Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 ).
Ignore whether the SNP are angels or blood-sucking demons, ignore whether Scottish Independence would destroy Scotland, leaving Scots to only eat wild heather and the occasional Wild Haggis, or whether it will be so phenomenally good for Scotland that they win the World Cup and become the economic centre of the known multiverse.
In other words, ignore as much of your own splenetic prejudice as you find possible in this dark midwinter.
The surveys say the following:
54% pro Indy
59% pro Indy as a Republic (ie, monarchy abolished. No need to cut off heads though. It spoils the quality of the water)
66% pro Indy with a shift from market/Londocentric economics to Wellbeing Economy (similar to Nordic models).
What do you think will happen by, for example, 2035?
What will the general "UK" concept look like by 2035 (NI and Scotland are consequentially linked, and this in turn affects Wales. It also affects England in terms of its identity as the, hitherto, major partner of 4).
Background - I'm a 57 year old English Republican, pro-Scottish Indy, not particularly keen on chopping anyone's head off but reality can get messy if it needs to. I don't think any of this needs to go that far. It would be a shame if it did.
So, in the least splenetic way possible, and looking at the influence of PEOPLE'S DESIRES to stimulate change rather than the entrenched power systems (political structures, economic hegemonies etc)...
What are your thoughts on the issue that won't go away, with the figures above?
Scottish Independence.
Intelligent comments on NI, and the "shape" of England and Wales in the quite near future, also invited.
Cheers,
Nick
Poll data available here:
https://bit.ly/4j0yC1I
(https:// bit.ly/4j0yC1I)
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For what it's worth, I think a united Ireland and independent Scotland are probably both inevitable in the fullness of time. Despite being Welsh, I'm doubtful independence is a good thing for Wales. Sadly I think the benefits of both the UK union and RF is not fully understood nor appreciated by ordinary people. Both bring us enormous benefits that go largely unrecognised and unsung. Nobody will benefit if/when we lose them both, and the resulting 4 nations will be diminished forever." Firstly, thank you for joining in, and your considered response. I wonder if diminishing is an inevitable part of the shift from the last 500 years (slow growth to global superpower from 1500s to the Union in 1700s, decline of Empire in 20th Century). In other words, that UK template of superpower/ex-superpower is increasingly unsustainable, and we have to diminish in order to find a more realistic way of increasing democratic (rather than top-heavy) economics and politics. Change is inevitable, messy and confusing for a while (often a long while), and then offers something more in tune with current realities - that's probably more how I see it. But it will be extremely awkward to our sense of identity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You've quoted an opinion poll from a pro Indy organisation with weighted questions. In the real world the SNP took a hammering at the 2024 General Election and is on about 30% in the polls. Sturgeon and Hamza Useless have been a disaster for the cause. Scotland certainly won't be independent within 10 years. Beyond that far too many variables to say. I think a united Ireland is more likely, although very few in Dubli actually want the cost and headache of ruling the Unionist North " The link was a pro-Indy website, the polls were more nuanced. But that link contains details about all the polls, so I used it. I take your point though - a bit of a wince as I do so, but I take it .
SNP crap or wonderful isn't my question. Scottish Indy being a disaster or Utopia isn't my question. The deeper question I'm asking is, are the needs and desires of Scotland/NI/possibly Wales so far away from how Westminster/England is continuing to conduct affairs, that the tipping point is an inevitability?
It's a very interesting point about NI - I honestly (really honestly) can't tell whether NI will do its thing first or Scotland does it first.
What I really can't see though (cannot see it at all, and happy to be shown otherwise) is that once one goes, the other won't follow.
And one of them feels gone for sure- 2035? 2045?
Don't know.
But one will go, and the other will follow.
I can't see that any other way - regardless of political parties being crap or great, regardless of consequences being crap or great.
We haven't resolved the fundamental issues underlying the 07/08 crash, the EU exit hasn't resolved the underlying pain - and our little stint as top dog globally lasted around 100 years 1800s-1900s-ish, whereas China (occupying that spot for 2,000 years up to 1800), is now close to that top spot again.
Whatever it was that made "UK" that big thing (the ugly and the beautiful), is no longer there.
Westminster "sells" that it is there (because Westminster achieved pre-eminence on the back of that global expansion/exploitation, and blindly sees that it is an unshakeable and ongoing reality, not a consequence of a stage of history which no longer exists).
We're using the wrong tools and the wrong language for a 21st Century world.
