3 ms·

What sort of moron prefers sandwiches to cakes??!! Just kidding :) I live and work here, I do understand that the risks are real, but I am also aware that the

What sort of moron prefers sandwiches to cakes??!! Just kidding :) I live and work here, I do understand that the risks are real, but I am also aware that the spirit of the Scottish people has been crushed by the fact that they have not had control over their own destiny. You might be English, in which case this will seem mystifying, but people genuinely do need that control. People can disagree on individual policies, but this is a meta issue, regardless of where you sit on the usual political spectrum: do we make our own decisions, or allow someone else to do that for us? I have spent a lot of time interacting and understanding the motivations of No voters. If you are not from the UK, you might be unfamiliar with the UK press, but there is a tremendous bias towards the establishment and they are very good at pressing the right buttons. A complicated system of pensions, benefits and tax credits has created a situation in which most people feel dependent upon the state, despite the fact that everyone is paying substantial amounts right back into the state. My observation is that the sudden swing towards independence is largely due to an active and highly-motivated grassroots campaign highlighting some of the cruder button-pressing attempts by the No campaign. Voter by voter, they are dispelling fear.

chrisseaton 12y ago
"do we make our own decisions, or allow someone else to do that for us?" The problem is, who do you consider to be "we" and who is "someone else". Does Scotland make her own decisions or allow the UK to do that for her? Do the Highlands make their own decisions or allow Scotland to do that for them? Does my town make its own decisions or allow the Highlands to do that for them? Why is Scotland the point at which you cut off and say this is a "we" and other people are a "someone else"? It sounds very reasonable to say people should govern themselves, but how do you stop before you reduce to absurdity? Is it because Scotland is a "nation"? What does that mean? That it used to be independent? So did many regions in the UK. Is Cornwall a nation as well? What about the whole north of England, which is culturally very different to the south? You say that the Scottish have had no control over their own destiny, but they've had exactly as much control as any other arbitrary region of land in the UK - they return members of parliament like anyone else.
- WordSkill 12y ago
  I agree that the same principle could bring decision-making down to a highly-localised level, which could actually be a very good thing, but, again, you are just technically wrong to suggest that Scotland is an arbitrary region: It entered the union as Scotland, legally it is bound to leave the union in the same form. Whether the Shetlanders later decide to push for independence is a separate issue. As it stands, you've chosen a tough position if you want to argue that Scotland is not a very distinct country. Bear in mind that they already have an entirely separate legal system, consumer laws, NHS, educational system etc. More importantly, they overwhelming self-identify as Scottish, regardless of whether they happen to be voting yes or no in the current referendum. Wales may push for independence at some point. Perhaps Cornwall might care enough about it too. The most interesting independence question, however, is England: I have yet to meet an Englishman who has a true sense of what his country is or how to square the massive difference between London and the rest of the country. By the way, you are wrong about the control you think we have. Yes, we get to send MPs down to Westminster, but that did not do a thing to stop the massive moral and financial tragedies of Afghanistan and Iraq, which the Scottish, right across the political spectrum, where overwhelming against. We also have no say in the storing of Europe's biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons just a few miles down the road from our most heavily populated city. No English region would agree to that (would you?), but the Scottish MPs are always out-voted 10-1. That is not democracy.
  - chrisseaton 12y ago
    "By the way, you are wrong about the control you think we have. Yes, we get to send MPs down to Westminster, but that did not do a thing to stop the massive moral and financial tragedies of Afghanistan and Iraq, which the Scottish, right across the political spectrum, where overwhelming against." But again, you can say this for any level: "People who live near Heathrow have no say over whether or not it gets a third runway. Yes their MP can vote against it but the Heathrow MP will always be out-voted by the rest of the commons". (I don't know the real opinion of them or their MP, it's an example). I can't resolve the problem in my mind of it being an arbitrary division of the population. You could find pockets of people overwhelmingly in favour or against some issue all around the country. Is it not democracy because they don't get their way? Of course not. What size does a region have to be to be able to veto policy to satisfy your democracy condition?

chrisseaton 12y ago

"do we make our own decisions, or allow someone else to do that for us?" The problem is, who do you consider to be "we" and who is "someone else". Does Scotland make her own decisions or allow the UK to do that for her? Do the Highlands make their own decisions or allow Scotland to do that for them? Does my town make its own decisions or allow the Highlands to do that for them? Why is Scotland the point at which you cut off and say this is a "we" and other people are a "someone else"? It sounds very reasonable to say people should govern themselves, but how do you stop before you reduce to absurdity? Is it because Scotland is a "nation"? What does that mean? That it used to be independent? So did many regions in the UK. Is Cornwall a nation as well? What about the whole north of England, which is culturally very different to the south? You say that the Scottish have had no control over their own destiny, but they've had exactly as much control as any other arbitrary region of land in the UK - they return members of parliament like anyone else.

WordSkill 12y ago
I agree that the same principle could bring decision-making down to a highly-localised level, which could actually be a very good thing, but, again, you are just technically wrong to suggest that Scotland is an arbitrary region: It entered the union as Scotland, legally it is bound to leave the union in the same form. Whether the Shetlanders later decide to push for independence is a separate issue. As it stands, you've chosen a tough position if you want to argue that Scotland is not a very distinct country. Bear in mind that they already have an entirely separate legal system, consumer laws, NHS, educational system etc. More importantly, they overwhelming self-identify as Scottish, regardless of whether they happen to be voting yes or no in the current referendum. Wales may push for independence at some point. Perhaps Cornwall might care enough about it too. The most interesting independence question, however, is England: I have yet to meet an Englishman who has a true sense of what his country is or how to square the massive difference between London and the rest of the country. By the way, you are wrong about the control you think we have. Yes, we get to send MPs down to Westminster, but that did not do a thing to stop the massive moral and financial tragedies of Afghanistan and Iraq, which the Scottish, right across the political spectrum, where overwhelming against. We also have no say in the storing of Europe's biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons just a few miles down the road from our most heavily populated city. No English region would agree to that (would you?), but the Scottish MPs are always out-voted 10-1. That is not democracy.
- chrisseaton 12y ago
  "By the way, you are wrong about the control you think we have. Yes, we get to send MPs down to Westminster, but that did not do a thing to stop the massive moral and financial tragedies of Afghanistan and Iraq, which the Scottish, right across the political spectrum, where overwhelming against." But again, you can say this for any level: "People who live near Heathrow have no say over whether or not it gets a third runway. Yes their MP can vote against it but the Heathrow MP will always be out-voted by the rest of the commons". (I don't know the real opinion of them or their MP, it's an example). I can't resolve the problem in my mind of it being an arbitrary division of the population. You could find pockets of people overwhelmingly in favour or against some issue all around the country. Is it not democracy because they don't get their way? Of course not. What size does a region have to be to be able to veto policy to satisfy your democracy condition?