General Election - June 8th

[TinfoilHattie]

Another vote.

Can totally understand why May has made this move and it is very interersting from a Scottish perspective. Less about Brexit, more about another independence referendum.

I am very torn on who to vote for. It was exceptionally close between SNP and Lib Dem here last time round so it will probably be Lib Dem, but if polls show more chance of the Conservatives or Labour getting the SNP MP out on his ear I'd vote for either of those too. (V unlikely that Labour would be in that position though). Wouldn't ever vote Green.

Anyone else still undecided how they will vote?

Is Nichola Sturgeon the most annoying politician ever? Just asking!

Full list of candidates standing in each Scottish constituency.

Use your vote wisely, folks.

stv.tv/news/politics/1388688-general-election-2017-full-of-candidates-in-scotland/

I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the Conservative manifesto in its effort to try and move to a more central position. Also it was good to see Theresa May up supporting Ruth Davidson today for the Scottish Manifesto launch. I wonder if Jeremy will support Kezia Dugdale in the same manner?

I agree Bejazzled, I am pretty happy with the central ground the Tories are wanting to occupy and think it will go down well across the whole of the UK. Throwing off a lot of Thatcherite principles (and steering the conversation that way so that everyone's talking about it) will probably boost her popularity in Scotland too. It will be interesting to see what the electoral map looks like after this election. I wouldn't be surprised if the Borders, North East, and maybe Edinburgh turn blue.

anybody found any good coverage of the Scottish conservative manifesto?

JC supporting Kezia? All the way to an SNP-labour alliance I expect.

Nyx

Who's to say that the tories will be in power in Westminster for a long time? The SNP turnaround was phenomenal. From hardly any seats to 56 in the space of one election.

If labour does badly and a new centrist party is formed as a result, especially if it's willing to form a coalition in the event of a hung parliament it could easily attract more votes than the tories in the 2022 election.

Did you know that the snp used to be referred to as the 'Tartan Tories'?

Hi Rogue, I would like to think that the tories could be ousted in 2022 but haven't much confidence of it.

I did know that about the name 'Tartan Tories', thanks. People call the SNP lots of things.

Indeed. Eg the SNP politicians never ever refer to the conservative party by its name. It's always 'The Tories.' I wonder why that is.

I mentioned the 'tartan tories' to make the point that political preferences can and do change in a lifetime.

I have never heard a positive case for Scotland being an independent country without saying why it would supposedly be better than being in UK.

What is good about being a small country? If SNP can make a good case for this without referring to either Norway, Switzerland or NZ I'd really like to hear it. If Scotland is an optimum size for being a sovereign state what would be the benefit when we already have a devolved government? We are smaller than some of the USA states.

There are no significant cultural, religious, linguistic, political or geographical differences between Scotland and rUK and we share a small land mass, so the reason for becoming independent would have to be positive and important. What, other than the symbolism of having full sovereignity would that be?

I am at work so can't sit and type a long answer but just wondering why I'm not allowed to point to similar sized, successful countries in my answer?

There are cultural, linguistic and political and geographical differences between Scotland and rUK. What would qualify as 'significant'?

The reason that positive cases include reasons why it would be better than being in UK is that otherwise you're talking about positive reasons to be independent which are not better than being in the UK. Which is kind of self-defeating?!

Our devolved government does not have the autonomy of some of the US states.

Also the Conservative and Unionist Party MPs often refer to the SNP as 'the Nationalists', I wonder why that is.

Similar sized countries make a case for it to be possible for Scotland to be an independent country but that's not the same as making a case for it to be a good idea for Scotland to be independent. Or for small countries in general to be a good idea.

Significant differences would be
predominantly different religions, eg if the majority of the Scottish population was a different religion from the majority of rUK,
a different majority/official language,
an identifiable difference in major values,
different climate - Scotland is as a whole colder than rUK, but not significantly - the islands of Britain have a temperate climate

There are no differences significant enough to justify two separate sovereign states.

The case for independence ought to be about more than leaving the UK. At the moment it's all about being free from the rUK. I might be slightly more sympathetic if there was a case for small countries. Not that Britain is a large country anyway.

Geographically it makes sense to have one government for the island(s) of Britain. Eg for defence. Ireland is a different matter.

OMG rogue. What on earth have small countries done to you that you think they shouldn't exist?! Had to laugh at your 'if there was a case for small countries'.

Also raised an eyebrow at your list of acceptable 'significant differences'. So Scotland would need to have a completely different climate to justify being an independent country? Really? And you don't think people of different religions should mingle or something? I am afraid I don't agree with the importance/relevance of your list of 'significant differences' at all.

Anyway, the first thing that comes to mind - significant differences - is that Scottish law is different from rUK. Also, in Scotland the people are sovereign, in rUK it's Parliament. Which to my mind is pretty fundamental. There is a different currency - well, sort of!

