Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    There's your progressive paradise.
    I don't think Scotland is perfect. I don't think the EU is perfect. I think they are better than this mess though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    That was then. The game has changed since then.
    Spain and Belgium still don't want to lose the wealthiest part of their country. Nothing has changed.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Spain and Belgium still don't want to lose the wealthiest part of their country. Nothing has changed.
    We'll see.

    Tell me what did they do in Czechoslovakia's velvet divorce or the peaceful split of Serbia and Montenegro?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    We'll see.

    Tell me what did they do in Czechoslovakia's velvet divorce or the peaceful split of Serbia and Montenegro?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The fact the Spanish constitution doesn't allow it is largely irrelevant. If the Catalans decide that's what they want and start the ball rolling then realistically there's very little they can do to stop them apart from using force.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elitepower)
    I don't think Scotland is perfect. I don't think the EU is perfect. I think they are better than this mess though.
    Your mess is someone else's outcome of the largest democratic exercise in the history of the United Kingdom.

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    That's not very democratic.
    Of course that's democratic. We had a very democratic referendum on it and that was the outcome. It was a referendum about the United Kingdom, "Scotland" did not appear on the ballot paper.

    If Scotland want their independence, they'll get it. I love how everyone demands their freedom from their EU oppressors and tells anyone who says they'll be worse off to shut up, and then when Scotland wants their independence from us the same people are telling them they aren't allowed and they'll be worse off.
    Yes, or - just maybe - you could agree with both unions and be a reasonable person.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Your mess is someone else's outcome of the largest democratic exercise in the history of the United Kingdom.



    Of course that's democratic. We had a very democratic referendum on it and that was the outcome. It was a referendum about the United Kingdom, "Scotland" did not appear on the ballot paper.



    Yes, or - just maybe - you could agree with both unions and be a reasonable person.
    Scotland and rUK are like a couple who no longer want the same things in life. Better to just split up, because trying to stick together is just forcing one of them to make toomany sacrifices.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Scotland and rUK are like a couple who no longer want the same things in life. Better to just split up, because trying to stick together is just forcing one of them to make toomany sacrifices.
    Look, I like analogies. I use them. But I don't exploit them to give nonsense arguments some sort of folksy credibility.

    Scotland and the rest of the UK are not like a couple, they're 60-odd million individuals with different views and aspirations. They do not "want" things - because they are not sentient. Human beings are, and that's why I'm trying to defend democracy against the ludicrous ideology that nationalism represents.

    I do not deny politics and geography mix. Indeed, as I've said endlessly before, they do - in every single country within the UK. Indeed, the variation in the leave vote between Scotland and England is less than the variation between the most pro- and anti-EU parts of Scotland. The most pro-EU parts of Britain were of course found outside of Scotland.

    We are still in one sovereign state, a political project that we've been contributing to for over three centuries. The consequences of breaking up that union would be catastrophic for Scotland - and the Scottish nationalists have no better arguments than the British nationalists had in trying to extract us from the UK. Well, frankly, I'm not going to swallow their crap that all the experts are lying and that everything will be rosy. Even if you're a Scottish nationalist, you should appreciate that every shred of credible evidence shows that actually going through with Scottish independence would be disastrous for Scotland.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The fact the Spanish constitution doesn't allow it is largely irrelevant. If the Catalans decide that's what they want and start the ball rolling then realistically there's very little they can do to stop them apart from using force.
    Well, the state always uses force - that's what makes it the state, having a legitimate monopoly on the use of force. It uses that to compel the payment of taxes, adherence to the law and so on.

    So yes, the Spanish government would be using force to retain its territorial integrity - by still collecting taxes, by continuing to enforce its laws - but that'd be no different to what we have today.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Look, I like analogies. I use them. But I don't exploit them to give nonsense arguments some sort of folksy credibility.

    Scotland and the rest of the UK are not like a couple, they're 60-odd million individuals with different views and aspirations. They do not "want" things - because they are not sentient. Human beings are, and that's why I'm trying to defend democracy against the ludicrous ideology that nationalism represents.

