4 ms·

Because Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom and their secession is therefore of great consequence for the rest of the union - how is that not obvious? I li

Because Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom and their secession is therefore of great consequence for the rest of the union - how is that not obvious? I live in Scotland FYI. I am undecided on independence, but clearly part of the calculus is how it effects matters of concern to the rest of the UK. Consider what is to me, the following con and pro: (1) Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK and its secession would condemn the rest of the union to indefinite right-wing government. (2) The UK's nuclear subs would have to be restationed, but there isn't a suitable harbour anywhere in the rest of the UK, creating an opportunity for it to be scrapped.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
> (1) Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK and its secession would condemn the rest of the union to indefinite right-wing government. Scotland's voters cannot influence the vote in England, under any circumstances. If you want rid of the Tories, you have to teach England not to vote for the Tories.
- Emma_Goldman 4y ago
  I have no idea what you are talking about. In the UK general election citizens of all realms of the UK vote, meaning that Scotland being more left-wing has led to comparatively more left-wing UK governments than would be the case in its absence. So 'if you want rid of the Tories', Scotland is a great asset.
  - DonaldFisk 4y ago
    The union worked well as long as voters in Scotland and England voted similarly, but that hasn't been the case since the 1970s. Scottish voters only rarely influence the outcome of elections to the Westminster parliament, because even thought they vote differently, they only make up about 10% of the GB population (Northern Ireland has different political parties). Almost always, whatever the English electorate votes for, Scotland gets, even when voters in Scotland vote differently. In the few exceptions where England voted Tory but got Labour because of Scottish votes, how was that fair on England?
    - afavour 4y ago
      IMO any discussion about “fairness” is null and void while the U.K. has a FPTP electoral system. It’s inherently unfair and a poor representation of voters wishes, no matter which country they live in.
      - DonaldFisk 4y ago
        I agree - there are better systems, such as the one for the Scottish Parliament. There was a referendum on changing the system to a slightly better one in 2011, but that was rejected.
    - Emma_Goldman 4y ago
      >"In the few exceptions where England voted Tory but got Labour because of Scottish votes, how was that fair on England?" You can always say that if one region that voted for the winning party in a close election hadn't, the outcome would have been different. I don't understand how that's unfair, it's inherent in the arithmetic of majoritarian democracy. You could say the same thing about London or the northwest, which both err leftwards. Unless you're starting off with the idea that Scotland and England are fundamentally different units? Which begs the question.
      - smcl 4y ago
        You're very carefully dodging the main point made by DonaldFisk: that it rarely matters how Scotland votes. Whoever England votes for, Scotland gets. We could've sent 59 Scottish Labour MPs to Westminster in each of the last three elections and it wouldn't have changed a thing, because England wanted a Conservative government.
        Emma_Goldman 4y ago
        >Whoever England votes for, Scotland gets. We could've sent 59 Scottish Labour MPs to Westminster in each of the last three elections and it wouldn't have changed a thing, because England wanted a Conservative government. In 2017, if Scotland didn't elect 13 Conservatives to Westminster then Theresa May would not have been able to form a government with the DUP. If it also didn't elect 4 Liberal Democrats then Theresa May would not have been able to form a government even if she somehow managed to establish a three-way power-sharing agreement with the DUP and the Liberal Democrats. In that event May probably wouldn't have been able to form a government, and there would have been new elections. And remember, May was in abysmal straits at the time. > You're very carefully dodging the main point Well, the 'point' wasn't a response to the existing conversation. It was a random interpolation, and I didn't find it very remarkable. In a Parliament of 650 seats no randomly selected bloc of 59 constituencies is likely to play a deciding role in the outcome. It will happen sometimes, but not often. But why would it be otherwise? Of course, if you start off with the belief that Scotland is an independent entity that merits complete self-determination, then that will be a problem. But that begs the question, again.

Gordonjcp 4y ago

> (1) Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK and its secession would condemn the rest of the union to indefinite right-wing government. Scotland's voters cannot influence the vote in England, under any circumstances. If you want rid of the Tories, you have to teach England not to vote for the Tories.

Emma_Goldman 4y ago
I have no idea what you are talking about. In the UK general election citizens of all realms of the UK vote, meaning that Scotland being more left-wing has led to comparatively more left-wing UK governments than would be the case in its absence. So 'if you want rid of the Tories', Scotland is a great asset.
- DonaldFisk 4y ago
  The union worked well as long as voters in Scotland and England voted similarly, but that hasn't been the case since the 1970s. Scottish voters only rarely influence the outcome of elections to the Westminster parliament, because even thought they vote differently, they only make up about 10% of the GB population (Northern Ireland has different political parties). Almost always, whatever the English electorate votes for, Scotland gets, even when voters in Scotland vote differently. In the few exceptions where England voted Tory but got Labour because of Scottish votes, how was that fair on England?
  - afavour 4y ago
    IMO any discussion about “fairness” is null and void while the U.K. has a FPTP electoral system. It’s inherently unfair and a poor representation of voters wishes, no matter which country they live in.
    - DonaldFisk 4y ago
      I agree - there are better systems, such as the one for the Scottish Parliament. There was a referendum on changing the system to a slightly better one in 2011, but that was rejected.
  - Emma_Goldman 4y ago
    >"In the few exceptions where England voted Tory but got Labour because of Scottish votes, how was that fair on England?" You can always say that if one region that voted for the winning party in a close election hadn't, the outcome would have been different. I don't understand how that's unfair, it's inherent in the arithmetic of majoritarian democracy. You could say the same thing about London or the northwest, which both err leftwards. Unless you're starting off with the idea that Scotland and England are fundamentally different units? Which begs the question.
    - smcl 4y ago
      You're very carefully dodging the main point made by DonaldFisk: that it rarely matters how Scotland votes. Whoever England votes for, Scotland gets. We could've sent 59 Scottish Labour MPs to Westminster in each of the last three elections and it wouldn't have changed a thing, because England wanted a Conservative government.
      - Emma_Goldman 4y ago
        >Whoever England votes for, Scotland gets. We could've sent 59 Scottish Labour MPs to Westminster in each of the last three elections and it wouldn't have changed a thing, because England wanted a Conservative government. In 2017, if Scotland didn't elect 13 Conservatives to Westminster then Theresa May would not have been able to form a government with the DUP. If it also didn't elect 4 Liberal Democrats then Theresa May would not have been able to form a government even if she somehow managed to establish a three-way power-sharing agreement with the DUP and the Liberal Democrats. In that event May probably wouldn't have been able to form a government, and there would have been new elections. And remember, May was in abysmal straits at the time. > You're very carefully dodging the main point Well, the 'point' wasn't a response to the existing conversation. It was a random interpolation, and I didn't find it very remarkable. In a Parliament of 650 seats no randomly selected bloc of 59 constituencies is likely to play a deciding role in the outcome. It will happen sometimes, but not often. But why would it be otherwise? Of course, if you start off with the belief that Scotland is an independent entity that merits complete self-determination, then that will be a problem. But that begs the question, again.