UK Politics: Runup to the referendum

[john]

Again, that's because whatshisface is talking as a federalist, as someone who wants the EU to develop towards a federation. If you don't care about that (you'd prefer the EU to remain a free-trade zone, or something in-between, or end entirely) then his arguments make have no persuasive power. That's fine.

He's saying "Why should we, as federalists, let a separatist entity into our organization whose goal is opposed to theirs?"

No, I'd like the EU to moves towards federalism too but I still don't think it's inconsistent to let a country governed by the SNP into the current set up.

Anyway, I actually meant I'm not overjoyed at the thought of being stuck with people arrogant enough to think they alone, in virtue of birth, residence, or whatever, have an exclusive right to tell me what to do, above all my friends and countrymen in the rest of the UK.

They'll be telling you what to do in more respects regardless of the result. That's as a result of democracy.

[Kevvy]

Did you say something there?

What on earth do you mean? I phrased that the way I did because you've got be careful given the number of people running around protesting that their nationalism is fundamentally different to everyone else's on account of it being 'civic.'

And yeah, I'm a Tory. We do exist in Scotland you know.

Well it is civic; it's not comparable, really, to say Irish nationalism in Northern Ireland. I have never, or will ever, feel the need to blow someone or something up to achieve my political beliefs.

And yeah, I've met a few of your type in my time, all conservative and what not. Nice people, wouldn't trust them though :p

[Chaircat Meow]

They'll be telling you what to do in more respects regardless of the result. That's as a result of democracy.

No, I think you missed my point there.

[MinDonner]

Bloody hell. The only Tory we've had posting here in ages and it's a Scottish one? The referendum is bringing up all sorts of surprises!

[Kevvy]

Bloody hell. The only Tory we've had posting here in ages and it's a Scottish one? The referendum is bringing up all sorts of surprises!

His man-servant must be typing for him :p

I jest, of course.

[Slurms McKenzie]

However, as Commodore's article indicates, a yes vote would entail significantly enjoyable political fallout for my least favourite politicians, so it's really win-win.

Yeah but its not worth it. I don't want the union to end or my union flag to become obsolete and outmoded :(

All I can say is I'm Welsh. If Scotland's and Wales' positions were swapped and it was currently Wales in the limelight and if all the arguements were identical, I would vote no. Its not because I don't value my Welsh identity because I do, but I've always identified with Great Britain first. And most of the people I know, outside of my family, are English. I would hate to think of them as "foreigners". Because they are not foreigners. As far as I'm concerned they're just other Britons, with a different accent.

My best friend parents came over from England and now he is moving to Bath with his girlfriend. I'd find it really weird to think that there would be an international border between us. :unsure:

So, I want the Union. :commie:

[SeanF]

I used to be a Tory. I might still be persuaded to vote for them.

[Slurms McKenzie]

Bloody hell. The only Tory we've had posting here in ages and it's a Scottish one? The referendum is bringing up all sorts of surprises!

I don't identify myself as a Tory but I do consider myself socially conservative and have voted for them in the past.

However I don't want the UK to leave the EU.. so there's a stickler there

[SeanF]

I don't identify myself as a Tory but I do consider myself socially conservative and have voted for them in the past.

However I don't want the UK to leave the EU.. so there's a stickler there

Much the same, though I am in favour of leaving the EU (unless it were to revert to being just a free trade area).

[Chaircat Meow]

His man-servant must be typing for him :P

I jest, of course.

Haha, funny.

I have voted liberal before, because I don't like the Tory's Europhobia.

However, I'm a Tory at heart. I'm also a big fan of Ruth Davidson; the most interesting Scottish leader since Dewar, imo. She's one of the few who's actually managed to make a passionate case for the country (Britain). It is shameful Galloway, of all people, has put the unionist case better than most.

I wish the Tories were more like a European Christian democrat party (like Mrs Merkel's CDU) than a British nationalist one though.

[lessthanluke]

Yeah but its not worth it. I don't want the union to end or my union flag to become obsolete and outmoded :(

All I can say is I'm Welsh. If Scotland's and Wales' positions were swapped and it was currently Wales in the limelight and if all the arguements were identical, I would vote no. Its not because I don't value my Welsh identity because I do, but I've always identified with Great Britain first. And most of the people I know, outside of my family, are English. I would hate to think of them as "foreigners". Because they are not foreigners. As far as I'm concerned they're just other Britons, with a different accent.

My best friend parents came over from England and now he is moving to Bath with his girlfriend. I'd find it really weird to think that there would be an international border between us. :unsure:

So, I want the Union. :commie:

I call myself Welah first but I essentially agree. See very little difference between Welsh/English/Scottish. An independent Scotland would feel very weird.

[SeanF]

Haha, funny.

I have voted liberal before, because I don't like the Tory's Europhobia.

However, I'm a Tory at heart. I'm also a big fan of Ruth Davidson; the most interesting Scottish leader since Dewar, imo. She's one of the few who's actually

managed to make a passionate case for the country (Britain). It is shameful Galloway, of all people, has put the unionist case better than most.

