odd Labour seats in Westminster - it would considerably affect the outcome of future Westminster elections in favour of the Conservative party. So on some levels one might expect Conservatives to be at least ambivalent to the idea of Scottish independence (they could easily find an artful way of reconciling it with their traditional "unionist" tag). Yet the Conservatives - individually and collectively - are almost unanimously against Scottish independence? Why? It's easy to see why if you take off the foggy glasses of paranoia and conspiracies, and realise that - once emotion is taken out of play - there are clear and unarguable reasons why both Scotland and the rest of the UK would be better off with Scotland remaining part of the UK.

 

[Nogbad]

There's nothing "suspicious" about it whatsoever! Those who are determined to believe that there is some nefarious ulterior motive are, I'm afraid, being either paranoid or ignorant.

I will pass that on to them as your considered opinion.

I'm voting Yes because I think it is right thing at the right time for Scotland. It isn't about being richer or, God preserve us, military power or international clout. It is about being a good place to live. I don't like the political paradigm of the UK nor do I care for the direction of travel. Scotland cannot influence that direction of travel with 8% of the population. We can influence our own direction of travel.

 

[Craig B]

I don't like the political parafigm of the UK nor do I care for the direction of travel. Scotland cannot influence that direction of travel with 8% of the population. We can influence our own direction of travel.

And that is the point. We can and will influence it in such a way as to address our own needs and interests, as well as those of our neighbours.

 

[LondonJohn]

I will pass that on to them as your considered opinion.

I'm voting Yes because I think it is right thing at the right time for Scotland. It isn't about being richer or, God preserve us, military power or international clout. It is about being a good place to live. I don't like the political paradigm of the UK nor do I care for the direction of travel. Scotland cannot influence that direction of travel with 8% of the population. We can influence our own direction of travel.

That's great! As I've said (multiple times now across different threads on the subject) it's perfectly possible that the softer, emotional factors - such as the ones you mention here - more than outweigh the harder factors. That is absolutely the prerogative for every Scottish voter to choose. In the same way, if someone decided to vote "Yes" predominantly because they wanted to see a Scotland entrant in the Eurovision Song Contest, that would be their total and absolute right and would be an entirely valid reason for them to vote "Yes".

But that wasn't what you (and I) were talking about. The subject was why UK politicians (predominantly English ones, it appears....) might be against the idea of Scottish independence, and your further supposition that there might be some sort of suspicious ulterior motive for such opposition. I was arguing that there are perfectly obvious, logical reasons why a UK politician might be opposed to Scottish independence, and that therefore no "suspicious" activity need be posited.


Now, a thought experiment for you: just setting aside 300-year-old+ history for a moment, I'd like to revisit this part of your post:

I don't like the political paradigm of the UK nor do I care for the direction of travel. Scotland cannot influence that direction of travel with 8% of the population. We can influence our own direction of travel.

Just as a thought experiment (remember), what if (for example) Greater Manchester (with a population of almost 3 million) were placed into your argument in place of Scotland? I suspect that the majority of residents of Greater Manchester also "do not care for the direction of travel" of the UK, and Greater Manchester has (obviously) even less chance than Scotland of "influenc(ing) that direction of travel". In an independent Greater Manchester, its population could "influence (our) direction of travel.

So should/could Greater Manchester be offered a referendum on whether or not to leave the UK and become independent? Just a thought experiment, remember! And I'd rather that there was no resorting to any "but Scotland is different!" arguments for the sake of this thought experiment - in other words, could we just stick to the underlying basics of a body of people whose majority view is not coincident with the national government having the philosophical right to determine its own independence?

 

[LondonJohn]

And that is the point. We can and will influence it in such a way as to address our own needs and interests, as well as those of our neighbours.

That's great, and an entirely valid reason to vote "Yes" if it's important to you. But just remember that there will be costs to be paid as well as benefits gained. And all sensible, objective analysis shows very clearly that an independent Scotland will be materially worse off economically and politically compared with a Scotland that remains part of the UK.

