Scottish Independence: Round 2

[Thanas]

If only the ones who get adversely affected by a vote get the right to have their votes counted then what is the point of democracy?

[Tribble]

If only the ones who get adversely affected by a vote get the right to have their votes counted then what is the point of democracy?

Well, the argument being made is that parliament should be sovereign, and that there should not be any vote at all.

But IMO that doesn't change anything, and could make things even less democratic than referendums. The Conservatives managed to win a majority government with just 36.1% of the total number of votes with 66.4% turnout. In contrast Brexit has 51.8% of the vote with 71.8% turnout. What would have the stronger democratic mandate? The Conservatives to govern as they see fit with a majority, or the referendum? Now we don't know for sure if a majority of parliament would vote to leave, but assuming that they do, what would be the objection then? After all, in that case the MPs, in their role to act as representatives, would have decided that its in the best interests of the UK to leave. Is the idea that parliament is sovereign... unless it happens to go against someone's personal viewpoint?

[Zaune]

I don't actually dislike the idea of referendums per se, but I don't think they should ever be binding on a simple majority and I don't think there's much point holding them unless we can honestly say that both sides have had an equal opportunity to present their case. Not to put too fine a point on it, but achieving that in this country requires some fairly drastic changes to the laws our news media operate within.

As to the rest... Okay, maybe I went a bit too far there. But no, not everyone's opinion should be treated equally. Everyone's informed opinion should be, but people who are "sick of experts" and are more interested in gut feeling and 'common sense' than actual evidence should not be dictating government policy. If that makes me sound like an elitist then so be it.

[Flagg]

I don't actually dislike the idea of referendums per se, but I don't think they should ever be binding on a simple majority and I don't think there's much point holding them unless we can honestly say that both sides have had an equal opportunity to present their case. Not to put too fine a point on it, but achieving that in this country requires some fairly drastic changes to the laws our news media operate within.

As to the rest... Okay, maybe I went a bit too far there. But no, not everyone's opinion should be treated equally. Everyone's informed opinion should be, but people who are "sick of experts" and are more interested in gut feeling and 'common sense' than actual evidence should not be dictating government policy. If that makes me sound like an elitist then so be it.

What's wrong with elitism? Didn't "elite" used to be a good thing? Tangent over.

[Tribble]

I don't actually dislike the idea of referendums per se, but I don't think they should ever be binding on a simple majority and I don't think there's much point holding them unless we can honestly say that both sides have had an equal opportunity to present their case. Not to put too fine a point on it, but achieving that in this country requires some fairly drastic changes to the laws our news media operate within.

I actually agree with that assessment, what I don't like is moving the goalposts after the fact. If a government wants to pass laws stating that a clear majority is required (Canada has passed such legislation for future referendums on independence) then that's fine. I disagree agree with a government saying "well, I know we said a simple majority, but... FOOLED YOU!"

As to the rest... Okay, maybe I went a bit too far there. But no, not everyone's opinion should be treated equally. Everyone's informed opinion should be, but people who are "sick of experts" and are more interested in gut feeling and 'common sense' than actual evidence should not be dictating government policy. If that makes me sound like an elitist then so be it.

Sorry, could you be a bit more specific on what you mean? IMO in this context there are informal opinions (where some expresses their viewpoint via the media, writings, word of mouth, debates, etc) and formal opinions (where a person casts their ballot for electing someone or making a decision via referendum). While I agree that not everyone's informal opinions should be treated equally in terms of debates and whatnot, formal opinions via voting must be treated equally. Do you agree? Or do believe, for example, that you vote's weight should be determined on level of education, wealth, experience etc.? Should the vote from a CEO of a major company who holds multiple degrees be worth significantly more than someone who just graduated from high school and is working in the local café, for instance? Where do you draw the lines on whose votes should be worth more, or less? And if you believe that an elite oligarchic system is best, how would you prevent said elities from abusing the system even more than they do already?

[K. A. Pital]

IBut no, not everyone's opinion should be treated equally.

And who will be the deciders here?

