| [+] Embed the video | Video Download | Get the Flash Video |
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
And now? (Not the White Paper thread)
(693 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
Stadler and Waldorf quite possibly a bigger influence on me than Antonio Gramsci and Theodor Adorno
Posted 9 years ago # -
I reckon gembo is more like the hawkish one on the right, which leaves me with the round-faced guy on the left, if that's the implication I'm supposed to take. Is that where we've reached with 'debate'?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Madness deepening by the week;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29476172
The heads of those of us swayed by the 'vow' must be in a bit of a spin. We have a Promise Keeper and a Guarantor.
Posted 9 years ago # -
From above link -
"
Lord Smith has also asked members of the public to contribute their views on strengthening Holyrood's powers before the deadline of 31 October, using the e-mail address haveyoursay@smith-commission.scot .
"The referendum showed Scotland to be one of the most politically engaged countries in the world," he said.
"
Posted 9 years ago # -
@insto, the hypotheses in the link seem good ones. Not sure that you and others (e.g. Me) didn't look at this? Obviously more people voted no than yes in a higher turnout than ever before (lower in the two biggest yes places). Given the turnout more people also voted Yes than in previous referendums. The population is also higher and younger people were allowed to vote. Turnout was 15 per cent higher than other votes. So you could argue with some justification that most of that 15 per cent were previous non-voters.
So with such a high turnout and a ten per cent margin you have a clear result from the population. Not a result that appears to be accepted much by those who lost. Likely that the SNP hegemony will continue in 2016 as the first time no voters will go back to apathy. They don't mind SNP running Scotland from a devolved parliament at Holyrood, they just don't want independence. The 45 per cent is a high water mark from Yer man's own analysis more people were entitled to vote in this referendum than previous and more did in a high water mark turnout.
If only those people who had never voted before except the 16-18 year olds were prevented from voting then Yes would have won. If only there were even more shouty men aged 25-45 etc.
I have an email to read from my Marxist academic pal in Liverpool. He seems to see a 45:55 result as victory. He is less shouty but he is 47 now. I wonder how the negotiations will proceed from 14/10/14?
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Instography
Very interesting link, and I think I could probably take the author to the houses of some of these new No voters. It's not clear how we reach them or prevent new people from joining that group, but we'll need to find a way.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I only know two, neither over 65. They won't be voting in elections but imagine if there was another Indy ref in their lifetimes IWRAts would not reach them, though if he went to their house above Balerno at this time of year he would get brambles and mushrooms if the continentals hadn't got their first
Posted 9 years ago # -
Well I read (most of) it. Very long, bit repetitive, think the conclusion was that 'most people in 1979 didn't want independence and still don't in 2014.
Ignoring the fact that many indyref voters weren't eligible to vote in 1979 (or alive) and some '79ers are no longer around, I'm not really sure what is concludable (made-up-word).
In all three referendumdums there were voters and 'forces' who didn't want any dilution of Westminster/British State powers.
But Scotland got/has Holyrood (though Westminster still has the power to abolish it).
Hasn't gone too badly, the (Scottish) Conservatives quite like it - more MSPs than MPs!
The 'forces' stopped the DevoSomething question - not only confident that No would win, but also attempting to keep as much power as possible centralised.
THEN there was a rogue poll and a large amount of panic and the man from North Queensferry strolling in to 'save the day'. He has now been joined by a man from The North (Sheffield) who wants to save Scotland from the man who is more concerned about 'English votes for English laws' (and 'Europe' - and UKIP).
Ignoring all the stats and inferences from the referendidums, I think this is the most interesting bit.
"
So the home rule powers extracted from Downing Street by Gordon Brown, if they ever materialise, are a massive bonus and we should all have a chuckle about this. The No campaign were going to win by miles anyway, probably thanks to Project Fear more than anything, but we got some promises of additional powers all the same. Nice one guys!
"
So the 'majority' got (might get) want they wanted - more powers/responsibilities to be administered 'on our behalf' by Holyrood, because -
'we' don't like Westminster/London/England/The Tories/The Coalition/Labour/UKIP/etc. etc. (delete as applicable).
As Gembo says -
"They don't mind SNP running Scotland from a devolved parliament at Holyrood, they just don't want independence."
Of course (as discussed on the "White Paper" thread) different people have different views of what independence should mean/include - Queen?, NATO? etc.
At present there is "The Vow", a "Commission" (or two) and some deadlines - not least next May's election.
After that it will be clearer what Scotland is 'going to get given'.
Then people will have to decide if that's enough - and parties wanting to get seats in Holyrood in 2016, will have to decide what to offer in their manifestos.
It wasn't 'about AS or the SNP'. Now it's maybe not about Independence, but governance, democracy, devolution/federalism (not just for Scotland).
Maybe some Yessers should 'accept the result', but Noes should realise that the indyref didn't result in the status quo/business as usual.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Happy for it not to be business as usual but err, an SNP hegemony is business as usual. Scottish labour certainly not turned that corner. If that is what you mean? Still no chance of people working together?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"an SNP hegemony is business as usual"
That remains to be seen (in 2016). If so that's 'democracy' - more so due to PR.
I was referring to the continuation of The UK/Britain though.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@chdot do you mean the west lothian question? London has devolved powers too so might get quite messy in westminster?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"do you mean the west lothian question"
Not as such.
"London has devolved powers too so might get quite messy in westminster?"
So?
What are politicians paid for?
Something to do with 'the art of the possible' and 'the will of the people'??
Posted 9 years ago # -
@chdot what do you mean then? There has just been a vote to continue UK. So it is what is happening but things are changed, e.g Devo max or did I miss something?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"There has just been a vote to continue UK."
