British Politics Guide

[chris_notts]

It's possible to hate Uri Geller because he's a self-important fraudulent spoon-bending idiot without being an antisemite.

It is unfortunate that disliking people who happen to be Jewish, rather than because they are Jewish, has come to be seen as anti-Semitism.

There definitely is a line, though; calling Jews in general "brutes" just because there happen to be some individuals who are supposedly Jewish who are allegedly aggressive in trying to buy people's homes definitely counts as anti-Semitism.

I'm a bit confused by the second bit. Is Jewish people aggressively trying to buy houses even a stereotype?

[Travis B.]

I'm a bit confused by the second bit. Is Jewish people aggressively trying to buy houses even a stereotype?

I am referring to this, which came out shortly after the mass shooting at a kosher grocery store in the same city.

[chris_notts]

I'm a bit confused by the second bit. Is Jewish people aggressively trying to buy houses even a stereotype?

I am referring to this, which came out shortly after the mass shooting at a kosher grocery store in the same city.

I can't get past the paywall, but the URL suggests US politics. I guess I'm on the wrong side of the pond.

[Travis B.]

I can't get past the paywall, but the URL suggests US politics. I guess I'm on the wrong side of the pond.

Okay, this should not be paywalled.

[chris_notts]

I can't get past the paywall, but the URL suggests US politics. I guess I'm on the wrong side of the pond.

Okay, this should not be paywalled.

Well, that woman clearly has some issues.

[MacAnDàil]

@chris_notts:
1) As mentioned earlier in thread, Estonia held a referendum on EU accession in 2003 and joined in 2004. And that's with a country that was never already part of a member state. So it's certianly possible. And 2/5 of the European Union have not joined the euro.

2) In a certain sense, Spain didn't crush the Catalan independence movement as it's alive and kicking. Sure, the former government attacked people going to vote in supposed democracy and later the courts jailed some organisers but that didn't end anything. Quite to the contrary. The current government will likely be PSOE and UP and one of the conditions of UP was that there was a settlement of the Catalan situation.

As for antisemitism, the antisemitism in Labour was clearly overblown by the Murdoch media as Corbyn has never been quoted saying anything antisemitic, unlike Johnson.

[chris_notts]

https://elik.nlib.ee/en/estonia-and-the ... to-the-eu/

March 31, 1998 – Estonia-EU Accession Conference was opened (also with the 5 other candidate countries).
December 13, 2002 – Successful conclusion of the accession negotiations at the Copenhagen Summit.
April 16, 2003 – Signing of the Accession Treaty.
September 14, 2003 – Referendum in Estonia on accession to the European Union.
May 1, 2004 – Estonia (and the other 9 acceding countries) will become full-fledged members of the EU after the ratification procedure.

Seems like negotiations before the referendum took a little while? I could be wrong but I think you're both selective quoting only part of a prolonged negotiation timetable. Based on the data above I make it at least 1.5 years from conclusion of negotiations to membership, and if we count from the first formal discussions it was more like 6 years.

As for joining the Euro, most haven't yet done it, but most are theoretically obliged by treaty to work towards it, apart from a couple of countries with formal permanent opt-outs.

[chris_notts]

I'm amazed actually at the parallels between the Scottish independence supporters and Brexit supporters. They disagree on the EU, of course, but both groups claim that a massive rearrangement in markets and external relations should be quick and easy, and anyone saying otherwise is an evil citizen of nowhere / evil English person / fifth columnist. I don't think it's impossible for an independent Scotland to eventually be successful, but it'll be anything but easy and it'll take years to iron out all the initial problems.

[MacAnDàil]

OK so I didn't realise that there was the earlier negotiations.

That's clearly not what I'm not saying. For one, I'm not accusing anybody of being anything. I'm just putting an argument forward in favour of my case. Also, it's somewhat relative: things can be more or less easy, not just a polar extreme of 'easy' or 'hard'. It also depends on the process. As far as I can tell, the most peaceful process, of a successful referendum, organised with the UK, would be recognised within days and have organisational membership sorted in less than a decade.

Anyway, before the 2014 referendum, many details were planned as to what would happen, unlike with Brexit, where the red lines were defined afterwards.

[chris_notts]

Sorry if what I said before came across as a bit harsh or accusatory. After three years of Brexit, I guess I'm just getting a bit cranky in general with splittism of all forms.

As I said, I don't doubt that eventually Scotland could be reasonably success as an independent country, and speaking as an English person I'd accept Scotland leaving, but I think it would be a mistake overall, partly for the same reasons that the UK leaving the EU would be a mistake. Here's a few thoughts:

Firstly, the road out will be bumpy. Ironically, the UK government will turn on Scotland many of the arguments that were used against the UK in the withdrawal negotiations, that you can't pick and choose. Given that the UK's entire reason for keeping the pound is to retain alignment of fiscal and monetary policy, you can't simultaneous decide to be outside of the UK's fiscal framework and have a say on its monetary policy (i.e. a seat at the bank of England), you can't choose to diverge from UK economic law with no consequences for trade, and so on. That last one will be particularly bad, by the way, because given the direction of travel of the UK, with the new government firmly determined to be outside both the Single Market and the Customs Union, and Scotland likely wanting to be a member of both, at some point Scotland will have to impose a hard economic border with the rest of the UK if the UK government doesn't do it first. This will make the likely economic downturn if the UK has a hard EU exit at the end of 2020 worse for Scotland, much worse. Scotland has fewer people than London, and can you imagine the economic consequences for London if a hard border were rapidly established between it and the rest of the UK? Between that and the lack of any fiscal transfers from the rest of the UK to counterbalance the downturn (due to independence), you can probably expect a very hard, severe austerity-inducing mid-term recession in Scotland. But eventually, all of these problems will be solved and Scotland will recover, it just might take 10 - 15 years for the entire mess to be fully sorted, assuming that even after EU entry there is lost ground to recover and lost (UK) demand to replace.

Now, the broader argument. From my point of view, there are advantages to both scale and localism. The advantages of scale are both internal and external: internally, scale brings stability because you have greater internal diversity which, by the law of large numbers, limits at least a bit the average impact economic swings and enable fiscal transfers, and also provides a barrier-free outlet if one region does badly because people can move freely. Externally, a large block has greater power to influence the rest of the world. The advantages of localism are both cultural (e.g. people are happier to help people "like them" than "others") and the customisation of regulation to specific local circumstances.

The crucial question here is which delivers a better compromise, a Scotland with high levels of devolution in the UK, or an independent Scotland in the EU? And for me, the EU is still a severely defective substitute for being part of a medium sized nation state. Its most important architectural defects basically relate to the lack of fiscal transfers and unity:

1. fiscal transfers far too small to fix local difficulties (fiscal transfers inside the UK are much, much bigger than the tiny percentage of EU GDP recycled through EU institutions), which is why for years southern Europe has been struggling - the north runs a permanent surplus and there is no government mechanism to recycle this internally and balance the books apart from economic depression

2. worse, the entire architecture is frozen in a web of treaties that are too hard to modify, and change is resisted by the winners (e.g. Germany)

3. Where there is dynamic central decision making (e.g. at the ECB, which has been trying on and off to compensate for the lack of fiscal transfers), consensus and an unwillingness to rock the boat consistently mean that problems are not fixed

4. Given the lack of relief via fiscal transfers, movement of people becomes even more important, but it is harder than in other unified polities (like the US) due to much greater language, cultural, and legal barriers. EU freedom of movement is very important due to its lack of fiscal transfer capabilities, but it can never be as good as e.g. US freedom of movement in the current set-up.

That is, the core problem of the EU is precisely that it lacks a federal structure, a unified treasury, and sufficient shared culture/language. Given that the EU is unlikely to ever want to become culturally and linguistically homogeneous, it needs to become a much stronger federal structure to offer a better alternative to being part of a larger nation state, but that way forward is blocked because the most powerful countries will never agree to it.

Where does the EU do better than the UK? Undoubtedly, the EU will be a larger economic power than a UK outside the EU, so Scotland will probably get better access to trade deals than it would if it remained part of the UK. And although the EU isn't really a military power, it's working on military integration slowly, so to the extent that that matters a future EU might well be a greater military power than the UK as well. But being part of "better" trade deals means being more globalised, which if anything makes economic volatility experienced by a relatively small nation greater. So the EU wins on external factors, but it's too weak when it comes to internal benefits (which to me are more important) to substitute for UK membership. And if it evolved into something that provided those benefits, it would impinge on Scotland's ability to determine its own fate just as much as being a highly devolved part of the UK would.

Finally, there's the greater philosophical issue about right to determination. I have to admit I have very ambiguous feelings about this. It sounds great and reasonable: everybody should have the right to determine their own fate. But who is everybody? Firstly, if 51% of Scots vote to leave, they are inflicting that fate on the 49% who disagree (much as Brexit is being inflicted on a Scotland where a majority didn't want it). And would Scotland extend the same right to self determination to the Hebrides, for example, if they decided they really didn't like the government down in Edinburgh? Why does one particular historical line between England and Scotland give a right to self determination, to the exclusion of other lines you could draw?

One of the primary duties of a government is provide stability to its citizens within reason. If my citizenship can mean something different tomorrow to today, if I can no longer go and live south of the border anymore because someone else fancied having a different flag, is that fair? And once splittism becomes the rule, solidarity goes out the window. Why should England do fiscal transfers to Wales if Wales might leave at any moment, leaving England with the debts? And for that matter, the current distribution of wealth is a factor of the current system. Much of the resentment in Catalonia, for example, is because it's wealthy and resents giving money to less wealthy parts of Spain, but it is wealthy in the context of the Spanish system, just like the brain is intelligent in the context of a functioning body to supply it with blood. The fact that flows may be invisible in a complex, chaotic system doesn't mean that they don't exist or that they should be cut, or that the body deserves what it gets if the head decides to chop itself off.

And if we Europeans with our modern, multicultural views, spend all our time being splittists, the Chinas, Russias, and USes of the world will rub their hands in glee and take advantage of the fact that there are suddenly not a few large countries but 100 little powerless ones that spend all their time squabbling about identity politics. Just like marriage, there is a lot of benefit that goes with a permanent for richer, for poorer approach.

But what this boils down to is: I think that in pure economic terms Scotland would probably suffer in the mid-term and do OK in the long term, but that the perceived benefits of independence probably don't justify the costs. And in cultural and philosophical terms I understand the appeal of the right to self determination, but I also feel like there are great problems with it and that its application does massive damage to both the leavers and the remainers.

[chris_notts]

Sorry, I started writing and somehow wrote a small essay.

[Vardelm]

Sorry, I started writing and somehow wrote a small essay.

Well, somebody has to pick up where Sal left off.

[zompist]

I think all of Chris's points are good. But also incomplete; there is still a case to be made for Scottish independence.

On a general level: leaving a polity is often a good thing and works out well! The last two centuries are filled with literally hundreds of examples! I don't think you'd want to argue that the British Empire should have been preserved. Often mere nationalism is the motivation, and I'm not too fond of nationalism; but large states tend to focus rewards and benefits only in certain regions and ignore the rest. Plus, there are advantages to being small! Big federal entities, even democratic ones, are hard to move and change. Small nations can be more nimble, and in Europe at least, more progressive.

It's hard to blame Scotland for feeling ill served by British politics. The Conservatives haven't won a majority of Scottish Parliamentary seats since 1955, two generations ago. Scotland strongly rejected Brexit and Boris Johnson, and yet it's got them. When you want to keep a restive region within your union, you basically have to compromise. The Tories have no interest in doing so.

It's true that independence would likely cause economic problems. But so will Brexit! Scotland doesn't have a "no economic problems" route available to it. And who would you rather have leading through those problems, Boris or Nicola Sturgeon?

I'd also say that the SNP is not exactly "splittist"; its position is simultaneously pro-independence and pro-Europe. It would be harder to sympathize with if it were made of "little Scotlanders" who hated non-Scots. But in fact they welcome non-Scots and are eager to stay in (/rejoin) the EU. If it works out, being another English-speaking nation within the EU, alongside Ireland, could be quite a valuable niche.

It'll be interesting to see what they do about money, though. Keeping the pound would make much less sense post-Brexit. But apparently Scots want to keep it as long as possible.

On the other hand, you leave out what might be the best argument against independence: that it might doom England to a generation of austerity and right-wing tomfoolery.

[chris_notts]

I think all of Chris's points are good. But also incomplete; there is still a case to be made for Scottish independence.

On a general level: leaving a polity is often a good thing and works out well! The last two centuries are filled with literally hundreds of examples! I don't think you'd want to argue that the British Empire should have been preserved. Often mere nationalism is the motivation, and I'm not too fond of nationalism; but large states tend to focus rewards and benefits only in certain regions and ignore the rest. Plus, there are advantages to being small! Big federal entities, even democratic ones, are hard to move and change. Small nations can be more nimble, and in Europe at least, more progressive.

The difference is that the British empire was oppressive. Yes, of course, if there are tanks in the streets and people being shoved into concentration camps then the benefits of freeing people from oppression massively outweigh the disadvantages of splitting up a polity. But it's not obvious that a "devo-max" Scotland would be being oppressed: Scots are not treated any differently to other UK citizens and they already vote for a government with significant tax raising and policy setting powers that could be further expanded. I completely understand the desire for more local decision making, but I don't see that in the case of Scotland that justifies tearing up the entire current constitutional arrangement.

It's hard to blame Scotland for feeling ill served by British politics. The Conservatives haven't won a majority of Scottish Parliamentary seats since 1955, two generations ago. Scotland strongly rejected Brexit and Boris Johnson, and yet it's got them. When you want to keep a restive region within your union, you basically have to compromise. The Tories have no interest in doing so.

True that the Conservatives have not really done much for Scotland, but Labour did. As I said, Scotland already has significant devolution, and that could be pushed further. I don't argue against shifting the balance, just a complete break.

It's true that independence would likely cause economic problems. But so will Brexit! Scotland doesn't have a "no economic problems" route available to it. And who would you rather have leading through those problems, Boris or Nicola Sturgeon?

Firstly, regardless of leader, there are structural reasons why things will be difficult. And the disadvantages to all of splintering will be permanent and outlive both Nicola and the mop-headed idiot.

I'd also say that the SNP is not exactly "splittist"; its position is simultaneously pro-independence and pro-Europe. It would be harder to sympathize with if it were made of "little Scotlanders" who hated non-Scots. But in fact they welcome non-Scots and are eager to stay in (/rejoin) the EU. If it works out, being another English-speaking nation within the EU, alongside Ireland, could be quite a valuable niche.

I think you're not very in touch with Scottish nationalist opinion. The official policy of the SNP is very civic and inclusive, but if you talk to SNP supporters all you hear is how the evil English are doing nasty things to Scotland. My experience as an English-person of the core base of the SNP is racist "little Scotsmen" in a strange mirror image of the little Englanders who really wanted Brexit. It doesn't matter that I'm probably more aligned politically with Scotland than many English people, being firmly left of centre, the fact I'm English makes me the enemy regardless of any other political opinions I might hold. The whole "we're civic nationalists" thing is a politically correct veneer for the most part.

On top of that, as I tried to argue above, joining the EU is nowhere near the same as being an integrated part of a larger nation-state. The dream of many regional independence movements is for the EU to replace the nation state, but I don't see how it can do so without becoming more like a nation-state itself, in which case independence would be lost again.

On the other hand, you leave out what might be the best argument against independence: that it might doom England to a generation of austerity and right-wing tomfoolery.