    I do not deny politics and geography mix. Indeed, as I've said endlessly before, they do - in every single country within the UK. Indeed, the variation in the leave vote between Scotland and England is less than the variation between the most pro- and anti-EU parts of Scotland. The most pro-EU parts of Britain were of course found outside of Scotland.

    We are still in one sovereign state, a political project that we've been contributing to for over three centuries. The consequences of breaking up that union would be catastrophic for Scotland - and the Scottish nationalists have no better arguments than the British nationalists had in trying to extract us from the UK. Well, frankly, I'm not going to swallow their crap that all the experts are lying and that everything will be rosy. Even if you're a Scottish nationalist, you should appreciate that every shred of credible evidence shows that actually going through with Scottish independence would be disastrous for Scotland.
    I disagree with your statement that because some parts of England voted more in favour of remain than most (all?) of Scotland that we're "alike", when it is a fact that every single part of Scotland voted predominantly remain, regardless of by how much.

    As for how bad a decision leaving the union is, as most leave campaigners stated, you have to look at the future. There is no two ways about it, leaving the UK will have terrible short term consequences. Imo they lost the first referendum because they failed to own up to these and tried to ignore them. However, this isn't about the next 2-5 years, this is about the future. And ultimately I see the future being in Europe, not out of it, as do many other Scots.

    Tbh, it's not ideal having to choose between the two, but if I have to, the EU trumps the EU. Hopefully though this talk of only England/Wales leaving will occur and Gibraltar, NI and Scotland will remain.

    I think the above scenario would work out best for everyone really, as the UK would have an easy access to the single market, without having to necessarily make other concessions and the pro-EU countries would be able to remain. Ultimately if this happens we'll know which part of the UK made the correct response in time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Look, I like analogies. I use them. But I don't exploit them to give nonsense arguments some sort of folksy credibility.

    Scotland and the rest of the UK are not like a couple, they're 60-odd million individuals with different views and aspirations. They do not "want" things - because they are not sentient. Human beings are, and that's why I'm trying to defend democracy against the ludicrous ideology that nationalism represents.

    I do not deny politics and geography mix. Indeed, as I've said endlessly before, they do - in every single country within the UK. Indeed, the variation in the leave vote between Scotland and England is less than the variation between the most pro- and anti-EU parts of Scotland. The most pro-EU parts of Britain were of course found outside of Scotland.

    We are still in one sovereign state, a political project that we've been contributing to for over three centuries. The consequences of breaking up that union would be catastrophic for Scotland - and the Scottish nationalists have no better arguments than the British nationalists had in trying to extract us from the UK. Well, frankly, I'm not going to swallow their crap that all the experts are lying and that everything will be rosy. Even if you're a Scottish nationalist, you should appreciate that every shred of credible evidence shows that actually going through with Scottish independence would be disastrous for Scotland.
    And you ought not to expect potential independence voters in Scotland to be any more discouraged by those warnings that Leave voters were by similar warnings on Thursday.

    Most would have said this was Project Fear talking, or that it is about democracy. You'll most likely get similar answers from independence voters.

    My anology works because it paints the picture clearly, instead of worrying about whether a country can be sentient. As for worrying about differences in Leave percentages - yes of course England had a few small pockets of concentrated Remain voters, and people have talked about London a lot. But the difference is that Scotland is already a distinct entity with its own Parliament and history as an independent country, with a distinct sense of identity, even amongst unionists. It is natural to look at the prospect of independence.
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    PS Reviewer
    The UK didn't get in first time around.

    What makes Scotland so special?

    This is going to be a very interesting two years for Nicola Sturgeon. The delusional thinking and rationale she has to achieve what she thinks is possible is completely admirable...as will be her fall from grace.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    And you ought not to expect potential independence voters in Scotland to be any more discouraged by those warnings that Leave voters were by similar warnings on Thursday.
    I agree, that is a concern. However the cautionary element is far deeper: leaving the EU is not an existential issue for the UK. Leaving the UK is for Scotland, it affects it far more profoundly and touches upon virtually every area of public life in far more meaningful ways.

    My concern with the EU referendum beforehand was that Remain started from a lower baseline of support, and indeed that support was far weaker and far less committed than support for the union is in Scotland.

