to start a new Scottish Indyref thread?

[FannyFifer]

Round 2 folks, ding ding!

choccaluvva

Political representation isn't the same as Scottish people being in politics. Scottish votes almost never "count" in a general election - as in, you could subtract them and the same party would almost always have won over the past fifty years. That results in a political system in which there is currently no motivation for politicians to make policies that would benefit Scotland and thus win Scottish votes.

I don't believe for a minute all Yes voters are stupid

I find there are much more refreshing discussions being had within, for example, the Green Party or Labour for Yes. Due to the no pre-negotiation clause in the Edinburgh Agreement there is a lot still to be firmly decided, but the advantage of that is that in the event of independence there will be space for voices other than Alex Salmond's to be heard (and I don't think all of the non-SNP Yes supporters and politicians will allow it to be any othher way).

It makes me livid. And in the event of a yes vote he would then blame all our economic ills on the rUK acting spitefully because 'Scotland' voted to leave it.....

Is the rUK electorate so dim/selfish that they will always vote in a government that is less reasonable than the government a Scottish electorate would vote for? Presumably because the Scottish electorate is intellectually and morally superior?

In the event of a yes vote 'we' will only get the govt we vote for if there is a majority for the party we voted for. Unless every voter in the Scottish electorate votes for the same party, not all of us will get the government we vote for. Ie democracy. Self-determination is just a label. Any (tiny) minority can ask for self-determination....

IMO anyone getting power will find themselves making compromises they didn't anticipate having to make - once they are subject to the pressures of global corporations. I think it's naïve to think that the government of an independent Scotland would be any more ethical than the Westminster government. And I think we've seen this with AS caving in to Donald Trump already.

I don't think all of the non-SNP Yes supporters and politicians will allow it to be any othher way

Who might they be? Apart from some Greens. The overwhelming majority of people supporting this will be SNP ssupporters. I don't believe for one minute there is significant support for yes outwith SNP supporters.

If this debacle happens we'll have to put up with President Salmond.

Latin
I don't believe for a minute all Yes voters are stupid, but sometimes Salmond talks at them as though they are.

They obviously rounded up the ones that are and put them in the audience last night.

The point being that as things arr every voter in one country could vote the same way and still be governed by someone different. That's not representation.

We understand the concept of democracy and that you don't always get the leader you cast a vote dor byt something needs to give when a whole country is effectively voiceless.

sorry, NCforAye, I didn't mean that to sound as snippy/patronising as it came out.

I have genuine respect for the ideological position of the Yessers, but Salmond's substanceless posturing winds me up.

The only defense to the reductio ad absurdum argument r.e. democracy (i.e. there are always people living under a government they didn't vote for) is that Scotland is a separate country in all but government and as such has a different status from, say, Northern England (which is often raised as an example of a region of the UK with different voting patterns). But if that can't be agreed upon then neither side is going to see eye to eye. Which is fine! To some extent the referendum is a question of whether people do think Scotland is a different country and thus deserving of independence and a majority-rules democracy within its own borders.

But, put self-determination aside for a moment and think about the issue of Scottish votes never swinging an election. Yes, Scotland may sometimes end up with a UK government that reflects the Scottish majority, but politics in this country currently works with politicians making promises and policies based on what will win them key (swing) votes in the next election. With Scottish votes never "counting" as swing votes, there is no motivation for politicians to try to improve things for Scotland and thus win Scottish voters. Shiny ideals of democracy and self-determination apart (which as you rightly say can only ever be limited), isn't there the practical argument to be made that things would surely be better for Scotland if it was ruled by politicians who needed to win votes there?

Phaed it doesn't take much to figure out why the Scottish versions of the big 3 parties have had to declare themselves better together. You don't need that spelled out surely? And you are wrong assuming that the other parties don't have yes supporters. I've attended several public meetings, one with 4 pro indy speakers and not one of them an snp supporter. Get out there and speak to people, you will soon see there's lots of cross party support.

It's just a shame the individuals in main parties weren't given the freedom to declare their preference but that's party politics isn't it? You tow the party line.

There isn't always a 'scottish' interest. The idea of 'Scotland' as a political entity annoys me.

And we have a devolved government already with significant powers anyway. So why cost the whole of the uk a great deal of time and money in separating Scotland? For something that a very significant proportion of the Scottish electorate don't want (unless the actual vote is unexpectedly a huge majority yes).

And don't pedal the president salmond myth. You are aware we'll be taking to the polls a matter of weeks after we're officially independent?

I'm excited about the time between now and then. I hope to see parties reforming and new ones emerging and Scottish politics reshaping.

Phaedra, you sound as blinkered and naive as you accuse Yes supporters of being. Ofcourse there are more people than just SNP voters that intend to vote yes!

It's not a debacle, it's the will of at least 43% of your country. It's remains to be seen what the result will be, but I think it will be close either way.

The idea of a country being a political entity annoys you? You get annoyed by a country identifying as such and daring to have a political collective?

chubbyhez

Exactly!

LatinForTelly

Not at all! I got your tone and totally appreciated it. I think I was mainly amused that it was being stated IYSWIM.

