Options

Scotland. I didn't want to lose you, but I think you ought to go

mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I’m an Englishman who was pleased when Scotland voted no to independence, but now I’ve changed my mind, here’s why.

The size of the yes vote and the ‘vow; by London have entangled us in a constitutional wrangle where Labour, Liberal and Conservatives vie for advantage and the SNP snipes from the side-lines. If next years election produces a hung parliament, which is likely, it will be a real mess. If Conservatives are the largest party, and gaining a coalition that has a majority depends on SNP support, well, given the philosophical hostility the two have for each other, it could well be the Conservatives try and rule as a minority government. But if they can’t get their budget through the Commons, then we have another election, probably producing the same result.
If Labour have the most MP’s, but not an overall majority, then the SNP will demand sweeping devolution for Scotland as the price of co-operation. So Labours budget, defence policy, etc, would be influenced by the need to ensure their support. Even if Labour have a small overall majority, the need to ensure their Scottish MP’s don’t lose their seats at the next election will influence every aspect of their government.

This is no way to run a country, and the only way out of it I can see is Scotland leaving the UK. With opinion polls showing a majority of Scots wanting another referendum, I hope they get it, and vote to leave. I’ve no feelings of hostility to Scotland, in fact the opposite, but, for the reasons above. I think it’s time we parted company.

One good thing that would come as a result of Scotland leaving the UK is that Saint Alex would be exposed as the false prophet he is, when what he promised independence would bring, like a shared currency with the UK for example, can’t be delivered.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stating the obvious no?

    I was a backer of 'Yes', and even though a 'No' win was always likeliest outcome in the referendum to me it seemed/seems obvious the status quo cannot continue.

    Scotland is simply too different and needs to follow it's own path, not be forced down the line that Westminster chooses.

    Long, long term the current setup is just an unsustainable mess.
  • Options
    ohglobbitsohglobbits Posts: 4,482
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Surely the vote was decisive enough the first time round. What could possibly change things? And the philosophically opposed conservatives and lib dems have worked together. NI's devolution is widely accepted but maybe the issue is that the Tories have benefited from Unionist support in NI so keep quiet about them.
  • Options
    Daniel_GleeballDaniel_Gleeball Posts: 629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think had Scotland achieved independence there would have been people placing bets on their being a referendum on wether we should allow Scotland back in the UK With in ten years.
  • Options
    Jim_McIntoshJim_McIntosh Posts: 5,866
    Forum Member
    I'm Scottish and pro-indy.

    I disagree with your reasons but agree with your conclusion. I happen to think independence would simply suit everyone - certainly Scotland, but probably the other UK nations too - and a new national structure might well re-energise significant parts of the electorate who are fairly downtrodden and cynical at present. The economics are murky but if other small countries can manage it.............

    I'm not a traditionalist so if I think a change will benefit the majority then my attitude is that it's worth doing. I have no strong emotional ties either way really. Most people do.

    Either way, I wouldn't wish failure on anyone simply out of bitterness. I hate the "to hell with them" attitude I've heard in places. It's like a stroppy teenager.

    I agree with Hynodisc really. Like all our other old institutions, it's a mess at the moment and badly in need of reform. Probably more so than any other (royalty excepted).
  • Options
    jjnejjne Posts: 6,580
    Forum Member
    So the electoral system is broken, the main parties are haemorrhaging support and your answer is to cut Scotland loose?

    In case you hadn't noticed the Scots are perfectly entitled to vote for a party that doesn't sit nice with the cosy little duopoly we have in England.

    As for "Scotland going will suit the rest of the UK" -- not a bit of it. The North of England is far more aligned with Scotland politically than it ever will be with London and the South East -- you let Scotland go, the rest will crumble.

    Cutting London and the UKIP counties loose might do the rest of us more good than parting with Scotland, frankly.

    (I speak as someone who supported Scottish independence by the way; this isn't just some embittered Englishman speaking, but let's not pretend that kicking Scotland out of the union is anything other than a bad thing).
  • Options
    niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We ended up with the worst possible outcome. The last minute "vow" by all the main No parties meant that voting both Yes and No was a vote for the unknown.

    Without the vow, a No result would have been a clear statement that the status quo was the preferred option, and a Yes vote would have been a vote for change. After the Vow, we just have a mess, with no one knowing what the Scottish people want.

    These people call themselves professional politicians, but they couldn't predict the fairly obvious consequences of their actions.

    I've always been a believer in giving the Scottish what they want, but the No campaign was so determined to get the result they wanted, they created a total mess that will cause problems for years to come, both in Scotland and in the rest of the UK (I see the whole EVEL as very similar battle as the Scottish referendum, where all sides are looking for short term tactical wins rather than a stable constitution that will provide stability for decades.)
  • Options
    jenziejenzie Posts: 20,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    1: union of countries
    2: 'points at invisible british constitution'
  • Options
    alfamalealfamale Posts: 10,309
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Some really excellent posts. As an englishman who'd prefer scotland to stay i also feel they should have gone it alone. The "stuff 'em if they want to go" and "theyll come back begging" comments i found pathetic from some of my english fellow countrymen. Good luck to them, i'd happily ditch the Westminster elite and start again with a fairer society that is less low wage economy driven, keeps the NHS run by public sector employees & scraps trident. The one big upside as an englishman is the English would have less power on the world stage, with less wealth and a smaller population so couldn't start another Iraq war.

    But i do agree its best for all and i do think it will happen soon. Is there some talk of if UK votes to leave the EU scotland can use this to their advantage.

    I must admit 5% is a pretty small swing, especially if the blatant BBC and media bias towards the No campaign was countered next time. I felt 'Fear' and Gordon Browns last minute promises were the only 2 things that swung it to No. I bet if they'd held another referendum the very next day Scotland would have voted Yes, as the first thing weasley Cameron did was stand on steps of No10 demanding only english MP votes on english matters.
  • Options
    OvalteenieOvalteenie Posts: 24,169
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What's astonishing was that Labour failed to anticipate Cameron backstabbing them with EVEL as soon as the Scottish referendum was safely over.

    The English Daily Mail had a leader comment yesterday saying that Westminster must enact EVEL before the next GE, due to fear of the SNP holding the balance of power in a hung parliament. Leaving aside the fact that SNP MPs have always abstained from exclusively English legislation.
  • Options
    thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,624
    Forum Member
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    Stating the obvious no?

    I was a backer of 'Yes', and even though a 'No' win was always likeliest outcome in the referendum to me it seemed/seems obvious the status quo cannot continue.

    Scotland is simply too different and needs to follow it's own path, not be forced down the line that Westminster chooses.

    Long, long term the current setup is just an unsustainable mess.

    Not really , long term.. Exposed to the facts, 55% of the Scots decided not to jump over a cliff. - that included a lot of people who live in SNP seats. Most people don't do suicidally foolish things just because some nationalist socialist politician tells them to - economic facts, and diplomatic reality matters. .

    The long term may work for union. The oil is running out and the oil price is in freefall. The magic SNP solution to all problems is vanishing.The leaving the EU issue may fade away if and when there's a referendum., There's also a strong chance that, the more power and money the SNP have, the more they will finally be held responsible for failures. The Scots may just blame the English more, but you can't fool all the people all the time, or win every election, or spend money you don't have, or keep a lid on the contradictions within any party.

    The short and medium term is indeed fraught - because some Scots seem to believe the nonsense that they are being robbed of what they were promised, and the Labour left think they can get more socialism and coerce more money out of the English, by voting SNP. The SNP is also doing well threatening the English parties with chaos, and unmeetable demands, if there is a hung parliament. Its likely that the English will refuse the SNP any share in coalition , and get as fed up with all this as they did with the Stuarts trying to tax them to provide a luxury life for an imported scottish court. .

    Objectively, England may at some point prefer to lose the Scots and just move Trident south, or do a basing deal with the French .But, by that stage, the majority of Scots may be back to thinking rationally too.
  • Options
    thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,624
    Forum Member
    We ended up with the worst possible outcome. The last minute "vow" by all the main No parties meant that voting both Yes and No was a vote for the unknown.

    Without the vow, a No result would have been a clear statement that the status quo was the preferred option, and a Yes vote would have been a vote for change. After the Vow, we just have a mess, with no one knowing what the Scottish people want.

    These people call themselves professional politicians, but they couldn't predict the fairly obvious consequences of their actions.

    I've always been a believer in giving the Scottish what they want, but the No campaign was so determined to get the result they wanted, they created a total mess that will cause problems for years to come, both in Scotland and in the rest of the UK (I see the whole EVEL as very similar battle as the Scottish referendum, where all sides are looking for short term tactical wins rather than a stable constitution that will provide stability for decades.)

    Indeed, the nonsense was giving the Scots "more" without asking what the 55% actually wanted.

