CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

White Paper (THE #indyref thread)

(2915 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by Morningsider
  • Latest reply from chdot
  • This topic is closed

No tags yet.


1…899091…98

  1. stiltskin
    Member

    Second thought - I agree about the use of "nationalist" being misleading and manipulative. I would have Scotland join in a 15% voting rights political match with Norway or Sweden or Denmark or half a dozen others before England, because the politics are a better fit. I don't think that is nationalism at all. The English media has a very firm misunderstanding of the referendum.

    For you that might be the case. For others it very is much about Nationalism. Out of the three people voting Yes at work 2 of them are firmly of the belief that they are doing so because they believe Scotland should be a Nation Again. They don't actually believe there will be any significant political change in the event of a Yes result. One of them in particular is the most materialist, free market liberal you would wish to meet.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  2. sallyhinch
    Member

    As a STILL undecided (now actively switching between leaning yes and leaning no on a daily, sometimes hourly basis) I can't say I resent having to make the decision. In fact I am relishing the opportunity to think really hard about what it is I want and what will most likely bring that about. And since when did any of us get to take part in an election where it genuinely feels as if every vote counts so our decision actually matters in a very real way? It's not necessarily comfortable but I wouldn't be missing this for anything

    Posted 9 years ago #

  3. SRD
    Moderator

    @gkgk (and Sally). Today's herald had some really good stuff. Well written, thoughtful. Not propaganda. Haven't even opened the guardian (well, observer), but read herald cover to cover.

    @stiltskin sorry for being technical but the UK is made up of nations. So no, Britishness is not a nation in the technical sense of an 'ethnie'. Or a 'nation-state'. Now, of course, I don't buy Into this conception of nationalism but in the sense that you are all using it, that's what is meant.

    (I can send reference if you like, or you could register for a quite good 1 yr MSc in Nationalism Studies at UoE. I don't teach on it anymore, so no conflict of interest, I hope)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  4. stiltskin
    Member

    @stiltskin sorry for being technical but the UK is made up of nations. So no, Britishness is not a nation in the technical sense of an 'ethnie'. Or a 'nation-state'. Now, of course, I don't buy Into this conception of nationalism but in the sense that you are all using it, that's what is meant.

    But by your definition, is Scotland a nation if Britain is not? A lot of the Borders sees itself as being a separate entity to the rest of Scotland, let alone the Northern or Western Isles. In any case I would say it is a pretty academic argument in more than one sense, in the current context.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  5. chdot
    Admin

    Flags and labels.

    I'm not a Nationalist. I don't think I am a nationalist

    I have a British passport. If I could have chosen a Scottish one last time I renewed it I would have.

    I don't hate Britain - even less do I hate England/the English/people who live in England (after all both my children currently live there!)

    It's easy to be uncomfortable with "Britishness" - the National Front, the Orange Order, but those are minorities who should perhaps be ignored or pitied.

    The idea of 'rejoicing' for 'British victory in the Falklands' was just another reason for disliking a State that expected people to 'wrap themselves in the flag' unquestionably.

    The British State involved itself in Iraq - but certainly not with the wholehearted support of people in Britain/UK/England/Scotland.

    Once the English flag seemed to 'belong' to rightists and football hooligans, but it has been reclaimed by people in England - including football supporters.

    The Union Flag was (to some extent) reclaimed - certainly rebranded - courtesy of the Olympics: The London Olympics.

    Team GB united the UK - or do I mean GB??

    But it also highlighted how well London does when there is money to be spent.

    The Commonwealth Games in Glasgow certainly showed that fantasy fears that 'the English team will be booed' were just misguided misunderstandings - or perhaps a deliberate attempt at sowing discord.

    Certainly the presence of Union/GB flags was curious - or just an example of the contradictions and confusions that inhabit these islands.

    Clearly the Referendum means different things to different people (on both 'sides').

    No-one will get precisely what they want - whether that's the land of milk and honey or EnclaveScotland or the 'Britain' of 1945 or 2013 (other dates are available).

    Perhaps - in 10 years time or so - there will be a body that issues (British) passports to anyone born, or living, in some of the islands off the coast of Europe.

    Or perhaps we'll all be European - or even world - citizens, and microchipped accordingly!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  6. SRD
    Moderator

    yes, lots of people self-define as a nation, when others disagree. but in so far as the UK recognizes the existence of 'nations' with it, it would not normally be called a nation.

    one exception to this would be federal states where nations/states chose to come together ie to federate'.

    the UK is a very odd case - a unitary, multi-national body.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    Sally - your Queen is asking you to think "carefully". (So you're doing the right thing.)

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/independence-referendum-queen-urges-scots-4258603

    Posted 9 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    @gembo, "Wih some exceptions I also find less humour on the Yes side and I like a laugh."

    This'll be one of those "some exceptions", I take it?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  9. LaidBack
    Member

    Being a 'modern' campaign it's interesting to see the 'brands' fight it out.

    Yes have not overused the saltire in their logo and ads (although as it's a wide grouping it does appear in some versions). The 'yes' big posters are typical iStock stuff with the wee hand in the parents hand.