Phaedra

The Yes Scotland Advisory Board is made up of Labour, SSP, and Green MPs. If independence happens, there will be a General Election in 2016. If we get First Minister Salmond again, well, at least that will reflect the majority desire - though actually I highly doubt we will. I'll try to dig up some polling information but most of the Yes supporters I know have either never voted SNP, or did so at the last election as a protest vote (or indeed out of a desire to see a mandated referendum and then the ability to vote for, and have a chance of getting, the party they wanted in power...)

Churchill didn't win the first peacetime election after Britain won WWII. If people weren't swept along by a wave of affection for a figurehead of a huge wartime victory I don't see why Scottish people would necessarily vote for AS just because he was the head of an organisation that won independence.

In fact most of the pro indy people I've spoke to and met with haven't even declared a strong party political bias. This is not about party politics.

The only people I hear waxing lyrical about Salmond are No voters.

Indeed, chubbyhez. In fact, someone who posted something explicitly SNP on my local Yes facebook group was politely but firmly reminded that the campaign was cross-party and that it shouldn't be used as a forum to push for any party in particular.

It does annoy me because I don't feel more Scottish than British.

There are diverse interests within Scotland.

The Scottish/English border is arbitrary - goodness knows it changed often enough.

At one public meeting I was at one of the pro indy speakers actually pulled up a member of the audience who was making true derogatory comments about Osborne and Cameron. She rightly pointed out that if it's not about Salmond then it shouldn't be about them.

As I've said before - I completely understand the idea of self-determination but I think it makes more sense for the 'self' to be uk rather than Scotland.

I get as irritated as anyone else when people are careless with the term 'english' when they mean 'british' or referring to 'the north' when they mean 'the north of england'.

There are diverse interests within Scotland.

And none of them receive real attention from Westminster politicians because there is no benefit to those politicians in giving it. Wouldn't it be better to have an independence Scotland in which at least some of those diverse needs were fulfilled and responded to, rather than none?

I do wonder how different this would be if the referendum on AV had gone through. I think that would have solved a lot of the problems of politicians being able to get away with catering to only a minority of swing voters / regions.

WildThong I don't mean to sound hard but if its that bad, maybe the blogger should move? After all, that's what the folk working in financial services, and are at huge risk of losing their jobs, are being told to do in the name of progress...

Obviously the same criteria doesn't apply to (male dominated) industries, such as shipbuilding and mining, and to industries where people have a connection with the land.

Except loads of families who formerly farmed land, even land they owned, have had to move on.

prettybird FWIW, iirc, you can't just "get" another tenancy. And her DH doesn't want to leave the farm, so her choice is leave the farm or leave her husband.

Something doesn't sit right with this for me. Maintaining farm buildings is par for the course for many agricultural tenancies. It depends on the terms of the lease, but if this farm has been in one family for 124 years, they have to take some responsibility for securing investment and repairs. Most businesses that lease property do so on a FRI (full repairing and insuring) lease, where the onus falls on the tenant not only to maintain but often to upgrade to modern standards. Farming is less profitable and this isn't usually the case, but its not unknown. You could argue that landlords are less keen now to invest in farms since the right to buy was introduced, but this is obviously a long standing problem. If its an old lease then its likely they pay a small rent, unless they have made a mess out of renegotiating it somewhere down the line. It can be difficult but not impossible to get a new farm tenancy - but prospective tenants need to show willing and able to manage the land and buildings well, and to have good references, and I don't think publishing an online blog criticising the landlords is the best way forward. I'm a bit concerned by the talk of animal welfare being compromised.

The criticism of the shoot seems tied in with her repeated reminders that she is a vegan, but is she seriously suggesting that a large company render their business unprofitable because it transgresses her own principles and is a bit annoying to her (although she is willing to transgress them herself to be married to a beef farmer)?

NCforAye don't be silly. No-one is beyond criticism. And you don't get to set the rules, not least because of the side you're on.

NCforAye

I agree the debate shouldn't be about Salmond personally but he is the mouthpiece for the independence movement.

When he smirks because he's got AD to agree that an independent Scotland could use the pound, it annoys me because he's not addressing the fact that then that would be without a central bank, so no EU membership, so no support for Scottish agricultural sector etc. It's a soundbite; a meaningless rhetorical victory.

Usually when the Indys attack the UK they are attacking a Tory government ie the policies of the last 4 years, when this is a decision for many, many years (or forever, even).

Does that make sense?

[Scotland] is more egalitarian, arguably less entrepreneurial.

Anyone with any get up and go has got up and gone, as my FIL says of his town in northern Scotland. The only new businesses in which are run by 'white settlers' as he calls them, ie, English people.

All this rhetoric that's constantly pushed about Scotland being left wing and resenting a Tory government and not being properly represented, when nearly 1 in 5 of Scottish voters voted Conservative in the last general election, despite having little chance of winning seats. Yet are only represented by one seat in Westminster.

In fact, I always found it suspicious that the last Scottish Election was held on the first day of the Royal Highland Show, when much of the rural and farming population would be away from home, unable to vote, and possibly not have thought of arranging a postal vote.