|
Spooky Hyena posted:Forgive me if I don't grace the thread with a retort to your theory that yes voters are "whiny babies", but it's just irrelevant. An argument about it would only show how conflict-filled, juvinile and useless the scotpol thread gets at times. Hardly surprising the Scotpol thread gets conflict filled, this entire thread and the one before are almost entirely based on one incredibly polarising issue that has often been surrounded in more dogma than fact or reason.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Maybe I'm biased but I think this thread is great. Here's to another seven pages 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
I voted yes and Pissflaps' posts are my favourite in this thread, go figure. There are still people on my Facebook in a rage about the Lewes bonfire who seem to be operating under the misconception that (a) Scottish is a race & (b) somehow blowing up a paper mache float is illegal. Unpalatable maybe but not illegal. Personally I find the annual fixture of the Pope more off-putting than any political figure. It's not like we have any shortage of weird festivals with sectarian undertones here in Scotland either. I do wish Spitting Image was still around just to see how much they could rile people up these days. On another point; I'm quite concerned about the post-referendum attitude from a lot of people as well. I thought the whole "we are the 45%" patter was a bad idea to begin with. Now we're a month and a half down the like and all I'm hearing is "we want another referendum in 5 years". If that happens, cool, I'll vote in it then. That's 5 years; you can achieve a lot in 5 years. The only real factor that should have mattered in the way anyone voted in the referendum is "can the problems we face be solved more or less effectively by going independent". That wasn't the reasoning for some but I hope it was for most. It doesn't matter though. The decision was to stay in the UK. Those of us who voted Yes may have thought it would be harder to solve our societies problems as part of the UK but surely not impossible? It doesn't help anyone to smugly sit and say "I told you so" every time something unpopular happens. My question would be - What do you think are the 5 biggest problems in Scotland and what steps should be taken to resolve them while remaining part of the UK.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
Soylent Green posted:I voted yes and Pissflaps' posts are my favourite in this thread, go figure. Conversely, I get incredibly frustrated with those No voters or people from rUK who feel able to say 'you lost, shut up, the issue is over'. 45% of the population wanted to leave, and that's a pretty damning indictment. It's also a high enough figure that the case is far from closed, especially when you factor in demographic voting trends (No only won because pensioners opted in their droves for it, contrary to every other age group bar the 18-30s, who went No by a marginal 1%. Also, a lot of No voters did so on the basis of statements that have subsequently been proven to be false and promises that show little chance of being acted on meaningfully, given that the lion's share of the decisionmaking is going to be heavily influenced by the usual pro-union parties). I think there's definitely scope for another referendum in a few years, especially if the Smith commission fails to deliver, as it will. You are right though, we should concentrate on improving things in a UK context in the meantime and stop fetishising independence for its own sake - it was always a means to an end for most people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Soylent Green posted:
Lack of investment, written five times using different language (jobs, infrastructure, social safety net, NHS cutbacks, youth unemployment leading to a brain drain). Elect the SNP and force concessions. Scotland is on path for this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Conversely, I get incredibly frustrated with those No voters or people from rUK who feel able to say 'you lost, shut up, the issue is over'. 45% of the population wanted to leave, and that's a pretty damning indictment. It's also a high enough figure that the case is far from closed, especially when you factor in demographic voting trends (No only won because pensioners opted in their droves for it, contrary to every other age group bar the 18-30s, who went No by a marginal 1%. Also, a lot of No voters did so on the basis of statements that have subsequently been proven to be false and promises that show little chance of being acted on meaningfully, given that the lion's share of the decisionmaking is going to be heavily influenced by the usual pro-union parties). I think there's definitely scope for another referendum in a few years, especially if the Smith commission fails to deliver, as it will. You are right though, we should concentrate on improving things in a UK context in the meantime and stop fetishising independence for its own sake - it was always a means to an end for most people. The promises that have been laid out and given a time table of action? There will not be another referendum for at least 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:45% of the population wanted to leave, and that's a pretty damning indictment. 37% of the voting population wanted to leave, which isn't that damning. The Smith Commission will deliver exactly what it has set out to do: more devolved powers. This will not be enough for nationalists. quote:a lot of No voters did so on the basis of statements that have subsequently been proven to be false Many many is a lot? Which statements have proven to be false?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
In all honesty while I'm sure they exist nobody I know personally who voted no did so on the basis of "the vow", they had all made up their minds at least a month in advance. I know a couple of people who are against more devolution but the Smith Commission gets brought up almost exclusively by yes voters. Bit of confirmation bias with my friends mostly all being other artsy types I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Soylent Green posted:In all honesty while I'm sure they exist nobody I know personally who voted no did so on the basis of "the vow", they had all made up their minds at least a month in advance. I know a couple of people who are against more devolution but the Smith Commission gets brought up almost exclusively by yes voters. Bit of confirmation bias with my friends mostly all being other artsy types I suppose. This is the root of the matter. 'The vow' maybe, and thats a loose maybe, affected 2-3% of the no vote. It did almost nothing to sway the polls so to suddenly say that people voted no on the basis of it is patently false.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:I think there's definitely scope for another referendum in a few years, especially if the Smith commission fails to deliver, as it will. How are you so certain that the Smith Commission will "fail to deliver"? N.B. "not giving me exactly what I want" does not mean "fail to deliver".