Something's got to give - parties/current politico-legal institutions are huffing and puffing as they become increasingly anachronistic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice?" For the purposes of this thread, assume anywhere on a spectrum from disastrously to the wealthiest country on the planet. It's not the point of the thread, and you can spend as many hours as you want elsewhere looking at the extremes of opinion on the matter. As an example, whether the EU exit was beneficial or harmful is irrelevant - people wanted it, it happened. Using that example, that thorny question of Indy Scotland (which has and receives energy to and from the NI question as well) isn't going away. And it isn't about parties - it's people, and how they feel. So, for this thread, how it works, if it works, whether it's great or terrible isn't important. What's important is the ongoing pressure on the topic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? For the purposes of this thread, assume anywhere on a spectrum from disastrously to the wealthiest country on the planet. It's not the point of the thread, and you can spend as many hours as you want elsewhere looking at the extremes of opinion on the matter. As an example, whether the EU exit was beneficial or harmful is irrelevant - people wanted it, it happened. Using that example, that thorny question of Indy Scotland (which has and receives energy to and from the NI question as well) isn't going away. And it isn't about parties - it's people, and how they feel. So, for this thread, how it works, if it works, whether it's great or terrible isn't important. What's important is the ongoing pressure on the topic." How it works absolutely matters, without understanding the practicalities, people’s views are shaped purely by emotion and probably the reason you want to concentrate on the ongoing pressure, it is subjective. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? For the purposes of this thread, assume anywhere on a spectrum from disastrously to the wealthiest country on the planet. It's not the point of the thread, and you can spend as many hours as you want elsewhere looking at the extremes of opinion on the matter. As an example, whether the EU exit was beneficial or harmful is irrelevant - people wanted it, it happened. Using that example, that thorny question of Indy Scotland (which has and receives energy to and from the NI question as well) isn't going away. And it isn't about parties - it's people, and how they feel. So, for this thread, how it works, if it works, whether it's great or terrible isn't important. What's important is the ongoing pressure on the topic. How it works absolutely matters, without understanding the practicalities, people’s views are shaped purely by emotion and probably the reason you want to concentrate on the ongoing pressure, it is subjective. " How it works matters. That's not what this thread is asking though. You can start your own thread on that if you like, and see the responses. This thread is asking different questions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? For the purposes of this thread, assume anywhere on a spectrum from disastrously to the wealthiest country on the planet. It's not the point of the thread, and you can spend as many hours as you want elsewhere looking at the extremes of opinion on the matter. As an example, whether the EU exit was beneficial or harmful is irrelevant - people wanted it, it happened. Using that example, that thorny question of Indy Scotland (which has and receives energy to and from the NI question as well) isn't going away. And it isn't about parties - it's people, and how they feel. So, for this thread, how it works, if it works, whether it's great or terrible isn't important. What's important is the ongoing pressure on the topic. How it works absolutely matters, without understanding the practicalities, people’s views are shaped purely by emotion and probably the reason you want to concentrate on the ongoing pressure, it is subjective. How it works matters. That's not what this thread is asking though. You can start your own thread on that if you like, and see the responses. This thread is asking different questions. " What are you actually asking in simple terms? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? For the purposes of this thread, assume anywhere on a spectrum from disastrously to the wealthiest country on the planet. It's not the point of the thread, and you can spend as many hours as you want elsewhere looking at the extremes of opinion on the matter. As an example, whether the EU exit was beneficial or harmful is irrelevant - people wanted it, it happened. Using that example, that thorny question of Indy Scotland (which has and receives energy to and from the NI question as well) isn't going away. And it isn't about parties - it's people, and how they feel. So, for this thread, how it works, if it works, whether it's great or terrible isn't important. What's important is the ongoing pressure on the topic. How it works absolutely matters, without understanding the practicalities, people’s views are shaped purely by emotion and probably the reason you want to concentrate on the ongoing pressure, it is subjective. How it works matters. That's not what this thread is asking though. You can start your own thread on that if you like, and see the responses. This thread is asking different questions. What are you actually asking in simple terms?" That's in the top bit ^^^ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In Northern Ireland support for unification is about 30% and the Unionist majority will never support a poll they might lose. In Scotland support for independence moves around the 45/55 range, certainly not enough of a shift to justify another referendum, and very unlikely any Westminster Govt will hold one in the foreseeable future. So where is the public pressure? And what is the mechanism for unification/independence? This feels like projection of your own views rather than political reality, OP." That is a succinct appraisal. I think the conclusions are less settled. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With some interesting data coming out from The Times/Norstat/Believe in Scotland polls, what do you think of the following (well, it follows soon...promise ).
Ignore whether the SNP are angels or blood-sucking demons, ignore whether Scottish Independence would destroy Scotland, leaving Scots to only eat wild heather and the occasional Wild Haggis, or whether it will be so phenomenally good for Scotland that they win the World Cup and become the economic centre of the known multiverse.
In other words, ignore as much of your own splenetic prejudice as you find possible in this dark midwinter.
The surveys say the following:
54% pro Indy
59% pro Indy as a Republic (ie, monarchy abolished. No need to cut off heads though. It spoils the quality of the water)
66% pro Indy with a shift from market/Londocentric economics to Wellbeing Economy (similar to Nordic models).
What do you think will happen by, for example, 2035?
What will the general "UK" concept look like by 2035 (NI and Scotland are consequentially linked, and this in turn affects Wales. It also affects England in terms of its identity as the, hitherto, major partner of 4).
Background - I'm a 57 year old English Republican, pro-Scottish Indy, not particularly keen on chopping anyone's head off but reality can get messy if it needs to. I don't think any of this needs to go that far. It would be a shame if it did.
So, in the least splenetic way possible, and looking at the influence of PEOPLE'S DESIRES to stimulate change rather than the entrenched power systems (political structures, economic hegemonies etc)...
What are your thoughts on the issue that won't go away, with the figures above?
Scottish Independence.
Intelligent comments on NI, and the "shape" of England and Wales in the quite near future, also invited.
Cheers,
Nick
Poll data available here:
https://bit.ly/4j0yC1I
(https:// bit.ly/4j0yC1I)
"By 2035 I would think Indy ref 2 would be imminent if not recently held. That said, it is dependent on the SNP or other pro independence party having a good majority for a good few years. At present, post sturgen that seems to have stalled a bit. The type of economy I guess would be similar to what they have now as that's what they know best. In the future and with various governments it could pivot to a more Nordic style, which is an option open to many countries | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With some interesting data coming out from The Times/Norstat/Believe in Scotland polls, what do you think of the following (well, it follows soon...promise ).
Ignore whether the SNP are angels or blood-sucking demons, ignore whether Scottish Independence would destroy Scotland, leaving Scots to only eat wild heather and the occasional Wild Haggis, or whether it will be so phenomenally good for Scotland that they win the World Cup and become the economic centre of the known multiverse.
In other words, ignore as much of your own splenetic prejudice as you find possible in this dark midwinter.
The surveys say the following:
54% pro Indy
59% pro Indy as a Republic (ie, monarchy abolished. No need to cut off heads though. It spoils the quality of the water)
66% pro Indy with a shift from market/Londocentric economics to Wellbeing Economy (similar to Nordic models).
What do you think will happen by, for example, 2035?
What will the general "UK" concept look like by 2035 (NI and Scotland are consequentially linked, and this in turn affects Wales. It also affects England in terms of its identity as the, hitherto, major partner of 4).
Background - I'm a 57 year old English Republican, pro-Scottish Indy, not particularly keen on chopping anyone's head off but reality can get messy if it needs to. I don't think any of this needs to go that far. It would be a shame if it did.
So, in the least splenetic way possible, and looking at the influence of PEOPLE'S DESIRES to stimulate change rather than the entrenched power systems (political structures, economic hegemonies etc)...
What are your thoughts on the issue that won't go away, with the figures above?
Scottish Independence.
Intelligent comments on NI, and the "shape" of England and Wales in the quite near future, also invited.
Cheers,
Nick
Poll data available here:
https://bit.ly/4j0yC1I
(https:// bit.ly/4j0yC1I)
By 2035 I would think Indy ref 2 would be imminent if not recently held. That said, it is dependent on the SNP or other pro independence party having a good majority for a good few years. At present, post sturgen that seems to have stalled a bit. The type of economy I guess would be similar to what they have now as that's what they know best. In the future and with various governments it could pivot to a more Nordic style, which is an option open to many countries"I think that's a very good summary. Thank you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"14 October 1066 was the most disastrous day in the history of mankind. We (not only in these islands, but many countries throughout the world) are living with the horrific consequences to this day." 15th July 1991 was quite a nice day though. In Fulham at least . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"14 October 1066 was the most disastrous day in the history of mankind. We (not only in these islands, but many countries throughout the world) are living with the horrific consequences to this day. 15th July 1991 was quite a nice day though. In Fulham at least ."England's finest hour was actually on 30th July 1966 (as we keep getting reminded). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"14 October 1066 was the most disastrous day in the history of mankind. We (not only in these islands, but many countries throughout the world) are living with the horrific consequences to this day. 15th July 1991 was quite a nice day though. In Fulham at least .
England's finest hour was actually on 30th July 1966 (as we keep getting reminded)."
Bit too long ago to mean much now though. And if you're a Scot living in England, just chuck Andy Murray in our faces.
Much more recent, and far more successful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice?" That's not the question. OP has stated whether good bad or anything in between is not the scenario. It's more to do with shifting attitudes and how Westminster and being united countries serve each of the individual nations in the modern day. For clarity I don't think it does. Each devolved nation has their own parliament and all need more powers given to them to manage the nuanced needs of their citizens. Scotland and Ireland are more socialist leaning countries and the Westminster parliament moving further to the right will only serve to disenfranchise these nations even more than they already are. Also read that support for independence is around 74% in under 30s... percentage and age is from memory as I can't be bothered to check. So to answer op question I do think a major political change is inevitable in the next 10 to 20 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? That's not the question. OP has stated whether good bad or anything in between is not the scenario. It's more to do with shifting attitudes and how Westminster and being united countries serve each of the individual nations in the modern day. For clarity I don't think it does. Each devolved nation has their own parliament and all need more powers given to them to manage the nuanced needs of their citizens. Scotland and Ireland are more socialist leaning countries and the Westminster parliament moving further to the right will only serve to disenfranchise these nations even more than they already are. Also read that support for independence is around 74% in under 30s... percentage and age is from memory as I can't be bothered to check. So to answer op question I do think a major political change is inevitable in the next 10 to 20 years. " That is succinct and intelligent - a pleasure to read. Thank you. I had a "War and Peace" reply typed up - but I annoyed the hell out of myself with it .
So have this instead :
Wot u sed, especially about left-lean v right being notable between the different nations, and the U30s.
There's a particular U30/left dynamic that is more than the sum of its parts in Scotland, and less than the sum of its parts in England, because of the overall left/right difference in the nations.
In turn, that gives your U30s more power than our U30s in real terms (they're both left, but ours get lost in the masses of right, whereas yours add to an already strong left).
I could add more, but I'll shut up now.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of the ironies of this debate is that English people would almost certainly vote for Northern Ireland to join the South, and probably for an independent Scotland too. " I think that is a valid point. Westminster appears to be using its status as the "legal" voice, to deny that possibility. There are many potential reasons for that, but they would include the diminution of Westminster's power and authority, and the consequential effects that has on the City/gravy train industry. Lobbyists etc. Much, much more though. Government (Westminster) is HUGE business, with profound vested interests. The parliamentary model adopted after the English Civil War was a necessary response to the lack of feudalism's abilities to move the economy into the more productive bourgeois stage. However, that stage itself is now so old, and probably unable to reform within the centralised power-base of Westminster. It's too old in short, but it's doing everything it can to hang onto a moribund existence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One addendum though. The choice to leave a union rests with the people in the nation that wants to leave, not all the people in the union of nations. If it's a UK wide vote to "allow" Scotland a choice, that's as daft as saying that every member nation of the EU should have voted on whether the UK could leave. Which is a situation incredibly similar to a spouse being held hostage against their will." It's really not. The UK is a Sovereign State. The EU is a political union. Huge legal and constitutional differences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One addendum though. The choice to leave a union rests with the people in the nation that wants to leave, not all the people in the union of nations. If it's a UK wide vote to "allow" Scotland a choice, that's as daft as saying that every member nation of the EU should have voted on whether the UK could leave. Which is a situation incredibly similar to a spouse being held hostage against their will. It's really not. The UK is a Sovereign State. The EU is a political union. Huge legal and constitutional differences." The difference is quite clearly illustrated by the fact that only UK Government can legally hold a referendum on Scottish independence, whereas Brussels had no say over UK referendum on leaving EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One addendum though. The choice to leave a union rests with the people in the nation that wants to leave, not all the people in the union of nations. If it's a UK wide vote to "allow" Scotland a choice, that's as daft as saying that every member nation of the EU should have voted on whether the UK could leave. Which is a situation incredibly similar to a spouse being held hostage against their will. It's really not. The UK is a Sovereign State. The EU is a political union. Huge legal and constitutional differences." We'll disagree on that one. The only argument that solidifies the UK as "one state, one nation" is one that dispenses with England, Wales, Scotland, and NI - to leave just "UK". I can't see that being a vote winner. The nations within a nation, as well as the primacy of Scots Law in many matters, leave a range of legal interpretations open and undecided. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One addendum though. The choice to leave a union rests with the people in the nation that wants to leave, not all the people in the union of nations. If it's a UK wide vote to "allow" Scotland a choice, that's as daft as saying that every member nation of the EU should have voted on whether the UK could leave. Which is a situation incredibly similar to a spouse being held hostage against their will. It's really not. The UK is a Sovereign State. The EU is a political union. Huge legal and constitutional differences. We'll disagree on that one. The only argument that solidifies the UK as "one state, one nation" is one that dispenses with England, Wales, Scotland, and NI - to leave just "UK". I can't see that being a vote winner. The nations within a nation, as well as the primacy of Scots Law in many matters, leave a range of legal interpretations open and undecided." The Supreme Court has ruled that Scotland could not hold a legally binding referendum. Unless it changes its mind that is settled law and not a matter of opinion. Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are not Sovereign States, that's just a question of fact and why your marriage analogy doesn't work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One addendum though. The choice to leave a union rests with the people in the nation that wants to leave, not all the people in the union of nations. If it's a UK wide vote to "allow" Scotland a choice, that's as daft as saying that every member nation of the EU should have voted on whether the UK could leave. Which is a situation incredibly similar to a spouse being held hostage against their will. It's really not. The UK is a Sovereign State. The EU is a political union. Huge legal and constitutional differences. The difference is quite clearly illustrated by the fact that only UK Government can legally hold a referendum on Scottish independence, whereas Brussels had no say over UK referendum on leaving EU. " A Section 30, as mentioned earlier, may not be the only recourse, because of issues in Scots Law and the original Articles Of Union in the early 1700s. Plus, if Indy desires are running at 55%+ for around a decade, it's a very bad look on the international stage, to the US, EU, UN, if Westminster is seen to be preventing a nation having a choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One addendum though. The choice to leave a union rests with the people in the nation that wants to leave, not all the people in the union of nations. If it's a UK wide vote to "allow" Scotland a choice, that's as daft as saying that every member nation of the EU should have voted on whether the UK could leave. Which is a situation incredibly similar to a spouse being held hostage against their will. It's really not. The UK is a Sovereign State. The EU is a political union. Huge legal and constitutional differences. We'll disagree on that one. The only argument that solidifies the UK as "one state, one nation" is one that dispenses with England, Wales, Scotland, and NI - to leave just "UK". I can't see that being a vote winner. The nations within a nation, as well as the primacy of Scots Law in many matters, leave a range of legal interpretations open and undecided. The Supreme Court has ruled that Scotland could not hold a legally binding referendum. Unless it changes its mind that is settled law and not a matter of opinion. Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are not Sovereign States, that's just a question of fact and why your marriage analogy doesn't work." Supreme Court - yes. Still unsettled though, particularly if desire for Indy is in the majority for enough years. The laws are more fluid than settled (particularly international law, but other, older Scots Laws can be brought in to challenge the Dec 2023 Supreme Court ruling). And you try telling a group of 5.8 million people, in a nation older than England, that they don't get to choose the independence they want. You won't get very far. If indeed they do want it, which is for more the purpose of this thread's enquiries than the detail around it. No one had worked out detail on the EU exit. It still happened. Because people (well, England and Wales) wanted it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You've pivoted to a completely different argument, which is also a straw man as the UK Govt obviously has held a referendum on Scottish independence, for Scottish residents only. There's no reason why that won't happen again in perhaps 20 to 30 years time, but what won't happen is an SNP led Scottish Parliament holding a new vote every five years until it gets a result it likes !" My post isn't about that. SNP have been declared irrelevant to this thread from the outset - but you do like to bring them in. It's about the feeling of if/when these things are happening. But an example illustrating "Law" cannot prevent independence is, of course, the US. The US War of Independence was, legally, an act of treason against "Britain". British and Colonial law outlawed such scenarios. However, the states involved "wanted it", organised, won, and a few decades later were recognised, legally, as a sovereign entity in their own right by "Britain". The law responds to reality, rather than determine it. This thread is about "how much do Scots want it, will they continue to want it, what effects do others foresee in the 2035, possibly to 2045 window, and, if you want to add anything about NI and UK, or what's left of UK, please do so". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Threads evolve OP and branch out, otherwise they are just monologues. One reason I don't post in the Lounge - too much ass kissing rather than debate. Your references to wars of independence have strayed into the absurd and I can't follow you there, so Happy Christmas to you and all ! " Happy Christmas to you and yours Leo. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? That's not the question. OP has stated whether good bad or anything in between is not the scenario. It's more to do with shifting attitudes and how Westminster and being united countries serve each of the individual nations in the modern day. For clarity I don't think it does. Each devolved nation has their own parliament and all need more powers given to them to manage the nuanced needs of their citizens. Scotland and Ireland are more socialist leaning countries and the Westminster parliament moving further to the right will only serve to disenfranchise these nations even more than they already are. Also read that support for independence is around 74% in under 30s... percentage and age is from memory as I can't be bothered to check. So to answer op question I do think a major political change is inevitable in the next 10 to 20 years. " You and the OP are missing the key point: taking the issue in isolation, as with Brexit, reduces it to a binary “stay or go” question, devoid of practical context. This kind of discussion is exactly what you want if you’re trying to push for independence, focusing only on the act itself. Nobody can truly answer the OP’s question; it’s speculative and lacks grounding. Attitudes may shift, but the real momentum for a referendum will come from the how and why, the tangible plans and compelling reasons that resonate with voters. Yes, there are people regrouping after the SNP’s fall, quietly strategising. What they need isn’t more nationalist rhetoric but a better strategist and a focus on practical, inclusive solutions that