4 ms·

I find the whole argument of Scotland rejoining the EU bizarre... work for years to gain independence, just to give it away again. As for the linked article, I

I find the whole argument of Scotland rejoining the EU bizarre... work for years to gain independence, just to give it away again. As for the linked article, I'd like to know what the author meant by 'worldview'. I have a feeling people are getting the EU confused with Europe, as if leaving the EU meant we were no longer European. The media in the UK have clearly done a great job at brainwashing people, the amount of nonsense I've heard in the last few days has been staggering.

tremon 10y ago
They wanted independence from Westminster, not from the EU.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  Why? What do the gain from independence from Westminster that they wouldn't have to give up by rejoining the EU?
- lliamander 10y ago
  Which (to my American eyes) strikes me as odd. Isn't the average Scot given more democratic say by being a part of the U.K. than the E.U.? As I understand it, the E.U. is not a particularly democratic institution to begin with, and without the Westminster to back them up I would think Scotland would be more vulnerable to E.U. politics. Perhaps I am mistaken?
  - themihai 10y ago
    EU is as democratic as it gets but I think it failed to market itself as such. There is an elected parliament so what's undemocratic?
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      I feel like a broken record at this point, but... The European Parliament has less power than every other parliament that I know of in one crucial way... They cannot propose new laws. Without the power to propose new laws, they cannot set the agenda for the EU. Only the European Commission can propose new laws, and Commissioners are not voted for by the general public. That's the key reason that the EU is not as democratic as the UK's political system, elected representatives do not have the full power to represent your interests, they can only shape what other people propose.
      - ropiku 10y ago
        Commissioners are not voted for by the general public directly. Each country appoints one. Why is the general public not annoyed at the undemocratic Prime Minister ? He's not voted for directly either. Same for each member of the cabinet.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        How many times... the Prime Minister IS democratically elected! If you're interested in how it happens, follow the upcoming Conservative leader elections. As for the countries appointing a Commissioner, it doesn't matter as Commissioners have a clear mandate to avoid taking instructions from their own government. In other words, they don't represent the people that appoint them either. If you don't believe me, watch this video from the European Commission's own YouTube channel, see if you can spot the bit about not taking instructions from their own countries... http://youtu.be/nWpgO1EPO_Y http://youtu.be/nWpgO1EPO_Y
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > How many times... the Prime Minister IS democratically elected. If you're interested in how it happens, follow the upcoming Conservative leader elections. The upcoming Conservative leader elections will elect the new prime minister, and will not be a direct democratic election of the British populace, so that would seem to support the upthread claim that the PM is not directly, democratically elected.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        I don't know if you're from the UK or not, but I'll assume for the moment that you're not... In the UK system, you vote for members of parliament (MP for short) that represent your local area. The majority of MPs have party affiliations, so in principal you vote based on both the local candidate and the party that you want to rule the country (in practice many people know diddly squat about their local MP and vote purely on party affiliation). So long as a party reaches past a set number of MPs in order to reach a parliamentary majority, the leader of that party becomes the prime minister. In principal, as people are voting for the best combination of MP candidate and party that suits them, there's no need for a new election to decide the new prime minister as the Conservatives still hold the parliamentary majority. In practice, as most people know very little about their MPs and are voting based on the personality and perceived competency of the party leader (and/or identification with the principals of the party), there will be people calling for a new general election. I didn't vote for the Conservatives, and I'd like to see Labour take their place, but now is not the right time to do so. Not only have we got the uncertainty surrounding Brexit, there's also a civil war going on in the Labour party, which is likely to get worse when the report from the Chilcot Inquiry on the Iraq war is released next week. We need stability right now, new UK elections can wait until 2020. Also, the leader of each party is voted for by the members of that party, and anyone can become a member of a party by paying a small membership fee. If you care about who is the leader of a particular party, you do have the choice to have a say in it.
    - lliamander 10y ago
      It is difficult to measure how 'democratic' a particular government is. Some have compared the E.U. favorably to the U.K. government while still acknowledging that it falls short in certain regards [0]. But democracy is about more than just voting. It really comes down to "how much say does the average person have in the rules that govern their lives?". Will the Scottish vote count for as much being a part of the E.U. (where they are only 1% of the population) as it will staying a part of the U.K. (where they are 8% of the population)? Will the Scottish parliament retain as much independence from the E.U. parliament as they do from the U.K. parliament? Will the Scottish government be in a position to protect the interests of its people against political machinations, or will they be too often asked to sacrifice on behalf of "the greater good"? I don't presume to have answers to those questions, so Scotland joining the E.U. may be the smart move. It just doesn't seem obviously so to me. [0] http://theconversation.com/how-democratic-is-the-european-union-59419 http://theconversation.com/how-democratic-is-the-european-un...
