to wonder what English MNers think of the Scottish referendum?

[OTheHugeManatee]

I'm English. I quite want Scotland to vote Yes. Personally I'm not sure the financial arguments stack up but I think you can argue it either way. I want a Yes vote not because I think Scotland should eff off or anything puerile like that, but because I think we're long overdue a serious constitutional shakeup in the British Isles and a Yes vote might well be the thing to trigger it.

Also I'm quietly (and, I hope non-xenophobically) quite firmly Eurosceptic. One of my main objections to rule from Brussels is the lack of democratic legitimacy: I don't feel that my vote counts for much in deciding who gets into power there. So I can sympathise with Scottish complaints that they feel the Westminster government doesn't represent their views and never really will. Given that I want freedom from Brussels so as to go back to self-determination as a democratic nation, logically I can't object to Scotland wanting the same thing.

But other English MNers seem to feel quite strongly the other way. If you're English, what's your view?

bold fail!

The piece by George Monbiot really articulates how I am thinking about the whole thing -

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

And do you consider yourself to have an political identity based on nationality CK?

Also does George M also believe in leaving the EU?

I would also suggest that many northerners feel just as separated from Westminster as the Scots.

I live in London and I feel separated from Westminster too! I've already said it, but – it is not, and shouldn't be made into, a north/south thing. This argument sounds very much like chips on shoulders.

I value the diversity of the union, I think it is a valuable thing in democracy to be able to acknowledge difference and yet stay together.
Strumpers, I think this is about the truest thing anyone has said on this thread. Finance, business and politics aside, I think on ideological grounds a yes vote would be a bad thing.

That article seems a little muddled about the currency but then it seems most of the yes vote do.

I do think the whole argument is a bit spurious - you can't turn it round and argue that if you don't think an independent country should give up its sovereignty then it must mean you want to vote for independence. It completely forgets that for hundreds of years the union has worked pretty well for both Scotland and the rest of the union. It isn't perfect but what is?

It's unconscious but it does irk - the default to England, that Britain is really England.

I don't see this at all. From where I am standing the English aren't allowed to be English. You can be Scottish/Welsh/Irish but the rest of us are British, not English whether we like it or not. If we say we are English apparently we are being arrogant/xenophobic/nationalist. You are all allowed to be proud of your national identity but we aren't for fear of being seen as overbearing bullies. You all get your own parliaments but we don't. If there is a default, it isn't through choice, it has been imposed on us by the other three nations.

I live in London and I feel separated from Westminster too! I've already said it, but – it is not, and shouldn't be made into, a north/south thing. This argument sounds very much like chips on shoulders.

But the Scottish people have the opportunity to get rid of Westminster for good. It feels hypocritical to say we feel separated from Westminster but the Scottish people should be obliged to keep them.

I think 'acknowledging difference and yet staying together' is a bit meaningless and sentimental if you are disabled person being forced back to work by ATOS and paying the bedroom tax because of a Tory government for which your country has never and will never vote.

OnlyLovers Perhaps there's a chip or two

But the point I was trying to make is about local identity, there is a north/south divide, which admittedly is partly constructed by the people living there. The north of England can seem just as under represented in the UK media as Scotland.

But saying that as a Londoner you feel separated from Westminster says a lot to me. If large amounts of the population all over the UK feel distanced from our government, that seems like something we should all be working together to change, rather than dividing ourselves.

I just feel that's what 'they' want, a population divided.

Seff, yes, I agree. As someone else said, it is Middle England more than Scotland, or 'north' or 'south', that decides on government more's the pity for those of us with sense. UKIP crashed and burned in London, thank Christ.

CK, as I said earlier, I suspect that even if Scotland gains independence and doesn't have a Tory government again people will still moan about whoever is in power. That's the way of things.

And as others have said, the idea of Scotland massively affecting the left/right proportions of the vote is a bit of a myth.

There are a few chips on shoulders, some deserved and some a bit truculent. Saying yes would mean that Scotland would finally have to stop blaming England and grow up a little.

The majority almost never get the party they vote for, it is the nature of the first past the post system. You don't need over 50% of the vote to get elected. Why does Scotland feel that they should have any more say than the majority of the rest of the union? I always find the 'we didn't vote for the Tories yet we are stuck with them' thing a bit lame tbh. I and the majority of the rest of the population didn't either but that is the nature of our democracy.

And if the Scottish are getting rid of the Tories, who are you left with? Is the only option to vote for left leaning parties? Won't the minority right wing voters still not be getting the party they vote for? I am a floating voter. I vote for the party I think will do the best job at the time of the election. Not having the option to vote for a centre or right leaning party in a Scottish election (were I living in Scotland) wouldn't feel much like a democracy to me. Aren't all the parties you are left with going to be basically the same?

I'm English but my parentage is 3/4 Scottish. I'm quite surprised by some of the views on Scottish people on this thread with lots of talk about people being 'uninformed', 'ignorant', 'racist' and having 'chips on shoulders'. It reminds me of when a man comes up to you in a club and begs you dance, and when you say 'no' he says 'You're a fat, ugly lesbian anyway'. If people think the Scottish are chippy upstarts when do they want to stay in the union? Is it just a matter of ego? Or wanting to keep control?

Ideally there would be electoral reform. I didn't vote yes for it last time as I didn't think what was being offered as an alternative was any better than FPTP; there are other models of election that would work better. It makes no sense to vote for a new system if it isn't better than the old one.

