Referendum on Scottish Independence

[Commodore]

Morality of the tale: Baby boomers and older should die for Scotland to be free!

I know you are saying this sarcastically, but I will use this post to ask my question: Does Scotland really need to be free? I mean, what exactly is it about their current situation that is so horrible and unbearable they feel they need to break away from the UK?

I ask because I am generally against most independence movements nowadays because I am of the opinion the world needs fewer nations not more.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

@ Pangur Bán
What the hell difference does it make with all this age group analysis? You, it seems to me, just want to play the blame game and have the elderly well and truly in your sights.

Scotland is a divided country and you all need to move on and stop this blame game. I know you like football and you will understand when I say you sound like the footie fan whose team has just lost six nil and you are trying to blame the referee for not giving a penalty. What difference does it make?

I quoted the age group from the very much Yes supporting Herald which has perhaps tried to begin the process of healing the divisions in Scotland by not trying to blame one age group. You should try the same.

I mean what next – blame Johnny Foreigner?

Interesting that the poll shows that 51% of Scottish-born voters voted Yes.

Oh, I forgot, you have already done that. Kinda.

There will, one day, be another vote on Scottish independence and I suppose you hope all the elderly who voted No will be long dead by then. Well, I have news for you – there will always be elderly in Scotland and they will invariably vote No, even if they voted Yes last time.
But it will be quite some time before that new vote happens. And you might well be elderly by then too. And will probably vote No.

 

[JohannaK]

I ask because I am generally against most independence movements nowadays because I am of the opinion the world needs fewer nations not more.

Well, I would argue that Scotland, as Wales, the Basque Country , Catalonia and many others, is already a nation, and that fact is surely one of the drives for an independence movement, as is happening in several of these nations striving for their own state, as they are currenly but regions in countries which they may see as oppressive or foreign and which may consider them foreign, at least to a degree.

 

[Borachio]

I know you are saying this sarcastically, but I will use this post to ask my question: Does Scotland really need to be free? I mean, what exactly is it about their current situation that is so horrible and unbearable they feel they need to break away from the UK?

There's a view that Westminster is this corrupt system, under the thumb of global corporatism, and that Scotland would have done well to escape it, even if only temporarily.

I've got some sympathy with that view. Though I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Significant, too, is that Scotland only has one Conservative MP, and is thus very poorly represented by Westminster.

And what's so wrong with self-determination, anyway?

I could turn your question round, and ask what's so great about the Union that Scots should feel happy to remain in it?

 

[Commodore]

There's a view that Westminster is this corrupt system, under the thumb of global corporatism, and that Scotland would have done well to escape it, even if only temporarily.

I've got some sympathy with that view. Though I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Significant, too, is that Scotland only has one Conservative MP, and is thus very poorly represented by Westminster.

And what's so wrong with self-determination, anyway?

I could turn your question round, and ask what's so great about the Union that Scots should feel happy to remain in it?

Nothing wrong with self-determination, but does humanity as a whole really need yet another government competing for our dwindling resources? I am definitely one of those people that feels humanity should be working more towards unification rather than factionalizing ourselves even further.

As to your turnaround of my question: I haven't the faintest clue as to what is so great about the Union since I don't live there. I really just wanted to know if there are some legitimate grievances the Scots have or if the SNP just wanted independence for independence's sake without any consideration as to whether or not independence really is the best way forward for the Scots.

 

[Tahuti]

Nothing wrong with self-determination, but does humanity as a whole really need yet another government competing for our dwindling resources? I am definitely one of those people that feels humanity should be working more towards unification rather than factionalizing ourselves even further.

As to your turnaround of my question: I haven't the faintest clue as to what is so great about the Union since I don't live there. I really just wanted to know if there are some legitimate grievances the Scots have or if the SNP just wanted independence for independence's sake without any consideration as to whether or not independence really is the best way forward for the Scots.

Smaller governments tend to be less wasteful, even relatively speaking. Conversely, larger governments tend to be more prone to boosterism and other vices. War between large states tend to be more violent as well: It is no surprise WWII was fought and could only been fought between nations that controlled massive potions of the world's population and territory. So generally, small states are a good deal in general, unless there are specific problems that would make it a bad idea, like security concerns.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Small states in smaller scale wars can be just as brutal as large scale world wars. They just don't get the attention or light of day because they don't affect as many people.

 

[Commodore]

Smaller governments tend to be less wasteful, even relatively speaking. Conversely, larger governments tend to be more prone to boosterism and other vices. War between large states tend to be more violent as well: It is no surprise WWII was fought and could only been fought between nations that controlled massive potions of the world's population and territory. So generally, small states are a good deal in general, unless there are specific problems that would make it a bad idea, like security concerns.

That may be so, but I would still rather see an inefficient, yet united humanity than a bunch of small efficient governments that are at each others' throats all the time.

