CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

UKIP => yes to independence?

(189 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Darkerside
  • Latest reply from kaputnik

No tags yet.


  1. PS
    Member

    Interestingly, when I looked over the vote change maps on the BBC website ... it became clear that Scotland was the area where;

    - Labour and UKIP rise in share of the vote was the "least best" i.e. it rose, but at the lowest rate
    - Tory and Lib Dem drop in vote was the "least worst" i.e. it was down but at the lowest rate. Infact Tories were marginally up.

    Scotland does seem to have some remarkably entrenched voters (see the last two general elections where, IIRC, the only change was one won-in-a-by-election SNP seat reverting to Labour).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. calmac
    Member

    "- Labour and UKIP rise in share of the vote was the "least best" i.e. it rose, but at the lowest rate
    - Tory and Lib Dem drop in vote was the "least worst" i.e. it was down but at the lowest rate. Infact Tories were marginally up."

    It's worth remembering that the last Euros were in 2009, at the peak of Labour's unpopularity before the general election. But they were never so unpopular in Scotland. They were coming from a lower base in England and Wales than they were in Scotland, so that difference is to be expected.

    In terms of actual numbers of people showing up and putting an X beside Labour, they were up 75% in Scotland. They should be reasonably pleased with that. What should worry them though is losing to the SNP in places like West Lothian, Falkirk, Stirling, North Ayrshire, East Ayrshire. For them still to be losing in these places is unprecedented.

    As for the Tories - they do best in Scotland in Euro elections. I think in part because they could be seen as standing up for Britain in a way no other party (until maybe Ukip) could have. But their voters turn out - as long as they're alive, they'll vote. So on a low turnout they'll do proportionately better.

    You're right about the Lib Dems, there's a ray of hope there that they can hang on in their Highland fastness. Their share fell by a third, compared with half in the UK as a whole.

    In the best council area for Ukip, Moray, they still did much worse than in their worst region in England. Scotland remains their toughest area. They'll think that, now they've got a toe-hold here, they'll have a presence and something from which to build. We'll see.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. calmac
    Member

    "Scotland does seem to have some remarkably entrenched voters (see the last two general elections where, IIRC, the only change was one won-in-a-by-election SNP seat reverting to Labour)."

    Yep. My theory is that the pre-eminent vote in Scotland in a general election is anti-Tory. If your incumbent isn't Tory, you return them.

    Dundee is a great example of this - one seat Labour first, SNP second, the other with the positions reversed. Same demographics and local politics, but in both the incumbent had a swing towards them from the other. I think most voters feel that if they have a Labour or SNP MP, they'll stick with that.

    It was remarkable in 2010 that, from an incredibly low base, in places like Glasgow the Tory vote fell back even further. This during a UK election that they would win.

    The next general election is through the referendum looking glass, so predictions come with an asterisk. The Lib Dem seats are obviously very vulnerable but other than that, who knows? A Yes vote makes the election almost irrelevant, a No vote and who can predict how the country will feel about it.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. chdot
    Admin

    "
    “If the SNP is a nationalist party I’ll eat my hat. What nationalist party wants to import lots and lots of people into the country and change the nature of it?”

    "

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/ukip-mep-wants-less-immigration-and-more-breeding-1-3423128

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. Instography
    Member

    Excellent. One day on the job and he's making a fool of himself already.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. SRD
    Moderator

    Did you see the front cover?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/edinburghpaper/status/471242174462689280/photo/1

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Interesting take from the house journal of the Conservative and Unionist Party;

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/10859562/Ukip-success-could-tip-balance-towards-independent-Scotland.html

    I suspect the London-based 'baron' has overstated the case, but I'll be interested to see how the UKIP meme plays out on the doorsteps tomorrow night.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. algo
    Member

    So that interview and that headline are funny - just as the previous UKIP blunders such as equal marriage rights causing floods - I've always thought these things would be enough to discredit them. How on earth are they getting votes - the blunders are not so much funny as terrifying now. I am personally gutted Maggie Chapman didn't get in - doubly so now that a eurosceptic with no knowledge whatsoever of EU legislation is getting a wage for presumably not turning up.

    Good thread @darkerside - a question I am indeed pondering.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @algo

    If your main concern is that the EU is out of control/undemocratic/requiring serious reform who else could you vote for last Thursday?

