Scottish Independence... maybe

Anything worth sharing with us but not gaming related goes in here.

Moderators: The Heralds, The Loremasters

Message
Author
Facade19
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: In the city of pigs

Re: Scottish Independance... maybe

#31 Post by Facade19 »

Now that the actual day of the Independence Day voting has arrived I am going to make my prognosis. I think Scotland will remain with the Union.
User avatar
Prince of Spires
Auctor Aeternitatum
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: The city of Spires

Re: Scottish Independance... maybe

#32 Post by Prince of Spires »

Facade19 wrote:Now that the actual day of the Independence Day voting has arrived I am going to make my prognosis. I think Scotland will remain with the Union.
Polls coming in suggest that you're right. And by a much wider margin then the polls predicted. Seems at the end of the day many of the undecided voters wanted to stay in. Either that, or the polls were skewed of course. For instance, if the bigger cities tended toward separation and most polls were held in bigger cities, then you can get unbalanced polls.

Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
Aerendar Valandil
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:54 am
Location: The Free Republic of Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Scottish Independance... maybe

#33 Post by Aerendar Valandil »

Well, I must say, the battle was fought in a great and very democratic way. Now hopefully reforms will be set in.
Teledor
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Scottish Independance... maybe

#34 Post by Teledor »

Yes, a great day for democracy. Some 85%+ participated or something near that. That's astonishing! I wish we could get 60% consistently here in the USA, but the way our system works non presidential election cycles have dismal participation.

Anyways, hats off to the Scots. I'm sure there will be some rifts to mend, but as you said, it looks like devolution of powers will be enhanced. Who knows, perhaps a more federalized system is coming for the UK?
User avatar
Sturen
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:41 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Scottish Independance... maybe

#35 Post by Sturen »

Pretty strong No vote. However still a strong Yes vote, stronger than was expected when the referendum was agreed to I'm sure. Disappointing personally for me but I think there's a lot to be hopeful about. David Cameron (as much as it pains me to admit it) made a pretty good speech, suggesting movement towards a strong decentralisation of power. I hope it does work out that way. The clear response is that Scotland and the UK needs some sort of change, even among those that voted No.
My Log - guaranteed to make your day 127% more awesome!

Also find me on Instagram: @battlestones
Ferny
9th Age Moderator
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:03 pm

Re: Scottish Independance... maybe

#36 Post by Ferny »

I hope the energy this campaign has brought out can be capitalised on and turned into real change, despite the result. I mean, geez, when was the last time we've had a turn-out like that for any election on this island? Shows that people aren't apathetic, they just don't normally feel there's actually a choice to be made.
The 9th Age: Alumni

Former Roles: Advisory Board, HR, Moderator and Highborn Elves Army Support
Facade19
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: In the city of pigs

Re: Scottish Independance... maybe

#37 Post by Facade19 »

http://i.imgur.com/9e3m8dj.png

http://i.imgur.com/PgRbeOf.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5LcPZFAPyk

:?

The question of Scottish independence is far from settled. If not now, 20 years from now it will become a major issue again. From what I have noticed the younger crowd tended to vote in favor of independence. I won't be surprised if Scotland will leave the Union in 20 or so years.
User avatar
Sturen
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:41 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Scottish Independance... maybe

#38 Post by Sturen »

Yes and No representatives who were there said those were simply uncounted votes waiting on the No table. It's possible the vote was rigged I suppose but I don't really want to get too conspiracy theory about everything.

You're completely right. Yes would have won a majority if voters over 65 were excluded. Support in 16-17 year olds was 71%, similar in the opposite direction in those 65+. No votes correlate strongly with employment rates, high life expectancy and age. It seems like wealthy, older voters who honestly weren't going to lose much either way have crushed what a lot of poorer voters saw as a way to get change.

To add to the overall grimness, the promise or "vow" of more powers has already descended into party politics with Labour trying to delay it until after they're reelected and the Tories trying to use it to appease hard line English backbenchers with more power for England too. Doesn't seem the unified, wholly supported change is going to happen. A motion was meant to have passed before the House of Commons yesterday with support of all three parties, according to promises. Unsurprisingly, it didn't.

And finally, there were sectarian and EDL style riots in Glasgow last night. Official news sources have covered it as "boisterous" but the videos I've seen look pretty horrifying. There were police in force, mounted police and helicopters, saltires were burned and nazi salutes while singing Rule Britannia.

Yesterday really wasn't a good day to be Scottish.
My Log - guaranteed to make your day 127% more awesome!

Also find me on Instagram: @battlestones
User avatar
Giladis
The Merlord
Posts: 2908
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:13 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#39 Post by Giladis »

So if I am reading this right and based on what I am seeing on the news the prospect of another referendum in some 10 years time, especially if UK votes to leave the EU is quite possible.
Facade19
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: In the city of pigs

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#40 Post by Facade19 »

In retrospect, I am honestly believing now that the proponents of the Yes vote were genuinely anticipating these reactions. It was clear to me from the beginning that currently the No vote would remain the stronger bet as too many affluent people were not going to gamble on their lot. And this is also precisely what some of the more cunning and crafty proponents of the Yes vote were most likely anticipating.

What in effect this No vote accomplished is the future secession of Scotland (and may I dare say Wales) from the Union. Just as the Roman Senate killed Caesar to prevent the return of an Emperor and yet, Octavian became the grand Augustus, so the No vote has, IMHO, paved the road for Scottish independence. The bellicose rummaging through Westminster and the English press (no offense meant to my English brethren) is certainly not pacifying the collective consciousness of the Scottish youth.

Moreover, the Scottish vote has only highlighted the further separatist movements growing discontent in mainland Europe. Now the Bavarians are entertaining notions of secession. What is great (in an ironic sense) is that several of the US States have seen the ailing grumbles of latest promises already broken and consider this more impetus for their own desire to break from the Union.

Catalonia will definitely vie now for its independence. Say what you want, whether it is unconstitutional or not, Catalonia will go it alone. And I do not think they will really go along with alone. If the EU keeps on poking the bear to the East, or begin aiding the Eagle in antagonizing the Dragon, either of the Eastern neighbors could well buttress Catalonia with proper backing.

Interesting times ahead.
User avatar
Seredain
The Cavalry Prince
Posts: 1134
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:27 pm
Location: London, England.

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#41 Post by Seredain »

Usually I think politics is absolutely best avoided in any internet-based discussion (have you seen Youtube lately?), but the comments here seem pretty measured, and as a Brit I've been following the referendum closely, so I can't resist chipping in a little.

Devolution after the No Vote

Firstly, I think it is expecting far too much to imagine the Westminster parties (for want of a better term) to agree the detail of further devolution in the space of less than a week or, indeed, longer than that. It's easy to agree general principles but the devil is in the detail. Expect a huge amount of argument on how to proceed over the rest of this Parliament. Cameron has set an admirable agenda to agree a draft bill by January, but one man's "admirable" is another man's "insanely optimistic", or "hopelessly rushed" and, on balance, neither pro or anti-union Scots should see any malevolence in these parties behaving as they do. Constitutional amendments, especially to a nation state like ours which has no written constitution, are difficult things to get right. Needless to say, they must be done properly. From an Englishman's perspective, here are the reasons to suspect delay, and neither of them have anything to do with opposing the principle of devolution (an ongoing process for some time both to cities and regions - personally I think a more federal system, like in the States, makes perfect sense):

1) The Conservative leadership is, fundamentally, correct in suggesting that devolution should work both ways: that since MPs based in England may not vote on issues which only effect Scotland, Scotland-based MPs should not vote on issues effecting only England. Both positions rest on precisely the same reasonable principles. In a devolved UK it makes no sense for England to lack the same level of devolution from supra-UK state power as Scotland, or indeed Wales and Northern Ireland. This is not s view exclusive to a wild English hard-line, albeit you can expect English nationalists (not yet a major force in English politics), to harp on about this as being a great injustice, much as the Scots nationalists have done on a lack of further devolution to the Scots Government.

The problem is that the reality of change like this is always more complicated than populists allow for. Constitutional change managed slowly is, usually, much for the better. This was the core argument behind Edmund Burke's denunciation of the French Revolution and he was, before long, proved correct. Generally speaking, evolution is better than revolution, as English Common Law and the American system of constitutional amendments, broadly speaking, both show. The practical problem here is how exactly to organize representation for devolved English issues. Create a new specifically English parliament to mirror the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly? On balance, constitutional fairness would require exactly this, but then you have the problems of whether Westminster Palace, or an entirely new complex, should be used for the purpose and, linked, whether the English public really wants another layer of political bureaucracy hanging over it, and wants to pay huge sums of money for the privilege. Further, would you add an English First Minister to this under-parliament or leave the UK Prime Minister in charge of it? What if the PM had been elected to a Scottish Seat, as Gordon Brown was?

On the other hand, the simplest option would be to have only England-based MPs sitting in Westminster when devolved English issues are debated. That's probably the most elegant and cost-effective solution, but would it not a hand a gift to the anti-English brand of nationalism (which has always been the ugliest side of the ongoing referendum debate), to have the English periodically take over the home of British democracy for their own use? Further, if there was a Scotland-based Prime Minister, would the ruling party have to require its own leader to leave the House before votes could be held on English issues?

These are complicated questions. It would be irrational to expect Westminster MPs, let alone the opposing UK parties, to quickly agree on every detail and rush through significant constitutional change. But if we concede, as logically we probably should, that it's sensible for devolution to proceed hand-in-hand on both sides of the border, we also concede that further devolution of powers to Scotland will take time, and will involve a lot of arguing. That's parliamentary democracy for you, and Scotland-based voters should not be swayed by the inevitable cries from the Nationalists that the UK government has no intention of proceeding with devolution. If the English Votes question slows this process too much, then it's probably sensible for Scottish devolution to proceed ahead so as not to hand a gift to the SNP, but such a decision will be a political, not logical, one.

2) It is, currently, a death sentence to the Labour Party's influence in England that devolution should apply equally on both sides of the border, because a large number of Labour MPs (I believe 40 in this Parliament), were elected in Scotland. Even if they gained power over the UK government, therefore, they would almost always (on current UK voting habits) be outgunned by the Conservatives when voting on devolved English issues. You would have a situation where the UK government would consistently be outvoted on massive domestic issues (such as Health, Welfare and Education) effecting the major constituent part of the UK (accounting for something like 85% of the population). This is why English devolution didn't move a millimetre during the course of 3 successive Labour governments between 1997 and 2010. Expect strong resistance to any such change appearing even in draft form before the next general election, and expect the Conservatives to campaign hard on this issue as part of the run-up to that election. This is, ultimately, the major political cause of the deadlock between the UK's biggest parties on the devolution issue.