I wish the Tories were more like a European Christian democrat party (like Mrs Merkel's CDU) than a British nationalist one though.

I think Christian Democracy has very different roots to Conservatism. Germany apart, it seems to be in decline.

[mormont]

He's saying "Why should we, as federalists, let a separatist entity into our organization whose goal is opposed to theirs?"

But in doing so, he's just begging the question of whether their goal is actually opposed. The whole article is an exercise in looking at a foreign political question and seeing what one expects to see, instead of what is actually there.

It isn't a strawmam at all its a proper deduction from the SNP's core philosophy. You seem to believe just because the SNP say x, x is unquestionably true, even of it's inconsistent with their other statements.

Not at all: I don't believe there is an inconsistency. I'm not alone: as I pointed out, even the No campaign, by and large, don't believe there is either.

This a bad analogy given the actual nature of the SNP arguments which are about self determination though. The argument is that because the Scottish are a nation we shouldn't lose themselves in a larger union, as this deprives us of democracy.

Again, no, it's not. This is your version of what the SNP say, and it's not what they actually do say. (I mean, I've been listening to them say it for my whole adult life, whether I voted for them or not - and often, I did not. I was paying attention.)

It's perfectly possible to believe that being a nation state and a member of the EU is not only possible, but the best way to run Scotland's affairs. Just as it's possible to believe that it's the best way to run the UK's affairs (the position of pretty much every UK party), or Germany's affairs, or any of the aspirant accession countries' affairs.

Your position here appears to be that the only two possible coherent beliefs are complete federalism or complete independence. You're just adding a false dichotomy to the straw man.

Probably because 'bad places' is not synonymous with 'ethnic cleansing.'

And yet that's where this 'mentality' ends up, according to the author.

But OK: simply answer the question I posed, then. What are these 'bad places' that a Yes vote will lead to?

The new Scottish state will be separate from the rUK and therefore the majority of the English and Welsh electorates will not be able to determine the form of a British government which governs Scotland.

Nor will the Scots have a say in the formation of a government that governs the rUK, so that seems pretty fair to me.

Of course, both countries will have a say in how the EU is governed, unless the rUK votes to leave. And that also seems fair to me.

Nobody is losing out here. We're rearranging the governance of the UK, but democracy is maintained. Everyone gets a say in their country's affairs.

I am in favour of that! I would like a United States of Europe.

I could be persuaded towards that view, but I'd prefer it if Scotland was one of the states. (And England, or rUK, was another. In the event of independence, I hope the rUK stay in the EU.)

So if England wanted to dump Wales saying the English considered the Welsh not good enough would be an atrocious argument would it?

Of course it would.

There are a million reasons why someone might prefer a different governance arrangement to the one that exists now, and none of them have to be contempt for an entire nation. Just the same as there are a million reasons for people to disagree about something, and none of them have to be personal contempt for each other. I have great respect for English people, as I have for, say, Canadian people. But that has nothing to do with whether I want my country to be in a political union with theirs.

I do think Britain will be a nasty, meaner place if nationalism prevails in Scotland, so I do think it leads to bad places. I'm not claiming it will lead here to ethnic cleansing and nor did Weiler.

Well, he went out of his way to bring it up. I'm guessing he did that for a reason. And that reason was to tar the nationalist argument, bluntly.

Yes he did, in the article and especially in the paragraph I cited, to which you had jack all to say.

I wrote a detailed response to it, actually. You even responded to parts of that, though you simply dismissed other parts out of hand. Now, you may think my points didn't successfully rebut his, but it seems odd to imply that they were never made at all.

But after the SNP.. who would you vote for? Labour? They were opposed to independence in the first place

UK Labour are, but I know many Labour supporters planning to vote Yes, and many SNP supporters who would contemplate voting Labour in an independent Scotland.

[Slurms McKenzie]

UK Labour are, but I know many Labour supporters planning to vote Yes, and many SNP supporters who would contemplate voting Labour in an independent Scotland.

Okay.. seems kinda weird though, you'd be electing representatives to govern a state that they didn't even want to exist.

What if they were to continue that stance and advocate reunion? And try to push for another referendum at some point in the future?

After all any Yes victory would only be won by a very small margin, hardly a conclusive majority.

[Chaircat Meow]

Not at all: I don't believe there is an inconsistency. I'm not alone: as I pointed out, even the No campaign, by and large, don't believe there is either.

The arguments the nats use apply to the EU just as much as they do to the UK. They are therefore inconsistent.

Again, no, it's not. This is your version of what the SNP say, and it's not what they actually do say. (I mean, I've been listening to them say it for my whole adult life, whether I voted for them or not - and often, I did not. I was paying attention.)

It really is what they say, I've been listening to them for my whole adult life as well.

It's perfectly possible to believe that being a nation state and a member of the EU is not only possible, but the best way to run Scotland's affairs. Just as it's possible to believe that it's the best way to run the UK's affairs (the position of pretty much every UK party), or Germany's affairs, or any of the aspirant accession countries' affairs.

Your position here appears to be that the only two possible coherent beliefs are complete federalism or complete independence. You're just adding a false dichotomy to the straw man.

For a start the UK's attitude to the EU is actually problematic and inconsistent, and has been for a while, so the idea it's federalism or exit is actually not a strawman at all. This is why we are having the problems we have now with UKIP.

Two, the nats have the gall to make hay out of their Europhilia, when they don't differ much from a moderate Tory position. And yet they still use the EU to stir up resentment against England. I find that appalling.

Three, the actual arguments the nats use for Scottish independence are still inconsistent with their pro-Europeanism.

And yet that's where this 'mentality' ends up, according to the author.

But OK: simply answer the question I posed, then. What are these 'bad places' that a Yes vote will lead to?

Bitterness, rancour, and increasing division and separation across the British isles.

Nor will the Scots have a say in the formation of a government that governs the rUK, so that seems pretty fair to me.

But that was not the question was it? I didn't ask you about fairness, I asked whether you wanted to kick the majority of the English and Welsh out of your affairs and you admit you do. Yet you still maintain this isn't about a more exclusive identity or an us and them attitude. That's an inconsistent and confused position.

Of course, both countries will have a say in how the EU is governed, unless the rUK votes to leave. And that also seems fair to me.

And Scotland has a say in how the UK is governed.

Nobody is losing out here. We're rearranging the governance of the UK, but democracy is maintained. Everyone gets a say in their country's affairs.

Oh, I thought we didn't have democracy because the English got to choose our government? Did the democratic deficit run out the door while I wasn't looking.

I could be persuaded towards that view, but I'd prefer it if Scotland was one of the states. (And England, or rUK, was another. In the event of independence, I hope the rUK stay in the EU.)

No, you couldn't. You can say this now because the prospect appears a distant one, and it is possible, and in fact likely, you have not considered it, but if you can't hack key decisions being taken on a pan-British basis there is not a chance in Hades you can bring yourself to accept a European decision.

Of course it would.

There are a million reasons why someone might prefer a different governance arrangement to the one that exists now, and none of them have to be contempt for an entire nation. Just the same as there are a million reasons for people to disagree about something, and none of them have to be personal contempt for each other. I have great respect for English people, as I have for, say, Canadian people. But that has nothing to do with whether I want my country to be in a political union with theirs.

No, for England to dump Wales would be an appallingly bigoted decision which would crash the Welsh economy. The Welsh are entitled to the support of their country (the UK). And the same applies for the UK with regards to Scotland. If you think a hundred years old nationalism justifies stupid self interested decisions in the present day that doesn't say much about you.

The Canadian example is also weak. They are separated from us by an ocean, having one state would always have been difficult if not impossible.

Well, he went out of his way to bring it up. I'm guessing he did that for a reason. And that reason was to tar the nationalist argument, bluntly.

Because anyone who cared about the future of Europe would despise nationalism.

I wrote a detailed response to it, actually. You even responded to parts of that, though you simply dismissed other parts out of hand. Now, you may think my points didn't successfully rebut his, but it seems odd to imply that they were never made at all.

No you didn't. You carped about the mention of Christianity and moaned about it being pompous. You have never tried to reconcile your dislike of being part of a larger political unit (the UK) with your pro-Europeanism other than to say: Alistair Darling says it's ok!

[john]

No, I think you missed my point there.

Don't think so.

What if they were to continue that stance and advocate reunion? And try to push for another referendum at some point in the future?

After all any Yes victory would only be won by a very small margin, hardly a conclusive majority.

Well, that's democracy. I'm not sure 'at some point in the future' really matters in politics. Which is also why Scotland's future in a federal Europe isn't an important consideration either.

The arguments the nats use apply to the EU just as much as they do to the UK. They are therefore inconsistent.

Not really. There's no government of Europe.

[Chaircat Meow]

Not really. There's no government of Europe.

Here you go buddy;

http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm

[Slurms McKenzie]

Well, that's democracy. I'm not sure 'at some point in the future' really matters in politics.

What? Of course it matters, there's loads of future planning in politics and international relations. Bags of it. Very little is done on the spur of the moment.

[SeanF]

For a start the UK's attitude to the EU is actually problematic and inconsistent, and has been for a while, so the idea it's federalism or exit is actually not a strawman at all. This is why we are having the problems we have now with UKIP.

Because anyone who cared about the future of Europe would despise nationalism.

ok!

Federalism or Exit is the choice on offer. But it need not have been so. An EU that was a free trade area would be fine. An EU that relentlessly draws power away from national legislatures is unacceptable to me. So, I choose Exit.

[Chaircat Meow]

Federalism or Exit is the choice on offer. But it need not have been so. An EU that was a free trade area would be fine. An EU that relentlessly draws power away from national legislatures is unacceptable to me. So, I choose Exit.

Well, the EU was never intended as just a free trade area but in essence this is what I'm trying to get over to mormont.