| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Highlander |
ReferendumIf a referendum on Scottish "independence" receieved a no vote, would you stop campaigning? |
||||||||||||||
| garye |
If we held a poll asking if you should give up posting and the answer was yes would you?
|
||||||||||||||
| Highlander |
Yeah but a lot of the independence campaigners use the "...Scottish "people" have never been asked about the union" to "legitimise" their campaign. However your little remark there is rather boring and shows your skill in debating to be non-existant. My question is about people accepting the will of the people that live in Scotland and it looks like you don't. So basically you are saying that a plebiscite is pointless and the status quo should stay, excellent. Thank you for agreeing. |
||||||||||||||
| macnumpty |
But the reason we campaign in the first place is to convince people of the merits of our case. If we lose a referendum, that means we actually have to step up our campaign to persuade people to support the cause in a future poll.
The UK voted to remain in the Common Market in 1975. The fact that we have UKIP, for example, shows that the debate about Europe is not over for eternity simply because of that single event. In our case, it's all about letting people decide on their own, and doing our best to make sure that our arguments are persuasive. Rather than the Unionist "don't even ask the people, because we know best and they might give us the wrong answer" approach. |
||||||||||||||
| wisnaeme |
Yer pretendy heelander jist wants tae ken how many o us are aboot. Aye weel, ra loon wull ken soon enough, come May. 
. |
||||||||||||||
| Highlander |
Your ability to have a discussion amazes me. You seem to deem it necessary to bring into disrepute the concept of identity and what I identify with, which is beginning to border on racism especially when this thread has nothing to do with where I was brought up. |
||||||||||||||
| Mctosh45 |
Highlander has bought unionism hook line and sinker despite the damage it's doing to Scotland.
E.g. The rape of her natural resources,the forced migration of it's people to look for better jobs and the base for W.M.D. Despite the overwhelming majority of Scots who don't want them based here. Yet he wonders why people wouldn't give up on independence if they lost a referendum.
|
||||||||||||||
| wisnaeme |
Thankyou for kind compliment, Heelander.
|
||||||||||||||
| Mctosh45 |
P.S. Forgot to mention Scotland's stagnant economy and singular lack of ambition, vision and competence displayed by pretentdy parliament 
|
||||||||||||||
| Mctosh45 |
P.P.S. Forgot to mention our aging and falling population 
|
||||||||||||||
| Highlander |
"Forced migration" done by Scots to Scots.
Only Scotland to blame for that then. Yet you want to find someone else to blame.
Who can you pin this one on? |
||||||||||||||
| Lothian Sky |
Selective responses, "Highlander".
Nobody is blaming anyone other than the Scots for our current predicament. But there is a bigger picture. When unionist money and resources come pouring over the border during the election, and the media begin their campaign of lies and smears, maybe you should ask yourself why YOU cant leave our destiny to the Scottish people. |
||||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
"Highlander" asked
> If a referendum on Scottish "independence" receieved a no vote, > would you stop campaigning? It depends. For a start, it depends on the actual question asked. We in Independence First, the single-issue, non-party-political, campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland, are campaiging for a very simple, very straightforward, question to be put to the voters of Scotland : Do you want Scotland to be independent? - Yes or No ; or at least something very similar to that. We would regard any long, complicated, or slanted question as being a fiddle by the government, and would probably call for a boycott if that should be the case. Secondly, even in a simple, straightforward, not-slanted, single question referendum, if the result EITHER WAY was very close, then I do not believe that _either_ side would stop campaigning. If it was a very narrow victory for independence, then diehard unionists would take this as evidence that their cause was not lost. Similarly, if there was a very narrow vote _against_ independence, then supporters of independence would take the narrowness of the result as evidence that they had everything to keep on campaigning for. Only a very decisive result either way would result in people on either side of the argument "stopping campaigning". |
||||||||||||||
| garye |
I take it you missed the smiley then Highlander. Nevermind, I remember posting a questions a wee while ago on whether or not po faced humourlessness and unionism were actually part of the same gene or whether you just learned it as part of the same package and neither yourself or Ave replied..... Thats quite a lot of words to put into my mouth Highlander considering I only posed a question to yourself, my answer to your point would be that given the recent history of devolution referenda giving up would be pointless, particularly if it's a close run thing. Secondly as well as the facts of Scottish History I do get inspired by some of the mythology as well, Bruce and the spider and all that |
||||||||||||||
| macnumpty |
If you're worried about Scots blaming other people for what's going wrong, perhaps you ought to support Independence... that way, the Scottish people will be able to (and will have no choice but to) take decisive action to solve problems rather than pass the buck. The fact is, in recent history, Scotland has needed lower interest rates - closer to that of the Eurozone - to stimulate an economy that was in recession. England needed higher interest rates to curb house price inflation. Scotland got higher interest rates. Scotland has needed a relaxed immigration policy, to deal with a perceived lack of labour in various employment sectors and to curb a falling population. England wanted a tighter immigration policy to deal with the perception that local services were being 'swamped' by immigrants. The immigration debate in England and Scotland was held in the context of the English perspective. The Independence argument is logical: when you have an England with ten times the population of Scotland, Scottish interests are only ever going to get advanced when English opinion either supports Scottish opinion or is so sharply divided that Scots have, in effect, a 'casting vote' on a matter. That's a fact of life. Independence supporters aren't blaming the English, we're looking at the problems that Scotland faces and how we don't have the powers to do anything about them. We want to solve problems and to make things better, you want to either deny that problems exist or acknowledge them but argue that we should just put up with them until the Man in Whitehall gets round to sorting them. That's the difference between positive, dynamic Nationalism and negative, complacent Unionism. And that difference is why, sooner or later, we will win the argument. (EDIT: Replacement of an iffy pronoun) |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Completely ignoring the fact that there is nothing about Unionism that could possibly do that, and that such faults lie at the door of the democratically elected governments within this country. Complete non sequitur.
Drilling for oil, taxing it highly and spending that tax money on the people of the country. RAPE! Pillage!
I've never seen a British citizen forced to leave this country other than to face trial for a crime elsewhere.
But the majority of Britons want it there, or rather democratically elect a government that want it there, and we're all paying for it, equally. |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Our ageing population is a result of a good health service. And the population is on an upward trend now, as has been established elsewhere - anything more than a gradual increase will do more harm than good, you do realise. Young people can barely afford homes as it is, people are not willing to live ten to a room in tenements any more. And quite rightly so. You cannot base your politics on an expectation that the country's population will continue to grow at a decent rate generation upon generation. It's incredibly irresponsible and unsustainable.
Oh God, that's like putting your life in the hands of the village idiot...
That question is rather biased in my opinion and I don't think your group (or at least large sections of it) would ever be happy with the wording of an actual referendum on the subject. What, for example, would you say to 'Do you wish to have Scotland remain a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than become a sovereign state?' Yes - No.
Ah, the old neverendum of lore. |
||||||||||||||
| George |
South Britons 
|
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
You lot are obsessed with the English... |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Thankyou to Macnumpty for injecting some common sense into this thread.
I don't know how many times you need to be told Aventinian, but our ageing population is exacerbated by our unstable demographic, caused by the fact Scotland lost 200,000 people through out-migration and declining birth rates between 1974 and 2004. Here's the graph to show the situation from 1981. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Scotpop1.PNG Think. If all in the garden was rosy in Scotland, during that time, that wouldn't have happened. But you've got to ask, given that Unionism was at the heart of the governance of Scotland during this time - and such unionism led to a chronic centralisation out of Scotland. And that leads to all the problems that were referred to in macnumpty's post earlier.
What's wrong with a choice between [I wish Scotland to remain a part of the United Kingdom] or [I wish Scotland to be an independent Country]? Simple, fair and not biased. Given such a choice, how the question is exactly worded is really rather irrelevant. |
||||||||||||||
| IF Convenor |
Getting back to the original question, I agree with Dave Coull. If it was a close-run thing or if there was obvious malpractice (including asking a loaded question) in the referendum I would not give up. If the referendum was fair and the margin of defeat was significant I would probably lose heart and emigrate, and leave Scotland to the fate it will have chosen for itself. | ||||||||||||||
| macnumpty |
Highlander, on the 'Next Year' thread, you argue propose abolishing Holyrood. Given that a referendum supported its creation in 1997, and that you have accused other posters of not accepting the will of the Scottish people for not being willing to stop campaining following an unsuccessful vote, you have left yourself open to an accusation of double standards. I am now making that accusation.