 

[Tahuti]

Small states in smaller scale wars can be just as brutal as large scale world wars. They just don't get the attention or light of day because they don't affect as many people.

I think you refuted your argument.

That may be so, but I would still rather see an inefficient, yet united humanity than a bunch of small efficient governments that are at each others' throats all the time.

A united humanity also means it has a single point of failure.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think you refuted your argument.

You have to purposefully exclude the implication of per war. Don't make the wars any less savage or anything less than horrifyingly costly in totality. It's like in the thread on mass shootings in America. 6 people dead in one spectacular go makes the news. People pay attention to it. They fail to pay attention to the background music of one and two homicides at a time that add up to the vast majority of the totality.

And that's ignoring the increased risk of proliferation of pandora-esque weaponry that comes from increased numbers of national actors and conflagrations.

 

[Tahuti]

You have to purposefully exclude the implication of per war. Don't make the wars any less savage or anything less than horrifyingly costly in totality. It's like in the thread on mass shootings in America. 6 people dead in one spectacular go makes the news. People pay attention to it. They fail to pay attention to the background music of one and two homicides at a time that add up to the vast majority of the totality.

And that's ignoring the increased risk of proliferation of pandora-esque weaponry that comes from increased numbers of national actors and conflagrations.

How did the world wars become world wars? Because the belligerents that fought it in totality pretty much made up the entire world. WWII would have been far more limited if Britain and France faced Germany without their colonial empires.

 

[Farm Boy]

How did the world wars become world wars? Because the belligerents that fought it in totality pretty much made up the entire world. WWII would have been far more limited if Britain and France faced Germany without their colonial empires.

Right, that was a big war. Big enough those belligerents haven't really seen fit to burn the world between them again. But that's per war. The world has been getting less warlike overall, but isn't that largely a function of the huge developed powers not savaging each other with dedication while also leaning on the areas they consider to be their backyards?

Do you consider non-proliferation of armaments like biochemical and nuclear to not be a major concern?

 

[Tahuti]

Do you consider non-proliferation of armaments like biochemical and nuclear to not be a major concern?

I think the development of such weapons is partially motivated by the nature of how states function today. These days, wars are intended to destroy states wholesale - and occassionally the populace within. This is because states are centralised and larger. Wars have become more rare because states now have a stronger rational self-interest to keep out of wars, yet when they happen, it is really, really bad. The German occupation of France wouldn't have been possible a couple of centuries ago, when states were far more decentralised.

So if states were smaller and had more autonomous subdivisions capable of providing potent political resistance against potential occupiers, such weapons would simply be uninteresting to deploy. These are weapons, designed by and against nation-states and empires.

 

[Ghpstage]

That may be so, but I would still rather see an inefficient, yet united humanity than a bunch of small efficient governments that are at each others' throats all the time.

You are assuming that larger states in any way help to create unity, the fact that 45% of Scots want independence kind of disproves this notion right?

Nothing wrong with self-determination, but does humanity as a whole really need yet another government competing for our dwindling resources? I am definitely one of those people that feels humanity should be working more towards unification rather than factionalizing ourselves even further.

Unfortunately factionalising is going to arise where government policies have caused concentrations of unemployment, low wages, social problems and poor public services while throwing money at already better off areas. In the UK this has been going on since the 80's at least, regardless of which party has been in power.

To make matters worse, the Tory party have actually made driving wedges between social groups something of a modus operandi, setting people against welfare recipients, foreigners, unions and their members, public sector workers, public services and the disabled almost seems to be in their DNA at this point .

Its also possible to see regional governance as a way of creating unity by avoiding the overcentralising of power and resources that has happened in the UK (and elsewhere). Right now I think a good devolution plan is the only way to prevent the UK breaking up in the relatively near future, a federalist UK would still make important national decisions such as foreign, military, scientific and broad economic policy as a united unit, but decisions on how to spend the budget allotted to a region are best left in the hands of those in that region, rather than in the hands of somebody who has never been to, and has no idea of its specific needs.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think the development of such weapons is partially motivated by the nature of how states function today. These days, wars are intended to destroy states wholesale - and occassionally the populace within. This is because states are centralised and larger. Wars have become more rare because states now have a stronger rational self-interest to keep out of wars, yet when they happen, it is really, really bad. The German occupation of France wouldn't have been possible a couple of centuries ago, when states were far more decentralised.

So if states were smaller and had more autonomous subdivisions capable of providing potent political resistance against potential occupiers, such weapons would simply be uninteresting to deploy. These are weapons, designed by and against nation-states and empires.

I think when actors are dedicated to being savage they use the most effective tools available to them. I wouldn't think it wise to underestimate the potential effectiveness of people dedicated to erasing their foes if what they're armed with are small arms and machetes. I also wouldn't find it wise to think that small states are going to limit themselves to small arms and machetes when they aren't getting along with their neighbor(s).

 

[Takhisis]

we will never know if it was an amateur mistake, the poll results tend to say it was not ...

It lost them support among female voters which they previously had.

Maybe. But Heath perhaps predates a time when British political shenanigans took a decidedly US turn. All Presidents have to have a first lady to show. And the British are picking up on it. (…)

Politicians more out of touch with the people and the executive trampling all over the rest of government and their populations in the name of economical recoverity and/or anti-terrorism/security? What a special relationship indeed.

But before 2020?

Only six turns left!

I think they'll probably wait until they have a solid chance of winning. They had to hold this one because it was in their election platform, but losing the referendum has ironically given them the luxury of waiting until the timing better suits them, because having fulfilled that promise they can continue to insist on the long-term need for Scottish independence while deferring to the unionist majority in the short-term.

And meanwhile they can concentrate on further devolution. Win-win situation.

I suspect that this was their best opportunity. At a later time, the benefits of North Sea oil will be less. And the degree of devolution is likely to be more advanced. Both undermining the desire of Scots for independence.

But who knows? Surely not I.

I wouldn't be "so" sure either way. A lot of things can happen. People are fickle. In a few years we'll see. For all we know, we might see the Pangur Bean gang striving to eradicate all people over 60 while the Tsunami Yakuza Mega try to eradicate all youngsters. The vote migth change a bit by then.

btw, what will happen if English voters win a referendum to get out of the EU? If some Scottish voted No because they didn't want to risk exiting the EU, then Scotland might vote to remain… my head hurts.

Interesting that the poll shows that 51% of Scottish-born voters voted Yes.

The problem with Scotland is that it is full of Scots!

Morality of the tale: Baby boomers and older should die for Scotland to be free!

That would include the purring woman, right?

Scotland is a divided country and you all need to move on and stop this blame game. I know you like football and you will understand when I say you sound like the footie fan whose team has just lost six nil and you are trying to blame the referee for not giving a penalty. What difference does it make?

It's an analysis, not a blame game. Maybe it's someone trying to understand how their country works and why things happen the way they do. This election has actually had a meaningful turnout, compared to others.

There will, one day, be another vote on Scottish independence and I suppose you hope all the elderly who voted No will be long dead by then. Well, I have news for you – there will always be elderly in Scotland and they will invariably vote No, even if they voted Yes last time.
But it will be quite some time before that new vote happens. And you might well be elderly by then too. And will probably vote No.

What is bolded I don't even

You are assuming that larger states in any way help to create unity, the fact that 45% of Scots want independence kind of disproves this notion right?
Unfortunately factionalising is going to arise where government policies have caused concentrations of unemployment, low wages, social problems and poor public services while throwing money at already better off areas. In the UK this has been going on since the 80's at least, regardless of which party has been in power.

And voter turnout declines, especially as all three of the parties which control or can control Parliament a any given time are variations cast form the same political mold.

To make matters worse, the Tory party have actually made driving wedges between social groups something of a modus operandi, setting people against welfare recipients, foreigners, unions and their members, public sector workers, public services and the disabled almost seems to be in their DNA at this point .

Typical authoritarian tactics.

Its also possible to see regional governance as a way of creating unity by avoiding the overcentralising of power and resources that has happened in the UK (and elsewhere). Right now I think a good devolution plan is the only way to prevent the UK breaking up in the relatively near future, a federalist UK would still make important national decisions such as foreign, military, scientific and broad economic policy as a united unit, but decisions on how to spend the budget allotted to a region are best left in the hands of those in that region, rather than in the hands of somebody who has never been to, and has no idea of its specific needs.

Not only has never been to or has no idea of the place, but also think of parts of their own country as dirty troublesome foreigners. I.e. anyplace where neither Estuary English nor RP are spoken.

 

[Tahuti]

I also wouldn't find it wise to think that small states are going to limit themselves to small arms and machetes when they aren't getting along with their neighbor(s).

Probably not, though small states will certainly run into financial disincentives when attempting to maintain a nuclear arsenal, so they will only maintain when it seems worthwhile (Israel for instance). Besides, it looks diplomatically unseemly when multiple small states are attacked as opposed to one relatively large one. So wars, even when fought with the biggest weapons, will have a less wider breadth compared to wars between larger states.

 

[Farm Boy]

Nukes are significantly more cost effective than conventional arms once the technological hurdles have been met. And those hurdles are getting less formidable rapidly.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I think you refuted your argument.

Just because they affect a smaller population, does not mean they aren't just as violent. That's my point. Not every war needs to be a world war.

 

[Evie]

International integration and national subdivisions are hardly necessary opposites. Even a united world would need administrative subdivisions (and, much more likely, would have to be a federal government of some kind). It's very likely that these would be based on existing regional and national basis.

One need only consider Vermont (seceding from New York then requesting admission to the United States) in the late eighteenth century. In Scotland's case, that would likely translate to wanting out of the United Kingdom but wanting in the European Union. Which I believe is the case here, no?