    That said, I don't "expect" anything. I don't take Scottish support for the union for granted, nor should anyone. All political structures should have to continually prove themselves.

    My anology works because it paints the picture clearly, instead of worrying about whether a country can be sentient. As for worrying about differences in Leave percentages - yes of course England had a few small pockets of concentrated Remain voters, and people have talked about London a lot. But the difference is that Scotland is already a distinct entity with its own Parliament and history as an independent country, with a distinct sense of identity, even amongst unionists. It is natural to look at the prospect of independence.
    I'd think that should be a fairly important worry for your analogy, but there we go. I'm not sure London counts as a "small pocket" of anything in a UK context either - and London is also a distinct political entity with its own administrative functions and sense of identity.

    There's nothing "natural" about nationalism, it is an entirely artificial construct that actually denies human nature, distinctiveness and individuality.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    I disagree with your statement that because some parts of England voted more in favour of remain than most (all?) of Scotland that we're "alike", when it is a fact that every single part of Scotland voted predominantly remain, regardless of by how much.
    We're all parts of greater entities. You just choose to group them together in one way or another. There is a stronger pro-EU feeling in parts of London than there is in any part of Scotland. Indeed, in social attitudes, Scotland tends to be closer to London than most of provincial England is.

    As for how bad a decision leaving the union is, as most leave campaigners stated, you have to look at the future. There is no two ways about it, leaving the UK will have terrible short term consequences. Imo they lost the first referendum because they failed to own up to these and tried to ignore them. However, this isn't about the next 2-5 years, this is about the future.
    I'm not sure that claiming everything is absolutely screwed in the short-term but may or may not be OK in the long term is going to win over the suggestion things might be OK in the short-term.

    You're right, this isn't about the next 2-5 years. The issues that Scotland is presented with are issues of a generation and longer. The Scottish Government chose to take a short-termist approach by suggesting oil revenues would not decline when everyone knew they would. They ignored that the UK makes a vital investment in Scotland's future through things like renewables subsidies and research councils funding.

    Ultimately the Scottish referendum was won by the pro-UK side because they had a credible economic argument, while the Scottish nationalists could only rely on vague suggestions that things might improve, somehow, and denying the evidence of virtually every expert voice.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    We're all parts of greater entities. You just choose to group them together in one way or another. There is a stronger pro-EU feeling in parts of London than there is in any part of Scotland. Indeed, in social attitudes, Scotland tends to be closer to London than most of provincial England is.
    Okay, sure. But London isn't a country, Scotland is. And ALL of Scotland voted remain. Not to mention there was the suggestion that people in Scotland voted leave to force a second referendum, but I've no idea (and I doubt anyone does) how prevalent that actually was. 60%+ is a relatively strong mandate.


    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm not sure that claiming everything is absolutely screwed in the short-term but may or may not be OK in the long term is going to win over the suggestion things might be OK in the short-term.

    You're right, this isn't about the next 2-5 years. The issues that Scotland is presented with are issues of a generation and longer. The Scottish Government chose to take a short-termist approach by suggesting oil revenues would not decline when everyone knew they would. They ignored that the UK makes a vital investment in Scotland's future through things like renewables subsidies and research councils funding.

    Ultimately the Scottish referendum was won by the pro-UK side because they had a credible economic argument, while the Scottish nationalists could only rely on vague suggestions that things might improve, somehow, and denying the evidence of virtually every expert voice.
    I mean, realistically the UK is going to be in a poor position in the short term. If you're going to break the status quo in a large way, it has to be for the long term rather than the short term and personally (while I disagree with Brexit) I don't see anything wrong with taking the longer view.

    If you genuinely foresaw the oil price crash then I suggest you get involved in economics and investing, because you'll be a billionaire in no time. Realistically no one saw the oil revenue crashing from 25% of the countries income to 1-2%.

    The Scottish referendum was clearly won by Brown stepping in at the eleventh hour to offer compromises to convince Scotland to stay within the EU. Promises which are largely reported/thought to have been broken. All bets are off now. The suggestion that Scots can only rely on vague suggestions on things improving while we've just voted for exactly what with Brexit is rather amusing.

    That said, ideally Scotland could be in both and it'd be a nice way forward.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Okay, sure. But London isn't a country, Scotland is. And ALL of Scotland voted remain. Not to mention there was the suggestion that people in Scotland voted leave to force a second referendum, but I've no idea (and I doubt anyone does) how prevalent that actually was. 60%+ is a relatively strong mandate.
    For the purposes of the referendum, London was an electoral region and so was Scotland, both containing various sub-regions. I think voting Leave to trigger a second independence referendum would've been a tad odd, given that it is apparently divergence between Scotland and England on this issue that is being held up as an example of why we should part ways.

    I mean, realistically the UK is going to be in a poor position in the short term. If you're going to break the status quo in a large way, it has to be for the long term rather than the short term and personally (while I disagree with Brexit) I don't see anything wrong with taking the longer view.
    I think the UK will rebound pretty quickly if we take a Norway-type arrangement and implement it sooner rather than later. The problem with this, as far as I can see, just remains how we settle the issue of free movement.

    [quoteIf you genuinely foresaw the oil price crash then I suggest you get involved in economics and investing, because you'll be a billionaire in no time. Realistically no one saw the oil revenue crashing from 25% of the countries income to 1-2%. [/quote]

    You'll notice I didn't mention oil price, I mentioned revenues. Every single credible forecaster predicted that North Sea oil revenues would fall considerably, even if the oil price remained broadly static. That's why even if it recovers, the days of large revenues from the North Sea are gone: it now moves to how we can support the industry and the jobs it creates, rather than expecting it to produce huge amounts of additional tax.

    The oil price fall did however underline another argument made during the referendum: that - even without considering the decline of the North Sea - you shouldn't base assumptions about public finances on income from a wildly fluctuating commodity, particularly when you assume prices that are at a high will continue. It may not have been predictable that they fell when they did, but you'd have to have been a fool (or Alex Salmond) to assume that they would not fluctuate downwards from that level at some point.

    The Scottish referendum was clearly won by Brown stepping in at the eleventh hour to offer compromises to convince Scotland to stay within the EU. Promises which are largely reported/thought to have been broken.
    I wish I could credit Gordon Brown with that level of persuasive ability. The length of the campaign here was significant - if, after two years of constant campaigning - people were still calling themselves undecided, it was clear that they weren't particularly persuaded by the "change" argument. That didn't apply so much in the EU referendum, and the undecideds split more evenly.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    For the purposes of the referendum, London was an electoral region and so was Scotland, both containing various sub-regions. I think voting Leave to trigger a second independence referendum would've been a tad odd, given that it is apparently divergence between Scotland and England on this issue that is being held up as an example of why we should part ways.
    Is it that odd? It was in the SNP manifesto that a "material change in the UK" would cause a 2nd referendum. I think it's a totally ridiculous reason to vote, don't get me wrong. But I suspect it was a factor. And you can draw lines around communities and say "this is a group" and compare it to Scotland, but fundamentally Scotland is a country, London is not. Is it arbitrary? I guess. But no more than any other lines you may draw.

    (Original post by L i b)
    I think the UK will rebound pretty quickly if we take a Norway-type arrangement and implement it sooner rather than later. The problem with this, as far as I can see, just remains how we settle the issue of free movement.

    If you genuinely foresaw the oil price crash then I suggest you get involved in economics and investing, because you'll be a billionaire in no time. Realistically no one saw the oil revenue crashing from 25% of the countries income to 1-2%.

    You'll notice I didn't mention oil price, I mentioned revenues. Every single credible forecaster predicted that North Sea oil revenues would fall considerably, even if the oil price remained broadly static. That's why even if it recovers, the days of large revenues from the North Sea are gone: it now moves to how we can support the industry and the jobs it creates, rather than expecting it to produce huge amounts of additional tax.
    I don't think you're being accurate here. It was reported that oil revenues are variable (clearly) and that they are a finite resource that will only last for the next 5-10 years. It was in no way claimed that it would crash in the next year. Likewise while their initial plan focused on oil, it was by no means the end objective.
    (Original post by L i b)
    The oil price fall did however underline another argument made during the referendum: that - even without considering the decline of the North Sea - you shouldn't base assumptions about public finances on income from a wildly fluctuating commodity, particularly when you assume prices that are at a high will continue. It may not have been predictable that they fell when they did, but you'd have to have been a fool (or Alex Salmond) to assume that they would not fluctuate downwards from that level at some point.