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Because they've all convinced each other that Devo Mx was promised, so when the Smith Commission does not deliver Devo Max it will be portrayed as a failure and a broken promise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
The term Devo Max is meaningless at this point as it's been re-used to describe several different plans. However I think it's fair to say that if the results of the commission fall short of what's expected there will be an outcry, just how big it is depends on the results themselves. If we end up with something akin to Labour's Devo-"tweak the edges a wee bit and call it a day" plan then I daresay it'll be a big one. In the long term I feel like enormous UK-wide change is necessary if the union is to be kept, and it's depressing to see that so far the debate on those matters has settled into the usual mudslinging bullshit you'd expect from Westminster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
dadrips posted:However I think it's fair to say that if the results of the commission fall short of what's expected there will be an outcry I think 'what's expected' will be adjusted to being more than what is offered in order to fulfill the prophecy that the Smith Commission will fail. Ultimately, of course, the Scottish people were asked to vote on whether Scotland should be an independent country or not - nothing more, nothing less. They answered 'No'. The sovereign will of the Scottish people will have been respected regardless of what the commission leads to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I think 'what's expected' will be adjusted to being more than what is offered in order to fulfill the prophecy that the Smith Commission will fail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
I think the agenda of perceived expectation will be driven by nationalists, not Labour party members.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
So even though 55% of voters were against independence, nationalists will continue to set the overall agenda? Does that not indicate some kind of weakness on the pro-union side?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Why is it surprising to you that the independence debate agenda is set by nationalists? Isn't it obvious? Weakness would have been no referendum at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
It's no longer about independence, it's about granting Scotland more powers within the United Kingdom. If pro-union parties, organisations and individuals can't make the case for these additional powers being enough to meet Scotland's needs then there's a problem somewhere. Yes, there's always going to be a hardcore group of nationalists for whom anything short of independence isn't enough, but there are people out there (including myself!) who would be perfectly happy to remain in the United Kingdom if a coherent, comprehensive settlement can be reached which both satisfies Scotland's desire for autonomy and fulfils the redistributive obligations of being part of a wider union.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
A good place to start if trying to gauge the desire for more powers would be the polling done on it, which has shown fairly consistently that the public wants far more power for Holyrood than has been proposed thus far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
dadrips posted:If pro-union parties, organisations and individuals can't make the case for these additional powers being enough to meet Scotland's needs then there's a problem somewhere. I think it's really hard to make a positive case that "you should be satisfied with x, y and z". It's much easier to argue from the other position - that we need a, b and c and life will be better than it is today. If you're arguing the former it's difficult to avoid sounding patronising. Your argument is one of limitation - "you should be happy with x, y and z, but you don't need a, b and c" - this sounds negative and is therefore less appealing to voters. It provokes irritation - "who are you to tell me I don't need a, b and c?" "Is it because we're too poor, wee and stupid?" Arguing the positive vision of maximum powers is by far the easier stance in my opinion. The pro-Union campaign's difficulties in articulating their position positively is understandable, as it's always going to be a limiting vision when compared to the Nationalist one. Prince John fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
You mustn't pay too much attention to polls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Conversely, I get incredibly frustrated with those No voters or people from rUK who feel able to say 'you lost, shut up, the issue is over'. 45% of the population wanted to leave, and that's a pretty damning indictment. It's also a high enough figure that the case is far from closed, especially when you factor in demographic voting trends Agreed. Like, in any other election, you don't stop believing in what you voted for just because it didn't win! You just resolve that next time, you need to convince more people. Top 5 problems Distribution of wealth Austerity Lack of democracy/political accountability NHS/public services in general Social inequality Unfortunately, nobody at Westminster is suggesting anything worthwhile to address those problems, indeed they're often being aggravated or caused by the Westminster system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