That is one interpretation.
What was the question on the ballot paper?
"So it is what is happening but things are changed,"
Yes, but no-one knows what has actually changed - apart from "The Vow", perhaps.
"e.g Devo max"
Defined as? by?
"or did I miss something?"
Can't answer that.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Which alternative interpretations can you have?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Which alternative interpretations can you have?"
Within this 'conversation' (not ascribing the view to anyone here) that No means 'nothing needs to change and everything is exactly the same as the day before the vote' or 'mostly the same, but with a few extra bits (some which we hadn't planned to concede only a few weeks ago)' OR 'well now that everyone is awake how about regionalism, federalism and (maybe) an English Parliament'?
The 'continuing UK' sack may be un-breached but the contents have been shaken up.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Thanks CHdot I can hear what you are saying and I am in favour of doin g things differently within the regions of the UK? What I do not know is how bothered other regions are.mwales in one recent poll had 2 per cent seeking separation?
Certainly the clear win for No in the recent Scottish referendum could reasonably be interpreted as a vote to continue with the UK. That is fairly logical. I am interested in coalition and bridge building with people who have a different interpretation.
This is still tricky as the acceptance of the result is not established in some quarters?
Just as prior to result when I asked some Yes people what their plan b was after a no vote and this could not be contemplated I have a similar question
Now that we are not separating what shall we do? The answer in some quarters is we are having another referendum once old people die etc. Only ever going to be more pld people.
so, now that we are not separating, what are we going to do?Posted 9 years ago # -
"I am interested in coalition and bridge building with people who have a different interpretation."
Why? (Serious question).
You seem to have a big tent you want everyone to play nice in.
Some people want independence (however defined) ASAP. They are not winning any arguments just now.
Some people want no change ever. They are lost.
In between there are a lot of people who want/expect some version of "The Vow".
Until that gets sorted (or not) most people are driving their cars and riding their bikes (other ways of life are available).
A tiny minority of people will carry on with 'politics' until the next election.
Posted 9 years ago # -
My version of a common weal has people who voted yes and people who voted no.
It does not have people who voted no being enlightened that they should have voted yes.
Edinburgh is run by an Labour SNP coalition, seems to work. The trams run on time, the schools have good teachers.
Nice to be nice. Or we can be shouty. Much prefer discussion. I can see other people's POV. I have two eyes.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@IWRATS: "It's not clear how we reach them"
The same way BT did: rally the manistream media, big business etc. to the cause, then proceed to scare the bejeezus out of them (Project Fear). What's that you say? Those 'forces' will always support the 'staus quo'? Well there we have the problem.
@chdot "You seem to have a big tent you want everyone to play nice in."
Aye, funny how Labour have come over all touchy feely all of a sudden. Many people will not forget or forgive the outright lies peddled by Labour politicians during the campaign. So the "big tent" will not be happening.
The No win was a Pyrrhic victory. Labour lost any remaining credibility it still had. 2015 election will certainly be interesting.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
TWO-THIRDS of Scots want the unionist "vow" on more powers for Holyrood to extend as far as devo max, meaning MSPs running everything except foreign affairs and defence, according to a new poll commissioned by the SNP."
Posted 9 years ago # -
I see Mr. Gembo's message is getting through.
"
Scottish people did not vote to maintain the status quo. Now is the time for us to come together, to heal our divisions and to get on with the business of giving the people of Scotland more power over their lives.
"
Mr. Clegg
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm trying to find out why people voted No. I'm very interested to see how many of them will regret their choice. Those who just felt British or were extremely rich (I have members of both groups in my social circle) will never regret their decision I don't suppose. The others interest me hugely, in the sense that I'd like to see what overlap there is between my core beliefs and theirs.
Mr Clegg, like any London politician, now sounds like a foreigner when he tries to talk about Scotland, as if he suddenly felt compelled to comment on the politics of Belgium. I suspect that fact of the referendum, the result notwithstanding, has driven an enormous wedge between Scotland and London.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Met a very cuddly liberal during the campaign. He was in search of company. Knew how to canvass. Had a sense of humour.
People voted No who were left of centre, middle and right wingers. Same as people who voted Yes. people like you IWRATs.??
I would vote yes for a scottish Republic with no nato, no queen and austerity promised for forty years with high taxation same as Denmark (except they have a queen but allegedly more normal, the princess is an international advocate for people learning to read, she will attend your gig for free but first class travel etc). Demarcation, problematically for our future scottish Republic is quite right wing.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@gembo
Indeed. The left/right scale was not an important factor in our affair. The authoritarian/libertarian, poor/rich, Scottish/British and hippy/square ones seemed much more useful. Particularly the last one.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Iwrats - I think that those that voted No will regret it when the politicians let them down, just as (in the alternative history), those that voted Yes would have regretted it when the politicians let them down.
I'm afraid politics are guaranteed to induce dissatisfaction...
Robert
Posted 9 years ago # -
1: what Roibeard said. I have no confidence that Scottish politicians will be any better than British ones. So why take the risks of Independence for the 'benefit' of local politics.
2: As a Green voter, I am not enamoured with being part of a state which would be even more reliant on N Sea oil and would presumaubly try to pump every last drop out of the ground to maximise tax revenue.
3: The problems Scotland faces are on a global scale. Getting smaller won't help.4: There are many other reasons, including disliking the shouty, bullying campaign that Yes seemed to embrace, to being deeply suspicious of Nationalism per se, even if it garbs itself in a progressive egalitatrian cloak.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
