The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXIV

[Traitorfish]

I'm watching the Scottish National Party conference on C-Span which has me wondering (again):
How likely is Scottish independence now? Has the independence movement gained any traction since the last time I asked?

Really is impossible to say. Pro-independence is still a minority position, but so is pro-union. The deciding factor is going to be, and always were going to be, working class Labour voters who have no inherent commitment to either side, but neither campaign has made a convincing appeal to that demographic. (Frankly, I think they're deliberately avoiding it, because neither of them really have much to say.)

It's basically going to come down to which bloc can mount the best defence of the welfare state. For the nats, that means making a coherent argument for economic stability, for the unionists, that means pretending that the welfare state is somehow compatible with the continued rule of the centre-right; neither have yet achieved this.

If "devomax", i.e. Home Rule is on the ballot, though, it's pretty much a certainty. My suspicion is that the SNP isn't too confident in independence, but is ideologically committed to pretending they are, so they're betting on Home Rule allowing them to better consolidate their position for a serious grab at independence.

I very much doubt the Scots feel like paying for a military on their own. So isn't the question more along the lines of what shape and scope is Scottish self determination likely to take?

It's not likely that an independent Scotland needs much of a military. The Irish have made do with a pretty lightweight army even when dealing with the fallout from the Troubles. The general sentiment among nats is "leave imperialism to the empires".

 

[bhsup]

I translate that as "if the poo really hits the fan, we know England will save our bacon because they won't want non-isle powers mucking about around here."

 

[Traitorfish]

Which "non-Isle powers" did you have in mind?

 

[bhsup]

None in particular. Just a generic statement. But hey, you never know when those crazy Norwegians are gonna go a-Viking again.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not likely that an independent Scotland needs much of a military. The Irish have made do with a pretty lightweight army even when dealing with the fallout from the Troubles. The general sentiment among nats is "leave imperialism to the empires".

So long as it remains a relatively wealth-secure first world state, it needs at least some military. It is entirely possible that the level is pretty low given the current state of protectionism Western European powers enjoy. I guess the question then becomes how dedicated the empire(s) are to wringing out economic concessions as tribute for the providing of implied and/or explicit guarantees of military security?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

My Scottish roommate roundly dismissed the idea of independence. In her words, "there are more taxpayers in London than in all of Scotland. Independence means the end of the welfare state."

On the other hand, my friend in the Scottish Socialist Party believes that Alba can have its cake and eat it too, and is pro-independence.

 

[Arakhor]

Alex Salmond would promise anything to become the leader of an independent Scotland and I don't doubt that should such a goal ever be achieved, SNP manifesto commitments will become as thin on the ground as the LibDem commitment to low tuition fees.

 

[Traitorfish]

So long as it remains a relatively wealth-secure first world state, it needs at least some military. It is entirely possible that the level is pretty low given the current state of protectionism Western European powers enjoy. I guess the question then becomes how dedicated the empire(s) are to wringing out economic concessions as tribute for the providing of implied and/or explicit guarantees of military security?

Well, again, the obvious comparison here is to Ireland. It's a similar size to Scotland, and has a similar position in international politics to what we can imagine an independent Scotland would. But, the Irish don't seem to feel their backs bent and shattered by the weight of it, and indeed barely seem to notice it exists. Speculating wildly, this has something to do with a lack of aircraft carriers and lunatic crusades, both of which tend to inflate the budget somewhat.

My Scottish roommate roundly dismissed the idea of independence. In her words, "there are more taxpayers in London than in all of Scotland. Independence means the end of the welfare state."

She might be right, although I'm not sure what the observation that London is bigger than Scotland actually tells us. (London is bigger than a lot of places. Switzerland, for example, or Denmark.) But the obvious problem is the assumption that Union doesn't also mean the end of the welfare state, which seems quite likely given that the government is currently doing everything it can to end the welfare state. This allows the nats to respond that, while independence might not be a sure thing, neither is an oncoming train. So even if she's right, she's not necessarily right, if you follow me.