appeal beyond their core supporters. Without that, it’s all just talk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? That's not the question. OP has stated whether good bad or anything in between is not the scenario. It's more to do with shifting attitudes and how Westminster and being united countries serve each of the individual nations in the modern day. For clarity I don't think it does. Each devolved nation has their own parliament and all need more powers given to them to manage the nuanced needs of their citizens. Scotland and Ireland are more socialist leaning countries and the Westminster parliament moving further to the right will only serve to disenfranchise these nations even more than they already are. Also read that support for independence is around 74% in under 30s... percentage and age is from memory as I can't be bothered to check. So to answer op question I do think a major political change is inevitable in the next 10 to 20 years. You and the OP are missing the key point: taking the issue in isolation, as with Brexit, reduces it to a binary “stay or go” question, devoid of practical context. This kind of discussion is exactly what you want if you’re trying to push for independence, focusing only on the act itself. Nobody can truly answer the OP’s question; it’s speculative and lacks grounding. Attitudes may shift, but the real momentum for a referendum will come from the how and why, the tangible plans and compelling reasons that resonate with voters. Yes, there are people regrouping after the SNP’s fall, quietly strategising. What they need isn’t more nationalist rhetoric but a better strategist and a focus on practical, inclusive solutions that appeal beyond their core supporters. Without that, it’s all just talk." Sorry I think you are missing the point. The op was asking about shifting attitudes. Yes there are many nuances and details.... but. Before any of that it's the shift in attitude that garners any change. For that purpose there is no use trying to derail the thread into something you want it to be. Do you think different parts of the UK have different attitudes on how society functions. Please don't reply asking for minute details of specific aspects. The question is on a broad attitude of society | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? That's not the question. OP has stated whether good bad or anything in between is not the scenario. It's more to do with shifting attitudes and how Westminster and being united countries serve each of the individual nations in the modern day. For clarity I don't think it does. Each devolved nation has their own parliament and all need more powers given to them to manage the nuanced needs of their citizens. Scotland and Ireland are more socialist leaning countries and the Westminster parliament moving further to the right will only serve to disenfranchise these nations even more than they already are. Also read that support for independence is around 74% in under 30s... percentage and age is from memory as I can't be bothered to check. So to answer op question I do think a major political change is inevitable in the next 10 to 20 years. You and the OP are missing the key point: taking the issue in isolation, as with Brexit, reduces it to a binary “stay or go” question, devoid of practical context. This kind of discussion is exactly what you want if you’re trying to push for independence, focusing only on the act itself. Nobody can truly answer the OP’s question; it’s speculative and lacks grounding. Attitudes may shift, but the real momentum for a referendum will come from the how and why, the tangible plans and compelling reasons that resonate with voters. Yes, there are people regrouping after the SNP’s fall, quietly strategising. What they need isn’t more nationalist rhetoric but a better strategist and a focus on practical, inclusive solutions that appeal beyond their core supporters. Without that, it’s all just talk. Sorry I think you are missing the point. The op was asking about shifting attitudes. Yes there are many nuances and details.... but. Before any of that it's the shift in attitude that garners any change. For that purpose there is no use trying to derail the thread into something you want it to be. Do you think different parts of the UK have different attitudes on how society functions. Please don't reply asking for minute details of specific aspects. The question is on a broad attitude of society " I will leave you to your narrowband topic, but perhaps consider refraining from telling others what or how they can reply. This is a forum, not an echo chamber. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? That's not the question. OP has stated whether good bad or anything in between is not the scenario. It's more to do with shifting attitudes and how Westminster and being united countries serve each of the individual nations in the modern day. For clarity I don't think it does. Each devolved nation has their own parliament and all need more powers given to them to manage the nuanced needs of their citizens. Scotland and Ireland are more socialist leaning countries and the Westminster parliament moving further to the right will only serve to disenfranchise these nations even more than they already are. Also read that support for independence is around 74% in under 30s... percentage and age is from memory as I can't be bothered to check. So to answer op question I do think a major political change is inevitable in the next 10 to 20 years. You and the OP are missing the key point: taking the issue in isolation, as with Brexit, reduces it to a binary “stay or go” question, devoid of practical context. This kind of discussion is exactly what you want if you’re trying to push for independence, focusing only on the act itself. Nobody can truly answer the OP’s question; it’s speculative and lacks grounding. Attitudes may shift, but the real momentum for a referendum will come from the how and why, the tangible plans and compelling reasons that resonate with voters. Yes, there are people regrouping after the SNP’s fall, quietly strategising. What they need isn’t more nationalist rhetoric but a better strategist and a focus on practical, inclusive solutions that appeal beyond their core supporters. Without that, it’s all just talk. Sorry I think you are missing the point. The op was asking about shifting attitudes. Yes there are many nuances and details.... but. Before any of that it's the shift in attitude that garners any change. For that purpose there is no use trying to derail the thread into something you want it to be. Do you think different parts of the UK have different attitudes on how society functions. Please don't reply asking for minute details of specific aspects. The question is on a broad attitude of society I will leave you to your narrowband topic, but perhaps consider refraining from telling others what or how they can reply. This is a forum, not an echo chamber." Very odd thread ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? That's not the question. OP has stated whether good bad or anything in between is not the scenario. It's more to do with shifting attitudes and how Westminster and being united countries serve each of the individual nations in the modern day. For clarity I don't think it does. Each devolved nation has their own parliament and all need more powers given to them to manage the nuanced needs of their citizens. Scotland and Ireland are more socialist leaning countries and the Westminster parliament moving further to the right will only serve to disenfranchise these nations even more than they already are. Also read that support for independence is around 74% in under 30s... percentage and age is from memory as I can't be bothered to check. So to answer op question I do think a major political change is inevitable in the next 10 to 20 years. You and the OP are missing the key point: taking the issue in isolation, as with Brexit, reduces it to a binary “stay or go” question, devoid of practical context. This kind of discussion is exactly what you want if you’re trying to push for independence, focusing only on the act itself. Nobody can truly answer the OP’s question; it’s speculative and lacks grounding. Attitudes may shift, but the real momentum for a referendum will come from the how and why, the tangible plans and compelling reasons that resonate with voters. Yes, there are people regrouping after the SNP’s fall, quietly strategising. What they need isn’t more nationalist rhetoric but a better strategist and a focus on practical, inclusive solutions that appeal beyond their core supporters. Without that, it’s all just talk. Sorry I think you are missing the point. The op was asking about shifting attitudes. Yes there are many nuances and details.... but. Before any of that it's the shift in attitude that garners any change. For that purpose there is no use trying to derail the thread into something you want it to be. Do you think different parts of the UK have different attitudes on how society functions. Please don't reply asking for minute details of specific aspects. The question is on a broad attitude of society I will leave you to your narrowband topic, but perhaps consider refraining from telling others what or how they can reply. This is a forum, not an echo chamber. Very odd thread !" Isn’t it just! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? That's not the question. OP has stated whether good bad or anything in between is not the scenario. It's more to do with shifting attitudes and how Westminster and being united countries serve each of the individual nations in the modern day. For clarity I don't think it does. Each devolved nation has their own parliament and all need more powers given to them to manage the nuanced needs of their citizens. Scotland and Ireland are more socialist leaning countries and the Westminster parliament moving further to the right will only serve to disenfranchise these nations even more than they already are. Also read that support for independence is around 74% in under 30s... percentage and age is from memory as I can't be bothered to check. So to answer op question I do think a major political change is inevitable in the next 10 to 20 years. You and the OP are missing the key point: taking the issue in isolation, as with Brexit, reduces it to a binary “stay or go” question, devoid of practical context. This kind of discussion is exactly what you want if you’re trying to push for independence, focusing only on the act itself. Nobody can truly answer the OP’s question; it’s speculative and lacks grounding. Attitudes may shift, but the real momentum for a referendum will come from the how and why, the tangible plans and compelling reasons that resonate with voters. Yes, there are people regrouping after the SNP’s fall, quietly strategising. What they need isn’t more nationalist rhetoric but a better strategist and a focus on practical, inclusive solutions that appeal beyond their core supporters. Without that, it’s all just talk. Sorry I think you are missing the point. The op was asking about shifting attitudes. Yes there are many nuances and details.... but. Before any of that it's the shift in attitude that garners any change. For that purpose there is no use trying to derail the thread into something you want it to be. Do you think different parts of the UK have different attitudes on how society functions. Please don't reply asking for minute details of specific aspects. The question is on a broad attitude of society I will leave you to your narrowband topic, but perhaps consider refraining from telling others what or how they can reply. This is a forum, not an echo chamber. Very odd thread ! Isn’t it just! " What's that I hear in those last three sentences? Is it....an echo chamber 😱😱😱... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? That's not the question. OP has stated whether good bad or anything in between is not the scenario. It's more to do with shifting attitudes and how Westminster and being united countries serve each of the individual nations in the modern day. For clarity I don't think it does. Each devolved nation has their own parliament and all need more powers given to them to manage the nuanced needs of their citizens. Scotland and Ireland are more socialist leaning countries and the Westminster parliament moving further to the right will only serve to disenfranchise these nations even more than they already are. Also read that support for independence is around 74% in under 30s... percentage and age is from memory as I can't be bothered to check. So to answer op question I do think a major political change is inevitable in the next 10 to 20 years. You and the OP are missing the key point: taking the issue in isolation, as with Brexit, reduces it to a binary “stay or go” question, devoid of practical context. This kind of discussion is exactly what you want if you’re trying to push for independence, focusing only on the act itself. Nobody can truly answer the OP’s question; it’s speculative and lacks grounding. Attitudes may shift, but the real momentum for a referendum will come from the how and why, the tangible plans and compelling reasons that resonate with voters. Yes, there are people regrouping after the SNP’s fall, quietly strategising. What they need isn’t more nationalist rhetoric but a better strategist and a focus on practical, inclusive solutions that appeal beyond their core supporters. Without that, it’s all just talk. Sorry I think you are missing the point. The op was asking about shifting attitudes. Yes there are many nuances and details.... but. Before any of that it's the shift in attitude that garners any change. For that purpose there is no use trying to derail the thread into something you want it to be. Do you think different parts of the UK have different attitudes on how society functions. Please don't reply asking for minute details of specific aspects. The question is on a broad attitude of society I will leave you to your narrowband topic, but perhaps consider refraining from telling others what or how they can reply. This is a forum, not an echo chamber. Very odd thread ! Isn’t it just! What's that I hear in those last three sentences? Is it....an echo chamber 😱😱😱..." It is agreement, rather than only allowing one point of view to exist. That’s the difference between them.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With some interesting data coming out from The Times/Norstat/Believe in Scotland polls, what do you think of the following (well, it follows soon...promise ).
Ignore whether the SNP are angels or blood-sucking demons, ignore whether Scottish Independence would destroy Scotland, leaving Scots to only eat wild heather and the occasional Wild Haggis, or whether it will be so phenomenally good for Scotland that they win the World Cup and become the economic centre of the known multiverse.
In other words, ignore as much of your own splenetic prejudice as you find possible in this dark midwinter.
The surveys say the following:
54% pro Indy
59% pro Indy as a Republic (ie, monarchy abolished. No need to cut off heads though. It spoils the quality of the water)
66% pro Indy with a shift from market/Londocentric economics to Wellbeing Economy (similar to Nordic models).
What do you think will happen by, for example, 2035?
What will the general "UK" concept look like by 2035 (NI and Scotland are consequentially linked, and this in turn affects Wales. It also affects England in terms of its identity as the, hitherto, major partner of 4).
Background - I'm a 57 year old English Republican, pro-Scottish Indy, not particularly keen on chopping anyone's head off but reality can get messy if it needs to. I don't think any of this needs to go that far. It would be a shame if it did.
