|
Kin posted:A divided UK may force the drastic political change that's been needed to break the UK out of the endless Labour/Tory cycle. I wouldn't. Ferguson is a vile Empire apologist. It's basically a paean to rape, pillage and slaughter. Red7 posted:Wouldn't this (for the most part) be served by Devolution Max? The issue of Scotland splitting from the union is not that terrifying. In practical terms we have precedence (Irish Home Rule) and that was before the EU. The Queen will still be head of state and, if they wanted to make the relationship more like Australia or Canada, she could be represented by a Scottish Governor General. They could be called something like, I don't know, High Steward of Scotland, Scottish pounds already exist. I haven't had a Bank of England note in my wallet in years. We'd keep the pound (or pund) pegged to Sterling like the Irish did for 40 years until the ERM broke the 1:1 link, at least to begin with, then maybe peg it to what's left of the Euro or even float it. New Zealand has a GDP of $161bn and a population of 4.4 million. Scotland has a GDP of $219bn and a population of 5.25 million. It has a per capita GDP higher than that of New Zealand and Australia and yet no one ever says New Zealand or Australia are too small or too poor to be an independent country. I guess if it was only 2: the number of pandas in Scotland, twice the number of Tory MPs. Edited: because like Scotland, New Zealand's biggest city is not its capital. Iohannes fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jun 16, 2012 |
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
The issue of 'punching above our weight on the world stage' seems to me to entirely revolve around how effectively we can wage war on foreign soils. By any other measure im pretty certain scotland as an independent country would indeed punch above its weight. Add this poem to the OP; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-znkbMzi4A.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
TheVertigoOfBliss posted:The issue of 'punching above our weight on the world stage' seems to me to entirely revolve around how effectively we can wage war on foreign soils. By any other measure im pretty certain scotland as an independent country would indeed punch above its weight. Coincidentally: Why would we as a nation be waging war on foreign soils if we left the union?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
Tithin Melias posted:Coincidentally: Why would we as a nation be waging war on foreign soils if we left the union? Well for starters you're going to have to invade Saudi Arabia to retrieve the bones of your last king. Anything after that is up to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
Lets see: Austerity in the EU is about to drive Greece (and Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France?) out of the Eurozone. The UK, a three hundred year old union, is falling apart in the face of Conservative Austerity. Canada is having a meltdown. I'd point out Quebec, though I'm not sure some joke about the rest of Canada wanting to succeed from Alberta isn't more accurate. Seems to me that the real problem here is Austerity is completely toxic to cohesion in most political entities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
Kin posted:A divided UK may force the drastic political change that's been needed to break the UK out of the endless Labour/Tory cycle. Niall Ferguson is a neo-imperialist, save your money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Iohannes posted:Yes, but Westminster aren't allowing us that option because that would raise the horror of federalism (which actually would, in many ways, be a better solution). Just saying, but, if the UK were to federalize, wouldn't it be wise to also carve up England into multiple federal states in accordance with having somewhat balanced populations among the subfederal entities?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Lid posted:Niall Ferguson is a neo-imperialist, save your money. And anyway, wasn't Scotland in that time period rather poorer than the rest of Britain? It makes sense to me that Scots would be overrepresented in the low and mid levels of the colonial institutions, as a way of getting out of their local poverty. But that doesn't mean they supported the concept of imperialism, any more than African-Americans (who disproportionately serve in the military for the same reason) supported the war in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 08:03
|
|
|
The big question in my mind is, is it too soon to be holding a vote on independence? The way I see it, there is a move towards Scottish independence currently but even in 2014 there's no solid guarantee that it will pass. Perhaps in another five years, or ten years or whenever, but 2014 may be too soon. The thing that concerns me, much like the AV referendum last year, is that if the vote fails the motion will be tabled for God knows how long - probably another generation, even though by that point the Scots may be chomping at the bit to leave the Union. Same goes for Devo-Max which again will essentially be 'it' for years to come and if people get around to thinking that maybe they did want full independence after all, they'll have to fight from the beginning again just like before. If the feeling is that independence is a growing force, why push a vote when you've possibly not even got 50% support? Why not wait till it's 65-70% and make sure? Admittedly, if the SNP can't win a vote now after historic victories in the polls last year and a rampantly Tory government south of the border, when can they win? I'd love to see Scotland leave if they vote for it, but then that leaves those of us in England *not* currently in a Tory stronghold screwed as to when we're not going to see a Tory government in charge. So maybe that's a vote for moving north should you break free...
