Ok, then socialism and communism aren’t associated with the far left. This makes right/left terms about where they sit in parliament. We’re trapped by common usage when it comes to jargon, and your usage of fascism vs. Nazism shows you’re not parsing them correctly. The former was a corporatist state that preserved trappings and some legitimacy of existing governmental power. The latter, well, didn’t. How about: lead…
> communism isn’t associated with the far left In what world? :-))
In the same world where fascism isn't associated with the far right.
There are many possible axes to divide politics, in many (but not necessarily all) conservative politics and fascism tends to be projected to similar spaces and Soviet-style communism and socially-progressive politics to the same.
Once you start looking at multiple of these at the same time, things do tend to look quite different.
Yes it really is seismic, it is a huge stretch to claim it was anything less than that (otherwise it wouldn't have been such a big issue to threaten the Yes vote with). And furthermore as a Scot living in the EU, believe me it is not simply an "excuse".
> as a Scot living in the EU, believe me it is not simply an "excuse" Your living situation does not obviate the SNP's pledge. > Yes it really is seismic, My living situation is to live in a region with actual earthquakes, big ones at times too. A change of a trade deal is not in the same universe, let alone world, of effect upon people's daily lives or political events as that. You need to calm yourself down and get…
Ok if you're going to be overly literal then substitute "seismic" for "very, very big and disruptive for many people". I think if we're at the point where you're picking away at my choice of adjective we might be done with this discussion :-/
As a Welsh secessionist, I can't for the life of me square the idea of wanting to leave union that for all its massive faults is at least something you can understand and engage with, to replace that by joining a union that is distant, more artificial and certainly more vague and impenetrable to the common person. Why would you leave economic and political dominance by Westminster with no control over the economics o…
I find it hilarious that all of the anti-EU arguments are more or less the same as the arguments against the United States government. The states joining up to form a larger entity certainly took some power away from the individual states and removed local control but it seems to have worked out OK.
US has some of the highest levels of comparative inequality in the world. There are also areas that have been depopulated and others where basic services cannot keep up with the population (housing for example).
but that aside, the US has broad political integration and economic integration and has a single demos.
The EU is trying to impose economic integration without political integration (or at least without being honest with the scope of political integration) and that will never work. You can't have freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labour over unequal economies without seriously compensating for it, both 'sides' of the transactions are damaged.
Plus it doesn't have a single demos and I don't see how you can magic one into being.
a more apt comparison would be to look at NAFTA. It increased trade, but at great overall cost to both sides.
My point being, that scaremongering about Scotland not being fast tracked backed into the EU is very similar to the false arguments used at the referendum. This is a country that has already been in the EU, was dragged out against its wishes, and now wants to rejoin. It will not be a normal accession process. Ignoring that fact, the EU has a huge political incentive to ease Scotland’s re entry wrt the English situati…
To join the Euro, Scotland would need to go through a process whereby it pinned it’s currency to the Euro and kept it stable for a period of time. To do that, it would need control of the currency and a central bank. That all takes time. The UK famously failed to keep the Pound in the ERM because of currency speculators, with much greater financial resources than a post-independence Scotland would have available.
I think you’re blindly applying standard process to an exceptional situation. In politics, anything is possible, it depends solely on the circumstances and incentives involved.
If England make it impractical for Scotland to adopt the pound, then the EU will welcome them with open arms into the euro. That’s just how the world works, states act in their own interests and rules bend as and when needed (as rules on euro membership have frequently been bent in the past).
With hard headed view, I struggle to see that an independent Scotland will be economically able to deal with large cuts to public sector spending that would almost certainly be required. Per capita spending is already higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. Scottish companies have debts denominated in pounds. There would almost certainly be capital flight to rUK. Large businesses may relocate. There is no plan…
Writing as an English person who'd be sorry to see the Scots go, feels like losing a sibling, but trying to be objective, I'd challenge your assertion it'd be long period of pain like Irish independence. When Ireland went independent, they didn't have the EU single market on their doorstep. There were global economic problems during those 70 yrs e:g world wars. Whereas by rejoining the EU, Scotland can improve its economy much more quickly. Ireland is nowadays a very economically successful country. why shouldn't Scotland be too? Wind powered electricity could be a big export to replace oil and gas. Also Scots tend to favour paying slightly higher taxes for public infrastructure projects, which then give economic gain. An independent Scotland could invest in railways, education , all the other things that a sensible European country does which benefit everyone and lead to economic growth, but England doesn't do properly because keeping taxes down even if the resulting lack of infrastructure and opportunity impoverishes everyone , is the English Tories policy. If I were Scottish, I'd vote for independence in a heartbeat, but the whole thing is very sad as it seems like a family breakup, also can't see how we avoid a hard(ish) border between England and Scotland
I am an outsider on the topic, but wouldn't such a stark change of the political landscape as Brexit be a really valid reason to ask the question again? After all, independence before would have meant exiting the EU, while it now could mean re-entering it. Independence is ultimately the question about how a region wants to see itself in the world, and the alliances you are in are a big factor in that qestion.
"I am an outsider on the topic, but wouldn't such a stark change of the political landscape as Brexit be a really valid reason to ask the question again?" You could argue that, but, the nationalists never did. Instead they said the issue would be categorically resolved by the referendum for an entire generation. Perhaps if they were a bit smarter they'd have thought ahead and caveated their promises, but they wanted…
I am an Austrian living in Germany. If my nation would have exited the EU that would have massive effects on my life. So I don't buy into the premise that it has no effect on people in their everyday lives. Sure, for many this might just be about symbolism and things like access to the world's biggest single market, its regulations etc. But this matters. Scotland has a different relation to its London government within the EU than outside of it. Just think about environmental standards and worker rights. If I were a Scot I'd trust the EU more to do something good there than a UK government.
I am convinced there are (not just a few) Scots for which this would be similar.
As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around: good luck to them. Brexit has shown very clearly that Scotland wants to chart a different path to England and IMO they should be allowed to do it. …just be generous to English folks seeking asylum from Tory rule, yeah?
> the secular trend is clearly downwards Some might see this as an argument for ditching the folks who've overseen this downward trend.
Reserves have fallen severalfold since the basin was opened in the 1970s. Oil and gas cannot be produced on the same scale for the same returns as in the past. Most of the best wells have dried up. The UK and Scottish governments are both committed to net zero, which means the managed decline of the North sea oil and gas industry. Sturgeon has publicly taken a harder position on this than Johnson since COP26. If Scot…
> Oil and gas cannot be produced on the same scale for the same returns as in the past.
Oil and gas is dead. We're producing far more electricity from renewables that we use, and England is buying it because they are struggling for power.
Do you really think a sane English government is going to let the lights go out because they can't make a deal with an independent Scotland?
How is that relevant? I also wonder how two wrongs make a right, perhaps you could illuminate me on that.
Where did I say it was wrong?
I said it was wrong for the SNP, so it would have been wrong for Farage. Are you going to state what is so obvious, because I can't be sure I or anyone else knows what you've alluded to?