Either we must all accept the will of the people in a single referendum, which would end our campaign but would mean that you could no longer legitimately call for the abolition of Holyrood, or your earlier accusation is irrelevant, as we should remain free to campaign on issues following a failure to convince people in a first referendum, allowing us to continue a campaign for Independence if we lose (and I believe that we can win) but allowing you to say that we should get rid of Holyrood and turn the clock back eight years. Which is it? |
||||||||||||||
| Highlander |
I admit that is a good point. I understand what you are saying. However, the people that don't want the Scottish parliament are willing to work with it. I doubt very much that the supporters of "independence" (I hate that word and would have thought that "independence" supporters would have to, since they think that Scotland is subsidising ther rest of the u.k. but that's another point) will work with Scotland in the U.K., they will still argue, they will still be pedantic to tedium etc etc | ||||||||||||||
| macnumpty |
But your point is weakened by the presence of SNP MPs, SNP MEPs, and a host of pro-Independence MSPs. They are working within the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom. They don't have much of a choice in the matter if they want their views to be even heard, let alone put into practice one day.
They all want to see the current setup changed, but they realise that they have to work within it for the time being. That is what they do. And how is arguing for something you believe in being 'pedantic to tedium'? |
||||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Economist asked
> What's wrong with a choice between "I wish Scotland to remain > a part of the United Kingdom" or "I wish Scotland to be an independent > Country" ? Personally, I can see nothing wrong with that. But I can think of at least one of my fellow-members of Independence First who would probably have a problem with it. He is a monarchist, a supporter of the present Queen Elizabeth, and he wants Scotland to be independent in the same way that Canada and Australia are independent, but with the Queen as head of state. I think he would probably object on the grounds that this question appears to imply Scotland would automatically become a republic when independent. How about "I wish Scotland to remain part of the same united country as England" or "I wish Scotland to be an independent country" ? |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
It is partly due to this, but I stick by my original assertion, an ageing population is an inevitable result of good healthcare, improving diets and so forth. In one thread you criticise Scotland for having lower life expectancies than certain areas, and in another you criticise it for having an ageing population... the two are linked, you realise. Migration is also an issue, and I don't wish to lessen that, but even so it shouldn't be presumed that ageing and shrinking populations are a problem of themselves. "Unionism" was not at the heart of Scottish governance at any time in recent history, it is entirely incidental to the ideologies of the parties in power. You know this fine well, blaming the Union is complete nonsense.
I'm not saying it's a poor way of phrasing the question, I was merely trying to find Dave Coull's limits. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
It seems to be your good self who is criticising Scotland for having better diets in one thread, and poor diets in another, not me. The point I am making is that our demographic problems are exacerbated by a declining population. An ageing population and a higher life expectancy are inevitable - that really doesn't nearly concern me as much as our unstable demographic, the still high rates of emigration of younger people.
Well you'll certainly be in the minority then? A shrinking population, especially is a huge problem. Where do you start? Declining tax base, stretched healthcare services, social services. Higher demands on a smaller working population, higher unemployment, less attractive area for investment and so on.
Of course Unionism was at the heart of governing Scotland at that time, because if it wasn't Scotland wouldn't have been in the Union! It was at the heart of the ideologies of the governing parties at the time, it was not incidental to anything. And you know fine well, the Union exacerbates a lot of problems in Scotland. |
||||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Aventinian wrote
> I'm not saying it's a poor way of phrasing the question, > I was merely trying to find Dave Coull's limits. The question would have been okay for me, but it would pose problems for one of my fellow members of Independence First. He is a monarchist, a supporter of the present Queen Elizabeth. He maintains that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all independent yet have her as head of state. If, of the two alternatives being put, one contained the word "Kingdom" and the other did not, then that could present him with a dilemma. He would not want to appear to be voting for a republic, yet he would not want to vote for continuing the Union with England. Besides my Independence first colleague, there are probably many, many more people for whom this would present a dilemma. That is why I suggested >> How about "I wish Scotland to remain part of the same united >> country as England" or "I wish Scotland to be an independent >> country" ? This would remove the kingdom/republic dilemma. Of course you could say what about Northern Ireland and Wales ; but we want to keep the question as simple as possible, and anyway they are covered by "part of the same united country as England" (since they are ALSO part of it). Anyway, it's not Wales that the Scots have a problem with, it is England's much bigger population which makes the United Kingdom so uneven, unbalanced, and ultimately unworkable. |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Well I'm not. We do have a poor diet, but we also have improved since the past and have a better health service. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Well there's no need to complain about a declining population then, is there? It's not actually a political problem really, although one might argue that emmigration is simply the hallmark of a poor economy. Either way, do not blame symptoms.
I think Scotland might actually get on a bit better with less money for the government to play with. Although I agree that's a controversial view - but we're also in an economic union with four other nations, so our demographic falls hardly affect that.