    The BT / Nein Danke campaign would like to be more grass-roots but always appears to me to be imposed and a bit 'hopeless' in pure advertising terms. I must be wrong here though as 50% of people appear to support BT - possibly in the silent majority way the PM referred to when he went to meet business the other day. Some newer versions have appeared to get the Saltire back into BT I see.

    If as predicted BT win by 1 or 2% then I don't expect we'll suddenly see a huge hanging out of Union Flags as these are now not generally waved except for brand Team GB. I have one of these blue fashion Union Flags in the shop and it seems quite harmless....

    1. Some people want to see a sole saltire as the graphic representation of Scotland
    2. Others would have the saltire with the Union Flag in the corner.
    3. Others the Union flag with a small saltire in the corner.

    Option 3 is how the BBC and most media see Scotland. The BBC coverage has not been as good as it might think. Reports are biased so much that they even mentioned the Orange March as a massive pro-union event on radio last night without mentioning the word 'orange'! Corrected after their switchboard melted down....

    Just thinking in graphic terms - not real flag suggestions btw!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    "The BBC coverage has not been as good as it might think."

    Well it will be interesting to see how it reports this -

    "

    Hundreds of pro-independence supporters turn out at BBC's Glasgow HQ, chanting 'you can stick your license fee up your a***

    "

    'www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11095752/Scottish-independence-Nationalists-demand-Nick-Robinson-sacking-in-vocal-anti-BBC-protest.html

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. sallyhinch
    Member

    As an aside - as someone who has been in a position of handing out hundreds of flyers in recent years (mostly POP), I have to say 'No Thanks' is terrible branding for a campaign - 'No thanks, m'alright' is what you always get from the boot-faced lot who refuse even to look at you let alone consider what you might be offering them as they barge past.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. stiltskin
    Member

    One of the things which bugs me about the Yes campaign identifying itself with a social democratic future is the sense that this is just a ploy. People seem to forget that one of things that Salmond said before the financial crisis kicked in was that:
    We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in 'gold-plated' regulation.

    Pretty free-market stuff that, no? If an Independent Scotland had gone down that route to encourage the banks it is clear to me that we would have pretty much ended up as exposed as Iceland. I cannot rid myself of the feeling that Salmond is the arch-pragmatist and he will say whatever it takes to get a Yes vote. To me, and I would charcterise myself as soft left, it still appears that people are being duped, with vague promises which the SNP are able to make in advance, knowing that there can be no going back once independence has been won.
    From a cycling/green viewpoint. I don't see very many signs that the SNP are particularly wedded to any of the things I hold dear. I suspect that their desire to make Scotland work, in face of the addditionla financial strains that independence might bring, will result in all the environmental stuff taking second place. After all, their track record so far is pretty poor.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. le_soigneur
    Member

    This seems to be confusing a Yes vote with a vote for the SNP. The SNP as the incumbent will lead negotiations in the event of a Yes vote, but they might well be out of power in the next election to Holyrood, independent or nae.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. SRD
    Moderator

    Exactly. Very few people I know who are voting yes support the SNP.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. stiltskin
    Member

    Ok, but it rather calls into question the motivation of the major proponents of Yes. Without the SNP, Yes would be nowhere. This reinforces my point that we are being fed a line of Yes = a campaign for greater fairness/social democracy, whereas the leaders of the campaign are essentially trotting out a line that they think will get them what they want. Parts of the population are discontented, so promise Change, it doesn't matter what that Change is to Salmond, as long as he achieves Independence.
    That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence for how well the future has been mapped out.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. stiltskin
    Member

    I'll be honest. I find it bizarre that people who support independence don't actually support the party whose raison d'être is independence.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    "they might well be out of power in the next election to Holyrood, independent or nae"

    As I have said a few times on here, the Conservatives would do quite well in an independent Scotland.

    The future of the SNP depends a lot on the extent to which it stays together as a party. If Yes, they could all decide that they are just wonderful and stick together or have people drift off to other parties. If No - and no referendum re-run any time soon (as AS said today) might disintegrate quite rapidly though probably not before the Westminster election.

    The future of Labour in Scotland depends less on this result, but how they conduct them themselves afterwards (Jim Murphy and a No vote...), who is in charge of the party and where the strings are pulled from. Perhaps GB really will organise a coup from Fife.

    Patrick Harvie has done well - when he's been noticed by the media - but enough to noticeably increase the number of MSPs?

    Presumably RIC/CW/etc. will be on a high after a Yes - but would a new party emerge?

    I suspect the next Holyrood Parliament will be run by a coalition - but I'm not going to speculate who might be in it!

    Did I forget the LibDems?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. sallyhinch
    Member

    Serious question which actually impacts on my own personal finances - does anyone know if or how an independent Scotland will become a member of the OECD?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "I find it bizarre that people who support independence don't actually support the party whose raison d'être is independence"

    Many reasons.

    One is that the Greens also what an independent Scotland - but a very different one from the SNP (but you have to start somewhere).

    A lot of people (especially Lab voters) just want something that isn't Westminster.