I believe that many Scottish people are either unaware or misled at the moment about the negative economic and political ramifications of Scottish independence, which means that I fear that some may not be calculating the correct balance of costs and benefits when it comes to voting.

 

[Nogbad]

But that wasn't what you (and I) were talking about. The subject was why UK politicians (predominantly English ones, it appears....) might be against the idea of Scottish independence, and your further supposition that there might be some sort of suspicious ulterior motive for such opposition. I was arguing that there are perfectly obvious, logical reasons why a UK politician might be opposed to Scottish independence, and that therefore no "suspicious" activity need be posited.


Now, a thought experiment for you: just setting aside 300-year-old+ history for a moment, I'd like to revisit this part of your post:

I don't like the political paradigm of the UK nor do I care for the direction of travel. Scotland cannot influence that direction of travel with 8% of the population. We can influence our own direction of travel.

Just as a thought experiment (remember), what if (for example) Greater Manchester (with a population of almost 3 million) were placed into your argument in place of Scotland? I suspect that the majority of residents of Greater Manchester also "do not care for the direction of travel" of the UK, and Greater Manchester has (obviously) even less chance than Scotland of "influenc(ing) that direction of travel". In an independent Greater Manchester, its population could "influence (our) direction of travel.

So should/could Greater Manchester be offered a referendum on whether or not to leave the UK and become independent? Just a thought experiment, remember! And I'd rather that there was no resorting to any "but Scotland is different!" arguments for the sake of this thought experiment - in other words, could we just stick to the underlying basics of a body of people whose majority view is not coincident with the national government having the philosophical right to determine its own independence?

I fear the proponents of No have rather failed to both convince and articulate an argument for why Scotland enhances the UK. We have seen much more of the why Scotland would fail to make it as a country. In fact such is the negativity and such is the emphasis on Scotland's reliance on the long suffering English tax payer that little positive escapes the black hole of doom. Consequently in day to day discussions, particularly with those sitting on the fence, which in my experience is a good 25 to 30% of voters, they express both confusion and suspicion regarding the message from the Coalition. At the end of the day politicians do not command much respect or trust, Tories even less so here in Scotland.

On Manchester, it may well be the case that they feel more akin to the politics of Scotland than the Shires of the South East, but is it a country? Scotland is a country which entered a Union (like the UK has joined the EU) It has retained all the elements of a country, own legal system, church, education system not to mention flag and football team. One unified country was not created in 1707. Manchester may feel alienated but it does not have that cultural root of a separate identity to fall back on. So much of Scotland has remained that being independent will not be much of step change.

Of course it could be a No vote and further powers may very well be devolved to Holyrood. However, as we continue to diverge and as Holyrood becomes our first port of call for most things I believe it is inevitable that we will come here again. A Yes vote now cuts to the chase.

 

[LondonJohn]

I find it very instructive that you choose to see the thrust of the "No" campaign as people claiming that "Scotland would fail to make it as a country".

In reality, the mainstream thrust of the "No" campaign is absolutely nothing of the sort. Instead, it's the proposition that iScotland would be less successful than a Scotland that remained part of the UK. Not that iScotland would not be viable whatsoever.

Sometimes it's misinterpretations such as this which speak volumes about the heightened levels of emotion and rhetoric that appear to be driving large swathes of the "Yes" campaign. Mischaracterisation of your "opponent's" position is a well-worn disinformation technique, but not a particularly intellectually-honest one............

 

[Nogbad]

I find it very instructive that you choose to see the thrust of the "No" campaign as people claiming that "Scotland would fail to make it as a country".

In reality, the mainstream thrust of the "No" campaign is absolutely nothing of the sort. Instead, it's the proposition that iScotland would be less successful than a Scotland that remained part of the UK. Not that iScotland would not be viable whatsoever.

Sometimes it's misinterpretations such as this which speak volumes about the heightened levels of emotion and rhetoric that appear to be driving large swathes of the "Yes" campaign. Mischaracterisation of your "opponent's" position is a well-worn disinformation technique, but not a particularly intellectually-honest one............

