Lets talk about the Scottish referendum

[Starglider]

although for a person who is blind to suffering and shielded by one of the most extensive First World barriers, any other position than his may seem like a mental illness indeed

Top ten countries by quality-of-life index; Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Singapore, New Zealand, Netherlands, Canada, Hong Kong. I can only assume you hate every member of these disgustingly 'first world' (incidentally the thought police would insist you say 'developed countries') nations with a burning passion that eclipses your mediocre hatred for every inhabitant of the poor old British Isles, which is down in 27th place, slightly less hated/priviliged than France. Actually I'm curious how far down the list you have to be before you become not hated, Latvia, Algeria maybe? How far down before you become automatically a poor oppressed saint of automatic and unimpeachable virtue, no matter what massacres you might have comitted yesterday?

[mr friendly guy]

Now there is riots in the streets of Glasgow

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/rio ... 7064881509

[mr friendly guy]

Interesting.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/sco ... 7064422419

Mr Cameron, who would have been under pressure to resign if the vote was lost, said the people of Scotland had spoken “and it’s been a clear result”.
The Prime Minister said devolution commitments made during the campaign promising further powers to Scotland — when a nervous Westminster thought it could lose the vote — would be “honoured in full”.
He also signalled changes to the way other parts of the UK were governed, hinting England, Wales and Northern Ireland “should be able to vote” on tax, spending and welfare.
“Just as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs.”

[Simon_Jester]

I was more getting at the idea that there's probably a limit to how much investment they really need before people in the cities start having legit complaints. But eh, not like I'm in any position to weigh in on that math

Well, the obvious reasonable limit on investment is "when it results in the standard of living being superior to that of the cities." But that doesn't happen- typically, you have both lower salaries and lower cost of living in rural areas, with more expensive transportation and fewer amenities even after subsidy.

I should also point out that the transfer of resources from the 'successful' parts of a country to the poorer ones isn't just a regional thing. It also involves making sure control of the wealth of the state doesn't fall into the hands of any single isolated class of citizens.

And, I would argue, this sort of thing is inevitably necessary because a country* is a symbiotic thing. Different regions provide different assets (if nothing else a population base from which to recruit members of a meritocratic elite). But all regions contribute even if the contributions measured financially are uneven. Ignoring the poorer parts of a country is therefore dangers- just because they don't make as much money per capita doesn't mean they're unimportant or disposable.

*In the real, working, functional sense of 'country.' If this ceases to be true, arguably you don't have a country anymore, you have a bunch of squabbling people who'd be better off apart.

[Zaune]

In the specific case of the UK, there's also the problem that the disproportionate contribution of the cities -or one city in particular- is at least partly the result of conscious decisions made by successive British governments. Us poor peasants in the distant provinces wouldn't be living in half as much of an economic and cultural wasteland if we could have some of those big-ticket financial and tech firms set up shop around here; they wouldn't even need to employ that many people, just bring some young executives with money to burn and let them create demand.

[K. A. Pital]

I can only assume you hate every member of these disgustingly 'first world' (incidentally the thought police would insist you say 'developed countries') nations with a burning passion that eclipses your mediocre hatred for every inhabitant of the poor old British Isles, which is down in 27th place

Actually no, since many of these nations did not have a world-spanning racist slave-trading colonial Empire that lasted for centuries. Sorry.

No one's going to jail over the Scottish independence referendum, not even the leaders of the 'rebel' side of the debate.

Exactly my point: it is national independence that could be received without the threat of violence, with moderate economic consequences (as in, no economic collapse and widespread suffering, at most a slight adjustment). Which is a fairly big prize at a fairly low cost.

[Dartzap]

Actually no, since many of these nations did not have a world-spanning racist slave-trading colonial Empire that lasted for centuries. Sorry.

Slightly off topic....

And what of Spain? Portugal? Holland? France? All of whom had empires which were massively racist and lasted centuries? Don't think I have seen you, MFG or Irbis ever harrumph about them! Go forth and diversify your hatred, eh?

[mr friendly guy]

Actually no, since many of these nations did not have a world-spanning racist slave-trading colonial Empire that lasted for centuries. Sorry.

Slightly off topic....

And what of Spain? Portugal? Holland? France? All of whom had empires which were massively racist and lasted centuries? Don't think I have seen you, MFG or Irbis ever harrumph about them! Go forth and diversify your hatred, eh?