Of course, it's true that without Scotland the Labour party would probably have to shift right to stand a chance of forming a government, at least in terms of social policy. Polls consistently show high support for many Labour economic preferences like greater regulation and nationalisation, but there's a strong aversion to some Labour social views, e.g. on crime and punishment.

[chris_notts]

The funny thing about the Scottish independence question is that, at least in my part of England, support for Scottish independence is probably higher than in many parts of Scotland. And that's not for any principled political reason, it's just that people hate being blamed constantly. The attitude of many people I know is something along the lines of we don't really want the UK to break up, but if it means we don't have to hear Nicola Sturgeon and Scotland blaming England for everything anymore it might be a price worth paying. If it's part of a cunning plan on Nicola's part to get UK-wide support for a Scottish referendum, she's doing a pretty good job. It's just sad, though, that in reciprocating Scottish bitterness we're setting ourselves up for a future break to be as bad as possible, rather than as pragmatic as possible.

[Richard W]

I'd also say that the SNP is not exactly "splittist"; its position is simultaneously pro-independence and pro-Europe. It would be harder to sympathize with if it were made of "little Scotlanders" who hated non-Scots. But in fact they welcome non-Scots and are eager to stay in (/rejoin) the EU. If it works out, being another English-speaking nation within the EU, alongside Ireland, could be quite a valuable niche.

I think you're not very in touch with Scottish nationalist opinion. The official policy of the SNP is very civic and inclusive, but if you talk to SNP supporters all you hear is how the evil English are doing nasty things to Scotland. My experience as an English-person of the core base of the SNP is racist "little Scotsmen" in a strange mirror image of the little Englanders who really wanted Brexit. It doesn't matter that I'm probably more aligned politically with Scotland than many English people, being firmly left of centre, the fact I'm English makes me the enemy regardless of any other political opinions I might hold. The whole "we're civic nationalists" thing is a politically correct veneer for the most part.

I must say that I took Zompist's 'non-Scots' to exclude Englishmen. There's certainly traditional hostility to Sassenachs, which I don't think is a term of affection. England is the 'Auld Enemy' of Scotland, though I must note that Scotland is usually safe for Englishmen.

[Richard W]

The attitude of many people I know is something along the lines of we don't really want the UK to break up, but if it means we don't have to hear Nicola Sturgeon and Scotland blaming England for everything anymore it might be a price worth paying. If it's part of a cunning plan on Nicola's part to get UK-wide support for a Scottish referendum, she's doing a pretty good job.

I think the turning of English opinion towards favouring Scottish independence happened during the independence referendum. I have to remind myself that it's easier to defend Scotland against England's enemies if we're part of the same country. The English defence industry would have fun excluding Scots - international collaboration may even result in dual English-Scottish nationals being excluded, even if the MoD takes a tolerant approach.

[chris_notts]

I think the turning of English opinion towards favouring Scottish independence happened during the independence referendum. I have to remind myself that it's easier to defend Scotland against England's enemies if we're part of the same country. The English defence industry would have fun excluding Scots - international collaboration may even result in dual English-Scottish nationals being excluded, even if the MoD takes a tolerant approach.

I do also keep wondering: if Scotland gains independence and makes it harder for rich English people to visit, who's going to shoot all the wildlife? If there's one thing Scotland desperately needs, more than independence from the UK, it's further land reform so that vast swathes of its landscape are used for something better than permitting a few rich idiots to shoot grouse.

[chris_notts]

I think the turning of English opinion towards favouring Scottish independence happened during the independence referendum. I have to remind myself that it's easier to defend Scotland against England's enemies if we're part of the same country. The English defence industry would have fun excluding Scots - international collaboration may even result in dual English-Scottish nationals being excluded, even if the MoD takes a tolerant approach.

