How to Make an Arse of Yourself by David Cameron [UK politics: Scottish independence]

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
Sounds like our referendum in 1995.
That's what I've been thinking, especially the bits about 'nobody knows what this means, so everybody's speculating in whatever way suit them best'.('Everybody' meaning the politicians and pundits, rather than the fine folk of AW.) Replace 'Quebec' where you read 'Scotland' and it's the same old story.
 

firedrake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
7,297
It is a week away, the opinion polls have tightened like a duck's a##e but some fundamental questions have not been answered - like what would an independent Scotland use for a currency?

Apparently, the Scots invented the pound, so they think they should keep it.

I'm really torn about this. I can understand why almost half the Scottish population wants independence but the consequences if they gain independence aren't going to be good:
1. An independent Scotland starts with a population divided 50/50 over the issue. Not a great start for a new state.
2. The most worrying thing for me is that if Scotland leaves the UK, we lose 41 Labour seats. The Tories will remain in power forever. UKIP will gain seats in poorer areas where, traditionally, Labour has held onto seats.

The visit earlier this week of the three monkeys-Cameron, Milliband and thingiemajig from the Lib-Dems was such a cynical, pathetic move that it probably alienated more Scots than won 'no' votes. It was truly cringeworthy.

But the thing that has pissed me off the most is that, if an English person complains about Scottish independence, they're dismissed as being selfish and that if they want to change Westminster they need to do it themselves. How the fuck do we do that with the only half-decent opposition party stripped of seats?

I'm tired of the English having to carry the can for things that happened centuries ago. We're going to pay very dearly for it. :(
 
Last edited:

waylander

Who's going for a beer?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
8,279
Reaction score
1,567
Age
65
Location
London, UK
Apparently, the Scots invented the pound, so they think they should keep it.

If they do that, they will have to do it without currency union which means they have no lender of last resort. In consequence the money markets will really sting them for borrowing and no major financial institution will be based there.
 

firedrake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
7,297
If they do that, they will have to do it without currency union which means they have no lender of last resort. In consequence the money markets will really sting them for borrowing and no major financial institution will be based there.

That's interesting. I keep hearing that the Scots think that everything will be peachy because they keep the pound. Yet no one seems to have point things out like this to the likes of Salmond. If they have, he appears to be happily sweeping it under the carpet.

A Scottish friend of mine posted on FB the other night, and made the point that this referendum is very much based on emotion rather than deep thought about the implications that independence would have. I'm inclined to believe him. I've seen a lot of rhetoric and very little in the way of hard, cold facts from either side.
 

waylander

Who's going for a beer?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
8,279
Reaction score
1,567
Age
65
Location
London, UK
All the emotion seems to be coming from the 'Yes' camp and the awkward questions from the 'No' camp. If there's a shortage of cold facts, it is because so many of the important arrangements of how things would function in the event of a 'Yes' vote have not been worked out.
The 'yes' campaign seems to be heavily based on 'we've got loads of oil' and anyone (such as the heads of BP and Shell) who disagrees are dismissed as 'scaremongering'.
 

firedrake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
7,297
All the emotion seems to be coming from the 'Yes' camp and the awkward questions from the 'No' camp. If there's a shortage of cold facts, it is because so many of the important arrangements of how things would function in the event of a 'Yes' vote have not been worked out.
The 'yes' campaign seems to be heavily based on 'we've got loads of oil' and anyone (such as the heads of BP and Shell) who disagrees are dismissed as 'scaremongering'.

That's the impression I get too.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
I do find it a bit unreasonable for people to demand that some of these questions be determined before the vote on independence can happen. Many of these questions take years to answer and it would seem that many of the more important questions have been answered and that is why the Yes campaign has been converting undecided voters (I'm going off the various charts and the long term trends.)

I think the question of currency or the question of treaty membership is a bit of desperate game of walking the goal posts. The real questions you should be challenging are the fundamental questions that Salmond has held as a central tenet: that power should reside in Glasgow and not dependent on London. Give the Scots a good reason to trust the institutions in London.
 

waylander

Who's going for a beer?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
8,279
Reaction score
1,567
Age
65
Location
London, UK
I do find it a bit unreasonable for people to demand that some of these questions be determined before the vote on independence can happen. Many of these questions take years to answer and it would seem that many of the more important questions have been answered and that is why the Yes campaign has been converting undecided voters (I'm going off the various charts and the long term trends.)

