FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Yay!!! And there was much rejoicing.

   
Author Topic: Yay!!! And there was much rejoicing.
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
Erm I mean, it was a well vigorous campaign where everyone got a say and I am glad that we can put this silly business behind and move on working to better ourselves and each other.

Scottland shall not serve pour encourager les autres... Looking at you [Suckit]Quebec[/Suckit].

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm hoping that you're not completely familiar with the context of your French quote.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
I am fully familiar. [Wink] Though I am pretty sure I'm not using it in its proper context. I think if I took out the 'not' it would work better, but I'm trying to say "Hey, separatist ethnocentrists, heard you like referendums, guess who had one and it failed too, haha!"
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post 
It just struck me as wildly inappropriate. I don't think independence can be compared to being shot for losing.

Although the radical part of my soul wouldn't have complained if Cameron had had to fall on his sword if 'yes' had won.

Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post 
I knew this was coming, but hadn't read much about it until the last week and i have to say, I'm really glad of the outcome. I think Scotland has some very legitimate grievances, what with being more to the left of England, but constantly outvoted by numbers alone, and the yes camp had some very specific things that they wanted to do without England in regards to the NHS, nukes, etc. However, separation was going to be an economic disaster in the short and long term. There are people elsewhere in the UK who match Scotland politically, and without the body of Scots supporting those interests, the UK would have a huge shift to the right.

I get the impression the election scared David Cameron and England again, and there could be some constitutional changes that will hopefully fix at least some of what wasn't working.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Not much rejoicing at all in the pub where I was singing last night.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
appropriate to a scottish independence referendum, vote tabulation from some regions was delayed on account of heavy fog
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post 
This is going to turn out to be a disaster for Scotland. The conservative party will have a scorched earth policy when it comes to Scottish finances and the 'vow' of more devolution has already gone up in smoke.

But they deserve it. They voted for this and now they'll have to live with it. Food banks, millions of pounds in cuts per year, no more bargaining power in London, no more say for Scottish MPs in national affairs, leaving the EU in three years, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, permanent new powers for the Conservatives who they never vote for, and the inability to sing their own national anthem without getting laughed and pointed at by the entire English population and half of their own electorate.

In Glasgow right now there are mobs doing Nazi salutes and beating up anyone with a Saltire. Yesterday in the same place there were singing crowds of happy, hopeful families. That's what they've voted for.

The voters under 55 years old voted for independence. Those over 65, the baby boomers who have screwed over every other rising generation in order to keep their pensions (which are guaranteed anyway), voted for Westminster. The entire British establishment fed them nothing but direct lies, and without internet access, they were unable to discover the truth.

There was only one Sunday newspaper who supported independence. One, and no dailys. All the TV channels were anti, the BBC was incredibly biased - taking Scottish money and feeding them direct lies. All the Westminster political parties. All the businesses and banks who were bailed out said they would make life slightly more difficult for the rich - which was somehow reported to mean everyone. By this evening, it had already been stated that Scotland will get nothing unless England first gets more.

A proud day for Scotland, this. And I say that as someone who has much loved family members who voted No. I'm proud to say that I will never vote in another British election. I will never move back to my home country. I'm not Scottish, but I always believed in things like the BBC, in fair play, in some lack of the corruption I see all around in other countries. This has shown me that I was wrong. The day I can take another nationality, I will do so.

I am disgusted with my country today. I honestly don't think that's ever going to change. I have see the true face of Britain for the first time in these last two weeks, and it is ugly and corrupt as sin.

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I am disgusted with my country today.
Yup we've all been there at some point or another unless we live in like finland or something. Just remember that it could be worse. Your prime minister isn't Tony Abbot. Your country doesn't possess a Rob Ford. You aren't Italy or Greece.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Like even when George W. Bush was our president and Dick Cheney was the vice president I could at least say I lived in a place where most people didn't have to know what a Berlusconi is
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post 
It's more that I can see what the country is about to become. It's bad now, but getting more right wing by the day. I was back there this summer and was shocked. The anti-immigrant, anti-disabled, anti-poor, anti-young rhetoric is heating up there by the day.

And sadly where I live now is equally bad. Spain just spent a billion euros of money they don't have kitting out their police with weaponry so that peaceful protest will become an impossibility. Britain is doing the same thing. At least I don't get spat at in the street because I come from another European country here yet. Yet.