    I think the consequences were calculated though. Labour couldn't offer less in practice ,without being more outmanouvered by the SNP. The Conservatives know that giving more creates an unanswerable case why Scottish Labour MPs can't possibly vote on England and Wales's budget. There's also an argument that, the more power the SNP has , the less it can escape blame when things go wrong.
  • Options
    Black SheepBlack Sheep Posts: 15,219
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Not really , long term.. Exposed to the facts, 55% of the Scots decided not to jump over a cliff. - that included a lot of people who live in SNP seats. Most people don't do suicidally foolish things just because some nationalist socialist politician tells them to - economic facts, and diplomatic reality matters. .

    The long term may work for union. The oil is running out and the oil price is in freefall. The magic SNP solution to all problems is vanishing.The leaving the EU issue may fade away if and when there's a referendum., There's also a strong chance that, the more power and money the SNP have, the more they will finally be held responsible for failures. The Scots may just blame the English more, but you can't fool all the people all the time, or win every election, or spend money you don't have, or keep a lid on the contradictions within any party.

    The short and medium term is indeed fraught - because some Scots seem to believe the nonsense that they are being robbed of what they were promised, and the Labour left think they can get more socialism and coerce more money out of the English, by voting SNP. The SNP is also doing well threatening the English parties with chaos, and unmeetable demands, if there is a hung parliament. Its likely that the English will refuse the SNP any share in coalition , and get as fed up with all this as they did with the Stuarts trying to tax them to provide a luxury life for an imported scottish court. .

    Objectively, England may at some point prefer to lose the Scots and just move Trident south, or do a basing deal with the French .But, by that stage, the majority of Scots may be back to thinking rationally too.

    Excellent post. I'd add that the the new left leaning SNP support and the traditional SNPS support will very soon find their honeymoon period over.

    If the new support have sufficient numbers to turn the party in the direction they weren't given by labour then the consequence of this could be lots of folk turning away from the SNP.
  • Options
    Black SheepBlack Sheep Posts: 15,219
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    I’m an Englishman who was pleased when Scotland voted no to independence, but now I’ve changed my mind, here’s why.

    The size of the yes vote and the ‘vow; by London have entangled us in a constitutional wrangle where Labour, Liberal and Conservatives vie for advantage and the SNP snipes from the side-lines. If next years election produces a hung parliament, which is likely, it will be a real mess. If Conservatives are the largest party, and gaining a coalition that has a majority depends on SNP support, well, given the philosophical hostility the two have for each other, it could well be the Conservatives try and rule as a minority government. But if they can’t get their budget through the Commons, then we have another election, probably producing the same result.
    If Labour have the most MP’s, but not an overall majority, then the SNP will demand sweeping devolution for Scotland as the price of co-operation. So Labours budget, defence policy, etc, would be influenced by the need to ensure their support. Even if Labour have a small overall majority, the need to ensure their Scottish MP’s don’t lose their seats at the next election will influence every aspect of their government.

    This is no way to run a country, and the only way out of it I can see is Scotland leaving the UK. With opinion polls showing a majority of Scots wanting another referendum, I hope they get it, and vote to leave. I’ve no feelings of hostility to Scotland, in fact the opposite, but, for the reasons above. I think it’s time we parted company.

    One good thing that would come as a result of Scotland leaving the UK is that Saint Alex would be exposed as the false prophet he is, when what he promised independence would bring, like a shared currency with the UK for example, can’t be delivered.

    An interesting post. However, I believe that the result of the referendum wouldn't have changed much, if at all without the vow.

    I also believe that over the next ten years or so the desire for independence won't rise and might even fade a wee bit as more economic policies are devolved to Scotland and the SNP make some unpopular decisions.
  • Options
    mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    Stating the obvious no?

    I was a backer of 'Yes', and even though a 'No' win was always likeliest outcome in the referendum to me it seemed/seems obvious the status quo cannot continue.

    Scotland is simply too different and needs to follow it's own path, not be forced down the line that Westminster chooses.

    Long, long term the current setup is just an unsustainable mess.

    BiB - can I ask what exactly that is based on and different to where ?

    in my experience Scotland is no different than the areas of England I have lived in and spent time in over the last 25 years

    I live in Edinburgh but spent time in Sheffield and leeds , I didn't see what these differences are meant to be , I saw as many differences going from Sheffield to Barnsley as going from Scotland to England
  • Options
    MattNMattN Posts: 2,534
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Scotland is pretty similar to the North of England.

