Nicktendo86
Member
Yup. It's batshit crazy in a lot of ways, but I feel more connected to them than I do Europe in a lit if ways.
Vacassano, that TH article was awful. Very, very biased.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
Vacassano, that TH article was awful. Very, very biased.
http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27632803
Hold on, don't think it's specifically that one but all cinema ads have been banned.
Wierd - I feel exactly the opposite. Having spent considerable time in both, the cultural differences between the UK and the USA seem far greater than the UK and Europe.
Nicktendo86
Member
Must be a language/watch too many Hollywood movies thing. Don't get me wrong though, would hate to be tied to either. Love Europe as well, just don't particularly love the EU.
In other news, sounds like great economic news is due out today. Already been good business survey results, waiting for the IMF report.
In other news, sounds like great economic news is due out today. Already been good business survey results, waiting for the IMF report.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Well, the one in that BBC article sounds pretty shameful. Using sick kids to nab some votes? Blech.
Nicktendo86
Member
Scurge of Labour Gillian Duffy strikes again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27633299
BBC said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27633299
I'd bet if she was any of our grandmothers we'd probably nod and say she is just a racist as a lot of her generation are (gods know mine are and were, late Grandfather excepting).
I wish we lived in a time where politicians *could* be rude to people.
QuicheFontaine
Member
"You have the charisma of a damp rag, and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. And the question that I want to ask, [ ] that we're all going to ask, is "Who are you?". I'd never heard of you. Nobody in Europe had ever heard of you. I would like to ask you, President, who voted for you, and what mechanism oh, I know democracy isn't popular with you lot, and what mechanism the people of Europe have to remove you? Is this European democracy? Well, I sense, I sense though that you are competent and capable and dangerous, and I have no doubt in your intention, to be the quiet assassin of European democracy, and of the European nation states. You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states - perhaps that's because you come from Belgium, which is pretty much a non-country. But since you took over, we've seen Greece reduced to nothing more than a protectorate. Sir, you have no legitimacy in this job at all, and I can say with confidence that I speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying: We don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you're put out to grass, the better." - Nigel Farage's speech in the European Parliament, 24 February 2010.
It seems to work actually!
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Just to be clear, it was interesting because it was unlike the typical view. I have no clue how accurate it is, though many of its claims are clearly unsubstantiated.
Nicktendo86
Member
Oh yes always interesting to see the other side. They are completely wrong though lol, missing out voter intimidation, Lufter's supporters leaning on counters, people claiming to work for tower hamlets homes doing illegal canvassing, 25% discrepancy between first and second counts etc etc. Stinks to high heaven.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Is there? I think you can be correct or incorrect, and be rude either way.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think America cares more about meritocracy (even if it doesn't achieve it) and Europe cares more about equality (even if *it* doesn't achieve it). In reality, those two are basically mutually exclusive, since the distribution of ability isn't equal. Would you rather live in a society where smart people can excel, or one where the least capable in society still live as good-a lives as the most capable? That's a genuine question, not a loaded one - I think they're basically exclusive to one another, and so you have to choose.
I think that's a complete strawman argument though, and fundamentally not what the left wing in Europe believes. It's a completely loaded question.
Having an equal starting chance and equal opportunities isn't the same as being rewarded as well as the best of us. No-one is arguing doctors should be paid the same as fast food workers.
Having an equal starting chance and equal opportunities isn't the same as being rewarded as well as the best of us. No-one is arguing doctors should be paid the same as fast food workers.
Wait so are you saying that the Labour MP shouldn't apologise to a member of the electorate? If so wow ... if anything more MPs should be apologising everyday for everything they have caused from Thatcher era to Tony Blair era to Gordon Brown era to Cameron/Clegg era.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27633349
It's a pity we aren't able to see how much Major profited from the war as head of the Carlyle Group.
It's a pity we aren't able to see how much Major profited from the war as head of the Carlyle Group.
Jimmyfenix
Member
The Better Together campaign is a total shambles. I wanted a fair fight with compelling discussions from both sides but i guess that will not happen.
The problem for better together is that the UK is currently together and has been for centuries, it is what it is. The have to try to persuade against the SNP who are happy just to make stuff up because they have no idea how things will be and just cry "bully' everytime someone points out that they are making stuff up.
CrashBandicoot
Member
There's just so much shite, probably from both sides really.
You get told you'll be on average £1000 better off a year in an indy Scotland, but £1400 better off if we stay.
'We'll keep the pound.' 'No you won't.' 'Yeah we will.'
People don't really know what they're voting for, and that's why I think most of the undecided voters will play it safe and vote no.
Nicktendo86
Member
I'm kinda leaning on the side of independence now, just to see what would happen.
Cinemas are banning adverts on either side of the Indepence debate.
Good news in my book. I have no interest in being force-fed propaganda when I go to see movies of people beating up other people.
Edit: woops, didn't realise it was already linked earlier. My bad!
I really wish the Better Together campaign was better run, as is they're doing far more to increase the Yes vote than the Yes campaign themselves. People will take bullshit statistics and Salmond's baseless claims of "Sure we'll use the Pound." "Sure we'll be in EU" "Yeah I'll resurrect Diana" over scaremongering.
Good news in my book. I have no interest in being force-fed propaganda when I go to see movies of people beating up other people.
Edit: woops, didn't realise it was already linked earlier. My bad!
I really wish the Better Together campaign was better run, as is they're doing far more to increase the Yes vote than the Yes campaign themselves. People will take bullshit statistics and Salmond's baseless claims of "Sure we'll use the Pound." "Sure we'll be in EU" "Yeah I'll resurrect Diana" over scaremongering.
The fact is that so far the Yes vote campaign has just been better because... well, it fundamentally is the better option. Scotland needs to not be shackled to Westminster. We've seen in how many short years just how far Holyrood has drifted in those policy areas devolved to it.
You can't expect the UK as it stands to really represent the Scots (or the Welsh) because it's too heavily weighted to England. Sure, in the absence of alternatives I'd argue a confederation of sorts would be of benefit... but we already have systems that facilitates everything that would offer: the EU and NATO.
Also, I truly believe we English *need* the soul searching the split will bring. We're completely without direction, not sure if we're still interested in projecting influence or whether we want to focus inward.
You can't expect the UK as it stands to really represent the Scots (or the Welsh) because it's too heavily weighted to England. Sure, in the absence of alternatives I'd argue a confederation of sorts would be of benefit... but we already have systems that facilitates everything that would offer: the EU and NATO.
Also, I truly believe we English *need* the soul searching the split will bring. We're completely without direction, not sure if we're still interested in projecting influence or whether we want to focus inward.
So why do you think the EU will better represent their interests? Especially when you consider it's weighted to France and Germany.
WayneMorse
Banned
Scotland would be much better in the EU as part of the UK, unless they want Merkel bossing them around.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I think mostly it is because it has a single, simple, positive message - which is always a load easier to campaign on, whether the message is true or not.
In this case I'm not at all convinced that Scotland would be better off outside the UK, but I do see the force of the argument for independence regardless of that (but really, talking about severing a relationship that's lasted for 400+ years - yes, I'm dating it from the union of the crowns - needs a bigger argument than mild divergence in policy, and certainly not the short-term "rule by tory toffs" argument that we've seen rather too much of).
All this bull about who is going to better or worse off in grand average economic terms over the next few years is of no consequence at all, not in the long term and not even if the figures are correct which they probably aren't.
The Scots, or to be more exact the people living in Scotland, have a reasonable right to vote on this and to live perhaps forever with the consequences. But I don't see anyone laying out the consequences enough. Salmond still appears to favour full independence plus a currency union, which allows him to both play the independence card and still blame England for everything - which would be suicide for any rest of the UK government that acceded to it.
The rational thing to do would be to take this referendum as a possible "yes" (if it goes that way) - as a mandate to enter negotiations - and have a second referendum after the conclusion of the negotiations as to whether Scotland wishes to be independent on these terms. Nobody rational signs up to an agreement this big without reading the small print. And nobody rational expects Scotland to become independent as fast as Salmond claims. It is big and complicated and needs financial and operational support.
