The Scottish Independence Referendum Thread

[bran]

i cannot wait to see the south use this as an excuse to break away from the rest of the US (again)

[Dazey]

I have to take the opportunity here to say that Graeme is fucking brilliant!

[luciusfunk]

i cannot wait to see the south use this as an excuse to break away from the rest of the US (again)

Don't hold your breath.

[Mysteron]

Well, I live in Scotland and I will not be voting, because I am English. I love Scottish history, I am forever roaming about here learning about clans, old railways, the castles and churches, the languages (and the subsequent bastardisation of said languages), all sorts really. I love it here. But I would never want to take part in such a vote, and I believe it should only be people tied to Scottish clans that vote.

If I was to vote, I would vote no. It is not because I think it is a bad idea, it is just too quick. Per capita, Scotland is given more money by London than England, they have a good thing going up here. If Scotland want to become independent, then they should devo max over 10 years, create a financial centre, create Scottish bases for companies that are based in both England and Scotland. For example, f you go into Tesco just now up here, the Scottish butteries and morning rolls are not on the Tesco database for scanning at the self service tills. Codes have to be typed in because everything is based on what is sold in England. There are thousands of nuances like this, big and small, that need addressing, and going independent, then fixing everything, would represent the sillier option, because Scotland would have to draw immediately on it's own income to fix all of this, whereas right now they can get England to part pay this just now over a period of time.

[DieselDaisy]

You really do talk some nonsense. The campaign you're referring to is "Let's Stay Together", an unofficial London-based initiative that Dan Snow put together with a bunch of celebrities who don't have a vote in the referendum asking us to stay in the Union on emotional grounds without any acknowledgement of the reasons the referendum is occurring or offering any alternative solution to the issue of Scotland's democratic deficit.

The official "No" campaign (Better Together) is headed by Blair MacDougall and Alistair Darling. Also, anyone who bases their decisions on what a celebrity thinks should probably not really vote at all.

Horseshit. Far be it from, merely a bunch of celebrities, the Let's Stay Together campaign also includes some of the leading intellectual, scientific, entrepreneurial and artistic figures in the country: (Scientists) Robert Winston, Richard Dawkins, Martin Rees, Dickie Attenborough, Stephen Hawkings; (artists) Gavin Turk, Richard Wentworth, Johnathon Yeo; (Military figures) Admiral West and the wonderfully named, Lord Jock Stirrup; (entrepreneurs) Alan Sugar. I am proud to say the historians have really risen to the occasion, Dan Snow, Simon Schama, David Starkey, Mary Beard, Tom Holland, Max Hastings, Anthony Beevor and Michael Wood all adding their name. Regardless of the presence of vacuous 'celebs' such as Tom Daley and David Walliams, an impressive array of intellectual and creative talent is evident on that petition. Their voice does not deserve to be dismissed, so lightly.

I mean, heck, I suppose even people like Jagger and Macca do deserve their say also. They are rock icons and (cultural) leaders of sorts.

PS

Your point above, about the difference between the two movements, was a complete straw man.

Edited September 5, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

Scotland is largely pro-EU. No-one knows what will happen to Scotland's EU membership in the event of independence. The matter could be resolved effectively if the UK government just asked (the EU say they will only deal directly with the governments of member states, so the Scottish government cannot ask). The UK government have refused so far, saying they "will not pre-negotiate Scotland's exit from the United Kingdom" so political posturing is preventing straightforward answers, leading to wild speculation surrounding unofficial statements from senior EU politicians. In order for an independent Scotland to leave the EU, you would have to strip 5 million EU citizens of their citizenship and dismantle all of the existing EU infrastructure in Scotland, only to reinstate it all at a later date, which seems a bit silly to me.

There is going to be a political reaction. What do you expect? You are proposing breaking up a country! Some of the far right of the Tory party were proposing, building customs and migration stations across the frontier - really shoving it to the Scots. ''You made your bed, now lie in it''. There is this debate about, Scotland not having the pound. But what do you expect? They feel just as passionately about the Union, as you do, an independent Scotland, and are naturally going to utilise every argument they can. They are probably going to be, anti-Scottish, also, if the vote goes 'yes'.

Edited September 5, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[Graeme]

You really do talk some nonsense. The campaign you're referring to is "Let's Stay Together", an unofficial London-based initiative that Dan Snow put together with a bunch of celebrities who don't have a vote in the referendum asking us to stay in the Union on emotional grounds without any acknowledgement of the reasons the referendum is occurring or offering any alternative solution to the issue of Scotland's democratic deficit.

The official "No" campaign (Better Together) is headed by Blair MacDougall and Alistair Darling. Also, anyone who bases their decisions on what a celebrity thinks should probably not really vote at all.

Horseshit. Far be it from, merely a bunch of celebrities, the Let's Stay Together campaign also includes some of the leading intellectual, scientific, entrepreneurial and artistic figures in the country: (Scientists) Robert Winston, Richard Dawkins, Martin Rees, Dickie Attenborough, Stephen Hawkings; (artists) Gavin Turk, Richard Wentworth, Johnathon Yeo; (Military figures) Admiral West and the wonderfully named, Lord Jock Stirrup; (entrepreneurs) Alan Sugar. I am proud to say the historians have really risen to the occasion, Dan Snow, Simon Schama, David Starkey, Mary Beard, Tom Holland, Max Hastings, Anthony Beevor and Michael Wood all adding their name. Regardless of the presence of vacuous 'celebs' such as Tom Daley and David Walliams, an impressive array of intellectual and creative talent is evident on that petition. Their voice does not deserve to be dismissed, so lightly.

I mean, heck, I suppose even people like Jagger and Macca do deserve their say also. They are rock icons and (cultural) leaders of sorts.

PS

Your point above, about the difference between the two movements, was a complete straw man.

You unequivocally said that Dan Snow was the head of the campaign against independence in a manner that anyone reading your post without prior knowledge of the debate would believe that he was the official leader of the "no" campaign when he isn't even affiliated with the actual "no" campaign in any official capacity. People would be left wondering why the "no" campaign was being led by a London-based historian rather than an elected politician representing a Scottish constituency. I clarified the situation.

I would agree there is a wide variety of intellectual heft and talent on that list, however the sum total of their campaign is this:

"Dear Voters of Scotland

The decision on whether to leave our shared country is, of course, absolutely yours alone. Nevertheless, that decision will have a huge effect on all of us in the rest of the United Kingdom. We want to let you know how very much we value our bonds of citizenship with you, and to express our hope that you will vote to renew them. What unites us is much greater than what divides us.

Let's stay together.

Yours"

Which is exactly what I said, an appeal to remain in the Union on emotional grounds without offering any alternative solution to the democratic issues which caused the referendum to be called in the first instance. "We like you so much, we'd like you to forego your pursuit of social justice so that we can all suffer together, except we won't be suffering because we largely come from the wealthiest cross-section of society." A pretty disappointing offer, all in all.

[DieselDaisy]

You really do talk some nonsense. The campaign you're referring to is "Let's Stay Together", an unofficial London-based initiative that Dan Snow put together with a bunch of celebrities who don't have a vote in the referendum asking us to stay in the Union on emotional grounds without any acknowledgement of the reasons the referendum is occurring or offering any alternative solution to the issue of Scotland's democratic deficit.

The official "No" campaign (Better Together) is headed by Blair MacDougall and Alistair Darling. Also, anyone who bases their decisions on what a celebrity thinks should probably not really vote at all.

Horseshit. Far be it from, merely a bunch of celebrities, the Let's Stay Together campaign also includes some of the leading intellectual, scientific, entrepreneurial and artistic figures in the country: (Scientists) Robert Winston, Richard Dawkins, Martin Rees, Dickie Attenborough, Stephen Hawkings; (artists) Gavin Turk, Richard Wentworth, Johnathon Yeo; (Military figures) Admiral West and the wonderfully named, Lord Jock Stirrup; (entrepreneurs) Alan Sugar. I am proud to say the historians have really risen to the occasion, Dan Snow, Simon Schama, David Starkey, Mary Beard, Tom Holland, Max Hastings, Anthony Beevor and Michael Wood all adding their name. Regardless of the presence of vacuous 'celebs' such as Tom Daley and David Walliams, an impressive array of intellectual and creative talent is evident on that petition. Their voice does not deserve to be dismissed, so lightly.

I mean, heck, I suppose even people like Jagger and Macca do deserve their say also. They are rock icons and (cultural) leaders of sorts.

PS

Your point above, about the difference between the two movements, was a complete straw man.

You unequivocally said that Dan Snow was the head of the campaign against independence in a manner that anyone reading your post without prior knowledge of the debate would believe that he was the official leader of the "no" campaign when he isn't even affiliated with the actual "no" campaign in any official capacity. People would be left wondering why the "no" campaign was being led by a London-based historian rather than an elected politician representing a Scottish constituency. I clarified the situation.