I think the question of currency or the question of treaty membership is a bit of desperate game of walking the goal posts. The real questions you should be challenging are the fundamental questions that Salmond has held as a central tenet: that power should reside in Glasgow and not dependent on London. Give the Scots a good reason to trust the institutions in London.

You mean Edinburgh, which is where the Scottish Parliament is based. Considerable devolution has already taken place e.g. running of the NHS and universities in Scotland.
 

firedrake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
7,297
I do find it a bit unreasonable for people to demand that some of these questions be determined before the vote on independence can happen. Many of these questions take years to answer and it would seem that many of the more important questions have been answered and that is why the Yes campaign has been converting undecided voters (I'm going off the various charts and the long term trends.)

I think the question of currency or the question of treaty membership is a bit of desperate game of walking the goal posts. The real questions you should be challenging are the fundamental questions that Salmond has held as a central tenet: that power should reside in Glasgow and not dependent on London. Give the Scots a good reason to trust the institutions in London.

It's not unreasonable at all. Establishing what a nation's currency will be seems a pretty fundamental thing to me, but maybe I'm just picky. It just seems that the 'Yes' supporters are cherry-picking. "We don't want to be part of your country anymore, but we'd like to keep the currency."

As Waylander said, Scotland already has a considerable number of powers under devolution as well as a strong national identity. I'd argue that it's not 'institutions' that are at the root of the distrust, it's the people running them - the Conservative government.
 

waylander

Who's going for a beer?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
8,279
Reaction score
1,567
Age
65
Location
London, UK
As Waylander said, Scotland already has a considerable number of powers under devolution as well as a strong national identity. I'd argue that it's not 'institutions' that are at the root of the distrust, it's the people running them - the Conservative government.

I don't think they were any happier under the last two Labour Prime Ministers - and they were both Scots
 

waylander

Who's going for a beer?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
8,279
Reaction score
1,567
Age
65
Location
London, UK
But also, devolution and devomax are neither the balm of their agony.

I am of the opinion that independence under the current terms and probable administration is unlikely to provide that balm.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
I am of the opinion that independence under the current terms and probable administration is unlikely to provide that balm.

Doubt as you may, policy coming from London isn't endearing to the Scots. The key here is to discourage them from jumping, not promise the counting of wounds afterwards.
 

firedrake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,251
Reaction score
7,297
Doubt as you may, policy coming from London isn't endearing to the Scots. The key here is to discourage them from jumping, not promise the counting of wounds afterwards.

Policy coming from London isn't endearing to a lot of English people either. Unfortunately, the current election boundaries and electoral system will make it almost impossible to get rid of the current government, if Scotland wins independence.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
Policy coming from London isn't endearing to a lot of English people either. Unfortunately, the current election boundaries and electoral system will make it almost impossible to get rid of the current government, if Scotland wins independence.

True, but also remind yourself that it isn't a "current government" issue but something that has been building for the last few decades. I understand the nationalism bit came to the forefront as a reaction against Thatcher's re-imagination of the United Kingdom. Scotland was a basketcase when it joined (or formed) the UK, after failing on a gamble on colonialisation. Since then, it has been cleared to make way for an agricultural and industrial revolution. When it finally had a modicum of respectability, the industrialisation was taken out from underneath it during the Thatcher years.
 

Stacia Kane

Girl Detective
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
8,142
Reaction score
2,668
Location
In cahoots with the other boo-birds
Website
www.staciakane.com
I'm so torn on this.

As an American, I am all for it--how could I not be? :) (Cameron and Queen Elizabeth don't come close to George III on the tyranny scale, but still.)
As an American of Scots ancestry, I'm all for it.
As a lover of Scottish history and the Stuarts and the Jacobites, I'm all for it.
As a lover of Scotland itself, I'm all for it.

But those are all based on my heart. My brain wonders and worries about the potential impact on Scotland and the rest of the world...I'm not sure how I feel, really, or whether this is something that could be seriously damaging. My husband has a lot of concerns on an economic/business level, and I tend to think his concerns are valid. The posts here re electoral seats are concerning, as well.

Honestly, though, I could end up wrong, of course, but I tend to think the vote's going to end up a "No" anyway.
 

waylander

Who's going for a beer?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
8,279
Reaction score
1,567
Age
65
Location
London, UK
I'm so torn on this.

