Yes, vastly impovrished Third World countries are a good comparison to make with an advanced Western economy.
Scotland Independent
- Thread starter sufi
- Start date
Patrick Swayze
I'm trying to shut up
I'm not making a comparison. I'm asking how nationalist you think Scottish 'socialism' can afford to be, without losing its character.
Can a nation call itself socialist when the funding of its social democracy is predicated on the destruction of the world's eco-system (the effects of which will be felt first, and most keenly, by the world's poorest nations)?
Well, you're asking quite a lot now all of a sudden! Westminster is totally cunted mate. I dunno why you think the alternative would have to be perfect for it to be worthwhile doing. And incase you didn't notice, the whole world is doing precisely fuck all about ecological catastrophe. Just as well Scotland has 25% of Europes renewable potential and a growing wave power sector that no Westminster government has much interest in supporting.
Further, it's disingenuous to call Scotland an oil economy. I've no doubt that the rest of the UK would stake a claim to a large chunk of any future revenues, and at any rate our GDP would still be higher than UK average without it, so that's all a red herring, you can forget about that.
Further, it's disingenuous to call Scotland an oil economy. I've no doubt that the rest of the UK would stake a claim to a large chunk of any future revenues, and at any rate our GDP would still be higher than UK average without it, so that's all a red herring, you can forget about that.
Patrick Swayze
I'm trying to shut up
Fair point.
Yeah, but most of the rest of the world isn't simultaneously claiming to be socialist (apart from the Chinese). Will they be spending money on developing that potential? Haven't heard the Yes campaign talk about it much but might have just missed it.
Why does Alex Salmond make such a big deal about oil revenues then?
I'm not sure he does tbh. I think it's a good soundbite, but I think lately they've been keen to avoid the notion that the only thing Scotland has going for it is oil.
As for renewables, that has had a lot of play, the white paper talks about it a bit. The Greens in Scotland are pro-independence for that reason. Wave power is a big growth industry in Scotland atm. And people in Scotland are broadly in favour of windfarms polls suggest. I can see one from my window as it happens.
As for renewables, that has had a lot of play, the white paper talks about it a bit. The Greens in Scotland are pro-independence for that reason. Wave power is a big growth industry in Scotland atm. And people in Scotland are broadly in favour of windfarms polls suggest. I can see one from my window as it happens.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Yes of course, and in a very basic sense, the smaller the democracy you live in, the more your individual vote counts for. It would also clear up the question of Scottish MPs being able to vote on matters only affecting England. My point was just that, with a huge number of people in the rest of the UK extremely dissatisfied with the clique currently running the country and no opposition worthy of the name, it's understandable that people here aren't thrilled about a change that could move the political centre of gravity even further to the right.
As you say, it'll be decided by Scottish people voting, so from your POV it's neither here nor there, but it's not unreasonable that English people have an opinion on it.
Huh? I can't say either those things particularly concerns me.
Scotland may be a country but it's also part of the sovereign state of the UK, at present. Saying "Scotland should be a separate country because it's a separate country" is both circular and, for now, untrue.
Last edited:
Ah, excuse me, of course you're allowed an opinion. I misread your statement. My point was really about who should or shouldn't be allowed to vote and exercise power on the issue. And it is a separate country. Just not one with political autonomy.
And yes, I'd agree it's unfortunate, as it happens I think it might give English radicalism a spark and perhaps cause some real debate about where the country is and is headed. How much more moribund does a system have to get before people might attempt a change? I mean it really is beyond a joke.
And as it happens, I've often found that even ostensibly lefty people down south hold some pretty reactionary views so I dunno.
And yes, I'd agree it's unfortunate, as it happens I think it might give English radicalism a spark and perhaps cause some real debate about where the country is and is headed. How much more moribund does a system have to get before people might attempt a change? I mean it really is beyond a joke.
And as it happens, I've often found that even ostensibly lefty people down south hold some pretty reactionary views so I dunno.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
OK, fair enough. I wasn't saying the vote should be open to people outside Scotland, if that's what you thought I meant.
Patrick Swayze
I'm trying to shut up
Do you reckon Scottish independence is inevitable, either by referendum or more gradually as a consequence of devo-max, or do you think a more right wing (Boris) westminster govt would put the brakes on in the event of a no vote?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
If it does happen, will non-Scottish Brits living in Scotland at the time automatically get Scottish citizenship? Or will they have to apply for it and take some kind of test, presumably involving an assessment of tolerance to Irn-Bru and The Proclaimers?
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
OK, harsh wording. I do actually quite like Irn Bru.
Sectionfive
bandwagon house
From where I am standing, all the right people are opposed to Scottish independence. If that illustrious list are so anxious there must be something good in it. A yes vote will only be the start of a very long and unpredictable road but it could be the shake up that everyone on these islands need, or at least part of the catalyst for one. A fracture in the Union like this is the kind of seismic political change we just don't see any more. How seismic we don't know but just seeing it happen, the unthinkable, opens all sorts of possibilities. Still the no side's to lose though and there is an innate conservatism in modern electorates that is very hard to shake.
A multipolar UK will be more interesting, possibly more economically active. If the northern counties looked more towards Edinburgh and less towards London it would do the English regions some good too. Visiting Edinburgh earlier this year the place felt like a foreign capital already - confident, bustling, proud. Good luck to them, I don't think Scotland has anything to lose.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Just thinking about the quote in sufi's original post:
Makes perfect sense, I mean I can see why a peace-loving Scot would be unhappy about their country being ruled by a government headed by such belligerent English imperialists as Tony Blair and Gordon Broh hang on, let me just think about this a sec...
Makes perfect sense, I mean I can see why a peace-loving Scot would be unhappy about their country being ruled by a government headed by such belligerent English imperialists as Tony Blair and Gordon Broh hang on, let me just think about this a sec...
crackerjack
Well-known member
The original quote is just awful puerile bollocks. What s/he should have said is that an independent Scotland would be too inconsequential politically, militarily and financially to play a significant part in any war that wasn't for its own immediate survival (which wouldn't rule out participation in some Iraq Redux – see Denmark, for example – just make it less likely). This would doubtless appeal to lots of people, but it sounds much less impressive written into a manifesto of chest-beating anti-imperialism.
Last edited:
Haha. Don't think that quote is saying an independent Scotland would have anything like a concrete, determinative impact on any particular war or war-like situation (does the UK really?), but rather that something as drastic as the break-up of the union, take clearly in context of Iraq, Afghanistan etc, would be yet another challenge to the untramelled logic of endless war and imperialism. So puerile in what way, crackerjack? Scots getting a bit uppity..? I wonder why the US is so against it.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Puerile in that kind of way, for starters.
And because stuff like this
is just fraudulent... and this
is misleading (nations spend according to their wealth and the UK is – guess what – the 6th-richest nation on the planet) and because his picture of foreign intervention is every bit as monochrome as that painted by the discredited likes of STWC. But maybe the writer shares Salmond's man crush on his fellow nationalist