The Decider?

[Flagg]

IBut no, not everyone's opinion should be treated equally.

And who will be the deciders here?

The Decider?

You have a good point, but I think what he's getting at is that informed people's opinions should carry more weight than those of the uninformed. Not in any official way by voting (this is me talking here, not him) but when it comes to who gets to speak before government panels and by the toilet that is western media.

[Tribble]

But that just goes back to "who ends up deciding who gets to be the experts that are allowed to talk? The Decider?"

[Simon_Jester]

Referenda serve one useful purpose in a representative democracy. You can use them to revisit fundamental questions that are essentially extraconstitutional.

The structure of constitutional government refers to routine questions of how government will operate, and resolves the question "who's in charge in an emergency?"

But when it comes time to make a decision that will fundamentally, permanently alter the structure of the state... you can reasonably argue that the true sovereignty lies in the people themselves, not in the government delegated by the people to run the country's day to day affairs and deal with emergencies.

The British constitution is an informal arrangement gradually modified and adjusted over a period of several hundred years into its current form. By and large, every major change in the British constitution occurred with the consent of the governed. However, there IS a reasonable objection that certain things (like the annexation of Scotland or the British decision to gradually meld with the UUE) were not actually consented to in advance. And that a government which irrevocably commits to such changes is exceeding its remit. Thus, a referendum (an appeal directly to the people, the source of the government's claim to sovereignty) is an appropriate way to resolve the question "Now what?"

[The Romulan Republic]

As a rule, I oppose separatism. It seems to me that its usually based on nationalism/tribalism and centuries-old grudges, and at best its a hassle that makes the world more divided.

But honestly, its hard to begrudge the Scots their independence here. Its my understanding that they voted to remain on the understanding that Britain would remain in the EU, and of course the majority of Scotland wants to remain in the EU. And since Britain started pulling the separatist shit first, for all the wrong reasons, I think the Scottish response, to remain in the EU, is quite fair.

As someone with a cultural and (distant) family attachment to Britain, and an appreciation for the history of the UK, I feel somewhat sad at the thought of the United Kingdom no longer being united.

But I can't say that the Brexiters didn't bring it on themselves.

This was a predictable outcome from the moment the Pigfucker decided to let the Brexiters have their stupid referendum.

Edit: Indeed, if Scotland leaves, then if their is any justice, Cameron will be remembered forevermore as the man who's lack of courage and leadership destroyed the United Kingdom.

[Bedlam]

An issue I have with a potential of Scottish Independence on the grounds they want to be part of the EU where as the majority of the UK as a whole doesn't is that if you can take your toys and leave anytime you disagree with the majority then what's the point of our current system of government. The current ruling government isn't the one I voted for, does that mean I should have the right to go and make my own country with the government I personally chose? If I vote against independence do I get to remain part of the UK even if the majority of Scotland choose independence?

The other issue is the repeated use of referendums until there the vote goes the way the SNP want. We did this all two years ago, yes I agree leaving the EU is a major change, but how major a change allows a new referendum? Do we vote after every general election, a new governments a major change. And if we do become independent and find out that there is a major change, say it turns out that the EU doesn't accept us with open arms and re-joining may turn out to be the work of several decades do we all get to vote again and re-join the UK or was that last vote final and binding? (sarcasm).

[Flagg]

But that just goes back to "who ends up deciding who gets to be the experts that are allowed to talk? The Decider?"

The ones expert in their field based on the topic in question? I mean it's not that hard to figure out.

[The Romulan Republic]

An issue I have with a potential of Scottish Independence on the grounds they want to be part of the EU where as the majority of the UK as a whole doesn't is that if you can take your toys and leave anytime you disagree with the majority then what's the point of our current system of government. The current ruling government isn't the one I voted for, does that mean I should have the right to go and make my own country with the government I personally chose? If I vote against independence do I get to remain part of the UK even if the majority of Scotland choose independence?

