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?

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?

Americans might be happy enough to say they're proud to be American but how does the rest of the world perceive them when they say it?

You could argue at least the English are a bit more self aware.

Phyllis, I agree with every single word you say. I too find this parochialism very saddening.

I like the idea of giving 16 year olds the vote, it helps to engage them in the political system which has got to be good. This said it is easier in a referendum on a single issue especially one related to nationalism, everyone is more engaged and the turnout is likely to be high.

I do find the whole thing very sad, it's not just the Scots, being 'British' is not particularly valued anywhere in the UK. Unionists in Northern Ireland value it, as do so many others from other parts of the world. As for those of us born in the UK too many of us are very disparaging of our nationality and culture.

So I think we have effectively 'let' the Scottish go by undervaluing the union. Why would they not value their Scottishness under these circumstances.

I feel exhausted by it all and think it might be very difficult for everyone if there is a Yes vote but maybe it will be like others have said and be a vehicle for change

Fairphyllis-good post, I so agree.

An excellent article here about the likely outcomes for rUK of a Yes vote.

I broadly agree with his analysis: I would be very sad to see Scotland go, but after short-term financial instability and possibly a sterling crisis, in the longer term it could precipitate a real consitutional shakeup leading to a much more federal style of government across rUK. Not to mention an opportunity to throw off tattered remnants of our imperial past and think seriously about what this country could be in the future.

For example I'd love to see serious tax-raising powers devolved to the regions. If we did that, the North could drop corporation tax and business rates sharply, attract more businesses away from the South and boost jobs and aspirations in the process. Welfare rates could be set according to local cost of living. Westminster could be scaled right back to foreign policy, broad oversight of education and health and people could be offered a real, local, meaningful choice about what kind of a state they want to live in and what kind of government they want.

Another potential excellent outcome from a Yes vote would be a serious chance at an outright Tory majority in 2015 and hence of the EU referendum I think the UK desperately needs.

Also wanted to say thanks for all these really thought-provoking responses! Along with a few slightly curmudgeonly ones. I've seen lots of thread debating the referendum but it's really interesting to hear from others who, like me, have an interest in the outcome but no say on which way it goes.

A lot of Americans magically turn Canadian when they're away from home, so there must be some reluctance to 'admit' to being American.

As I said in my original post in this thread, I self-identify as English but not British. Not due to any 'post-colonial guilt' much but because I'm not Welsh (although my great-great-grandmother was) or Scottish (although my great-grandmother's grandparents were) or from Northern Ireland, which means that I don't think 'British' is an accurate description of what I am. So I certainly, personally, don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being English.
(When people ask, which they do because I'm a foreign national living in the US, I usually tell them that I was born in England and am an Irish citizen - both completely true facts - no doubt misleading scores of Americans to believe that England is somewhere in Ireland. )

Whether it's outdated or not, or what the wrongs or rights of it are, I do think the historical element is behind it. And it's not all that historical for some people after all. My English grandparents had a very colonial attitude, specifically but not exclusively towards Scotland and Ireland, and I've seen echoes of it from other people much more recently.
And certainly post-Colonialism reverberates in most of the countries that were colonized, including Scotland, and (like non-whites dealing with white people, or women dealing with men) there's going to be a historically based suspicion of anybody vocally aligning themselves with the group seen as the oppressor - rightly or wrongly.

With sincere apologies for derailing this thread. It's nearly 4 am here, I'm off to bed.
I rhymed

"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."

But, every single person in Scotland could have voted for the same party and it would not affected the outcome of the last election, unless they voted conservative and it would be a conservative government instead of a coalition, that's it, that's the only effect the whole of Scotland's vote had, Nick Clegg.

I think one of the worst outcomes for Scotland would be a 'yes' vote by a very slim majority. If almost half the country gets unwillingly dragged into independence by a tiny majority I think there will be huge bitterness and disaffection. I cannot see that that is in Scotland's interests at all.

I think from this point of view it was a mistake not to insist on the yes vote being a two thirds majority to enact independence. Almost everywhere else in the world you have to have a supermajority or a double majority of some kind to enact big constitutional changes, not just a simple majority. Mind you I suspect the SNP knew that that would never be achievable - there just isn't the depth of nationalist sentiment to achieve it.

It may well yet prove to be a good tactical gamble on Cameron's part though - if the motion fails, Cameron will be able to say to the SNP, "you have had the vote on the terms that you wanted, and you couldn't win it, now stop whining."

I also think the idea that Scotland is exclusively an oppressed and colonised nation is simplistic. Many Scots did very well out of the Empire period of the Union. They were perfectly happy to jump on the bandwagon of empire and did very well out of colonising other countries, settling in them, exploiting their resources and bringing wealth back to Scotland. Scotland is every bit as much a colonial exploiter as England is.

My main fear for a yes vote is that it could set off everything in NI again. I've been going there for 20 years and it so different now. It's prosperous. It looks better off than the little bit of England I live in (quite possibly is). Yep there are still some flagged areas; 'why's that bridge painted in the French flag mummy?' as my 9 year old said; but it's so much better than it was. The idea of sending it back 20+ years horrifies me.

Other than that, if I lived in Scotland I'd be voting no as I don't think the economic arguments add up at all (I work in an area related to universities and I think research would really struggle under iScotland), but if they vote yes then my particular area will almost certainly benefit economically from the moves in naval work.

I do think the closeness of the vote means the whole debate has been damaging.

I think one of the worst outcomes for Scotland would be a 'yes' vote by a very slim majority. If almost half the country gets unwillingly dragged into independence by a tiny majority I think there will be huge bitterness and disaffection. I cannot see that that is in Scotland's interests at all

I agree.

