Hey /britpol/
I see a lot of hate for scotcucks here because It looks like we've been cucked by the SNP into a remain vote.
Let me just say, that I am one of the few ex-SNP supporters that are strongly leave.
I'm sorry for cuckland.
God bless the queen
God bless Britannia
>>77097456
Thread theme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLE4TZmqEfiRLiuaYc6aUDxyJJ8gIIEQEu&v=WTtkkYl5lfQ
>>77097456
From the people I know it's just about independence, they are using the brexit to perhaps have another referendum.
People are starting to realise what a cluster fuck the EU is and want no part of it.
But still, by and large Scotland will vote to remain.
When can we nuke Scotland?
>>77097875
Please only nuke a little bit of it.
Some of us are ready for the Deus Vult.
>>77097850
Like I said, I voted for independence, but after trump, after Farage's reincarnation, I can't do it anymore.
I've saw the light.
We need to free europa, we need to be at the helm of the greatest empire that ever lived. Cucked by england or not. This is bigger than our petty shitfit.
Run for the highlands, haggis.
We will merely nuke the Glasgow-Edinburgh corridor.
>>77098774
We have a nuke on that corridor though, so it's like a double nuke.
The hate is partly because if you had voted to leave the UK, as we all wanted, then we'd certainly be out of the EU.
I really hate Scotland for this.
Scotland is always looking out for England.
Good on them. Vote remain!
Daily reminder that its really easy to convert SNP cucks to Leave voters, just tell them Scotland will 'definitely' go independent if the Leave vote wins
I convinced my whole extended family using this
>>77097456
Where is your Scot Flag?
>>77100468
Good lad
>>77097456
>we've been cucked by the SNP into a remain vote.
Not true at all.
Scotland has polled more pro-EU than the rUK since before the SNP were elected in 2007.
Partly because it has England as an easy target [while England only has the EU] and partly because it gets more gibs from the EU than the rUK.
If Scotland leaves the UK after the UK leaves the EU, it will be a bonus for us [UK].
Scotland is cancer
>>77097875
just nuke glasgow
the rest is fine
>>77100468
its easy to convince scots of anything politically. Our countrymen don't give a flying fuck about politics.
>>77100468
kek.
>Enough stupid "Yes" voters vote for Brexit even though Scotland as a whole has to vote remain to give the SNP an excuse
>Scotcucked.
>>77100839
>this meme again
The UK as a whole is far more left wing than you think. It's like a truncated graph where "80" and "82" are portrayed as being a huge distance from one another.
The real difference in Scotland is that until recently it was a SNP/Labour fight, because Scotland is more prone to political monoculture within the UK due to having a regional identity. [Tories will protect Scotland from centralizing Socialists > Labour will protect Scotland from English Tories > SNP will protect Scotland from English Blairites and Tories.]
But now Tories have taken up opposition in the Scottish parliament making it a SNP/Con fight which should be fun.
>>77100468
Good man.
Exploit the idiocy of SNP voters.
>>77102461
>Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, SNP Woman
>average scottish politician
There's way more English than Scottish so naturally we get shit on here often.
(I'll let you into a secret. Scotland is a much nicer place than England on the whole. If only they knew :-) )
>>77098225
If anything, it is Scotland that has cucked England. The Royal Family is descended from James VI of Scotland and I of England. The last three PMs for the last 19 years have all been of Scottish descent. And look what it's done to England in terms of immigration. And now they're trying to keep us in the EU. If only English, Welsh, and Unionists (NI and Scotland) were allowed to vote, we wouldn't need a referendum. We could just have a show of hands. It's the Scotcucks, and the Scots alone as a voting block, who are preventing a landslide for leave.
>>77102828
Shame about the people living there though
>>77102668
>>77102918
She's got plenty of room for more muslim men in her
constituency
>>77097456
Genuine question, why did you vote for the SNP if you want to leave the EU?
>>77100528
Same place the English and Welsh flags are
>>77102953
I dont know how you can fit any more in Govanhill tbqh
>>77103125
I'm sure she can be quite accomodating
>>77102918
Demographically speaking, she's not wrong [compared to England].
>>77103106
Why did they vote SNP if they didn't want independence in 2011?
[Answer: Because the SNP are a more competent replacement for Labour.]
>>77097456
Scot here.
If we vote leave it will end the Union of England and Scotland. It will be the end of the UK.
This is why I'm voting to leave.
Imagine the tears when the Tories lose their beloved Union Flag...
hahahahahahaha
>>77103209
>If we vote leave it will end the Union of England and Scotland. It will be the end of the UK.
kek.
The UK as a whole will be 50/50 on leave. If Scotland votes leave independence is dead. [but it might just tip the scales to the UK leaving.]
>>77100955
>just nuke glasgow
English cuck.
>>77103205
Lets assume they are more competent for a moment (which is probably true), is the trade off really that much better? Neither of them give a shit about Scotland.
>>77102866
>Native born englandstani talking other being cucked.
>>77103442
>is the trade off really that much better?
In an election battle that's basically SNP/Labour? To quote a funny looking man: Hell Yeth.
Even with PR, it's a bit like UK elections as a whole: Does David "Heir to Blair" Cameron give a shit about the UK? Did Milliband? nope. But elections still come down to Con/Lab.
>>77100839
White countries are usually left wing, sorry you'll never know that england.
>>77103383
Glasgow is actually quite a nice place. It has bad areas but nothing on the scale of some English cities. Pure hyperbole.
>>77102918
And Sturgeon was only the 2nd worst choice...
>from London
>white Muslim convert
>Scottish labour
>>77103583
I suppose you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, quite a saddening situation really.
>>77103653
>>77103470
>>77103383
>see image
If you're Scottish, you are part of a crowd that screams nationalism up until the point where you have to vote for it at the risk of status quo, then you cower away and start sucking your thumb.
