UK General Election 2017

[Tryhard]

Figured I'd open a topic about this although I wouldn't have without the absurdity of the exit poll.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40209282

Essentially, for those who don't know, Teresa May the Prime Minister called a snap election (after she said she wouldn't) in the hope to get more power and seats for her Conservative party, but has shown herself to be such a bad candidate (including when she didn't even bother turning up to debate the other parties and sent a representative of her party instead) and pushing terrible policies in the Conservative manifesto (including regulating the internet to "stop terrorism", cutting help to people with dementia, fucking fox hunting, etc) that she has literally lost a 20+ point lead in the period of a single month over Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (which for those in America is sort of a Bernie Sanders style of politician although Corbyn is further left than Sanders) who has been roundly criticised since he took over as Labour leader. Now if the exit poll is correct (which remains to be seen, as the 2015 exit poll predicted the same IIRC) and there is going to be a hung parliament, it will be a huge failure for the Conservatives, even if they lose any of their seats because of the powerful position they were in when Theresa May called this snap election.

Results are coming in now but I thought it would be interesting to discuss, though I likely won't be waiting up all night. It may be nothing and the Conservatives will still handily win but it is looking far more tight than it ought to be. I think it would be hilarious if a spectacular backfire occurred where she didn't even need to call this election. Even if that doesn't happen it's still likely the Conservatives will get their knives out to replace her.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Tryhard

[Skynstein]

17 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Essentially, for those who don't know, Teresa May the Prime Minister called a snap election (after she said she wouldn't) in the hope to get more power and seats for her Conservative party, but has shown herself to be such a bad candidate (including when she didn't even bother turning up to debate the other parties and sent a representative of her party instead) and pushing terrible policies in the Conservative manifesto (including regulating the internet to "stop terrorism", cutting help to people with dementia, etc) that she has literally lost a 20 point lead in the period of a single month over Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (which for those in America is sort of a Bernie Sanders style of politician although Corbyn is further left than Sanders) who has been roundly criticised since he took over as Labour leader. Now if the exit poll is correct (which remains to be seen, as the 2015 exit poll predicted the same IIRC) and there is going to be a hung parliament, it will be a huge failure for the Conservatives, even if they lose any of their seats because of the powerful position they were in when Theresa May called this snap election.

You can do that in Britain? That's TOTALLY cool, haha. Over here they ask questions to an empty chair. :D

Not sure what to think of it, though European elections these days are very depressing. People like Le Pen gain visibility because the standard politicians can't get their act together.

Actually, elections are depressing pretty much everywhere as of late. Take the USA, for example. The choice was between Trump (who is totally inept), Hillary Clinton (who's as establishment as it gets), Bernie Sanders (who was ready to sacrifice Western military leverage against total world domination by the Russians and the Chinese), and some random Republicans who are, well, average Republicans, with all the connotations the phrase carries.

So far the Tories are earning themselves a hung parliament as you say, which is hilarious. Their timing with polls has been absolutely horrible, from Brexit to today's election.

[Tryhard]

6 minutes ago, Cerberus87 said:

You can do that in Britain? That's TOTALLY cool, haha. Over here they ask questions to an empty chair. :D

So far the Tories are earning themselves a hung parliament as you say, which is hilarious. Their timing with polls has been absolutely horrible, from Brexit to today's election.

I think she was thinking about it, but she sent Home Secretary Amber Rudd who may possibly lose her seat in the results. I know the 'debates' in these elections are usually seen as superfluous but she got a lot of flak for that, but considering she's a pretty terrible debater she probably figured she would lose more by going as opposed to not showing up and letting everyone else sandbag her lack of presence.  

I hope for a hung parliament, but it may be more likely a slim Tory majority. Either way, they deserve to learn a lesson from this.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Tryhard

[Etrurian emperor]

12 minutes ago, Cerberus87 said:

Not sure what to think of it, though European elections these days are very depressing. People like Le Pen gain visibility because the standard politicians can't get their act together.