    Whether the ones that turn out represent more than 50% remains to be seen.

    A Yes vote isn't 'enough' - and many Yes voters may well be disappointed after a few months (or years) if nothing much seems to change. OR rapidly if the doom merchants turn out to be right!!!

    So, yes, Yes is something of an act of faith/hope - and one which some people have wanted for many years, but others who haven't registered/voted for years just want (the chance of) something different from more of the same.

    It's not (just) about the SNP.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/giant-yes-banner-on-edinburgh-castle-cliffs-1-3541426

    Posted 9 years ago #

  21. Instography
    Member

    The SNP is fundamentally a moderately left-leaning party of capitalism, wedded to (ironically) banks, oil companies, inwardly-investing multinationals, hedge funds and pension fund investors, newspaper proprietors etc. Not fundamentally different from the Labour Party or the Conservative Party. For the SNP, independence is about changing the management of Scotland (to them of course). Localising it. Not fundamentally challenging it. Indeed, they don't even want independence. They want what lots of my clients want - a local contractor but with a parent company guarantee. My clients want the French parent to underwrite our performance (and they routinely refuse - if we fail, we fail). The SNP want London to do the same. The currency union is a parent company guarantee.

    Other parties want something else from independence. The see it as an opportunity to rewrite how politics is done and they range across the political spectrum - from Yes supporting Conservatives who see the scope for centre-right gains to the revolutionary left, who see the weakening of the imperialist British state and an opportunity to expose the false consciousness of putting faith in reformist and nationalist parties so the workers will see that only by class struggle, led by the Party, will socialism be delivered.

    Independence is clean white wall on which anyone can write their own future without any fear of being upset until well after the votes are counted. If you choose carefully you'll find an independent future that's right for you.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    "If you choose carefully you'll find an independent future that's right for you."

    Presume that's a generic notion (a good one) that's not (necessarily) related to indyref!?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  23. stiltskin
    Member

    Something must be done
    Independence is something
    Therefore we must do it

    Posted 9 years ago #

  24. crowriver
    Member

    Anecdotally, my impression is that the Scottish Green Party is getting a boost from this campaign. I have seen a lot of people wearing 'Green YES' badges/t-shirts: many more than I would have expected just a few months ago. Some are friends or acquaintances, others neighbours or random folk on the street. None of them personally evangelised at by me, so I can't take the credit.

    I have also heard, in recent days, from people I know who have seen Patrick Harvie on television: either in the debates or being interviewed. They mentioned (to me, or on social media, or to friends who then told me) that they were impressed (two folk used exactly this word, others used similar) and that he convinced them to vote Yes. Oh these were all women too, which I can't help feeling is significant.

    Apart from my obvious pleasure at this news, this also tells me that people are hungry for other voices, and different reasons (that chime with their wishes) from the SNP line, to vote Yes. Everyone has had enough of "two men in suits" shouting at each other, they want a more informative debate.

    Another anecdote: I have heard from (or heard tell of) parents at my children's primary school who are afraid they will be deported if there's a Yes vote. These are Polish, Thai, Malaysian parents. Who has told them this? Not the Yes campaign. The ones that I know personally I've tried to talk to about these fears. The No campaign and the media really have something to answer for here.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  25. Instography
    Member

    In my head it was laden with sarcasm. Different people selling different ideas of independence that they won't be in any position to deliver.

    It doesn't matter what you pick, you'll probably get the SNP in government in Scotland and you'll get austerity. In a currency union, you get the austerity dictated by the Tories (and the Tories who come after. Did whoever made the argument that London Labour relies on Scottish MPs understand what the currency union means?). Outside a currency union, you get much the same just by a different mechanism. In the Union, you get austerity. Maybe Labour's maybe Tories'.

    That's the choice.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  26. stiltskin
    Member

    The No campaign and the media really have something to answer for here.

    If the No campaign and the media have done this, presumably there will be some evidence of this. I would have thought that this would be easy to provide.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  27. chdot
    Admin

    "In the Union, you get austerity. Maybe Labour's maybe Tories'."

    Perhaps.

    (If Yes) either the SNP will realise that a CU isn't a good idea - or they are just hoping that they will a) be able to borrow/invest extra money, b) that it increases economic activity enough to cover various bills.

    I prefer the 'no CU, no share of the debt' line.

    So the world's commercial banks wouldn't lend Scotland any money -

    What about the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund??

    Posted 9 years ago #

  28. crowriver
    Member

    "Independence is clean white wall on which anyone can write their own future"

    That's one way of portraying it.

    In contrast, the No campaign portray independence as a black hole, a bottomless pit into which you can pour all your deepest fears, insecurities and anxieties about the future. According to this narrative, independence will be an unremitting failure, a disaster of cataclysmic proportions. The rump British state will make jolly sure of that too by punishing the Scots for divorcing them. So if you're not scared enough yet, here are some threats for good measure.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  29. Instography
    Member

    What do you think - balance of power in 2016?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  30. Instography
    Member

    What about the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund? They won't give it to us. They might say - you spent it.

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…899091…98

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin