Brexit

This forum is for discussion about anything else.
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #325 (ISO) » Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:13 am

Post by zoraster »

In post 323, Davsto wrote:
In post 321, zoraster wrote:
In post 319, Davsto wrote:
In post 316, zoraster wrote:
In post 314, Randomnamechange wrote:Labour were irrelevant anyway. They were basically became a shit version of the Tory Party.

Unless you're a Tory, that's either an ignorant statement or one
entirely
designed to justify a politically unsuccessful policy shift.
Nope, it's totally accurate. People are pissed that Jeremy Corbyn is an actually left-wing leader of a supposedly left-wing party, rather than just a centre leader. By distinguishing himself, he's dared to make it controversial.

Great, he couldn't even win 18-24. That is, 18-24 of all voters of all parties. How is this relevant? Who gives a damn what someone who is destined to vote Tory or UKIP anyway thinks?

Really, Conservative, UKIP and Lib Dem voters think May would make a better PM than Corbyn? I could have told you that myself, it's plain damn logic.

He divides voters. So what? FDR was constantly criticised by the media and big company owners yet he won by a landslide. Good politicians are inevitably going to have haters, and ones such as Corbyn which have more "controversial" policies are going to have even more. That doesn't mean he should step down. Now, I think he should step down because him being leader is resulting in complaints in his party which is putting Labour in absolute shambles during an already politically turbulent time, but not because some voters don't like him.
I mean, if your point is "I don't give a shit about winning elections" then okay. Fine. My point is that he's not going to be elected, so although I'd want to believe most people
care
about winning and the Tories not being in power, if you don't then we don't have a quibble on this point.
I mean... did you even bloody read my post? That post wasn't even close to the point you're saying I'm trying to make.
I read your reply. The only way I can charitably interpret it is "I care more about what the party thinks irrespective of the chances for a general election." Because otherwise you'd never make a statement that dismisses the fact he loses even 18-24. Because he sure doesn't do better with any other age group. And if you can't win 18-24, you can't win 25-34, you can't win 35-44, you can't win 45-54, you can't win 55-64, and you can't win 65+ who exactly do you think is voting for you?

This isn't, by the way, a statement about whether he wins a LABOUR LEADER election, obviously. Maybe he will. I think odds are roughly... even? Maybe even slightly in his favor. I'm arguing about whether he is a terrible choice to continue to lead the party.
.
User avatar
Davsto
Davsto
He/Him
Farce of Habit
User avatar
User avatar
Davsto
He/Him
Farce of Habit
Farce of Habit
Posts: 5279
Joined: June 29, 2015
Pronoun: He/Him

Post Post #326 (ISO) » Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:51 am

Post by Davsto »

No my point was "those graphs are a bloody awful metric for deciding whether a leader is worth having" and do little to support anyone's point that he would result in low labour votes if he were to remain in power
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #327 (ISO) » Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:02 am

Post by zoraster »

I don't know why it doesn't support the idea he would result in low Labour votes if he were to remain in power. Lots of things can happen between now and a GE, of course, but it's certainly relevant to Labour's electoral chances.

As to whether a leader is "worth" having, I'd argue the ability for the party to win in the general election should be one of the primary criteria. It's a "necessary but not sufficient" one. I think it's reasonable to believe that a certain level of increased risk in losing a GE is worth having in order to get the person you want, but that has to have a limit.
.
User avatar
Davsto
Davsto
He/Him
Farce of Habit
User avatar
User avatar
Davsto
He/Him
Farce of Habit
Farce of Habit
Posts: 5279
Joined: June 29, 2015
Pronoun: He/Him

Post Post #328 (ISO) » Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:10 am

Post by Davsto »

In post 327, zoraster wrote:I don't know why it doesn't support the idea he would result in low Labour votes if he were to remain in power.
How about the fact that the categories are divided by "voting intention", meaning that even those Labour ones who say that May would make a better leader are still planning on voting Labour anyway (because most people vote for a
party
that fits with their politics rather than for the rather changeable leader)?
User avatar
Not_Mafia
Not_Mafia
Smash Hit
User avatar
User avatar
Not_Mafia
Smash Hit
Smash Hit
Posts: 23445
Joined: February 5, 2014
Location: Whitney's Gym

Post Post #329 (ISO) » Sun Jul 17, 2016 6:06 am

Post by Not_Mafia »

I'd be happy with someone like Andy Burnham as party leader, but between who my MP is and if someone calling themselves a Blairite was elected Part leader I'd be voting Green.

If the party wants to elect someone in a movement named after a war criminal, it can leave me behind, especially after his response to the Chilcott report
Also, what is NM doing? Worst play I’ve ever seen.
I can't remember the last N_M post that wasn't bland, unimaginative and lame. Some shitposters are at least somewhat funny. You are the epitomy of the type of poster that nobody would miss if you were to suddenly disappear. You never add anything of value.
I'm guessing you haven't read the game and probably never will? Why even sign up to play?
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #330 (ISO) » Sun Jul 17, 2016 6:43 am

Post by zoraster »

In post 328, Davsto wrote:
In post 327, zoraster wrote:I don't know why it doesn't support the idea he would result in low Labour votes if he were to remain in power.
How about the fact that the categories are divided by "voting intention", meaning that even those Labour ones who say that May would make a better leader are still planning on voting Labour anyway (because most people vote for a
party
that fits with their politics rather than for the rather changeable leader)?
I absolutely believe that's the case. Most people in a party will vote for the party that fits their politics rather than the leader. It's logical and makes sense to do so. But that doesn't win elections. That's a very baseline of support, and in anything approaching a marginal constituency, you're going to suffer if your leader -- the person you're putting forward as the next PM -- is seen even by those in your party as not being up for the job.

Regardless, that isn't responsive to the other chart that shows across every age demographic May is seen as making a better PM. I do not get how that doesn't trouble you deeply if you're Labour.
.
User avatar
Davsto
Davsto
He/Him
Farce of Habit
User avatar
User avatar
Davsto
He/Him
Farce of Habit
Farce of Habit
Posts: 5279
Joined: June 29, 2015
Pronoun: He/Him

Post Post #331 (ISO) » Sun Jul 17, 2016 6:53 am

Post by Davsto »

In post 330, zoraster wrote:Regardless, that isn't responsive to the other chart that shows across every age demographic May is seen as making a better PM.
That chart is pretty much useless for data imo

We know that (going by the last GE) Tories got around 37% of votes and UKIP got around 12.5% of votes. Now that's around 49.5% of votes - almost half of voters - who voted against Labour regardless of Corbyn (more towards the right, that is), and as the other graph shows both UKIP and Tory voters overwhelmingly (surprisingly enough) consider Theresa May to be a better PM. That's a pretty strong skew and imo makes that graph borderline worthless.
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #332 (ISO) » Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:06 am

Post by zoraster »

Well, obviously the hope should be not to repeat last GE performance but improve upon it. Voters for the Tories last time don't have to be voters for them this time. But you don't change those votes by selecting someone like Corbyn.
.
User avatar
Davsto
Davsto
He/Him
Farce of Habit
User avatar
User avatar
Davsto
He/Him
Farce of Habit
Farce of Habit
Posts: 5279
Joined: June 29, 2015
Pronoun: He/Him

Post Post #333 (ISO) » Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:26 am

Post by Davsto »

In post 332, zoraster wrote:Well, obviously the hope should be not to repeat last GE performance but improve upon it. Voters for the Tories last time don't have to be voters for them this time. But you don't change those votes by selecting someone like Corbyn.
And neither will you get those Tory voters by staying exactly the same as you did last time, for obvious reasons

On the other hand, making the leader more left-wing will win the voters who voted for the Green Party and SNP because they felt that neither of the two main parties were left-wing enough, but who would vote for a major party if they were more left-wing.
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #334 (ISO) » Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:47 am

Post by zoraster »

I think winning SNP voters is likely not about the left-right of it but whether they're more interested in their inward facing or the UK as a whole. I think people are pretty aware (whatever they might say in the run up to the election) that the SNP and Labour would be fine in a coalition government if it came to that. Regardless, SNP's 56 constituencies obviously aren't enough to put Labour back in the driver's seat even if they went left and could capture them.

The Green Party is a more interesting question because unlike the SNP their votes aren't divided cleanly. On the face, gaining Green votes seems like a way it might flip marginal constituencies. After all, the Green Party did manage to get 1.1m votes. If the Labour Party had captured all of that, it'd have put them near the Conservatives totals (though obviously the Tories had their own flank party in UKIP).

But diving into it, I don't think this is a likely path to a majority. Where the Green Party finished second: Liverpool Riverside, Manchester Gorton, Sheffield Central and Briston West Labour STILL controls those. Obviously the Green Party controls Brighton Pavilion so theoretically you could gain a seat there.
.
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #335 (ISO) » Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:50 am

Post by zoraster »

Worth pointing out is that the Greens and SNP combined only had about 200k more votes total than the Lib Dems in a year that was pretty bad for that party.
.
User avatar
Davsto
Davsto
He/Him
Farce of Habit
User avatar
User avatar
Davsto
He/Him
Farce of Habit
Farce of Habit
Posts: 5279
Joined: June 29, 2015
Pronoun: He/Him

Post Post #336 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:00 am

Post by Davsto »

Image
User avatar
Nexus
Nexus
He
miss
User avatar
User avatar
Nexus
He
miss
miss
Posts: 6650
Joined: July 1, 2010
Pronoun: He
Location: UK Hun

Post Post #337 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:00 am

Post by Nexus »

Got absolutely roasted by John Kerry and the US press. Definitely won't be the last time another international figure shows him up as a buffoon.
Trans rights are human rights.
User avatar
ConManMick
ConManMick
Dear Derry
User avatar
User avatar
ConManMick
Dear Derry
Dear Derry
Posts: 1619
Joined: January 11, 2015
Location: Netherlands

Post Post #338 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:27 am

Post by ConManMick »

Hi guys,
Please give us back the North
Sincerely,
ROI
"As everyone knows there is a special guardian angel for drunkards and lovers"
- Alexandre Dumas
TÁL
User avatar
Porochaz
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
User avatar
User avatar
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
Oh, Prozac
Posts: 9317
Joined: September 6, 2007

Post Post #339 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:03 pm

Post by Porochaz »

In post 335, zoraster wrote:Worth pointing out is that the Greens and SNP combined only had about 200k more votes total than the Lib Dems in a year that was pretty bad for that party.
Remember that A. the SNP are only voted for in Scotland (obviously) and B. The SNP were never looking to get into power in the UK.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #340 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:31 pm

Post by zoraster »

I understand that. That doesn't change my point even a little bit, which is that moving leftward to capture more votes because you might get those SNP seats back is not enough. And I even mentioned that I don't think that SNP's control over those seats has much to do with spectrum positioning in the first place, so I don't think Corbyn increases the chances of gaining those seats back even if that was enough.

And as I said, I think Labour should be... well, not happy, but at least content to form some sort of coalition government with SNP.
.
User avatar
Porochaz
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
User avatar
User avatar
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
Oh, Prozac
Posts: 9317
Joined: September 6, 2007

Post Post #341 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:46 pm

Post by Porochaz »

In post 334, zoraster wrote:I think winning SNP voters is likely not about the left-right of it but whether they're more interested in their inward facing or the UK as a whole. I think people are pretty aware (whatever they might say in the run up to the election) that the SNP and Labour would be fine in a coalition government if it came to that. Regardless, SNP's 56 constituencies obviously aren't enough to put Labour back in the driver's seat even if they went left and could capture them.

The Green Party is a more interesting question because unlike the SNP their votes aren't divided cleanly. On the face, gaining Green votes seems like a way it might flip marginal constituencies. After all, the Green Party did manage to get 1.1m votes. If the Labour Party had captured all of that, it'd have put them near the Conservatives totals (though obviously the Tories had their own flank party in UKIP).