Actually I think its starting to get better in Europe. The Dutch didn't grand Wilders the monster victory predicted for so long, a standard politician did get his act together in France and kept Le Pen out of office and in Germany most things point to AFD falling just as fast as they have risen.

I think it would be a shame to see May go. If this weakens her position then that means the Brexit negations will be led by people less dependable and with more reasons not to strike a good deal. I don't think the hardcore Brexiteers who kept downplaying the risks have anything to gain by making the concessions needed for Britain to remain in the single market. Its far easier for them to walk out, claim the EU is being unreasonable and avoid the compromises that highlighted they painted to rosy a picture for everyone. 

[Skynstein]

14 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Actually I think its starting to get better in Europe. The Dutch didn't grand Wilders the monster victory predicted for so long, a standard politician did get his act together in France and kept Le Pen out of office and in Germany most things point to AFD falling just as fast as they have risen.

I think it would be a shame to see May go. If this weakens her position then that means the Brexit negations will be led by people less dependable and with more reasons not to strike a good deal. I don't think the hardcore Brexiteers who kept downplaying the risks have anything to gain by making the concessions needed for Britain to remain in the single market. Its far easier for them to walk out, claim the EU is being unreasonable and avoid the compromises that highlighted they painted to rosy a picture for everyone. 

"Getting their act together" means being honest and taking strong, wise, meaningful decisions, not winning polls. Macron is a wax figure, overly clean and overly afraid of hurting people's feelings. He won because people voted against Le Pen, not for him. The media has been trying to create the image of a strong leader while he really doesn't seem that strong, he got support because he won't "get in the way" of powerful people. His conciliation talk looks a lot like indecisiveness rather than strong resolve.

If Le Pen would outright sink the boat, Macron will let it head into the iceberg and only try something when it's too late.

None of the current European leaders look capable enough to me, and none of the contestants look capable either. But it's all too easy for me to say things like these. Managing a country is an extremely difficult task and, unless you're a dictator, you'll never be able to do as you please. Biggest obstacle being all the economic interests at stake.

I recommend watching that show from Netflix (Narcos) to get an idea of how hard it is to rule over a country with chronic, endemic problems. Gaviria is in office for most of the show's duration. The amount of crap he has to deal with is too much for most people. Gaviria himself being portrayed as someone "softer" doesn't help matters either. In the end he did what he thought was best, but it's all futile when others keep failing him.

People are dying by the dozens every other month. I remember someone telling me Europeans have to deal with terror attacks as a "fact of today's world". I strongly disagree! They're not at war with anyone, at least not officially. Yet people keep dying as if they were. However, there's no magic solution to this problem, because:

1) If you declare "war on Islam", what to make of the European nationals who follow Islamic faith and don't engage in terrorist activity?

2) If you keep indiscriminately allowing people into Europe, how do you tame the outrage when a terror attack does happen and is carried out by someone with Muslim background?

3) If the ones responsible for terror attacks are Muslims born and raised in Europe, how can you blame Islam for it?

I understand why European leaders would be lost when faced with something like this. But it's time for them to be more honest. Speak clearly about the problems. Try to get closer to the people they're responsible for. But there's no easy route. People are trying to find an easy solution that doesn't exist.

[Nobody]

wtf is going on in scotland, with so many of its seats flipping conservative

that could be the thing to keep the tories in government

Edited June 9, 2017 by Nobody

[Tryhard]

It's very surprising but at the same time the Scottish independence issue has been more growing more unpopular, and while Brexit might be a resolved issue, independence isn't. People in Scotland who want to remain in the Union may have voted Conservative because they are angry at Scottish Labour (which is understandable, but I don't think equating them to the Scottish Tories is anywhere near close).

I expected the SNP to haemorrhage seats, but not to the Conservatives. Never in my life did I think I would see the Conservatives doing well in Scotland though - they are mostly hated. Or at least I thought they were.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Tryhard

[Res]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

It's very surprising but at the same time the Scottish independence issue has been more growing more unpopular

Why? I admit I haven't been following Scottish politics at all but I'd assumed Brexit would make Scots all the more eager for Scottish independence?

I'm really looking forward to May hopefully biting the bullet, but then there's nothing about her I like.

