Jibber Jabber - Q1 - 29

And I'm posting here because I'm worried sick and struggling to remain my usual charming, calm and personable self. I'm not sure where else to go or what else to do. Today is referendum day in Scotland. Tomorrow morning I could wake up to find that the place I have called home for decades is about to become a foreign country. I don't want to get into the argument. I just feel like reaching out today to a group of people who have shown repeatedly that they can disagree whilst remaining friends.

Apologies for an unwonted (and probably unwanted) display of emotion. I can't see to type too well because I have something in my eyes.

I have not been following this a closely as perhaps I should. Until a week or so ago I figured there was no chance the Yes vote would succeed. Closer to home, we see Quebec threaten to break away from Canada every 15 years or so, and nothing ever comes of that.

If the Yes vote does prevail, as chaotic and heartrending as that would be at least it was done by referendum and not the way it is being done in Ukraine.

Scotland going independent just seems weird to me. It's one-third the size of Michigan. I'm trying to imagine Michigan as an independent country, but I can't do it.

Of course, the UK as a whole is only the size of Michigan, give or take a fraction. You have small countries over there...

How dare you suggest we're tiny. We're enormous. We're positively T-Rexian. We're--

Um, Gator, are you talking about Britain or yourself?

Eh? What?

Never mind...

I don't normally like to name drop around here--ahem--but one of them you no doubt know of, Ishmael--Jim Murphy. I keep seeing him on TV, desperately campaigning for a "No" vote. Of course he'll lose his seat if it's a "Yes" vote. It must be all very upsetting.

I don't as a rule share Jim's politics but I do admire him as a human being. Did you know that when the helicopter crashed on the pub in Glasgow he was walking by and was one of the first in to help the injured? He seems to me to be a brave and honest man, (the latter being an accolade that I seldom bestow on politicians of any party.) When political debate is conducted honestly the best interests of the people have a good chance. Sadly, not everyone in this debate has behaved like Jim.

Jim is certainly something of a charmer. And yup, he's decent, and very very hardworking. And he's a good campaigner, a formidable vote-chaser and pretty nifty at dodging eggs too a skill which I hear alas has come in handy again recently.

I got to know him when he was NUS president and I was on the NEC, indeed our political fortunes were quite closely linked and we were "co-conspirators" for a time.

And yes I saw him on TV again when that helicopter crashed. That was pretty shocking.

Scotland going independent just seems weird to me. It's one-third the size of Michigan. I'm trying to imagine Michigan as an independent country, but I can't do it.

Of course, the UK as a whole is only the size of Michigan, give or take a fraction. You have small countries over there...

How dare you suggest we're tiny. We're enormous. We're positively T-Rexian. We're--

Um, Gator, are you talking about Britain or yourself?

Eh? What?

Never mind...

See, it's Gator's fault. Compared to her, Britain looks a lot smaller.

Closer to home, we see Quebec threaten to break away from Canada every 15 years or so, and nothing ever comes of that.

Except that inward investment is diverted to neighbouring states? Quebec still does notably badly in this respect even 18 years after the last referendum. Business hates this kind of uncertainty. We already see intimations of capital flight from Scotland. A decisive vote might correct this, but the prospect of a 'neverendum' is simply horrendous. Unfortunately the EU has been setting a bad example recently of making countries repeatedly ask the same question until they get the 'right' answer.

You are quite right however to point out that a time when free societies face existential threats from all sides is hardly the ideal moment to be at each other's throats.

Right now, as our French friends so eloquently put it, it's beginning to feel a lot like " Sauve qui peut!"

(This may be idiomatically rendered as "Every man for himself!" though it loses something in the translation.)

Except that inward investment is diverted to neighbouring states? Quebec still does notably badly in this respect even 18 years after the last referendum. Business hates this kind of uncertainty. We already see intimations of capital flight from Scotland.

That I was unaware of. And it would exacerbate another problem I heard discussed: that Scotland is currently a net beneficiary of transfer payments from the UK, and no one knows how that net would be replaced if they were no longer part of the UK. If there's capital flight, the tax base will dwindle while the tax liabilities will go up.

That assumes the source I heard was accurate; and it also leaves open the question of how North Sea oil lease revenue will be handled. Maybe the independents expect to get a larger chunk of those?

That assumes the source I heard was accurate; and it also leaves open the question of how North Sea oil lease revenue will be handled. Maybe the independents expect to get a larger chunk of those?

I believe they want 90% on a geographical basis. Problem is they don't want anything else divided on a geographical basis.

I do apologise. I wasn't intending to venture into issues of substance. The problem when you live in the middle of nowhere is having no-one to talk to when your world is falling apart. You guys are, strangely enough, more accessible than people who actually live around here. That's the thing about this part of the world; nobody (relatively speaking) actually lives here. The winning side will possibly poll something equivalent to between a quarter and a fifth of the population of London.

