FREEDOM!!!! [2]

There has to be a line- the logic of your position is that its only democracy if everyone stands in their own room and gets what they want- but seeing as that is impossible and impractical the normal method for doing these things is by country.
Although if we do get independence I am not at all opposed to regional bodies for the Islands, Highlands and Lowlands rather than a single tier of government in Edinburgh- point is we could decide such matters in the best interests of our country and by the votes of the people of the country- which right now we cannot do.
Will it be perfect? Of course not. Would it be more democratic and accountable to the voters than what we have now- yes I believe it would be. Power would be far more devolved than it is at Westminster, which from up here seems remote, uninterested in anything except what it gains and is otherwise largely absent save when imposing thing son us (like the poll tax, bedroom tax ect).

If I was a Westminster MP I wouldn't waste time courting Scottish votes or even noticing Scotland either save as a source of revenue for the Treasury, what would be the point when you dont actually need any Scottish votes to win power?
You quite rightly focus all your attention catering to the voters in England, as they are the ones who will get you elected. You can safely ignore Scotland entirely.
And its that lack of democratic impact that is the reason Westminster has ignored Scotland for decades. Leading us inevitably to this point of referendum.

Doing it by country is the normal method...so that makes it right?

Do you not see my point? A lot of Scottish people clearly still see themselves as Scottish first and foremost. That in itself is probably the key thing here. They don't see themselves as British (which I do). These people seem to be concerned with their own back yard (I say seem and that also seems to be backed by your argument so far) and not the current whole.

Like I said, an independent Scotland is great for all you people that support it but at the end of the day, what was your problem of being the minority will now just become someone else's problem, a lot of which are part of the majority now.

I don't claim to have an answer to this by the way... I just don't think splitting us all up is the answer. It is only the answer for you, not everyone.

My problem with that view Lance is it assumes no improvement.

Right now a large majority of people think the current system is unfair and does not work- and I include Yes and No voters in that as all polling shows that what they have in common is not wanting the status quo.
If that is addressed then yes there will always still be those who dont agree- but surely it is better to address the concerns than leave a majority disgruntled? If its just ignored then that way lies civil dispute and disorder, whatever happens we are still part of the British Isle and thats not how we do things, we're not French!

Regards being British at the last census most people here put their nationality as Scottish, then British and thirdly European.
Perhaps the reason for that is that Union at inception was a stitch up between the ruling classes, and the people were never asked, so they never choose to become British they were told by their betters they were now British like it or not- that's not a good start.

And its not that the Yes side doesnt  care about England- it does, as Salmond puts it we should be equal partners and best friends, and they think you would be better off independent too! Looking in from Scotland England seems to have lost its way, is struggling with its identity and doesn't have fair representation-- the West Lothian question for example- I dont know a single Sot who doesn't think that's unfair and stupid. England is now the only part of the UK without a devolved administration. And I dont think Westminster serves the interests of anyone in England outside London and the SE.


edit add- looking at the census of 2011 on ethnicity- its a bit, odd.
Under the white category in England you can choose from-

English/Cornish/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British/Irish/Gypsy or Irish traveller/Any other White background, please describe

But in Scotland the choices were-

Scottish/Other British/Irish/Gypsy or Irish Traveller/Polish/Any other White ethnic group, please describe

Interesting that England has more self identifying white groups than Scotland does by 8 to 5, and even odder that Polish only appears on the Scottish census form. I cant think of a reason why that would be.
Also of note is that the Scottish census form doesn't have a simple British category which England does- so even if someone here thought of themselves as solely British the closest they could get to stating that on the census form is to pick 'other British'   

Things are a foot, sort of- the Westminster government has announced a 'historic day for Scotland!' and said in 2015 we will have the power to issue Scottish finance bonds.

Hooray ect. Shame its a proposal from 2012 as recommended by the Calman Commission- still nothing like dressing an old policy everyone already knew about in new robes and declaring it historic!
And weirdly (and perhaps suspiciously) late last night on the BBC Scotland news site, or early this morning depending on your pov, a piece appeared with a blow by blow rebuttal of all the points in Osbournes speech about us not keeping the pound.
On one side it put what darling George had said, and on the other is put what smiling Salmond had responded with to that point.
And now I cant seem to find it anywhere, it appears to be gone, or severely buried somewhere   

I dont think Government serves anyone outside Greater London at all. Unless your named Sheik-me-money ? Faith is lost on this or any future Government in my mind. I fear for me & I fear for my family. I see my grandkids laughing, messing about, chucking paint & toys about & I think "just you wait,poor things" A shit storm is on the horizon, & unless you are born with not just a silver spoon, but the whole fooking canteen,in your mouth, you are gonna have a life of hell. My friend owns his house, its a 4 floor rambling pile in a lucrative part of town. He cant sell it as it needs work, he cant repair it as it costs to much. Hes working his doo-dahs off trying just to eat let alone the upkeep of this amazing house that looks like it belongs in the Colonial Raj ! Its ever decreasing circles & catch 22 ! All we talk about is getting out of this "last gate but one before you enter Hell" ! We dont feel happy or confident about the future. Ours is gone, just incontinence pads to look forward to now, but our kids for fook sake ?? Iain's daughter is ok, she now works for the police force. A hive of ineptitude & corruption, here in the SE. Not that SHE is ! but, give it time, Iain already see's a small change as she mixes with the REAL villians.

A huge part of the problem is that in the past, certainly from the end of the second world war until the 80's it was perfectly possible for the working class to enter politics- and indeed many of our greatest politicians of that period did come from lower or middle class backgrounds.
It used to be the case that every factory had a union and a shop steward, if you were interested in politics you could take part, if you showed an aptitude for it you could move up through the ranks and eventually be backed for either local government or stand as an MP.

Now all those ladders into politics have been pulled up.

Now the only people who have a way into politics are those from a certain wealthy background, mainly centred in the south of England who went to one of three universities.
And they go straight from the student debating society into politics.
It has created a political class, distinct and separate from the rest and who have never lived the sort of lives of the people they seek to impose their ideas on.
Look at Westminster- all went to the same universities together, both front benches made up of multi-millionaires. And none of them have done a proper job in their lives.
Thats why PMQ's now resembles a posh boys pantomime or a Bullington Club night out, all its missing is bread rolls for them to throw at each other and an oiks restaurant to smash up on the way home.

A democracy should draw on the broad pool of talent of all its people, not concentrate power in the hands of a select few who all share the same public school background.

Its easy to cast the poor as ill-educated lazy wasters who need punished and goaded if you've never actually met any.

I think it's as easy for me as Scotland has always been a seperate part of the UK. It's it's own nationality, a seperate legal system, a semi eperate political system and a semi seperate economy. Just like the Irish, were they take their future must finally be their own decision for me.

That's not to discount, as Petty mentioned earlier, that the large majority of the Scottish people would prefer to be a more independent, but to stay in the UK. The people who turned that posibility down was the UK governement.  

Well this is highly peculiar- that article I mentioned which was a blow by blow presentation of Osbournes arguments and Salmonds response to each that mysteriously disappeared some time last night has reappeared, its now dated as from the 17th (?) and claims it was last updated at 15:44.

Thing is its not quite the same piece I read last night, this version has more arguments added to the No side but no difference to the Yes case.


You can read the article here-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26225894

It appears they temporary took it down to beef up the No side before putting it back like nothing had every happened beyond noting it had been 'updated'.   

Always interesting to see an outside perspective- here Russian news interviews Salmond-

More dodgy as hell BBC reporting- this time on a bill for child welfare currently going through the Scottish Parliament, the piece snuck in the the following statement relating to the referendum-

'"Salmond forced through legislation, to allow children aged 16, to vote in Scotland's referendum."

Only he didn't, he didn't even rely on the SNP majority, only the Tories opposed the move and it in fact passed with votes from SNP, Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens by 114 votes out of the Parliaments 129 MSP's. Forced? The only thing forced here is the BBC agenda on the public.   

Pettytyrant101 wrote:A huge part of the problem is that in the past, certainly from the end of the second world war until the 80's it was perfectly possible for the working class to enter politics- and indeed many of our greatest politicians of that period did come from lower or middle class backgrounds.
It used to be the case that every factory had a union and a shop steward, if you were interested in politics you could take part, if you showed an aptitude for it you could move up through the ranks and eventually be backed for either local government or stand as an MP.

Now all those ladders into politics have been pulled up.
........

A democracy should draw on the broad pool of talent of all its people.

I'm curious about this. It seems to imply that even in the past, the only pathway for talented person from a working class family to be successful in politics was through Labor pathways. Aren't there local government pathways in the UK that lead to the same places? Or are there gatekeepers on those pathways as well?

Here in the US, so much of our government happens at the State and Local level that there are thousands of pathways open to people of all backgrounds. Just look at Obama's path to the presidency.

Granted, an open door policy lets in a lot of loony toons as well, sometimes more than we can sort out, but I guess that's the price we pay.

It seems to me that a devolved Scotland could serve the same useful purpose to the greater UK that we fringe States do here. When we feel strongly about something (like same sex marriage, gun control, or legalized marijuana) the rest of the Nation stands back to see if we succeed or fail, then the other states adjust their own policies accordingly. It sounds like the obvious role for an independent or devolved Scotland.

In theory you can join a political party at 'grassroots' level and work for the local constituency, but in practise that tends to only get you so far.
The Westminster system is largely an old boys network and patronage. Its not what you know and what you can do, it who you know and what they can do for you.

The situation is better for the Scottish Parliament which does not have the inherited class system that currently weighs down Westminster.

I dont know if you listened to the radio piece a few pages back where an Englishman speaks of living in Edinburgh, but they said that when they first came to Scotland they thought Scottish MSP's were second rate because they looked more like people who you might see standing behind you at the checkout of a supermarket than the image of politician they were used to (the manicured Cameron and Blairs of Westminster) but they came to realise not only were they more effective but more in touch with the people and actually you want to be represented by people who you might find in your local supermarket.
The majority of Scottish MSP's are working or middle class backgrounds.
But of course the power currently doesn't lie in Holyrood but in Westminster.
And its there the barriers to the working class to getting in are becoming near insurmountable now.

"It seems to me that a devolved Scotland could serve the same useful purpose to the greater UK that we fringe States do here"

I think that already is the case in many ways- Scotland introduced the ban on smoking, legislated first (though it took longer to go through the scrutiny) on gay marriage, freezed council tax and England, once they saw the results eventually adopted those policies.
Currently the Scottish Parliament is trying to get a minimum pricing for alcohol by unit to cut alcohol related deaths. If it works too England will again probably follow suit eventually.

To be honest with you Petty... everything you have said in our conversations... I don't blame you for having that view. I think it is sad that that is the way it may end up being, but I understand it. If I weren't tied to the place, I would leave for greener pastures while I still could if only to live somewhere a little warmer because the politics will be the same shit.

Ive thoroughly enjoyed having my beliefs on this challenged Lance, and you certainly made me think about things.
It hasn't changed how I intend to vote at this point but it has given me new perspectives to muse on.

I do share with you however a sadness that after all this time it has come down to this. It didnt have to.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
The majority of Scottish MSP's are working or middle class backgrounds.
But of course the power currently doesn't lie in Holyrood but in Westminster.
And its there the barriers to the working class to getting in are becoming near insurmountable now.

....a sadness that after all this time it has come down to this. It didnt have to.

You know, Petty, to me that's the scariest thing you've said so far. It could be a paraphrase of what was appearing in American Colonial newspapers in the late 18th century.
The last thing most colonials wanted was independence from Britain. Nobody was prepared for that.

But the issues of poor government became intolerable and Parliament consistently turned a deaf ear until it was too late, then sent military forces to shore up incompetent appointed governors from just the "ruling class" you describe.

It didn't have to be that way. Britain has such a long history of respect for democracy that you'd think they could figure these things out.

You know, Petty, to me that's the scariest thing you've said so far. It could be a paraphrase of what was appearing in American Colonial newspapers in the late 18th century.
The last thing most colonials wanted was independence from Britain. Nobody was prepared for that. - David


That particular parallel hadn't occurred to me David, but now you mention it.

It's worth noting that the colonists' beef was with Parliament rather than the King or the British Empire as a concept -- they only really started badmouthing the King once independence was decided on as a course of action, and that came over a year into the war. Also, most of the colonists saw themselves as English or British (depending on their heritage), and wanted recognition of their "rights as Englishmen". There was no separate American identity yet at that point.

Eldorion wrote: Also, most of the colonists saw themselves as English or British (depending on their heritage), and wanted recognition of their "rights as Englishmen".  There was no separate American identity yet at that point.

Exactly. And it's worth noting as well that the Royal Navy continued not to make the distinction for another 30 years for the purposes of impressment. Not entirely their fault really. We were taking all comers as new citizens. Still, it did lead directly to the next war.

That's sure to be one of the big challenges of a truly independent Scotland as people try to decide which side of the new line will give them the best deal. Citizenship is likely to be a sticky issue for a generation or two. Best not to go to war over it though. 1812 was no fun for anybody.

I don't think the War of 1812 was really a necessary or inevitable one.  Even acknowledging the effect that the Napoleonic Wars had on politics and trade, it could have been avoided.  There's a reason they call it the War of Faulty Communication.

On the other hand, it made everyone realize that America would not become part of Britain again and that Canada would not become part of America, which cleared the way for better relations between the Republic and the Empire later down the road.

Not that I think Scottish independence is going to spark a war, but here's hoping the whole process goes much smoother if you guys vote to separate.

The funny thing about War of 1812 is that most Canadians today will tell you unequivocally that they won the war, while most Americans will tell you just as unequivocally that we won, and in a way both are right. (By the way, I think the battle of Lake Erie is the only time in history that a British Naval Fleet surrendered en mass to anyone, though I understand that's not a part of Canadian history text books...)

Eldorion wrote:On the other hand, it made everyone realize that America would not become part of Britain again and that Canada would not become part of America, which cleared the way for better relations between the Republic and the Empire later down the road.

I think that may boil down to "Before the war there was no mutual respect. After the war there was." I'm not sure I'd use the word "inevitable", but we were being REALLY cocky at that time, and somebody was going to have to call us on it sooner or later. Spain and France were just busy at the time.

After the current EU President compared Scotland to Kosovo and said it would be nearly impossible for us to remain a member a difference of opinion seems to be emerging-

"Jim Currie, a former European Commission director general, said Scotland had a right to membership.
Mr Currie was giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament Europe committee.
Mr Currie said: "We would be talking about a territory which is currently part of a full member state.
"We're dealing with people who would have certain rights as EU citizens and which would be very difficult to take away, and nobody would want to.
"The bottom line for me is that it would be dealt with in a pragmatic way."
Commenting on Mr Barosso's words, Mr Currie said: "The statement he made was extremely unwise and I also think it was inaccurate."
He added that he thought "Kosovo was an unfortunate example" for the European Commission president to use.'- BBC

More roll back from the EU with a high ranking official speaking in Ireland who was asked about the Presidents comments on Scotland, her reply- "I think he was misunderstood"

I think the phrase she was actually looking for was 'talking out his hat"  

The latest attempt to scare from Allistair Darling is even more ridiculous than usual- apparently Scottish charities will suffer if we are independent- despite Scotland, per head of population contributing more to charities than any other part of the UK, and despite numerous charities working and funding in multiple countries round the world and across many borders- but not apparently in an Independent Scotland.
No, charity is a result of the UK's 'social cohesion' and only exist 'because we are part of the UK'

You couldn't make this stuff up.   

 

If there was one thing that impressed me about Scots back when I was hitchhiking it was the culture of helping other people. Even when I was down in England, over half the lifts I got were from Scots. Charities would be one of the last things to worry about, I'd think!  

Goes back to the old days I reckon, and particularly the Highland Code which itself comes about from the harshness of the environment. Its oddly enough at root selfish. If you help a stranger or your neighbour in need they might help you when you are in need. And if your trying to scrape a living crofting in the Highlands you will be in need at some point!
Pooling resources, helping each other, joint enterprises were the only way to survive.