From what I've seen the media coverage in general (but especially the tabloids) has been pretty shameful; I'm also partially hoping for Tory failure because it'll give me some hope that people are thinking for themselves.

edit: Goodness, this is close so far!

Edited June 9, 2017 by Res

[Tryhard]

Couldn't tell you, but there has been a general fatigue of the number of referendums and elections and votes we've had over the past few years, and from the polls I saw suggested waning interest for it currently. Many might want to wait to see how Brexit turns out and aren't exactly thrilled with what the timing of it would be (including myself).

Essentially for those wondering what the likely outcome is: 

Conservatives remain the largest party (while it's close right now, rural seats that lean overwhelmingly conservative are usually last to be counted - the predictions are likely correct with around Conservatives 318, Labour 267) but do not have enough seats to be a majority government as they previously were (326+ seats). They are likely to get around 318. That means they will likely seek a coalition with DUP to make up the seats to a majority, which means they will cow to another party.

Corbyn will likely silence critics who thought he was unelectable along with the generally centrist Labour wing, and will remain the leader of Labour. If Brexit goes horribly in Tory hands then he will be able to capitalise on it as the opposition next time an election is had. Considering how much of a weak state Labour was in (Labour were expected to lose in a massive landslide just a month ago), even if he is not winning as the largest party, preventing the Tories from taking a majority government is big.

I expect May to resign soon before she is pushed - there is no way she can save face from this. Conservatives aren't known for being forgiving when their leaders make mistakes, and she's made a huge one.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Tryhard

[Punished Dayni]

So, as of 8:30 BST, all but 4 seats are filled, and the Conservatives can't get a majority themselves, but will likely be able to form a coalition with the DUP if they gain another seat to form a tiny majority and even without another seat can attempt to form it using other MPs as well. Labour managed to gain something out of this election (which is a sea change from polls suggesting 400 Conservative seats) and the other parties are pretty much piecemeal in terms of seats (I'll just link to BBC coverage here).

(Also what can't Sinn Féin just sit in parliament and immediately change the whole dynamic (if the Conservatives don't get another seat)? Well I'd go into most of the reasons but essentially they will not take the oath needed when entering parliament because it refers to taking allegiance to the Queen, something they are not interested in (Considering their stance on the North and their entire history, this is not surprising). The one time (Disclaimer: may not actually be the one time) that this actively hurts their case within the UK, as they'd actually have a shot of influencing the government right now.)

[Tryhard]

I have to wonder what demands DUP will make - I've heard they're a fairly extreme right party with a streak of fundamentalist Protestantism and anti-Catholicism where they support that gay marriage and abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland. But they're also for a 'soft' Brexit, which might not be what a good amount of Conservative voters want either. The fact that they've got the Conservatives backed in a corner needing their support is embarrassing for them after having a majority for the next three years.

That said, I'm a little disappointed about the Conservative gains in Scotland even if Ruth Davidson was running a far better campaign for Scottish Conservatives which may as well have been a dead party up here previously. Without those gains the Conservatives would be even more in the shit.

By the way, the difference in Fife North East was two votes between the first and second candidates.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Tryhard

[Irysa]

TBFH, the Scottish swing to Tory has more to do with the fact that a significant portion of the SNP's voterbase supports Brexit, which is hardly surprising when you realise that "Civic Nationalism" is at best only part of what defines Scottish Nationalism, and that Nationalism always harbors these "less than desirable" aspects. Not really that different from UKIP in many ways tbfh. The SNP as a political movement has never really been left wing till recent history, there's a reason they used to be called the Tartan Tories.

The mantra of "get a Tory government you didn't vote for" is really dead in the water now though, but FSR nobody seemed to remember until now that prior to the Poll Tax, Scotland had plenty of Tory voters and they were even important in helping Thatcher in her early terms.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Irysa

[Tryhard]

28 minutes ago, Irysa said:

TBFH, the Scottish swing to Tory has more to do with the fact that a significant portion of the SNP's voterbase supports Brexit, which is hardly surprising when you realise that "Civic Nationalism" is at best only part of what defines Scottish Nationalism, and that Nationalism always harbors these "less than desirable" aspects. Not really that different from UKIP in many ways tbfh. The SNP as a political movement has never really been left wing till recent history, there's a reason they used to be called the Tartan Tories.

