Any concession would unpopular with those MPs. There is probably a strong school of thought in the Tory ranks that there should be no referendum and Scotland should shut up and do what its told by people who know better i.e. them.
I doubt it will unravel after the election, though. Labour can't renege on the promise without losing even more MPs in Scotland, so all Cameron needs is a decent number of Tory MPs to support him and he's fine.
I think the big push from Tories in the wake of a not vote is going to be putting a stop to Scottish MPs voting on stuff to do with England (and Wales and NI).
Devolution may fit in with Big Society, but Tories have never really bought into it beyond having volunteers pick up the slack caused by cuts. I doubt they'll want to give up any power to anyone who might disagree with them.
I will have cast my vote in the most unbelievably spectacular event.
Literally the purest form of democracy is going to be practiced on the 18th of September. A people will have the opportunity to exercise their universal right to self-determination and by simple majority settle the result.
No matter what the people of Scotland decide I find this process gob smacking. It genuinely brings a tear to my eye just thinking about how sensational this is.
Not through gun or bomb, death or terror but through negotiation within the existing political process this moment has been achieved.
Just stop, stop for a couple of minutes, step out of your "hurf durf both sides are bad hurf durf" to-cool-for-school mindset and just revel in it.
...
You done that? Good. Now feel free to go back to your hurfing and durfing.
I will have cast my vote in the most unbelievably spectacular event.
Literally the purest form of democracy is going to be practiced on the 18th of September. A people will have the opportunity to exercise their universal right to self-determination and by simple majority settle the result.
No matter what the people of Scotland decide I find this process gob smacking. It genuinely brings a tear to my eye just thinking about how sensational this is.
Not through gun or bomb, death or terror but through negotiation within the existing political process this moment has been achieved.
Just stop, stop for a couple of minutes, step out of your "hurf durf both sides are bad hurf durf" to-cool-for-school mindset and just revel in it.
...
You done that? Good. Now feel free to go back to your hurfing and durfing.
I don't see why you should be happy when I'm in a bad mood because my brain thinks that sleeping is not what I should do when I'm super tired and also have a lot to do, so I'll post this link which will simultaneously make you laugh and also want to strangle kittens until the voices stop:
Oliver also said he thought there was an issue of international trust at stake. “The US fought one of the bloodiest wars in their history to hold its union together,” he said. “They can’t take the UK seriously if they just let their union fade.”
V1m on
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Independent Scotland
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
I'm so glad I'm not Scottish and so have the simple position of selfishly hoping for a No result to keep diluting the nationwide Tory vote, but having nothing I can do about it.
I try to put myself in a Scottish mindest and work out what I would want to vote and I just can't do it. The whole thing has become so bitter and emotionally loaded on both sides that I think I'd just want to bury my head and make it all go away.
I'm so glad I'm not Scottish and so have the simple position of selfishly hoping for a No result to keep diluting the nationwide Tory vote, but having nothing I can do about it.
I try to put myself in a Scottish mindest and work out what I would want to vote and I just can't do it. The whole thing has become so bitter and emotionally loaded on both sides that I think I'd just want to bury my head and make it all go away.
Though there's been a lot of interperson friction over the vote, what do you guys think the reaction will be if the vote varies strongly along Scottish regional lines?
Would the Glaswegian Yes contingent be resentful of the rest of Scotland pulling them into a No? Or vice versa?
I will have cast my vote in the most unbelievably spectacular event.
Literally the purest form of democracy is going to be practiced on the 18th of September. A people will have the opportunity to exercise their universal right to self-determination and by simple majority settle the result.
No matter what the people of Scotland decide I find this process gob smacking. It genuinely brings a tear to my eye just thinking about how sensational this is.
Not through gun or bomb, death or terror but through negotiation within the existing political process this moment has been achieved.
Just stop, stop for a couple of minutes, step out of your "hurf durf both sides are bad hurf durf" to-cool-for-school mindset and just revel in it.
...
You done that? Good. Now feel free to go back to your hurfing and durfing.
I'd say "Be grateful for the opportunity--not everyone gets it." Just as often, the establishment decided this is a good opportunity to wheel out the artillery and bomb the shit out of whatever Edinburgh happens to be annoying them.
But you already seem to grasp the weight of this, so....good form!
If or when the time comes in my homeland, I bet we won't be so civilized. So between then and now, I'll probably need to get at least a days practice throwing Molotov cocktails onto Patton tanks.
Speaking of the Telegraph, a sory about Salmond fibbing on the weekend's Andrew Marr show about having spoken to EU governments about joining and it not being a problem. Several foreign ministers deny having spoken to him, though for some countries the wording used doesn't specifically rule out his having spoken to someone.
I will have cast my vote in the most unbelievably spectacular event.
Literally the purest form of democracy is going to be practiced on the 18th of September. A people will have the opportunity to exercise their universal right to self-determination and by simple majority settle the result.
No matter what the people of Scotland decide I find this process gob smacking. It genuinely brings a tear to my eye just thinking about how sensational this is.
Not through gun or bomb, death or terror but through negotiation within the existing political process this moment has been achieved.
Just stop, stop for a couple of minutes, step out of your "hurf durf both sides are bad hurf durf" to-cool-for-school mindset and just revel in it.
...
You done that? Good. Now feel free to go back to your hurfing and durfing.
I don't see why you should be happy when I'm in a bad mood because my brain thinks that sleeping is not what I should do when I'm super tired and also have a lot to do, so I'll post this link which will simultaneously make you laugh and also want to strangle kittens until the voices stop:
Oliver also said he thought there was an issue of international trust at stake. “The US fought one of the bloodiest wars in their history to hold its union together,” he said. “They can’t take the UK seriously if they just let their union fade.”
That's really stupid.
He is right about us getting fed up with NATO. If it wasn't for Putin, I'd be expecting NATO to die soon.
But I guess we'll have to regime change Socialist Sal in a couple years now too.
Better Together's final slogan for the great big push is
"If you don't know - Vote No"
Lets just marvel at the bankruptcy of effort there.
That is actually good advise for direct democracy. Rejecting a referendum - especially one with pretty massive implications if enacted- should be the default.
Better Together's final slogan for the great big push is
"If you don't know - Vote No"
Lets just marvel at the bankruptcy of effort there.
That is actually good advise for direct democracy. Rejecting a referendum - especially one with pretty massive implications if enacted- should be the default.
Scotland has been promised massive constitutional change either way.
So I'm American. My father considered himself ethnically Scot above all else* so I also identify fairly closely with that too. I like a lot of the romantic ideas of old Scotland with kilts and clans and I have cousins who are pretty accomplished Highland Games champions etc.
*
His mother was 100% Scottish from Nova Scotia, expelled due to the Clearances from Skye and other parts of the Hebrides and one from Fort William. He was also about 1/4 Irish, with the rest being a less clear cut Irish/English/Scot hodgepodge, but he was a Protestant in a heavily Irish Catholic neighborhood so he personally identified as Scot mostly. Spoilered because I know that stuff is often either boring or galling to Europeans who live in their ethnic homelands. Disliked Orangemen strongly, actively expelled the IRA fundraisers from the places where he has influence and in truth loved Ireland too tbf
I also like England quite a bit, I went there on my honeymoon and on three other vacations. London is probably the greatest city in the world. And I like the UK as the most similar political and cultural ally and friend to the US in Europe. We have our differences but they are mostly civil disagreements and petty spats that friends or family might have.
Can someone explain to me what caused this? Because as cool as Scotland as a country is superficially to me, its been part of the UK for centuries. And everything I see suggests that Scotland isn't short changed by public spending or representation in the government.
Is is ethnicity, like the Scots should self-govern? Are Scots the Scottish people with some historic connection to the old Kingdom of Scotland, or are they simply people living within the borders now? Or is it felt that Scotland exists as a separate society from the rest of the UK?
Or is it that they feel like Westminster is doing a poor job governing Scotland, and they aren't getting a fair shake there? It seems if anything Scotland is overrepresented and great respect has been given to a desire for regional control.
From my outsider perspective, it doesn't seem like people in Scotland exist in a different society from the rest of the UK. Same language, shared governance for hundreds of years, very similar religion, similar problems and demographics.. the only difference is ethnicity (where Scottish and English are considered different) and long past history. Is there something else?
Similarly, from my American perspective it doesn't really seem like the SNP has justified a desire for independence without either gross violation of the legitimacy (either a violation voting rights/lack of representation etc or violation of basic rights by the government or fundamental lack of the rule of law) or demonstration the Scotland really does exist as a strongly separate society. The 13 colonies declaration of independence was valid because there was no representation and a clear societal separation (due to the Atlantic Ocean in a sailing age, fundamentally different challenges and economies, etc). Ireland's declaration was valid because of centuries of oppression and clearly different societies (based on religion, language to a certain extent, ethnicity). Canada or Australia didn't really have much active/overt oppression but clearly had a different society and lacked proper representation.
Scotland is part of Great Britain, has full representation, and has a society very close (at the very least) with the greater UK culture. I just don't understand the argument. Explain it like I'm 5?
An alignment of planets that saw a once in a generation chance of a referendum coincide with a particularly virulent and complacent Tory administration, basically. They almost single handedly turned an almost certain No into a near dead heat.
So I'm American. My father considered himself ethnically Scot above all else* so I also identify fairly closely with that too. I like a lot of the romantic ideas of old Scotland with kilts and clans and I have cousins who are pretty accomplished Highland Games champions etc.
*
His mother was 100% Scottish from Nova Scotia, expelled due to the Clearances from Skye and other parts of the Hebrides and one from Fort William. He was also about 1/4 Irish, with the rest being a less clear cut Irish/English/Scot hodgepodge, but he was a Protestant in a heavily Irish Catholic neighborhood so he personally identified as Scot mostly. Spoilered because I know that stuff is often either boring or galling to Europeans who live in their ethnic homelands. Disliked Orangemen strongly, actively expelled the IRA fundraisers from the places where he has influence and in truth loved Ireland too tbf
I also like England quite a bit, I went there on my honeymoon and on three other vacations. London is probably the greatest city in the world. And I like the UK as the most similar political and cultural ally and friend to the US in Europe. We have our differences but they are mostly civil disagreements and petty spats that friends or family might have.
Can someone explain to me what caused this? Because as cool as Scotland as a country is superficially to me, its been part of the UK for centuries. And everything I see suggests that Scotland isn't short changed by public spending or representation in the government.
Is is ethnicity, like the Scots should self-govern? Are Scots the Scottish people with some historic connection to the old Kingdom of Scotland, or are they simply people living within the borders now? Or is it felt that Scotland exists as a separate society from the rest of the UK?
Or is it that they feel like Westminster is doing a poor job governing Scotland, and they aren't getting a fair shake there? It seems if anything Scotland is overrepresented and great respect has been given to a desire for regional control.
From my outsider perspective, it doesn't seem like people in Scotland exist in a different society from the rest of the UK. Same language, shared governance for hundreds of years, very similar religion, similar problems and demographics.. the only difference is ethnicity (where Scottish and English are considered different) and long past history. Is there something else?
Similarly, from my American perspective it doesn't really seem like the SNP has justified a desire for independence without either gross violation of the legitimacy (either a violation voting rights/lack of representation etc or violation of basic rights by the government or fundamental lack of the rule of law) or demonstration the Scotland really does exist as a strongly separate society. The 13 colonies declaration of independence was valid because there was no representation and a clear societal separation (due to the Atlantic Ocean in a sailing age, fundamentally different challenges and economies, etc). Ireland's declaration was valid because of centuries of oppression and clearly different societies (based on religion, language to a certain extent, ethnicity). Canada or Australia didn't really have much active/overt oppression but clearly had a different society and lacked proper representation.
Scotland is part of Great Britain, has full representation, and has a society very close (at the very least) with the greater UK culture. I just don't understand the argument. Explain it like I'm 5?
In American terms, Scotland is almost fully Democratic with a strong socialist bent. The rest of the "nation" keeps voting for Republicans and likes shoving little "fuck you" clauses into laws that just impact Scotland. The local socialists realized that there's a get-out clause in the Constitution and have shocked everyone by turning a fringe referendum into a 50-50 split vote.
In European terms, this is actually one of the functions of the European Union touted during its founding. The umbrella of a stable, multi-national union allows for nations to settle long-simmering nationalist feuds by devolving into separate nations without losing the economic, political and military benefits of being part of a settled nation-state. In those terms, Scotland's plan is pretty close to what the Basques are trying in Spain and the Belgiums are discussing when they talk about splitting their nation state. Note that the Czechs and Slovaks were able to split fairly amicably without the nations falling apart because of their ties to Greater Europe.
I just don't understand the argument. Explain it like I'm 5?
Thatcher
Despite commonalities Scotland is quite a different place to the other regions of the UK (though I'd argue the subsections of England are equally distinct)
Scotland has always had an independent identity whilst also having a British identity.
Certain governments over the course of the 20th century have made many scots feel less invested and lacking ownership over that British identity. (Scotland being particularly singled out for screwing over is debatable).
Various things aligning over the past decade (coupled with goodish policy and government by them) gave the SNP their strongest showing contemporaneous with a particularly odious tory government.
In American terms, Scotland is almost fully Democratic with a strong socialist bent. The rest of the "nation" keeps voting for Republicans and likes shoving little "fuck you" clauses into laws that just impact Scotland. The local socialists realized that there's a get-out clause in the Constitution and have shocked everyone by turning a fringe referendum into a 50-50 split vote.
In European terms, this is actually one of the functions of the European Union touted during its founding. The umbrella of a stable, multi-national union allows for nations to settle long-simmering nationalist feuds by devolving into separate nations without losing the economic, political and military benefits of being part of a settled nation-state. In those terms, Scotland's plan is pretty close to what the Basques are trying in Spain and the Belgiums are discussing when they talk about splitting their nation state. Note that the Czechs and Slovaks were able to split fairly amicably without the nations falling apart because of their ties to Greater Europe.
Can you be more specific about the bold? Because I haven't really seen much about that. Is it just stuff that is poorly managed or not what Scotland wants, or it stuff that is actually illegitimate.
Also from my perspective it seems the EU isn't actually strong/central enough to justify the divisions, and if it was then it would have the same problems. Scotland and the rest of Britain are a lot closer than Scotland and Germany or France or continental Europe I'd suggest. If the EU was actually strong enough to eliminate the benefits of strong sovereign state, it would chafe in the same way as a London based government would.
I just don't understand the argument. Explain it like I'm 5?
Thatcher
Despite commonalities Scotland is quite a different place to the other regions of the UK (though I'd argue the subsections of England are equally distinct)
Scotland has always had an independent identity whilst also having a British identity.
Certain governments over the course of the 20th century have made many scots feel less invested and lacking ownership over that British identity. (Scotland being particularly singled out for screwing over is debatable).
Various things aligning over the past decade (coupled with goodish policy and government by them) gave the SNP their strongest showing contemporaneous with a particularly odious tory government.
See to me this seems like "we don't like how the elections went", which isn't IMO a valid argument for secession. I can understand the drive - I'm a New Englander who has to deal with the South having political influence over my country. That's one of the features of federalism (or psuedo-federalism) so a Scottish Parliament makes sense (although there should be an English parliament too). And I get the lack of checks and balances can make the controlling party more about to have near complete control and if you're in the minority this stinks.
But being in the minority is part of being in a society. If and when Scotland becomes independent, there will be areas that are more English in their sentiment than the rest of the country. Do they get their own independence? I don't think anyone wants like a Merseyside Republic and a Geordie Confederacy and a completely Balkanized UK. And while I think Scotland and the US would have good relations I'm sure, I'd rather a strong UK as a voice in the EU to act as a counterweight to France and Italy.
Its not my decision obviously and USians have different ideas about fundamentals of government but ::shrug::
An alignment of planets that saw a once in a generation chance of a referendum coincide with a particularly virulent and complacent Tory administration, basically. They almost single handedly turned an almost certain No into a near dead heat.
It's really David Cameron's greatest accomplishment in life and I hope what he's remembered for.
Because if they don't, they will never EVER get the chance to do so again.
Uh, there was an independence referendum in 1979.
Sure, no Tory in office today would ever consider it, but I think it's a stretch to say it will never happen.
Reading about that one reminds me of the rules in my city about tax increases. No increase can pass if fewer than 50% of registered voters vote yes. Last election a school levy got 80% yes votes and failed.
So I guess I could see Parliament allowing another independence vote at some point.
I still hope the people of Scotland take advantage of this brief window of opportunity though.
Because if they don't, they will never EVER get the chance to do so again.
Uh, there was an independence referendum in 1979.
Sure, no Tory in office today would ever consider it, but I think it's a stretch to say it will never happen.
Reading about that one reminds me of the rules in my city about tax increases. No increase can pass if fewer than 50% of registered voters vote yes. Last election a school levy got 80% yes votes and failed.
So I guess I could see Parliament allowing another independence vote at some point.
I still hope the people of Scotland take advantage of this brief window of opportunity though.
I certainly think that, should the referendum fail, it will be substantially more challenging in the future, even from a procedural standpoint.
That might be as simple as London ordering the current PM and campaign writers not to say a bunch of stupid infuriating shit until after the vote.
Because if they don't, they will never EVER get the chance to do so again.
Independence isn't automatically a good thing any more than it is automatically a bad thing. If we vote for independence now, we're voting for the current crop of liars, idiots and oxygen wasters in Holyrood to administer it, call me crazy but I don't want to take that risk because of some romantic ideal that doesn't reflect current reality.
I would say that a referendum would most probably be a once in a generation thing. Same with AV: I doubt we'll see a stab at voting reform for a long time.
Posts
I doubt it will unravel after the election, though. Labour can't renege on the promise without losing even more MPs in Scotland, so all Cameron needs is a decent number of Tory MPs to support him and he's fine.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
why go so far to screw over five million Scots when you can screw over fifteen million north Englanders - devolve revenue for everybody.
Devolution may fit in with Big Society, but Tories have never really bought into it beyond having volunteers pick up the slack caused by cuts. I doubt they'll want to give up any power to anyone who might disagree with them.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I will have cast my vote in the most unbelievably spectacular event.
Literally the purest form of democracy is going to be practiced on the 18th of September. A people will have the opportunity to exercise their universal right to self-determination and by simple majority settle the result.
No matter what the people of Scotland decide I find this process gob smacking. It genuinely brings a tear to my eye just thinking about how sensational this is.
Not through gun or bomb, death or terror but through negotiation within the existing political process this moment has been achieved.
Just stop, stop for a couple of minutes, step out of your "hurf durf both sides are bad hurf durf" to-cool-for-school mindset and just revel in it.
...
You done that? Good. Now feel free to go back to your hurfing and durfing.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
durf
..
YEAAAAAH LET'S SHOW THOSE RUSKIES HOW IT'S DONE
I don't see why you should be happy when I'm in a bad mood because my brain thinks that sleeping is not what I should do when I'm super tired and also have a lot to do, so I'll post this link which will simultaneously make you laugh and also want to strangle kittens until the voices stop:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/09/scotland-independence-vote-us-headache
scotdependent inland
I try to put myself in a Scottish mindest and work out what I would want to vote and I just can't do it. The whole thing has become so bitter and emotionally loaded on both sides that I think I'd just want to bury my head and make it all go away.
Yeeeep so hard.
Better Together's final slogan for the great big push is
"If you don't know - Vote No"
Lets just marvel at the bankruptcy of effort there.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
but I guess I'm not a multi million quid campaign
There's only so many hours in the day though, Alistair.
Steam - Minty D. Vision!
Origin/BF3 - MintyDVision
Would the Glaswegian Yes contingent be resentful of the rest of Scotland pulling them into a No? Or vice versa?
I'd say "Be grateful for the opportunity--not everyone gets it." Just as often, the establishment decided this is a good opportunity to wheel out the artillery and bomb the shit out of whatever Edinburgh happens to be annoying them.
But you already seem to grasp the weight of this, so....good form!
If or when the time comes in my homeland, I bet we won't be so civilized. So between then and now, I'll probably need to get at least a days practice throwing Molotov cocktails onto Patton tanks.
By the time you wake up on Friday morning - assuming normal day-night cycle - you'll have the results.
http://imgur.com/cutjqbR
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Might be true, might not.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
A refreshingly candid approach to media bias.
That's really stupid.
He is right about us getting fed up with NATO. If it wasn't for Putin, I'd be expecting NATO to die soon.
But I guess we'll have to regime change Socialist Sal in a couple years now too.
He's going to race them, winner gets his vote
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
That is actually good advise for direct democracy. Rejecting a referendum - especially one with pretty massive implications if enacted- should be the default.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Scotland has been promised massive constitutional change either way.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
*
I also like England quite a bit, I went there on my honeymoon and on three other vacations. London is probably the greatest city in the world. And I like the UK as the most similar political and cultural ally and friend to the US in Europe. We have our differences but they are mostly civil disagreements and petty spats that friends or family might have.
Can someone explain to me what caused this? Because as cool as Scotland as a country is superficially to me, its been part of the UK for centuries. And everything I see suggests that Scotland isn't short changed by public spending or representation in the government.
Is is ethnicity, like the Scots should self-govern? Are Scots the Scottish people with some historic connection to the old Kingdom of Scotland, or are they simply people living within the borders now? Or is it felt that Scotland exists as a separate society from the rest of the UK?
Or is it that they feel like Westminster is doing a poor job governing Scotland, and they aren't getting a fair shake there? It seems if anything Scotland is overrepresented and great respect has been given to a desire for regional control.
From my outsider perspective, it doesn't seem like people in Scotland exist in a different society from the rest of the UK. Same language, shared governance for hundreds of years, very similar religion, similar problems and demographics.. the only difference is ethnicity (where Scottish and English are considered different) and long past history. Is there something else?
Similarly, from my American perspective it doesn't really seem like the SNP has justified a desire for independence without either gross violation of the legitimacy (either a violation voting rights/lack of representation etc or violation of basic rights by the government or fundamental lack of the rule of law) or demonstration the Scotland really does exist as a strongly separate society. The 13 colonies declaration of independence was valid because there was no representation and a clear societal separation (due to the Atlantic Ocean in a sailing age, fundamentally different challenges and economies, etc). Ireland's declaration was valid because of centuries of oppression and clearly different societies (based on religion, language to a certain extent, ethnicity). Canada or Australia didn't really have much active/overt oppression but clearly had a different society and lacked proper representation.
Scotland is part of Great Britain, has full representation, and has a society very close (at the very least) with the greater UK culture. I just don't understand the argument. Explain it like I'm 5?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
In American terms, Scotland is almost fully Democratic with a strong socialist bent. The rest of the "nation" keeps voting for Republicans and likes shoving little "fuck you" clauses into laws that just impact Scotland. The local socialists realized that there's a get-out clause in the Constitution and have shocked everyone by turning a fringe referendum into a 50-50 split vote.
In European terms, this is actually one of the functions of the European Union touted during its founding. The umbrella of a stable, multi-national union allows for nations to settle long-simmering nationalist feuds by devolving into separate nations without losing the economic, political and military benefits of being part of a settled nation-state. In those terms, Scotland's plan is pretty close to what the Basques are trying in Spain and the Belgiums are discussing when they talk about splitting their nation state. Note that the Czechs and Slovaks were able to split fairly amicably without the nations falling apart because of their ties to Greater Europe.
Thatcher
Scotland has always had an independent identity whilst also having a British identity.
Certain governments over the course of the 20th century have made many scots feel less invested and lacking ownership over that British identity. (Scotland being particularly singled out for screwing over is debatable).
Various things aligning over the past decade (coupled with goodish policy and government by them) gave the SNP their strongest showing contemporaneous with a particularly odious tory government.
Tory party are now surprised that there is no society to bind Scotland to the rest of the UK.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Can you be more specific about the bold? Because I haven't really seen much about that. Is it just stuff that is poorly managed or not what Scotland wants, or it stuff that is actually illegitimate.
Also from my perspective it seems the EU isn't actually strong/central enough to justify the divisions, and if it was then it would have the same problems. Scotland and the rest of Britain are a lot closer than Scotland and Germany or France or continental Europe I'd suggest. If the EU was actually strong enough to eliminate the benefits of strong sovereign state, it would chafe in the same way as a London based government would.
See to me this seems like "we don't like how the elections went", which isn't IMO a valid argument for secession. I can understand the drive - I'm a New Englander who has to deal with the South having political influence over my country. That's one of the features of federalism (or psuedo-federalism) so a Scottish Parliament makes sense (although there should be an English parliament too). And I get the lack of checks and balances can make the controlling party more about to have near complete control and if you're in the minority this stinks.
But being in the minority is part of being in a society. If and when Scotland becomes independent, there will be areas that are more English in their sentiment than the rest of the country. Do they get their own independence? I don't think anyone wants like a Merseyside Republic and a Geordie Confederacy and a completely Balkanized UK. And while I think Scotland and the US would have good relations I'm sure, I'd rather a strong UK as a voice in the EU to act as a counterweight to France and Italy.
Its not my decision obviously and USians have different ideas about fundamentals of government but ::shrug::
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It's a start: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/new-political-group-aims-make-3350196
It's really David Cameron's greatest accomplishment in life and I hope what he's remembered for.
Because if they don't, they will never EVER get the chance to do so again.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Uh, there was an independence referendum in 1979.
Sure, no Tory in office today would ever consider it, but I think it's a stretch to say it will never happen.
Reading about that one reminds me of the rules in my city about tax increases. No increase can pass if fewer than 50% of registered voters vote yes. Last election a school levy got 80% yes votes and failed.
So I guess I could see Parliament allowing another independence vote at some point.
I still hope the people of Scotland take advantage of this brief window of opportunity though.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I certainly think that, should the referendum fail, it will be substantially more challenging in the future, even from a procedural standpoint.
That might be as simple as London ordering the current PM and campaign writers not to say a bunch of stupid infuriating shit until after the vote.
Independence isn't automatically a good thing any more than it is automatically a bad thing. If we vote for independence now, we're voting for the current crop of liars, idiots and oxygen wasters in Holyrood to administer it, call me crazy but I don't want to take that risk because of some romantic ideal that doesn't reflect current reality.