Scottish Independence

the playing mantis

johnfinch wrote:

Doesn't bother me which of the main parties get in, they all have more or less the same policies anyway. But let's imagine how the last 15 years would have turned out with a Tory administration. We would have had an Iraq War, because the Tories supported that. We would have had a banking crisis, because the Tories supported the policies which led to it and even thought they didn't go far enough - our current cretinous chancellor actually wanted to emulate the Irish (I don't know whether to , or :roll: ). We would have had sky high house prices and rent and the Tories are now, unbelievably, trying to re-inflate that bubble with their Help-to-buy-votes scheme. In other words, we'd be in exactly the same mess as Labour left us in, but this time the Tories would be copping a load of flak from the electorate.

would th tories have sold off our gold reserves at dumb ass prices? the banking crisis wasnt a labour/tory thing, it was a global issue, all the global banks were at it, in reality it shouldnt have been an issue, it was just a loss of confidence, purpoted by scare mongering and mass media coverage that increased the problems. had it been ignored, we would more than likely be happily bouncing along with everyone none the wiser...

the problem with labour was spending and borrowing. i dont believe the tories would have done it too such levels.

the playing mantis

neeb wrote:

Escadrille Ecosse wrote:

As it happens it's Independence Day in Finland today. I'm certainly glad I'm living here and not in Russia, as I would effectively have been 96 years ago. Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä.

They've been Swedish and Russian (if that's not an oxymoron) before actually becoming Finnish and what's more managed to pay back punitive war reparations (for having the temerity to defend themselves) and still develop a tolerant, socially progressive and highly successful country. Mad as box of frogs though.

Yup, I'm often pointing out to Finns (who almost universally assume that as a Scot I should automatically be in favour of independence) that the Scottish and Finnish situations are in some ways opposites. The Finns have been a culturally and linguistically distinct people for thousands of years, but until about 100 years ago were always part of another nation (at least since nations existed), first Sweden and then Russia. Finally in 1917 they achieved political independence, and have justifiably done whatever was necessary to maintain that ever since. The Scots however have been a politically distinct nation for about 1000 years and for the majority of that time have been wholly politically independent, only joining England as part of a truly United Kingdom in 1707 and maintaining a number of separate legal and administrative institutions. Scotland played as large a part as England (relative to its population at least) in creating the British Empire and defining the concept of Britishness, but has never been under any threat of cultural dominance by England. So the possibility of independence for Scotland in 2014 is a case of a choice between two different types of self-determination and national political identity, not a chance to escape from a colonial overlord as it was for the Finns in 1917.

"Finally in 1917 they achieved political independence, and have justifiably done whatever was necessary to maintain that ever since"

hmm, not sure your on very solid ground there...

neeb

the playing mantis wrote:

"Finally in 1917 they achieved political independence, and have justifiably done whatever was necessary to maintain that ever since"

hmm, not sure your on very solid ground there...

What do you mean? Ok, there have been a few ups & downs since then (civil war, loss of much of Karelia to Russia during/after the war), but the declaration of 1917 was the starting point of Finland as an independent nation.

the playing mantis

i meant the latter part of your statement...the justifiable bit.

the ww2 history i was referring to. a bit of a hot topic.

GiantMike

neeb wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

neeb wrote:

...I also think that culturally, Scotland helps to keep England in check and to maintain a balanced social and political outlook. For all I know you might like to live in a country where the two major parties eventually end up being the Tories and UKIP, but I know a lot of English people wouldn't.

One minute the Scots are being trodden-upon by an uncaring Westminster, the next the Scots are apparently defining the direction of English politics. That's the trouble with the Independence 'debate', people choose their arguments to prove their entrenched opinion rather than seriously looking at the facts and basing a decision on that.

I have said it before, I hope Scotland gets what it wants, I just wish they'd shut the f*ck up whingeing about the English and about being ruled from Westminster.

It's pretty bizarre that you are directing that at me GiantMike, given that I clearly don't have an entrenched opinion (still haven't decided how I'm going to vote). Not to mention that nearly all of the "whingeing" on this thread has been from English people and directed at the Scots. If you want to organise a movement in England to gain independence from the union you are free to do so - good luck.

Wasn't directed at you Neeb, just pointing out that in the 'debate' people hear what they want. While you think Scotland keeps England honest, others think that England (Westminster) f*cks Scotland as a matter of course, despite having its own Parliament and seats in the UK National Parliament. People in Northampton or Norwich (for example) don't whinge about Westminster, but they have less representation in politics than any Scot.

The comment about whingeing comes from 3 years living in St Andrews. There was a common feeling (though not universal) that the 'English' had abused the Scots and treated them badly for years. No mention of the fact that 30% of Scottish land is owned by 103 people. Again, not directed at you.

neeb

the playing mantis wrote:

i meant the latter part of your statement...the justifiable bit.

the ww2 history i was referring to. a bit of a hot topic.

Well, the background in the 1920s and 1930s is complicated, but Russia started the winter war and if Finland wanted to remain independent they didn't have much choice but to ally themselves with Germany at that point. Similarly, later on in WWII when it was obvious which way the wind was blowing it made sense to take the other side. As a small and newly independent country they had to look out for themselves when caught up in a scrap between the big players.

neeb

GiantMike wrote:

The comment about whingeing comes from 3 years living in St Andrews. There was a common feeling (though not universal) that the 'English' had abused the Scots and treated them badly for years. No mention of the fact that 30% of Scottish land is owned by 103 people. Again, not directed at you.

Did you go to uni in St. Andrews then? Ok, now I know where this is coming from! The "town & gown" thing in St. Andrews leads to a massive polarisation of Scottish Nationalist / anti-English sentiments vs. the worst of Southern English snobbery. Hardly surprising when you get a bunch of 18 year old public school boys from the home counties coming up to party for 3 or 4 years in a small Fife town and having to share the pubs with the locals...

Of course if you are a "normal" (non-home counties public-school) student from either England or Scotland you get caught in the middle (been there, done that..) But trust me, it's not exactly representative of Scotland as a whole..

You're right about the land-ownership thing though.

finchy

the playing mantis wrote:

would th tories have sold off our gold reserves at dumb ass prices?

They did with the council houses, they have just done so with the Royal Mail, so why not with the gold? Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't, it's impossible to say

the playing mantis wrote:

the banking crisis wasnt a labour/tory thing,

That's my point, it was about the economic system rather than which party was in charge. Although fair play to the Lib Dems, they did actually spot the crisis building up and go into the 2005 election with a pledge to tackle the personal debt problem.

the playing mantis wrote:

it was a global issue, all the global banks were at it,

Do you mean all of the international banks, or do you mean banks in every country? If the former, then it'd depend on how you define international. If the latter, then there are countries with banks which didn't take a massive hit.

the playing mantis wrote:

in reality it shouldnt have been an issue, it was just a loss of confidence, purpoted by scare mongering and mass media coverage that increased the problems. had it been ignored, we would more than likely be happily bouncing along with everyone none the wiser...

No we wouldn't. You can't just indefinitely pump money into a market on the basis that somebody else will pay more further down the line. We've had enough economic bubbles throughout history to tell us that.

the playing mantis wrote:

the problem with labour was spending and borrowing. i dont believe the tories would have done it too such levels.

Labour made a hell of a lot of mistakes, but there's a difference between spending and investing and our infrastructure was (and still is, but to a lesser extent) crumbling. Unfortunately, people in the UK want European levels of service on American levels of taxes, so borrowing becomes the only way of making the necessary investments.