Seven years on

[Scott Steiner]

17 minutes ago, Jeff Venom said:

Self determination is normal and for some reason Britnats can't say why it is uniquely abnormal for Scotland.

Britain got self determination when it left the EU though.

The Nats who want back in the EU are the ones advocating the abnormal position.  Not only do they want partition as the Kincmeister rightly says, but they then want to join another Union.

Rejoining the EU is a perfectly respectable view, but why act like one union is abnormal but another isn't?

Edited December 10, 2021 by Scott Steiner

[Theyellowbox]

29 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

There are certainly policy differences, particularly in the areas of health, education and local government.

In health we see outcomes acceptable in Scotland that simply wouldn't be tolerated 'down here'.  Much of that is down to wholesale defunding of the  NHS in Scotland under  Salmond  and then Sturgeon.  At the start of the  Nationalists' regime Scotland enjoyed a 20% healthcare premium  compared to  England.  By earlier this year that had been reduced to 3% which, with Scotland's demography and geography, means lower 'real'spending per capita than we have.  This Toriest of Tory policy, in post-truth Scotland, is hailed as, Scotland Cares More.

I've said enough about education 'up there' but it's blindingly obvious that Nationalists care little for secondary education which, given that it's an anti-intellectual movement demanding blind loyalty is no surprise.  There's no scope for 'the man o' independent mind' when your movement needs lemmings.

Local Government has been tragically run roughshod  over these past seven years with Sturgeon's demand for centralisiation being the biggest reason for local democracy being undermined.  Yesterday saw that taken a step further when about £350M was robbed from councils in order to fund Angus Goebbels Roberston's propaganda ministry.

Of course, this is short-term policy - a transient moment in our country's 314 year history - and once your region of Britain comes to its sense these cancerous policies can be reversed.

The bigger picture is that we've enjoyed free movement of people, goods and labour for our common weal for centuries and  to introduce borders and end these freedoms is nasty, pernicious and  small-minded.  Implementing it requires one to 'other' England and this is a fatuous and unjustifiable idea.

You seem to be falling into the trap of mixing up independence with the SNP. There is an argument that if you want to SNP not to run scottish politics and to right the wrongs you have listed above, then independence is the way to go.

In an independent Scotland, I would not vote SNP. But in a UK election, I do.

Your logic, would indicate that in an independent Scotland, no other party could/would form the government and could never address any of these issues.

In an independent Scotland, we could vote for a party which had exactly the same policies as say a rUK Conservative government if we so wish OR you could have a Labour government at Westminster and a Conservative government in Scotland.

So to list a set of SNP failures or even achievements, is not a valid argument for or against independence, but rather for or against a political party.

If you really cared about righting the wrongs, you'd want independence to get the SNP out of power in Scotland. Otherwise you care more about preserving the union rather than what actually happens on the ground in Scotland. 

[Theyellowbox]

8 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Britain got self determination when it left the EU though.

The Nats who want back in the EU are the ones advocating the abnormal position.  Not only do they want partition as the Kincmeister rightly says, but they then want to join another Union.

Rejoining the EU is a perfectly respectable view, but why act like one union is abnormal but another isn't?

The flip of this argument is also true is it not? Why would a unionist want to leave the European Union but stay in another?

[Billy Jean King]

That Big Daddy on to my ignore list. What an abomination of a reincarnation.

[Scott Steiner]

2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

The flip of this argument is also true is it not? Why would a unionist want to leave the European Union but stay in another?

Indeed that's correct.

It's not an argument I'd use, but I just don't get folk who champion the supposed normality of independence as an argument for it.  It's just swapping one union for another.

[KingRocketman II]

16 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Britain got self determination when it left the EU though.

The Nats who want back in the EU are the ones advocating the abnormal position.  Not only do they want partition as the Kincmeister rightly says, but they then want to join another Union.

Rejoining the EU is a perfectly respectable view, but why act like one union is abnormal but another isn't?

I am in a union at work but want Scotland to leave the UK. Until I read your point I thought this was fine but you're right - I have no idea how I can reconcile such opposing positions on unions.  

[Theyellowbox]

17 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Indeed that's correct.

It's not an argument I'd use, but I just don't get folk who champion the supposed normality of independence as an argument for it.  It's just swapping one union for another.

But the decision whether or nor to join the EU would be a decision for the people of Scotland. They could choose to or choose not to. If the majority wanted to remain outside the EU then that is the will of the people.

 

[Scott Steiner]

8 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

But the decision whether or nor to join the EU would be a decision for the people of Scotland. They could choose to or choose not to. If the majority wanted to remain outside the EU then that is the will of the people.

 

Indeed it is, but that was the same with the UK Union when we decided to stay in in 2014.

Nats will say being part of a union is abnormal to back up their stance, whilst ignoring that they just want to join another union.

[Jeff Venom]

Britain got self determination when it left the EU though.
The Nats who want back in the EU are the ones advocating the abnormal position.  Not only do they want partition as the Kincmeister rightly says, but they then want to join another Union.
Rejoining the EU is a perfectly respectable view, but why act like one union is abnormal but another isn't?

You mean like Ireland?
Ireland which is 2nd place in the 2021 UN quality of life index, with only Norway ahead of it? Norway which is in the EEA and which ditched their own united kingdom in the early 20th century?
It's for the people of Scotland to decide. In Scotland.

[Scott Steiner]

Just now, Jeff Venom said:

You mean like Ireland?
Ireland which is 2nd place in the 2021 UN quality of life index, with only Norway ahead of it? Norway which is in the EEA and which ditched their own united kingdom in the early 20th century?
It's for the people of Scotland to decide. In Scotland.

Ireland which doesn't have a free NHS

Norway where it's about £100 for a pint.

The Scottish people already decided in 2014.  In Scotland.

[The_Kincardine]

1 hour ago, Theyellowbox said:

You seem to be falling into the trap of mixing up independence with the SNP.

No, not at all.  I highlighted areas where there is a divergence between England and Scotland - as suggested by you when you said "we are going in different directions".  I also said that there's a difference between short-term (and reversible) policies (in this case ruinous to Scotland) and long-term polity.

The gist of Nationalist polity is to build  a wall with England and that's a crass, divisive and empty-headed notion based on 'othering' part of the nation we created jointly in 1707.  This 'othering' stems from a misplaced and historically inaccurate notion that above the  line is different  to below the line - which is the first foundational lie of Nationalism.

 

[Theyellowbox]

7 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Indeed it is, but that was the same with the UK Union when we decided to stay in in 2014.

Nats will say being part of a union is abnormal to back up their stance, whilst ignoring that they just want to join another union.

That is true. Scotland voted to remain in the UK back in 2014 and had nothing fundamental changed since then, there would be a very strong and legitimate argument that there should not be another referendum. However, there has been through Brexit. Even then, had Scotland voted in line with the rest of the UK, you could argue that there is no grounds for a referendum.

But, both of these things happened. In the same way we even had the Brexit vote, in part because the change in what we voted into back in the 70's in the EU.

To argue there should not be a 2nd referendum despite constitutional changes would be to argue we should never have had a brexit vote.

Put it a slightly different way. For Scotland to want to join the EU would be honouring what the people voted for in 2014. We were told the vote was in part to remain in the EU. The people of Scotland ratified that in the Brexit vote.

As to leaving one union to join another, everyone would have their motivations. But its a valid argument (I'd say) to say that Scotland would have unrestricted access to a wider market for its good, services and people, while still sharing a land border with our biggest export market. Best of both worlds. Part of the motivation for some in England over brexit was the imigration. I'd argue inward EU migration to Scotland is less attractive than say London and South East and given the geography, non legal migration from another EU state to Scotland over water is highly unlikely.

So, the two unions for Scotland are not the same.

In terms of the pure politics and representation, the example of ROI influence over the negotiations post Brexit is a huge indication of where Scotland would be placed. In fact geography would make Scotland quite a powerful EU country.

However, the EU debate is secondary. Whether Scotland wants to rejoin the EU or not has little or no bearing on the independence debate. It did in 2014, but not now.

Another way to think about it is this; do the people of Scotland think that the issues it has with the UK Union are liable to change and reform. If the answer is yes, then stay in union. If not, seek an alternative route. 

 

[welshbairn]

16 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

The gist of Nationalist polity is to build  a wall with England

Nope, we just want Westminster rule to end at the Tweed. The only people talking about walls are the Unionists and Brexiteers.

[Theyellowbox]

33 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

No, not at all.  I highlighted areas where there is a divergence between England and Scotland - as suggested by you when you said "we are going in different directions".  I also said that there's a difference between short-term (and reversible) policies (in this case ruinous to Scotland) and long-term polity.

The gist of Nationalist polity is to build  a wall with England and that's a crass, divisive and empty-headed notion based on 'othering' part of the nation we created jointly in 1707.  This 'othering' stems from a misplaced and historically inaccurate notion that above the  line is different  to below the line - which is the first foundational lie of Nationalism.

 

But that is divergence in policy. What I mean is also to do with divergence in societal views. Consistent electoral votes is the evidence of that, Brexit is the evidence of that, covid policy reactions are the evidence if that, racial divisions are the evidence of that.

Attitudes the imigration are becoming very different.

There is more that unite us, but decreasingly so. 

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, Scott Steiner said:

Indeed it is, but that was the same with the UK Union when we decided to stay in in 2014.

Nats will say being part of a union is abnormal to back up their stance, whilst ignoring that they just want to join another union.

You mean Nats like Johnson, Gove, et al, who wanted to break up a union whilst ignoring that they wanted to maintain another union?

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

 

The gist of Nationalist polity is to build  a wall with England and that's a crass, divisive and empty-headed notion based on 'othering' part of the nation we created jointly in 1707.  This 'othering' stems from a misplaced and historically inaccurate notion that above the  line is different  to below the line - which is the first foundational lie of Nationalism.

 

Christ, your hatred of and bitterness towards the Irish really is beyond extremist. And I thought you’d crossed a line when you claimed you wanted them back - against their will - under UK rule; but now they’re “crass, divided, and empty-headed” for breaking up your fetishised union-state.

[Scott Steiner]

2 hours ago, Theyellowbox said:

That is true. Scotland voted to remain in the UK back in 2014 and had nothing fundamental changed since then, there would be a very strong and legitimate argument that there should not be another referendum. However, there has been through Brexit. Even then, had Scotland voted in line with the rest of the UK, you could argue that there is no grounds for a referendum.

But, both of these things happened. In the same way we even had the Brexit vote, in part because the change in what we voted into back in the 70's in the EU.

To argue there should not be a 2nd referendum despite constitutional changes would be to argue we should never have had a brexit vote.

Put it a slightly different way. For Scotland to want to join the EU would be honouring what the people voted for in 2014. We were told the vote was in part to remain in the EU. The people of Scotland ratified that in the Brexit vote.

As to leaving one union to join another, everyone would have their motivations. But its a valid argument (I'd say) to say that Scotland would have unrestricted access to a wider market for its good, services and people, while still sharing a land border with our biggest export market. Best of both worlds. Part of the motivation for some in England over brexit was the imigration. I'd argue inward EU migration to Scotland is less attractive than say London and South East and given the geography, non legal migration from another EU state to Scotland over water is highly unlikely.

So, the two unions for Scotland are not the same.

In terms of the pure politics and representation, the example of ROI influence over the negotiations post Brexit is a huge indication of where Scotland would be placed. In fact geography would make Scotland quite a powerful EU country.

However, the EU debate is secondary. Whether Scotland wants to rejoin the EU or not has little or no bearing on the independence debate. It did in 2014, but not now.

Another way to think about it is this; do the people of Scotland think that the issues it has with the UK Union are liable to change and reform. If the answer is yes, then stay in union. If not, seek an alternative route. 

 

The way I see it YB, is that us Scots knew the EU referendum was on the horizon yet still voted No, by an 11% margin.  There I don't see how the EU referendum going a certain way can give cause for another referendum, especially when it was a UK wide vote.

Nobody voted for Scotland to stay in the EU.. people voted for the UK to stay in the EU, so this means that the argument that Scotland was dragged out against it's will doesn't hold up.

We also had the promise that it would be a once in a generation vote, possibly once in a lifetime.  Again, these promises were made when the Nat leadership knew the EU referendum was coming.

As well as that, the Tories ran on a promise to not allowed a 2nd referendum on partition and got in on a majority, so they have a clear mandate to say 'No Thanks'.  Whereas there's no mandate to do otherwise, as despite there being a Nat majority in our devolved assembly, it still hasn't got the power to decide referenda.. that instead lies with parliament.  According to opinion polls the people don't want one either, nor do they want partition.

Let's not forget that the Scottish Parliament is merely a devolved assembly which debates and passes laws over devolved issues.  It's an arm of Westminster.

I see what you're saying with regards to having the best of both worlds and I have sympathy that with argument.  I voted leave but I was a soft leave voter and my choice was made late on.  As well as feeling British and Scottish, I also feel very European and loved the idea of there never being any inter-Europe wars again, which was partly why it was set up in the first place.. or so I was told.  I reckon I've got some European blood in me on my mum's side, although I've never researched it.. or done a DNA test.

It seemed to have become more of a superstate than a trading block over time though and I always saw it was screwing over the little guy, especially the indigenous population of the country.  Cheap labour helps big business, but not the guy who wants to buy a house and raise a family.

The two Unions may not be the same in the sense you speak of, but in terms of 'independence' they are both law making entities, so if we were to class Scotland as a country, then we cannot claim it's truly independent if part of the EU surely?

Hope I didn't bore you to death with that lengthly post

You going to McDiarmid tomorrow?

Edited December 10, 2021 by Scott Steiner

[Antlion]

55 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

The way I see it YB, is that us Scots knew the EU referendum was on the horizon yet still voted No, by an 11% margin.  There I don't see how the EU referendum going a certain way can give cause for another referendum, especially when it was a UK wide vote.

Nobody voted for Scotland to stay in the EU.. people voted for the UK to stay in the EU, so this means that the argument that Scotland was dragged out against it's will doesn't hold up.

We also had the promise that it would be a once in a generation vote, possibly once in a lifetime.  Again, these promises were made when the Nat leadership knew the EU referendum was coming.

 

And BritNats bent over backwards claiming we were scaremongering.

So your defence here is that Scotland’s opinion on the future of the UK diverges wildly from that of England and Wales, and so … what? That’s a defence of Scotland’s remaining out-shouted over major constitutional issues?

A political generation in the UK is seven years. This has been established by the UK.

Finally, do you never consider in the periods between bans that you should make just stay away from where you’re not wanted? Or are you unable to resist floating back up, like an unflushable turd?

[Scott Steiner]

3 hours ago, Theyellowbox said:

But that is divergence in policy. What I mean is also to do with divergence in societal views. Consistent electoral votes is the evidence of that, Brexit is the evidence of that, covid policy reactions are the evidence if that, racial divisions are the evidence of that.

Attitudes the imigration are becoming very different.

There is more that unite us, but decreasingly so. 

Do you think attitudes on immigration are much different?  I'm sure I was recent social attitudes that didn't show much difference at all.

[Theyellowbox]

4 hours ago, Scott Steiner said:

The way I see it YB, is that us Scots knew the EU referendum was on the horizon yet still voted No, by an 11% margin.  There I don't see how the EU referendum going a certain way can give cause for another referendum, especially when it was a UK wide vote.

Nobody voted for Scotland to stay in the EU.. people voted for the UK to stay in the EU, so this means that the argument that Scotland was dragged out against it's will doesn't hold up.

We also had the promise that it would be a once in a generation vote, possibly once in a lifetime.  Again, these promises were made when the Nat leadership knew the EU referendum was coming.

As well as that, the Tories ran on a promise to not allowed a 2nd referendum on partition and got in on a majority, so they have a clear mandate to say 'No Thanks'.  Whereas there's no mandate to do otherwise, as despite there being a Nat majority in our devolved assembly, it still hasn't got the power to decide referenda.. that instead lies with parliament.  According to opinion polls the people don't want one either, nor do they want partition.

Let's not forget that the Scottish Parliament is merely a devolved assembly which debates and passes laws over devolved issues.  It's an arm of Westminster.

I see what you're saying with regards to having the best of both worlds and I have sympathy that with argument.  I voted leave but I was a soft leave voter and my choice was made late on.  As well as feeling British and Scottish, I also feel very European and loved the idea of there never being any inter-Europe wars again, which was partly why it was set up in the first place.. or so I was told.  I reckon I've got some European blood in me on my mum's side, although I've never researched it.. or done a DNA test.

It seemed to have become more of a superstate than a trading block over time though and I always saw it was screwing over the little guy, especially the indigenous population of the country.  Cheap labour helps big business, but not the guy who wants to buy a house and raise a family.

The two Unions may not be the same in the sense you speak of, but in terms of 'independence' they are both law making entities, so if we were to class Scotland as a country, then we cannot claim it's truly independent if part of the EU surely?

Hope I didn't bore you to death with that lengthly post

You going to McDiarmid tomorrow?

In hindsight it may have been on the horizon, but it was not on the manifesto of the government that had been elected at the time and not even the most ardent brexiteer believed the vote would have gone the way it did, so the prospect of a referendum wasn't a factor. What would have been a factor was that a lot was made about Scotland having to leave the EU if it voted yes. Not incorrect, but the argument was made that to remain in the EU we had to vote no. What difference it would have made if people knew a vote for no also meant leaving the EU, we will never know.

A common argument was that it was a once in a generation vote. I have 2 issues with that being used as a reason not to have a referendum. 1) where in the terms does it say that? Politicians may have said that, but I think it would be fair to say we all thought that regardless of what side people were on, but that was before the biggest constitutional change in most of our lifetimes. The choice was independence vs status quo and where we are now is not the status quo. 2) what and who defines a generation? Given the vote was in 2014 and open to 16 year olds and above only, everyone under the age of 23 has had no say in the matter. Assuming any referendum would be 2023 at the earliest, you could have everyone 25 and under never having had a say. Think about it in another sense. Knock a decade of the year you were born and ask yourself if someone born it that year is the same 'generation' as you. Go the other way and is someone born a decade after you the same generation? Different when you are older, but between 16 and 25/26 is huge.

I'm pro independence, but never closed enough not to listen to the arguments that oppose my view. If I'm making a massive decision that will outlast me, I  want to know that it wasn't short term and reactionary and that I don't ignore uncomfortable points that I may not like or agree with. People may not want independence and that is OK, but it is not a reason not to have the referendum when there is mandate after mandate for it. Had we not had brexit, however much I would want independence, I would recognise that for now, it is not to be, in the same way, as much as I think Brexit is a bad idea, I'm democratic and respectful enough to recognise it is what has happened and while we are in the UK, to try and make it work as best as possible and as beneficial to the whole of the UK as possible.

Anyway, no, not going to the game as having to self isolate due to Covid case in the house. Might end up being a blessing!