But diving into it, I don't think this is a likely path to a majority. Where the Green Party finished second: Liverpool Riverside, Manchester Gorton, Sheffield Central and Briston West Labour STILL controls those. Obviously the Green Party controls Brighton Pavilion so theoretically you could gain a seat there.
As ms's Scottish representative (yeah, ConManMike is Irish, screw you everyone who says otherwise), it was almost certainly down to "left-right" ism, the over whelming feeling is that Labour are currently Tories mk 2. In that they are so centre now that it can sometimes be hard to differentiate between the two main parties. Corbyn is somewhat of a breakthrough here and has a mass of support in spite of the Labour party, because he represents the left views.

The SNP are doing well, because they have put up a front of left leaning, but they certainly haven't always been, and would more historically be considered centre-right. But they have capitalised on a weak Labour party. Scotland is more left than England, but England is (rightfully, if you look at the population) more important vote wise. Labour, under Blair, had to become more centre to compete with the Tories (see Blair/New Labour). Which has alienated Scottish voters, and to an extent younger English voters. Hence why Corbyn is popular with the public as he is old guard pre-Blair lefty Labour. (Since most other MP's are Blairites onwards, the issue becomes clear, Corbyn is trying to lead a party that really no longer exists because experience has shown that this isn't popular in England)

The SNP have a singular purpose, to become independent from the UK and as a result have become more left, as Labour have become more right, filling the gap. All Scotland wants, (as a generalisation) is a left leaning party. Up until Brexit, independence was failing. The reason it was as close as it was because most of the high profile people on the remain side were English, and once again the Labourites and the Tories merged into one giant conglomeration. Meaning that there was no left voice here. Combined with "project fear" and "FREEDOM", it was very hard to convince people otherwise. But remain came through anyway, because a lot of SNP voters are only doing so because of that lack of left-yism rather than a wanting for independence. At least, thats what I've been told by my SNP friends.

I was a no voter (incidentally, if we were to get a Europe deal, I'd be a yes voter now) and I voted Labour in the last GE. I looked at the manifesto's and realised that Labour and SNP's manifestos were virtually the same, the difference being the question of independence. At the time, that wasn't for me, so I voted Labour. Most people saw a weak leader in Miliband, and despite the fact, he was quite left-y himself, didn't portray that. And better the devil you know, people stuck to the SNP.

Worse than that, I think a lot of Labour voters down in England saw SNP as a threat. "They are all for not having the English vote on Scottish matters, so it should be the same vice versa". But as a Labour-SNP coalition seemed like a fair shout, people jumped ship to the Conservatives(/Greens) to make sure that didn't happen. Combine that with the increased coverage of the Greens, people felt safe voting for Green instead of Labour. Their Labour seat was safe, the greens fit their ideologies better. (which as another aside, is why Im scared of the Stein affect in Amerca) So let's vote elsewhere. It weakened Labour further.

Anyway, I think it completely had to do with lefty-righty thoughts. I think a lot of the general election had to do with lefties voting for what they wanted, because of a deeply troubled and weak labour party, and (most) centre folk voting tactically. The troubles with the Labour party are only coming to a head now, which is daft that it took so long. But this isn't a Corbyn debate, or it shouldn't be. It should be a "what do we stand for and how do we differentiate ourselves/what do the people want?" debate. Otherwise Labour are going right back to where they started. (which is almost certainly going to happen)
Last edited by Porochaz on Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
User avatar
Porochaz
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
User avatar
User avatar
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
Oh, Prozac
Posts: 9317
Joined: September 6, 2007

Post Post #342 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:51 pm

Post by Porochaz »

Edited post to make some of my points more clear.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #343 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:00 pm

Post by zoraster »

Obviously politics is a complex and multifaceted creature. But Ed Miliband was generally left of Brown and Blair, and the Labour Party I think bore that out.

YearLabour LeaderLabourSNP
1997Blair566
2001Blair565
2005Blair4111
2010Brown4111
2015E. Miliband156


It doesn't appear to me that the SNP's gains in 2015 were about Labour not being left enough but rather an inward looking mentality. Labour necessarily can't capture that in the face of nationalist sentiment because it has to be a UK-wide party.
.
User avatar
Porochaz
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
User avatar
User avatar
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
Oh, Prozac
Posts: 9317
Joined: September 6, 2007

Post Post #344 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:15 pm

Post by Porochaz »

I find some of the current issues hard to cope with at the moment. (As something, not related to this topic, fracking and trident, I haven't quite decided where I sit on both of these) But I actually quite like May, in spite of her being a Tory and cutting the Department for Climate Change. I get the impression she has an alterior agenda. Putting Boris Johnson into the Foreign Secretary role is an idiotic move. Putting a potential future leadership threat into a role he certainly will gaffe up and she will have to fix, then replace him after he disgraces himself. Maybe not so much. I mean this could all come back to bite her in the ass, but... it's interesting. Same with Andrea Leadsom and David Davies. Keep Jeremy Cunt in that popular role he's in...

Even if Im thinking too much into it, and still riding the "British politics is just Game of Thrones irl" wave I find it interesting. Having 2 of the most outspoken Brexiters deal with the foreign policy and the process of leaving the EU, may be "you've made your bed, now lie in it" and a way to ensure that Britian is unable to come up with a good deal for Brexit and pushes Britain to remain in the EU... Im still living GoT mixed with some misplaced naivety/idealism.

As for Corbyn, I like him, I really do. But he can't lead the Labour party and as such I hope he fails. Which sucks, majorly. Labour, sadly, still need to be more centre to succeed. I don't think we need a centrist leader but a compromise should be able to be reached. As such Corbyn really does not have the support of the party and I don't think he has the support of older voters. Both of which he needs if he wants to be the main party. If Corbyn gets elected again, I cannot see Labour surviving.

As for another GE, with Labour in shambles, lib dems still recovering, the worrying UKIP voting figures (even if Farage is gone, I maintain a large amount of votes for UKIP were a vote for him) and the strength of the SNP, Tories would win the election, the country would be more right than it currently is, through lack of better alternative, and we'd all be fucked.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
User avatar
Porochaz
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
User avatar
User avatar
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
Oh, Prozac
Posts: 9317
Joined: September 6, 2007

Post Post #345 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:57 pm

Post by Porochaz »

As a post-written edit, my thoughts do evolve when Im writing long-ass things like this, so bare with me.
In post 343, zoraster wrote:Obviously politics is a complex and multifaceted creature. But Ed Miliband was generally left of Brown and Blair, and the Labour Party I think bore that out.

YearLabour LeaderLabourSNP
1997Blair566
2001Blair565
2005Blair4111
2010Brown4111
2015E. Miliband156


It doesn't appear to me that the SNP's gains in 2015 were about Labour not being left enough but rather an inward looking mentality. Labour necessarily can't capture that in the face of nationalist sentiment because it has to be a UK-wide party.
I mean I understand, and you will be right to an extent, however I would say if that were solely the case, we'd be independent right now. There are other things there. Brown wasn't very likeable. He wasn't camera ready or had a line at every opportunity like Cameron did. Plus he came when the recession hit, as my dad frequently likes to remind me during politics arguments, UK's recession problems would have been worse had Brown not done what he did. But what was portrayed was a bumbling oaf. (id be interested to learn about his relationship with Murdoch) Labour needed a strong leader to rebuild some faith in the party and Ed was chosen and failed to make an impression. Since Brown, I'd argue that SNP have firmly planted themselves "as the left party, who aren't afraid to shout for your rights", and used their position in the Scottish Parliament to prove it. I'd be interested in your comparison of Scottish parliamentary results.

Remember that there is Scottish Labour as well. You are right that Labour has to be a UK wide party, but Scottish Labour is there to combat it. But again I think that since Jack McConnell, there hasn't been a "personality" or someone outspoken enough to combat Salmond and latterly Nicola. I mean I can't stand Alex Salmond, I've met him twice that I can remember, and left hating him both times. But he was a charismatic personality, which gave him a foothold, when non entities like Wendy Alexander and Iain Grey were Scottish Labour leader (I didn't actually know of Iain Grey until I looked him up for the purpose of this post). Salmond gave the Scottish people an alternative, someone who could give the impression that he could make their voices heard whilst still holding on to the left ideals. So I guess you are right, in terms of the SNP being in a position to give Scotland a voice in UK elections where other parties couldn't. But there are separate Scottish versions of the main parties (and they do disagree with the main party) that should mean that, that shouldn't be needed, but in the last decade haven't managed to show that.

