Independence for Scotland?

[Adam54]

The thread in which Dalty tries to explain to me all of the implications of what a vote for independence from the UK would be.

[Mal Shot First]

There can be only one implication: FREEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOMMM!

[Dalty]

Honestly, it is like ALL the news talks about and it's massively tiring now, plus late here. Can I do it tomorrow? Pleeeeeeease?

[Adam54]

NOW!

Don't make me go ask Uncle Google!

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

There can be only one implication: FREEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOMMM!

Both the movies Mal is referencing feature non-Scots playing Scots.

[neglet]

It would be great, they can declare Scottish-accented English a foreign language.

[Space Tycoon]

Occupied people have the right to secede.

Messy though it may be.

[Dalty]

Are they occupied?

[Space Tycoon]

Many of them seem to feel that way, whether they are vocal about it or not. Maybe pre-occupied is a better word.

All I'm saying is, if the majority of a population in a given region feel they are not masters of their own land, they should have the right to either seek independence or more local self-government. I tend to be very distrustful of large centralized government structures in any event.

[Dalty]

So the Barnet Formula that gives Scotland more per-capita spending than any other part of Britain doesn't count?

And then there is the West Lothian question whereby Scotland has it's own regional assembly with massive powers over Scotland's own governance and English Members of Parliament have no say on anything that happens there and impacts Scotland only. But Scottish Members of Parliament who sit in the House Of Commons have full rights to vote on each and every act that goes before Parliament, including those that impact ONLY England?

Seek independence or more local government? They have the full local own government via the Scottish Assembly, and they have the right to influence governmental decisions that don't affect them! Hence the reasons that Scottish people do not have to pay a small fee for medical prescriptions when the rest of us do. Hence the reason Scottish students do not have to pay tuition fees when the rest of us do.

I am afraid that "large centralized government structures" do not even come into it!

And whilst this may give you a MASSIVE get-out clause by moving the debate on from your earlier statements - you state that you do not like large centralized government yet whenever we debate politics you do seem to be on the leftist side of the fence? A side of the fence on which massive centralized government is their very reason for existing?

[Space Tycoon]

Hmm, I see you've given me some homework to do. Very well.

So the Barnet Formula that gives Scotland more per-capita spending than any other part of Britain doesn't count?

My limited research tells me that with the Barnett formula, N. Ireland actually gets more, but that is merely statistical. Perhaps you have access to better numbers than I.

And then there is the West Lothian question whereby Scotland has it's own regional assembly with massive powers over Scotland's own governance and English Members of Parliament have no say on anything that happens there and impacts Scotland only. But Scottish Members of Parliament who sit in the House Of Commons have full rights to vote on each and every act that goes before Parliament, including those that impact ONLY England?

Of course that's not completely accurate. The really big ticket items such as defense, finance, foreign policy-- in other words, the kinds of things that most of us expect big government to be in charge of-- are firmly in London`s hands.

I am attracted to the idea of an English Assembly to run parallel with that of Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland. True devolution of power.

Seek independence or more local government? They have the full local own government via the Scottish Assembly, and they have the right to influence governmental decisions that don't affect them!

Again, since they don't have control over foreign policy, currency or defense, they cannot be seen as having a "full local governnment." Partially, yes, but not fully.

Scottish people do not have to pay a small fee for medical prescriptions when the rest of us do. Hence the reason Scottish students do not have to pay tuition fees when the rest of us do.

Well similar criticisms are raised regarding preferential economic treatment favouring Canada's Aboriginal "First Nations" peoples. As well as the Quebecois. They are given many economic and political advantages, in the areas of taxation, education, language and others, that the majority population find very onerous--rightly or wrongly.

This does not seriously change their status as conquered people.

You state that you do not like large centralized government yet whenever we debate politics you do seem to be on the leftist side of the fence? A side of the fence on which massive centralized government is their very reason for existing?

Hmm, I see you saved the best for last. I have no idea how to properly answer that point. I generally favour smaller, less obtrusive government, as do most conservatives and libertarians. However, for me exceptions come into play when dealing with ecological survival or ethical treatment of weaker individuals, groups or species. But by and large I don't see how I've favoured big government for it's own sake. Perhaps you could demonstrate how I have done so recently.

"Massive centralized government," is a fact of our times. As is massively centralized corporate power(or do I repeat myself?). Nobody in public office over here seems to want to challenge the status quo.

With a few noteworthy exceptions. I try to do my best to support third (or fourth) party candidates who stand apart from the crowd.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

It's my impression that Spacey has a strong sense for what he believes is right and just. Some of what he believes is right and just is what the left believes is right and just, and some of what he believes is right and just is what the right believes is right and just. I'm sure he's more aligned with one than the other, and I'm sure he has no illusions about this, but I also feel like he's hesitant to look at any body of thought as being unassailable.

I can understand his approach, since it is similar to mine. Even so, Spacey and I don't see eye-to-eye on a number of issues. I think we came about our opinions honestly, and I think our backgrounds played a big part in our coming to the conclusions we came to. (Duh, right?)

(I should add that I don't think for a second that I speak for Spacey. The above characterization of him could be way off base.)

I don't think it's an indicator of wishy-washiness not to side with one group on every issue. (Note: I don't think anyone here has accused either of us of wishy-washiness, but I've seen others accused of it simply because they weren't 100% with their parties. Well, I've accused myself of it. But that's just what I do.) It can be a pretty dangerous thing to throw all your eggs in one party's basket and assume the conclusions they arrive at are the right conclusions to arrive at.

If you've ever come to the conclusion that you side completely with an ideology, it's likely you either aren't fully familiar with it or have granted it an authority you won't question when/if it begins to manipulate and mislead you. At the same time, if you ever find yourself rejecting everything every party says out of hand and mistrusting every statistic or piece of information you're given, it's likely you've gone too far afield of reason and have become an irretrievable conspiracy fetishist.

How do you hit the sweet spot/find the balance? Beats the hell out of me. I have a cynicism in me, but I also have a fair amount of trustingness and apathy. These aren't ducks I can keep in a row. I mostly let them wander around. One of them usually quacks loudest when I am exposed to something new, but I'm never sure which one it'll be until the new thing is upon me.

I don't mean to make it sound like I am a truster of gut. I don't exactly trust my gut. I also don't exactly trust to reason, since I'm never completely sure my reasoning is sound.

Reason's not one of the ducks. Reason's a trumpeter swan. Sometimes it harmonizes with one or more of the other ducks, and sometimes it makes louder noise than any of them. Here's the thing, though: I like ducks more than I like swans. I find myself listening for them even when the swan's trumpeting over them.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

I should point out that when I say "cynicism," I mean it in the tendency-to-believe-people-are-motivated-by-self-interest sense. For some reason, most people seem to want to take it to mean some sort of general-yet-snarling pessimistic distrust.

[Dalty]

The Goschen formula gives more to NI, but the Barnett formula public figs do not include recycled cash put back in to fund that self government.

Re: the rest, I will return after this hangover has been killed with vast amounts of fried food.

[Space Tycoon]

Good idea. Eat some Haggis.

[Dalty]

That was a beast of a hangover. All my good plans for DIY and some shopping went up in a fug of hangover and it was all spent on the couch, desperately trying to stop my head exploding. Christ I felt rough!

Now, where were we?

We can largely dismiss historical fracas as relevant. We fought endless wars with the French and they are now with us in the EU. History is traditionally no barrier to friendship, co-operation and political Union. But to dig deeper here, on the point that Scotland is, in any way, occupied or oppressed by Britain. It was never a colony, was never colonised.

Aside from a very short period at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century there was never sustained occupation of Scotland by anyone else in the British Isles.

The Scots agreed to the Union themselves because they were desperate to access rapidly growing global markets that the English were opening up. The Kirk, the judiciary, education systems and many other institutions the Scots wanted to maintain were protected. It was not an invasion or even a hostile merger.

Scots were at the forefront of expanding and running the Empire. They benefitted immensely from it.

For a moment of brevity, let's not forget that the kilt was invented by a man from Lancashire in England! It just kinda shows how the two nations are interlocked in ways people could never have imagined.

I personally am also horrified by the way the Salmond and the SNP have gerrymandered this referendum on a MASSIVE scale to get the outcome they want. The proportion of Scots that he knows would be more likely to vote 'No' are not allowed to vote. He has also craftily opened the voting up to 16-18 year olds I believe, knowing that this demographic is less susceptible to socio-economic reality and more likely to adopt a contrarian position of protest.

He has also completely ignored factual arguments and covered them with rhetoric.

10/11 players who played for SCOTLAND yesterday vs Germany in the football match are not allowed to vote!!

Personally though, just me? Now I wish they'd fuck off!! If it's going to be a divorce then maybe both sides should have their day in court? We should get a vote as well.

It'll be bad for Britain, economically, for a while but I am pretty bored with their incessant whinging, their net drain on the UK and their general approach to it all. They have become like a high-maintenance partner who you no longer love.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

Where would the Queen vacation?

[Dalty]

Probably still Balmoral. Last time anyone checked they still wanted her as Head of State. Cake, eat it.

[Mal Shot First]

Cake, eat it.

When I was but a wee immigrant, I didn't at first understand the saying, "You can't have your cake and it it, too." It didn't make sense to me why this would be impossible. If anything, the only way to eat your cake would be to have it in the first place.

It took me months to realize that the phrase would be more accurate if it stated, "You can't eat your cake and have the same amount of cake as before."

[Dalty]

Mr Kipling makes exceedingly good cakes. You do have to eat them though.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

I always just assumed people didn't want to cut into the cakes because the cake makers (cakists?) worked hard on them and they were pretty.

Not everybody wants to destroy something beautiful, after all.

When it comes to cake, on the other hand, I just wanna destroy the shit out of it. I wanna tear in, gobble up, and eventually shit that bad boy out.

[Dalty]

I just wanna destroy the shit out of it. I wanna tear in, gobble up, and eventually shit that bad boy out.

Mr Kipling has his 2014 ad campaign done and dusted.

[The Swollen Goiter of God]

He'd better not be dusting for fingerprints. I ate 'em.

[Dalty]

The frosting will do that.

[neglet]

It makes more sense to say "you can't eat your cake and have it, too," but since when in English sensible?