Not really sure if that's the case. The polls I've seen places SNP support for Leave at about 36%. If you can call that a "significant portion", sure, but it's not any worse than any other party (and is pretty much the same as how Scotland voted on Brexit in general)

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14950013.36__of_SNP_and_Labour_supporters_backed_Brexit__finds_survey/
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

The SNP weren't exactly popular when they weren't left-wing, either, but it's not like there aren't left-wingers in support of Brexit either so I'm not sure it's really worth pointing out. And I would think most Scots would consider themselves left-wing but with those Conservatives gains I'm not necessarily sure.

To be honest, there's a huge difference between UKIP and Trump Nationalism and the brand of SNP Nationalism.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Tryhard

[Irysa]

44 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Not really sure if that's the case. The polls I've seen places SNP support for Leave at about 36%. If you can call that a "significant portion", sure, but it's not any worse than any other party (and is pretty much the same as how Scotland voted on Brexit in general)

Yes, but the SNP had and currently have the largest voteshare in the country, and are also the incumbent party, so 30% of theirs is worth more than everyone else's put together. And because of how FPTP works, it's more than enough to swing things over.

44 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

The SNP weren't exactly popular when they weren't left-wing, either, but it's not like there aren't left-wingers can't be in support of Brexit either so I'm not sure it's really worth pointing out. And I would think most Scots would consider themselves left-wing but with those Conservatives gains I'm not necessarily sure.

First point; whilst that is true, the point is more to do with the fact that there are plenty of SNP voters who have sympathies with conservative principles, both socially and economically, but dislike the English centric nature of the UK conservative party, espceially in the post Thatcher era. I mean really, even when you look at how the SNP has governed, they have not nearly been as progressive as they like to claim they are. Scotland was given new tax powers and they rolled out Tory tier excuses as to why they couldn't be raised (it would drive business away), and when their leader gets put on the defensive by a Nurse on TV, their candidates and supporters look to smear her as not being of the "deserving" poor (on National fucking TV mind), which is again typical right wing mantra.

The writing is on the wall dude.

Second point, uh, really, no. Unless by most you accept over 51%, but the reality is in terms of attitudes we're not really that different from the rest of the UK. I've said this to many people before, maybe they'll believe me now, but the SNP is a coalition party in itself of people across the spectrum who want an independant Scotland, and will do whatever they can to achieve it. If part of that involves having to parade around as being a left leaning party to scoop up disgrunted Liberal and Labour voters, so be it. The SNP as a party will not remain glued together in an independant scotland, and you would certainly see the formation of a new centre right party in Scotland following it.

44 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

To be honest, there's a huge difference between UKIP and Trump Nationalism and the brand of SNP Nationalism.

They're superficially different, but they come from the same root belief of inherant superiority and dislike of outsiders. Scottish independance is rooted in division, not in desire for accountability. If it was about power, Liberals have supported a federalised vision of the UK for a very long time, and yet this idea never gained traction because it's not racical enough for nationalists who see Westminister as some foreign evil. One may say "but Scotland doesn't hate immigrants", but I would counter that by saying our rate of immigration is dramatically lower and we're nearly 97% white compared to England which has far more ethnic minorities. If we had a more significant immigrant population you'd see the same kind of "unease" in our political discourse.

The facade of "civic" nationalism that the SNP present has always been a lie and a trap. Nationalism is not a political force that can be wielded purely for good, there is always an ugly underside.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Irysa

[Tryhard]

Quote

Yes, but the SNP had and currently have the largest voteshare in the country, and are also the incumbent party, so 30% of theirs is worth more than everyone else's put together. And because of how FPTP works, it's more than enough to swing things over.