What breaks my heart is that people here tell me that they're moving to Britain to be free of the corruption, and I have to tell them that they are mistaken. The massive level of corruption in Britain is just better hidden, but it is there. People here say ' But your politicians resign! They even go to prison!' They don't realise that those same politicians are often back in Westminster in months.

But it has been the UK corporate media's reign of disinformation and lying and the sight of all the political parties standing together in lockstep against democracy that has really shocked me this time. I haven't been this sad since we invaded Iraq. That time, I believed that one day there would be something better. This time, I know that hope and change are impossible. I have seen five elections running on 'Hope and Change' now in different countries. Every time the people bought it, and it has done nothing for them.

Next week we're invading Iraq again. Voting is pointless when all the parties are the same, working for the same global elite. Years ago I thought that the people of 15-M were exaggerating. Now I know they are right, but that they will never be allowed to stage another protest like that again.

This has just laid it bare for me, all the stuff I tried to deny in order to believe in a better world. There's not going to be a better world, because no one of us will ever have access to the kind of money it takes to build one. That money is in the hands of our 'betters' now, the people who own everything, and we need to bow down.

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
the central europe madness right now is an ongoing crapfest between radical islamic young people and terrified old white people, each adding their own ugly to the mix and everything else rots out and gets nationalistic and weird
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post 
I was hoping for a yes vote just because I was curious to see what would happen. No is probably better (though maybe not, I'm not there and don't know all the issues) but it would have been interesting to watch and see how it all turned out.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
As a Scot, I have mixed feelings. On one hand I would have loved it if Scotland had full independence.

On the other hand, most of the driving force behind the independence movement was to implement greater social welfare programs soon after. That, combined with other economic factors, would have bankrupted the country before it really even got off the ground. If you want huge social programs, you need to be fairly established already. I know Scotland wanted to sell oil, but other than that, what do they really have? Some awesome golf courses?

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post 
Scotland actually has a higher GDP than England if you count the oil - even the Unionists couldn't disagree with that (although they still made out that Scotland was 'subsidised' meaning that Scotland pays taxes to London and gets part of the money back). It would be something like the 14th richest country in the world.

I do think that it was clear to most people that the really massive socialist policies would have to wait a while. But when you live in the fifth biggest economy in the world and have people going to food banks to feed their children, something is wrong. That did not used to be the case in the UK until very recently. While the economy is growing now, every government policy is based on punishing the poor, the young and the disabled. Benefits are being taken from the most vulnerable to give tax breaks to the richest. The health service has begun to be privatised, moving towards an American system (even though it is regularly lauded as one of the most successful and efficient systems in the world). Coincidentally, many MPs now have very lucrative connections in the private healthcare world. While education, law and health care is devolved, Scotland's budget is decided by London, so they don't have control over their own finances. If England decide to cut, Scotland gets cuts too, whether they are paying more or less.

It will be interesting to see just how much Scotland is punished now. The 'timetable' for more devolution that all the party leaders signed up to is already slipping. The Prime Miniter has already announced that he wants to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English matters before any further powers are given to Scotland - not part of his previous promise. This will mean that Scottish MPs will never be able to act as party leaders, as Prime Minister or Chancellor, and are unlikely to ever be chosen for cabinet positions in the future. This suits the independence campaigners just fine, for as Scotland's influence in London further declines, so will their perceived connection to the union.

There is also a great likelihood that this will mean that the unpopular Conservatives become the main English party, and will make it incredibly difficult for a future Labour government to ever have a majority over issues like the budget. Labour are one of the biggest parties in Scotland and are less popular in England, especially in the South. While Labour were the ones who first devised the idea for new powers in Scotland as a way to get their much needed No vote, they have walked directly into David Cameron's trap, and are now fighting to stop him from reducing their influence. This may have a bearing on whether Scotland ever sees any new powers at all. It may also lose Labour the next election, leading to Scotland being once again ruled by a party who the vast majority of Scots actively hate.

The question of what the powers would be is another unanswered question. So far, nobody really has any idea what they would entail. What is clear is that the British government will try their best to reduce the funding that Scotland gets from their oil and taxes, making Scots poorer.

Basically, they're screwed - independence wouldn't have been a picnic and they likely wouldn't have been better off financially but neither will they be now. There is a serious vindictive streak in the relationship between England and Scotland (perhaps why 'God Save The Queen' still has a verse about 'rebellious Scots to crush'), and it will be a popular English vote winner to give the Scots less, a huge vote loser to give them more.

20,000 people just joined the pro-independence Scottish Nationalist Party in four days, and there is almost certainly an In/Out referendum on EU membership happening in two years (Scotland is massively pro-European, England is massively anti-European). If Scotland is hammered too hard, or if they are forced to leave the European Union against their will, I can see them leaving the union in ten to fifteen years, if not sooner.

And on that day, I'll probably be a bit sad, but the Unionists will absolutely deserve it, for their lies.

[ September 22, 2014, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Scotland actually has a higher GDP than England if you count the oil
Like hell it does. Norway doesn't have a higher GDP than the UK. Did you mean "GDP per capita"? If so, possible, but also note that GDP per cap is the kind of statistic that's easily tweakable to show whatever you like.

quote:
more to the left of England, but constantly outvoted by numbers alone
Oh well, imagine the horror of being outvoted by numbers alone! Just what exactly do you think they ought to have been outvoted by, if not numbers? Also, pity the poor British National Party, so far to the right of Attila and constantly being outvoted by those damn numbers.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post 
Yep on the first point. Fair dos.

On the second point you seem to be misunderstanding me. The British National Nazis are not a country. What is the problem (whether you or I like it, or agree with it, or not - personally, in some ways I think it's overstated, in others correct) that the Scots identify themselves as having is basically taxation without representation. They vote Labour, and get a Conservative government nearly every time. That means that there's a government who a) doesn't represent them and b) doesn't care to do anything to help them as the Conservatives do not need Scottish votes. Which is why, in the past, the Scots have been used for taxation 'experiments'. This is not the case now, but it wasn't very long ago and there's a lot of bitterness.

So. You could also argue that they're basically Texas, who might vote Republican and get Democrat. Unfortunately, the difference can also be boiled down to Texas=not a country. Scotland=country.

[ September 23, 2014, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Texas was a sovereign country more recently than Scotland. Just what are you using as your metric for country-ness and therefore deserving of representation, other than "Bella Bee likes 'em"? And why is being a country the decisive factor anyway, other than it being the first thing you thought of that puts the BNP outside of the class of things that don't have to put up with being outnumbered?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post 
I really don't get why you are comparing a political party with a country. If nobody votes for a political party, they don't have representation in government. If a country votes overwhelmingly for a political party, they might expect that political party to.become their government. What you're saying is like comparing apples and armadillos. They're just not the same thing at all and I really don't get your point.

Scotland is still a country. Texas was a country and is now a state. Scotland is not a state. That's not my choice, it's just a fact.

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post 
Also worth pointing out that the Opposition in the US has a lot more influence than the Opposition in a Westminister-style parliament. Texas gets more out of being a bastion for the GOP than Scotland gets for being bastion for Labour. Especially considering how much authority States have in the US. Without a proper State/Provincial type government, Scotland has nowhere near the same cushion that Texas or Quebec has in case of Federal antipathy.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That's not my choice, it's just a fact.
You're not being clear. Is your argument that Scotland is named a 'country' in UK law, and that Texas is named a 'state' in American law, or are you talking about some *criteria* (beyond what they're called) whose presence determines Scotland to be a country and whose absence determines Texas to not be a country?

E.g. perhaps you are talking about the existence of a separate Scottish people and a separate Scottish national tradition -- while Texans were merely American immigrants who imperialistically grabbed a piece of Mexico and made it independent just so it would unite with the USA afterwards (much like Russia is e.g. doing with Crimea & Eastern Ukraine).

That would be my explanation about how Scotland differs from Texas, but I don't know if it's yours.

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post 
All of those reasons. Legal, representational and cultural. And the fact that, although they voted to stay part of the Union, Scottish people are much more likely to call themselves Scottish than British. Immigrants to Scotland tend to refer to themselves as 'Scottish-Asian' or 'Scottish-Italian', or just as new Scots. This differs from England, where 'British-...' is usually preferred. There is a perceived cultural difference there.

And there is clearly a constitutional difference from somewhere like Spain where the constitution prohibits autonomous regions leaving the nation without the agreement of all the other regions. If the Scottish parliament has a mandate for a referendum, nobody has to ask Northern Ireland if that's okay, for example. So as far as the Spanish are concerned, the upcoming referendum in Catalonia is illegal. Not the case in Scotland, and one of the reasons why legally (although they would not have wanted to) Spain would have to have recognized Scotland as an independent country, if they had chosen that. I believe that is also the case with Texas, no? They would have to have the agreement of representatives of the other states? Tell me if I'm wrong here, it's years since I studied the Civil War.

I want to point out again that I'm not Scottish. I'm English. What I'm doing there is basically mentioning some of the reasons why 45% of Scottish people wanted independence.

For me, it's not that independence would have been some kind of panacea. It's just that I can see that now there will basically be nothing but trouble from now on. You can't have a country split almost 50/50 mostly on the basis of age and income, and have it end well. I'm pretty angry also about the dirty tricks campaign that was pulled by the Establishment, and I imagine so are a lot of younger Scots. The level of propaganda was far higher even than that leading up to the second Iraq War. It was wall to wall.

This could cause major disruption and lead to Scotland eventually leaving the union under far more bitter circumstances. And I do think that the Scots will end up being severely punished by the UK government for their 'rebellion'. I wanted a campaign which at least mentioned some of the positive and lovely things about the Union, which encouraged the UK to become closer and work together. Instead they ran a campaign so bitter, deceitful and divisive that it made my 90 year old Grandmother scared that she was going to lose her pension, savings, house and passport - none of which are true, but the media would not report the facts. They made her believe that Yes campaigners were all violent thugs (Police Scotland had to debunk the No propaganda on this issue, as it was getting out of hand and completely defied reality). They scared her so much she couldn't sleep. She didn't have the internet, only the trusted state controlled media (BBC). She voted No because she thought the world was ending. That's just not democracy. If I am this angry (when independence is not important to me) imagine how the Scottish youth will feel. Imagine how they'll feel when the promises are not kept and they have fewer funds.

Do I think it would have been better to go now? Absolutely. Just get the thing done and move on. If there had been a fairer fight, this might have been a unifying experience. Now the anger and resentment will fester. I don't see much good that will come from this, or any hope now that the Union will survive long term. The campaign gave no reasons why it should. At least Quebec got a love-bomb rally. And if this is what the Union is now (not what I believed and hoped it to be), then it should end.

Basically, I hoped that they had learned something from what happened with Ireland. Obviously not.

[ September 23, 2014, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
so you're thinking like, what, that scotland is gonna kind of fester roughly akin to a flanders situation, or

man idk

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post 
Pretty much, just without the linguistic thing.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post 
So much of that sounds like US politics. I really need to bone up on my British Empire governmental systems and what not. I really don't know enough about it to have an opinion but would like to.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I really don't get why you are comparing a political party with a country.
A political party consists of some number of people. A country also consists of some number of people. Both are organisations, that is to say, they exist in the heads of the people comprising them, and those people who have been convinced to pay attention to this consensus. I don't see what makes one more, or less, worthy of getting to override a majority than the other.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:

On the other hand, most of the driving force behind the independence movement was to implement greater social welfare programs soon after. That, combined with other economic factors, would have bankrupted the country before it really even got off the ground. If you want huge social programs, you need to be fairly established already. I know Scotland wanted to sell oil, but other than that, what do they really have? Some awesome golf courses?

Yeah um, this isn't even remotely inherently true and seems generally to make a lot of assumptions. Its not like Scotland lacks institutions or is some wild blank slate of wilderness that needs "time" for the corporatists to take over to save scots from using the resources should belong to all scots to benefit all scots, oh dearie me.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:

On the other hand, most of the driving force behind the independence movement was to implement greater social welfare programs soon after. That, combined with other economic factors, would have bankrupted the country before it really even got off the ground. If you want huge social programs, you need to be fairly established already. I know Scotland wanted to sell oil, but other than that, what do they really have? Some awesome golf courses?

Yeah um, this isn't even remotely inherently true and seems generally to make a lot of assumptions. Its not like Scotland lacks institutions or is some wild blank slate of wilderness that needs "time" for the corporatists to take over to save scots from using the resources should belong to all scots to benefit all scots, oh dearie me.
Yes, it is absolutely true. Part of the driving force behind the movement was that the people of Scottland weren't receiving enough benefits from the UK. This was a main selling point for those that were pushing independence. Essentially, they were telling the people that if they voted for independence, they would be able to set up their own social welfare programs, that they felt would be superior to the UK's programs.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
Um no, you misunderstood. I said it isn't inherently true that welfare programs bankrupt the state.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2