I think you rather underestimate the number of times the No campaign has pushed the nuclear button. Project Fear, a name they coined themselves, has focussed almost exclusively on corralling the don't knows into a state of worry. A hard core of around a third are going to vote Yes and likewise a third will vote No, come what may. The battleground is for that middle third. No have opted here in Scotland to focus on a tale of doom a day....relentlessly. If the No message was as positive as you say then there would be no suspicion or confusion. You may choose to believe there is no suspicion and confusion and all is well in the No campaign tactics. I have no issue with that.

However, I am not the one that needs to be convinced. I am part of the that third that will definitely vote Yes. It is that middle ground that needs to be convinced that you are right. I think you are mistaken. Of course the No side could make a positive case but by and large, as a tactic, they haven chosen not to.

 

[Aulus Agerius]

I must admit that my own concern here is almost entirely selfish. Without Scotland, the UK will become even more politically conservative. The departure of Scotland would mean a proportionally greater influence at Westminster for English conservatives and even more extreme political groups like UK. Given present conservative policies and the populist right wing drivel that passes for the UKIP manifesto, I have no doubt that independence for Scotland would be bad for the rest of the UK.

Of course, that is no reason for people with a vote in the referendum to vote "no", save, perhaps, out of altruism.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you rather underestimate the number of times the No campaign has pushed the nuclear button. Project Fear, a name they coined themselves, has focussed almost exclusively on corralling the don't knows into a state of worry. A hard core of around a third are going to vote Yes and likewise a third will vote No, come what may. The battleground is for that middle third. No have opted here in Scotland to focus on a tale of doom a day....relentlessly. If the No message was as positive as you say then there would be no suspicion or confusion. You may choose to believe there is no suspicion and confusion and all is well in the No campaign tactics. I have no issue with that.

However, I am not the one that needs to be convinced. I am part of the that third that will definitely vote Yes. It is that middle ground that needs to be convinced that you are right. I think you are mistaken. Of course the No side could make a positive case but by and large, as a tactic, they haven chosen not to.

Hmmm. The highlighted part gives me further cause for concern about the spin that "Yes" campaigners are choosing to place on the "No" campaign.

Obviously since I'm not in Scotland and since I have not immersed myself in the fine details of the debate, I can't be sure of the provenance and veracity of the "Project Fear" issue. But here's what wikipedia has to say on the matter:

On 23 June 2013, in an article marking the campaign's first anniversary, the Sunday Herald claimed that "Privately, some inside Better Together even refer to the organisation as Project Fear". The name "Project Fear" subsequently appeared in other news outlets and was co-opted by pro-independence campaigners. The following line of the Sunday Herald's article said that "[Blair] McDougall is unrepentant about the tactics", but on the following day's edition of Scotland Tonight McDougall denied ever hearing anyone use the term "Project Fear".

So are you claiming that this paragraph is a significant misrepresentation of the facts? Because if it's not a misrepresentation, then what you glibly and easily referred to as "a name they coined themselves" a) has apparently only been actively reported once (over a year ago) by a newspaper claiming inside information; b) has been explicitly denied existence by the "No" campaign's director; c) has apparently never been used in any official or unofficial capacity by the "No" campaign.

Is it not more likely (thinking reasonably....) that a few overexcited lower-level workers in the "No" campaign, over a year ago, thought it would be amusing or mock-shocking to refer to their work as "Project Fear", and that this somehow got communicated to the Sunday Herald? Either way, it seems an awfully long way from your clear intent to convey the impression that the name "Project Fear" was somehow in official circulation within the "No" campaign, and was a visible project aimed at scaremongering Scottish voters.

But as I said, if wikipedia has got this issue badly wrong, then let me know (and you might like to let wikipedia know too....).

 

[Craig B]

I must admit that my own concern here is almost entirely selfish. Without Scotland, the UK will become even more politically conservative. The departure of Scotland would mean a proportionally greater influence at Westminster for English conservatives and even more extreme political groups like UK. Given present conservative policies and the populist right wing drivel that passes for the UKIP manifesto, I have no doubt that independence for Scotland would be bad for the rest of the UK.