Sure, and I agree it had an effect but I'm not sure it was the only factor. It's interesting that you would be convinced by this because I seem to recall you saying that fall of the union was inevitable and since the Brexit result the SNP could run wild. I was skeptical, especially at the long term prospects of a party like the SNP holding their seats.

Quote

First point; whilst that is true, the point is more to do with the fact that there are plenty of SNP voters who have sympathies with conservative principles, both socially and economically, but dislike the English centric nature of the UK conservative party, espceially in the post Thatcher era. I mean really, even when you look at how the SNP has governed, they have not nearly been as progressive as they like to claim they are. Scotland was given new tax powers and  they rolled out Tory tier excuses as to why they couldn't be raised  (it would drive business away), and when  their leader gets put on the defensive by a Nurse on TV, their candidates and supporters look to smear her as not being of the "deserving" poor (on National fucking TV mind), which is again typical right wing mantra.

The writing is on the wall dude.

I'm willing to accept that they probably aren't as progressive as they claim, but I doubt they one and the same with the Conservative party. Isn't that business excuse fall under centrism (neoliberal, which I'm not a fan of either, but centrist nonetheless), though? I've not heard of this nurse incident but if it is as you describe then yes, that is shit, much like the English hardcore Conservatives that rail against Scottish people for being "addicted to welfare".

Quote

Second point, uh, really, no. Unless by most you accept over 51%, but the reality is in terms of attitudes we're not really that different from the rest of the UK. I've said this to many people before, maybe they'll believe me now, but the SNP is a coalition party in itself of people across the spectrum who want an independant Scotland, and will do whatever they can to achieve it. If part of that involves having to parade around as being a left leaning party to scoop up disgrunted Liberal and Labour voters, so be it.

I suppose "most" could be seen as a majority of 51+%, but do you think that they follow the same conventions as the rest of the UK - i.e the elderly tend to vote Conservative, rural areas tend to vote Conservative, etc. I always thought that Scotland generally hating the Conservatives after Thatcher wasn't just a coincidence. Scotland feeling betrayed and disillusioned with Scottish Labour was one of the things that pushed the SNP after all.

Quote

The SNP as a party will not remain glued together in an independant scotland, and you would certainly see the formation of a new centre right party in Scotland following it.

Do you mean that they will splinter the party into a center-right alternative? In that case, I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that. If you believe Scotland to have the same political demographics as the rest of the UK, it is a viable option and will be opposition to stop what would assumedly be a left party from growing as arrogant and complacent as Teresa May is right now.

Quote

They're superficially different, but they come from the same root belief of inherant superiority and dislike of outsiders. Scottish independance is rooted in division, not in desire for accountability.

Have you any polls or studies of SNP members that suggest they overly dislike outsiders compared to the rest of the UK population, or is this from personal experience?

Quote

If it was about power, Liberals have supported a federalised vision of the UK for a very long time, and yet this idea never gained traction because it's not racical enough for nationalists who see Westminister as some foreign evil.

To be honest, as soon as Westminister stop actually being shit as they have been, I wouldn't criticise them any more, and I don't think they're that far off the mark. Now if you're suggesting that they would still rail against Westminister if it did actually get its shit together because they care about independence above all else (which makes sense), then yeah, I'd say you're right. But they have understandable grievances.

Quote

One may say "but Scotland doesn't hate immigrants", but I would counter that by saying our rate of immigration is dramatically lower and we're nearly 97% white compared to England which has far more ethnic minorities. If we had a more significant immigrant population you'd see the same kind of "unease" in our political discourse.

Sure, England has 85% white population compared to Scottish 96% (I believe it's closer to 96%). I'm not sure how strict our immigration policies are but are you completely assured that if Scotland received 11% more people of non-white ethnicity that a decent amount of our population would immediately convert to hating them?

Quote

The facade of "civic" nationalism that the SNP present has always been a lie and a trap. Nationalism is not a political force that can be wielded purely for good, there is always an ugly underside.

I'd say the same for any political idealogy or system will always have an ugly underside. I'm aware of the dangers of nationalism. For the record, I didn't vote SNP, and I don't even like Nicola Sturgeon, but I have trouble believing it's a wash between her and her parties policies and Nigel Farage and Donald Trump. You're a unionist and so of course you wouldn't like them, but my question is this: if I support an independent Scotland, is there (or could there be) anyone for me to support that would not be seen as fallible nationalists in your eyes?