I don't know why you brought me into it since I haven't actually taken a side on the YES or NO votes, but simply asked about the consequences either way. In fact I even argued that the UK would keep its UN seat even if Scotland seceded. Going on.

Spain - I am pretty sure I made some Catalonia threads and I have stated I would be amused if Catalans did vote for independence, although ultimately its up to its people. Not my problem you missed it. Also criticised Spanish olympic athletes for blatant racism.

Portugal - ok you got me on that one, although AFAIK they have been relatively quiet in the international arena recently so why would I find something to object to.

Holland - Well I can't blame them all for Geert Wilders. Heck I am even impressed they acknowledged some of their wrongs as a colonial power in Indonesia. Do you actually have a point?

France - I don't exactly boast about it here, but since you insist, I boycotted French goods while Sarkozy was in power because I found his actions hypocritical when he threatened to boycott Beijing for sending in forces to quell riots while doing the very same thing 3 years earlier with the Muslim riots in France.

But you know what? If you think we are wrong to point out certain historical events in various contexts, then feel free to justify it in the thread it was posted in, rather than whine about it in another thread.

[Simon_Jester]

No one's going to jail over the Scottish independence referendum, not even the leaders of the 'rebel' side of the debate.

Exactly my point: it is national independence that could be received without the threat of violence, with moderate economic consequences (as in, no economic collapse and widespread suffering, at most a slight adjustment). Which is a fairly big prize at a fairly low cost.

Well, the question is whether it's actually a prize at all for Scotland, and that's the subject of the vote.

If the majority of Scots are more comfortable being a semi-autonomous region in a federated United Kingdom than they are being an independent country, I feel that is their right.

[Welf]

At no one in particular, but when faced with 'business as usual' and 'GET OWN NATION' option two wins for me, as it is a once in a lifetime chance. So I am dissappointed.

And what is the use of "independence"? How does it affect people's actual lives? To me this sounds like a version of "national honour". It doesn't fill your stomach, doesn't pay for your mortgage or your children's tuitions.
Except of course it's about introducing policies that will pay for tuitions. But it seems the Scottish voter thinks the chance of losing their jobs and being financially bankrupt outweigh the benefit of more redistribution.

[NecronLord]

At no one in particular, but when faced with 'business as usual' and 'GET OWN NATION' option two wins for me, as it is a once in a lifetime chance. So I am dissappointed.

And what is the use of "independence"? How does it affect people's actual lives? To me this sounds like a version of "national honour". It doesn't fill your stomach, doesn't pay for your mortgage or your children's tuitions.

Scots do not pay Tuition. English, N. Irish, and Welsh do. In point of fact, UK.gov pays for the tuition of Scots students.

Except of course it's about introducing policies that will pay for tuitions. But it seems the Scottish voter thinks the chance of losing their jobs and being financially bankrupt outweigh the benefit of more redistribution.

Also of losing their tuition. As if they went independent, they'd have to give everyone or no one free tuition by EU rules (IE they would give it to no one).

The simple fact of the money is that Scotland gets a massive payout, over £1000 per head per annum more than England does, from the UK government for being Scotland, which deprived areas elsewhere do not get, and this is not related to the actual need of the areas involved (East of England, Newcastle and so on, get far less than prosperous Edinburgh).

[Channel72]

Top ten countries by quality-of-life index; Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Singapore, New Zealand, Netherlands, Canada, Hong Kong.

Looking at the "where-to-be-born-index" (as they now call it), I am surprised how low the UK is. They're below Israel, for fuck's sake.

Although, really - I question some aspects of this index's methodology. Alledgedly the UAE is a somewhat "good" place to live (#18, right below the United States...) which is fucking bullshit unless you're like one of the 20% of the population that actually has citizenship and therefore isn't a defacto indentured servant/slave.

Yes, well, your mental illness does slowly seem to be decreasing. You used to be a hardcore Stalinism apologist. Projecting on the observed rate of behavioural change, two decades before you appreciate that Britain is awesome (+-3 years assuming no invasive engram modification).

Oh, that is not my supposed 'mental illness' decreasing (although for a person who is blind to suffering and shielded by one of the most extensive First World barriers, any other position than his may seem like a mental illness indeed). That is your nation sliding into well-deserved oblivion - not as fast as I'd want to see it, but fast enough. When the enemy is falling, why not be a bit more... forgiving, shall we say?