My increasing suspicion is that the Union isn't too godforsaken for Scottish Labour-voters to abandon it just yet, especially if given the alternative of devomax to shield them against the worst of Tory excesses. But unless the centre-left makes some return in Westminster, their opposition to independence can't be relied upon to continue indefinitely.

Alex Salmond would promise anything to become the leader of an independent Scotland[...]

London is big, Salmond is slimy; are statements of the obvious considered currency among unionists?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, again, the obvious comparison here is to Ireland. It's a similar size to Scotland, and has a similar position in international politics to what we can imagine an independent Scotland would. But, the Irish don't seem to feel their backs bent and shattered by the weight of it, and indeed barely seem to notice it exists. Speculating wildly, this has something to do with a lack of aircraft carriers and lunatic crusades, both of which tend to inflate the budget somewhat.

Well, that might have something to do with my particular view on things over here, which seems to not be in power, so you're right - it's probably irrelevant. Nobody really seems to seriously be considering either scaling back US military expenditures significantly, scaling back US international military promises, or demanding more significant economic concessions from US allies with vastly lower rates of funding...

Spoiler :

Link to video.

...or possibly all 3.

 

[Quackers]

Unless something drastically changes before the referendum it is a lock on for the "no" vote.

This is from a recent poll. Here is an excerpt:

A closer look at the data also reveals that, among those who are certain to vote and have definitely decided how they will vote, the ‘No’ vote continues to lead the ‘Yes’ vote by two to one (67% v 33%). Among undecided voters, around a third are inclined to vote Yes (35%), while a similar proportion are inclined to vote No (31%).

Nate Silver also said there is no chance of Scottish independence. He knows a thing or two about electoral politics.

 

[Borachio]

I must say all the Scottish people I've spoken to have been against independence. I've been rather surprised.

 

[madviking]

I see. Also, hardly anyone calls them Commonwealth in everyday speech.

i don't live in a state i live in a commonwealth

I think Kentucky part of Virginia originally.

yes

 

[Quackers]

I must say all the Scottish people I've spoken to have been against independence. I've been rather surprised.

You know Scottish people? Mr Cosmopolitan.

 

[Traitorfish]

Unless something drastically changes before the referendum it is a lock on for the "no" vote.

This is from a recent poll. Here is an excerpt:

What's tricky here is the use of "unless something drastically changes before the referendum" is being used to mean "unless pigs fly". But something might well change drastically, we don't know. As I said, the decider here is and always was the working class Labour vote, and while they lean towards Union, a critical swing towards independence is not impossible. Unlikely, but not impossible. (The article you link notes an apparent upswing in pro-independence sentiment among Labour supporters.) Equally, we could well discover that some change in the political terrain causes the pro-independence vote to collapse entirely. There are very few certainties.

Nate Silver also said there is no chance of Scottish independence. He knows a thing or two about electoral politics.

I don't get the impression that Nate Silver is an expert in electoral politics. What Silver knows about is statistics, and statistical modelling assumes the sort of steady reference points which aren't available to us here. His successful predictions in the 2012 election relied upon a heavy body of precedent, and that is something we absolutely lack in regards to Scottish independence.

 

[Borachio]

You know Scottish people? Mr Cosmopolitan.

Yes. At least, they claim to be Scottish. And judging from their accents I've no reason to doubt it.

They are, quite literally, all over England. Which, they say, is a civilizing influence.

Blair, Brown, Cameron. All Scottish names, you know.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Are they a civilizing influence in England by their presence, or a civilizing influence in Scotland by their absence?

 

[Borachio]

I'd honestly have to go with the former.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Wait Blair is a Scottish name?

Also thanks to TF, Quackers and Borachio for answering my question.

 

[Dachs]

I see. Also, hardly anyone calls them Commonwealth in everyday speech.

The broseph from the rapist slaver university is correct. Virginia at least is never referred to as anything but a commonwealth - at least, not by people in the area. A lot of businesses use "commonwealth" in the name, as do a few state-run programs and agencies. The main exception to this that I can think of is that Richmond is referred to as the "state capital" housing the "state government", but other than that, Virginia is almost always called a Commonwealth and not a state.

It's freaking bizarre and stupid, but there it is.

 

[madviking]

but at least it circumvents the awkward "state of the state speech"