A referendum is not an election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Acaila posted:Agreed. Like, in any other election, you don't stop believing in what you voted for just because it didn't win! You just resolve that next time, you need to convince more people. I don't think the question was "What are Westminster doing to address these problems" it was more "Given we are remaining part of the UK for the foreseeable future, what can we/Holyrood do about these problems now?" For instance, you may believe we could make steps to addressing Social Inequality by using the powers gained in the Scotland Act to raise taxes on land transactions over 200,000 and to reinstate the 50p tax rate within Scotland. Both of these things could be done by the Scottish Government using powers they have or will have within the next year as a part of laws that have already been passed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
I thought the question was just on what are the problems that could be addressed. The rest was just my own reflection, not an answer to it. Just feel Holyrood in its current form is still hamstrung in what it can do. I actually ummed and erred about putting social inequality down as I was debating whether or not came under distribution of wealth anyway. But I figured there was more to it in an immediate sense than just money. Pissflaps posted:A referendum is not an election. I most humbly beg your pardon for using "election" in place of "direct vote".
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Acaila posted:I thought the question was just on what are the problems that could be addressed. The rest was just my own reflection, not an answer to it. Just feel Holyrood in its current form is still hamstrung in what it can do. quote:What do you think are the 5 biggest problems in Scotland and what steps should be taken to resolve them while remaining part of the UK. Maybe Soylent will weigh in here, as I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I assume the idea was to spark a debate of what Scotland can do now, rather than bitter wailing about new referendums. Even if there is another one in 5 years (and I hope there won't be, I think that £13.3 million can be better used solving some of these problems) that is the full length of a UK Government (longer than a Scottish Government) and if those issues are really that important we should be looking to discuss and form plans to work on those. Social Inequality is much more than wealth distribution, but it still takes money to solve even if that money isn't given directly to those in need but instead spent on other policies that aid those in need.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Tiran Dirth posted:Maybe Soylent will weigh in here, as I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I assume the idea was to spark a debate of what Scotland can do now, rather than bitter wailing about new referendums. This is exactly it. If there's something major that there's no conceivable way to solve within the current scope of Holyrood then I suppose throw in what power you would want transferred to Scottish parliament in the new Scotland Act. For example we're not currently allowed to nationalise the rail network but that power could theoretically be transferred. I'd be surprised if that's top of anyone's list but you get the idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Oh, I did actually completely miss the second part of that question. Welp! Reading comprehension not at its best when ill  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Five biggest problems in Scotland in my opinion, that can be tackled under the current devolution settlement. 1. Distribution of land Scotland is big and empty, with a bunch of pretty much useless land, mostly owned by the landed gentry and absentee billionaires. It needs to be taxed heavily, and where possible taken into public ownership. The Scottish Parliament could do this right now if they wanted to, and hopefully Sturgeon will be a bit more bold than her predecessors. 2. Secondary education is in a bit of a mess This is fully devolved and the SNP are being rightly criticised for their inaction, though Labour, and the Liberals should also a shoulder a chunk of the blame as the decline started on their watch. I don't know poo poo about education but there are a bunch of countries we can look at and adapt systems from. 3. Structure of local authorities Local authorities are vast in Scotland, around 30 times bigger than the European average. If the Scottish Parliament had the balls they could radically restructure local government to make it far more accountable and relevant to peoples everyday lives. Devolution from Westminster has been generally positive, and it needs to be extended downwards. Everyone and his dog is now in a political party, so I'm sure that there wont be a shortage of potential councillors. 4. Horrible life expectancy in deprived areas Health is fully devolved and Bridgeton has an average life expectancy of 58. This is a disgrace, and as much as the problem is tied to mismanagement from WM, I'm not convinced that we can't tackle it directly using present powers. 5. Lack of affordable housing The SNP already ended right to buy, now they need to start building and replacing the sold off housing stock. Maybe combined with reforms of land and local authorities we can get a major house building program underway. This is also a creator of high quality and well paid jobs. Edit: Five powers that should transfer to Holyrood that are currently reserved to WM: 1. Energy This seems to have been undevolved on the sly to hobble the renewables industry and open the doors to fracking. 