They're the 6th largest economy in the world... I wouldn't say they're sliding into oblivion.

Anyway, since you're rooting for the downfall of Western Europe or at least the Anglosphere, what exactly do you want to see replace it?

[NecronLord]

Top ten countries by quality-of-life index; Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Singapore, New Zealand, Netherlands, Canada, Hong Kong.

Looking at the "where-to-be-born-index" (as they now call it), I am surprised how low the UK is. They're below Israel, for fuck's sake.

Although, really - I question some aspects of this index's methodology. Alledgedly the UAE is a somewhat "good" place to live (#18, right below the United States...) which is fucking bullshit unless you're like one of the 20% of the population that actually has citizenship and therefore isn't a defacto indentured servant/slave.

I'm pretty sure it's talking about the things it gives its citizens (subjects?) which include infinite free tuition and IIRC a stipend, not the fate of its underclass (who are mostly not born there)

[K. A. Pital]

And what of Spain? Portugal? Holland? France? All of whom had empires which were massively racist and lasted centuries? Don't think I have seen you, MFG or Irbis ever harrumph about them! Go forth and diversify your hatred, eh?

Actually, I do hate them all for their colonial shenanigans (and also Germany, Japan and Russia). Now back to the topic at hand.

If the majority of Scots are more comfortable being a semi-autonomous region in a federated United Kingdom than they are being an independent country, I feel that is their right.

Very much so. I do respect the will of the people, even if I am dissappointed about it. It is way more than any representative government could ever claim to achieve, and I heard the voting participation was a record high, so there is something good about it - regardless whatever outcome one was rooting for.

Anyway, since you're rooting for the downfall of Western Europe or at least the Anglosphere, what exactly do you want to see replace it?

Something new and interesting. Anything that shakes up the status quo.

[Channel72]

Top ten countries by quality-of-life index; Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Singapore, New Zealand, Netherlands, Canada, Hong Kong.

Looking at the "where-to-be-born-index" (as they now call it), I am surprised how low the UK is. They're below Israel, for fuck's sake.

Although, really - I question some aspects of this index's methodology. Alledgedly the UAE is a somewhat "good" place to live (#18, right below the United States...) which is fucking bullshit unless you're like one of the 20% of the population that actually has citizenship and therefore isn't a defacto indentured servant/slave.

I'm pretty sure it's talking about the things it gives its citizens (subjects?) which include infinite free tuition and IIRC a stipend, not the fate of its underclass (who are mostly not born there)

Yeah, probably. The thing is, the overwhelming majority of people who actually live in the UAE are not citizens; they're not even Arabs. They're mostly Pakistanis/Indians, and their day-to-day existence sort of sucks. So, saying the UAE is a good place to live is somewhat misleading; it's like saying New York is an awesome place to live if you're Donald Trump. Ideally, this index would at least try to compensate for the majority experience. (And a lot of people born in the UAE are not citizens.)

Something new and interesting. Anything that shakes up the status quo.

Well, don't hold your breath. London is basically second only to New York in terms of global financial influence. The Western world is pretty much dominated by the anglosphere (NY + London) financially.

If it makes you feel better, I don't really like the capitalist excesses of the anglosphere either, but everytime somebody tries something radically different it results in utter shit.

[Welf]

Something new and interesting. Anything that shakes up the status quo.

Funny: That reminds of an op-ed from before the Iraq war. Some neo-conservative argued that Europeans were opposed to the coming war because they were afraid of change.

Top ten countries by quality-of-life index; Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Singapore, New Zealand, Netherlands, Canada, Hong Kong.

Looking at the "where-to-be-born-index" (as they now call it), I am surprised how low the UK is. They're below Israel, for fuck's sake.

Although, really - I question some aspects of this index's methodology. Alledgedly the UAE is a somewhat "good" place to live (#18, right below the United States...) which is fucking bullshit unless you're like one of the 20% of the population that actually has citizenship and therefore isn't a defacto indentured servant/slave.

I looked at criteria for the index and it's very vague to say the least. I would like to add a few points to what you already mentioned.

From wikipedia:

The independent variables in the estimating equation for 2006 include:

Material well-being as measured by GDP per capita (in $, at 2006 constant PPPS)

GDP per capita is a imprecise index. It measures only transactions on the market. Americans for example outsource a lot of daily chores like washing or gardening that is done by Europeans themselves. This let's the USA look better in comparison. Also it doesn't weigh the kind of produced goods. The USA spends 16% of it's GDP on health care, Germany only 11%, but with same results.

Life expectancy at birth

Living is good, so sounds reasonable.

The quality of family life based primarily on divorce rates

That is pretty much a conservative idea. A country with low divorce rates and high domestic violence doesn't sound better to me then the reversal.

The state of political freedoms

Sounds reasonable.

Job security (measured by the unemployment rate)

I'd say bad indicator again. I would prefer to live in a country with higher unemployment, good labour protection laws and good unemployment insurance than living in the constant fear of getting fired any day and then have prostitute myself.

Climate (measured by two variables: the average deviation of minimum and maximum monthly temperatures from 14 degrees Celsius; and the number of months in the year with less than 30mm rainfall)

Can't argue with good weather being good. But did they measure it as national average or weighted by the population distribution? Because the former would hit countries like Russia and Australia.

Personal physical security ratings (based primarily on recorded homicide rates and ratings for risk from crime and terrorism)
Quality of community life (based on membership in so­cial organisations)
Governance (measured by ratings for corruption)
Gender equality (measured by the share of seats in parliament held by women).

Those do sound reasonable.

[Simon_Jester]

The quality of family life based primarily on divorce rates

That is pretty much a conservative idea. A country with low divorce rates and high domestic violence doesn't sound better to me then the reversal.

Put this way. Among developed countries, where battered spouses can probably get a divorce if they want, and all else being equal... higher divorce rate can indicate problems. Think about some of the things that are correlated with the divorce rate: the level of stress experienced by the average citizen, high unemployment, the spread of addictions...

So while a low divorce rate may simply mean that in this society it's hard to get a divorce from a bad marriage, a high divorce rate can mean that a lot of people's marriages are going bad. And that there's some underlying ultimate cause of the bad marriages other than, say, "people cheat on each other more often in this country."

Job security (measured by the unemployment rate)

I'd say bad indicator again. I would prefer to live in a country with higher unemployment, good labour protection laws and good unemployment insurance than living in the constant fear of getting fired any day and then have prostitute myself.

Agreed. On the other hand, since the great majority of adults would like to have jobs, all else being equal, unemployment should be lower rather than higher.

What would be sensible would be to have separate metrics for the unemployment rate and the quality of the social 'safety net' for those unemployed people. Being unemployed can still make you feel depressed and unsuccessful even if you're on welfare, after all.

[Channel72]

Also... why is Iceland not on this list? Did it get disqualified because of the climate criterion? If so, the climate criterion isn't very useful. It's obviously better to be born in Iceland than Nigeria, on average. Maybe they only include countries above a certain population.

[Welf]

Put this way. Among developed countries, where battered spouses can probably get a divorce if they want, and all else being equal... higher divorce rate can indicate problems. Think about some of the things that are correlated with the divorce rate: the level of stress experienced by the average citizen, high unemployment, the spread of addictions...

So while a low divorce rate may simply mean that in this society it's hard to get a divorce from a bad marriage, a high divorce rate can mean that a lot of people's marriages are going bad. And that there's some underlying ultimate cause of the bad marriages other than, say, "people cheat on each other more often in this country."
What would be sensible would be to have separate metrics for the unemployment rate and the quality of the social 'safety net' for those unemployed people. Being unemployed can still make you feel depressed and unsuccessful even if you're on welfare, after all.

But assuming that all else is equal is the problem with those indicators. Societies like the Nordic states or East Germany managed to take away the stigma of divorce ans dampen the economic impact. It's a conservative judgement that a marriage always has to be forever and that a divorce is a moral failure. Sometimes people just change and move on. And a society that has a more reasonable and relaxed approach to marriage and divorce sounds like a place to live in. Maybe addiction and stress are correlated with divorce, but why not take those as measure in the first place?

[Channel72]

I think the reason most people consider divorce a bad thing is not so much that a marriage should, for some arbitrary reason, be permanent, but rather it's because when there's children involved, things can get messy. I'm not sure if, on average, there's bad economic effects for children who grow up with divorced parents. Some studies done in the 90s indicated that children of divorced parents are likely to perform worse in school, and overall end up earning lower salaries than children of non-divorced parents. More random stats here...