Such a pointless, pathetic people.
>>77103724
Animals.
>>77103676
The worst English city I've ever been to was Newcastle on a Friday night. When I was walking round I felt like someone could have an abortion in the middle of the street and it would be normal.
London seems to get a bad reputation by I was in brixton at midnight, it was claim and fun.
>>77103470
I'm talking about England being cucked by Scotland you teuchter mong.
Anyone else not particularly worried about the scotkeks ruining it for us?
Turn out for their referndum was shit in the major cities, compared to elsewhere. I don't see them bothering to turn out in greater numbers next time.
>>77103756
Yes, it's fact, not bait.
>>77103807
45% of them didn't.
And while I've no disrespect for most of the 55% who voted against it, Better Together's "I'm a proud scot, but..." was cringeworthy.
They had to cower away from a battle of identities and make it a battle of economics.
Still, that former Yugoslav republics voted for independence under threat of war with a proper army while Scotland chickened out over a few years of slightly worse economic performance is pretty laughable.
>>77103807
You're part of a union that has the highest currency trade value why would you want to possibly fuck that up just for "muh nationalism"
>>77103969
As you should be you angleland sperg.
>>77103928
That's because Brixton's gentrified to the point where it more resembles Geneva than the largest Caribbean enclave in Europe. White people could never have safely walked around Brixton at midnight even 10 years ago.
>>77104102
Because there is more to life than money. Quality of life is surely important too, and total control on numbers coming in is a major part of that. It's hardly taxing on the brain.
>>77103928
>I was in brixton at midnight, it was claim and fun.
Sharia patrols are finally having an effect. Remember: you don't need to drink to have fun kids. Stay halal.
>>77097456
OP here.
English bros, pls, can we be friends again.
I know it's been a shaky 600 years but come on, we can turn over a new leaf for Britain.
>>77104102
It's a very good question.
Now rejoin the empire, leafy.
>>77104223
Hey i hate the current state of the banks controlling everything if i had my way we'd go back to trading fucking chickens and services but you gotta contemplate the world we live in and keep whats truly valuable now. The Scots aren't hurting by staying tied to England. I doubt anyone elected would make anything substantially better if therenwad they woulda united the people to win the vote.
>>77104612
We've been trying to save you from yourselves for the last 300 years. What makes you think we aren't friends.
>>77104656
Give me syrup or give me death
>>77104673
If the Scots vote to leave, it would have such a positive effect on their relations with England that I don't think they realise it.
>>77104900
and such a negative one if we don't :-(
>>77097456
Scotfag here.
Sorry.
>>77103807
Why is it you can't have national pride in both Scotland and the United Kingdom? Why is this so spurned?
>>77104067
>muh oil and freedom
was literally our independence argument. Well, oil's out the fucking window now, and I don't believe we'd survive on our own. I do, however, support further devolution of power. Not only for us, but for Wales and N.I. too.
>>77104612
We're great when we work together. Took over world, lads. Let's stop with the fighting.
>>77103724
Holy shit, Scotland got cucked really bad. so much for James II and braveheart.
>>77103334
The Scots will have a strong legal case for another UK referndum if we vote out of the EU. The last referendum was conducted on the basis of the UK as a European nation. IF the UK votes out of Europe, the Scots will exit the UK.
Bye, bye Union Flag. Bye, bye Land of Hope and Glory. Bye, bye Great Britain.
No more UK.
>>77104900
It wouldn't make a difference parliament is just a bunch of over paid self righteous ponces our dollars worth shit cause shit never gets done all they do is suck up tax dollars and try to seem busy
>>77105213
>braveheart
>>77105048
>was literally our independence argument.
Because it was pushed into making an economic case.
It's partially decrying the state of politics as a whole, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Scotland#National_identity should have been the case for independence made immediately.
Scotland could more than survive on it's own in the long term. Economically, restructuring and recovery is possible [it holes the "muh tories muh cuts" argument, but that's irrelevant.] and militarily it's part of the strategically important GIUK gap meaning even if there was no Scottish defence force [there would be a token one] the USA or UK would have to deploy equipment there.
>62% identified themselves as 'Scottish only'
Is all the case any real nation needs for independence. It's not long-term sustainable within a union.
>>77105221
>IF the UK votes out of Europe, the Scots will exit the UK.
If Scotland votes out of the UK alongside the other nations, there is no political case for independence. [We want out of the EU! The UK voted out of the EU! Damn Westminster not reflecting our political desires!]
By voting leave in Scotland you actively hurt your own cause. Kek.
>>77105221
>IF the UK votes out of Europe
>Europe
I wish people would use the terminology right. "Leaving Europe" is a trick done by the remain campaign to play on peoples European identity to make them less confident about leaving the EU. Leaving the European Union isn't leaving Europe.
>>77105466
Scottish people are enormously proud of their heritage, it's true. But I don't think them identifying as Scottish means that they don't see the benefits of a United Kingdom, or are not proud of what Scotland has managed to achieve as part of the United Kingdom.
>>77105466
>If Scotland votes out of the UK alongside the other nations, there is no political case for independence
IF Scots don't want to be part of the EU, they can use the same argument and apply it to the UK.
Once we're out of the UK we can say, as an independent nation freed from the Westminster yoke, how we deal with the EU.
Personally, I'd vote out of the EU, then out of the UK.
>>77105221
>I want Scotland to be independent from the UK but not the EU
That's not an argument that can be won in the cold light of day anon. Indyref after brexit and oil price collapse is a guaranteed win for Unionism.
>>77105466
>Scotland could more than survive on it's own in the long term. Economically, restructuring and recovery is possible [it holes the "muh tories muh cuts" argument, but that's irrelevant.]
I think this is true because Scots are a brilliant people - but upon independence, Scotland would adopt socialist policies, not further market liberalisation.
The SNP's policies are predicated on more spending - Keynesiasm lite, this is not a successful system as we well know in the UK.
Economically successful policies (austerity - proper austerity) would be successful (long term) when applied to the whole UK, what economic benefit does Scotland gain from being independent?
>and militarily it's part of the strategically important GIUK gap meaning even if there was no Scottish defence force [there would be a token one] the USA or UK would have to deploy equipment there.
Why? Russia is no longer a global rival to the USA (despite American perceptions). I don't think Scotland would be at risk of invasion if they became independent, realistically only the nations within the British Isles pose a security threat to one another (if we disregard terrorism).
>>77106713
> Indyref after brexit and oil price collaps
We both know economics is irrelevant. The UK will be poorer after leaving the EU; this is the consensus by economists. It's only a question of: how worse off.
Scotland will also be worse off, financially, by leaving the UK. We accept that.
This is a question of sovereignty. Scots despise Westminster and the Eton/Oxford elite that hold power over them.
Personally, I fucking hate the UK, it's not my country. I want no part of it.
>>77105946
>they don't see the benefits of a United Kingdom
I would be more firm with identity and force a choice between Scottish identity and British economic comfort in the short term.
>>77106402
>they can use the same argument and apply it to the UK.
Only if the UK votes remain, which is a hell of a gamble.
>>77106713
The EU and UK are not comparable unions at all.
>>77106833
>The SNP's policies are predicated on more spending
The SNP would get about a term in government - perhaps not even that if there had been a Yes vote in 2014. Predicating a result that could last hundreds of years on the results of a few early elections is ridiculous.
>what economic benefit does Scotland gain from being independent?
In the long term? Control. In the short term? Who cares. Like I said at the top: nationalism should be a question of identity, not economics. [Even if the SNP did introduce economics into it because it was the only way to be taken seriously.]
>Why?
Because NATO patrolling Iceland's airspace while ignoring Scotland would be silly, although since an SDF would exist that may be left to the SDF itself.
The Scots have a great and noble heritage.
We are as the world knows, a decent, industrious, fair minded and egalitarian people.
Clearly the English are once again just pushing us down.
>>77107502
>The SNP would get about a term in government - perhaps not even that if there had been a Yes vote in 2014
And you know this how? Most Scots are left-wing and favour socialist policies, many are also culturally left-wing in the vein of Blair etc.
>Predicating a result that could last hundreds of years on the results of a few early elections is ridiculous.
Predicting, lad. And I'm not basing it on a few years, since the 70s Scotland has taken a swing to the left, unlike in Wales and England (which remain rural Conservative, and urban Labour - as it used to be in Scotland).
>In the long term? Control.
And an example of what they could economically control? This leaving aside that over-controlling industry (as the SNP and most Scots would like to do) is detrimental.
> In the short term? Who cares. Like I said at the top: nationalism should be a question of identity, not economics. [Even if the SNP did introduce economics into it because it was the only way to be taken seriously.]
Yes. And now most Scots consider themselves to be Scots, not Britons, who have been "oppressed" by the English. A historical lie. And if it wasn't for the denigration of the idea of "Britain", perhaps that identity would remain strong throughout Scotland as it did historically.
>Because NATO patrolling Iceland's airspace while ignoring Scotland would be silly
GIUK is really not a hotspot anymore, though. And as I said, that only applies to Russia - whom doesn't undertake many patrols into this area anymore, and is not a threat to US/NATO. The US is realigning itself to the Pacific-Chinese theatre.
>although since an SDF would exist that may be left to the SDF itself.
One would hope that an "independent" (one that still wants to voluntarily join the EU and "pool" sovereignty) would take care of its own airspace, yes.
>>77108298
>Most Scots are left-wing and favour socialist policies
So are most Brits. What people's views are, and what they vote for, are two very different things. Voting for Johann "Something for nothing" Lamont or Davidson for FM becomes a lot more palatable when Salmond's economic plans are wrecked. [And even the SNP would be forced to make cuts, so even if they were elected it wouldn't be in dispute. The SNP would have achieved their primary goal, leaving only their pragmatism to govern.]
>Predicting, lad
I meant predicating.
>"found or base something on."
i.e. "Deciding how you'll vote in a referendum" [which in the end, is what the result is predicated on: how people voted.]
>since the 70s Scotland has taken a swing to the left
The decline of the Conservative party in Scotland doesn't represent a genuine shift to the left. Remember, for as left wing as they supposedly are, Scotland rejected the SNP's 1997 call for a "penny for Scotland", Scottish Labour used "They'll put up taxes!" as a scare story in 2007, and in 2016 the reward Scottish Labour got for promising tax increases was to fall to third place.
>This leaving aside that over-controlling industry (as the SNP and most Scots would like to do) is detrimental.
Depends what industry. One of the few profitable rail-lines in the country [UK, not Scotland] was, last i checked, government run. Some industries [rail being one of the very few examples] can be better in public hands.
Now, why do I bring up an irrelevant outlying case? Because even though the UK public as a whole supports rail nationalization [even Tory voters!] and even though there's a strong case it wouldn't hurt services, no major UK party would commit to it in 2015.
>perhaps that identity would remain strong throughout Scotland as it did historically.
Well perhaps people shouldn't go off with "You can vote no and still be Scottish first! :)", forcing a choice between comfort or identity.
>"independent"
Iceland isn't independent?
>>77108298
>GIUK is really not a hotspot anymore
Getting at this one separately: It doesn't matter. NATO still takes responsibility for policing it.
What I'm fundamentally getting at is that an independent Scotland - with no military - would still be reasonably safe. Whether this is because NATO would protect them from Russia [safe assumption] or because there are no military threats to them from nation states [safe assumption] is tangential.
"Iceland has no real military" is just the simple example used.
[Just for reference, on Iceland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing ]
>>77107502
why should that be a choice? Scots already have a very clear national identity that is know worldwide as we are now in the United Kingdom. National identity is never being stripped from Scotland, not with the firm patriotism this country has.
>>77107110
>divide and conquer's working
>>77109848
>why should that be a choice?
Because there's no value to nationality that doesn't want a state.
If Scots are dedicated to remaining the UK for fear of economic consequences, "Scottish" is at best a regional identity.
Muddying the water with "Oh go on, keep being a stateless nation..." just leaves us with a position in which nobody is happy: Nationalists aren't independent, upsetting them, but nationalists are able to continue agitating, upsetting unionists.
Forcing people to accept that in voting for continued union they are voting to consider themselves British would do away with economic arguments on both sides and settle the question of identity in a sustainable way: Those scared of change would be forced to accept that their identity is fundamentally with the state which currently exists, while those for independence would be forced to accept they are taking up a nationalist position.
Best of all, this method of action would put an end to "I'm a proud Scot, but..." Labourites. They would have to accept that they are either proud of Scottishness as a regional identity, or that they are proud Brits.
>>77109002
>So are most Brits.
Where's your source for that? All the parties whose primary power-base is England have completely repudiated socialist economics. The choice of Cameron by the electorate over Miliband was an affirmation for their preference to continue austerity instead of more Keynesian economics.
>Voting for Johann...
Assuming that Scots see the failure of left-wing economics as a validation of right-wing economics. They've failed to do so since the 70s, I see no reason why this would change.
>[And even the SNP...
Thus making their arguments that Scotland could implement better economic policies while independent, moot. But I realise, as you've said, that's not why you seek independence - it is foremost in the mind of many people, however.
>I meant predicating.
Well then the sentence " Predicating a result that could last hundreds of years on the results of a few early elections is ridiculous." doesn't make sense, but I'm not here to correct you.
>The decline of the Conservative party in Scotland...
Yet there's no chance for parties such as UKIP or the Conservatives to achieve a real breakthrough in Scotland anymore, and Scotland voted left consistently. I'm interested in what your idea is for why they continually vote for the most left-wing options?
>Depends what industry...
I somewhat agree on this case, even Thatcher refused to nationalise rail. It's also true that most Brits favour re-nationalisation. It's a personal anecdote, but recently my rail (Great Western) has gotten far better - I suspect that the private companies need time to properly run such businesses.
>Well perhaps people...
I agree wholeheartedly. The stay campaign was completely focussed on how terrible Scotland would be, and how generally awful it was.
The entire mainstream establishment does not believe in a "Britain", we are reminded of this constantly through their debates on whether it exists at all, and their shilling for multiculturalism.
>>77109911
>voting to leave the EU is the work of the Jew...
>>77110372
At least the Scots can embrace their Scottish identity, whereas English identity is widely derided as being racist.
>Iceland isn't independent?
They're not in the EU, whereas the SNP wished to take Scotland into the EU.
>Getting at this one separately: It doesn't matter. NATO still takes responsibility for policing it.
But for how long?
>What I'm fundamentally getting at is that an independent Scotland - with no military - would still be reasonably safe.
I agree.
>Whether this is because NATO would protect them from Russia [safe assumption]
More that Scotland wouldn't need protecting from Russia - it's frankly ridiculous to say that any of western Europe, let alone countries in the British Isles, face a threat from Russia.
>or because there are no military threats to them from nation states [safe assumption]
Yep.
>"Iceland has no real military" is just the simple example used
Yes, I know. As I said, I'm sure Scotland would be capable of policing its own borders.
My argument isn't that the Scots are incapable of independence, nor that Scotland will be vastly worse (leaving aside the SNP, and the fact that Scotland votes left).
I'd prefer to keep the union intact and exit the EU, but frankly I'm happy to save 3/4 of the countries in the union and let Scotland rejoin the EU.
>>77110372
>The choice of Cameron by the electorate over Miliband was an affirmation for their preference to continue austerity instead of more Keynesian economics.
Wat?
Are you insane?
You could probably count the number of people wo cast their vote on ideological issues on one hand.
Milliband was New Labour, he was a Neoliberal, same a Cameron.
>>77110926
No need to question my sanity lad; I merely said that Miliband was more Keynesian than Cameron - which he was, he wanted less harsh "austerity" (not that we've come anywhere near to implementing austerity).
Miliband wasn't exactly New Labour, he was more left economically than Blair. Labour decided that the reason they lost that election was because they weren't left-wing enough, and so elected Corbyn. lol.
>>77111218
>more Keynesian
New Labour had underscored their commitment to Tory spending policies.
This is what fucked New Labour. The General Election became a personality contest conducted through a media lens owned by the Conservative Party...
Even with the pro-Conservative media attacking Milliband the PArty only achieved a waffer thin majority of 12...
This is not a ringing endorsement of anything.
>>77110326
People can be proud Scots and proud Brits at the same time. You can be pro-Scotland but also pro-UK. I do think that all nations within the union should have more autonomy, though, which also appeases the right-wingers (like myself) who want power decentralised.
>>77110372
>Where's your source for that?
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/11/why-do-people-support-rail-nationalisation/
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/02/23/british-people-view-socialism-more-favourably-capi/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news-14-5/the-jeremy-corbyn-policies-that-most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/28/majority-support-50p-tax/
>Assuming that Scots see the failure of left-wing economics as a validation of right-wing economics.
They don't have to. Scots could all be avowed marxists. The hands of the government would be forced.
As seen with rail nationalization [and energy!] people vote for parties with different policies. Voters aren't particularly smart people.