I don't write long posts for a reason... man...
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
User avatar
Porochaz
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
User avatar
User avatar
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
Oh, Prozac
Posts: 9317
Joined: September 6, 2007

Post Post #346 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:59 pm

Post by Porochaz »

In post 254, Nexus wrote:I would be happy for Corbyn and his fellows to break off and form their own, left wing party and let the Blairites get on with it. I'll support the more Left Wing party then.
I struggle to see how that would help anyone win. Split the Labour supporters, long live Tory rule for the next however long.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #347 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:07 pm

Post by zoraster »

Well, I'm wildly speculating here, but I think Scotland has a lot of people who would love to be able to vote for independence but have recognized (particularly with the referendum) that it's impractical and might have real world consequences that are negative. So voting for the SNP, which isn't a vote for independence in and of itself, is a way to express that desire -- and get devolved powers -- without actually having to separate completely.
.
User avatar
Porochaz
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
User avatar
User avatar
Porochaz
Oh, Prozac
Oh, Prozac
Posts: 9317
Joined: September 6, 2007

Post Post #348 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:40 pm

Post by Porochaz »

In post 347, zoraster wrote:Well, I'm wildly speculating here, but I think Scotland has a lot of people who would love to be able to vote for independence but have recognized (particularly with the referendum) that it's impractical and might have real world consequences that are negative. So voting for the SNP, which isn't a vote for independence in and of itself, is a way to express that desire -- and get devolved powers -- without actually having to separate completely.
I see this conversation happened before. So I apologise on points repeated, Zor.

I voted no for a few reasons. 1. I worked in the oil industry, I had a pretty good grasp of where it was headed. People think the oil crash was a surprise, it wasn't really. The surprise was how quickly it came and some of the reasons behind it. The yes vote has put so much emphasis on how Scotlands oil was it's economic salvation, and that to me was completely and utterly stupid. 2. I am of the opinion that when the world is getting smaller and smaller, putting up barriers and not working together is counter productive and 3. The yes campaign devolved into "FREEDOM" and "Give Scotland a voice" without any reasoning behind it, which infuriated me. So much so, that I did the maths, to see per person, how much Scotlands vote mattered compared to the rest of the UK. My (somewhat simple) analysis showed that Scotland had a more proportional vote by a very small percentage than the rest of the UK. There are more complex arguments to be made there, including economic value and should that play a part.

And certainly points 1 and 2 were what was coming back to me from friends. With point 1, I never got the impression people wanted independence but decided against it for various reasons. More that people were coming into it neutral and were either persuaded by the logical arguments from either side or got swept up in the "FREEDOM"/"Union Jack" frenzy (I wish I could think of something more snappy for the no voters) Devolution I would argue goes back to the lefty-righty argument with Scotland wanting more left leaning policies than were currently being handed down (and to be distanced as much as possible from the Health Secretary), I mean you could argue that's a case for independence, but for most, it wasn't the impression I got. Certainly combined with reason 2, it wouldn't have been. I reckon had a more left leaning party been in, whether that's Labour or "The Uber-Left Corbyn Superheroes Party" or "The just enough left of the Tories to see a slight difference" party it wouldn't have been as close as it was.

I am not going on facts and figures, more my own knowledge from my own reasons, and the narrow demographic of "Scottish people I know whose opinions I know beyond just Aye/Nae", so Im not speaking from a position of authority, but as someone who is on the ground and has a snapshot of opinions. Certainly had the EU referendum been done on the same basis, the result would have been about 95% remain, 5% leave. Taking out Scotland, it would probably have still been around 80/90%, so please only take my view as a different perspective.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #349 (ISO) » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:49 pm

Post by zoraster »

Yeah, I'm not trying to make an argument whether or not scotish independence is a good or bad thing at all. I'm saying I think the FREEDOM aspect shouldn't be downplayed. Sometimes it's latent sometimes not. And I think in places where that feeling is less potentially risky, a SNP vote is expressive in a way that some people didn't feel comfortable doing when voting yes or no literally led to that result.

The fact 45% or whatever voted to leave the UK is astounding, really.
.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”