The other issue is the repeated use of referendums until there the vote goes the way the SNP want. We did this all two years ago, yes I agree leaving the EU is a major change, but how major a change allows a new referendum? Do we vote after every general election, a new governments a major change. And if we do become independent and find out that there is a major change, say it turns out that the EU doesn't accept us with open arms and re-joining may turn out to be the work of several decades do we all get to vote again and re-join the UK or was that last vote final and binding? (sarcasm).

Those are fair points. Its not a clear cut issue.

If I were a Scottish voter, I imagine I'd probably be tempted to just stay home and remain neutral.

[Simon_Jester]

The other issue is the repeated use of referendums until there the vote goes the way the SNP want. We did this all two years ago, yes I agree leaving the EU is a major change, but how major a change allows a new referendum? Do we vote after every general election, a new governments a major change. And if we do become independent and find out that there is a major change, say it turns out that the EU doesn't accept us with open arms and re-joining may turn out to be the work of several decades do we all get to vote again and re-join the UK or was that last vote final and binding? (sarcasm).

THAT is an extremely good point.

If the current British government weren't in the process of taking the country down in flames I'd call it fully decisive.

As it stands, Scotland may have no practical option other than independence to avoid long term economic disaster. A united Britain will suffer greatly reduced prosperity, and it's obvious that the English-Welsh bloc that voted Leave isn't particularly interested in respecting Scottish interests enough to give the Scots an incentive to stay in the United Kingdom. If the Scots had known two years ago what was going to happen with the Leave/Remain vote, it is very likely they would have voted for independence then and there.

[K. A. Pital]

But that just goes back to "who ends up deciding who gets to be the experts that are allowed to talk? The Decider?"

The ones expert in their field based on the topic in question? I mean it's not that hard to figure out.

It is actually very hard to figure out. This idea of clean technocracy, "rule of the educated", cannot be realized. The more you think about it, the more complicated it becomes.

[Flagg]

But that just goes back to "who ends up deciding who gets to be the experts that are allowed to talk? The Decider?"

The ones expert in their field based on the topic in question? I mean it's not that hard to figure out.

It is actually very hard to figure out. This idea of clean technocracy, "rule of the educated", cannot be realized. The more you think about it, the more complicated it becomes.

Again, I'm not talking about rulers, rather the idea that more credence be given to an expert in their field who has a doctorate from Oxford as witnesses speaking to, and advising government bodies and the media as opposed to Joe Shmo off the street who only knows what Rush Limbaugh tells him on the morning drive to his shift as assistant manager at Burger King.

And as for who decides, it's complicated. In the case of the government it's going to depend on the integrity of the governmental body, so point taken.

But in the media, it's the producers and bookers who should follow journalistic ethics, so again, point taken.

[K. A. Pital]

This would mean that only a very narrow set of experts could influence government policy. I think that it is very easy to go from that to a policy that's determined by a set of "experts" with "degrees" deciding what's best for everyone, who are in fact wholly in the pockets of corporations.

Joe Shmo doesn't have a say in the current system outside of a rare case of referendum anyway.

[Flagg]

This would mean that only a very narrow set of experts could influence government policy. I think that it is very easy to go from that to a policy that's determined by a set of "experts" with "degrees" deciding what's best for everyone, who are in fact wholly in the pockets of corporations.

Joe Shmo doesn't have a say in the current system outside of a rare case of referendum anyway.

You got in before the edit you commie bastard!

[Flagg]

This would mean that only a very narrow set of experts could influence government policy. I think that it is very easy to go from that to a policy that's determined by a set of "experts" with "degrees" deciding what's best for everyone, who are in fact wholly in the pockets of corporations.

Joe Shmo doesn't have a say in the current system outside of a rare case of referendum anyway.

And that's essentially why western civilization is ideologically a backed up toilet with shit pouring out of the bowl. The solution (not equating money with speech and so on) is so much genie out of the bottle.

[K. A. Pital]

Pretty much.

I always thought the idea was to educate everyone all around in a well-balanced fashion, thus making popular decisions - like referendums, popular elections and the like - more informed.