    If a new Left Leaning Social Democratic party similar to the SNP came along I'd imagine Labour would suffer serious losses
  • Options
    DrillerKillerDrillerKiller Posts: 475
    Forum Member
    Excellent post. I'd add that the the new left leaning SNP support and the traditional SNPS support will very soon find their honeymoon period over.

    If the new support have sufficient numbers to turn the party in the direction they weren't given by labour then the consequence of this could be lots of folk turning away from the SNP.

    Well im shocked that you are in full agreement with the most rancidlly anti scottish post thus far. Who have thunk it lol
  • Options
    BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Has anyone checked out the price of oil recently?
  • Options
    Black SheepBlack Sheep Posts: 15,219
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well im shocked that you are in full agreement with the most rancidlly anti scottish post thus far. Who have thunk it lol

    It's actually a well thought out post that's not ran idly anti scottish.

    Perhaps you need to grow up a wee bit and see things for what they are instead of just you black and white version of events.
  • Options
    mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    Has anyone checked out the price of oil recently?

    oil obviously wasn't an important factor however , that's why we only got 73 links posted per day about it for about 3 months in the lead up to the referendum ;-)
  • Options
    Black SheepBlack Sheep Posts: 15,219
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mimik1uk wrote: »
    BiB - can I ask what exactly that is based on and different to where ?

    in my experience Scotland is no different than the areas of England I have lived in and spent time in over the last 25 years

    I live in Edinburgh but spent time in Sheffield and leeds , I didn't see what these differences are meant to be , I saw as many differences going from Sheffield to Barnsley as going from Scotland to England

    I have lived in various places in the UK both North and South of the border and have to agree that there is little difference in different parts of the UK.

    There's more the same in Cornwall or London with Scotland than any differences. Scotland is not so entirely different as not to be recognised as part of the UK.
  • Options
    BillyJamesTBillyJamesT Posts: 2,934
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mimik1uk wrote: »
    oil obviously wasn't an important factor however , that's why we only got 73 links posted per day about it for about 3 months in the lead up to the referendum ;-)

    When Yes Scotlands position was oil was a bonus to Scotland, and Better Together couldn't string two sentences together that didn't contain, "the oil is running out" mantra, as part of Project Fear. That should tell you it was always about oil, and who gets to control it.

    Why not devolve it? For all that's left and all that its worth.
  • Options
    CoolSharpHarpCoolSharpHarp Posts: 7,565
    Forum Member
    When Yes Scotlands position was oil was a bonus to Scotland, and Better Together couldn't string two sentences together that didn't contain, "the oil is running out" mantra, as part of Project Fear. That should tell you it was always about oil, and who gets to control it.

    Why not devolve it? For all that's left and all that its worth.

    But oil isn't and wouldn't be a bonus and well done for getting the "project fear" cliché in to your post - a name which I suspect came for the YES side.
  • Options
    mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    But oil isn't and wouldn't be a bonus and well done for getting the "project fear" cliché in to your post - a name which I suspect came for the YES side.

    because rather than recognise his own side catastrophically failed to win the economic argument its easier to make excuses

    as I said on a huge number of occasions the easiest way for the YES campaign to counter the so-called "project fear" would have actually to allay the genuine fears people had with clear facts and well laid out plans

    instead they ran around screaming "mummy the big boy is bullying me"
  • Options
    OvertheUnderOvertheUnder Posts: 4,764
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lets look at the long game here. The History books will show that the Tories had the No vote secured and 'won' the referendum but it was indeed is the 1st step towards federalism in the UK. I think Cameron pulled a blinder by securing the no vote. He is safely noted as the PM who got the vote and kept the UK together.

    That's the history books sorted for now, but I do think Scotland will 'drift' away rather than pull away which political is easier to handle so when they do settle for some sort of independence it won't be such an event.

    independence and federalism will happen. It's just a matter of under who's watch and how big an event. Labour are feeling the burn now for siding with the Tories so for them it's a bind of their own making.
  • Options
    mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    An interesting post. However, I believe that the result of the referendum wouldn't have changed much, if at all without the vow.

    I also believe that over the next ten years or so the desire for independence won't rise and might even fade a wee bit as more economic policies are devolved to Scotland and the SNP make some unpopular decisions.

    Yes, while many assume the vow won it for no, I've heard no evidence of that. It may even have harmed the no campaign, as coming so late it looked like panic. In any event it was a dreadful error, that's given the SNP a stick to beat Westminster with. And tangled politics in a constitutional mess.
Sign In or Register to comment.