Off the top of my head, although I am amazed to think that there is an acceptable size...do you mean in landmass or population, by the way?
Are we talking the size of Russia, America, Canada? Are you taking Europe to be one country or do you count the EU as making the small countries in it worthwhile? Sorry, got sidetracked there. A small country/population with reasonable resources and import/exports etc (which Scotland is!) is more capable of looking after her own population than if it was a much larger country, i.e. a more manageable welfare state.

You haven't made a case for small countries being the most manageable/successful/logical/desirable. I assume that's because you can't. I haven't said that any size of country is or isn't acceptable. Where did you get that from? To convince people to break up an existing, successful country you need to have some positive justification. Your argument seems to be, 'Very small countries can be successful therefore we should become a very small country.'

What is your evidence for asserting that A small country with reasonable resources and imports/exports etc.......is more capable of looking after her own population than if it was a much larger country, i.e. a more manageable welfare state ?

Rogue, I haven't made a case for small countries being the MOST manageable/successful/logical/desirable because I don't see the point. A country is the size it is. Scotland is a country currently within a union, I don't see the UK as being one large country. I think this is where we differ quite a bit. However, it doesn't matter what I say here, because I could come up with argument after argument and you would say they are not significant enough. I notice you haven't mentioned my points above about significant differences.

I took the welfare state thing from the top of my head, not from something I can evidence, simply because it seems to me logical that if there are fewer people, then a welfare state is more manageable. Especially if the country has decent resources, as Scotland has. It's not like we have nothing.

From Gideon Rachman in the FT "For Nations, Small is Beautiful": "Globalisation has opened up markets across the world. China and India are getting richer largely because they have access to the markets of the developed world, not because of the size of their domestic markets. Small countries can trade their way to success even more swiftly. Think of Singapore or Switzerland.
Small is also no longer synonymous with insecure.
In Europe, many minnows have enhanced their security by joining Nato. This is sometimes denounced as free-riding. Belgium or Luxembourg can afford to be small, secure and smug – because they are under the security umbrella, proffered by big and generous Uncle Sam.
But joining a collective security organisation is not an absolute necessity for a small country. Ireland and Switzerland are not members of Nato – and neither appears to be in imminent danger of invasion.
The fact is large countries are now less instinctively expansionist than they were in the days of empire. These days, invading and occupying small countries can be a massive pain in the neck – as the US has discovered in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since the traditional disadvantages of being a tiddly country are disappearing, you are just left with the advantages.
Above all, small countries tend to be more homogenous. This makes them less prone to civil strife or dictatorship. It also means higher levels of social trust – which may be why small Scandinavian states are willing to spend so much on health and education and fare so well on human development indices.
Governments in small countries also find it easier to craft and implement policy – an advantage that might be replicated in the US by federalism. Small, homogenous countries should also be less tempted to waste money on pork-barrel projects, designed to buy off discontented minorities."

That article was from 10 years ago or so, but I don't see that anything in it is any different than if it had been written 1 year ago. I await my dismissal with bated breath. I can't imagine you'll agree with anything I've said above but please show me where you disagree, thanks.

Larger countries have economies of scale, as pps have said.

Also fewer borders.

Until recently smaller countries/principalities have tended to unify into larger countries and subsequently prospered and engaged in fewer wars. This feels like progress to me. Human beings co-operating and working together instead of pursuing the narrower interests of nationalism which encourage competition instead of co-operation.

Significant differences that would justify sovereignity would be religious differences - these influence law-making and cultural norms. This doesn't apply to Britain.

Geographical differences which would influence agricultural/energy/building policies eg different climates or landscape features aren't significant in Britain either.

We all speak English in Britain.

Small countries suffer from brain drain as specialisms increase globally.

Nationality is just an accident of birth.

"Until recently smaller countries/principalities have tended to unify into larger countries and subsequently prospered and engaged in fewer wars. This feels like progress to me. Human beings co-operating and working together instead of pursuing the narrower interests of nationalism which encourage competition instead of co-operation."

Well, yes. See Brexit and Scotland being pulled out of the EU against the will of a significant majority of our population

Nyx,
Moray voted closely to remain. Had they voted for leave would you advocate that it remained in the UK?
London too should go alone because it voted remain. Indeed, perhaps we should break down the vote by city or even better by street or by household.

Besides, I have always found puzzling the argument that the UK should be split based on opinion polls or referenda... So, let's say Scotland goes alone, but shortly after for whatever reason public opinion shifts, what then, do they rejoin the union or what? And will they break away again when public opinion shifts AGAIN? Public opinion is notoriously fickle; are we sure a narrow majority achieved over a very short period of time should be enough to kill a union that has existed for 300 years (400 hundred if you count the union of the crowns).
Also, I would expect that Orkney and Shetland would go alone because historically they are not part of Scotland. Also the Hebrides have a different language and are much more devout, and both these reasons would be an excellent idea to split Scotland further.
Let's not forget the kingdom of Fife either... and why should we...

Arkadia, no, I am not saying that at all, as I expect you know. And it was Rogue who started the whole 'if you're different religions you have a case for being a different country' thing. I am not saying that the EU vote means we should split according to what was voted where. Of course. However I am told that it's ok to take Scotland out because 'the UK' voted to leave. While the population of Scotland voted - by a healthy majority, and on the whole - to stay.

Do you really truly think that the Hebrides should not be part of Scotland because they are more devout? I don't think you do, really.

I only mentioned the EU vote because Rogue pointed out the case for human beings working together etc etc. It would be good if Westminster believed in working together but they don't. Look at my previous posts for my reasoning.

I was a bit taken aback at having to defend the case for a smaller country against a larger one. To me, we are not 'a larger country' at the moment. We are part of a union of countries and in my opinion this union is not good for us and is stifling our progress and is dragging us backwards and downwards. So there you go. That's what I think. It's quite straightforward really.

a bit taken aback at having to defend the case for a smaller country against a larger one

Such a massive step should be argued not just in relation to UK or not UK.

Scotland has done extremely well as part of the UK. We're less stifled as part of a bigger, older country than as a little new country.

You asked me to explain why Scotland is not significantly different from rUK and why this matters. It matters because we're part of the same (small) island. And we have the same language, long history, culture, religions, climate, institutions etc. Therefore there has to be a very strong reason to put a border across the middle of that island. If there were differences it would be understandable, but there aren't.

Anyone happy to break up the long established union as a result of narrow majority vote in a referendum should be prepared to explain their position in detail with as much evidence as possible and very strong justification which relies on more than just the opinion that they think we'll be better off.

I realise that this is the case with the EU referendum too, but the hideous mismanagement of that is not enough reason to take Scotland out of UK against the will of almost half its population.

The SNP candidate for my constituency was at my door this evening. According to him, this election is "about Brexit". The conservative party certainly agrees with him. Not for me it's not. He tried to explain why it should be about Brexit for me by detailing the very adverse affects of TM negotiating a deal with USA which would allow USA meat to be sold here with the lower USA welfare standards making Scottish meat uncompetitive. But this would apply across the UK. Unlike him I care about everyone in the UK. He thought I might have agricultural connections because of my accent so was trying to appeal to my (selfish) interests. He said it was heartbreaking to think of England under a cruel conservative government but is facilitating this by splitting the anti-conservative vote and is happy to leave the rest of the UK to its own misery apparently.

No independence campaigner should be taken aback at having to defend of justify wanting to break the UK into smaller countries.

the case for human beings working together Why would a Scottish parliament believe in working together any more than a UK parliament? Are Scottish people more moral?

Arkadia is pointing out the folly of deciding massive, long-lasting, probably irrevocable matters on the basis of the current opinion of little more than half the electorate at one point in history.

And pointing out the reductio ad absurdam problem of the case for Scottish independence from rUK.

'Scotland has done extremely well as part of the UK'

No it hasn't for most of the time it's been in union. Most recently yes but it's been contributing more than it has got in return for most of the time.

Scotland can and should manage its own affairs now. It's being dragged out of the EU single market and could decide to negotiate for itself if it wasn't tied to rUK. Other reasons to self manage include differences in voting behaviour and not getting the governments we vote for, a media who demonise Scotland telling people that Scotland is stealing the UK's money and so on.

A border if there was one would be down to the English throwing their toys out of the pram for spite IMO

Agree with Calyx. Also, "We're less stifled as part of a bigger, older country than as a little new country. " This makes no sense. In what way would we be stifled as a country governing ourselves (as just about every other country gets to do, by the way)? We are absolutely the definition of being stifled at the moment. Why do you think the independence movement is doing so well? 56 out of 59 MPs in Scotland last time were for a pro-Indy party. We are no longer a tiny minority, but now half of the population of Scotland. Why do you think that is? And remember that this is despite the vast majority of the mainstream media, newspaper headlines, conservative and labour MPs being absolutely scathing about independence. Your attitude that the very idea of Scotland independence is absurd is getting more and more ridiculous every day.

www.commonspace.scot/articles/10115/new-report-independent-scotlands-customs-and-borders

Hard border not necessary

I've never had the government I've voted for. That's partly a result of the FPTP voting system. In any country there will be people who don't get the government they've voted for. The current Holyrood government wasn't voted for by a majority of the population or even the electorate. According to the snp candidate at my door last night my constituency vote will be between him and the conservatives (not sure I believe him actually)

Scotland is a safe, stable, democratic prosperous country; successful in my book.

dragged out of the single market suppose the indy ref had been in favour of leaving UK by a narrow majority. Everyone who voted against would be dragged out of the UK. This is a problem of referendums when only 50% of the electorate who turn out make the decision.

There's no reason to think Scotland would get a better deal in EU negotiations that rUK. And we would have to negotiate a deal with rUK.

A media who demonise Scotland I'm sorry but that is absolutely not the case IMO. Laura Kuensberg (sp?), Eddie Mair, Andrew Neil, Sarah Smith; to name just a few of the many very high profile Scottish news presenters. Scotland probably was demonised in the past in the media. Not now.

x-posted with Nyx re 'stifled' - UK for historical reasons has a much bigger voice internationally - G8 etc. Scotland wouldn't.

The claim that a hard border wouldn't be necessary is highly debatable.