Only if you believe in the flawed principle that the retired should simply rely on the working population for what they have and spend.
From having a smaller working population?
That's nonsense. Is American Unity at the heart of both of the parties in the United States, or the same for Canadian federalism? No, of course it isn't. It's simply a normal country going about its normal business. |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
"it is England's much bigger population which makes the United
Kingdom so uneven, unbalanced, and ultimately unworkable." Really? It seems quite the opposite these days... |
||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Well, I think these days the English have something to complain about as well. For reserved matters I think the above still stands. I think this is why we're going to see then end of the Union sooner rather than later - those defending the Union are now fighting on two fronts. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Not "one" Aventinian, the commonly accepted view. Successful countries do not have a declining population.
I certainly agree that Scottish government could do with bringing about a more lean and efficient public sector. But we're talking about increasing strain on public resources, and less funding of such public resources, much worse than now.
No Aventinian, the economically active population generate, not just tax revenue, they also generate wealth. They generate services, they generate goods. A declining and ageing population means less of this.
From having less opportunity for young people. I mean who'd want to invest in a retirement colony?
Of course American Unity is at the heart of these parties!! And Canadian Federalism, whilst it isn't explicit about it in the way political parties in this country have been (Tory and Labour) - with the exception of perhaps Canada. Scotland wasn't governed anywhere near as effectively as the States of America or the Provinces of Canada. The UK is no normal country in any definition of the word.[/quote] |
||||||||||||||
| George |
Really, so in your opinion there is only one country south of the border? |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
So what, again that does not follow. I have accepted that high emmigration rates are indicative of a poor economy, although I imagine that there are some fairly decent countries with reasonably high rates. Stop padding the point - if you want to say Scotland has a poor economy and cite emmigration rates as evidence, fine, that's logical. Claiming that a falling population is somehow a problem in itself, however, is nonsense.
This is largely a service economy, and we're actually short of jobs at present. Economically inactive persons, say pensioners, if holding reasonable funds will do the economy no harm. Just think of all the money invested in property which the elderly hold. Have a culture of 'equity release' after having built up to home-ownership during the course of a life, cut out the idea of inheritance (to be fair, there's only been one or two generations where inheritance was at all possible for the average person) and then we free up otherwise idle funds to the benefit of the economy.
Scotland has been governed just as well as any other place on earth and the UK is a normal country in every definition of the word. I'm not sure if you're simply ill-travelled or there is some other cause for this strange attitude to our political situation. Anyway, I dispute your claim that these things are 'at the heart' of these parties. In fact, they should never realise arise in thought, but rather be a presumption. I don't think you'd find many to agree with your position. |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Well, if we're not talking about Mexico then the country south of the border to me is France or the Channel Islands. In the context of Britons, the Irish and Cornish seem to have taken the label of West Britons for themselves - this may even include Wales. Meanwhile yes, England is South Britain if Scotland is North Britain. Remembering that a good few of the isles of Scotland had the exact same relation to Scotland as Wales did to England (non-incorporated possessions at the time of Union). |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Scotland certainly has a lucklustre economy, emigration rates are a symptom of that. For Scotland, a falling population is a problem in itself, and ageing and falling population is a doubly bad problem. It is not nonsense Aventinian, it is a widely regarded and measured view, which any rational person will hold. Quite why you wish to deny it Aventinian, is beyond me. Now if Scotland were some overpopulated, under resourced, impoverished nation - I could see population decline as a good thing. But we're not.
Inheritance does not manufacture goods, neither does it provide services. Fit and economically active people do. Back down here on Planet Earth, more people generate more demand, which generates more income (which in turn generates more taxation revenue). It doesn't take a leap of imagination to decipher the fact that the opposite case has an opposite effect.
I certainly dispute that Scotland has been governed well. I am very well travelled thankyou and I think there is a lot "lacking" in the United Kingdom, that other countries have and take for granted. As for your secondary point, you know exactly what I mean. Of course these things are at the heart of these parties, because if they weren't we would be in the Union would we? Just because they are not always explicit about it, doesn't mean it is not at the heart of their ideologies. |
||||||||||||||
| George |
He he he, wriggling again eh. Admit it, the fixation with the English was entirely yours......you omitted Wales ...........oops. |
||||||||||||||
| Maol.Chaluim |
[quote="Aventinian"
Well, if we're not talking about Mexico then the country south of the border to me is France or the Channel Islands.[/quote] Looks like Aventinian's changed his definition of "country" again... |
||||||||||||||