Just to take a small example from my own experience. The Scottish Charities Commission took something like five years to get its head around how to handle charities that might have been registered in one or both of England&Wales and Scotland when the charitable purpose was overseas to both but the issue was whether the Gift Aid stuff applied in Scotland to a charity registered in England and vice-versa. It was, and possibly still is, a horrible little legal nightmare and caused all sorts of ructions to schools/monasteries and various other bits and pieces.
Times that by about a hundred and there is absolutely no way that Scotland will be independent in a year or three, unless Salmond has a secret agenda he has not yet revealed.
Everywhere except London needs to be not shackled to Westminster as it is at the moment. Scotland - except for 300 or 400 year old history - isn't all that different from Wales, the South West of England, the Midlands, the NorthWest, the NorthEast and even Lincolnshire. And of course Northern Ireland.
I'd be more impressed with the independence argument if it proposed a limited federal government for the UK rather than just something (or nothing or less than nothing) for Scotland.
Can't really get what you are after here. Are you talking about whether Parliament is too heavily English, or the government, or the EU negotiations or whatever? We've probably had a disproportionately high number of Scots (and Welsh) PMs and Cabinet ministers. And a disproportionately high investment, sorry let me say that again "investment" in both places.
That's an interesting line to take. But "we English" doesn't quite do it for me - there are big old divides in England that have rather got ignored.
I'll be interested in what comes out of the referendum. I don't expect that it will be the last word either way - so if the vote is "yes" but the answer is "it takes too long", or the vote is "no" but the answer is "Scotland needs more powers" - and that second one really worries me, as everybody seems to have conceded it anyway and I am not awfully sure why.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm not convinced that this is the case. With equal opportunity you would still get significant inequality of outcome, only now it'd be based on a different factor. It doesnt change the nature of capital to produce greater capital and the potential exploitation of those with less etc. It seems to me - for good reason - that the left views inequality as a bad thing in and of itself; I'm not sure the methods by which it comes about matter a great deal to this.
QuicheFontaine
Member
With referenda like these, the "status quo" campaign always seems to go negative. It'd be nice if they made positive points in favour of the status quo, but it's probably been found to be more effective merely to point out everything wrong with the other side's proposal (and contrive hilarious scaremongering scenarios - remember the No to AV campaign? 'It's like a race where the person coming in 7th wins!').
Yet you live in a Monarchy? The UK is both one of the least equal countries in the western world and has one of the lowest rates of social mobility. The US also talks a good game about the American dream and meritocracy but functionally how far you get in is a factor of how rich your parents were. In the UK it's a factor of how rich your parents are and what (private) school you ended up in.
From http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-social-mobility-collapsed/16444
where I've also stolen this graph from
Whitechocolatekrispies
Banned
This Yes vote is pretty stupid without any terms set.
The Scottish have basically just told the car dealer they will be buying that car ... not realising that the dealer (the British) can now set the price.
If they Vote yes, we the Brits can basically set any term we like, the Scots will just have to take it or ... not leave which they can't because they voted to leave (buy the car).
It's a stupid situation all around.
The Scottish have basically just told the car dealer they will be buying that car ... not realising that the dealer (the British) can now set the price.
If they Vote yes, we the Brits can basically set any term we like, the Scots will just have to take it or ... not leave which they can't because they voted to leave (buy the car).
It's a stupid situation all around.
How about 40 years of squandering the proceeds of North Sea Oil and Gas which could have been transformational for Scotland. After lying to the Scots about the potential revenue and suppressing two reports confirming the size of the finds and their potential impacts .
Then having the gall to spend those 40 years calling us all subsidy junkies and benefit scroungers* while having a ball enacting policies centred around decimating the countries industrial base and hyperinflating the London centric financial and services markets. Policies largely funded by the proceeds of our Oil.
*which you've just done again despite the evidence to the contrary.
(and yes the proceeds of Oil and Gas should be divvied up on a geographical basis)
You also seem to miss the part where Scotland has it's own legal, educational and civil system. It's not analogous to just another English region at all.