>you seek independence
Seek implies I'm a Scot. I want Scotland gone, but I'm no Scottish Nationalist.
>there's no chance for parties such as UKIP or the Conservatives to achieve a real breakthrough in Scotland anymore
The Conservatives became the official opposition. That's a breakthrough, even if it's mostly because Labour fell so far.
>I'm interested in what your idea is for why they continually vote for the most left-wing options?
A combination of liking to think themselves more compassionate, and Labour doing well to position itself as a Scottish protector [making them the party for the SNP to beat, pulling the SNP leftwards.]
Labour's dominant position within the Scottish "establishment" also helped.
>They're not in the EU, whereas the SNP wished to take Scotland into the EU.
For what it's worth, I'm in favour of Brexit. Nonetheless it's still quite silly to say that - say - Sweden - isn't independent. There's a reason we called a referendum of our own accord while Scotland had to get permission from Westminster.
To some degree I'd like to see the Scots go, give English identity a bit of a revival. Otherwise, they should accept that they're British.
>>77110718
>a logical organic union based on shared geography, history, language, culture, media is comparable to a tyrannical globalist jewified cuck reich
>>77111791
>People can be proud Scots and proud Brits at the same time
In doing so, one accepts Scottish identity as regional and not national. You can be proud of being from Yorkshire and Britain too.
>You can be pro-Scotland but also pro-UK
Even the SNP would consider themselves "Pro-Scotland and Pro-UK" [See, for example, Sturgeon campaigning for remain "Because it's the best for all of us."]
It doesn't put the fundamental question of identity to bed. A nation without a state, and without seeking a state, is not a nation at all. It's a jumped up region.
>>77112086
>Being dominated by Westminster, an institution controlled by a ruling class Eton/Oxford elite isn't tyranny...
>>77097456
Ex-SNP too, luckily we don't have enough voters in Scotland to make a difference, same with Wales too. Our countries dont really feel the impact of immigration so most people are just blatantly ignorant
>>77097875
Only go for the South, the Highlands are pretty and have a lot of ginger cuties. Plus, you don't want to destryo Trump-senpai's golf courses
>>77112089
and what, in your opinion, is required to become a state?
Is it a parliament? Because Scotland has that.
Is it complete control over your own affairs? Because the United Kingdom doesn't have that at the moment.
On another note, is there a form of United Kingdom that you would agree on, e.g purely economic?
>>77112923
The Scottish Parliament is subordinate to Westminster.
>>77102866
The royal family are Huns
>>77111831
We'll see if these polls actually predict a swing to Labour. I very much doubt it.
>They don't have to. Scots could all be avowed marxists. The hands of the government would be forced.
Like Venezuela? Or Cuba? People are willing to accept a lot of suffering for their ideology. Also you stated that the SNP would get in, mess things up for a term, then lose an election to a more right-wing party because the Scots saw an error in their ways. I doubt this.
>Voters aren't particularly smart people.
Agreed.
>Seek implies I'm a Scot. I want Scotland gone, but I'm no Scottish Nationalist.
News to me.
>That's a breakthrough, even if it's mostly because Labour fell so far.
That's entirely what it is. The left and nationalists have gone over to the SNP, anyone else went Tory.
>Labour doing well to position itself as a Scottish protector [making them the party for the SNP to beat, pulling the SNP leftwards.]
You seem to believe that the SNP is primarily nationalist, and every other policy is based around that goal. It seems to me that it's more the SNP is left-wing, and wants to be able to pursue more left-wing policies than allowed by rUK.
>For what it's worth, I'm in favour of Brexit.
Good.
>Nonetheless it's still quite silly to say that - say - Sweden - isn't independent.
They're not wholly independent, they have laws made for them in Brussels, and they're currently signed up to a union that wants to continue to take powers and form a federal country.
>There's a reason we called a referendum of our own accord while Scotland had to get permission from Westminster.
Yes, Westminster has a greater degree of control over Scotland than Brussels does over the UK. It still does not alleviate the hypocrisy of "nationalists" who want to be free from foreign rule from one country, in favour of rule from a far more different country.
>Otherwise, they should accept that they're British.
Blame the cultural Marxists and the Yanks.
>>77112923
>what, in your opinion, is required to become a state?
We could get into a long pedantic argument here, but let's just say: International recognition as an independent state, and a seat at the UN [or a high probability of having one if it so desired.]
These are two very important trappings of statehood. Scotland has neither
>Scotland has that.
It doesn't really. It has a regional assembly with good PR. Ultimately, any UK government could legally abolish it. [Thanks, parliamentary sovereignty!]
>the United Kingdom doesn't have that at the moment.
It comes much closer than Scotland does. Again there's a reason our parliament could legislate it's own EU referendum while Scotland had to ask permission to get the right to do so [temporarily.]
>is there a form of United Kingdom that you would agree on, e.g purely economic?
As some kind of confederation of independent states from which complete withdrawal would be as trivial as Brexit, perhaps.
>>77111491
>New Labour had underscored their commitment to Tory spending policies.
When? Source?
>This is what fucked New Labour. The General Election became a personality contest conducted through a media lens owned by the Conservative Party...
To an extent, also because people did not WANT to be more left.
>he PArty only achieved a waffer thin majority of 12..
Yeah, but compared to how everyone thought it would be a hung Parliament, that's quite impressive.
>This is not a ringing endorsement of anything.
I didn't say it was a "ringing endorsement", I merely stated that they had endorsed harsher austerity (as they voted for Tories, who were already in coalition government, and knew full well what their plans were).
>>77113235
>People are willing to accept a lot of suffering for their ideology
It's easy when you don't run a parliamentary democracy.
>Also you stated that the SNP would get in, mess things up for a term, then lose an election to a more right-wing party because the Scots saw an error in their ways. I doubt this.
