Jump to content

Independence - how would you vote?


Wee Bully

Independence - how would you vote  

1,135 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Jesus Christ you can be a facetious twat.

I know from having spoken to other people who were a) undecided or b) BritNats/No voters, that arguments about nations are at best ineffectual and at worst counter-productive. The only people I've managed to convince to change their mind or to vote Yes are those who I've provided justifications through democracy and localism and constitutional renewal.

My analysis here isn't a normative description about what's passing for a "debate" in the public discourse just now. Indeed it's a critique of it. At the moment you have two ever more solidified camps slinging (often party-political) mud at each other, not engaging with each other's critiques and making grandiose promises about how their side is the land of milk and honey. What we need to do is to shift that debate onto what independence is actually about. It's not about the economy. It's not about tuition fees. It's not about national identity. It's about what institutions best enable us to govern ourselves well in accordance with the principles of liberty and democracy. The undecideds are disengaged and the No voters are antipathetic. To change that we have to change the debate.

i think you confuse what is important to you and your group of friends with what everyone thinks is important. For many people who are swithering or moving towards Yes it most certainly is about Trident, the NHS, the future of the Welfare State, renewable energy, tuition fees, the future within the EU.

However, if institutions and principles of liberty and democracy are important to you then that is important too. What Yes need to , and it is Yes Scotland's plan to do this but I have seen little evidence of it in the public domain so far, is say whatever your vision of Scotland in the future and whatever that eans to you you have a choice of two roads in 2014. What road takes you down the road of your vision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Oh even better. Exclude everyone in Scotland who believes in Scottish independence but who is against social democracy. Genius, that.

Despite what the university politics clubs would have you believe social demcracy, the NHS and the welfare state are consensus issues within Scotland and Scottish civic society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you confuse what is important to you and your group of friends with what everyone thinks is important. For many people who are swithering or moving towards Yes it most certainly is about Trident, the NHS, the future of the Welfare State, renewable energy, tuition fees, the future within the EU.

However, if institutions and principles of liberty and democracy are important to you then that is important too. What Yes need to , and it is Yes Scotland's plan to do this but I have seen little evidence of it in the public domain so far, is say whatever your vision of Scotland in the future and whatever that eans to you you have a choice of two roads in 2014. What road takes you down the road of your vision?

Most of the people I've persuaded were anything but remotely of my political persuasion in other respects and many of them I hardly even know.

For those who are swithering, it's not about these other things. If it was about Trident they'd already be voting yes. If it were about tuition fees (lol idiots) then they'd still already be voting yes. Ditto everything else.

No, the actual undecided group either don't care, or don't think these issues are determinative. Take it back to basics and justify independence with reference to control of institutions and democracy. It's about making people believe that politics will be relevant to them again; not that particular policies will be pursued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ad Lib is perfectly correct here incidentally.

And the most crucial aspect you haven't addressed xbl. Why shouldn't the people of Yorkshire have the same rights as the people of Scotland in this regard?

Why can't they? If there is a desire amongst the people who live in Yorkshire to be an independent state, is there any reason that they cant be a country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite what the university politics clubs would have you believe social demcracy, the NHS and the welfare state are consensus issues within Scotland and Scottish civic society.

Social democracy is not the consensus view of Scotland or Scottish civic society.

"The NHS" is a consensus issue across the whole of the UK. Wrongly, might I add. We should be open to German-style alternatives.

"The welfare state" is a consensus issue across, er, Europe.

Unfortunately for you, social democracy doesn't have a monopoly on universal healthcare or the welfare state. Liberals created the welfare state and conservatives have defended it in the decades since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take it back to basics and justify independence with reference to control of institutions and democracy. It's about making people believe that politics will be relevant to them again; not that particular policies will be pursued.

Ok lets explore that briefly because that is interesting. how did you explain to these people that they would have control of these democratic structures and instiutions, what bodies are you speaking about and how does independence change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And at what point do you dull lawyer types accept that I, like 99% of people, dont care about your pointless nuances? They simply arent important to the average person.

I don't think you quite get what Ad Lib is getting at here. I think his thoroughness is distracting you from the main point.