Scotland would most likely be leaving with a proportion of the UK Assets & Liabilities, not whatever the other former members of the UK decided was theirs to have.
kmag said:
And the NHS, which is looking to be an endangered species in the rest of the UK.
Indeed. At a time when Blair, Brown and Cameron have started the process of dismantling the NHS, only Scotland has been able to stand up to it.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yet you live in a Monarchy? The UK is both one of the least equal countries in the western world and has one of the lowest rates of social mobility. The US also talks a good game about the American dream and meritocracy but functionally how far you get in is a factor of how rich your parents were. In the UK it's a factor of how rich your parents are and what (private) school you ended up in.
From http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-social-mobility-collapsed/16444
where I've also stolen this graph from
I'm not sure what it is you think it is that I'm actually advocating.
Edit: And Re: your Scottish graph, surely that depends on the expenditure, too? I'm not saying it ends up with more or less or whatever, but simply providing one side of the scale without the other will never lead to balance, eh?
I'd also echo Phisheep's argument that this is really all by-the-by. I think that it's pretty clear that - given the difference between the extremes of the various reports into this stuff is still relatively small - that both a post-Independence Scotland and rUK would both be entirely capable of functioning.
Did you not say you prefer the American style social mobility (even though it doesn't really exist) as opposed to European style more equal society (which doesn't really exist either). The UK basically has the worse of both worlds, low social mobility due to it's class, privilege and private education system and a chronic and increasing levels of inequality
As to Scottish spending, spending in Scotland per capita is higher than the UK average, but still lags behind the spending on London. But if you actually assign North Sea Oil to Scotland on a geographical basis as opposed to the UK governments current system of putting it in it's own special little silo, then public spending in Scotland as a proportion of GDP is generally lower than the UK average.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I didn't miss that. It's just that on a matter of principle it doesn't seem to me to be a decisive factor.
When looking at arguments for independence, that seems to me a bit of a short-term view. Taking the longer term, the same would go for Welsh (and Yorkshire and Durham) coal, and for the proceeds of the Lancashire cotton industry, to name but a few.
CyclopsRock
Member
Today I've played L4D with someone called Nigel Farage and Ed Miliband. The former was abrasive, ruge and rage quit after saying 'noobs ruin Versus' and Ed has been nice enough bit ineffectual.
Art imitating life!
And Kmag, I did say that, and acknowledged that neither the US has meritocracy nor does Europe have equality, which is why I also said that it's more about the direction you'd rather be going in rather than saying "I want the UK to be like Country B" or whatever. IMO meritocracy leads to greater inequality but greater over all prosperity which benefits everyone overall, just not always on an individual basis.
Art imitating life!
And Kmag, I did say that, and acknowledged that neither the US has meritocracy nor does Europe have equality, which is why I also said that it's more about the direction you'd rather be going in rather than saying "I want the UK to be like Country B" or whatever. IMO meritocracy leads to greater inequality but greater over all prosperity which benefits everyone overall, just not always on an individual basis.
Whitechocolatekrispies
Banned
This is an assumption. Divining up the proceedings is going to be a battle, a battle in which Scotland has no card to play.
If Scotland votes Yes, then they are stuck leaving. We can give them whatever the hell we please. They can't decide not to leave the union, they've already voted to leave, so they'll have to take whatever we decide to give them.
They should of negotiated the terms prior to kicking off a yes vote.
anonymous_abc
Member
The whole thing is a mess.
Just like voting for devomax without knowing what that might entail.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yup. At least with any possible EU referendum, we will know what we're voting for. (There'll obviously be some unknowns, notably how it'll all play out. But at least it'll be post-negotiation.)
They can just as easily walk away from the UK's debt which *will* have an impact in England. It's in both side's interest to come to an equitable compromise.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm not sure this is something that'll reflect particularly well for them in the markets, which is a problem for them because whether they use the pound or they use the Euro, they won't be able to buy their own bonds so the only way they'll be able to borrow in order to deficit spend is via bonds on the market. We can't know for sure how negative an effect something like "walking away" from the UK's debt would have, but I don't think it'd improve their standing, that's for sure.
anonymous_abc
Member
I'm not sure what this is.