I stated it as one possibility. Another is that the SNP would lose the election entirely, or that they would win and be forced to bow to economic reality [which wouldn't be particularly difficult, as independence had now been procured and the right wing of their broad church could gain influence.]
>It seems to me that it's more the SNP is left-wing, and wants to be able to pursue more left-wing policies than allowed by rUK.
That's because they're fucking great at pushing that message. If everyone in the SNP was primarily left wing, why the hell didn't they join the Labour party and drag it left?
Don't get me wrong, a lot of them are genuinely left wing, but the reason the party as a whole is left wing is because they accepted nobody would be won over to non-ideological nationalism [the parties preferred appearance until the 80s] and that Labour were the ones to beat.
>They're not wholly independent
Nor are they almost wholly subservient. If they wanted, they could withdraw as it's reasonably likely we will. The same is not true of Scotland: we could hold her in if we wanted to.
>It still does not alleviate the hypocrisy of "nationalists" who want to be free from foreign rule from one country, in favour of rule from a far more different country.
Given their stated positions, it isn't hypocritical. If you boil it down to raw nationalism, it's of course highly questionable, but the SNP's entire image has been built up around avoiding raw nationalism.
>>77112652
>the last three PMs for the last 19 years have literally been of Scottish heritage
>>77113859
Tony Blair had Scottish heritage? I thought he was just born there.
>>77097456
stop being a cocksucker and move to englandistan
>>77113859
You already said this
>>77113235
>Blame the cultural Marxists and the Yanks.
I think you'll find the Cultural Capitalists are to blame. They're the ones erroding the very idea of the Nation State.
>>77097456
OP, you don't need to apologise. England's in the same shit as Scotland is.
Liverpool reporting in, it's a shithole.
Also honkers.
>>77097456
I think you will probably have to move to England after Brexit because Scotland will split from the UK and join the cuckfest that is the EU. England will have no choice but to build a wall between England and Scotland.
>>77113791
>It's easy when you don't run a parliamentary democracy.
Granted, and Britain currently is - and the Scots have shifted left anytime it was shown that left economics don't work.
>or that they would win and be forced to bow to economic reality [which wouldn't be particularly difficult, as independence had now been procured and the right wing of their broad church could gain influence.]
Please. It took until the 80s for Britain to sweep away Keynseiasm - the Scots under the SNP would live off the short-term credit, until a crash. At this point who do the Scots vote in? Given past precedent, it will be a candidate further to the left.
>why the hell didn't they join the Labour party and drag it left?
Because they thought they'd be unable to do so?
That's like asking "Why don't the BNP join the Tories and drag them further right". They don't think those views would be accepted by the party.
>Nor are they almost wholly subservient.
Which I didn't say they were.
>If they wanted, they could withdraw as it's reasonably likely we will. The same is not true of Scotland: we could hold her in if we wanted to.
Addressed in my previous point, I said there's a disparity between the control between the two.
>Given their stated positions, it isn't hypocritical. If you boil it down to raw nationalism, it's of course highly questionable, but the SNP's entire image has been built up around avoiding raw nationalism.
Which further supports my theory that they're leftists trying to pursue leftist policies, and to do so means leaving the UK.
>>77114110
REEEE COMMIES GET OUT
What is "cultural capitalism"?
Who supports it?
What are its tenets?
How come strongly capitalist countries like Singapore are strong nation-states, when capitalism is practically the founding principles of their nation?
>>77113655
>When? Source?
Are you serious? Labour deficit spending was the same as the Tories; they differed on taxation. Labour had committed to raising taxes on top earners to pay for public services.
>To an extent, also because people did not WANT to be more left.
Mate, it was a personality contest. New Labour and the Conservatives were identical in economic terms.
>Yeah, but compared to how everyone thought it would be a hung Parliament, that's quite impressive.
Mate, they targetted marginal seats and bought them, essentially. Twenty police forces are currently investingating electoral corruption conducted by local Conservative Parties. This is the biggest political scandle in UK political history.
>, I merely stated that they had endorsed harsher austerity
Nope.
>>77114656
>What is "cultural capitalism"?
heh
Are you serious?
>How come strongly capitalist countries like Singapore are strong nation-states
Singapore is an authoritarian State, it isn't Neoliberal. It followed an Asian development model, not an Anglo-Saxon model.
>>77114472
>and the Scots have shifted left anytime it was shown that left economics don't work.
While their parties remained reasonably static. There's a reason the SNP's spending proposals were for slower deficit reduction, not outright refusal to eliminate the deficit.
Alex Salmond once stated that the Scottish public didn't mind the economic side of Thatcherism, just the social effects. He went from a socialist, to "penny for Scotland", to "Vote yes so we can cut corporation tax!"
>Because they thought they'd be unable to do so?
Right, so they joined the Tartan Tories headed by a man deeply opposed to ideology... because they didn't think Labour under Michael Foot was left wing enough.
>they're leftists trying to pursue leftist policies, and to do so means leaving the UK.
They're Scottish-independence supporters trying to pad the economic case for independence with the clause "We're all in the EU anyway, why does it matter?"
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=epern-working-paper-22.pdf&site=266
Note also that the SNP used to love the Euro. They then realized public opinion was against it and swung around to "We'll keep the pound."
They are a party united solely by the independence of Scotland from the UK.
>>77114940
>Are you serious? Labour deficit spending was the same as the Tories
Budget deficit 2010: £103 billion
Budget deficit 2015: £50 billion
Give a source on how they were the same.
>New Labour and the Conservatives were identical in economic terms.
Tories were for harsher austerity, though they both endorsed the concept because it was felt that was the only way to be voted in.
>nope
"The choice of Cameron by the electorate over Miliband was an affirmation for their preference to continue austerity instead of more Keynesian economics."