    I wish I could credit Gordon Brown with that level of persuasive ability. The length of the campaign here was significant - if, after two years of constant campaigning - people were still calling themselves undecided, it was clear that they weren't particularly persuaded by the "change" argument. That didn't apply so much in the EU referendum, and the undecideds split more evenly.
    i'm aware how long the campaign was, I lived with it. I feel there was a very significant shift following his intervention. It's not like people voted because he said "hey guys, lets not do this", they voted because he promised many of the benefits of leaving without the pains.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Is it that odd? It was in the SNP manifesto that a "material change in the UK" would cause a 2nd referendum. I think it's a totally ridiculous reason to vote, don't get me wrong. But I suspect it was a factor. And you can draw lines around communities and say "this is a group" and compare it to Scotland, but fundamentally Scotland is a country, London is not. Is it arbitrary? I guess. But no more than any other lines you may draw.
    Is this "country" status really relevant to anything though? I fail to see how it is. This is a political decision, not a cultural or ethnic one.

    As for material change - I think even the SNP would have a hard time arguing for a second referendum on the basis of a Leave vote if Scotland voted leave too. It's have been quite fun, of course. I'm possibly too much of realist on this one: the only criterion I see for the SNP trying to hold a second referendum is if they think there's a chance they could win one.



    I don't think you're being accurate here. It was reported that oil revenues are variable (clearly) and that they are a finite resource that will only last for the next 5-10 years. It was in no way claimed that it would crash in the next year. Likewise while their initial plan focused on oil, it was by no means the end objective.
    I didn't say that noting volatility of price meant anyone predicted when that would happen - but it was a fairly safe bet that it would go down and have significant consequences. Even with a steady oil price though, respectable forecasts all showed revenues falling fairly sharply over recent years.

    The North Sea has reached a turning point where tax advantages for decommissioning are taking a real hit out of revenues. I'll be honest, I genuinely thought it was nonsense when someone said to me before the referendum "within the next five years, there's a fair chance decommissioning and other costs will outpace any revenue". Turns out he was right.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I like how they have most of our nukes...and they're just like: "I guess we have your nukes now. Bye."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Your mess is someone else's outcome of the largest democratic exercise in the history of the United Kingdom.



    Of course that's democratic. We had a very democratic referendum on it and that was the outcome. It was a referendum about the United Kingdom, "Scotland" did not appear on the ballot paper.


    You can dress up a turd however you like, but it's still a turd. Also, it's democratic by definition of the word, but like thinking snake venom is just fine to inject into your eyeball because it's 'natural', that doesn't make it good.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Is this "country" status really relevant to anything though? I fail to see how it is. This is a political decision, not a cultural or ethnic one.

    As for material change - I think even the SNP would have a hard time arguing for a second referendum on the basis of a Leave vote if Scotland voted leave too. It's have been quite fun, of course. I'm possibly too much of realist on this one: the only criterion I see for the SNP trying to hold a second referendum is if they think there's a chance they could win one.





    I didn't say that noting volatility of price meant anyone predicted when that would happen - but it was a fairly safe bet that it would go down and have significant consequences. Even with a steady oil price though, respectable forecasts all showed revenues falling fairly sharply over recent years.

    The North Sea has reached a turning point where tax advantages for decommissioning are taking a real hit out of revenues. I'll be honest, I genuinely thought it was nonsense when someone said to me before the referendum "within the next five years, there's a fair chance decommissioning and other costs will outpace any revenue". Turns out he was right.
    I mean at ~$40 a barrel, it isn't a surprise that costs are overtaking profits! I fully agree a volatile commodity isn't enough to base a country off.

    Personally I feel a second referendum might succeed, but I suppose we might find out one way or another. I'm currently hoping that Scotland can remain in the EU and the UK, I feel this would be the best of both worlds.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.