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 11:25
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:In Empire (a fantastic book that I highly reccommend) Niall Ferguson points out that the majority of East India Company men in India were Scots, followed closely by Irishmen. The Scots were on the frontlines of the Empire from the very start and were very influential. Empire is a really terrible book that whitewashes a whole lot of British Empire history. I'm actually angry at this point that I was so taken in by it when I first read it as an impressionable 18-year-old or whatever. Also looking forward to a repeat of the AV vote, with Niall Ferguson and Anthony Beevor and David Starkey and all the other loving terrible popular historians sending an open letter to Scotland saying "WINSTON CHURCHILL DIDN'T WANT SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE, WHY DO YOU? IT WILL DESTROY DEMOCRACY" Personally I don't consider myself a nationalist at all - Scottish or British - so the labels on these countries don't mean a thing to me, really. On top of that, the SNP - by and large - are a party that I loving hate. I'll still vote yes to independence in any referendum, since at this point I think it'd lead to the possibility of genuine political change in at least one part of Britain. I can't see a move away from neoliberal hell in any part of Britain otherwise. I'd also be quite happy with devolution max. Really the best thing that could happen is that Scotland becomes independent and the SNP collapses into separate parties before the party leadership finishes grooming Angus MacNeil for a leadership position, because he's thick as gently caress and an incompetent and yet inexplicably being pushed to prominence ever since they gave him the cash-for-honours news to break.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 11:34
|
|
|
A vote for independence is a vote for the end of the SNP. They'll split once the only thing holding them together is achieved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 11:54
|
|
|
Yes, that's what I was implying - I'm saying the best thing would be for this to happen before MacNeil becomes more prominent or even, god forbid, the leader of the party. Because his incompetence is guaranteed to postpone any independence project; as much as I dislike Salmond, he's a drat sight better than that streak of Barra piss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 12:00
|
|
|
Niall Ferguson writes in such a way as to bring those who read him down to his level. His adventurous use of counterfactual reasoning to bolster claims is almost anti-historical in its abundance. It's more the unfettered fever dream of an alternative history fiction writer than the work of an academic. I would recommend anyone to avoid his writing at all costs. He's our very own, modern-day Lothrop Stoddard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 12:20
|
|
|
Thanks for the heads up on that book. I'll buy Killing Hope instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:And anyway, wasn't Scotland in that time period rather poorer than the rest of Britain? It makes sense to me that Scots would be overrepresented in the low and mid levels of the colonial institutions, as a way of getting out of their local poverty. But that doesn't mean they supported the concept of imperialism, any more than African-Americans (who disproportionately serve in the military for the same reason) supported the war in Iraq. I'd be careful making such judgements about Scottish attitudes towards imperialism. You are prescribing an ideology on a population over a period of centuries. We have a tendency to use the past as merely examples of what is occurring in our own times (as with the Iraq example) and we miss the nuances existing in an alien time. The fact is, people in the past didn't exist as models of enlightened judgement, railing against unjust inequalities. Hack historians like Zinn, make such judgements , refusing to let his subjects speak for themselves. Ferguson, from the other side of the political spectrum is no better at this. Let's also not forget Scotland's imperial efforts in Central America in the 17th century as well. Scotland's role in this region has been whitewashed by those seeking an image of a Scotland clean of an imperialist past, when in fact Scotland had no qualms seizing native land for profit. This effort failed due to financial pitfalls and not a change of heart. While benefiting less than England, modern Scotland was built of the spoils of imperialism. In the same way in the American South, white non-slaveholders, while oppressed by aristocratic planters, gladly took in the wider economic rewards of slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
American here. With reference to local coverage, I've never heard a positive story on the idea. I've heard multiple ostensibly 'news' stories the basic thrust of which was "Scotland is mulling independence, but many say that Scotland is too poor and inept to run anything. Unfortunately, they may be stupid enough to do it out of spite, and their nation will likely collapse into the sea." I guess there must be positive coverage of it out there somewhere, but it seems like our weird love affair with the UK is dictating the tune.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Uninformed American chiming in to say that I support Scottish Independence. gently caress the Tories. English politics and English nationalism look to be loving up what would otherwise be an excellent Nordic style social democracy. And who among my countrymen could say that Independence from the English is ever a bad thing? Anyways, John Paul Jones was the loving man, so Scotland owns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