>Are you serious?
heh
yeah
Answer my question, retard.
>It followed an Asian development model, not an Anglo-Saxon model.
All Singapore did was liberalise their economy. What is the "Anglo-Saxon" model? Have English economic policies been the same since Alfred the Great? From 1945 to now?
>>77115612
>Give a source on how they were the same.
He was saying Labour's post 2015 plans were the same.
Which while not entirely true, isn't a hard opinion to come to:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/03/19/ed-balls-wouldn-t-reverse-anything-from-osborne-s-budget
>"The choice of Cameron by the electorate over Miliband was an affirmation for their preference to continue austerity instead of more Keynesian economics."
Is a pretty dangerous assumption though. It could just be that they didn't want pic related running their country.
The last election where the UK had a choice of two serious candidates for prime minister was in 1974. Foot, Kinnock, Hague, Howard and Miliband were all jokes. Callaghan, Major and Brown managed to blow their credibility before the election. Drawing ideological conclusions is therefore difficult.
>>77115193
>While their parties remained reasonably static.
Could you expand more on this, please?
>Note also that the SNP used to love the Euro. They then realized public opinion was against it and swung around to "We'll keep the pound."
They are a party united solely by the independence of Scotland from the UK.
Wewlad.
I think you've genuinely changed my mind about the whole thing.
They're "nationalists" (but definitely not ethnic nationalists, and they shy away from the raw nationalism thing) united by a desire for independence.
Could you just lay out the whole case about the SNP and Scottish independence?
>Why do Scots want it?
>What is the SNP?
>Why aren't they merely socialists looking to make a left-wing utopia?
>What could Scottish independence look like?
>What would it be like for the rest of the UK?
>>77116245
>He was saying Labour's post 2015 plans were the same.
Yes, but during the election it was safely assumed by many that Labour would not make as harsh cuts as the Tories planned to - as your article points out:
"Now it's true that the Tories' cuts, as they stand, are deeper than Labour's."
>It could just be that they didn't want pic related running their country.
I do accept that there was an element of a "personality contest", but anyone who cared enough to vote would surely be aware of the principles the two parties were running on i.e.
"Austerity"
or
Austerity-lite
>The last election where the UK had a choice of two serious candidates for prime minister was in 1974.
Really? You completely disregard Thatcher and Blair?
>>77116352
>Could you expand more on this, please?
The political positions of Scottish parties have remained reasonably static every time left wing economics "failed", not moving further left.
When, in 1979 we had the winter of discontent, Scots did not vote Labour because Scots shifted left, they voted Labour because they feared the alternative - the Conservatives [who had been "othered" as English Poshos], and the SNP vote collapsed. The same is true in 2010, when they returned the same result as in 2005 despite the crash: They weren't any more left-wing, but they were bloody scared of English Conservatives.
>They're "nationalists"
That's not wrong. They want Scotland independent of the UK. They're less concerned about Scottish people. [Hence being so open to "New Scots"]
>Why do Scots want it?
They don't.
>What is the SNP?
A centre-left broad church party with the aim of Scottish independence.
>Why aren't they merely socialists looking to make a left-wing utopia?
They know the economic case doesn't add up yet continue to desire independence. They haven't implemented any real left-wing policies while in power or made any large redistributive attempts to use the powers of the Scottish parliament [which the far left Greens, and the temporarily left-wing Labour both want to do.]
>What could Scottish independence look like?
This involves an obscene number of variables. Assuming 2014 was a "Yes", the easiest case would be that refusal of a currency union was a bluff. The BoE sets strict spending limits on the Scottish government forcing a Scottish government of any colour to make cuts to spending.
A safe assumption is "Whichever one requires the least change but gets Scotland recognized as independent", that's nearly always a good enough start for the SNP.
>What would it be like for the rest of the UK?
Not much would change. I'd say Scots coming down to England for job opportunities, but that already happens and is one of the best sources of "Proud Scot" cringe.
>>77116918
>anyone who cared enough to vote would surely be aware of the principles the two parties were running on
I doubt it. If Austerity-lite had been argued by a young, attractive man with a good voice, it may yet have won.
But then Labour was purged of nearly all talent, so what can you do?
>You completely disregard Thatcher and Blair?
Thatcher ran against Callaghan [discredited], Foot [joke] and Kinnock [joke], Blair ran against Major [discredited] Hague [joke] and Howard [joke]
In both cases they were the only serious choice available. Note that I said choice of TWO serious candidates.
>>77117668
> the Conservatives [who had been "othered" as English Poshos]
>bloody scared of English Conservatives.
>They want Scotland independent of the UK. They're less concerned about Scottish people.
So to what extent is Scottish Independence an "Anglophobic" (though I hate to refer to anything have a "phobia" of something else) movement?
>They don't.
45% did, and the SNP still won the vast majority of seats in Scotland. Evidently there is a large desire for it, no?
So judging by the rest of it, the SNP is just an "independence at all costs" party?
>>77117964
>I doubt it. If Austerity-lite had been argued by a young, attractive man with a good voice, it may yet have won.
Perhaps.
>Note that I said choice of TWO serious candidates.
Yes, I failed to see that first time. Apologies.
>>77118322
>So to what extent is Scottish Independence an "Anglophobic" (though I hate to refer to anything have a "phobia" of something else) movement?
It builds on residual cultural Anglophobia, but it's not in itself anything as Anglophobic as it's portrayed [for example Angus Robertson, leader of the SNP in Westminster, is English born.]
You could say it's very afraid of England, but not so afraid of the English. Particularly the London-centric nature of UK politics. It's something of a running trend in Scottish politics [Part of why the Unionists never recovered from merging with the Conservative party.], it would be inaccurate to strictly call it Anglophobic in the sense of anti-English "racism" as sometimes happens to the SNP.