      - tremon 10y ago
        (where they are 8% of the population)? They may be 8% of the population, but they have 0.15% of the government's power. Scottish law is written mainly in Westminster, in which the conservatives have an absolute majority. 56 of the 59 Scottish seats went to the SNP, only one to the conservatives.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        56 seats out of 650 = 8.6%. Population of Scotland as a percentage of total UK population: 5.3 million people / 64.1 million people = 8.3%. Seems like the Scottish have about the same level of say as the rest of the UK population when it comes to the House of Commons. Plus, they have their own parliament in Holyrood.
        tremon 10y ago
        I said power, not representation. But you're right, I should have said 0.3% (1/331), not 1/650.
    - pzh 10y ago
      The Comission.
      - themihai 10y ago
        This sounds quite democratic to me. Am I wrong? "A new team of 28 Commissioners (one from each EU Member State) is appointed every five years. The candidate for President of the Commission is proposed to the European Parliament by the European Council that decides by qualified majority and taking into account the elections to the European Parliament."
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Commissioners don't represent the people that elected them, they take an oath to put the interests of the EU itself ahead of the wishes of member countries.
        themihai 10y ago
        Well, the gov cabinet members are not elected either. People elect only key people(i.e. the PM/president etc) that have the power to delegate others to work on their behalf(i.e a chain of command that starts with the vote). I don't see how the interest of the EU would not be the interest of the member countries.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        All cabinet members have a dual role, as they are also their constituent's MP. Furthermore, if they do a bad job in either role, they can be voted out at the next election. The same type of democratic accountability does not exist for EU Commissioners, as the general public can't vote for someone to replace them. > "I don't see how the interest of the EU would not be the interest of the member countries." Perhaps it's worth considering other groups they can be serving, namely themselves and big business. In terms of serving themselves, changes that expand the influence of the EU over member states can be of interest to the Commission even if they didn't serve the individual member states, as the goal could be to create a European super state (there are signs that this is what's planned for the EU, especially the Eurozone countries). As for serving big business, there are over 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, that number wouldn't be so high if they weren't having some success. I could point out examples of the European Commission pushing forward proposals from big business if you're interested?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Which (to my American eyes) strikes me as odd. Isn't the average Scot given more democratic say by being a part of the U.K. than the E.U.? Independent of how much "democratic say" Scotland has in the EU vs the UK (which I'm not even sure how you would quantify and compare), the EU is a more limited government than the UK, and requires unanimity for certain important actions. Even with the devolved Scottish government, Westminster has more extensive power to set law in Scotland against the will of the people of Scotland than the EU would if Scotland were a member.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "the EU is a more limited government than the UK" That's how things stand now, but they won't for long. If an independent Scotland chose to join the EU they'd have to make some tough decisions about how much of their power to give away. For example, will they join the Eurozone? Even if they choose not to now, increasing consolidation of the Eurozone may make it pretty much inevitable in the near future, especially after 2025 when the EU Treasury is due to be set up, as the EU Treasury will almost certainly focus on the economic development of Eurozone countries.
themihai 10y ago
The EU is about a united/cohesive and strong Europe. Ukraine is a european country outside kf EU and look what kind of issues they have and how the other european countries responded.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  I'll leave 'strong' aside for the moment. Looking at united/cohesive, how united/cohesive do you want to see EU member countries become? Would you like to see a United States of Europe? If not, where do you draw the line, what decisions should national governments retain control over?
  - themihai 10y ago
    With border controls in place people don't feel very united and the border control was the main reason why the UK had to leave EU. I think the more integrated EU becomes the better for all so you end-up with USE but this should take time(i.e 100 years). To sum it up UK is not interested in the EU values or political integration. It wants just a trade agreement so I fail to see how EU could meet its demands.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "border control was the main reason why the UK had to leave EU" No, it wasn't. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the reasons for leaving the EU were far more diverse than the mainstream media led people to believe. If you think that the main reason for leaving was border control then you've been lied to, it's as simple as that.
      - themihai 10y ago
        I hope you are right...will see how it goes on the negotiations table. Freedom of movement is still required to access the EU market.

tremon 10y ago

They wanted independence from Westminster, not from the EU.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
Why? What do the gain from independence from Westminster that they wouldn't have to give up by rejoining the EU?
lliamander 10y ago
Which (to my American eyes) strikes me as odd. Isn't the average Scot given more democratic say by being a part of the U.K. than the E.U.? As I understand it, the E.U. is not a particularly democratic institution to begin with, and without the Westminster to back them up I would think Scotland would be more vulnerable to E.U. politics. Perhaps I am mistaken?
- themihai 10y ago
  EU is as democratic as it gets but I think it failed to market itself as such. There is an elected parliament so what's undemocratic?
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    I feel like a broken record at this point, but... The European Parliament has less power than every other parliament that I know of in one crucial way... They cannot propose new laws. Without the power to propose new laws, they cannot set the agenda for the EU. Only the European Commission can propose new laws, and Commissioners are not voted for by the general public. That's the key reason that the EU is not as democratic as the UK's political system, elected representatives do not have the full power to represent your interests, they can only shape what other people propose.
    - ropiku 10y ago
      Commissioners are not voted for by the general public directly. Each country appoints one. Why is the general public not annoyed at the undemocratic Prime Minister ? He's not voted for directly either. Same for each member of the cabinet.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        How many times... the Prime Minister IS democratically elected! If you're interested in how it happens, follow the upcoming Conservative leader elections. As for the countries appointing a Commissioner, it doesn't matter as Commissioners have a clear mandate to avoid taking instructions from their own government. In other words, they don't represent the people that appoint them either. If you don't believe me, watch this video from the European Commission's own YouTube channel, see if you can spot the bit about not taking instructions from their own countries... http://youtu.be/nWpgO1EPO_Y http://youtu.be/nWpgO1EPO_Y
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > How many times... the Prime Minister IS democratically elected. If you're interested in how it happens, follow the upcoming Conservative leader elections. The upcoming Conservative leader elections will elect the new prime minister, and will not be a direct democratic election of the British populace, so that would seem to support the upthread claim that the PM is not directly, democratically elected.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        I don't know if you're from the UK or not, but I'll assume for the moment that you're not... In the UK system, you vote for members of parliament (MP for short) that represent your local area. The majority of MPs have party affiliations, so in principal you vote based on both the local candidate and the party that you want to rule the country (in practice many people know diddly squat about their local MP and vote purely on party affiliation). So long as a party reaches past a set number of MPs in order to reach a parliamentary majority, the leader of that party becomes the prime minister. In principal, as people are voting for the best combination of MP candidate and party that suits them, there's no need for a new election to decide the new prime minister as the Conservatives still hold the parliamentary majority. In practice, as most people know very little about their MPs and are voting based on the personality and perceived competency of the party leader (and/or identification with the principals of the party), there will be people calling for a new general election. I didn't vote for the Conservatives, and I'd like to see Labour take their place, but now is not the right time to do so. Not only have we got the uncertainty surrounding Brexit, there's also a civil war going on in the Labour party, which is likely to get worse when the report from the Chilcot Inquiry on the Iraq war is released next week. We need stability right now, new UK elections can wait until 2020. Also, the leader of each party is voted for by the members of that party, and anyone can become a member of a party by paying a small membership fee. If you care about who is the leader of a particular party, you do have the choice to have a say in it.
  - lliamander 10y ago
    It is difficult to measure how 'democratic' a particular government is. Some have compared the E.U. favorably to the U.K. government while still acknowledging that it falls short in certain regards [0]. But democracy is about more than just voting. It really comes down to "how much say does the average person have in the rules that govern their lives?". Will the Scottish vote count for as much being a part of the E.U. (where they are only 1% of the population) as it will staying a part of the U.K. (where they are 8% of the population)? Will the Scottish parliament retain as much independence from the E.U. parliament as they do from the U.K. parliament? Will the Scottish government be in a position to protect the interests of its people against political machinations, or will they be too often asked to sacrifice on behalf of "the greater good"? I don't presume to have answers to those questions, so Scotland joining the E.U. may be the smart move. It just doesn't seem obviously so to me. [0] http://theconversation.com/how-democratic-is-the-european-union-59419 http://theconversation.com/how-democratic-is-the-european-un...
    - tremon 10y ago
      (where they are 8% of the population)? They may be 8% of the population, but they have 0.15% of the government's power. Scottish law is written mainly in Westminster, in which the conservatives have an absolute majority. 56 of the 59 Scottish seats went to the SNP, only one to the conservatives.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        56 seats out of 650 = 8.6%. Population of Scotland as a percentage of total UK population: 5.3 million people / 64.1 million people = 8.3%. Seems like the Scottish have about the same level of say as the rest of the UK population when it comes to the House of Commons. Plus, they have their own parliament in Holyrood.
        tremon 10y ago
        I said power, not representation. But you're right, I should have said 0.3% (1/331), not 1/650.
  - pzh 10y ago
    The Comission.
    - themihai 10y ago
      This sounds quite democratic to me. Am I wrong? "A new team of 28 Commissioners (one from each EU Member State) is appointed every five years. The candidate for President of the Commission is proposed to the European Parliament by the European Council that decides by qualified majority and taking into account the elections to the European Parliament."
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Commissioners don't represent the people that elected them, they take an oath to put the interests of the EU itself ahead of the wishes of member countries.
        themihai 10y ago
        Well, the gov cabinet members are not elected either. People elect only key people(i.e. the PM/president etc) that have the power to delegate others to work on their behalf(i.e a chain of command that starts with the vote). I don't see how the interest of the EU would not be the interest of the member countries.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        All cabinet members have a dual role, as they are also their constituent's MP. Furthermore, if they do a bad job in either role, they can be voted out at the next election. The same type of democratic accountability does not exist for EU Commissioners, as the general public can't vote for someone to replace them. > "I don't see how the interest of the EU would not be the interest of the member countries." Perhaps it's worth considering other groups they can be serving, namely themselves and big business. In terms of serving themselves, changes that expand the influence of the EU over member states can be of interest to the Commission even if they didn't serve the individual member states, as the goal could be to create a European super state (there are signs that this is what's planned for the EU, especially the Eurozone countries). As for serving big business, there are over 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, that number wouldn't be so high if they weren't having some success. I could point out examples of the European Commission pushing forward proposals from big business if you're interested?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Which (to my American eyes) strikes me as odd. Isn't the average Scot given more democratic say by being a part of the U.K. than the E.U.? Independent of how much "democratic say" Scotland has in the EU vs the UK (which I'm not even sure how you would quantify and compare), the EU is a more limited government than the UK, and requires unanimity for certain important actions. Even with the devolved Scottish government, Westminster has more extensive power to set law in Scotland against the will of the people of Scotland than the EU would if Scotland were a member.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "the EU is a more limited government than the UK" That's how things stand now, but they won't for long. If an independent Scotland chose to join the EU they'd have to make some tough decisions about how much of their power to give away. For example, will they join the Eurozone? Even if they choose not to now, increasing consolidation of the Eurozone may make it pretty much inevitable in the near future, especially after 2025 when the EU Treasury is due to be set up, as the EU Treasury will almost certainly focus on the economic development of Eurozone countries.

themihai 10y ago

The EU is about a united/cohesive and strong Europe. Ukraine is a european country outside kf EU and look what kind of issues they have and how the other european countries responded.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
I'll leave 'strong' aside for the moment. Looking at united/cohesive, how united/cohesive do you want to see EU member countries become? Would you like to see a United States of Europe? If not, where do you draw the line, what decisions should national governments retain control over?
- themihai 10y ago
  With border controls in place people don't feel very united and the border control was the main reason why the UK had to leave EU. I think the more integrated EU becomes the better for all so you end-up with USE but this should take time(i.e 100 years). To sum it up UK is not interested in the EU values or political integration. It wants just a trade agreement so I fail to see how EU could meet its demands.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "border control was the main reason why the UK had to leave EU" No, it wasn't. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the reasons for leaving the EU were far more diverse than the mainstream media led people to believe. If you think that the main reason for leaving was border control then you've been lied to, it's as simple as that.
    - themihai 10y ago
      I hope you are right...will see how it goes on the negotiations table. Freedom of movement is still required to access the EU market.