I am the only person within many miles who understands numbers. When I try to explain them, eyes glaze over. It has been a spectacularly frustrating time!

The economics of an independent Scotland makes no sense. They don't even know what currency they're going to have for goodness sakes. And yes, as Ishmael says, there's already been evidence of business fleeing the country.

And yes, Martin, currently Scotland does very well as it gets more money per head for public services than England or Wales--only Northern Ireland gets more. Of course I could have been your "source" as I posted on FB a while back.

Anyway, the polls are closed now, I have my cup of cocoa and the telly is on. There's been a final poll saying the "No" vote have it by 54% to 46% so let's hope that's right.

And yes, Martin, currently Scotland does very well as it gets more money per head for public services than England or Wales--only Northern Ireland gets more. Of course I could have been your "source" as I posted on FB a while back.

I'm pretty sure it was a US news/opinion site; and I don't trust those to have an accurate picture from so far away. But that was the big question they had: who's going to pay for these services if there's a split?

97% voter registration in Scotland according to BBC News on our PBS station. How soon will all the votes
be counted?

The economics of an independent Scotland makes no sense. They don't even know what currency they're going to have for goodness sakes. And yes, as Ishmael says, there's already been evidence of business fleeing the country.

And yes, Martin, currently Scotland does very well as it gets more money per head for public services than England or Wales--only Northern Ireland gets more. Of course I could have been your "source" as I posted on FB a while back.

Anyway, the polls are closed now, I have my cup of cocoa and the telly is on. There's been a final poll saying the "No" vote have it by 54% to 46% so let's hope that's right.

My knowledge of Scottish history comes primarily from TV shows like Outlander and movies like Braveheart so I plead complete ignorance on that score which leads me to the question does history play a role in this vote or are most people more absorbed by modern day political and economic arguments?

The economics of an independent Scotland makes no sense. They don't even know what currency they're going to have for goodness sakes. And yes, as Ishmael says, there's already been evidence of business fleeing the country.

And yes, Martin, currently Scotland does very well as it gets more money per head for public services than England or Wales--only Northern Ireland gets more. Of course I could have been your "source" as I posted on FB a while back.

Anyway, the polls are closed now, I have my cup of cocoa and the telly is on. There's been a final poll saying the "No" vote have it by 54% to 46% so let's hope that's right.

And then she woke up, and it was all a dream. 55 no, 45 yes, 85% turn out. Pretty decisive.

The late polling said that the 'yes' vote was loud but soft and the 'no' vote was silent but solid. So it proved - nowhere near as close as the polls suggested. Thank goodness for the secret ballot.

As Elinor says, the economic numbers never made any sense. Although they say 'over for a generation' I hope it's over for good since the numbers will make even less sense in 20 years' time and we don't need continuing uncertainty.

Sadly, Aaron, that awful movie had a lot to answer for. You don't want to get me started on how unhistorical it was and not a lot of Scots are familiar with anything beyond romantic fiction. Suffice it to say that, after I watched it, my comment to Mrs Ishmael was a single two-syllable word of which the first component was a male of the bovine species. I don't believe in censorship, but sometimes free speech drives me close to despair. (Anybody really interested may consult http://sliabhmannan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-sir-william-wallace.html)

The separatists, with the advantage of the positive answer, were able to portray the 'no' side as negative (doh!) and as 'faintheart' versus 'braveheart'.

We can only hope that they go back to their fantasy and remain there, rather than looking for someone to blame.

I am very grateful for the kind thoughts expressed here. I freely admit to having been fearful for my own future, but I also feared for the future of my fellow citizens, many of whom had no realistic notion of the economic consequences of their choice.

The late polling said that the 'yes' vote was loud but soft and the 'no' vote was silent but solid. So it proved - nowhere near as close as the polls suggested. Thank goodness for the secret ballot.

As Elinor says, the economic numbers never made any sense. Although they say 'over for a generation' I hope it's over for good since the numbers will make even less sense in 20 years' time and we don't need continuing uncertainty.

Sadly, Aaron, that awful movie had a lot to answer for. You don't want to get me started on how unhistorical it was and not a lot of Scots are familiar with anything beyond romantic fiction. Suffice it to say that, after I watched it, my comment to Mrs Ishmael was a single two-syllable word of which the first component was a male of the bovine species. I don't believe in censorship, but sometimes free speech drives me close to despair. (Anybody really interested may consult http://sliabhmannan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-sir-william-wallace.html)

.

THE UNION JACK REMAINS! Guess where my next overseas vacation will be? Yep and Yep.

By the way, does that two syllable word happen to start with a "B"? (Late for work. no time for links)

Sadly, Aaron, that awful movie had a lot to answer for. You don't want to get me started on how unhistorical it was and not a lot of Scots are familiar with anything beyond romantic fiction. Suffice it to say that, after I watched it, my comment to Mrs Ishmael was a single two-syllable word of which the first component was a male of the bovine species. I don't believe in censorship, but sometimes free speech drives me close to despair. (Anybody really interested may consult http://sliabhmannan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-sir-william-wallace.html)

Thank you for this. It was very educational. I suspected that Braveheart was more than a little inaccurate merely because the Australian has applied the exact same formula in a number of his movies set in different places and times. It became a little suspicious after the third of fourth one.

We have much less history to keep straight over here, yet we seem to be equally adept at twisting it into fairy tales. All a part of the human condition I'd guess. But the No vote did win and with breathtaking voter turnout, so that's something to be optimistic about.

*Gator embraces Ishmael in a reptilian hug.* You stayed!!

Whoa. Easy there, gator. Yes, we're all very happy about the result, very happy snappy indeed.

Yes indeed I can confirm that a male of the bovine species is a bull, the Battle of Agincourt was actually fought in France, the guy making the big speech on that occasion was Henry V (as played by Laurence Olivier) and that the archers behind the palisade of stakes on that day were Welsh. The real Battle of Stirling Bridge was actually (would you believe) fought on a bridge. Over the River Forth. Near Stirling. Without any stakes. Though Wallace did subsequently flay Cressingham and make a baldric out of his skin. And they left that bit out of the movie too.

And a reciprocal hug to gator, whose assistance in dealing with egg-throwing (indecipherable word) will we trust no longer be required.

And now the tricky bit. We in Scotland were getting a lot more public spending per head than they were in England, but the English hadn't noticed. Assuming they haven't slept through the last two years they have certainly noticed now. And the excrement of the aforementioned bovines is in imminent danger of coming into contact with primitive devices for air circulation.

...and so the kingdom remains united. Which seems like a good thing to me (though I hope it lights a non-vengeful fire under the Tories to give not-England a bit more voice in the proceedings as we go forward).

Good hope and fortune to all.

...though I hope it lights a non-vengeful fire under the Tories to give not-England a bit more voice in the proceedings as we go forward.

It may well work the other way. For example, our last Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was a Scot sitting for a Scottish seat. So was his Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were able to propose and vote on laws for England but not for Scotland in areas that are devolved to the Scottish parliament. No English MP was able to vote on matters devolved to Scotland. In all these areas of policy it was Scottish votes for Scotland but joint Scottish + English votes for England. Wales had rather less powers devolved to its assembly; Northern Ireland likewise. Only England had no devolution of powers from central government. This anomaly is called the 'West Lothian Question', since it was originally posed in the form 'Why should the MP for Blackburn, West Lothian, Scotland, have a vote on what happens in England when the MP for Blackburn, Lancashire, England has no vote on what happens in Scotland?'

It is now proposed to devolve more powers to the Scottish parliament. Unless a completely separate English parliament is created to balance this, the West Lothian Question will reach untenable proportions. If Westminster continues to function as both an English and a UK parliament, non-English MPs will have to have their right to vote on England-only legislation withdrawn. They will be left with only 'federal' level powers. This means they will effectively be second class MPs and the prospect of them holding the highest office will be reduced. I doubt very much whether Scots demanding more devolution have thought this through.

However, given that our constitution has just come as near to breakdown as it can without actually breaking, I guess we are just going to have to start thinking about it now.

One hundred and forty-nine pages and counting.

Let's go for 150.

Let's go for 150.

Whoo-hoooo! Check out the bottom of the page... 5000 posts aren't all that far away either. Relatively speaking. I think Martin has posted about 1000 on this thread alone.

Let's go for 150.

Whoo-hoooo! Check out the bottom of the page... 5000 posts aren't all that far away either. Relatively speaking. I think Martin has posted about 1000 on this thread alone.

Only 621.

(622, now. )

Who will turn the page?

I cannot believe that this thread is still running.

I cannot believe that this thread is still running.

Home Sweet Home

Jibber Jabber - Q1 - 29
Postby gower21 » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:00 pm

Does anyone else think it's crazy that this thread was started over three years ago!!

I cannot believe that this thread is still running.

Note for those who might have missed it: Brad changed the forum settings so that old, inactive threads eventually get deleted.

The loophole, of course, is inactive threads. As long as we post here now and then, this thread shall never die!

Jibber Jabber - Q1 - 29
Postby gower21 » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:00 pm

Does anyone else think it's crazy that this thread was started over three years ago!!

That gower21 is obviously a troublemaker...

Who will turn the page?

Earworm time!