So, in the least splenetic way possible, and looking at the influence of PEOPLE'S DESIRES to stimulate change rather than the entrenched power systems (political structures, economic hegemonies etc)...
What are your thoughts on the issue that won't go away, with the figures above?
Scottish Independence.
Intelligent comments on NI, and the "shape" of England and Wales in the quite near future, also invited.
Cheers,
Nick
Poll data available here:
https://bit.ly/4j0yC1I
(https:// bit.ly/4j0yC1I)
"OP, I write this on a visit to Scotland - sticking with your premise, my feeling is that the poll is wildly wrong and has not captured the real opinion of the people here. Independence is just not being discussed and on the rare occasions it is mentioned, it’s to say it is a dodo issue. Equally, there is no sense of any widespread support for republicanism, the most common opinion I have encountered is that the king is doing a good job. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With some interesting data coming out from The Times/Norstat/Believe in Scotland polls, what do you think of the following (well, it follows soon...promise ).
Ignore whether the SNP are angels or blood-sucking demons, ignore whether Scottish Independence would destroy Scotland, leaving Scots to only eat wild heather and the occasional Wild Haggis, or whether it will be so phenomenally good for Scotland that they win the World Cup and become the economic centre of the known multiverse.
In other words, ignore as much of your own splenetic prejudice as you find possible in this dark midwinter.
The surveys say the following:
54% pro Indy
59% pro Indy as a Republic (ie, monarchy abolished. No need to cut off heads though. It spoils the quality of the water)
66% pro Indy with a shift from market/Londocentric economics to Wellbeing Economy (similar to Nordic models).
What do you think will happen by, for example, 2035?
What will the general "UK" concept look like by 2035 (NI and Scotland are consequentially linked, and this in turn affects Wales. It also affects England in terms of its identity as the, hitherto, major partner of 4).
Background - I'm a 57 year old English Republican, pro-Scottish Indy, not particularly keen on chopping anyone's head off but reality can get messy if it needs to. I don't think any of this needs to go that far. It would be a shame if it did.
So, in the least splenetic way possible, and looking at the influence of PEOPLE'S DESIRES to stimulate change rather than the entrenched power systems (political structures, economic hegemonies etc)...
What are your thoughts on the issue that won't go away, with the figures above?
Scottish Independence.
Intelligent comments on NI, and the "shape" of England and Wales in the quite near future, also invited.
Cheers,
Nick
Poll data available here:
https://bit.ly/4j0yC1I
(https:// bit.ly/4j0yC1I)
Equally, there is no sense of any widespread support for republicanism, the most common opinion I have encountered is that the king is doing a good job.
"Having lived in Scotland for 40 years I tend to find that only Rangers fans and some people who live in Aberdeenshire give a toss about the King. Most couldn't care less about the Royal family and view it as an English thing... Particularly a South Eastern English thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? That's not the question. OP has stated whether good bad or anything in between is not the scenario. It's more to do with shifting attitudes and how Westminster and being united countries serve each of the individual nations in the modern day. For clarity I don't think it does. Each devolved nation has their own parliament and all need more powers given to them to manage the nuanced needs of their citizens. Scotland and Ireland are more socialist leaning countries and the Westminster parliament moving further to the right will only serve to disenfranchise these nations even more than they already are. Also read that support for independence is around 74% in under 30s... percentage and age is from memory as I can't be bothered to check. So to answer op question I do think a major political change is inevitable in the next 10 to 20 years. You and the OP are missing the key point: taking the issue in isolation, as with Brexit, reduces it to a binary “stay or go” question, devoid of practical context. This kind of discussion is exactly what you want if you’re trying to push for independence, focusing only on the act itself. Nobody can truly answer the OP’s question; it’s speculative and lacks grounding. Attitudes may shift, but the real momentum for a referendum will come from the how and why, the tangible plans and compelling reasons that resonate with voters. Yes, there are people regrouping after the SNP’s fall, quietly strategising. What they need isn’t more nationalist rhetoric but a better strategist and a focus on practical, inclusive solutions that appeal beyond their core supporters. Without that, it’s all just talk. Sorry I think you are missing the point. The op was asking about shifting attitudes. Yes there are many nuances and details.... but. Before any of that it's the shift in attitude that garners any change. For that purpose there is no use trying to derail the thread into something you want it to be. Do you think different parts of the UK have different attitudes on how society functions. Please don't reply asking for minute details of specific aspects. The question is on a broad attitude of society I will leave you to your narrowband topic, but perhaps consider refraining from telling others what or how they can reply. This is a forum, not an echo chamber." Hardly narrowband when I asked you about societal shifts and political ideals. Regardless of party or the issue of independence. Again. Do you see differing societal shifts and/or political ideals in different countries that make up the UK. Do you think this could cause political shifts to more power being sought/given to individual countries to better suit the needs/ideals of their residents. It shouldn't be this difficult to get a straight answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? That's not the question. OP has stated whether good bad or anything in between is not the scenario. It's more to do with shifting attitudes and how Westminster and being united countries serve each of the individual nations in the modern day. For clarity I don't think it does. Each devolved nation has their own parliament and all need more powers given to them to manage the nuanced needs of their citizens. Scotland and Ireland are more socialist leaning countries and the Westminster parliament moving further to the right will only serve to disenfranchise these nations even more than they already are. Also read that support for independence is around 74% in under 30s... percentage and age is from memory as I can't be bothered to check. So to answer op question I do think a major political change is inevitable in the next 10 to 20 years. You and the OP are missing the key point: taking the issue in isolation, as with Brexit, reduces it to a binary “stay or go” question, devoid of practical context. This kind of discussion is exactly what you want if you’re trying to push for independence, focusing only on the act itself. Nobody can truly answer the OP’s question; it’s speculative and lacks grounding. Attitudes may shift, but the real momentum for a referendum will come from the how and why, the tangible plans and compelling reasons that resonate with voters. Yes, there are people regrouping after the SNP’s fall, quietly strategising. What they need isn’t more nationalist rhetoric but a better strategist and a focus on practical, inclusive solutions that appeal beyond their core supporters. Without that, it’s