Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[BerwickMad]

Not the point, the point is that maintaining the UK system at present means that Scottish votes are not generally required to inform the composition of government, hence Scotland effectively hands over control of it's affairs to a legislature in which it's own representation is marginal, and unable to influence policy in a meaningful way.

Scotland isn't a person though. You could make the same argument for any group of people all the way down to streets or families.

The people of Berwick have to be governed from somewhere. Your argument would suggest that Berwick is better managing it's own affairs, as by not managing it's own affairs it's handing over control of it's affairs to a legislature where it's representation is marginal.

I don't doubt there are positive reasons for an independent Scotland, but the argument you have just used doesn't mean anything.

Edited March 25, 2014 by BerwickMad

[Ad Lib]

Who says I am? I recognise that the European free trade zone is something we should be part of, I don't like the European parliament as an organisation and in any case, most important EU stuff is still carried out at an intra-state level. Ultimately there are trade offs in sovereignty. I'd quite like some to have to trade, please.

But this is the thing. The overwhelming majority of the Yes side adopt this "other people making decisions" rhetoric and yet they SUPPORT the institutions and membership of the EU, a body with a significant democratic deficit in respect of which decisions are made by people we didn't have any influence over. Saying that most decisions are taken at intra-state level is no silver bullet either. Qualified majority voting means that most things decided at Council level can still be imposed upon us irrespective of the way our representatives vote. The only major things of note that requires true unanimity are Treaty changes, things with foreign affairs implications and taxation.

"Ultimately there are trade-offs in sovereignty" is PRECISELY the point of a lot of those who support remaining part of the UK. They think there are advantages or arguments to being part of the UK which outweigh those of sovereign control over all decisions. It is not that they think they are incapable or that they shouldn't govern themselves. It's that they see a better way of governing themselves by pooling sovereignty with the rest of the UK.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Ad Lib

[Colkitto]

[renton]

Scotland isn't a person though. You could make the same argument for any group of people all the way down to streets or families.

The people of Berwick have to be governed from somewhere. Your argument would suggest that Berwick is better managing it's own affairs, as by not managing it's own affairs it's handing over control of it's affairs to a legislature where it's representation is marginal.

I don't doubt there are positive reasons for an independent Scotland, but the argument you have just used doesn't mean anything.

The argument works all the way down, but it also scale all the way up. For example, if there is nothing special about Scotland as an organising mechanism for people, if demogrpahics dictate that we have more in common with others of the same class and outlook and therefore we should stick by the UK, then it's also true that that UK as an organising principle has no special nature either, and we should form an incorporating union with our European neighbours (after all, we have as much in common with workers in Barcelona as we do in Liverpool, right?) However, that's not an argument you'll hear from Better Together, indeed they have consistently shown consternation for the prospect of Scotland being 'foreign' - foreign being a perjorative term in their lexicon of course.

So really, it's a question of whether or not Scotland exists. If it does exist then there is no good argument against independence, if Scotland is merely a goegraphical region of the greater UK, that could be extinguished as easily as say, Humberside then there is no good argument for independence. Ultimately emotional resonances concerning shared and passed down experiences do matter to humans, and it is not and never will be purely a matter of reorganising administrative units, the same goes when you talk about the UK as well.

[renton]

But this is the thing. The overwhelming majority of the Yes side adopt this "other people making decisions" rhetoric and yet they SUPPORT the institutions and membership of the EU, a body with a significant democratic deficit in respect of which decisions are made by people we didn't have any influence over. Saying that most decisions are taken at intra-state level is no silver bullet either. Qualified majority voting means that most things decided at Council level can still be imposed upon us irrespective of the way our representatives vote. The only major things of note that requires true unanimity are Treaty changes, things with foreign affairs implications and taxation.

"Ultimately there are trade-offs in sovereignty" is PRECISELY the point of a lot of those who support remaining part of the UK. They think there are advantages or arguments to being part of the UK which outweigh those of sovereign control over all decisions. It is not that they think they are incapable or that they shouldn't govern themselves. It's that they see a better way of governing themselves by pooling sovereignty with the rest of the UK.

I would note that the central argument hasn't really changed in 300 odd years. Back then those in favour of the Union were happy to trade political independence for perceived economic bounty. It's the same thing today. people who's arugments are that the current arrangements are fine and having no sovereignty over foreign relations, taxation, monetary policy or welfare in favour of the 'security of the UK' are delusional. Any meaningful pooling of resources can be done without the incorporating Union we have now, which as a federalist you will at least acknowledge (unless some of that true blue tory DNA still lurks in there somewhere). Sovereignty is something that is not an absolute, it is malleable, can be shared and pooled - of course it can. There is nothing in the construction and maintenance of the Union as it exists today however, that is worth giving up as much political independence as the Scots have.

[Ad Lib]

I would note that the central argument hasn't really changed in 300 odd years. Back then those in favour of the Union were happy to trade political independence for perceived economic bounty. It's the same thing today. people who's arugments are that the current arrangements are fine and having no sovereignty over foreign relations, taxation, monetary policy or welfare in favour of the 'security of the UK' are delusional.

We don't have "no" sovereignty over those things. We pool it.

Any meaningful pooling of resources can be done without the incorporating Union we have now, which as a federalist you will at least acknowledge (unless some of that true blue tory DNA still lurks in there somewhere). Sovereignty is something that is not an absolute, it is malleable, can be shared and pooled - of course it can. There is nothing in the construction and maintenance of the Union as it exists today however, that is worth giving up as much political independence as the Scots have.

That is your judgment. Others disagree with you. The point is they emphatically are not saying that Scotland is incapable of doing these things. Is that really such a difficult proposition to accept?

[Ad Lib]

So really, it's a question of whether or not Scotland exists. If it does exist then there is no good argument against independence, if Scotland is merely a goegraphical region of the greater UK, that could be extinguished as easily as say, Humberside then there is no good argument for independence. Ultimately emotional resonances concerning shared and passed down experiences do matter to humans, and it is not and never will be purely a matter of reorganising administrative units, the same goes when you talk about the UK as well.

Please explain why you think it is impossible for people to a have a complex, multi-layered conception of what their political community is.

[renton]

We don't have "no" sovereignty over those things. We pool it.

That is your judgment. Others disagree with you. The point is they emphatically are not saying that Scotland is incapable of doing these things. Is that really such a difficult proposition to accept?

Not really, giving that it's not a proposition I advanced in the first place.

As for "pooling" the sovereignty - that only works where you maintain enough clout to actually get your voice heard. England makes up 90% of the population of the UK, London and the South East of England form the cultural, economic and political centre of the UK. The incorporating Union doe snot allow for a pooling of resources, it's far too lopsided - the practical effect is having no sovereignty/

[renton]

Please explain why you think it is impossible for people to a have a complex, multi-layered conception of what their political community is.

I didn't say you couldn't.

[joozy]

So really, it's a question of whether or not Scotland exists. If it does exist then there is no good argument against independence,

Wow. And i mean that. So unless I'm willing to deny the existence of Scotland...then there is no good argument against independence.

I know this is a concept which is alien to many in the yes campaign, but there are those of us who are perfectly happy being both British and Scottish. We don't see it as an either/or thing. Neither does it mean we slavishly agree with every decision made by either the Westminster or Holyrood parliaments.

[renton]

Wow. And i mean that. So unless I'm willing to deny the existence of Scotland...then there is no good argument against independence.

I know this is a concept which is alien to many in the yes campaign, but there are those of us who are perfectly happy being both British and Scottish. We don't see it as an either/or thing. Neither does it mean we slavishly agree with every decision made by either the Westminster or Holyrood parliaments.

Your wow means so much to me, I mean that. But what does it mean to be both? Is it a dual nationality, or is it a regional or administrative division? If Scotland exists as a collective national idea, then it deserves to be heard as an equal voice in the world. Equally valid, if it's not - if instead being British is a collective national idea, then so be it, if both are then both should be heard, but being Scottish and British is a matter of hierarchy - it's nice to be Scottish but it's more important to be British.

Ad Lib brings up the idea of complex political identities - but outside of those who hold dual passports, I would argue that people hold a series of hierarchical loyalties to the various political identities they hold, and ultimately some are more important than others. For those who feel equally Scottish and British but seek to maintain the incorporating British Union, it points towards exactly what I said above, they see Scotland as a nice optional extra, but British is their main identity. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

note than in these discussions I exclude the broad class of fuckwits who probably tick Scottish over British in the census but are shit scared that scotand will cease to function without the English piping all that money north

Edited March 25, 2014 by renton

[Mr Bairn]

I don't like using this term but Renton's last few posts are the absolute definition of word salad

[renton]

I don't like using this term but Renton's last few posts are the absolute definition of word salad

Please feel free to rebutt my arguments, which if they are nothing more than a series of sewn together words and phrases, should be easy.

[joozy]

Not really, giving that it's not a proposition I advanced in the first place.

As for "pooling" the sovereignty - that only works where you maintain enough clout to actually get your voice heard. England makes up 90% of the population of the UK, London and the South East of England form the cultural, economic and political centre of the UK. The incorporating Union doe snot allow for a pooling of resources, it's far too lopsided - the practical effect is having no sovereignty/

How ever will Scottish voices be heard at Westminster?

Obviously i'm not counting 2 of the last 3 Prime Ministers (i will accept that calling Blair Scottish may be something of a stretch), 2 of the last 3 Chancellors, the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury and numerous other Cabinet members over the past couple of decades.

The fact is that there has been no problem with Scottish voices. In fact, it's one area where Scotland have punched above its weight significantly.

[Double Jack D]

How ever will Scottish voices be heard at Westminster?

Obviously i'm not counting 2 of the last 3 Prime Ministers (i will accept that calling Blair Scottish may be something of a stretch), 2 of the last 3 Chancellors, the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury and numerous other Cabinet members over the past couple of decades.

The fact is that there has been no problem with Scottish voices. In fact, it's one area where Scotland have punched above its weight significantly.

Poor argument imo. Just because they're Scottish doesn't mean they represent the will of the Scottish People.

[Ad Lib]

Not really, giving that it's not a proposition I advanced in the first place.

Then, with the greatest of respect, why the f**k did you respond to BerwickMad and I pointing out to oaksoft and Confidemus that a No vote was not a "vote of no confidence in ourselves to govern our own affairs" by criticising what was being said?

As for "pooling" the sovereignty - that only works where you maintain enough clout to actually get your voice heard. England makes up 90% of the population of the UK, London and the South East of England form the cultural, economic and political centre of the UK. The incorporating Union doe snot allow for a pooling of resources, it's far too lopsided - the practical effect is having no sovereignty/

This is just nonsense. Again, I refer you to the European Union, where our voting power is a tiny fraction in the Parliament and Council of that that Scottish representatives have at Westminster. The power there isn't "not pooled" just because certain groups have greater influence in the exercise of the pooled power. The point is our right to withdraw it is still recognised should we choose to exercise it, and it is a judgment for the people to decide who they would rather is the "we" in decision-making for certain purposes. The mere fact of existence of Scotland as a political community isn't sufficient for us to say that it should be the default political community or that it is necessarily the level of decision-making that best protects what the political communities in Scotland value.

I didn't say you couldn't.

Yes you did. You presented the conception of political community as binary. Either Scotland was to be some sort of supreme political community which should exercise sovereignty over everything, or it was just a region that could be extinguished (whatever the f**k that's supposed to mean). You totally rejected by necessary inference the possibility that there could be people in Scotland who feel as though they have multiple political identities and that therefore they prefer, in certain instances, decisions about certain matters of public policy, to be taken as part of a larger whole than Scotland on its own. This doesn't imply that they think Scotland can't make these decisions or that it should have "someone else" make them for them; simply that they think it is objectively preferable for it to share this decision-making.

Your wow means so much to me, I mean that. But what does it mean to be both? Is it a dual nationality, or is it a regional or administrative division? If Scotland exists as a collective national idea, then it deserves to be heard as an equal voice in the world. Equally valid, if it's not - if instead being British is a collective national idea, then so be it, if both are then both should be heard, but being Scottish and British is a matter of hierarchy - it's nice to be Scottish but it's more important to be British.

Two questions:

1. Why should all nations be conceptually equal?

2. Why do you assume that Britishness is necessarily "more important" rather than that some people conceive that what it MEANS to be Scottish is to be part of a British project?

Ad Lib brings up the idea of complex political identities - but outside of those who hold dual passports, I would argue that people hold a series of hierarchical loyalties to the various political identities they hold, and ultimately some are more important than others. For those who feel equally Scottish and British but seek to maintain the incorporating British Union, it points towards exactly what I said above, they see Scotland as a nice optional extra, but British is their main identity. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Sorry, but this is absolute horseshit. Scottishness isn't some nice little optional extra to Britishness, nor can you tell people who feel both that that has to be the case. There are many people who see Britishness as a synthesis of national identities and political communities, not some sort of detachable bolt-on. If you don't feel that, no one is forcing you to feel that, but you shouldn't deny other people the ability to self-define in that way. It's not "hierarchy"; it's the essence of who they are.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Ad Lib

[renton]

How ever will Scottish voices be heard at Westminster?

Obviously i'm not counting 2 of the last 3 Prime Ministers (i will accept that calling Blair Scottish may be something of a stretch), 2 of the last 3 Chancellors, the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury and numerous other Cabinet members over the past couple of decades.

The fact is that there has been no problem with Scottish voices. In fact, it's one area where Scotland have punched above its weight significantly.

Scots may have done well out of the Union, Scotland less so. The perception that a prime minister being Scottish has a tangible benefit for Scotland is false. The democratic deficit, such as it exists is about the fact that there is never enough Scottish votes to influence an election. Now, call me cynical, but my view is that democracy only works when there is acountability from the legislature to the electorate. That means (as Tony Benn would say) being able to get rid of them, but also having a real say in electing them. In Scotland, one major party has giving up on trying to court Scottish votes, so out of tune with the wider Scottish electorate are they, the other can afford to take the place for granted - in addition, neither side needs Scottish votes to win a majority (look it up, only twice in eighteen post war elections have Scottish votes changed a result!) as such neither side needs to court the Scottish electorate, neither side needs to create policies that are targetted at Scots (and you might say, with onyl 10% of the population,why should they?) so the Scots really don't get decent representation, irrespective of whether a Scot holds one of the 'great offices of state'.

Now, with the majority of population and capital, England must dominate the legislature to the point where we have reached, that Scotland has no real say in how things are run. That's only right, based on the political processes in place. It's just that it doesn't that we should be happy about it or find another way where Scotland can have a alrge say in how it runs it's own affairs.

[H_B]

Scots may have done well out of the Union, Scotland less so.

Really? In what way?

[H_B]

The democratic deficit, such as it exists is about the fact that there is never enough Scottish votes to influence an election.

Again, you are insinuating Scotland is a block vote. It isn't.

"Scottish" votes are no different from "Yorkshire" votes.

[joozy]

Scots may have done well out of the Union, Scotland less so. The perception that a prime minister being Scottish has a tangible benefit for Scotland is false. The democratic deficit, such as it exists is about the fact that there is never enough Scottish votes to influence an election. Now, call me cynical, but my view is that democracy only works when there is acountability from the legislature to the electorate. That means (as Tony Benn would say) being able to get rid of them, but also having a real say in electing them. In Scotland, one major party has giving up on trying to court Scottish votes, so out of tune with the wider Scottish electorate are they, the other can afford to take the place for granted - in addition, neither side needs Scottish votes to win a majority (look it up, only twice in eighteen post war elections have Scottish votes changed a result!) as such neither side needs to court the Scottish electorate, neither side needs to create policies that are targetted at Scots (and you might say, with onyl 10% of the population,why should they?) so the Scots really don't get decent representation, irrespective of whether a Scot holds one of the 'great offices of state'.

Now, with the majority of population and capital, England must dominate the legislature to the point where we have reached, that Scotland has no real say in how things are run. That's only right, based on the political processes in place. It's just that it doesn't that we should be happy about it or find another way where Scotland can have a alrge say in how it runs it's own affairs.

I simply don't agree that there is a democratic deficit affecting Scotland. Many of your complaints reflect the nature of the first past the post political system rather than any inherent bias against Scotland. Indeed with the powers the Holyrood government can wield, I would argue that Scotland has more powers over its own affairs than any other region of the UK.

If you were to take any other region of the UK (whether it's the North-East, Greater London etc), I'd be interested to know how often their results would have been the swing factor in UK general election.