2. Fuel duty It's expensive to live in rural areas, food costs more, public transport in non existent. Cheaper fuel means that it costs lest to transport food, and bus services can afford to operate a bit more than one every couple of hours. 3. Following from fuel duty, should be control of taxation on oil and gas revenues. There's loads of it, and it's been consistently pissed away. Setting up an Oil fund is a must, and Shetland is a precedent for this since they already have one and are thus swimming in cash used for infrastructure spending. 4. Welfare Welfare should be devolved, so that whenever some shower of cunts decide to attack the disabled and tax spare rooms we can get rid of them. 5. Broadcasting Scottish broadcasting is a bit gash you will have to admit. Sure we have BBC Scotland, which operates on a shoestring budget and programming is still commissioned directly from London. I cant think of no reason why BBC Scotland can't run itself and buy in programs from the main network that it wants. These five potential powers I believe are realistic, though in all honesty why not just devolve the lot and we can send an annual block grant to London to pay for whenever they want to bomb some Arabs. keep punching joe fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
What are you thinking is a mess in terms of education? The SNP did implement a completely new curriculum (which iirc was planned, at least initially, by Labour) and while people will grumble at the pace of that, it's hardly inaction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:This is the root of the matter. 'The vow' maybe, and thats a loose maybe, affected 2-3% of the no vote. It did almost nothing to sway the polls so to suddenly say that people voted no on the basis of it is patently false. Maybe it affected 3% of the no vote, but then again maybe it actually affected 5% of the no vote which would have swung the vote for yes. It's quite small margins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
return0 posted:Maybe it affected 3% of the no vote, but then again maybe it actually affected 5% of the no vote which would have swung the vote for yes. It's quite small margins. Maybe it persuaded people to vote Yes? Also it's important to remember that 'the vow' hasn't actually been broken.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Burqa King posted:Maybe I'm biased but I think this thread is great. Here's to another seven pages :cheers: The reason you think the thread is great is directly related to why you remade it in the first place. Enjoying conflict is not a rare human behavior. Nor is stoking the fire. CoolCab posted:Lack of investment, written five times using different language (jobs, infrastructure, social safety net, NHS cutbacks, youth unemployment leading to a brain drain). Elect the SNP and force concessions. Scotland is on path for this. Those are issues everywhere in the UK other than the South East of England. Never going to agree that one part of the UK gets to flee at the expense of the rest because of issues that are universal. That the UK is sick is obvious but I don't think it's enough that Nationalism and Nationalists should ever stop being dirty words. Maybe the one good thing to come from regional devolution is English people will be able to conceptually understand the notion of independence from England, a bigger problem than I suspect others think it is, and then and only then will independence movements be fair. Regarde Aduck fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Nov 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:The reason you think the thread is great is directly related to why you remade it in the first place. Enjoying conflict is not a rare human behavior. Nor is stoking the fire. Does this mean you don't want to bomb traitors any more?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Does this mean you don't want to bomb traitors any more? Your capacity to disingenuously miss hyperbole is still just as cutting as it was the first 500 times. I'm crazy. I'm like myself on crack. And I bet i'm better at EU4.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Your capacity to disingenuously miss hyperbole is still just as cutting as it was the first 500 times. I am going to take this as a no, you no longer wish this/did not ever wish this. also to be fair to you I am terrible at EUIV
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Those are issues everywhere in the UK other than the South East of England. I don't disagree, but that wasn't the question. Scotland is in a position to actually do something about it; the nature of parliamentary democracy means that if they are the kingmaker they can bring home bacon: this is the same reason the SE doesn't have this problem. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:also to be fair to you I am terrible at EUIV Why wasn't the referendum just a modded multiplayer game of EUIV? Salmond sending alliance requests to Hollande, Cameron sending Murdoch to fabricate claims in Edinburgh... (end result: Great Britain formed by Scotland  )
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Daily Fail are reporting that Alex Salmond may be looking to challenge Danny Alexander at the general elections. I know it's the Mail and all, but that would be hilarious!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Tiran Dirth posted:reinstate the 50p tax rate within Scotland. This is technically possible, but only if they raised the basic rate 5 points which wouldn't be very popular
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 11:57
|
|