The Future of the United Kingdom

In the end, I think devolution to federal-style levels of control over the UK's territories will be very beneficial to the UK in the long run. I don't hold at all to the idea that a Yes movement featuring a lot of 17-year old voters sounds the demographic death-knell of a united Great Britain. Firstly, 16 and 17 year olds are not, generally speaking, a politically sophisticated part of the electorate because they naturally have much less experience on any of the issues debated (important for sensible decision making), have far less respect for their nation's political traditions (gained over time), and have no financial stake in the status quo. Older voters have more of all these characteristics. Today's 17 year-olds will not vote for the same reasons when they're 55 years old.

There is one other big reason the UK is likely to weather this storm over the next 50 years. The current climate of the independence referendum was something of a perfect storm, unlikely to be repeated. Firstly, contempt for the politics of Westminster is not a Scottish but a recent British phenomenon (hence the rise of UKIP in England), one largely caused in recent times by the increasing cult of political spin (especially the "dodgy dossier" scandal in the lead-up to the Iraq War), the expenses scandal and an obsession by modern British politicians with responding to short-term buzz-word issues and polls rather than successfully setting out positive long-term visions for the British nation-state (in short, poor leadership). This is a situation which is not bound to be the case for ever, since good leaders come as well as go. Alex Salmond was not a details politician - his economic and geo-political forecasts for an independent Scotland were hopelessly, almost fraudulently, optimistic - but he was highly skilled salesman of political vision - a great failing of the Westminster Leadership since Blair. The SNP is not likely to keep getting leaders like him (not that I like his politics or methods). Further, selling this vision was made much easier by there being a Tory government in power (despised in Scotland), the shiny newness of the Scottish government (politically well managed by the SNP), a financial crisis in 2008 caused by hated capitalist banks and, by association, London (Scottish voters tending strongly toward left-wing politics and ignoring the blazing irony that the exploded banks of the UK were both Scottish); bad publicity over the Westminster expenses scandal, and still strong-performing North Sea oil production. All these were electoral benefits which the Scottish Nationalists cannot rely on in the long term. Almost all will change over the course of the next decade, let alone 20 or 50 years.

Finally, the core devolution point. Properly done, devolution undercuts the SNP's key theme - that Westminster is to blame for all of Scotland's problems and, without UK governance, everything would be fine. This is a typical position for Holyrood politicians to take up - it's an easy vote-winner for Independence - but it is, of course, nonsense. The reality is that further devolution of significant powers over domestic and tax policy in Scotland will give the separatists enough rope to hang themselves - you can't blame somebody else for problems over which you now have control.

In conclusion, I believe that effective devolution and the cycle of history will both see the UK remain as a united country - much for the better given it has been one of the most successful, and long-lived, examples of peaceful political union and co-operation ever seen between different countries - not to mention former Medieval adversaries. On which point it leaves me only to say that I think any British citizen can be proud that a straight yes-no vote on the country's very survival could be conducted with the co-operation of the political establishment on both sides, without corruption and without any of the kind of deadly violence that has marred the vast majority of political and territorial change across the World (for or against). Both Yes and No voters can be very proud of that.

Cheers,

S.
The Cavalry Prince - List Design, Tactics, Battle Reports

http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=33584
SpellArcher
Green Istari
Posts: 13841
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Otherworld

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#42 Post by SpellArcher »

Firstly, I feel that whatever the fairness of them, those promises were made and affected the vote. The leaders that made them should either bend all their will to implementing them as soon as is reasonably possible or make way for new leaders who aren't bound by them. The West Lothian point is a good one but linkage was not mentioned by the Prime Minister when the Scots cast their votes.

In general though I agree with Seredain that evolutionary processes are better than revolutionary ones. Some kind of Federalism strikes me as a very logical step for the UK to take. The Blair government pushed for regional assemblies and mayoralties re devolution in England but only Londoners seemed much interested in a further tier of government. Of course they remembered the GLC.

In the short term I agree that losing Scottish MP's from Westminster would work in favour of the Conservatives. But I could see a pretty long term (if informal) alignment of Labour and the Lib Dems working against this. Added to which, people would simply get fed up of electing the same party indefinitely.

Again, I believe that long term the trend is towards independence. The old Imperial ties are a memory and in 20 years? A lot of British-wide institutions such as the nationalised industries have gone. I think sometimes English people underestimate the bitter resentment and feeling of powerlessness of most Scots during the long period of Conservative government they didn't vote for. Many, many things were done to their country, often irreversible that they had no control over. Growing up in the eighties I witnessed this first-hand.

This gradual disengagement has been flagged up for a long time even by writers at the fringes of politics. For example Berresford Ellis in Celt and Saxon. If Scotland leaves the Union does that make any of us less British? No because that is about shared history and the land we walk on, not about political nomenclature.
User avatar
Seredain
The Cavalry Prince
Posts: 1134
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:27 pm
Location: London, England.

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#43 Post by Seredain »

I think you've hit the nail on the head SA in mentioning to role of the loss of imperial identity in the development of the referendum phenomenon. Since the end of empire Britain was forced to drastically reinvent itself and, in the process, experienced a severe identity crisis. The seat of the maritime empire and partner in the liberal English-speaking Anglo-American alliance (always at odds with the bloody end of holding down so much imperial territory), had to turn itself into part of the multi-lingual community of European nations (and has only done so since with limited success). The loss of an out-competed industrial base, big national projects after the World wars, certainly added to the trauma. The industrialized regions not only of Scotland but of the North of England were disproportionally affected by this. Historically Scots had been hugely involved in the imperial project - Burns and Scott were huge advocates of identity both Scottish and Imperial British. Two wars against Germany allowed this identity to strengthen under a "them and us" mentality, naturally made much more intense by the fact in plain sight - that being British was obviously much better for your liberty and prosperity than being conquered by militarist, racist regimes. With the loss of Empire, the old bonds needed new reasons to exist, but the removal of external threats to British survival made this task less urgent, and then the collapse of labour-intensive industry caused resentment that made people less willing to pursue it.

Celtic nationalism saw a strong resurgence in the identity vacuum, fuelled as you say by the resentment caused by the hardship suffered as the old mines and shipyards downscaled or shut down (high tech industry, especially in defence, has since become a British speciality, but employs markedly fewer people). English nationalism has been, comparatively, far less popular (perhaps a result of post-imperial guilt, particularly in respect of Ireland), but the English identity crisis (in the case of the old industrial towns) was no less bitter in the wake of the changes wrought by economic forces and government policy during the 80s.

Here we have intertwined two co-operating problems, post-empire, which resulted from the seismic shifts happening in British society in the second half of the 20th Century: localist nationalism (a world-wide phenomenon as it happens), and hatred of Conservative governments. That England has continued to vote for the Conservative Party encourages us (and Scottish separatists) to see the political elements as inextricably linked with a problem of British identity - that England and Scotland are (and should be) separate places.

The bottom line is that it isn't, or at least shouldn't be. British identity is in reality something bigger than the party you vote for, or the race which gave your country its name. It can be wider, more inclusive and altogether more refreshing. With an influx of different peoples from the former imperial territories, Britain became a terrifically cosmopolitan place. The 2012 Olympics were a showcase for this inclusive identity. London, seen as the seat of English elitists and Anglo-Saxon capitalists by the SNP, is in fact a cosmopolis of terrific variety. This Britain is a place where the old separate countries have no borders and where everyone enjoys the same level of freedom, where medieval prejudices have no real role except to stir up conflicts long out of date.

From a practical perspective for Scotland, it is a much more representative union that the wider European one, with whose constituent parts the Scots have far less in common (is Berlin so preferable to London?). Because a shared political process, economy, language and history gives Scotland much more in common with the Union than not. Crucially, and the thing which separatists ignore (in addition to the resilience of a Scottish No vote in the face of a unionist campaign which failed to argue the positive case for the UK), is that there are more people who describe themselves as Scottish, or Scots-British, in England than in Scotland - none of whom were allowed to vote. The population of this island is inextricably linked. This is an awful lot to throw away for old tribal loyalties or antagonism toward Conservatives. Who wants a real border scything the island in two? The truth is that a border will make people less British - they will have to make a real choice between being English and Scottish. The all-inclusive British identity of the island will be thrown out the window, and you can guarantee that small-minded nationalist, and racialist cultures (always an element in nationalism here), will swell with this division. What then of all the millions of vote-less Scots south of the border? They'd be made exiles in a process they had no democratic control over at all. There are so many reasons for the UK to live on - properly argued they will stand the test of time, even leaving aside the economic arguments (which a sensible voting public should not, but which formed a far-too-dominant theme of the No campaign). A federal set-up is one sensible way of making sure this happens, and I believe, properly executed, it will.

The line sold by the SNP - that the UK is somehow broken because Scots won't ever get the government they vote for, rests on a straightforward fallacy. Because most people in Britain don't get the government they vote for: UK governments never hit the 50% vote mark before they enter power. The majority of Scots, like the rest of the UK, have gotten the Westminster government they voted for about 50% of the time (Labour). That's democracy. You vote against your political opponents, vote for change, and bide your time. Conservative voters have done as much during Labour governments without demanding, when the vote goes against them, that their constituent territories should secede. The SNP's success in Scotland (at Labour's expense) changes the detail but not the principle - Scots who didn't vote for the SNP have to live with them in Government too. Should Labour, unionist Edinburgh now politically separate from the SNP's Dundee on this basis? Of course not, because it's a solid lie to promise people they will always have the government they want. And so how about sacrificing your part in one of the World's pre-eminent inclusive identities to avoid the political process instead of evolving it, all in the name of an old, smaller, tribal identity*? That's quite a decision to make. As inclusive British identity continues to evolve in the 21st Century, and as prosperity returns to the country post 2008, I don't think it's bound to happen, and I don't think it should. I think the peoples of Britain will have taken a backward step if they let the United Kingdom fall to pieces.


*I've met more than one angry Scot who, after too many beers, betrayed a belief in earth-born nativist myths that obviously fuelled a nasty nationalist sentiment, which we've seen quite a lot of within the Yes vote (I have been told that "the English are a bastard race"). Much like similar English cases, any such identity is historically worthless and should be buried. The "Scots" (the term "Scotti" was late-Roman Latin for "Irish Pirate"), invaded Britain from Ireland in the 4th-5th centuries (like the Anglo-Saxons, in fact), and the name now rules a mixed population of lowland Northumbrians, Picts, Strathclyde Britons, Gaels, Norsemen, Normans and now all sorts, who speak English. Ellis' labels of "Celt" and "Saxon" are best left behind.
The Cavalry Prince - List Design, Tactics, Battle Reports

http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=33584
SpellArcher
Green Istari
Posts: 13841
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Otherworld

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#44 Post by SpellArcher »

As you can imagine Seredain, I disagree!

:)

The concept that there was 'no alternative' to the Conservative policies implemented in Scotland during the Eighties is I believe, fundamentally mistaken. The decline of British industry did not force widespread privatisation, the social policies of Mrs Thatcher ("no such thing as society"), the poll tax etc.. Yes similar things happened in the North of England. But consider that there have always been plenty of Conservative MP's there. How many are there in Scotland or Wales? These nations ('tribal' is slightly unfortunate I feel) have a fundamentally different attitude towards social justice than Conservative-dominated England.

Wales was bloodily conquered by the English. Scotland almost, then it became economically dependent. As one Englishman put it at the time of the Act of Union. "We have bought the Scots. Why therefore, should we not tax them?". All countries are an historical mixture, culturally, in terms of descent, linguistically etc.. But ask a Scot, a Welshman or an Irishman if he feels celtic and I suspect most would say yes. It's a deeply ingrained cultural identity. The resurgance of the Welsh language amongst others is massively significant. The Conservative tradition in Scotland and Wales stemmed largely from English immigration and language had a lot to do with that. But adopting a foreign language has pitfalls, you take on board the assumptions and mind-set of the people it came from. This has often had negative results, the culture that drops it's language suffers.

Multiculturalism is a great thing, I agree with you. But I'm sure most Scots would tell you it's as strong in Scotland in particular as it is in Britain as a whole. Scots in England? English in Scotland? The referendum had to have some kind of cut-off. As we agree, Scotland is a varied society, English people live and work there quite happily now, they would if the vote had been 'Yes'. Again, British identity is not dependent on political divisions. If the Scots leave the Union that doesn't suddenly make me more English and less British. Being British is about the earth beneath your feet and millenia of cultural evolution, not the 2012 Olympics. London a cosmopolis of teriffic variety where everyone enjoys the same level of freedom? It's a grim place if you're at the bottom. That's what the Scots are trying to avoid.
User avatar
Seredain
The Cavalry Prince
Posts: 1134
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:27 pm
Location: London, England.

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#45 Post by Seredain »

I can see!

When I speak of "tribal" I do not speak of whole countries (that would be trite), but constituent parts of their identity. You see the same in England and indeed everywhere - loyalty to home towns and sports teams is based upon the same instinct. It is not the whole part of the Scottish identity - no disagreement there - but it is an important, and sometimes unpleasant, constituent part of (specifically) the separatist movement. Subconsciously or otherwise, the uniqueness of specific identity within the British umbrella goes back to much older identities which are indeed based on assumptions about ethnicity. There exist separatist movements in Cornwall and even old Mercia precisely because people in these regions feel somehow different from their neighbours. Where this forms the basis, or even a part, of a political movement, it is important to pose the arguments against the validity of such narratives when living in the modern UK. Wales was conquered, yes, by Marcher lords speaking Norman French, barely under the authority of a King of England who, likewise, did not share the language of his subjects. The English were themselves conquered, and so now speak a language filled with French words with which no-one has thought to have a problem (though does that mean we approve of 1066? Not really). The Scots conquered the western part of their new homeland by force then, by dynastic fortune, took the throne of the whole kingdom and eventually ensured the locals spoke Scots Gaelic (old Pictish is lost), and now (under the influence of Angle Lothians and England itself) English. Whether much of the population really is genetically "Scot" is a moot point: people pick and choose the bits of their histories they want, or are taught, to remember. Cumbria spoke a form of Welsh until the 20th Century. My home town, Bath, likes to think of itself as Roman. Do Bathonians therefore approve of the military conquest of Britain by Claudius? Hardly, but neither do thy have a problem with it, deeply unpleasant though it must have been.

Picking apart modern identities on the basis of ancient ones is understandable (it's fun, and we all feel we need to come from somewhere I guess), but it's also a political cul de sac. It just never ends, and it never reflects the always more complicated truth. These bases for independence could be used with equal justification to restore the old Anglo-Saxon heptarchy: forced to unite into England by coercion and invasion from the house of Wessex. Looking further back, the Men of Devon could secede and rename themselves the Kingdom of Dumnonia. Kent could retain its independence and have its capital restored at Canterbury. Where does it end? Much as this would satisfy local pride it would be hard to see any of it serving any useful purpose. "Deeply engrained cultural identity" is not something inherent in people - it is a specific narrative drawn from a complicated past, crafted and indulged for political purpose. I used to think of myself as Anglo-Saxon - I'm almost certainly not - it was just a nice story. I would be a fool to let it dominate my political outlook. The SNP choosing to hold a referendum on independence from 21st Century Great Britain on the anniversary of Bannockburn is a case in point, and encouraged people to do precisely that.

Although local tribe, local pride, is I think something to enjoy, it is not something which should overwhelm sober considerations of mutual benefit, shared elements of culture and the reality of modern supra-British mingling and union. I say nothing of you or indeed any individual, but broadly speaking the sad reality is that local English or Scottish nationalism would see a long-term resurgence with the raising of borders, and new mutual antipathy, between the countries. I could not welcome this or its consequences.

For me, the political problem is the real one and much more understandable. Scotland is certainly politically Left of England. I tried to avoid suggesting that everything Thatcher did was necessary - merely that the decline of the nationalised industries resulted, at source, because the same products and raw materials being produced here could be obtained for lower prices in other parts of the world. Hence the slow evolution of most production-based economies into service-based economies over time. I do not intend to go further than that for the purposes of this debate, and I do not dispute that the personal turmoil involved for many people on the ground, when such industries closed, was very real. But the point is what we do now. We have a country that needs amendments but, ultimately, works rather well. I instinctively object to what amounts to special pleading - that people who have one vote just like everyone else should be allowed to be more annoyed than their fellows for disliking a government in power. In a democracy, we all have to live with that from time to time, but at least we have a say. However I welcome a devolution of powers so that the State is better able to pay attention to its different constituent parts which, understandably, may have different needs and wants. I like city mayors for the same reason. But there's no good reason at all that these changes can't work within the current state structure - "ingrained culture" doesn't qualify in the British context and, importantly, political fashions come and go - the major parties have a complete overhaul of identity every generation as a result. To pull the whole Union down instead of sensible devolution would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The Cavalry Prince - List Design, Tactics, Battle Reports

http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=33584
Teledor
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#46 Post by Teledor »

Interesting thoughts both Seredain and SA. The whole Scottish referendum vote and the lead up to it has been fascinating as an outsider. Here in the States, the level of political polarization has lead to calls for secession or outright leaving the country depending on your political stripes and whether your party won or not. Maybe part of the problem is the UK/USA system of elections, the single member district and "first past the post" winner takes all seats. 50% +1 vote leads too often to a very sizable minority feeling unrepresented. The voting process was odd too with the referendum - the restricted to Scots living in Scotland (as I understood it) seemed very odd. Sixteen year olds voting too seemed weird. I couldn't form a marginally sophisticated political thought, much less at 22 after university.

But anyways, more on topic. A measured Federalism may be best for the UK honestly. It allows greater local control over local matters. Here in the States we have 51 federated states essentially and 51 different sets of laws, rules and regulations. Now a level of uniform laws have been adopted in a number of states so it makes certain areas very similar across the states, but there are also significant deviations. Take for instance, state level income taxes. Some states have them and some states do not. The issue has lead to a race to the bottom in terms of tax rates, not dissimilar to the international tax havens and corporate subsidiaries in low tax areas shielding large multinational income.

If Federalism happens for the UK, how will areas traditionally controlled by Westminster be devolved? Without a tradition of a federated system, it will be a fascinating process. Our system in the states has taken since soon after our country was founded and it still has significant hurdles and issues. Indeed, international trade treaties have oddly enough created some major problems for some individual states, due to a conflict of laws with the treaty and state law.

I agree with Seredain, a slow measured approach should be taken. The VAT and property taxes should be local and spent locally, but beyond that many of the issues get thorny. Health - you guys have a national health system, I can't imagine how that's going to be split - if possible. Education - again sounds like a local issue that should be handled locally, but that leads to either enormous inequities in funding since local control logic leads to locals providing the funding or control that is in name only since the purse strings are still pulled from afar. The no-brainers appear to be international relations, national defense and commercial regulations affecting all four nations should remain in the Federalized Westminster, but beyond that unweaving the numerous national systems that could or should be controlled by local governments will be incredibly difficult.

Would the final proposed set up require a referendum as well?

Lastly, if the English decide to reject creating their own England only kind of parliament, then should they be able to hold up devolution for the nations (states within a federated UK?) that desire to pay for their bureaucracy? Not sure it should be a two way street if the English reject the idea of their own parliament.
Facade19
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: In the city of pigs

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#47 Post by Facade19 »

Slightly off-topic, but pertinent to the discussion of secession, Teledor what do you think of the idea of splitting California up into six distinct states (or the more older idea of breaking it up into two). I see the merits of the argument and the proposed state of Jefferson would likely seek to recruit many talented individuals from the other states if that were to take place.

Personally, I could definitely be situated either in West or South California. I went to school in the O.C. and lived there for three years as well. Though now I am back in L.A. County. Though, I think we folk in the San Fernando Valley still have lingering feelings of seceding from LA county and form our own city. I see the merits for that as well. Though, the price is also a steep one and should be taken into consideration.

For all of you folks unaware, there is a strong resentment growing here among many people from across all the states. Some states tend to have more emotions of discontent than others, but nonetheless, it is a real thing. Of course, the Southern States still balk at every step to call for secession. But the fact that we have now as usually left leaning states as Oregon and California having secessionist movements is incredible. Like I said before, the Scottish independence vote may have sparked a fire across the world (or at least the Western world) for more local government. It is incredible how many people were actually paying close attention to the Scottish independence vote.

I think the question of whether one feels British, Scottish or English is a relevant one. Depending on who you ask here in the US of A, some responses may put their State before the Federal nation. In other words, some Californians will say Californian first, American second. I wonder if that is treasonous?
User avatar
Sturen
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:41 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#48 Post by Sturen »

There's a lot of very interesting discussion and I must say Seredain you make some good points. I would contend that the vast majority of Scots would call themselves Scottish before British, rightly or wrongly that will always be a factor. Britishness, for Scotland, particularly younger Scots, doesn't bring any positive cultural memories. For me it's mostly some sort of BNP idea or outdated Great British Empire colonial history. I wouldn't say many Scots even identify with the Union Flag. Whether this identity is historically accurate isn't really the reason it exists or is important. Moving forward, the national feeling of being Scottish isn't a great reason to vote for independence but it would help once we get there.

As for the political differences, I have to fundementally disagree here. At least 45% of Scotland absolutely do not believe that our country "ultimately works well". Perhaps the country works but it's system of governance is not well liked in Scotland (and I'd imagine in Wales, NI and many parts of England). I wouldn't even say that 55% agrees with you on this, No won in the end because of a promise of "safer, faster change". The United Kingdom is behind the rest of Europe in many ways and is one of (if not the most) unequal developed countries. I think a lot of people from all parts of the UK think that Westminister isn't just in need of a few amendments but a complete replacement and rebuild from the ground up. Westminister itself doesn't seem to have to appetite for the changes that I think are universally supported, like reforming the Lords and the expenses system.
My Log - guaranteed to make your day 127% more awesome!

Also find me on Instagram: @battlestones
SpellArcher
Green Istari
Posts: 13841
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Otherworld

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#49 Post by SpellArcher »

The fundamental point seems to be, should the Scots (or other nations) owe a greater allegiance to the UK than they do to Scotland? I believe they have a distinct enough historical and equally, modern identity to take that choice into their own hands. IMHO it's not for us in other parts of Britain to decide whether they stay or go. Yes like England, Scotland is an amalgam. But Hadrian's Wall is there for a reason. It has always been different, it's just now that difference has evolved into political will for self-determination. If the independence movements were some kind of moderm gimmick, they'd have died when the political breakthroughs in the 70's receded.

I read a book by an eminent Cornish historian that argued very powerfully that Cornwall is fundamentally different from England. Not just because of it's celtic roots but because it's geography and recent history have made it very different from Devon and Somerset for example. Those counties have always been a bulwark of Englishness, they came out for Parliament in the Civil War (Cornwall was for the King), they didn't experience the Cornish/Welsh/Irish/Scots (ie celtic) diaspora in anything like the same way. The independence movements are an echo of that economic and political dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Somehow, England was able to absorb and assimilate it's conquerors, from Tinchebrae onwards. The medieval kings led a rejuvenation of the English tongue (vital) at court and elsewhere, partly because it distinguished them from the French cousins they were fighting. But there is a distinct Englishness which makes the country different from Scotland and Wales. The outlook of the people is different. Britishness on the other hand is about the land and shared history. Young Scots might view it negatively but the BNP are a joke (the National Front was far more dangerous) and the Empire was just a part of a shared history that has passed. Scotland is centre stage but to deny that it has fundamental and very strong ties to Wales for example is misguided. Independence is a free choice but I agree with Seredain that at the macro level we are all part of a shared history that distinguishes us from continental Europe for example.
User avatar
Prince of Spires
Auctor Aeternitatum
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: The city of Spires

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#50 Post by Prince of Spires »

Interesting discussion all round I think. One of the issues is that it is probably very hard to define what being Scottish (or English or Dutch for that matter) actually means. And that it means something different for everybody. I couldn't define Dutch, and I have been Dutch for a fair few years. I personally think that a national feeling is a combination of history, propaganda and popular culture. And history probably plays the smallest role in this. Often, young countries have very strong nationalist feelings. And what really does it matter if 800 years ago someone (who probably has no relation to the current country anyway) did something? I think at least that is also part of what Seredain means. History in this context is not what happened or what has a relation to today, it is what propaganda and popular culture want you to remember in this setting.

As for the future of Scotland in relation to the demographic, this reminds me about a dutch saying regarding politics. It goes something like "If you're voting conservative as a teenager you have no ideals, if you're voting progressive as a 50+ year old you haven't grown up". It means that people will always vote regarding what is best for them. And that peoples votes tend to change as they grow up and become older and more settled. If you're young then you're full of ideals. You have enough energy to adapt to new situations. You don't have to worry about your children, your retirement or your house. On the other hand, most elderly people lose their heart for change and mostly want things to stay as they are.

There is also one other factor that plays a role here. And that is of course oil. Predictions are at least that most of it will have run out in 20 years or so. Not having it as a source of income drastically reduces the viability of Scotland as a separate country. Or at least changes the government budget of an independent Scotland by a drastic amount. Which, if there is another vote in 20 odd years will have a huge impact on the outcome.

Another thing that can have an impact on the whole thing is international politics. Simply put, the more tense international relations grow the stronger nationalist feelings become. Having a second cold war with russia come into existence in the next 5 years or so (not outside the realm of possibilities), would probably result in a stronger pro-UK feeling. I very much doubt for instance that during the first or second world war, or its aftermath, Scottish independence was really an issue in Scotland.

Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
SpellArcher
Green Istari
Posts: 13841
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Otherworld

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#51 Post by SpellArcher »

The past matters IMHO. What happened 800 years ago led on to what happened 600 years ago and thus to 400, 200 and today. Scotland has existed for well over 1200 years. It's not some kind of historical anomaly, the years since right up to the present day have grown and developed and defined what it is today. In contrast to the dark age kingdom of Mercia say. I'd hazard that people feel a lot more attached to Birmingham or even to Tamworth than they do to Mercia. If people don't feel British enough it's because they haven't studied enough history I feel. My mum taught it in the 80's and a lot of the kids even then believed Britain had fought Russia in WW2. History matters.
User avatar
Prince of Spires
Auctor Aeternitatum
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: The city of Spires

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#52 Post by Prince of Spires »

Your last comment is for me an example why history in itself matters little but the idea of history matters a lot. There is a big difference between the two.

The world 800 years ago is completely alien to us. I don't think any Scots (or any other people for that matter, not singling out scots here) would recognize and identify the values and ideas people had 800 years ago. Religion and language (2 defining factors in culture I think) are unrecognizable. The same with social structure. And I wouldn't be surprised if even the major population group changed a few times between then and now. There isn't really anything Scottish (as it is seen today) about the Scots who lived 800-1000 years ago.

What is important is the glorified past people get shown in movies and books. The past politicians use to create a feeling of national unity and to sanction their ideas. Already if 40 years after the fact kids have trouble getting their facts straight, then imagine what 20 times that timeframe does.

History doesn't matter. The idea of history does (and that can be and is manipulated).

Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
SpellArcher
Green Istari
Posts: 13841
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Otherworld

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#53 Post by SpellArcher »

I completely disagree Rod.

Take modern Japan. Most people there don't understand why the Chinese and Koreans hate them. Because they are not taught in school what their army did to those peoples in WW2.

Peoples, nations, religions, languages do not come out of a vacuum. The Welsh today speak a language that is recognisably the same as before the Romans came. Christianity has been in Britain for well over 1800 years. Yes nations and peoples change a lot over time. But that is organic change and what is now could not have come to be without all the steps that have come between. Most people are aware and proud of their roots. It is fundamentally that that guides their actions, rather than the attempted manipulations of others.
Teledor
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#54 Post by Teledor »

@Facade19 - I thought it was an amusing take on the split CA up movement out there, but my deeply jaded and cynical self wasn't too keen on the way CA was split. It was almost like gerrymandering but making new states not just redistricting. I was thoroughly amused that the Silicon Valley magnate that came up with the proposal carved out Silicon Valley for a state all of its own. Self interest just a bit. I also didn't enjoy that the proposed South CA was San Diego County, Imperial County and Riverside. Ugh. San Diego is shading purple and I'd like it to stay it's more independent self instead of being saddled with two solidly red areas. Again, it seemed to be a plan bent on making an equal number of red and blue states. Last but not least, the plan had significant logistical hurdles that would likely cost all six states far more in additional headache than the bloated CA state - just think of water rights - that would be an absolute disaster.

I guess I hang around the wrong group of people. I don't really see a growing secessionist movement. I guess my background being a Navy brat kind of shields me to the idea of secession by growing up in multiple different states. I see myself as an American in CA. I've lived the majority of my life in CA, but I still don't think of myself as a Californian over an American. I don't think your view is treasonous, however. Many people identify with more local communities than a greater national self - especially in a country our size. If anything I would think regionalism is on the rise, but I just don't think it's tied to secession.

@Rod & SA - I think I have to agree with SA here. History, while dull to many, is incredibly important. Full disclosure - I was a history major so.. yeah biased. I don't think it is anymore or less important than engineering, math, science or law. History provides the context for who we are and where we come from. Without that, what binds together any group of people. Now, Rod does have a point that history can be manipulated - that happens. History also is an ever evolving area, we view the past through the lens of the present and that invariably changes the way the events are interpreted. What's the saying - History is written by the victors - or something to that effect. Well that is obviously quite true if you think about it. Most of the our more ancient past included genocides galore. When a people, city or state was conquered, much of the culture and identity was effectively wiped out, or at the very least robbed of its voice. You don't often see many descriptions of what happened to the conquered.

One last thing on history, and yes I am going to quote a Rage Against the Machine song. This line always seemed to get me on the importance of history and highlights its malleable nature - "Who controls the past now, controls the future; Who controls the present now, controls the past."

Fun times in Off Topic Land!
User avatar
Giladis
The Merlord
Posts: 2908
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:13 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#55 Post by Giladis »

Teledor wrote:"Who controls the past now, controls the future; Who controls the present now, controls the past."
Isn't that from the original Command and Conquer?
Teledor
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#56 Post by Teledor »

You know, it could be. I know it's in a Rage song though, so if they procured it, then perhaps. I haven't played it in quite a while.

Note: Based on a quote from Orwell's 1984. So... I'm sure there are variations of this idea everywhere.
Tahl
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Caledor (Scotland)

Re: Scottish Independence... maybe

#57 Post by Tahl »

In the interests of full disclosure I was part of the official "No" campaign from the start.

That said I think the 'yes' campaign did a much better job of creating a carnival style campaign and used social media to great effect.

I don't subscribe to the idea that a single issue , promise or demographic "lost" Yes the vote. I think doing so is an oversimplification of a lengthy and complex campaign, even if it does provide a nice narrative as to why they lost.

I think that for the next little while there will be residual yes feeling which will find some new forms of expression but eventually dissipate.
Winner of the 'Best member' award Incumbent
[img]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b120/wraith-lord/misc/Animebanner.gif?t=1285150718[/img]
Post Reply