    I regard the EU as a peace machine, I was one of the first ever EU nationals to vote in an election in another EU state, Madame IWRATS is a non-UK EU citizen...but even I regard the expansion of the EU to cover Bulgaria and Romania as gothically stupid, the CAP as an affront to basic morality and the Euro project as a drug-fuelled hallucination turned nightmare.

    I am not at all surprised that people who have no tangible benefit from EU membership sometimes succumb to the siren call of the EBFP (English Beer'n'Fags Party).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. algo
    Member

    @IWRATS - I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. I do not know enough about the EU and CAP to make informed comment really, but Monbiot has done his best to enlighten me. I'm personally surprised I suppose that the anti-EU reason for voting for UKIP outweighs all of the otherwise (in my opinion) heinous views they hold.

    There was another anti EU protest vote - one which was not quite so vulgarly racist and comprised of people who at least might have read something about EU business legislation.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. crowriver
    Member

    even I regard the expansion of the EU to cover Bulgaria and Romania as gothically stupid

    I disagree. People probably said similar things about Spain and Portugal in the 1980s. I'm sure they wouldn't say so now.

    the CAP as an affront to basic morality and the Euro project as a drug-fuelled hallucination turned nightmare.

    As ever, the problems are not the principles behind these projects, but their implementation. Reform and restructuring of both is overdue. As for the Common Fisheries policy, that is certainly a hot topic for Scotland. UK government has certainly not negotiated the best deal there.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. Stickman
    Member

    Both CAP and the Euro were/are wrong in principle.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. crowriver
    Member

    @Stickman, care to elaborate on why you believe that?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @crowriver

    Good point about Spain and Portugal - both were helped to leave behind periods of honest to God jackboots and secret police fascism by EEC entry. I just feel that EU entry with all of the freedom of movement of labour and capital that entails favours capital over labour to an unwelcome degree. I'm not convinced that informed consent for the expansion could have been obtained from the European citizenry.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @crowriver

    I'd say CAP is wrong in principle in that it transfers resources from all citizens to the landowning class and particularly to the richest members of that class.

    The Euro I'd say was right in principle, but wrongly implemented in that it was extended to countries that didn't come near qualifying under the project's own rules.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. Stickman
    Member

    The Euro: for all of the reasons outlined at the time by those characterised as "Little Englanders", in particular the Eurozone is a non-optimal currency area and countries without control of their own interest rates will struggle to adapt to changing circumstances.

    The CAP: because government attempts to manipulate markets through price caps/floors or quotas will always end up in gluts and shortages. If the EEC wanted to maintain farmers' quality of life (which ultimately was the purpose of the CAP) then they should have just have been honest enough to give them the subsidy directly.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. crowriver
    Member

    [/i]The objectives, set out in Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are as follows:

    to increase productivity, by promoting technical progress and ensuring the optimum use of the factors of production, in particular labour;
    to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural Community;
    to stabilise markets;
    to secure availability of supplies;
    to provide consumers with food at reasonable prices.

    (Wiki)

    @Stickman, instead you appear to be saying "let the free market provide"? Or have I misinterpreted?

    I would argue that intervention in, and regulation of various markets is vitally important. The market for food would seem to be far too important to be left to supermarchés and multinational corporations...

    @IWRATS [i]I'd say CAP is wrong in principle in that it transfers resources from all citizens to the landowning class and particularly to the richest members of that class.

    That is a problem of implementation, but also of land ownership patterns - Scotland has a particular problem in the latter regard, where land ownership is concentrated amongst a tiny number of people/legal persons. Most of the rest of Europe has much more diversified land ownership. This was not something that CAP created, it goes back to the C19th and earlier, to the Enclosures.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. Stickman
    Member

    "@Stickman, instead you appear to be saying "let the free market provide"? Or have I misinterpreted?."

    Yes, that's pretty much what I think - the free market has done a good job of feeding us. Interfering with price signals causes gluts and shortages.

    If people can't afford food (or anything else we as a society think that they should have) then give them the money to buy it. We've seen far too many disasters in the past where a maximum price is imposed on an essential foodstuff, only for the supply to dry up.

    Food safety etc is a different issue.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @crowriver

    Interesting. If we score the CAP on this basis, I'd suggest;

    Optimum use labour - we have huge unemployment, even in agricultural nations like Spain

    A fair standard of living for the agricultural Community - we have British farmers committing suicide;

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-targets-high-suicide-rate-on-farms-1475560.html

    and a lot of migrant seasonal labour.

    To stabilise markets - fair enough, they are stable

    To secure availability of supplies - fair enough, they seem secure

    To provide consumers with food at reasonable prices - food appears to be far too cheap to sustain anything other than vast agri-industrial production.

    Also, I'm not quite sure where the payments to the owners of grouse and deer moors fit in with these principles. Maybe, like the Queen, they're part of the 'Agricultural Community' whatever that might be?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. Instography
    Member

    When does a problem of implementation become such an intractable problem that the only solution is to leave the union? Of course, I mean the european union but it's a question that can be applied equally to the union of the crowns.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Instogrpahy

    Excellent question. Might it be the point at which a coherent group feels it can no longer influence the outcome in any meaningful way?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. crowriver
    Member

    @IWRATS, I'm not sure I can 'answer' all your points. I'm not a spokesman for the EU, neither a farmer.

    However it is worth looking at the Scottish Parliament's new report on Land Reform. Also following Andy Wightman's writings (his Twitter feed's interesting too).

    Suffice to say, sporting estates are not agricultural land. That they qualify for subsidy is down to how the UK government interprets the rules on who/what qualifies. This of course is now the responsibility of the Scottish government, is currently subject to review (literally as we speak) as a new cycle of CAP subsidies starts soon. There is pressure to end subsidies for sporting estates and the like. Vested interests like landowners, NFU lobbying for their hobby horses of course...

    Having seen some of the discussion on this, IMO (and I don't claim to be an expert) the fault for the inequalities and waste produced by subsidies lies more with successive national governments and their interpretation of the rules, rather than with the CAP itself.

    Of course it is always easier for governments to blame Eurocrats rather than admit their own officials may have got things wrong, been corrupt, incompetent or swayed by powerful lobbies.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @crowriver

    Indeed. Amusingly, IWRATS père was Andy Wightman's honours thesis supervisor. I enjoy his writings greatly. Andy's that is, not my dad's.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. Instography
    Member

    Wightman seems very downbeat about the prospects of any significant change and Alex Bell in Scottish Review is adding to his woes.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. crowriver
    Member

    @Insto, aye I read that. He's addressing the specific context of the highlands and islands. Lowland Scotland has similar issues but they are rarely mentioned.

    @Stickman, timely report today which shows what happens when we let the market decide priorities for agriculture:

    Corporate stranglehold of farmland a risk to world food security, study says
    Small farmers are being squeezed out as mega-farms and plantations gobble up their land

    Linky to Grauniad article.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. gembo
    Member

    @IWRATS what is wrong with the writings of your father?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. gembo
    Member

    That looks a bit hectoring, but was a mistake, tho Balerno still has more railings than currie

    Posted 11 years ago #
  28. Stickman
    Member

    Haven't read the UN report as I'm on my iphone just now.

    The Guardian article however devotes a lot of comment and interpretation from Grain, an NGO devoted to small farmers so it has a certain "slant" to put it mildly and their Malthusian predictions may be as a result of their own agenda.

    The article quotes a part of the report as saying

    "Our data [suggests] that if all farms in Kenya had the current productivity of the country's small farms, Kenya's agricultural production would double. In Central America and Ukraine, it would almost triple. In Hungary and Tajikistan it would increase by 30%. In Russia, it would be increased by a factor of six,"

    Interesting choice of countries there. And what would happen to the large farms in these countries if they were to achieve the productivity of the most efficient US or Canadian farms?

    If the objective is to produce more food to reduce the risk of starvation and famine then I'll stick with free markets thanks.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. Stickman
    Member

    And in fact, the Guardian article does a nice bit of bait-and-switch: most of its content and conclusions is drawn from Grain's report, not the UN one.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  30. crowriver
    Member

    the productivity of the most efficient US or Canadian farms

    Which are highly subsidised by their respective governments...

    If the objective is to produce more food to reduce the risk of starvation and famine then I'll stick with free markets thanks.

    IIRC the only developed country to remove agricultural subsidies so far has been New Zealand. It seems to have worked for them, but it does not automatically follow that this policy would work for all countries.

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin