The Political Thread

[Dog Deever]

But it seems to me that the best way of combating evil – whether that be from politics, social injustice or terrorism – is for like-minded people to come together. A "Yes" vote would divide a valuable (if imperfect) group of people who share a broadly similar culture.

Surely the ultimate aim of humanity is to have no countries. New Scientist recently ran an article asking if we're near the end of nations. I thought the article itself was more historical than forward-looking, and somewhat inconclusive, but I like a hypothesis thay says in order to achieve equality and fairness with our brothers and sisters around the world, we need fewer countries, not more.

That's an admittedly utopian vision – but irrespective of practical, cultural and emotional arguments, it seems to me that disenfranchised Scots, and those justifying their "Yes" vote for the supposed global good, would be better to vote "No" and fight the political system from within, rather than try to set up a smaller enclave.

Sure- I understand- but, if borders and countries are really just lines on a map for the privileged to share out the spoils amongst themselves (and this is the democratic left's failure- they will always look to their own pockets first, but they ARE willing to give a little back, they just have a penchant for jumping ship when vast sums of cash/ power/ status get involved), then borders and lines on maps are immaterial to the greater struggle- as I said earlier- you don't have to stand in the same country as your brother/ sister to stand with them in solidarity. Capitalist/ Corporate Globalisation does not necessarily further the cause of a global fight against them- indeed that very globalisation is their strength. It is what they want- it gives them larger and larger resources with which to enforce their ideology- surely the most sensible option is to fight that unification with separatism, without resort to  Nationalism (proper nationalism), whilst finding some means of unity amongst the left WITHOUT REFERENCE to borders. The recognition that borders are artificial, does not mean they cannot be used as a tool, and discarded when they no longer have any value. The corporations are strong because they have unified through globalism- whilst all of us have been sitting around watching and the left has been posted missing.
The problem for the left is basically that there is no popular support- division, betrayal, totalitarianism, revolutionary struggle, famines and mini-holocausts are not part of any society I want to live in, and I'd question the sanity of anyone who does. The solution, after the failures in Russia, China, etc seems to have been- 'wait til it gets worse. When it gets so bad, people might want what we offer'...
!
... WTF?

I can't subscribe to that, and I can't endorse revolutionary socialism or strong state control (as a side point to that- the CPGB stand with No, not because of their name, but because their agenda of strong state control has much in common with Global Corporatism whose 'ideology' includes many ideas from the full spectrum of political and social writing/ thinking, - it just comes down to who gets the cash- private owners, or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat party.
I want less state control, but I acknowledge that few people want to just simply 'remove the state', there are legitimate concerns over that kind of Utopian pipe dream society. I look at the two camps and I see that the Scottish far right, the Communists, big business and the democratic right of all shades lining up behind 'NO'- these groups, for different reasons, all want MORE control.
The full spectrum of the right is with No, as is the unacceptable face of Socialism. I can't side with that, not at all, not ever- not for anything- so I will vote 'Yes', and it was never going to be any other way.

[Dog Deever]

apologies, as an addendum for 8-ball and Sauchie, as it is the last day to swing yous...
Tommy Sheridan is a marmite guy and a controversial figure, say what you like about him or his politics, but he has some interesting things to say here about solidarity with the English working class and what lies ahead for the NHS. He's a great passionate public speaker, though I don't agree with everything he says.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=453094748164758&set=vb.433992340074999&type=2&theater

definitely my last try

[IndigoPrime]

As an example of what I fear here is a quote from the comments section on the Guardian website -

Don't think us Brits will be in anyway charitable to a new (foreign ) Scotland...

Scary, don't ya think. That there are people who think like this. Brrr.

I abhor the 'revenge' aspect of that thinking, but I also suspect there are some people who aren't really thinking through what the ramifications of independence mean. This isn't sticking two fingers up to Cameron and Westminster, but still having access to all the things Scotland likes in the UK — including its market; it's becoming the rough equivalent of Ireland.

Note that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Scotland will very clearly be a viable state, but it's plainly wishful thinking to imagine industries and commerce currently flowing to Scotland, and pricing (etc.) based on a UK-wide market, will all continue as-is. rUK will, inevitably, become a competitor as well as remaining an ally.

[ZenArcade]

Scotland,  if, or hopefully when it votes for independence will like ROI remain a strong trading partner with rUK,  relations between the Republic and the UK have never been stronger than they have now. All three nations will have strong emotional and cultural ties as well. It is in these nations interests to co-operate.
The idea of an essentially borderless, nationless world has long been a utopian dream but it is a double edged sword. Unorganised masses of people are fodder for supra-national business as well, this is essentially what globalisation is in essence. An unregulated free for all in which the poor and disadvantaged are raw material for the seemingly bottomless greed brought by this Neo-monetarist creation. Unfortunately utopia literally 'no place' and that is potentially where billions will end up. Dog. Deever's analysis is in my opinion tot too far of the mark. Keep faith Scotland. Z

[Frank]

There's a formalised rhetoric and sense of performance about Sheridan that's every bit as off putting as that employed by the professional political class he militates against. I find the following a more sincere and perceptive analysis of the ills Sheridan describes, as well as an explanation of why the codified language and ideological shell games of both Sheridan and Cameron leave ordinary people alienated from the regular political process.

If this guy was fronting the YES campaign they would be at 80% in the polls, and I'd be one of them:

Loki on Independence: http://youtu.be/9Ou7gudpb_0

[Dog Deever]

If this guy was fronting the YES campaign they would be at 80% in the polls, and I'd be one of them:

Loki on Independence: http://youtu.be/9Ou7gudpb_0

He is good- watched a couple of his vids after  that one, thanks. It's good to see there is young life in the left. I'm sharing those.

Obviously, you identify with his message in a positive way, as do I. Culture change is essential, there has to be a counter-culture of some description, away from consumerism.
However, Loki is voting 'Yes'- "Vote Yes, don't fuck about"- his words.
This seems to defeat your reasons for voting 'No'. He is not fronting the campaign (mores the pity- oh we need more like him), but he is speaking for it- I don't care who's agenda fronts it. Why would you vote against the opinion that has inspired you in the whole debate? I'm not asking you to justify or anything- just that I don't understand why you would vote against the closest thing to your own viewpoint.

Thumbing the nose to party politics is fine- done it plenty myself with spoiled ballots, but do that at the general election because that is the meaningless party-political vote. This one really counts in a massive way, for all the reasons Loki talks about and I touched on (though perhaps not so well as him)- massive attitude change in people, acceptance that mutual aid is essential rather than the dog eat dog horror show we have today. Party politics is shite and we can tell that to the social democrats in 2016, but now's the time to shiftily stand behind them in order to advance people like Loki, ot to endorse the party politics of the SNP or Solidarity or the Greens or anyone else.

Loki's politics will not prosper at all under a Tory/ UKIP gvt led by Boris Johnson. Salmond can and will be stopped in a Scottish general election in 2016.

FFS Sauchie man- why the hell you voting 'No' when you're so damned politically switched on (IMO)!

[JamesC]

After Friday this thread will be renamed 'The Scottish Thread' and it will be bad luck to open it.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

I'm really undecided.

On the one hand, I worry that a "no" is a defeatist vote. Could Scotland be independent?

On the other, I worry that  "no" is going to lead to an little Engerlander backlash. I could see some taking umbrage that around half the Scots are not keen on the union, and so want to take action.

So maybe "yes"? Maybe it's best to take control?

Then I think, is it just a protest vote?

And then there are images like this (taken from the Independent's site, where I was trying to get some info):



No doubt that is carefully selected, but it highlights how many are reacting. Is it any wonder that I read today that many "nos" feel intimidated?

Does a yes pander to a perochial, nationalist, insular vote? Do I want Scotland to be the northern tip of the EU where all they care about is themself?

To be honest, I - and, I think, a silent majority - am bewildered as to how we got here. The SNP got a majority in the Scottish Parliament because of a protest vote against Labour. It seems incredible that some disgruntled voters could lead to a separation.

I didn't want a referendum. I was happy with things the way they were. Sure, there were problems. Sure, it wasn't perfect. But it didn't need wholesale change either.

And that is my beef. Now, it seems wholesale change is inevitable. That seems the result whether I say "yes" or "no". I don't want that and am powerless to stop it. Where is the option to keep things as they are?

I guess I need to work out which change will be the least damaging for me, my family and my friends.

And, bluster and propoganda aside, the terrifying reality is: no one knows the answer to that. That, I think, is why the country is split. Things are polarised because no one knows what is best.

I feel a quiet despair and loss, and will do so no matter what happens.

[Frank]

FFS Sauchie man- why the hell you voting 'No

I see the present offer as a palace coup rather than a revolution, with one ruling elite co-opting the energy and genuine enthusiasm of good people to secure power for themselves. I don't believe we'll ever get the kind of change I described last night unless it's being offered by a representative of that elite, and I don't think that elite are desperate enough yet to offer radical change when they still think we'll accept the status quo as long as it's being articulated by someone with an accent similar to our own.

Salmond figures this as a once in a lifetime opportunity, and in terms of his political life span it probably is, but I don't need to accept the first compromise that's offered. I don't think the energy and mass engagement generated by the opportunity to vote in an election where our votes will actually count for something, and which takes place outside party political lines, will be lost on Westminster. As Jim Campbell observed the other day, even in the event of a NO vote this isn't going away.

[Dog Deever]

I think you and Jim are right with- it won't go away, it didn't in the 70's and it won't now. A large worry for me with a No result is what Dr X fears- a rise of REAL Scottish Nationalism (remember Settler Watch? OK not altogether serious, but they had the POTENTIAL to be- it was an idea that might have taken root and is still lurking about). Such sentiments could easily coalesce around the angry half of the country and the average, young, 'not-really-political', particularly working class males are fodder for being sucked into right wing groups. With the right on the rise in and a Westminster gvt that endorses those very ideologies in Tory/UKIP, and bitter anger on both sides of the border, it's a recipe for disaster.

It IS a palace coup- no doubt, but how long will the new tenants last? That disaffected Labour vote is not a vote for Salmond and I believe, in the event of a Yes, that the resultant split of Labour into two distinct and utterly separate parties, with leadership independent of each other and a different political landscape for each to work in, that the dissafected Labour vote will go back to Labour very, very quickly. Independence will kill the SNP stone dead within a few years- they will HAVE to reorganise and 'rebrand' because the single thing that united them all these years will be gone. There won't be any reason for anyone to vote for them over and above their ideological beliefs.

The right will use any flag, it's a propaganda device and always has been- a changeable banner. It doesn't really care- Scotland's right has always been decked out in either the Jack, the Saltire or both.

[8-Ball]

The way I am approaching the referendum is this: the question is being put to me and I will give my answer. The most troubling thing for me is the apparent belief from outside commentators that the Scots operate on some kind of whisky-soaked hive mind. I have a particular world view and I will vote accordingly. I expect my fellow Scots to do likewise. My only wish is that we do so in good conscience and without fear or malice. See you all on the other side, peeps.

[ZenArcade]

I was rather hoping the whiskey soaked hive.mind was gathering at DICE on Sunday. Z

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

Less talking. More drinking.

Drink never caused a problem to anyone.

[Professor Bear]

It's killed four of my relatives - five if you count the one killed by a drunk driver.

[McNulty]

I've got to say this - the level of enlightened debate I've read in this thread is really encouraging. Well thought out arguments and comments instead of off putting slagging each other off and unnecessary name calling. You should see what they are writing in comments threads in Youtube and some newspapers. I always knew that 2000ad readers were special. Well done folks!