I would agree there is a wide variety of intellectual heft and talent on that list, however the sum total of their campaign is this:

"Dear Voters of Scotland

The decision on whether to leave our shared country is, of course, absolutely yours alone. Nevertheless, that decision will have a huge effect on all of us in the rest of the United Kingdom. We want to let you know how very much we value our bonds of citizenship with you, and to express our hope that you will vote to renew them. What unites us is much greater than what divides us.

Let's stay together.

Yours"

Which is exactly what I said, an appeal to remain in the Union on emotional grounds without offering any alternative solution to the democratic issues which caused the referendum to be called in the first instance. "We like you so much, we'd like you to forego your pursuit of social justice so that we can all suffer together, except we won't be suffering because we largely come from the wealthiest cross-section of society." A pretty disappointing offer, all in all.

My apologies for the use of flippant language, but I thought it would be, rather self-evident, that Mick Jagger was not personally leading the Unionist political campaign! It would be more interesting mind, thinking about it.

[The Sandman]

I don't want it - it's a shame we don't get a vote to either keep or jettison you!

I find it somewhat ironic that I'm speaking at a conference in Scotland on space, place and identity on the day of the referendum. Historic moment.

[DieselDaisy]

Whatever happens, there will always be an England: warm ale, village cricket, church spires, scones.

[Snake-Pit]

Whatever happens, there will always be an England: warm ale, village cricket, church spires, scones.

That's all shagadelic there King Arthur, but I'm British Baby!

Long live Britain!

[DieselDaisy]

I thought you wos black bro?

[Snake-Pit]

I thought you wos black bro?

I'm white.

I am used to Croydon, and believe it or not Scotland, but, Croydon does have it's own kilted thing, that I've seen, in parades and at town functions and stuff growing up, ever since I was in junior school I thought nothing of black kids in kilts I remember back in day I sat near these guys when I was a kid in town, and at the time, they were older than me.

I never saw a black kid in a kilt until I was 9.

These guys seen here in Thornton Heath in 2011.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Snake-Pit

[DieselDaisy]

Have you never seen Last King of Scotland?

I bet those jockstraps in your picture can bust some moves?

[Ace Nova]

So help the laymen out here....who's for and who's against the split? And what % seem to be on each side? What's the likelihood that it will happen? What do the current polls say?

[DieselDaisy]

The 'No' vote has led the way, about 60-40, but in the last few weeks the 'yes' vote has began to creep up so it is now, around, 55-45. The thing is, most people voting have already decided - and decided long ago (based on whether they support Celtic or Rangers - I joke). There are however a few 'uncertains' who could potentially swing the vote either way. There has also been a few televised debates and things, similar to the ones which appear in America between presidential nominees. The general conclusion was, the No camp won the first one, the Yes camp won the second.

I am sure Graeme will find some problem with my summary there but I think that is broadly, about right.

[Ace Nova]

The 'No' vote has led the way, about 60-40, but in the last few weeks the 'yes' vote has began to creep up so it is now, around, 55-45. The thing is, most people voting have already decided - and decided long ago (based on whether they support Celtic or Rangers - I joke). There are however a few 'uncertains' who could potentially swing the vote either way. There has also been a few televised debates and things, similar to the ones which appear in America between presidential nominees. The general conclusion was, the No camp won the first one, the Yes camp won the second.

I am sure Graeme will find some problem with my summary there but I think that is broadly, about right.

Cool. Thanks for clarifying.

[Snake-Pit]

Have you never seen Last King of Scotland?

I bet those jockstraps in your picture can bust some moves?

Yes I have. That's Uganda.

Growing up, both my next door neighbours in these terraced houses were Indians who lived in Uganda and had lifes in Uganda after they left India because of that great famine and were refugees who came to this country from that ethnic cleansing thing that went on; Both of them, both sides, they weren't related or anything, just guess it was a coincidence or something, all home owners.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Snake-Pit

[Graeme]

Nah, your summary's pretty spot on. The gap in the polls has narrowed from 20 points in early August to 6 in early September (source http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/02/scottish-independence-referendum-poll-gap-narrows).

[Ace Nova]

Nah, your summary's pretty spot on. The gap in the polls has narrowed from 20 points in early August to 6 in early September (source http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/02/scottish-independence-referendum-poll-gap-narrows).

6 points is still a lot.... during a presidential election in the U.S., that would be considered a landslide.