I think it's apparent that the media have turned this into a "Scots hate the English" campaign which it really isn't and it really saddens me to see comments on here about laughing and "I hope they eff off".
I think it's disgusting. Surely you have the intelligence to realise it is about Scotland being in charge of their own money.

I'd hate to be a person who wishes a country ill. I think it's disgusting.

Many Scots did very well out of the Empire period of the Union. They were perfectly happy to jump on the bandwagon of empire and did very well out of colonising other countries, settling in them, exploiting their resources and bringing wealth back to Scotland.
There were a lot of Scots (and Irish, Welsh and even English, as well as other nationalities) who were perfectly willing to exploit their own countries and countrymen and women, as well. Frequently in the name of being British, and with the backing of the British government/government forces. As many people (both in England and elsewhere) see British and English as interchangeable terms, I can see where the confusion about the English exclusively being the oppressors comes from.

Phyllis, again I agree with every word. Particularly about the hypocrisy around empire and colonialism. Where do people think Glasgow got its immense wealth and its beautiful Merchant City from? And have people forgotten about it being, in the nineteenth century, the 'Second City of the Empire'?

ninjaleprechaun has said much of what i think. the tate gallery in london (x2) and liverpool are named after the scottish slavers who brought their illgotten wealth back to britain. scotland was 'sold out' to britain by their own clan chiefs, they were never colonised by the english. this is a myth that scots use to hide from their past. is the independent scotland going to face up to its responsibilities with regard to northern ireland or the west indies where everyone has a scottish 'name' left to them by slavers?

If it wasn't for Falsane I'd be quite happy for Scotland to separate, in fact if be happy.

However, I support Trident and therefore potential independence is a risk.

If Scotland vote yes, use pound, close Falsane and also renage on their debt I would be quite happy for rest of uk to punish them into the ground.

if scotland reneges on its share of the national debt will other nations trust them to trade honestly?

creighton I'm not sure that's what I said, or not the whole of it anyway. The majority of people in Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales, during the British Empire were simply engaged in minding their own business, and were often being just as exploited as those elsewhere. Including those who were employed in the Army, risking life and (literally) limb because it happened to be the best (or, sometimes, only) way to not let themselves or their families starve to death.
Some of them were slavers, yes, but some of them were also slaves, so it all seems to blur somewhere along the line.

And Scottish colonialism was not all exclusively at the behest of or in collaboration with the nasty English. It was Scotland's own colonialism in part which precipitated the need for the Union at all - the failure of the Darien scheme in Panama.

Colonialism and who benefits from it is always a complex picture. But I don't think it was exclusively the aristocracy/mercantile class in Scotland who did well out of Empire. Think of the huge Scottish diaspora in Canada, for example. I know it was tough and many of them left Scotland because of the Highland clearances - but ultimately they and their descendants probably had a better life than they would have had subsistence farming in the Highlands - at the expense of Native peoples in Canada. Even relatively ordinary people can play their part in exploitation.

So I think painting the independence debate in terms of Scotland the oppressed is a bit .

If they vote Yes, then I hope it works out. I personally think the odds are it won't be as rosy as they think so IF I had a vote I would probably err on the side of caution and vote No.

Either way, I've emigrated to America for the next 3 weeks so I don't have to hear about it ;)

NinjaLeprechaun You paint a very strange picture of the Georgian and Victorian working class as too ground-down, oppressed and/or politically disempowered and apathetic to have had any interest in the marauding antics of the evil and rapacious upper classes.

A look at Victorian music-hall songs might complicate that view a little bit. Plenty of the working classes in the UK during that time were cheerfully imperialist, nationalistic (the word 'jingoism' comes from a music-hall song advocating war with Russia over Istanbul) and entirely supportive of the Empire.

(Arguably the English working classes still are nationalistic in very much the same vein, much to the disgust of Blair and his middle-class liberal ilk, who believe English nationalism is dangerous and faintly disgusting and certainly frightfully non-U.)

So I think painting the independence debate in terms of Scotland the oppressed is a bit .
I don't think I've seen any of this (although I'm not in the UK I have been following along) but more in regards to the way Scotland is seen to be treated today. Maybe with a few allusions to the idea that the relationship has always been an unequal one, but not a calling out of past grievances per se.

I don't think there's a country in the world that has a squeaky-clean record in regards to human rights, but as long as that behaviour is in the past and not the present I don't think it should effect how a country goes forward. (And, personally, I have no use for 'historical apologies'.)
After all, how many people still hold a grudge against Denmark over the whole Viking thing?

The first line of that last post was meant to be in italics, it's a quote.

Manatee the time period I'm referring to is largely pre-Victorian. But jingoism can certainly be used to exploit. In fact, it usually is.

Ninja I suspect you and I have different views on the tractability of large groups of people. Certainly it's true that nationalism can be abused - viz North Korea. But I know enough about the culture of eighteenth and nineteenth-century England to doubt very much that the dominant narrative of that period was of a venal and cynical aristocracy calculatedly whipping up nationalist fervour in a brainwashed and Baldrick-like peasantry, in the interests of storming overseas and exploiting foreign nations.

From where we stand today (at least in England) it's difficult to imagine the overwhelming majority of ordinary English people being passionately nationalistic. The two world wars pretty much killed off any enthusiasm for nationalism across Europe. But before WW1, people really did take a very different perspective - not just those at the very top, but most people. You could be executed for treason, and most people would have said 'And a good thing too!' not 'Look at those evil toffs using violence to enforce the dominant status quo'.

WW1 and WW2 were so horrible I think they put everyone off nationalism. So we just don't have the same beliefs about loyalty to one's nation as we used to. But extrapolating from our present consciousness/belief system to that of eighteenth or nineteenth century England is a category error.