Regardless, I don't really want to argue about the SNP (though I asked questions there, so feel free to answer them). The most significant thing here is that the Tories have nationally embarassed themselves in an election Theresa May herself called, which is endlessly amusing.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

Think the terrorist attacks had any influence on the outcome, or is this the same way people would have voted anyway?

[Irysa]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Sure, and I agree it had an effect but I'm not sure it was the only factor. It's interesting that you would be convinced by this because I seem to recall you saying that fall of the union was inevitable and since the Brexit result the SNP could run wild. I was skeptical, especially at the long term prospects of a party like the SNP holding their seats.

I still think its inevitable. I didn't say they could run wild, merely that they would be able to use the Brexit result as a mandate for attempting another indyref, which they did, but I did not forsee Westminister blocking it.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I'm willing to accept that they probably aren't as progressive as they claim, but I doubt they one and the same with the Conservative party. Isn't that business excuse fall under centrism (neoliberal, which I'm not a fan of either, but centrist nonetheless), though? I've not heard of this nurse incident but if it is as you describe then yes, that is shit, much like the English hardcore Conservatives that rail against Scottish people for being "addicted to welfare".

I put links in my post shortly after if you didn't catch them. As for neoliberalism, yes, but that's the basic position of the UK conservative party too, and UKIP for that matter. They are not in favor of progressive taxation. I'm not saying they're the same as the Tory party, I'm just trying to point out examples of how they're not really a left leaning party in terms of actual policy or management of public services (pay freeze, etc). They like to blame everything on Westminister or not having enough power yet don't actively use the powers they get given in order to make the changes they claim to support.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I suppose "most" could be seen as a majority of 51+%, but do you think that they follow the same conventions as the rest of the UK - i.e the elderly tend to vote Conservative, rural areas tend to vote Conservative, etc. I always thought that Scotland generally hating the Conservatives after Thatcher wasn't just a coincidence. Scotland feeling betrayed and disillusioned with Scottish Labour was one of the things that pushed the SNP after all.

It depends on how well off the elderly person is, but yes to the first. They used to be strong in rural areas in Scotland but the Liberals ended up mostly scooping up their votes when the Conservative brand became toxic, and the Liberals got those votes instead of Labour because these areas don't have the kind of demographics where class warfare esque mantra carries much weight.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Do you mean that they will splinter the party into a center-right alternative? In that case, I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that. If you believe Scotland to have the same political demographics as the rest of the UK, it is a viable option and will be opposition to stop what would assumedly be a left party from growing as arrogant and complacent as Teresa May is right now.

I'm not saying this is an argument for it not being a viable option, it's merely just building off the point about how the false narrative of Scotland as a far more left leaning party of the country was perpetuated.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Have you any polls or studies of SNP members that suggest they overly dislike outsiders compared to the rest of the UK population, or is this from personal experience?

Well I have plenty of personal experience dealing with SNP supporters from political activism and canvassing I take part in, especially during these past two elections. But the part you quoted is really supposed to be connected to the next line, which is the main crux of the argument; that if it was about accountability, Federalism should have been the popular idea, not independance. Why would we need to be independant of the UK if we could all manage everything within our nations except for things like defence and foreign relations? The point is it's about Scottish or British identity.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

To be honest, as soon as Westminister stop actually being shit as they have been, I wouldn't criticise them any more, and I don't think they're that far off the mark. Now if you're suggesting that they would still rail against Westminister if it did actually get its shit together because they care about independence above all else (which makes sense), then yeah, I'd say you're right. But they have understandable grievances.