Flipfloping, arbitrary, inadvertent, streamlining, adapting...?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27654958
Flipfloping, arbitrary, inadvertent, streamlining, adapting...?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27654958
No one wants a party that changes direction every time the wind changes...
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Looks like my UKIP source was on the money with the policy changes to move closer to Labour.
UKIP changing policy doesn't matter because no one knows what they current policies are beyond the EU. In fact without a determined operation from CCHQ I don't think people are ever going to know what UKIP's other policies were. If UKIP are now changing to be more economically left and support railway renationalisation and power/utility renationalisation then I don't think CCHQ will bother with it as it damages Labour, and Labour won't be able to get the message out.
Populist nationalism in economics doesn't make sense, but it will hurt Labour a lot because that is exactly the route they have gone down. Any competition in that area will be very damaging IMO.
UKIP changing policy doesn't matter because no one knows what they current policies are beyond the EU. In fact without a determined operation from CCHQ I don't think people are ever going to know what UKIP's other policies were. If UKIP are now changing to be more economically left and support railway renationalisation and power/utility renationalisation then I don't think CCHQ will bother with it as it damages Labour, and Labour won't be able to get the message out.
Populist nationalism in economics doesn't make sense, but it will hurt Labour a lot because that is exactly the route they have gone down. Any competition in that area will be very damaging IMO.
Of course it would hurt their capacity to acquire debt... But as the debt is the RUK's I'd imagine it'd be *more* negative for us.
Scenario 1: Both parties agree a debt split
Scenario 2: Scotland disavows the debt, England absorbs it
Scenario 3: Scotland and England disavow the debt
It's in *everyone's* interest to find a solution, despite the posturing.
CyclopsRock
Member
I dunno - Scenario 1 is obviously ideal, but who that chip favours will come down to how palatable it is. For example, I think that option 2 - the only real alternative to option 1, since Option 3 would basically destroy the pound - would be far worse for Scotland than the UK. We have fairly low bond rates and whilst they may go up a bit, it's not a long term issue for the UK, especially since we control the monetary supply of the pound in the first place. If we wanted, we could just never sell another bond. We can keep the prices low by ensuring the supply is always met with demand. Scotland can't do that, which is why I think - in both the short and long term - it'll be worse for Scotland, really. As such, I think that Scenario 2 being the only alternative to Scenario 1 means that it'll be rUK that can wring concessions from Scotland in the event of Scenario 1, rather than the other way around. Obviously then, whilst Scenario 1 would be best for everyone taken individually, you also have to include its impact on the negotiations generally, and who gets all the other goodies.
Also, generally speaking, I'm curious as to why the Scottish parliament hasn't used its tax raising powers to deviate from Westminster's tax rates - they could increase taxes on the rich and decrease taxes on the poor, if they wanted to (though only by, I think, 3% either way - but that's quite a lot) but they haven't. The argument I've always seen presented is that they wouldn't do that if "low-tax" UK was across the border possibly attracting high-skill businesses away from Scotland and attracting low-skill ones from the North of England - but their plan for independence is to immediately join the EU, wherein this exact thing will still be possible. As such, are they ever going to be able to meaningfully deviate from rUK's tax rates anyway?
Nicktendo86
Member
I really think this is something to keep an eye on in the coming months. They have shown they can take votes off Labour up north, will be interesting to see if they would keep their defected Tory voters.
The UK government refused to enter into any pre negotiations.
anonymous_abc
Member
Which just highlights how foolish the people are who voted them in, especially into local councils.
-.-
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think it's necessarily a matter of insistence - this isn't the first time a part of the UK has left, so there's precedent set for what remains still being the UK. The name might be a bit natty, given there will only be one "Kingdom" left but the Eurovision song contest has Israel, so hey ho. However, even if you're right and Scotland have no obligation to take the debt, it doesn't really change anything. How the markets react is what matters. Combine that with Scotland's significantly smaller GDP and its uncertainty (long term it'd undoubtedly be fine, but there are a lot of unanswered questions in the short term which investors tend not to like) and it doesn't really change much. What would be a financial pain for the UK would be a significant problem for Scotland, especially given the leftwards bent they intend to follow.