.
.
A thoughtful article recounting reasons for personal choice by someone who has considered both yes and no in the Scotland indyref. The parallels with the climate debate are striking.
Ewan Morrison is an award-winning Scottish author and screenwriter.
Four months ago I joined the Yes camp out of a desire to take part in the great debate that the Yes camp told me was taking place within their ranks. Being a doubter I thought maybe I’d failed to find this debate and that it was exclusive to the membership of the Yes camp, so I joined hoping I could locate it and take part. But even as I was accepted into the ranks – after my ‘Morrison votes Yes’ article in Bella Caledonia, I noted that 5 out of the meagre 20 comments I received berated me for either not having decided sooner or for having questioned Yes at all. Another said, and I paraphrase: ‘Well if he’s had to mull it over he could easily switch to the other side.’ That comment in Bella Caledonia worked away…
View original post 1,804 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
The one unifying feature in the Yes campaign is the Scottish “left-consensus”. It is unified by a dislike of the “English” Tories. Having a largely fictional opposition, with its implied conspiracies, has parallels to the “climate consensus” as well.
One outcome of this dogmatic belief in the Yes campaign is that those who oppose will feel intimidated against speaking out. However, a secret ballot removes that intimidation. If I am right, the No vote will be higher than the polls are predicting. Even higher than any exit poll.
manicbeancounter says: September 16, 2014 at 6:19 am
“One outcome of this dogmatic belief in the Yes campaign is that those who oppose will feel intimidated against speaking out. However, a secret ballot removes that intimidation. If I am right, the No vote will be higher than the polls are predicting. Even higher than any exit poll.”
I am sure the Queen would appreciate that.
Why cannot the US have a Queen, somone that. cannot be boughten, because of their stature, but has the reluctant power to “gut” all of Washington DC, and start over with something that may possibly work? Monarchy, do not fix, what is not broken!! Seldom, because of stature, do you actually get a hereditary fool.
The parallels with the climate debate are probably not coincidental. Scotland, dominated by left-of-centre socialist political ideologues, is prey to the type of ‘zero debate’ consensus thinking which permeates the AGW camp – which also suffers from an over-representation of leftwingers. The ‘No’s’, the sceptics, the pragmatists, by their very nature tend to be more right-of-centre conservatives who baulk at the very idea of socialist non-enterprise, of unquestioning group think.
But alas, the die has been cast for the UK and whichever way it falls, I fear there is trouble ahead. A ‘Yes’ vote will sever the Union and create two countries much lesser than the whole. A ‘No’ vote will just spark off another round of even more intense debate from both sides of the border as the Scottish Nationalists retreat licking their wounds – an injured animal is often far more dangerous than a healthy one – and the English become ever more disaffected by the privileges being doled out to a small percentage of their fellow countrymen as part of the ‘deal’ to appease them and maintain a stable UK. It won’t be pretty.
Regrettably, the SNP politicos are exactly the wrong people to lead Scotland into stability and prosperity.
Although Scotland has a lot of resource wealth the distances involved and the welfare dependent mind set within much of the population will make it very difficult to exploit profitably.
A high spending socialist type government is likely to create a poverty stricken, failed state sooner rather than later.
Jaime says: September 16, 2014 at 10:03 am
“But alas, the die has been cast for the UK and whichever way it falls, I fear there is trouble ahead. A ‘Yes’ vote will sever the Union and create two countries much lesser than the whole. A ‘No’ vote will just spark off another round of even more intense debate from both sides of the border as the Scottish Nationalists retreat licking their wounds – an injured animal is often far more dangerous than a healthy one – and the English become ever more disaffected by the privileges being doled out to a small percentage of their fellow countrymen as part of the ‘deal’ to appease them and maintain a stable UK. It won’t be pretty.”
Such is the fate of any Monarchy. England does pretty good, The Scandahovians do better, Southern europeans do worse. Jordan is perhaps the best. Little to lose at worst, much, much to gain from a careful Monarch. Just my observations. All the best to the British Isles!
Well I’m hoping that the ‘Yes’ vote wins and that this will spark a ‘UK Spring’ amongst the big metropolitan areas and regions here in England.
Our current government is far too South East centric and the prosperity declines the further away you go. My proffered solution would be Devo-Max for the whole county, but I don’t think this will happen unless Scotland depart. All this talk of more autonomy if Scotland says ‘No’ will evaporate quicker than global warming did as central government clings onto it’s powers.
Change is long overdue on English political landscape. We need real democracy again.
Please forgive my ignorance — I’m a curious outsider wondering:
Would an independent Scotland win more popularity & favors than England from the EU?
Is there any benefit to the EU in splitting up UK?
Paul Vaughan asks:
“Would an independent Scotland win more popularity & favors than England from the EU?”
First Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU. It should not get any more “favors” than it already does. However, it may get out more than it pays in, whereas the UK as a whole is a big loser.
One thing it may gain is more MEPs in the toothless European Parliament. Maybe 10 MEPs instead of about 6 at present. But out of about 700 it does not make much difference.
I thought this summary was complete, informative, and well played.
This is very interesting, I’m actually Morrison [of Lewis] on my mother’s side and a couple of lowlanders [undisclosed, from the Tweed vale] on my father’s so I do have a small ethnic puppy in this hunt – but no political opinion on the referendum.