I'm not insinuating that no criticism should be leveraged at Westminsister. Again some of this is out of context due to the separation of the lines. The argument is that if Scottish nationalism was truly civic, there would be no need for the nationalism, because Liberal Federalism already enables the civic portions of it. What caught on was Independance and what the SNP have historically succeeded in is tribalistic opposition to Westminister and the English state.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Sure, England has 85% white population compared to Scottish 96% (I believe it's closer to 96%). I'm not sure how strict our immigration policies are but are you completely assured that if Scotland received 11% more people of non-white ethnicity that a decent amount of our population would immediately convert to hating them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England#Ethnicity

Its like 80%, so more than that. And it would not be "immediate", and it's not as if England hates foreigners either. I'm simply saying that it is common for bad things to be blamed on outsiders unreasonably so, but in a scenario where they make up a tiny % of the population it is not going to be as prevelant as where they make up nearly a quarter. Thus I believe that if we had a higher immigration rate, we would see similar unease and tension about the subject of immigration as England sees.

 

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I'd say the same for any political idealogy or system will always have an ugly underside. I'm aware of the dangers of nationalism. For the record, I didn't vote SNP, and I don't even like Nicola Sturgeon, but I have trouble believing it's a wash between her and her parties policies and Nigel Farage and Donald Trump. You're a unionist and so of course you wouldn't like them, but my question is this: if I support an independent Scotland, is there (or could there be) anyone for me to support that would not be seen as fallible nationalists in your eyes?

First point; most of them do, but I believe that liberalism does not, beyond the problems to do with the historic facets of a patriarchal, white male european centric view of everything, but these are not inherant to liberalism so much as to the places it is prominent in, and liberals have acknowledged this and attempt to compensate.

And I think you're misrepresenting me because whilst there are certainly more blatant fascist tendancies present in UKIP or Trump my point is that the concept of nationalism that powers them all is rooted in the same thing.

As for the last question, you'd have to explain why you think an independant Scotland is neccessary as opposed to a Federal UK before I could actually answer that. FWIW I don't believe the Green Party is nationalist, but I also believe them to primarily be opportunistic in their modern day leveraging of social issues to try to get more attention so they can attempt to use that to focus on things they're ultimately more concerned about (that goes for most Green Parties worldwide for that matter). But since they're concerned about the climate primarily that's not really quite as bad. Similarly their support of independance seems more about the their perception of practical realities of managing particular problems rather than tribalism, but I suppose it depends on which Green Party supporter you talk to, as some are more marxist than others.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Irysa

[Res]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Think the terrorist attacks had any influence on the outcome, or is this the same way people would have voted anyway?

I doubt they did; certainly the polls are suggesting otherwise.

Here are some graphs on voting demographics. The two biggest influences seem to be: a) people no longer in favour of Brexit/people who perhaps didn't sense a need to vote on Brexit now voting and b) young people seem to have turned out in force. Incidentally, my hometown, one of the poorest in the area and with a higher percentage of elderly people, voted Tory once again, whereas my university city and its surrounding areas is very much red. 

[Tryhard]

Quote

I still think its inevitable. I didn't say they could run wild, merely that they would be able to use the Brexit result as a mandate for attempting another indyref, which they did, but I did not forsee Westminister blocking it.

I put links in my post shortly after if you didn't catch them. As for neoliberalism, yes, but that's the basic position of the UK conservative party too, and UKIP for that matter. They are not in favor of progressive taxation. I'm not saying they're the same as the Tory party, I'm just trying to point out examples of how they're not really a left leaning party in terms of actual policy or management of public services (pay freeze, etc). They like to blame everything on Westminister or not having enough power yet don't actively use the powers they get given in order to make the changes they claim to support.

Yes, I know the SNP deserves a lot of their own criticisms and that's why I'm not out campaigning for them or really even giving them my support. If anything, I'd be more on point voting for the Scottish Socialist Party if I wanted an independent truly-left leaning party, yes.

Quote

Its like 80%, so more than that. And it would not be "immediate", and it's not as if England hates foreigners either. I'm simply saying that it is common for bad things to be blamed on outsiders unreasonably so, but in a scenario where they make up a tiny % of the population it is not going to be as prevelant as where they make up nearly a quarter. Thus I believe that if we had a higher immigration rate, we would see similar unease and tension about the subject of immigration as England sees.