I don't want Scotland to go it's own way because then we'd have the loving Tories forever and ever. Could move to Scotland I guess but it's rather chilly there 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
I am and always have been a Scottish Nationalist, I voted yes on the referendum for devolution and i will vote yes in the independence referendum. The scaremongering about Scotlands place in the world is ridiculous, since we haven't been a nation since the union of the crowns when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of the United Kingdom we haven't technically had a place in the world, surely something is better than nothing rather a nation than a province. As for the Empire do those decrying Scots for not only taking part in the expansion of the Crown spreading influence across the globe but excelling at our part in it i say this, what would you say if the Scots took no part in it and sat in poverty while our "Brothers in the Union" grew economically and in military might? I am not saying that Scotland and the Scots didnt make out like bandits during the days of Empire, we did because thats exactly what the Empire was banditry on a global scale. Leaving the Union won't make us magically disappear from the island of Great Britain, we will always share a land border with England, we will always speak the same language and have shared history both with England and the Celtic nations of Wales and those upon the island of Eiré (regardless of what side of the RoI/Ulster border they are on). Why then should the Scots be be denied that which was granted to British Africa, British South-West Asia and all ex-colonies in between?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
I do rather like the idea of Scotland as its own country, but that may be because I simply like having lots of little countries for every identity and historical culture group. With the rise of international law and global institutions, it seems to make more sense to weaken the power of individual states by dividing it amongst their members and also enabling those members greater representation in said global institutions. The voice of Scotland and England apart at the UN might be quieter than the voice of the United Kingdom, but at least they'll both be able to say what they want rather than Scotland being hostage to what England wants to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Anyways, John Paul Jones was the loving man, so Scotland owns. I live 3 miles away from where John Paul Jones was born and 300 yards away from where he was imprisoned lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
I think you have to be careful in your support for independence there, Dolash. The ideological position that calls for the importance of identification, heterogeneity, and regulated differentiation is not a panacea for the troubles of the world or the guarantee of a free political voice. This should be particularly noted in a global political world that, in many senses, profits off of such differentiation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
I'm surprised this comic hasn't shown up yet. If Scotland becomes independent how long would it take for it to join the PIIGS (PIIGSS?) Any benefits from the political autonomy of Labour could quickly be destroyed by the IMF and World Bank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
Jinkii posted:Why then should the Scots be be denied that which was granted to British Africa, British South-West Asia and all ex-colonies in between?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
The Unionist trope of Scotland's voice being diminished on the international stage post-independence is laughable as it makes the assumption that we have one to start with. Right now we're more or less totally subservient to the foreign policy desires of an unrepresentative Westminster government with the only recent exception springing to mind being the release of Megrahi back to Libya, which was a Good Thing seeing as his conviction was a complete farce. The nuclear weapons issue has been brought up a couple of times so far, but another interesting facet of Scottish independence is withdrawal from NATO - something which has been an SNP policy point for decades, but now they seem to be dithering on it. It's a disappointment, and is part of a general rightwards trend in the party which I hate. goddamnit why are there no socialist MSPs anymore 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:False in every concievable way. Scotland has 8.6% of the UK population and recieves 9.3% of the revenue, but contributes 9.6% back to the UK government. Could you tell me where you get your figures from? My girlfriend has a young son, and I'd like to get him a book of fairy stories for his birthday. The last time I heard exact figures quoted, Scotland's actual GDP was £36bn, and it received £48bn in tax revenues. These figures may have changed a little, but even the SNP's own figures, which will have been massaged to look as good as possible for Scotland, still show Scotland not earning as much as it spends. This is why Salmond wants Devo Max - so he can rule Scotland while the English subsidise him. The reason he wants the referendum in 2014 instead of right now is twofold; he's spent 20 years telling the bravehearts that Scotland would be better without the UK and now has to convince them of the opposite, and he wants to give the UK economy more time to recover while the Scottish economy is still part of it - again, letting England shoulder the work so he can gain power. Even if this were not so, and Scotland could stand alone, there is absolutely no way the SNP should be allowed to run the country. Salmond literally thinks people who don't vote SNP are traitors to Scotland, and his party is comprised of blackshirts - again, literally - who at the last round of elections booed and jeered the outgoing Scottish Labour leader when he said he wanted the best for Scotland. Salmond is also in the pocket of Murdoch and News Corp, which should dispel your illusions of him being socialist. Independence for Scotland is not a viable scenario, and if it even looks like they might get it by this time next year I'll be on a train out. Everyone with an education will be doing the same if it happens, and I want to beat the rush.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
Jedit posted:The last time I heard exact figures quoted, Scotland's actual GDP was £36bn, and it received £48bn in tax revenues. These figures may have changed a little, but even the SNP's own figures, which will have been massaged to look as good as possible for Scotland, still show Scotland not earning as much as it spends.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Jedit posted:The last time I heard exact figures quoted, Scotland's actual GDP was £36bn, and it received £48bn in tax revenues. According to http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/SNAP/expstats/GDPi2010Q1 Scotland's GDP in 2009 was either £137.5 billion or £114.6 billion, with the smaller being "onshore", presumably indicating not counting any of the resource collection out at sea. I don't believe Scotland's actual GDP has been that low since before 1970, when according to the index from here http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/08/18047/25503 applied to the GDP report from the previous page, Scotland's GDP should have been £44.5 billion or so. Were it to really have a GDP of £36 billion, Scotland's economy would be the size of New Hampshire's or Sri Lanka's; when in reality with a GDP of £137.5 billion its economy is the size of Connecticut's or Egypt's. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jun 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Independence for Scotland is not a viable scenario, and if it even looks like they might get it by this time next year I'll be on a train out. Everyone with an education will be doing the same if it happens, and I want to beat the rush. I don't think you'll be missed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Could you tell me where you get your figures from? My girlfriend has a young son, and I'd like to get him a book of fairy stories for his birthday. Scotland's actual GDP: £124 billion quote:Salmond literally thinks people who don't vote SNP are traitors to Scotland, and his party is comprised of blackshirts - again, literally
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
Well, they were talking about rounding all the Tories up into camps...
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Were it to really have a GDP of £36 billion, Scotland's economy would be the size of New Hampshire's or Sri Lanka's; when in reality with a GDP of £137.5 billion its economy is the size of Connecticut's or Egypt's. It would also have a GDP per capita of about £6,500, which would mean Scotland is as poor as Colombia, Peru or Azerbaijan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Could you tell me where you get your figures from? My girlfriend has a young son, and I'd like to get him a book of fairy stories for his birthday. Think you've got enough fairy stories to be going with mate. The figures I was quoting were indeed from the GERS report which aren't SNP or even Scottish Government figures, they are figures provided by the UK government(It was introdced to show that we wouldn't be able to survive on our own but backfired tremendously). Also, I take personal umbridge with likening the SNP to fascists(especially since this isn't the first, or even the second time its happened). Being a card carrying member I find it disgusting that you would liken people who merely want to restore sovereignty to their country via a peaceful referendum, to a group of genocidal maniacs. EDIT: I can't read threads. Leggsy fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jun 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
Etherwind posted:Well, they were talking about rounding all the Tories up into camps... We could work with the North of England to build and run the camps there so that not only do they get caught as they cross the border, but we'll be providing the areas with some economic benefits. 