Another long-term issue from the other side is the defence of the residual UK from Scotland as a backdoor. There's a reason that Scotland and England ended up uniting, and it's that there isn't really a good enough natural barrier between the two of them. The only stable outcome was for one of the three countries of Scotland, England and Wales to conquer the other two, and England had the biggest population of the three. If Scotland is independent then the defence of the whole island of Great Britain is still crucial for the defence of the UK, but it becomes more complicated because a big swathe of it is foreign territory. And I can't imagine building a big military machine being an SNP priority, but I also can't imagine them being keen to remain tied to the UK military given past hostility to things like the nuclear deterrent. This is another area where being pragmatic would be useful, but seems unlikely in the event of a split.

[MacAnDàil]

There are some detailed arguments here, with some pause for thought. Obviously, the one I agreed with the most (Zompist’s «It's true that independence would likely cause economic problems. But so will Brexit! Scotland doesn't have a "no economic problems" route available to it. And who would you rather have leading through those problems, Boris or Nicola Sturgeon?») is the one I already agreed with.

It’s one thing to use the pound and another to be at the Bank of England. In any case, my preferred scenario was always a separate currency and this is becoming more popular these days.

For me, the customisation of regulation to specific local circumstances is a big thing. A larger block can have greater power as a whole to influence the rest of the world, but each of the individual parts have less ower.

fiscal transfers inside the UK are much, much bigger than the tiny percentage of EU GDP recycled through EU institutions

I am sceptical about this claim. Southern Europe might be struggling compared to Northern Europe, but this is no less true than the divides within the UK, especially between the extremes of London and the Southeast on the one hand and Wales and Northern Ireland on the other.

While the EU certainly has its faults, it is still preferable to the extreme domination of England over its neighbours that is the UK, in pure numeric terms if nothing else. Germany’s domination of the EU is nothing compared to that.

the core problem of the EU is precisely that it lacks a federal structure, a unified treasury, and sufficient shared culture/language

I disagree completely. This would make it even worse. The EU is accepted by the vast majority in all but one member state because of the non-unified structure. People are glad to get the closest they can to having their cake and eating it.

I find the principles of self-determination, localism and independence are much more important than any specific polity. So I would hypothetically be glad for any part of Scotland, as any other country, to become independent.

The land border is not really an issue in the case of Scotland because the England-Scotland border has stayed the same for a few centuries now. The only border issue could be the maritime one, which was shifted upwards to give England more of the North Sea in 1999.

No, the issues in Catalonia, contrary to the frequent misconceptions, do not involve resentment of wealth transfer, at least not primarily. Catalonia has declared independence 5 times in more than 3 centuries. And every moment the independence movement becomes more important is a moment of constitutional or legal importance, not economic importance. That’s not people looking to be stingy.
It’s not some recent gripe. Catalonian independence movements are older than Spain itself. And the main reason Catalonia is not already independent is because of aggression. If that’s the way you need to keep your wife, you don’t deserve to be married.

The Chinas, Russias and USs of this world should get busy governing things more locally themselves. It did Europe the power of good in the Early Modern era when it was rising.

In the long term, I think we’ll do OK economically but that is not priority for me. It’s the values of freedom, equality, diversity, localism and independence.

On the other hand, you leave out what might be the best argument against independence: that it might doom England to a generation of austerity and right-wing tomfoolery.

We rarely change the result of which government is in place in Westminster (2010 meant they had to partner with the LibDems, but that’s rare), so, if they are getting the tomfoolery, they would get it anyway.

if you talk to SNP supporters all you hear is how the evil English are doing nasty things to Scotland. My experience as an English-person of the core base of the SNP is racist "little Scotsmen" in a strange mirror image of the little Englanders who really wanted Brexit.

I’m not sure who you’re talking to. I don’t deny that such people exist, but they have done for centuries since the wars of independence. I actually get the impression that Scots are less anti-English than in the 1970s.

In any case, you don’t get the major SNP politicians saying so much as dogwhistles, unlike Johnson and co’s attitude towards Muslims, Jews, Europeans etc.

And yes, land reform would preferable. This would be easier after independence. Just like getting rid of nuclear weapons.