4 ms·

> The UK move is interesting Completely with you up to this point. > On Scotland, it seems to me that Scotland already got their vote 100% agree. If we hadn'

> The UK move is interesting Completely with you up to this point. > On Scotland, it seems to me that Scotland already got their vote 100% agree. If we hadn't just voted to leave the EU. There is every chance that a second referendum will have a significant backing in Scotland now. The last one died mostly from an economic argument. We've just royally blown that as the line "England can't be trusted with the economy" will have more than enough evidence regardless of the oil price. My guess is that it'll all come down to the EU's reaction. In the first ref they were against a break up so they said it would be difficult to re-join. If they spin that around and welcome Scotland, which is a very real possibility, then I think they'll go independent. > Northern Ireland is in the best position of anyone Indeed. But they'll not be a New Scotland. Scotland's pretty prosperous nowadays. NI not so much. But the EU is good at throwing cash at small nations so if they vote to leave the UK, and can stay in the EU, they'll be fine. Well, assuming that it doesn't re-ignite the Troubles, of course, which is a not insignificant risk if there's a strong push for a united Ireland. > I expect Wales and England ... had the most to gain Really? What I don't get is why the rural parts of England voted out. Westminster really couldn't give a shit about them. As far as I can tell, the whole economies of East Anglia and Wales are based on EU subsidies. I could understand (though not agree with) an immigration argument for cities but they all voted to stay except Birmingham. > The UK may become a Norway I sincerely hope not. It's got a much smaller economy that's really quite reliant on oil (though they're working on that). Fortunately we have a fairly large economy although it's centred on services so it's going to get a pummeling for a while. Hopefully we'll only regress about 5 years and not take a lot more than 10 years to make it back up. > of course the do-well Londoners want to be a part of the EU system This'll be me in case it wasn't clear from the rant. What's not massively clear though is, while a lot of England and Wales was doing badly in the EU, what is it about leaving that will turn, say Doncaster, into Croesusville?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> What I don't get is why the rural parts of England voted out. Westminster really couldn't give a shit about them. As a distant observer, it seems to me that the second sentence is the resolution to the problem posted in the first: Westminster clearly wanted a "Remain" result, Westminster is seen as being unresponsive to the needs of the group in question, so there was a reaction against Westminster and in favor of groups challenging the consensus there. Now, it may not be rational to expect that the result of that would be a change in government that would result in Westminster caring, but voting is often emotional and not always rational.
- lucozade 10y ago
  See all this would make sense if the vote to leave was a vote against the Westminster hegemony. But it was the exact opposite. It was a vote to concentrate power in Westminster. It may have the effect of giving more power to Scotland and NI but not to Wales or the bulk of England
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Sure, if you view things as being about Westminster as an institution independent of the present factions in power (not just the majority forming the government, but the dominant factions in both major parties.) OTOH, if you see it as about "Westminster" as the an institutional consensus that unites the notionally opposing major parties, then its easy to see the Brexit as a vote against that consensus and for a radical realignment of power, not just in terms of dominance between the existing parties but in terms of the divisions around which major policy debate and partisan divides should be structured.
BuckRogers 10y ago
You interpreted my comments differently from how I intended them. I don't have my heart set to propagandize for either position. Not that this hasn't already been decided with yesterday's vote anyway so opinions now are a moot point. >If we hadn't just voted to leave the EU. If they spin that around and welcome Scotland, which is a very real possibility, then I think they'll go independent. I see it more like, "you chose whether to toss your hat in with an independent Scotland, or with the UK". They chose the UK. So now if the UK is going independent, then that's also their fate. This was to be thought about before voting on the Scots indie vote, not now. It wasn't a vote on EU membership. That came later and everyone knew it was coming so no excuses. I pointed this out at the time, that Scots should consider how much they value the UK vs EU, because staying in the UK probably meant leaving the EU. Just because the wind blows another way tomorrow doesn't mean yesterday's decisions are invalidated. And it doesn't seem like honorable behavior. The choice was presented, and made. >But they'll not be a New Scotland. Scotland's pretty prosperous nowadays. NI not so much. I meant in a "bartering for the best deal" sense. Not that NI is economically trouncing Scotland. But Scotland is probably done bartering now that the Scot indie vote is spent. I'd rather be in NI right now, rather than Scotland trying to get a 2nd vote on independence, which in my view shouldn't be allowed. I think NI may be ready to simply join Ireland. That to me has always been the preferred arrangement. Ulster has always been kind of a ridiculous arrangement and Ireland should push to make their case for 'one Ireland'. Scotland, England and Wales would be best served staying together. >What I don't get is why the rural parts of England voted out. Westminster really couldn't give a shit about them. True, but I think Brussels gave even less of a shit. Smaller governments are easier to influence. > As far as I can tell, the whole economies of East Anglia and Wales are based on EU subsidies. Probably, that's called a bribe to shut people up and get them to sit down. Not a good situation. >It's (Norway) got a much smaller economy that's really quite reliant on oil (though they're working on that). I didn't mean economically. I just meant an independent, doing-well nation. It's not going to become Zaire and it's not going to become Switzerland either. But I do think it will do better standing alone than with the EU. The UK has plenty of strings to pull with the UKUSA Agreement anyway and the 5 members there and that pact is more powerful than the European one. The UK will be fine and better off overall. It seems like other than do-well Londoners, immigrants from the EU and mideast were the most against independence. They didn't care really about the UK. They wanted the cosmopolitan lifestyle (if wealthy) in the EU, or ability to bail on the UK when the economy was better elsewhere in the EU. I see the vote as a victory for the British. A failure for the elites of all nations and opportunists.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> What I don't get is why the rural parts of England voted out. Westminster really couldn't give a shit about them. As a distant observer, it seems to me that the second sentence is the resolution to the problem posted in the first: Westminster clearly wanted a "Remain" result, Westminster is seen as being unresponsive to the needs of the group in question, so there was a reaction against Westminster and in favor of groups challenging the consensus there. Now, it may not be rational to expect that the result of that would be a change in government that would result in Westminster caring, but voting is often emotional and not always rational.

lucozade 10y ago
See all this would make sense if the vote to leave was a vote against the Westminster hegemony. But it was the exact opposite. It was a vote to concentrate power in Westminster. It may have the effect of giving more power to Scotland and NI but not to Wales or the bulk of England
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Sure, if you view things as being about Westminster as an institution independent of the present factions in power (not just the majority forming the government, but the dominant factions in both major parties.) OTOH, if you see it as about "Westminster" as the an institutional consensus that unites the notionally opposing major parties, then its easy to see the Brexit as a vote against that consensus and for a radical realignment of power, not just in terms of dominance between the existing parties but in terms of the divisions around which major policy debate and partisan divides should be structured.

BuckRogers 10y ago

You interpreted my comments differently from how I intended them. I don't have my heart set to propagandize for either position. Not that this hasn't already been decided with yesterday's vote anyway so opinions now are a moot point. >If we hadn't just voted to leave the EU. If they spin that around and welcome Scotland, which is a very real possibility, then I think they'll go independent. I see it more like, "you chose whether to toss your hat in with an independent Scotland, or with the UK". They chose the UK. So now if the UK is going independent, then that's also their fate. This was to be thought about before voting on the Scots indie vote, not now. It wasn't a vote on EU membership. That came later and everyone knew it was coming so no excuses. I pointed this out at the time, that Scots should consider how much they value the UK vs EU, because staying in the UK probably meant leaving the EU. Just because the wind blows another way tomorrow doesn't mean yesterday's decisions are invalidated. And it doesn't seem like honorable behavior. The choice was presented, and made. >But they'll not be a New Scotland. Scotland's pretty prosperous nowadays. NI not so much. I meant in a "bartering for the best deal" sense. Not that NI is economically trouncing Scotland. But Scotland is probably done bartering now that the Scot indie vote is spent. I'd rather be in NI right now, rather than Scotland trying to get a 2nd vote on independence, which in my view shouldn't be allowed. I think NI may be ready to simply join Ireland. That to me has always been the preferred arrangement. Ulster has always been kind of a ridiculous arrangement and Ireland should push to make their case for 'one Ireland'. Scotland, England and Wales would be best served staying together. >What I don't get is why the rural parts of England voted out. Westminster really couldn't give a shit about them. True, but I think Brussels gave even less of a shit. Smaller governments are easier to influence. > As far as I can tell, the whole economies of East Anglia and Wales are based on EU subsidies. Probably, that's called a bribe to shut people up and get them to sit down. Not a good situation. >It's (Norway) got a much smaller economy that's really quite reliant on oil (though they're working on that). I didn't mean economically. I just meant an independent, doing-well nation. It's not going to become Zaire and it's not going to become Switzerland either. But I do think it will do better standing alone than with the EU. The UK has plenty of strings to pull with the UKUSA Agreement anyway and the 5 members there and that pact is more powerful than the European one. The UK will be fine and better off overall. It seems like other than do-well Londoners, immigrants from the EU and mideast were the most against independence. They didn't care really about the UK. They wanted the cosmopolitan lifestyle (if wealthy) in the EU, or ability to bail on the UK when the economy was better elsewhere in the EU. I see the vote as a victory for the British. A failure for the elites of all nations and opportunists.