Kin fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jun 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
So hey, about that poem. How about we pretend I didn't post it on the first page? That way it can be repeatedly posted throughout the thread and run into the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
Reveilled should probably pop it in the OP or the second post or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:Also, I take personal umbridge with likening the SNP to fascists(especially since this isn't the first, or even the second time its happened). Being a card carrying member I find it disgusting that you would liken people who merely want to restore sovereignty to their country via a peaceful referendum, to a group of genocidal maniacs. It's something about the word Nationalist, especially considering that there's a British National Party on the go that actually are racist lunatics and yet aren't being laughed off the national stage. Personally I'm distrustful of any patriotic movement, let alone a nationalist one. Putting a country as some kind of abstract entity over people doesn't sit right. "My country right or wrong," that stuff. To clarify, I support independence but I'm not really an SNP supporter. I don't support it because I think Scotland should be strong and independent, I just think we'd all be better off not being governed by legislators who think we're Too Small, Too Poor, Too Stupid, as the saying goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Standish posted:Literally blackshirts, eh? Insofar as they a) had black shirts on and b) obviously hated everyone who wasn't them, yes. Leggsy, you can take umbrage with that assessment all you like because it has nothing to do with fascism. Mosley was a fascist because Hitler was a fascist, but they were both racists because they were nationalists. I will agree with you that directly comparing Salmond to Hitler is a step too far, but as for Ian Davidson's comment that not letting anyone else have a say is what the SNP do and what fascists do I can take no issue against it because I have seen the SNP do this with my own eyes. Moving back to the economy: I was mistaken when I said my numbers were GDP. They weren't - they were for public sector revenue and expenditure. These numbers can be found here, which I believe is where the OP got them, but I'll quote you the relevant paragraph that was omitted before: GERS posted:In 2010-11, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £45.2 billion, (8.3 per cent of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £45.9 billion (8.3 per cent of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.6 per cent of UK total public sector revenue). Basically, the figure of 9.6% of total UK public sector revenue against 9.3% expenditure is only accurate if you massage in a geographical share of North Sea oil revenue instead of a per capita share - in other words, unless Scotland's share was evaluated by its area instead of its population. The conclusion reached by the report is that in 2010-11 Scotland operated at a deficit of 14.7% of GDP against an operating deficit of 6.6% of GDP for the UK as a whole in the same period. If you exclude the Scottish deficit and contribution, the UK without Scotland would have operated at a deficit of 5.9% of GDP. This constitutes mathematical proof from an official government source that Scotland takes more from the UK than it puts in. An independent Scotland would have to find that subsidy somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
quote:Basically, the figure of 9.6% of total UK public sector revenue against 9.3% expenditure is only accurate if you massage in a geographical share of North Sea oil revenue instead of a per capita share - in other words, unless Scotland's share was evaluated by its area instead of its population. It's not clear either way, but I read "illustrative geographical share" as meaning "share of the oil revenue based on the amount which is located off the shores of Scotland", rather than "share of the oil revenue based on the size of the land area of Scotland relative to the rest of the United Kingdom". The latter one makes little to no sense as a measure, for one thing. E: Didn't realize that the full report was also available, it goes into the methodology. quote:An Illustrative Geographical Share  Assuming that the geographic measure is an accurate one, which is certainly debateable, it invalidates the rest of your conclusions - namely that "This constitutes mathematical proof from an official government source that Scotland takes more from the UK than it puts in. An independent Scotland would have to find that subsidy somewhere else." RPZip fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jun 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
Jedit posted:Insofar as they a) had black shirts on and b) obviously hated everyone who wasn't them, yes. Leggsy, you can take umbrage with that assessment all you like because it has nothing to do with fascism. Mosley was a fascist because Hitler was a fascist, but they were both racists because they were nationalists. I will agree with you that directly comparing Salmond to Hitler is a step too far, but as for Ian Davidson's comment that not letting anyone else have a say is what the SNP do and what fascists do I can take no issue against it because I have seen the SNP do this with my own eyes. Fascists, along with wearing black shirts and excluding other voices, have also been known to eat meat, wear uniforms, and own pets. They share these, and a host of other nefarious actions, with people and institutions up and down the country (including schoolchildren).
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 20:55
|
|