Of course, that is no reason for people with a vote in the referendum to vote "no", save, perhaps, out of altruism.

There's a good reason, in addition to mere common sense, why that argument is entirely unacceptable. For 290 years Scotland was governed by people and parties elected by the majority in the UK--in practice, England's 50 million people and not our 5 millions. So the political affiliation of the Secretary of State for Scotland was decided by them, and not us. Likewise our laws--I mean statutes designed for Scotland--were made by them and not us. We objected to this.

Now English voters (silent for these 290 years, but never mind) object to Scottish MPs voting on English issues. They are right. And you ask us to remain in the UK so that we can swing the balance of political advantage against the decision of the majority of English voters? The very thing we were complaining about when it was inflicted on us, before the establishment of a Scottish parliament.

No to that. If the English voters want a Tory government, let them have one; and let us up here choose a government reflecting the very different political climate in which our country lives.

 

[LondonJohn]

There's a good reason, in addition to mere common sense, why that argument is entirely unacceptable. For 290 years Scotland was governed by people and parties elected by the majority in the UK--in practice, England's 50 million people and not our 5 millions. So the political affiliation of the Secretary of State for Scotland was decided by them, and not us. Likewise our laws--I mean statutes designed for Scotland--were made by them and not us. We objected to this.

Now English voters (silent for these 290 years, but never mind) object to Scottish MPs voting on English issues. They are right. And you ask us to remain in the UK so that we can swing the balance of political advantage against the decision of the majority of English voters? The very thing we were complaining about when it was inflicted on us, before the establishment of a Scottish parliament.

No to that. If the English voters want a Tory government, let them have one; and let us up here choose a government reflecting the very different political climate in which our country lives.

You really do have an extraordinarily blinkered and warped understanding of all this. The "West Lothian Question" objection is an entirely different matter to your intellectually-bankrupt "argument" about poor Scottish people being governed from nasty Westminster.

I will try to explain it clearly. The very real problem with the "West Lothian Question" issue was/is that MPs representing Scottish constituencies were voting on matters that had zero direct or indirect impact upon their constituencies (and constituents). This violates the fundamental rules of representation and legitimacy. It's akin to allowing French MPs to be part of the group voting on German laws. Only an idiot can see that such a practice is fundamentally undemocratic.

And this is wholly different from the incorrect and illogical "argument" related to Scotland being governed from Westminster, for the rather obvious reason that Scottish people are represented in Westminster on an entirely proportionate basis. Your "argument" could equally (and equally incorrectly) be applied to any sub-group of people within the UK. NI and Wales could make exactly the same case, as could the population of London, Merseyside, Cornwall, wherever. Any one of these groups could stupidly shout "But we're being governed by the MPs that were chosen by the other x% (85-95%) of the UK! We want out!"

Look, if a reason for independence is a thinly-veiled but visceral hatred of the English (as it appears to be in your case and in the case of so very many "Yes" campaigners, it would appear), then that's your prerogative. But advancing stupid and incorrect arguments such as this in support of your position is ill-judged to say the least. I suppose it supplies the required veneer of objectivity: it's perhaps not very seemly to say "I want Scotland to become independent because I hate England and the English, and I resent being (partly) governed from London", even if it's true

 

[Rat]

The departure of Scotland would mean a proportionally greater influence at Westminster for English conservatives and even more extreme political groups like UK.

I'm not a great fan of the current government, but I wouldn't go quite that far.



Incidentally, I think some voters in this poll did not read the title first. And it does rather change the results.

 

[Nogbad]

Hmmm. The highlighted part gives me further cause for concern about the spin that "Yes" campaigners are choosing to place on the "No" campaign.

Obviously since I'm not in Scotland and since I have not immersed myself in the fine details of the debate, I can't be sure of the provenance and veracity of the "Project Fear" issue. But here's what wikipedia has to say on the matter:

On 23 June 2013, in an article marking the campaign's first anniversary, the Sunday Herald claimed that "Privately, some inside Better Together even refer to the organisation as Project Fear". The name "Project Fear" subsequently appeared in other news outlets and was co-opted by pro-independence campaigners. The following line of the Sunday Herald's article said that "[Blair] McDougall is unrepentant about the tactics", but on the following day's edition of Scotland Tonight McDougall denied ever hearing anyone use the term "Project Fear".