[Graeme]

Nah, your summary's pretty spot on. The gap in the polls has narrowed from 20 points in early August to 6 in early September (source http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/02/scottish-independence-referendum-poll-gap-narrows).

6 points is still a lot.... during a presidential election in the U.S., that would be considered a landslide.

Agreed, there is work to be done, but it's worth noting that figure came from a polling company called "YouGov" who have been known throughout the campaign for consistently having "Yes" at a lower percentage than any other. The outcome is not guaranteed, but it is by no means impossible.

[Ace Nova]

Nah, your summary's pretty spot on. The gap in the polls has narrowed from 20 points in early August to 6 in early September (source http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/02/scottish-independence-referendum-poll-gap-narrows).

6 points is still a lot.... during a presidential election in the U.S., that would be considered a landslide.

Agreed, there is work to be done, but it's worth noting that figure came from a polling company called "YouGov" who have been known throughout the campaign for consistently having "Yes" at a lower percentage than any other. The outcome is not guaranteed, but it is by no means impossible.

So I take it that you are absolutely "pro-split"?

[Graeme]

Nah, your summary's pretty spot on. The gap in the polls has narrowed from 20 points in early August to 6 in early September (source http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/02/scottish-independence-referendum-poll-gap-narrows).

6 points is still a lot.... during a presidential election in the U.S., that would be considered a landslide.

Agreed, there is work to be done, but it's worth noting that figure came from a polling company called "YouGov" who have been known throughout the campaign for consistently having "Yes" at a lower percentage than any other. The outcome is not guaranteed, but it is by no means impossible.

So I take it that you are absolutely "pro-split"?

It would take a hell of a lot to convince me to vote "no" at this stage. None of the political dialogue in Westminster is even hinting at a shift away from the neoliberal (low-tax, low-wage, small government, low-welfare, heavy privatisation, anti-immigration, anti-EU) agenda which has dominated it since the 1980s, despite being the opposite of what the Scottish people vote for. The vision of Scotland's future I subscribe to is this one http://www.allofusfirst.org/what-is-common-weal/ which seeks to remodel the Scottish economy along the lines of the Nordic Social Democracies. I will vote for whatever I think is most likely to deliver that, as I believe it is in the best interests of our entire society, it will protect our poor and vulnerable, encourage us to be sustainable, self-sufficient and productive.

[DieselDaisy]

The problem with your argument is, it is one-sided. It is valid and is fairly correct, the Scottish people returning governments that they did not vote for, but it is still one-sided. Basically, your belief is, ''we do not return the left wing governments we demand, so, we seek independence''. It is my belief that citizenship and nationhood are far more multifaceted affairs than what you care to discuss.

[Graeme]

The problem with your argument is, it is one-sided. It is valid and is fairly correct, the Scottish people returning governments that they did not vote for, but it is still one-sided. Basically, your belief is, ''we do not return the left wing governments we demand, so, we seek independence''. It is my belief that citizenship and nationhood are far more multifaceted affairs than what you care to discuss.

What more is there to understand? The current constitutional arrangement does not democratically serve the people of Scotland to our satisfaction, and has not done for a very long time. In any democracy, since it is based on the principle of utilitarianism, there is the chance of a large minority being disappointed after a plebiscite. E.g. a 49-51% split in the electorate means that just under half of those polled are not getting what they vote for. That's unfortunate, that's democracy.

However, in this instance, one such minority (the people of Scotland) decided that if the system was not capable of delivering to us what we want, then we will change the system. It was Scotland's notion of nationhood which allowed us to do that, the fact that after the treaty of union, Scotland retained our own systems of law, education and religion meant that we had the infrastructure to fight back where others could not. I don't doubt for a second that working class people in the North of England were every bit as aggrieved by Thatcher's policies as their counterparts North of the border, but it did not manifest as a political mandate for change in the same way because the social cohesion granted by an idea of "nationhood" was not the same. They were not able to conceive of London as a foreign power in quite the way the Scots could. Even Wales, which has a lot of the facets of nationhood is far more structurally ingrained with England, which goes some way to explaining why the independence/home rule movement there has never been as prolific.

This is reflected plainly in the results of the devolution referenda from 1997: Scotland 74%, Wales 51%, in favour, North East England (2004), rejection by 77.9%.

Scotland already sees itself as another country, in the 2011 census 62% of the population stated their identity as "Scottish only". with 18% saying "Scottish and British". This referendum (as I've said before) is far more about the practicalities of governance than it is us deciding our nationality.

Is that a nuanced enough look into our national psyche with statistical evidence to back it up for you?