navithmastero
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 596
Registered: 01-03-2012
IP: Logged

Hi people,
As many of you will know, polling day for the General Election over here is next Thursday. As such I think it'd be interesting to know what people think of the political parties (not necessarily your own political views, but rather thoughts on policies, likelihood of winning etc.) especially from a non-British viewpoint. Also, I'd like to know what people think of the past 5 years of government.

-nm

____________________________
Member of the Snake Appreciation Society

One of your local HAs.

My stuff:

---

[Last edited by navithmastero at 04-30-2015 05:09 PM]

Dischorran
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3408
Registered: 09-10-2005
IP: Logged

Balderdash. Outside the Greatest Country in the 6000 Year History of the World there are no elections, only benighted godless unfreedoms.

____________________________

Znirk
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 613
Registered: 07-28-2005
IP: Logged

Hm. Uninformed view from Switzerland here: I was vaguely aware of the election coming up, but didn't have any great deal of detail pushed at me, and I didn't myself go looking for any.

Perhaps the most noticeable thing about recent British politics is that Cameron isn't really present in our news from abroad. It felt like I was constantly hearing about Blair, and then a fair bit about Brown, but Cameron is the guy waving in the background while Merkel and Hollande are doing something interesting.

How big a deal are these elections, I wonder? As far as I can tell you guys have two viable parties plus a bunch of noisy but small non-options. With a strongly representational democracy and not much of a coalition culture, I imagine all the actual politicking, negotiation and compromising happens within the parties; so what does the individual non-party-member citizen do? Lose interest in politics altogether, or jump at any passing election as their one chance to have any say?

Elfstone
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1285
Registered: 03-01-2006
IP: Logged

I'm sorry I missed this thread when it was started. It is always interesting to "see oorsel's as ithers see us".

"Outside the Greatest Country in the 6000 Year History of the World" ... lies the Best Country in the world with a 10,000 +Year History.

"How big a deal are these elections, I wonder?" Try asking the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties that!

"As far as I can tell you guys have two viable parties plus a bunch of noisy but small non-options. " speaking as someone who voted for one of those noisy-but-small-non-options - we're not so small now (56 seats out of 59), but within the Westminster context of course we cannot hope to have anything more than influence. Mind you, that is what Scotland has been lacking for so long. Interesting to see your perspective Znirk.

____________________________
Winner of: Novice Architect Excellence 2006.
FAPCA - Technical Design Excellence in Layout and Aesthetics

Znirk
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 613
Registered: 07-28-2005
IP: Logged

Aaah, interesting. Actually I completely forgot about the regional nationalists - I was thinking of people like LibDem and UKIP.

navithmastero
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 596
Registered: 01-03-2012
IP: Logged

Elfstone wrote:
"As far as I can tell you guys have two viable parties plus a bunch of noisy but small non-options. " speaking as someone who voted for one of those noisy-but-small-non-options - we're not so small now (56 seats out of 59), but within the Westminster context of course we cannot hope to have anything more than influence. Mind you, that is what Scotland has been lacking for so long. Interesting to see your perspective Znirk.

You do realise that the Conservatives don't actually have to listen to what the SNP want, right?

-nm

____________________________
Member of the Snake Appreciation Society

One of your local HAs.

My stuff:

Elfstone
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1285
Registered: 03-01-2006
IP: Logged

navithmastero wrote: You do realise that the Conservatives don't actually have to listen to what the SNP want, right? -nm

Yes of course; the Tory majority does put a very different slant on things, but 'not actually listening to what the SNP say' is very much a 2-edged sword for Cameron et al. If they carry on ignoring us, Independence will be here all the quicker (I think it is inevitable now at some point) and they are desperate to prevent that.

____________________________
Winner of: Novice Architect Excellence 2006.
FAPCA - Technical Design Excellence in Layout and Aesthetics

navithmastero
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 596
Registered: 01-03-2012
IP: Logged

I don't see why Scottish people want independence. I also don't see why people want Britain to leave the EU. For both Scotland and Europe, the reason given is nearly always a watered down version of, 'they oppress us blah blah blah.' People who argue like that are misguided about what the consequences of their splitting will be. Without the EU Britain is nothing, without the rest of the UK Scotland would also be very little. England has helped Scotland for the last 300 years and was not the tyrannical leader that many people make it out to have been.

-nm

____________________________
Member of the Snake Appreciation Society

One of your local HAs.

My stuff:

---

[Last edited by navithmastero at 05-23-2015 12:32 PM]

Elfstone
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1285
Registered: 03-01-2006
IP: Logged

nm - my apologies for the delay in replying; I needed time to give consideration to your points and construct a thoughtful response.

I don't see why Scottish people want independence. Accepted and perhaps people south of the border can never truly understand.

I also don't see why people want Britain to leave the EU. I suspect the two situations are not identical in their reasons; certainly in Scotland there are people who want Independence from England, but want Scotland to stay within the EU.

For both Scotland and Europe, the reason given is nearly always a watered down version of, 'they oppress us blah blah blah.' I don’t agree with that. From the Scottish point of view, it is more to do with a sense of usurping and ignoring (which is a pretty dreadful combination to be on the receiving end of).

Without the EU Britain is nothing, without the rest of the UK Scotland would also be very little. I’m not convinced of that and there are several very successful European countries, NOT in the EU, who argue your point on Britain strongly - and persuasively. Many of us in Scotland believe that Scotland would be a small, but very much greater, more successful country if we revert to being an independent sovereign state.

England has helped Scotland for the last 300 years and was not the tyrannical leader that many people make it out to have been. “Tyrannical’ is far too strong a word. I don’t think any Scot Nats would describe England as ‘tyrannical’ - I’ve certainly never heard or read anyone doing that. However, there is I think an arrogance which has lingered on from the days of Empire and which is completely out of place nowadays. As for England helping Scotland for the last 300 years? A little research into Scottish History will show you how wrong that view is.

Perhaps you would like to consider this question: if England has been merely helping Scotland out of kindness since the treaty of Union, if Scotland has been a burden these last 300 years, why is it that Westminster (England) is so absolutely hell-bent on hanging on to us? Why not just stay silent during the Referendum campaign and allow the Scots to make their own decision and go their own way. Does it not make sense to you that there must be something in it for England if they are so desperate to hang onto the Union - what might that something be?

(Incidentally, although I disagree with almost everythin in your post, I did not down-mod you. )

____________________________
Winner of: Novice Architect Excellence 2006.
FAPCA - Technical Design Excellence in Layout and Aesthetics

navithmastero
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 596
Registered: 01-03-2012
IP: Logged

Your last point is interesting. I would definitely not say that England helped Scotland out of kindness. There was a reason for it (mainly due to prevent England's enemies from allying with them).

The reason why I feel that Scotland would be weaker by itself is because I'd doubt that you'd just be let back into the EU. This is mainly due to the situation in Spain (Catalonia is also trying to become independent and would want to join the EU) - if they do it once why wouldn't they do it again. Thus, being a firm believer in the merits of the EU, I'd say that if Scotland couldn't get in without the longwinded application process, they would bein a considerably worse position than before, at least, until they could get back into the EU, by which time, the damage could have already been done.

-nm

PS. I didn't think it was you who downmodded seeing as its usually arsey posts which get downvoted rather than the arguments within them, and I admit, that post was rather arsey.

____________________________
Member of the Snake Appreciation Society

One of your local HAs.

My stuff:

---

[Last edited by navithmastero at 05-24-2015 09:40 AM]

Elfstone
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1285
Registered: 03-01-2006
IP: Logged

"I would definitely not say that England helped Scotland out of kindness. There was a reason for it (mainly due to prevent England's enemies from allying with them)." That was true 300 years ago. In particular I'm sure the then Powers-That-Be in England would not have wanted the relationship between Scotland and France (already strong and of long standing) to become any closer. That would have put an unfriendly nation on either side of England; not a comfortable position. However you can't think that that reason applies now? Perhaps there is some other motive?

"The reason why I feel that Scotland would be weaker by itself is because I'd doubt that you'd just be let back into the EU" - perhaps, but what I think a lot of English people have not realised is that whatever applies to Scotland in the case of the Union being dissolved and annulled, also applies to England. We will revert to being the two sovereign states we were prior to the union. England will also have to apply for membership. It is, I believe, an unprecedented situation for the high-heid-yins in Strasbourg to face. I suspect they will make up "fast-transit-entrance" rules which will have to apply to both countries.

____________________________
Winner of: Novice Architect Excellence 2006.
FAPCA - Technical Design Excellence in Layout and Aesthetics

skell
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3734
Registered: 12-28-2004
IP: Logged

A polite political discussion on the internet.

I am calling Nobel committee, they need to give Caravel a peace prize.

____________________________
My website | Facebook | Twitter

navithmastero
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 596
Registered: 01-03-2012
IP: Logged

Elfstone wrote:
"I would definitely not say that England helped Scotland out of kindness. There was a reason for it (mainly due to prevent England's enemies from allying with them)." That was true 300 years ago..."

I meant initially. Obviously now motives are very different.

England wouldn't have to reapply to be in the EU because the UK would still exist, just without Scotlamd - Northern Ireland, Wales and England would still be the UK (I think) so I doubt we would have to leave.

-nm

____________________________
Member of the Snake Appreciation Society

One of your local HAs.

My stuff:

---

[Last edited by navithmastero at 05-26-2015 10:46 PM]

Elfstone
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1285
Registered: 03-01-2006
IP: Logged

navithmastero wrote: England wouldn't have to reapply to be in the EU because the UK would still exist, just without Scotlamd - Northern Ireland, Wales and England would still be the UK (I think) so I doubt we would have to leave.

Respectfully, I think you're understanding of the "Union" is incorrect (and as I said above, this doesn't seem to have filtered through into English thinking and I'm not sure why). The "united Kingdom of Great Britain" was formed by treaty between Scotland and England. (What led to that and how corrupt the process was is a subject for a different discussion.) You can look at the Articles of the treaty on line. The first sentence is:

I. ‘That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain,

The name 'United Kingdom of Great Britain" was chosen because we had already gone through the union of the Crowns when James 6th took over the Throne of England in 1603.

You will note if you read the Articles that there is no mention of Wales, I think because it was then - and remains now - a Principality of England. The "and Northern Ireland" part was not added until much later - somewhere in the 1920s (?) when the bulk of Ireland gained Independence and Ulster had to be tagged on. (As far as I'm aware, it was never a kingdom anyway and certainly wasn't anything to do with the Union of the Crowns.) Quite what will happen to that region when we become independent is anyone's guess; there is far greater kinship between Ulster and Scotland than there is between Ulster and England, but I cannot see a Scottish (Indy) government wanting to "adopt" Ulster.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed by that union of the Scottish and English parliaments. Therefore, if that union is dissolved, that United Kingdom of Great Britain ceases to exist. The media very erroneously keep referring to "the rest of the UK" or "rUK"; there is no such thing after Scottish independence, just Scotland and whatever the remaining peoples want to call themselves, but that cannot be the "United Kingdom". So, two (old) new countries - two applications to join (or remain part of) the EU.

____________________________
Winner of: Novice Architect Excellence 2006.
FAPCA - Technical Design Excellence in Layout and Aesthetics

Dischorran
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3408
Registered: 09-10-2005
IP: Logged

Navi seems just a bit outclassed here...

____________________________

Tamsk
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 254
Registered: 03-21-2014
IP: Logged

The name of the country isn't the relevant part to EU membership; it's whether a country is considered to be the continuing state in international law. (For example, when the USSR split up, Russia kept its seat on the UN Security Council, because it was the continuator; the other 14 republics didn't get a say.) It's hard to see a situation where a country retaining 90% of its previous population and 68% of its land area isn't going to be treated as continuing.

As to the name, it's not quite as clear-cut as Elfstone makes it. Yes, the Treaty of Union 1707 created the united Kingdom of Great Britain (whether that "u" should be capitalised is yet another source of endless argument); but the Acts of Union 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (later "... and Northern Ireland", after the events of the 1920s), and wouldn't be affected by the dissolution of the 1707 treaty. What the outcome would be would be a matter for the politicians and legislative draftsmen (my money would be on the "Kingdom of Scotland" and the "United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland"), but definitely isn't preordained.

Elfstone
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1285
Registered: 03-01-2006
IP: Logged

Thank you for your interesting comments Tamsk.

I take your point about the break up of the USSR, but I wonder if there may have been other geo-political reasons for the Security Council wanting Russia and at the same time not wanting the other countries/regions? With regard to the UK within the EU:

It's hard to see a situation where a country retaining 90% of its previous population and 68% of its land area isn't going to be treated as continuing. [My emboldment]

I think the argumeent here would be that the UK has always been, and remains, the union of two very ancient and seperate countries, in what was supposed to be an equal partnership. If that is the case - and it would be a very bold Westminster politician who would stand up and say otherwise now - then Scotland, regardless of size, should be treated in an equal manner to England. In any case I suspect that the EU will be keen to keep Scotland in for various reasons: financial, trade, fishing, etc. The interesting point is that I’m not entirely sure that Scotland will vote to stay in the EU, despite what the SNP say.

As to the name, it's not quite as clear-cut as Elfstone makes it. Yes, the Treaty of Union 1707 created the united Kingdom of Great Britain (whether that "u" should be capitalised is yet another source of endless argument); but the Acts of Union 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (later "... and Northern Ireland", after the events of the 1920s), and wouldn't be affected by the dissolution of the 1707 treaty.

You are right of course that the connection between Northern Ireland and England may well continue - I spoke to that above; none of us can know exactly what will happen to Ulster. It will however be a union with England/Wales - not with the UK because - as I argued in a previous post - when the Treaty of 1707 is dissolved the UK will cease to exist. I don’t see how there can be a union between two states when one of them no longer exists (and on that point, I’m not sure that, in international law, Ulster is a state; cleverer people than me would have to sort that out).

What the outcome would be would be a matter for the politicians and legislative draftsmen (my money would be on the "Kingdom of Scotland" and the "United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland"), but definitely isn't preordained.

I can’t see us being called the ‘Kingdom of Scotland’ - just ‘Scotland’ will do, although strictly speaking the monarchy is ours, in that the English monarchy died with the first English Elizabeth, since then it’s has been the Scottish royal line which has continued - but that opens an enormous can of worms, raising issues which may be difficault to resolve. There certainly cannot be a ‘United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland’; Wales and NI were never kingdoms in their own right and there certainly was no union of crowns between those countries. If I understand the history of those two regions, they were, for many centuries, more in the position of being colonies.

I hope that in the event of Scottish independence, a completely new name will be chosen for those to the south of us. That would be much less contentious. How about Enwani?

____________________________
Winner of: Novice Architect Excellence 2006.
FAPCA - Technical Design Excellence in Layout and Aesthetics