There may be a Scottish identity, there may have once been an independent country known as Scotland - but it is all irrelevant to this debate.

If an independent government is right for Scotland it doesn't matter what social and cultural links we share with anywhere, whether the current Scotland is technically a nation or a region or a state or a province or a Pictish Duchy has absolutely no bearing on whether we should vote yes or no next year.

Same with Yorkshire - just because Yorkshire isn't and as far as I'm aware never has been an independent nation, if it was the best path going forward for the people of Yorkshire, they absolutely should go for it. Sadly because of their strong "English" and "British" identities I doubt most of the population have ever given it a serious though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant. It's a nation. That's kind of the whole point.

It isn't an independent nation though, is it? If I was to say, that Scotland should have the same rights as any other nation, then you're quite right to include Kurdistan. However, if I was to say that our country should have the same rights as any other independent nations, then you can understand why I'd be a bit confused when you bring up Kurdistan.

Now just to emphasise yet again, I am not disagreeing with whatever Ad Lib is talking about. I'm sure that his fellow constitutional lawyers and hair splitters are applauding the way he is masterfully explaining whatever it is he is talking about. So I am not saying he is wrong.

I'm am merely pointing out that what he is saying and the way he is saying it is of no relevance to most people on planet earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ you can be a facetious twat.

I know from having spoken to other people who were a) undecided or b) BritNats/No voters, that arguments about nations are at best ineffectual and at worst counter-productive. The only people I've managed to convince to change their mind or to vote Yes are those who I've provided justifications through democracy and localism and constitutional renewal.

My analysis here isn't a normative description about what's passing for a "debate" in the public discourse just now. Indeed it's a critique of it. At the moment you have two ever more solidified camps slinging (often party-political) mud at each other, not engaging with each other's critiques and making grandiose promises about how their side is the land of milk and honey. What we need to do is to shift that debate onto what independence is actually about. It's not about the economy. It's not about tuition fees. It's not about national identity. It's about what institutions best enable us to govern ourselves well in accordance with the principles of liberty and democracy. The undecideds are disengaged and the No voters are antipathetic. To change that we have to change the debate.

Edit: and actually Mushroom's post encapsulates excellently the argument I've been making. IIRC he's a recent convert to independence. Nations have no bearing on the views of the genuinely undecided. Democracy does. Talking about what independence actually means for what state powers do what.

Ad Lib...Ive been supporting independence for Scotland for as long as I can remenber, I've voted for the one party, (SNP) all my days as they were the only viable party who would ever have been in a position to deliver it (as we are now), Ive being doing this since you were running about sucking a dummy tit and wearing nappies, so please dont fall out of school and land in Uni thinking you are in any position to tell people what Independence means, because it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't an independent nation though, is it? If I was to say, that Scotland should have the same rights as any other nation, then you're quite right to include Kurdistan. However, if I was to say that our country should have the same rights as any other independent nations, then you can understand why I'd be a bit confused when you bring up Kurdistan.

Now just to emphasise yet again, I am not disagreeing with whatever Ad Lib is talking about. I'm sure that his fellow constitutional lawyers and hair splitters are applauding the way he is masterfully explaining whatever it is he is talking about. So I am not saying he is wrong.

I'm am merely pointing out that what he is saying and the way he is saying it is of no relevance to most people on planet earth.

It's a simple definition though - really simple. And what is worrying with you when you go down this route is the kind of crass demagoguery that makes thinking people nervous. Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social democracy is not the consensus view of Scotland or Scottish civic society.

"The NHS" is a consensus issue across the whole of the UK. Wrongly, might I add. We should be open to German-style alternatives.

"The welfare state" is a consensus issue across, er, Europe.

Unfortunately for you, social democracy doesn't have a monopoly on universal healthcare or the welfare state. Liberals created the welfare state and conservatives have defended it in the decades since.

Can you name a time when Scotland did not elect at least a 2/3 majority of representatives from social democratic parties? To be fair to you I'll let you just have Labour and the SNP even though many tories and Lib Dems would consider themselves to be social democrats too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite what the university politics clubs would have you believe social demcracy, the NHS and the welfare state are consensus issues within Scotland and Scottish civic society.

That's just arrant nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok lets explore that briefly because that is interesting. how did you explain to these people that they would have control of these democratic structures and instiutions, what bodies are you speaking about and how does independence change that.

You talk about the institutional aversion of Westminster to political reform. You talk about the unwritten constitution that gives the government unchallengeable power through the Royal Prerogative. You talk about the House of Lords refusing to reform after more than a century of trying. You talk about the increased centralisation of decision-making and economic development to London, and how devolution has done very little to address this. You talk about how the British state rejects even moderate electoral reform and has a political system near-permanently dominated by two parties based on 35-38% of the vote. You talk about how Calman made modest changes to the devolution settlement. You talk about how Scotland has a different political culture, and show how it is poorly reflected in the composition of the government and decisions made by Westminster.

You talk about how Scotland, with a written constitution, will hold the government to account and clearly restrict the powers of what they can do. You talk about how we will have democratically elected chambers in a consensus-style democracy, where parties are more proportionally represented and represent the diverse interests and political landscape of Scotland. You talk about how it will be easier for councils and regions to fight for control over their public services, taxation and general governance when they're dealing with a Holyrood with full competence rather than more distant mandarins in Whitehall. You talk about how Scotland's electorate will feel more engaged when it's making these decisions for itself and it feels as though it has some sort of influence over these events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you name a time when Scotland did not elect at least a 2/3 majority of representatives from social democratic parties? To be fair to you I'll let you just have Labour and the SNP even though many tories and Lib Dems would consider themselves to be social democrats too.

You seem to have a very alarming view of the meaning of "consensus"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a simple definition though - really simple. And what is worrying with you when you go down this route is the kind of crass demagoguery that makes thinking people nervous. Just saying.

Indeed, it is a very simple definition.

Is there such a thing as a Kurdish nation? Yes, seems to be. Is there such a thing as an independent Kurdistan? No. As it stands, there isn't. Therefore, when I say that Scotland should have the same rights as any other independent country, and you pop up with "what about the Kurdish nation", then you can see why I am confused.

And as I've said many times, I'm not one of the intellectual elitists. I don't care about the subtle hair splitting differences. The argument just isn't that complicated, and I'm just your average person. If I was to discuss independence with my friends, not one of them would correct me over my use of "state", "nation", or "country", because it simply isn't important. What I don't understand is why the hair splitters continue to ply me with complicated technical questions when I've said many times that I don't follow the discussion on their level. I'm one of the 99%, not one of the ivory tower 1%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, first of all an apology. It appears I have been using social democracy quite incorrectly as Wiki would appear to say that Social Democracy and Socialist Democracy that is a reformist path to eventual Socialism are one and the same thing.

That certainly wasn't my understanding of it but there you go you learn something new every day.

When i talk about 'social democracy' being the consensus view in Scotland i am talking about left of centre democratic politics with strong belief in the necessity and desireability of the welfare state for example: NHS, social housing, a strong public sector and a safety net benefits system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ad Lib...Ive been supporting independence for Scotland for as long as I can remenber, I've voted for the one party, (SNP) all my days as they were the only viable party who would ever have been in a position to deliver it (as we are now), Ive being doing this since you were running about sucking a dummy tit and wearing nappies, so please dont fall out of school and land in Uni thinking you are in any position to tell people what Independence means, because it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people

Independence means being a sovereign state with the capacity to enter into treaties with other states and international organisations. Sorry, but that's what it is. I'm in every bit as much of a position to tell you what an independent state is as the Oxford English Dictionary. Sorry.

Edit: and for the record, I had a dummy for about a week. My mother gave up on it because I kept deliberately spitting it out.

Can you name a time when Scotland did not elect at least a 2/3 majority of representatives from social democratic parties? To be fair to you I'll let you just have Labour and the SNP even though many tories and Lib Dems would consider themselves to be social democrats too.

Not all Labourites are social democrats (some are socialists, some are even left-wing conservatives). Very few Liberal Democrats are social democrats. The SNP is a broad coalition from socialists to John Swinney. This crude little exercise is facile and not a fair representation of the actual political make-up of Scotland.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...