Illuminati-R-Us

There's nothing exactly like it in Wales, but there are definitely some there who'd like to have their country back thankyouverymuch. The situation in Wales is a bit more complicated, as it was to all intents and purposes considered part of England during the unions.

I have a friend who used to live in Wales and he kept pointing ou that if they wanted to be independent they should have fought harder in the 13th century.

I have a Welsh friend (now living in the south of England) who was generally in favour of Welsh independence, but is vehemently opposed to Scottish independence - purely on the grounds that she's a staunch Labourette and is labouring (ha!) under the misapprehension that she'll be subjected to endless Tory rule given a lack of Scottish Labour MPs being elected. Yes, she's going to be subjected to endless Tory rule - but Scottish votes are irrelevant in that regard, there's just not enough seats. Also, I don't see how anybody could want to deny the people of Scotland their democratic rights, purely as a way of denying the English theirs, too. Seems particularly undemocratic to me.

Looks like Crimea will be holding theirs first.

Мастер wrote:Looks like Crimea will be holding theirs first.

One wonders whether there will be several referenda in Crimea - one set for Russians, one for Ukrainians, one for Tartars etc

So, eleven weeks from today - how are things looking over there?

11/10?

July 12-18 issue of The Economist features editorial against independence, largely (although not entirely) on economic grounds - it mentions a claim (without mentioning the source) of a £1,400 per-capita decrease in income to be more credible than a claim (source also not mentioned) of a £1,000 per-capita increase.

It does emphasise that Scotland is within its rights to secede if it so chooses, and concludes by mentioning that although the writer supports continued union, it also supports modification of the union to include more (and better-functioning) devolution.

Not in the article, but The Rugby Championship has no matches that week, probably to allow any Scottish fans the chance to vote.

Excellent resource for gathering facts about Scotland and independence.

Wee Blue Book

Lianachan wrote:Excellent resource for gathering facts about Scotland and independence.

Wee Blue Book

'Like'

Lianachan wrote:Wee Blue Book

Of their five point summary on pages 2-3, the first point is rather content-free. For the fifth point, I would tend to agree with the first paragraph, in that once the vote takes place, there is little incentive for the rUK (what does the "r" stand for?) to carry through any threats made during the campaign. I'm not 100% sure I know specifically what threats they are making, and whether they're even possible to carry out if both rUK and Scotland stay within the EU. But the last part - "no government will cut its nose off to spite its face" - I guess they're a bit more confident on that point than I am. (Whether that's a reason to vote "no" or not is a whole other question.)

rumpUK. The bit left if we leave.

It only seems "content free" as it's a very brief summary. Pages 6, 7 and 8 are the content for that first point.

Lianachan wrote:It only seems "content free" as it's a very brief summary. Pages 6, 7 and 8 are the content for that first point.

I did read that far. Near the end is the statement "But the referendum hinges on whether you think Scotland is a country or just a region of one."

I'd put that one a little differently - that's what the referendum is to determine, is it not? So I suppose I would have said, "But the referendum hinges on whether you think Scotland should be a country or just a region of one", which is presumably already obvious to anyone who is familiar with the question being asked.

So either they have a definition of "country" which does not require independence, or they say "is" when they mean "should be".

Either way, what here tells me that Scotland is (or should be) a country, rather than a region of one? Almost all of these three pages talk about how Scotland frequently gets outvoted by the rest of the UK. As pointed out in the answer to the second question, "Some individuals or regions will always get a government they didn't vote for." So why does this not apply to Scotland?

The only thing I can find is the statement "We believe Scotland is a country". If we change this to "We believe Scotland is a region of a country", then I could include the entire three pages in a brochure campaigning for the other side, without many other alterations.

I'm sure there are all kinds of good arguments one could make based on history, culture, maybe language, maybe other things, about why Scotland is distinct from England/Wales (and NI if you like), and why these differences are the reason why Scotland is (or should be) a country rather than a region of a country. I just don't see them here.

So it still strikes me very much as a "because it is" type of argument.

The first question in this section is truly bizarre, and I could have answered it quite differently. The answer given is, historically, it hasn't mattered. OK, maybe it will matter in some future election. In that case, I could point out that the question effectively asks whether Scotland should forego the government the majority of its inhabitants vote for, in order to prevent the rest of the UK from getting the government the majority of its inhabitants vote for. We shouldn't get what we want, because if we do, then the rest of the UK will get what it wants?

Heid the Ba' wrote:rumpUK. The bit left if we leave.

rump = a polite way of saying 'rse.

Мастер wrote:I'm sure there are all kinds of good arguments one could make based on history, culture, maybe language, maybe other things, about why Scotland is distinct from England/Wales (and NI if you like), and why these differences are the reason why Scotland is (or should be) a country rather than a region of a country. I just don't see them here.

The target audience will be aware of those arguments. Many no voters cheerfully support Scotland at football, rugby, etc, for example. Personally, I think if it is a no vote then all of these things should be disbanded because the people have, essentially, voted not to be a country any longer. They'll have voted to be British, not Scottish.

Мастер wrote:The first question in this section is truly bizarre, and I could have answered it quite differently. The answer given is, historically, it hasn't mattered. OK, maybe it will matter in some future election. In that case, I could point out that the question effectively asks whether Scotland should forego the government the majority of its inhabitants vote for, in order to prevent the rest of the UK from getting the government the majority of its inhabitants vote for. We shouldn't get what we want, because if we do, then the rest of the UK will get what it wants?

The point is that Scotland as a country should be governed by who it votes for, as indeed should the fUK. Being fully independent guarantees that, and we'll probably have new, different parties to vote for anyway, whereas there just aren't enough Scottish seats in the UK parliament to make any difference if we stay - we will always get whatever the English constituents want (as they make up the vast majority of voters). I don't understand those that think we should stay because otherwise we'll be subjecting the rest of the UK to the Conservative party. If that's who they've voted for, should we be pleased about stopping them getting the government they want? It's a moot point, of course, as we don't make any difference, but the attitude annoys me.

tubeswell wrote:

Heid the Ba' wrote:rumpUK. The bit left if we leave.

rump = a polite way of saying 'rse.

I use f(ormer)UK.

Lianachan wrote:The target audience will be aware of those arguments.

Well, that could be, that it assumes as obvious things which might not be obvious to outsiders.

Lianachan wrote:If that's who they've voted for, should we be pleased about stopping them getting the government they want?

That's how it reads to me. Which brings up point (5) from the brochure, about cutting one's nose off to spite one's face :)

Мастер wrote:

Lianachan wrote:That's how it reads to me. Which brings up point (5) from the brochure, about cutting one's nose off to spite one's face :)

No voters might think like that, I don't know, but for we yes voters it's about us getting the government we want AND fUK getting the government it wants (however evil it seems to be).

So, let me turn this around - are there feasible conditions which the UK could satisfy which would cause either or both of our eligible voters to be happy to remain on the inside?

Мастер wrote:So, let me turn this around - are there feasible conditions which the UK could satisfy which would cause either or both of our eligible voters to be happy to remain on the inside?

Not me, no. Scotland is a country, not a balance sheet. I'd vote yes even if I immediately had to go and live in a cave.

Lianachan wrote:Not me, no. Scotland is a country, not a balance sheet. I'd vote yes even if I immediately had to go and live in a cave.

Is that one of the dire consequences predicted by the "no" camp?

No, they've been far more outrageous than that.

Well one of them is probably true.

You'll never win the lottery.