The problem is, I'm not sure how valid any of these studies are, and it's difficult to research this stuff on the Internet because you have to sort through a lot of biased garbage. Still, I find it intuitive that children whose parents get divorced are at the very least likely to suffer emotionally a bit. Of course, it goes without saying that divorce is always a superior option to maintaining an abusive relationship, especially when children are involved.

[Welf]

I think the reason most people consider divorce a bad thing is not so much that a marriage should, for some arbitrary reason, be permanent, but rather it's because when there's children involved, things can get messy. I'm not sure if, on average, there's bad economic effects for children who grow up with divorced parents. Some studies done in the 90s indicated that children of divorced parents are likely to perform worse in school, and overall end up earning lower salaries than children of non-divorced parents. More random stats here...

The problem is, I'm not sure how valid any of these studies are, and it's difficult to research this stuff on the Internet because you have to sort through a lot of biased garbage. Still, I find it intuitive that children whose parents get divorced are at the very least likely to suffer emotionally a bit. Of course, it goes without saying that divorce is always a superior option to maintaining an abusive relationship, especially when children are involved.

They probably suffer, but it's not that clear if they suffer more than if their parents hate each other but try to make a happy face, or worse constantly fight.
Those studies are probably correct, but as useful as those old studies that proved that bilingual education makes stupid. The negative effect is mostly financially. The cost for lawyers, splitting the assets, moving to a new apartment. And with only one parent child care gets harder while at the same time working becomes more important to offset those costs. Usually that means moving to a worse place. But a good society mitigates those effects. Clear rules for divorce, financial support for single moms, public child care, a more equal society where the place you live in doesn't matter for your career, or affordable housing that makes moving unnecessary. A society with those institutions and framework is better than one that doesn't have this. But those are not captured in the measurement of how high the divorce rate is. Actually, a lower divorce rate may show the opposite since a lot of financial and social cost to a divorce may reduce the rate.

[jwl]

"Don't let Scotland have another independence referendum" was a given way before the vote even happened. Salmond pledged that SNP wouldn't press for another referendum for a generation if the country votes No, that's why he kept going on about it being the scotland's only chance at independence.

The only way I see another referendum happening this generation is if Westminister fucks up on additional powers. If they do there'll be a strong sense of betrayal and a lot of people on both sides will push for another vote.

At 55/45 that still means that almost half of Scotland voted to leave. At that level you can't just say "well that's the end of that" - there needs to be a meaningful follow up or this won't end.


I voted no, however I'd made my peace with both options. I would not have been sad at a yes win and felt that both options had their strengths, I just felt that no was the slightly better option (I would have loved to see Westminister debate what to do with Trident though).

I do feel sorry for the yes voters this morning - a lot genuinely expected a win and are very disappointed (and some angry, but I think that will settle down for most people in a week). I do think though that the belief they'd win has been self-reinforcing to some extent. They've been the more vocal and visible side and for some its given them the believe that they were the bigger side. I had friends cheerful yesterday as the only badges they saw people wearing when they went to vote were yes badges and that they hadn't seen a single no voter. I don't think a lot of them appreciated the silent vote and set themselves up for a fall.

Agreed... but only because the scottish people voted "No" under the understanding that they'd get extra devolved powers. If they didn't have that promise and voted "No" anyway, whilst I suppose another party could campaign for independence again, it would be unprincipled for SNP to do so.

[Simon_Jester]

But assuming that all else is equal is the problem with those indicators. Societies like the Nordic states or East Germany managed to take away the stigma of divorce ans dampen the economic impact.

Frankly, this is true of most developed countries. So again, this works as a means of comparing one developed country to another- if divorce rates in Sweden are twice as high as in Germany, maybe the Swedes are chronically more stressed out and unhappy than Germans... even if we can't put our finger on exactly why.

Now, Swedish divorce rates being twice as high as those in Saudi Arabia tells us nothing whatsoever- again, this metric doesn't work on all countries.

Sometimes people just change and move on. And a society that has a more reasonable and relaxed approach to marriage and divorce sounds like a place to live in. Maybe addiction and stress are correlated with divorce, but why not take those as measure in the first place?

Well, it's hard to directly measure how much stress people are under. You can report how much stress they say they're under but that's only a reliable measure in societies where people are accurate (or at least consistently inaccurate) in how they report the stress they're feeling.

So it's appropriate to use a huge bundle of different indicators that all correlate with how stressed a person is, of which divorce would only be one. However, you'd need to use lots of such indicators and find good ways to weight them properly.