As far as revolutions go, speaking as an American of course, revolutions are always pushed forward on a wave of arm waving enthusiasm, nationalistic unanimity, and magical thinking – and a certain amount of monkey-like behavior. No revolution would possibly succeed if everyone agreed to decide what was going to happen next first, it would just never happen – especially if everyone is thinking clearly.
The American Revolution [our *first* civil war] never would have gone forward or succeeded in purely pragmatic terms, a new accommodation to the the status quo would have been so much simpler and more effective in the short term – the ‘Tory’ solution in other words. It took roughly two generations for the American nation to recover from its revolution and gain a solid footing in the world as a second-rater power. My country of course, was also recovering from the most devastating war it ever fought, but starting a new country is never easy or straight forward, all of the local and regional problems suddenly become ‘national problems’.
On thing to remember, or to learn if you didn’t get this in your education, thinking along with my Morrison relative’s essay, is that the eventual political accommodation required to unite the disparate American peoples into a single nation wrote into our Constitution a major error – slavery in our case – that would eventually require us [the US] to fight the second most devastating war it ever fought to correct the error. Something to think about.
The only thing that has me mystified about the Yes or No debate is that every Scot seems to want to keep the Queen!?? This seems very queer to me taking into account Scotland’s historical relationship with the British Crown – either oppressed by or subservient to. Speaking as an American, as well as descendent of Scots, that seems to me to be the first and very best reason to dissolve the union: get rid of the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the national church, as we did ourselves 238 years ago, the rest will inevitably be a mess and will take a long time to sort out – not necessarily a reason not to though.
A different Ewan’s speech from ‘Train Spotting’ suddenly comes to mind…
The real question for Scotland then is: whatever your *big reason* for making Scotland a sovereign nation among equals – or not – is it worth putting up with two generations of discontent while you hash out the details as fellow countrymen? If so vote Yes, if no, vote No.
It’s about as simple as that.
You just have to ask yourself how much you want to be free.
W^3
On monarchy.
It is one of those inconvenient facts that the type of society least likely to suffer civil strife is a constitutional monarchy. The limited monarchies where function is largely ceremonial have had the least number of civil war, rolling revolutions etc. It is a deeply conservative thing to prefer that which works.
Organising your society in aform which is least likely to see your offspring killed in civil disturbance is more than pragmatic – it is a deeply moral stance. Look up comparisons of the bicycling monarchies versus the various republics to see what I mean.
Nessimmersion,
Interesting idea, but I’m not sure what it really says about either monarchies or their subjects. As the descendent of an Englishman who got out of England in 1641, a Scot who got out of Scotland in the 18th century, and a Frenchman who got out of France in 1935 – plus some ex-Swedes and former Germans along the way I’m not going to labor the point *here* – it would be off-topic and impolite. Maybe I’ll pick it up and blog it at home.
regards,
W^3
Hello.
From far aside from your country, but awaiting your opening the way:
YES means a debate will ultimatelly emerge later, and you want your voice to be heard… It does not mean that your part of the dream will fullfil and others not, it just means that you will need to resolve all those conflicts you write about later, and that there will be conflicts about your new orientation later…
NO means no debate later, since in the union pond they can fairly ignore you… And just after they will be safe from your fright, they will ultimatelly ignore you, because you cannot make a same referendum few years later…
What pertains to Democracy – the bigger is the country or region, the smaller you have influence on what the rulers do, and the more they can do what they like. Conside a moloch EU – people voted mostly christians and social democrats, but the two horn leaders became exchief of world bank (a bankster) and a war inciter, nothing like the people voted… Conside a moloch like US. The people can choose once in four years the color of the dress of their politics team, but the policy goes on all the same without any regard on voters…
So in your case: YES means you vote for later local fighting about your future. NO means you leave your future to the hands of GB union in westminster, with any your later voice having no weight at all…
“The only thing that has me mystified about the Yes or No debate is that every Scot seems to want to keep the Queen!??”
Have you seen who is next in line? 🙂 If they go, I wish they would take him with them. I can’t recall having heard a peep out of him on the subject. I bet he is under extremely strict orders to STFU.
One would think. That you should be very careful about the thing you wish for. You might get it!
A YES vote may be the best thing to happen to the English. The Scots may have to grow up and be adults. England might then be successful in escaping the EU. pg
Question? Why would anyone want to keep the Queen? Elisabeth the Last. must be a British thing. At least the next generation are mostly British and not Germans. pg
The result in detail
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results
I’m glad Britain still hangs together.
A good solid “No” vote 55% to 45% with heavy turn out. No excuses from the “yes” people, they just lost the argument, done deal. Now we shall see if Prime Minister David Cameron will keep his word on the devolution of power. Politicians tend to make big promises to win and then fail to get around to delivery.
Great Britain may not be so great, but at least it is still Britain. pg
Alex Salmond resigns
http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=2b450428af6ce0be79dc234fb&id=84c753ff80
It is the case more and more in the US that adult children continue to live in their parent’s house year after year and long after earlier generations were out making it on their own. Independence seems to matter less than it once did or it is harder to say no to benefits derived from the arrangement. I was surprised at the number of voters who were fearful that Scotland couldn’t make it on it’s own. That comes across as an admission they believe themselves to be a burden in need of outside support. If the Scots think it what must the people in London whisper about it?