>45% did, and the SNP still won the vast majority of seats in Scotland. Evidently there is a large desire for it, no?
Large desire yes, 50%+1 desire is more difficult. Furthermore, SNP support and independence support are not 1:1 [hence why they've been winning since 2007 despite independence rarely polling over 50%]
>So judging by the rest of it, the SNP is just an "independence at all costs" party?
Internally? Definitely. They'll move wherever the political tide will take them so long as it yields independence in the end. Publicly, they're very good at explaining why their changes in position are actually ideologically consistent. [See: Crumbling when devo-max was brought up in 2015, because it had gone from "Hey, we could use this to build support for independence..." to "Uh-oh, these numbers don't look good..."]
>>77118977
And, I think this will be my final query - why would you say there is such a large desire for independence in Scotland? Not just pure nationalism, surely?
>>77119322
>why would you say there is such a large desire for independence in Scotland?
I would propose multiple small reasons:
It proposed something radical in an environment used to arguing between austerity and austerity lite.
Related to the above: It promised genuine change and each voter could envision their own specific way in which this would happen. (From the far left socialist republicans to the centrists who thought it could better maintain the status quo.)
It could appeal to young "anti-racist" types by promising to give the old colonialist UK a punch in the face and become a modern, small country. [The ability of Scotland to escape blame for colonialism is one of the most fascinating things.]
It appealed to disenfranchised voters who gave up hope during the Blair years. [Which is quite possibly a strong reason for the strength of support it sees: It's the first hopeful thing in politics some people have seen for a long time, and they're very grateful to the SNP for it.]
While not fuelled by nationalism, it helped to soften the ground emotionally that most Scots identify as primarily Scottish.
Also, the campaign against it was absolutely terrible. As in "If I was a Scot, I may have voted yes just to spite Scottish Labour come what may" terrible.
>>77119926
Ok, so one more small question on top of that: why do the Scots so desire change? Is life really that bad for them?
>The ability of Scotland to escape blame for colonialism is one of the most fascinating things.
This is what I've noticed, an attempt to portray Scotland (and Ireland has already done this) as just another colony of the British (rechristened to an English) Empire.
> It's the first hopeful thing in politics some people have seen for a long time, and they're very grateful to the SNP for it.
I guess that's true, though it does seem somewhat pathetic.
>Also, the campaign against it was absolutely terrible. As in "If I was a Scot, I may have voted yes just to spite Scottish Labour come what may" terrible.
No disagreement here.
>>77097456
Greatest Ally.
>>77120495
>Is life really that bad for them?
For the poor in parts of places like Glasgow? Sure. Like with Brexit, they're immune to economic threats because they're already fucked, while very open eared to anyone who proposes a solution to their problems.
Then there's a middle class element that can see things getting better, while comfortable enough that they can afford the risk, which the rather effective 'Yes' campaign could win over from fear.
What lost it more than anything else was probably the middle class people who were just barely keeping on top of things and concluded they couldn't afford the risk.
>>77103106
>Same place the English and Welsh flags are
feelsbadman
Would be nice if we had a choice between them
>>77120991
Ah ok.
So the hopeless and the comfortable wanted to improve their lives, and believed that independence - if not the SNP itself - may be able to deliver that.
The SNP's economics were obviously bunk, seeing as how the oil price crashed immediately. As you said, the SNP are very good at adapting policies to gain public support (and thus increase likelihood for independence), so presumably many Scots did believe that the SNP would spend oil revenues to create economic prosperity - and so my previous ideas that Scots are quite left-wing are vindicated, no?
>>77121988
>seeing as how the oil price crashed immediately
To be fair to them, this wasn't something that could reasonably be foreseen. In the event it hadn't happened and they'd voted yes, the economics of the matter would probably have been more interesting to watch.
>and so my previous ideas that Scots are quite left-wing are vindicated, no?
In some ways. Economically, they about align with the rUK in being far more left wing than you'd expect but voting for parties to the right of that in policy terms. A lot of them are quite prone to being less left-wing socialism as well. [Jim "Independence in Europe... no wait, vote Leave in June!" Sillars, for example, has noted he's inclined to social conservatism on issues like gay marriage.]
The idea of oil revenues most coherently put forward by the SNP wasn't that they'd be put into prosperity though, it's that they'd be put into an oil fund to save money for later. [In real terms it would come closer to borrowing to save money, since oil revenues were the thing preventing a deficit in the SNP's figures.]
In general, the idea put forth at the time was that Scotland was wealthier than the rUK as a whole and didn't need further spending cuts, but was facing them down anyway because the UK sort-of did. By selectively picking figures and dates this is a case that could be made. [As in pic related.]
So basically, as in any political situation, it was two groups of bullshitters throwing around numbers with little regard for whether what they implied was true.
>>77122790
>To be fair to them, this wasn't something that could reasonably be foreseen.
Well, no. But sometimes conventional wisdom (i.e. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket") is correct.
>In real terms it would come closer to borrowing to save money, since oil revenues were the thing preventing a deficit in the SNP's figures.
What do you mean by this? That the SNP would take out loans but then cover the costs with oil revenues?
>>77124375
>What do you mean by this? That the SNP would take out loans but then cover the costs with oil revenues?
The SNP would take the tax revenue from oil and put it into a fund like Norway's which would invest it in various ways to accumulate money.
However by their counting, Scotland would only just be running a balanced budget on independence day, so they'd end up running a small deficit to do this [because the budget was overall balanced before starting an oil fund was factored in]
This is possibly because they didn't want to state where cuts would fall to make such a fund, however. It's quite possible [theoretically] they'd cut spending somewhere instead. We'll never know in any case.
>>77124661
Excellent.
Thank you for your time.
>>77125407
No problem. Have a good evening.
>>77125455
You too.