As an American, I am all for it--how could I not be? :) (Cameron and Queen Elizabeth don't come close to George III on the tyranny scale, but still.)
As an American of Scots ancestry, I'm all for it.
As a lover of Scottish history and the Stuarts and the Jacobites, I'm all for it.
As a lover of Scotland itself, I'm all for it.

But those are all based on my heart. My brain wonders and worries about the potential impact on Scotland and the rest of the world...I'm not sure how I feel, really, or whether this is something that could be seriously damaging. My husband has a lot of concerns on an economic/business level, and I tend to think his concerns are valid. The posts here re electoral seats are concerning, as well.

Honestly, though, I could end up wrong, of course, but I tend to think the vote's going to end up a "No" anyway.

The 'yes' campaign seems to be trading vary heavily on the emotional appeal of it and then waving their hands in the air at the economic concerns saying 'don't worry, that will all get sorted'. The 'No' campaign has very little emotional appeal, but has stability and certainty on their side.
Very much a head v heart choice.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
This article expands what has been long my understanding of the whole debacle.

The United Kingdom’s capital, and its smothering influence, is unquestionably a player in the Scottish independence debate. Of course, to suggest that London and resistance to it is the major motor behind the independence campaign would only be further stroking the capital’s ego. Observing the Yes campaign, whose route to maturity is outlined in this fine piece by Scottish writer Irvine Welsh, it’s clearly powered by far more than that—more than I have space to explore here. But there is nonetheless a clear sense that the concentration of power and resources in London plays an important role in Scotland’s grievances. For many, pushing for independence is about wresting control away from this increasingly remote and long indifferent Southern power center.

It’s not hard to understand why. This London-scepticism is shared not just by many Scots, but by non-Londoners across the U.K., especially in the North. Both Scotland and most of Northern England have frequently found themselves under Conservative-led governments despite voting for the Labour or Scottish Nationalist Parties. But while this has been a source of resentment for several lifetimes, things have intensified recently. It’s as if the multinational money pot of London has already declared itself independent from the rest of the country, rather than vice versa. The just-over-four-hour train ride from London to Edinburgh may seem tiny to anyone used to the spaces of North America, but it still feels like a gulf indeed to anyone here who travels it.

And so on it goes. The biggest question is when the Yes get 49.2%. What will London do? Or will London do nothing and we return to the same question in 15-25 years as we did in Canada?
 

AliceWrites

Writing jazz
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
441
Reaction score
49
Location
UK
All the emotion seems to be coming from the 'Yes' camp and the awkward questions from the 'No' camp. If there's a shortage of cold facts, it is because so many of the important arrangements of how things would function in the event of a 'Yes' vote have not been worked out.
The 'yes' campaign seems to be heavily based on 'we've got loads of oil' and anyone (such as the heads of BP and Shell) who disagrees are dismissed as 'scaremongering'.

Yup. That's exactly what's happening. Alex Salmond can put up a very good 'sales' speech (he appeals to the emotive self -- there's probably a rhetorical name for that). As one other poster put it... National Socialism... (and it can look quite nasty) :(
 

waylander

Who's going for a beer?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
8,279
Reaction score
1,567
Age
65
Location
London, UK
Yup. That's exactly what's happening. Alex Salmond can put up a very good 'sales' speech (he appeals to the emotive self -- there's probably a rhetorical name for that). As one other poster put it... National Socialism... (and it can look quite nasty) :(

Look no further than the recent comments of Jim Sillars
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
I'm a Scot and proud of it, but I'm also British and proud of that, too. I'm not going to be any prouder a Scotsman simply because Scotland votes to go independent.

And re all the talk of Freedom.

Freedom from what? We're not slaves. We're not oppressed. Any Scot can have any job they want in the UK, right up to Prime Minister. (Please let's keep any religious issue comments out of this.)

My vote is NO and has been for decades. If all of a sudden we are going to have a 'better and fairer' society, I have to ask, better than and fairer than - what? That is standard political waffle that sounds great and means nothing.

Westminster may not be perfect and I'm sure changes will have to occur in the way the different areas are represented, but on balance I prefer the devil(s) I know....

I hope commonsense prevails on Thursday and we stay a United Kingdom but I can't help wondering how each faction is going to react to a tiny marginal victory by the other.

Sometimes the believed cure is worse than the imagined sickness.
 
Last edited: