Scottish Independence

[finn]

Again I'm dumbstruck (well not entirely) by the ineptitude in this ever getting past the 1.30am-just-finished-the-third-bottle-of-red stage. Serious politicians, charged with the running of a major world economy, hub of the commonwealth, have taken it on themselves to run off at the mouth and propose this absolute idiocy. It has then been endorsed by people who, even with a modicum of sobriety, should have howled it down. Instead a series of Scottish politicians have led this charge and the dopey English bastards sitting in the house have played follow the leader...... this is almost a Scottish smash and grab!

The fact that no-one has seriously examined the consequences demonstrates the arrogance and lack of grounding that politicians have, not just here but pretty much anywhere in the liberal areas of the west. No-one has looked at the financial consequences, the social consequences, military consequences and the general infrastructure required to accommodate a yes vote. However they have looked at the political consequences ........... this alone should ring alarm bells!

Surely someone in Westminster thought about at least some of the ramifications...... if not why not? What happens if next time they make a decisions its about building a bridge, but they don't know what's on the other side, how far it is and would anyone want to use the bridge anyhow? Or how about a war......

Regardless of the outcome the press should be baying for blood and slavering to rip out a few throats of the politicians that have clearly failed Darwin's performance appraisal.

[Avatar]

Finn,

I'm with you. I'd like to see what happens if Scotland chooses to up and leave.

Yeah, part of me wants to see, part of me thinks it will be a disaster.

--A

[Vraith]

Finn,

I'm with you. I'd like to see what happens if Scotland chooses to up and leave.

Yeah, part of me wants to see, part of me thinks it will be a disaster.

--A

Odds are it won't go well, and if it does it will take a long while to get to the good parts.

On a side note: several of the places I visit for news have articles today talking about OTHER European [and I don't mean the East...the heart and Western, too] areas/groups that a yes or no might encourage/discourage. Everyone knows about some of them...but there are actually quite a few [Spain itself has two that are completely unrelated to each other].

Back on topic:
People picturing immediate disasters are being a bit silly, I think [which doesn't mean people won't panic and cause some unnecessary crap].
Unless I"m badly misunderstanding things, passing is NOT an instant switch.


Possibly interesting times ahead.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The AJA article on the Scottish vote--their lead article at this time, by the way--says that vote to separate would be followed by an 18-month-long process of actually separating.

I have no vested interest in the result either way but I always favor self-determination so I hope that the people vote to become independent.

[aliantha]

Polls must be close to closing in Scotland. Do we have any preliminary numbers? Exit polls?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Nothing yet, as far as I can tell. We should begin getting preliminary results in the next couple of hours, though.

[I'm Murrin]

YouGov exit polls (3000 people) say 56% No.

Seem to be saying results will start appearing in the early hours of the morning, and final results should be announced somewhere around 6:30-7:30am.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

If the referendum decides "stay in the UK" are the pro-independence people going to shrug their shoulders and say "we tried" or are they going to keep trying until they succeed?

What is going to happen if a few malcontents get violently upset over the vote result? This may not happen but I suspect law enforcement is thinking about it.

[Vraith]

but I always favor self-determination so I hope that the people vote to become independent.

I keep meaning to ask about that: to what level of detail do you favor that?
For example, both the towns I currently split my residence between [in different states] are in a similar situation despite region. Both would, if it was put up for popular vote, probably vote to be independent from the states they belong to.

But both are highly dependent on the State. They have universities [which they constantly bitch about] that, without the State, would vanish. Taking about [guessing] 15-30% of private business, and 30% or more of Gov't funds with them.
Hurrah, independence!
And, I'm sure I've said before, if your Texas left the U.S., in short order it would probably look more like a toxic third world than a first world country...unless some Dem's started getting elected.

Anyway, independence will probably fail.
But, I suspect they'll get a fairly long-term bit of leverage if the vote is even sorta close [say, 55-45 or closer]

[TheFallen]

So... sanity prevailed and the Scots voted no, by 55.3% to 44.7%, a wider margin than recently anticipated. Encouragingly for democracy, the turnout rate was a staggering 84.5%, by far a new record for any UK election.

On balance, I'm pleased, because I think that a Yes vote would have been bad for all citizens of the UK (but crushingly worse for the Scots, had they broken away). Having said that, my compulsively mischievous side is a little disappointed that Alex Salmond and his blinkered Braveheart wannabes weren't taught the appallingly harsh lesson of "Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true."

However, this isn't over yet, or at least the ramifications aren't. The UK government now needs to make good on the promise of substantially increased powers being devolved onto Scotland - something affirmed by all three political parties prior to the vote. The timetable for implementing such has already been fixed as May 2015 - and that's not far away at all.

Hand in hand with the above though, there's a noticeable groundswell of opinion pushing for exactly similar devolution of powers to be passed onto the Welsh, the Irish and yes, the English too. I can see a situation coming where England also gets its own separate national assembly which will decide on English-only matters - maybe a little like the State/Federal divide in the US. That'd be a major constitutional shake-up... but more than possibly no bad thing.

[peter]

Interesting vote that [not unexpectedly] I managed to call almost to the letter. [;)]

Last weekend the 40% yes, 40% no poll showed 20 % who were undecided or undeclared. As was predictable three-quaters of these were undeclared no voters and hence the 45/55 % end result we see. This fairly near split however of unionists verses nationalists is infact probably not as close as it looks. If you take out the 16yo vote, which is by it's very nature reactionary and should never have been allowed in in the first place, you probably have a 70/30 ish division between the heads and the hearts.

Two points where I think the 'No' campaign [although winning] loused things up. One was to employ cheap frightening tactics in the form of British press headlines in an attempt to bully the potential yes voters - we deserved to loose for this alone. Second, it was folly to promise Scotland ever more devolved powers in an attempt to entice them to remain in the fold. Already in Scotland you get free perscriptions, home-care of the elderly, geriatric hospitalisation, University education and teeth and eye check-ups, all of which are denied to the rest of the UK and the rest of the UK are not happy about it.

But what now? All this ridiculous vote has achieved is to bring peoples differences to the fore, to stoke the fires of nationalism and to rock an already unsteady ship at the very time when unity and solidarity of purpose is required. Nonsense!

[And I don't think Hashi's comments regarding the potential for ugly spill-over into violence as a result of a close 'no' vote are all that far -fetched at all.]

[Zarathustra]

Why would it have been bad for all the UK, and crushingly worse for Scotland? [It turned out pretty good for us, and we even had to fight a war to leave.]

[I'm Murrin]

On the one hand, I'm all in favouyr of self-determination, and if the British public in general is going to continue sliding toward the xenophobic anti-Europe side, then I would support a left-leaning part of the country jumping ship to avoid that.

On the other hand, it occurs to me that having groups with different cultural identities operating under a larger national framework helps to discourage the emergence of extreme nationalism.*

If they go so far as to devolve powers to England and create a loosely Federalist structure for the UK, then I think this may have been the better outcome. If, as I suspect, the Westminster MPs choose to fight against that loss of their own power and instead implement supremely shitty half-measures like saying only English MPs in Westminster can vote on issues affecting England, then I'm not so sure.


*Though it's all fine and well getting people to identify as British, it nevertheless doesn't solve the problem of getting people to see themselves as European and, ultimately, Human.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not sure that "so people can see themselves as human" is a good excuse to force them to be organized in any particular bureaucratic structure. For instance, the Islamacists (the extremists) want to take over the world and "unite" us all under the umbrella of Sharia law. Would this unity make us all feel more human? No, they're animals. Likewise, Putin isn't taking over countries to enlighten them.

There is absolutely nothing about nationalism that precludes seeing yourselves as human. It's very human to want self-rule. The way we manage our affairs locally isn't the determining factor in our global/racial unity. Most of the time, it's easier to be on friendly terms with others when you don't have to bow down to them.

[I'm Murrin]

Nationalism and xenophobia of the sort that creates reactionary isolationism is a negative, surely. The idea I'm talking about is that by making people feel like they're part of the same thing, rather than encouraging an us-and-them attitude, makes people more likely to be friendly and cooperative.

I'm all for decision making on the local level, but I don't see why that can't take place within globalised structures in which we all participate.

And I didn't say anything about forcing people into these structures. This was a democratic vote.


Anyway, on to the post I actually came here to make:



Interesting to see that the No vote was mainly won by the 55+ demographics. People 25-54 tended Yes (and the teenagers dramatically so, but they're something of an outlier).

It's also been noted that the four areas that came out Yes are the four with the highest levels of deprivation.

[Orlion]

Why would it have been bad for all the UK, and crushingly worse for Scotland? [It turned out pretty good for us, and we even had to fight a war to leave.]

You know, after decades of struggle, the ability to expand and spread out, and surviving a devastating Civil War. I think it has only been recently in our 200+ year history that we have been "great" (in this case, being defined as a key if not the key global player).

It's Apple Pie and hagus!

[I'm Murrin]

So, the political back-and-forth has begun. Milliband's going along with Scottish powers but doesn't want to talk about England getting them until after the 2015 elections - presumably because he wants Labour to be in control.

[Zarathustra]

Nationalism and xenophobia of the sort that creates reactionary isolationism is a negative, surely.

Isolationism isn't itself a negative (just ask Cail and other Libertarians). Xenophobia is only negative when you allow it to affect those to whom it's directed, which is hard to do if you're isolating yourself from them. I think that we have a greater problem today with xenophobes who spread into the foreign countries and populations which they hate. If all the xenophobes isolated themselves and stayed home, perhaps we wouldn't have so much terrorism on the planet.

And I didn't say anything about forcing people into these structures. This was a democratic vote.

Tell that to the people who voted no. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. And that's another reason to champion the idea that minorities can split off from the majority's control and self-rule instead. The larger our democracies, the more people who occupy a statistical minority. 49% of 6 billion is a hell of a lot more than 49% of 300 million (in our case). I'm absolutely ecstatic that the rest of the world doesn't get to vote against me. Just imagine if the whole planet was united in one big democracy, how fast most of the world would vote themselves access to your money.

Globalism (in terms of government, not the economy) can be just as negative as nationalism. You can't separate the power of force from government. In a lawful society, they're the only ones who actually can use force, except for self-defense. I think the more diffuse and local the sources of force, the better (again, except for defense, which benefits from the largest possible scope).

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I keep meaning to ask about that: to what level of detail do you favor that?

Cities are too small to become independent so it wouldn't work on that scale.

And, I'm sure I've said before, if your Texas left the U.S., in short order it would probably look more like a toxic third world than a first world country...unless some Dem's started getting elected.

You are incorrect in your assessment. Given the wide range of industries located here, the population, the access to natural resources, and our overall GDP (which is larger than that of many nations), Texas could survive becoming independent.
The point is moot, though, because this is never going to happen during our lifetimes and probably not for at least a century.

By the way...Texas will start looking like a toxic third world country only if more Democrats start being elected here. Just look at Chicago or Detroit for proof of this.

[TheFallen]

Why would it have been bad for all the UK, and crushingly worse for Scotland? [It turned out pretty good for us, and we even had to fight a war to leave.]

Okay, granted that the following is only part informed supposition, but...

As for the remaining part of the UK (had the Scots voted for independence), it's pretty clear from stock market and currency movements prior to the result becoming known that there would have been serious economic uncertainty and turbulence in the wake of a yes vote - to the extent that it would have had a noticeable depressive effect on the UK's still fragile recovery. Short term pain maybe - say 12 months or so - but not good right now.

As for the Scots? They dodged a massive bullet. Salmond was literally campaigning in the dark, appealing to pure emotionalism and without the slightest clue what the finances of a separated Scotland would look like. Ergo he had zero idea what he'd be able to pay for - and that's leaving aside the simply massive "elephant in the room"... he didn't even know what their national currency would be, ffs.

When you've got most of your locally based major institutions telling you they'll leave and go south, when most national retailers are maintaining that prices would most likely have to rise and when many entirely objective international financial institutions such as DeutscheBank among several others are telling you calmly and categoricallly that you'll be fucked, it's probably wise to pay at least some attention. Geez, even the Orkneys and more importantly the Shetlands (where most of the offshore oil lies) stated that they'd both look to secede back to the UK, if the vote for independence were to be carried.

Look, I'm not saying that Scotland couldn't eventually have made a go of it, like your US example, Z. But a number of points to gainsay this apply. Scotland's a very small country, plus the world these days is far FAR more fast-moving and globalized. Nobody was going to wait for the decades it would have taken for the Scots to sort themselves out - they'd have got even more marginalized and left behind. And of course it took the US well over a century and a bloody civil war before you guys made it to your current "big dog" centre stage role - and that's given your vast amount of land, natural resources and population. I really don't think the comparison is particularly relevant.