So are you claiming that this paragraph is a significant misrepresentation of the facts? Because if it's not a misrepresentation, then what you glibly and easily referred to as "a name they coined themselves" a) has apparently only been actively reported once (over a year ago) by a newspaper claiming inside information; b) has been explicitly denied existence by the "No" campaign's director; c) has apparently never been used in any official or unofficial capacity by the "No" campaign.

Is it not more likely (thinking reasonably....) that a few overexcited lower-level workers in the "No" campaign, over a year ago, thought it would be amusing or mock-shocking to refer to their work as "Project Fear", and that this somehow got communicated to the Sunday Herald? Either way, it seems an awfully long way from your clear intent to convey the impression that the name "Project Fear" was somehow in official circulation within the "No" campaign, and was a visible project aimed at scaremongering Scottish voters.

But as I said, if wikipedia has got this issue badly wrong, then let me know (and you might like to let wikipedia know too....).

I think the fact that it was informally called Project Fear (why on earth would that be the official name?) by insiders and reported so by the press is sufficient for the purposes of my argument. I think the wiki article is fine. I set no store by McDougall's denial. What else could he say?

My contention is that their campaign is negative. Gordon Brown and Charles Kennedy and several others have also criticised the campaign as unnecessarily negative. You clearly think the campaign is OK and that is fair enough, at the end of the day you will not vote in the matter so the nature of the campaign will not affect you. I stand by my argument that the No campaign has chosen to focus on trying to undermine confidence and scare people into voting No.

This has been an ongoing issue for the entirety of the campaign and has been covered by umpteen writers, politicians commentators - many of them No supporters. It is perhaps pertinent to point out that I have no desire to see the No side change their campaign tactics at this stage. They have shown no ability to do so so I am not unduly concerned. So if you are happy then we are both happy. If their campaign was a happy clappy love in I and many others would have no credibility if we tried to say it was negative. However, when we have people like Lord Robertson saying a Yes vote will be the end of the free world the satire just writes itself.

 

[Aulus Agerius]

There's a good reason, in addition to mere common sense, why that argument is entirely unacceptable. For 290 years Scotland was governed by people and parties elected by the majority in the UK--in practice, England's 50 million people and not our 5 millions. So the political affiliation of the Secretary of State for Scotland was decided by them, and not us. Likewise our laws--I mean statutes designed for Scotland--were made by them and not us. We objected to this.

Now English voters (silent for these 290 years, but never mind) object to Scottish MPs voting on English issues. They are right. And you ask us to remain in the UK so that we can swing the balance of political advantage against the decision of the majority of English voters? The very thing we were complaining about when it was inflicted on us, before the establishment of a Scottish parliament.

Gosh you do get excited easily. It's precisely this sort of overreaction that makes me a little bit worried for a post-independence Scotland. As John London points out you have misunderstood the "West Lothian Question" which exists only as a result of devolution (i.e not for anything like 290 years). Prior to devolution all issues were treated as national issues. Separate acts were required for Scotland because of its separate legal system. Scotland (and many other places) got a raw deal in national policy terms because they never had a majority in Westminster - this is somewhat different from voting on policy that does not effect your constituents at all.

I'm not asking anyone to vote any way. It's up to you guys. I am merely answering the call of the poll and stating what I acknowledge is a selfish reason for hoping for a "no" vote. I happen to think that UK is better with Scotland than without it for political reasons. This is not the equivalent of your complaints about English MPs voting on Scottish issues. I think that, that if Scotland wishes to remain in the UK, its MPs have a perfect right to vote on national issues - just the same as MPs from Wales and Northern Ireland - and that national policy would be the better for it.

No to that. If the English voters want a Tory government, let them have one; and let us up here choose a government reflecting the very different political climate in which our country lives.

Alas, English voters don't only give just England a Tory government, nor would the decisions of a future UK government fail to effect an independent Scotland.