But recently I'm hearing the tune that it doesn't matter, and people should be specialized and only have expert knowledge in their narrow fields; there's no need for all-around education, there's no need for a creative, broadly skilled worker. Specialize - because it means greater productivity. We need to have expert button-pressers at the plant which know expertly how to press buttons on the machine, but don't know shit about the environment, about gender, literature, about math, about all else - that's what I've heard from people. Because that's more productive and irrelevant knowledge for a meaty machine tool appendage is, well, money for nothing, right?

But... then people shouldn't complain that the same meaty appendages with the brains of a cog, when asked to vote, will make choices that are as "smart" and "informed" as a coin-toss.

[Flagg]

Pretty much.

I always thought the idea was to educate everyone all around in a well-balanced fashion, thus making popular decisions - like referendums, popular elections and the like - more informed.

But recently I'm hearing the tune that it doesn't matter, and people should be specialized and only have expert knowledge in their narrow fields; there's no need for all-around education, there's no need for a creative, broadly skilled worker. Specialize - because it means greater productivity. We need to have expert button-pressers at the plant which know expertly how to press buttons on the machine, but don't know shit about the environment, about gender, literature, about math, about all else - that's what I've heard from people. Because that's more productive and irrelevant knowledge for a meaty machine tool appendage is, well, money for nothing, right?

But... then people shouldn't complain that the same meaty appendages with the brains of a cog, when asked to vote, will make choices that are as "smart" and "informed" as a coin-toss.

That's not what I'm talking about, though. I'm talking about people well informed all around, who also happen to be experts in a certain field and can use that expertise along with their well rounded knowledge and be able to testify in congressional/parliamentary committee's and appear on news media as opposed to a shill or talking head. But again, point taken.

[K. A. Pital]

Let me be more precise then. The problem with Zaune's original comment was that not all opinions could be treated equally. Although he's not opposed to referendums as such. But any referendum is just that: equal rights to vote for each person regardless of the level he/she understands the problem.

The trap of elitism here is to completely deny "Joe Average" his own opinion because he's too stupid to decide, because he follows the gut.

The question is, who made him follow the gut? That's what I was getting at. Good education is obnoxiously expensive in Anglo-Saxon nations with a tradition of private-only tertiary education, so uneducated voters are bound to be the mass. The previous level - schools - aren't good either, from what I heard.

But instead of working to change this, the idea of "not every opinion is equal" is to deny Joe Average the ability to influence policy. Not make him better at decisions, but keep him a dumb ape, just away from levers of government control. It is a profoundly wrong idea, in my view.

[Flagg]

Let me be more precise then. The problem with Zaune's original comment was that not all opinions could be treated equally. Although he's not opposed to referendums as such. But any referendum is just that: equal rights to vote for each person regardless of the level he/she understands the problem.

The trap of elitism here is to completely deny "Joe Average" his own opinion because he's too stupid to decide, because he follows the gut.

The question is, who made him follow the gut? That's what I was getting at. Good education is obnoxiously expensive in Anglo-Saxon nations with a tradition of private-only tertiary education, so uneducated voters are bound to be the mass. The previous level - schools - aren't good either, from what I heard.

But instead of working to change this, the idea of "not every opinion is equal" is to deny Joe Average the ability to influence policy. Not make him better at decisions, but keep him a dumb ape, just away from levers of government control. It is a profoundly wrong idea, in my view.

Oh, I agree completely. The top 3 solutions are better education, better education, and better education. I was just speaking as things exist now, not as I hope things will be if we as civilizations try to enlighten the population at large.

That said, there will always be a contingent of those who resist being educated based on religion, being a malcontent, or a delinquent. Not to mention those who "fall through the cracks". There are always going to be a contingent of the willfully ignorant, and I'll be damned if I deny them a say at the ballot box.

But they also shouldn't be given equal credence in the political and media sphere. That's how you end up with ulcerated rectums oozing pus-blood-shit like Donnie Douchebag being a nominee for leader of the executive branch in a (ridiculous) 2-party system. Both because barring outright douchiness they may actually be elected and because outright douchiness guarantee's the election of their opponent as long as they have a pulse and aren't inclined to nuke a random country for shits and giggles (Yes, that's hyperbole. Mostly.) after a 3 week bender.

[Bedlam]

The other issue is the repeated use of referendums until there the vote goes the way the SNP want. We did this all two years ago, yes I agree leaving the EU is a major change, but how major a change allows a new referendum? Do we vote after every general election, a new governments a major change. And if we do become independent and find out that there is a major change, say it turns out that the EU doesn't accept us with open arms and re-joining may turn out to be the work of several decades do we all get to vote again and re-join the UK or was that last vote final and binding? (sarcasm).

THAT is an extremely good point.

If the current British government weren't in the process of taking the country down in flames I'd call it fully decisive.

As it stands, Scotland may have no practical option other than independence to avoid long term economic disaster. A united Britain will suffer greatly reduced prosperity, and it's obvious that the English-Welsh bloc that voted Leave isn't particularly interested in respecting Scottish interests enough to give the Scots an incentive to stay in the United Kingdom. If the Scots had known two years ago what was going to happen with the Leave/Remain vote, it is very likely they would have voted for independence then and there.

Possibly, although I refer to my first point in my original comment. In any decision or vote there are going to be some people who agree and some disagree but the system doesn't work if the minority get to fracture off every time a vote or decision goes against them. You can argue historical president for Scotland being a separate country but if you look far enough back and hard enough you could probably find a president for almost any area to be separate, within Scotland itself the Lothains were once a separate country, some parts are more Nordic in culture, others celtic, if one area votes to stay in the UK and another doesn't should they fragment again? At some point you have to say, 'this decision may not benefit me personally but it is the will of majority and I will abide by that'.

As for independence avoiding long term economic disaster, I can't claim to be an expert but I don't see independence being a sudden cure all. There seems to be a general feeling that independence = everything stays how it is now, which I don't think is likely. For a start by the time any independence gets fully worked out Scotland would already be outside the EU and I don't think getting back in will be a simple matter or even that doing so would suddenly fix everything. At the moment I'd guess that Scotland is probably a net drain on EU resources and if they do accept us back in I doubt it would be on the same terms, onone's just going to say 'welcome have a bunch of free money' any agreement would have to benefit the EU more than Scotland and given the whole current independence movement seems to be based on being in the EU they would have the advantage in any negotiation. Even putting the EU aside setting up a new country is not cheap or easy particularly if the rest of the UK is not keen on making concessions (yeah the whole britexit thing may work in Scotland's favour here as it hits the economy but if the pains already there a bit more might not be noticed) and Scotland's reduced economic size won't help.

I agree that leaving the EU was a bad idea, however, it was the decision of the (slight) majority of the UK and on those grounds has to be carried out and I don't think balkanisation of the country is the way to deal with it at least partially because it sets a dangerous president for further splits everytime a decision needs to be made.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But recently I'm hearing the tune that it doesn't matter, and people should be specialized and only have expert knowledge in their narrow fields; there's no need for all-around education, there's no need for a creative, broadly skilled worker. Specialize - because it means greater productivity. We need to have expert button-pressers at the plant which know expertly how to press buttons on the machine, but don't know shit about the environment, about gender, literature, about math, about all else - that's what I've heard from people. Because that's more productive and irrelevant knowledge for a meaty machine tool appendage is, well, money for nothing, right?

Just out of curiosity, where are you hearing this (I'm not contending you on the fact, I am just genuinely curious to hear more)? I mean, are these proposals you've read in papers or trade journals, or just anecdotally how you've heard people talk about the issue? At least from my purely anecdotal experience here in the U.S., most conversations on educational reform have been the opposite, focused on trying to improve our rather broken rudimentary/general education system. Of course, I am exposed to a pretty biased sample of individuals talking about the issue, and the U.S. certainly has different issues to contend with than they do across the pond. I just think it's interesting that there appears to be a "specialization" trend (is this related to the European tendency to expose kids to vocational training earlier than they do in the U.S.)?