Or it's two separate viewpoints, one being let Scotland go (a reflex action of irritation in some cases perhaps) or lets work together like a family does and provide stability and resilience through mutual interdependence.

The majority almost never get the party they vote for, it is the nature of the first past the post system. You don't need over 50% of the vote to get elected. Why does Scotland feel that they should have any more say than the majority of the rest of the union?

There is only one Tory MP in the whole of Scotland. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Scottish to feel that Westminster doesn't represent them.

Unlike choosing a government this is not a decision that can be revoked. Once out it is forever.

CK, some people do have chips on their shoulders. Scottish or otherwise. My comment referred to the idea of the north of England feeling unrepresented by Westminster as much as it did to Scotland.

I personally have experienced racism in Scotland as a person with an English accent (although ironically very mixed British Isles background of Irish, Welsh and Scottish), although I wouldn't say anything as sweeping as 'Scottish people are racist'.

I don't see how 'ego' comes into an England resident wanting a no vote. And 'control' – well, Scotland already has a lot of devolved power so I think no to that too.

If Scotland votes to go will the queen remain their head of state like in Oz etc.
I am a Brit living abroad I just dont know enough about it to comment.
But will be sad if they do leave.
That said having Irish parents I cannot imagine rep Ireland under UK rule like it once was.

I think if Devomax had been offered as an alternative, it would've been a runaway winner. Questions need to be asked as to why Cameron didn't want it on the ballot paper

A proper Federal state would've killed the independence movement stone dead. Dh talks about a book he had to read at Uni as part of his Geography degree called "Internal Colonialism" (this was back in the late 70s), iirc about how once the British Empire had gone, only the internal "colonies" were left. There's a mindset that has to be addressed.

There have been may opportunities for governments to develop true federalism and they have failed to do so. Even now, with the threat of Scottish independence looking like it might actually happen, Westminster is only talking about giving Scotland more powers and still not addressing the federal state issue.

"There have been many opportunities...."

Many Scottish do have a hang up with the English and have some little chips - I'm Scottish it was what I saw growing up. On the other hand the English can be a bit condescending and arrogant at times (without realising it or meaning to cause any offence etc). I think it's just what happens when you have two people /countries who are unequal in population, influence, power or whatever. A bit like a felt hard done by younger sibling being squashed by an older knows better sibling.

If we say we are English apparently we are being arrogant/xenophobic/nationalist. You are all allowed to be proud of your national identity but we aren't for fear of being seen as overbearing bullies.
I think this has to do with historical legacy. It's like announcing that you're proud to be white - there's nothing actually wrong with being white, but people who have come before you have used it as an excuse to be rather nasty to those who aren't. Likewise there's nothing wrong with being English, but people who have come before you have used it as an excuse to be rather nasty to those who aren't.
Personally, I think it's the "British" not the "English" that have been (historically speaking) the problem - it wasn't the English Empire, after all - but there does seem to be a great deal of confusion, both in parts of the UK and worldwide, about there being any kind of difference between English and British.

I do understand why it makes some Scots want to vote yes, but being so keen to be recognized as anything but English seems a bit like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Well,fancy that. A people who perceive themselves to have been subjugated and oppressed for hundreds of years might not want to be aligned with or subsumed by their perceived oppressors? Who would have think it??

This thread - and others like it - reminds me of men trying to tell women what they should think/do, or white people trying to tell black people how they should think and feel.

How very gracious of those that belong to a country that has been historically viewed as oppressive to tell us that they don't view us a different country. .

I think Scottish nationalists saying that Westminster doesn't represent them have identified something that is real (disaffection with the national politic process) but have wrongly interpreted it as being about England/Scotland, when it's actually a pretty strong feeling all over the country (including London, judging by this thread!), and is more to with the yawning chasm that exists between the political/journalistic class and ordinary people.

Scottish nationalism is feeding on the same 'down with the political Establishment' sentiment in Scotland that UKIP is feeding on in England. The policies of the two may look very different, but they are symptomatic of the same thing.

It's relatively rare to get political unions that are as stable and productive as the Union with Scotland. It seems a terrible waste to throw that away.

I generally believe that the world should go on becoming more interconnected, not more fragmented. This feels like a step backwards. All the talk on here of 'well maybe the North should be independent' or 'yes let's chuck London out of the country' depresses me enormously. This referendum is just stoking parochialism all over the country.

Even some of the most entrenched Naws-ers that I know can't/won't hide their attraction to the idea of Conservatism being wiped out in Scotland if it's a yes.

^I think this has to do with historical legacy. It's like announcing that you're proud to be white - there's nothing actually wrong with being white, but people who have come before you have used it as an excuse to be rather nasty to those who aren't. Likewise there's nothing wrong with being English, but people who have come before you have used it as an excuse to be rather nasty to those who aren't.
Personally, I think it's the "British" not the "English" that have been (historically speaking) the problem - it wasn't the English Empire, after all - but there does seem to be a great deal of confusion, both in parts of the UK and worldwide, about there being any kind of difference between English and British.^

Isn't this a bit outdated though? The British Empire folded really quite a long time ago. These days Britain is really quite a small country, with really not very much influence. Shouldn't we be starting to get over the whole post-colonial guilt thing?

Besides, America has been top nation much more recently and has done plenty of nasty things round the world. But Americans seem to be quite happy saying they're proud to be America. So what's wrong with being proud to be English?

sorry, derailing my own thread again