all just talk. Sorry I think you are missing the point. The op was asking about shifting attitudes. Yes there are many nuances and details.... but. Before any of that it's the shift in attitude that garners any change. For that purpose there is no use trying to derail the thread into something you want it to be. Do you think different parts of the UK have different attitudes on how society functions. Please don't reply asking for minute details of specific aspects. The question is on a broad attitude of society I will leave you to your narrowband topic, but perhaps consider refraining from telling others what or how they can reply. This is a forum, not an echo chamber. Hardly narrowband when I asked you about societal shifts and political ideals. Regardless of party or the issue of independence. Again. Do you see differing societal shifts and/or political ideals in different countries that make up the UK. Do you think this could cause political shifts to more power being sought/given to individual countries to better suit the needs/ideals of their residents. It shouldn't be this difficult to get a straight answer " I like your style. You've recognised the points of the original post, and you're keeping it on topic. Did you see the piece about "if Farage were UK PM, Scottish Indy support shoots up to 60%". England's going one way (or lamely pretending to resist...but not a "chunky" resistance to the growth of the right. If Starmer is the best resistance England can manage to the rise of the right, it's risible), Scotland's going another. End result should this carry on = end of UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice?" It wouldn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? For the purposes of this thread, assume anywhere on a spectrum from disastrously to the wealthiest country on the planet. It's not the point of the thread, and you can spend as many hours as you want elsewhere looking at the extremes of opinion on the matter. As an example, whether the EU exit was beneficial or harmful is irrelevant - people wanted it, it happened. Using that example, that thorny question of Indy Scotland (which has and receives energy to and from the NI question as well) isn't going away. And it isn't about parties - it's people, and how they feel. So, for this thread, how it works, if it works, whether it's great or terrible isn't important. What's important is the ongoing pressure on the topic. How it works absolutely matters, without understanding the practicalities, people’s views are shaped purely by emotion and probably the reason you want to concentrate on the ongoing pressure, it is subjective. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"14 October 1066 was the most disastrous day in the history of mankind. We (not only in these islands, but many countries throughout the world) are living with the horrific consequences to this day." Explain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would an independent Scotland work in practice? It wouldn't. Why not? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Independence all the way. Why should a country not aspire to run its own affairs? Scotland must be seen as the only small but resourceful country in the world that somehow can't run itself? Weird that!! " Not weird at all. ALL successful small countries are business friendly tax havens. The vision of an independent Scotland that is being offered is a socialist nirvana where the economically active stick around to be punitively taxed. The reality will be capital flight and brain drain. As I said, on my recent trip back, people have other priorities and independence just isn’t being discussed in the way it was 10 years ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Independence all the way. Why should a country not aspire to run its own affairs? Scotland must be seen as the only small but resourceful country in the world that somehow can't run itself? Weird that!! Not weird at all. ALL successful small countries are business friendly tax havens. The vision of an independent Scotland that is being offered is a socialist nirvana where the economically active stick around to be punitively taxed. The reality will be capital flight and brain drain. As I said, on my recent trip back, people have other priorities and independence just isn’t being discussed in the way it was 10 years ago. " Why would your vision of what an independent Scotland would look like be correct.... You don't know who would be in government in an independent Scotland. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Independence all the way. Why should a country not aspire to run its own affairs? Scotland must be seen as the only small but resourceful country in the world that somehow can't run itself? Weird that!! Not weird at all. ALL successful small countries are business friendly tax havens. The vision of an independent Scotland that is being offered is a socialist nirvana where the economically active stick around to be punitively taxed. The reality will be capital flight and brain drain. As I said, on my recent trip back, people have other priorities and independence just isn’t being discussed in the way it was 10 years ago. Why would your vision of what an independent Scotland would look like be correct.... You don't know who would be in government in an independent Scotland. " I think that's a particularly apt comment, partly because an Indy Scotland is highly unlikely to ditch PR. It would take a few years to settle; 5-10? The SNP would need to alter its identity, as the S and the N are, in many ways but not all, achieved with Indy. But Con, Lab, and LibDem are very "old" Anglo-British identities so they would undergo an enormous identity crisis. Labour perhaps less because so much of Labour's identity over the last hundred or so years has had a very Scottish feel to it. But it wouldn't be the Westminster puppet it is today, even assuming the Labour "brand" has got staying power post-Indy. I think it will, but by becoming its very own Scottish brand. Plus, PR allows new blood and ideas a slightly faster-tracked entry into the mainstream that FPTP excludes. Ergo, the political potency of Scottish Greens v Westminster Greens. You'll have fairly rapid change towards a more representative democracy, with some hairy moments, but they'll be necessary and relatively speedy. Scotland will likely settle quicker than England - we'll be taking on the larger part of "British" identities purely through our population being 10 times larger, and therefore having unconsciously associated England with Britain for so long. Plus the FPTP system housed in a very Londocentric set of institutions won't give up without a long and ugly fight. Fifteen years + of England finding its new place? I don't think it'll stretch to thirty. I find the psychology of all this really interesting - you'll be more prepared for change, we'll be more shocked by it. It would actually take a Farage-like "wrecking ball" to accelerate England's changes, but if it's Farage (or someone similar) I think that would leave too many economic questions unanswered - we would see you democratising more and spreading wealth more fairly, whereas our right-wing would focus a fast change towards existing business institutions, which mostly leaves the (lower) middle-classes and working classes further behind. Pressure's building again though - Starmer doesn't have a strong hand, the Tories are still pretty mental, Farage knows how to build a base, and the London media likes the status quo too much. All of which my Scottish friends, well-organised around Indy, know very well and will exploit given opportunities over the coming months and years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