Alright, but I'm still skeptical about why the % really matters - minorities are going to be scapegoated by some always, regardless of how many are in their country. Wouldn't it be like that in other European countries, for example?

Quote

First point; most of them do, but I believe that liberalism does not, beyond the problems to do with the historic facets of a patriarchal, white male european centric view of everything, but these are not inherant to liberalism so much as to the places it is prominent in, and liberals have acknowledged this and attempt to compensate.

I actually think liberals can go against what their values ought to be when discussing things they feel as though they need to defend - authoritarian Islam customs being an example, which can be the definition of illiberal. And I say this as someone who considers themselves a progressive who does defend when people attack regular Muslims for no reason. While you could argue that these people calling themselves liberals are not following a core tenant, that would also likely be pointed out to be No True Scotsman, which is fitting.

Quote

And I think you're misrepresenting me because whilst there are certainly more blatant fascist tendancies present in UKIP or Trump my point is that the concept of nationalism that powers them all is rooted in the same thing.

While that may be true, taking pride in your national identity is fine unless it extends to jingoism or feelings of superiority. Personally, I'd consider myself Scottish before British, but I don't take pride in that. While they may be rooted in the same things, the policies and way they conduct themselves is so vastly different, and thus I can't call nationalism inherently harmful or bad.

Quote

As for the last question, you'd have to explain why you think an independant Scotland is neccessary as opposed to a Federal UK before I could actually answer that.

1. The possibility of rejoining the EU, as I am a Remainer. That said, I'm not really opposed to letting Brexit happen while we are in the UK.

2. Would federalisation even get on a ballot? You said it yourself but people haven't exactly shown interest in it and while Corbyn said he would 'consider' it, that's a pretty tepid response. Independence has already been on it and people immediately know what it is about and have strong feelings on it. From what I understand, Westminister purposely left it off the ballot for the fear that it would take votes away from a "no" to independence vote in 2014 (and they didn't want to go ahead with federalisation), so it's unlikely that it would even be gone through with. It's already lucky enough that they let us vote on independence. I remember David Cameron promising that Scotland would get increased powers if we voted no to independence, and as far I know (correct me if I'm wrong), we got dick all.

3. I don't believe federalisation is practical because if they did actually get on the ballot it would likely need people of all parts of the UK to vote on it, and while I'm sure Wales and NI would be happy to, I'm not sure it would be viewed favorably in England, or if they even care about it - but one of the arguments for Brexcit was that the "EU is becoming too federal", ridiculous as that is, and would likely ascribe the same argument.

4. As much as we were talking political demographics, if the Tory train continues in England, it's unlikely for Scotland to have much say in getting Labour a majority unless the SNP just totally collapses (which is a possibility, but I don't exactly forsee it). I hope the political climate changes soon in accordance with this snap election in the UK because being under a Tory majority government for so long with no real viable opposition just fucks all of us. I would prefer we were out of the country with the huge austerity cuts.

That said, I would like federalisation as well if it was possible, and would vote for it. So I'm not saying I'm necessary opposed to a federal UK, just that I see it as a pipe dream compared to the independence topic that has already been discussed and is far more likely. Essentially, when you said:

3 hours ago, Irysa said:

But the part you quoted is really supposed to be connected to the next line, which is the main crux of the argument; that if it was about accountability, Federalism should have been the popular idea, not independance. Why would we need to be independant of the UK if we could all manage everything within our nations except for things like defence and foreign relations? 

I can see your point, but it's also not the popular idea, and I'm thinking practically. That and perhaps the people of Scotland do have a interest in our defence and foreign relations ourselves instead of being part of selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, for example.

4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Think the terrorist attacks had any influence on the outcome, or is this the same way people would have voted anyway?

If anything, Teresa May saying that she wanted to a) regulate the internet and b) tamper with human rights laws as a result of the terrorists attacks to "keep us safe" did not go over well with her base.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Tryhard

[Irysa]

4 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Alright, but I'm still skeptical about why the % really matters - minorities are going to be scapegoated by some always, regardless of how many are in their country. Wouldn't it be like that in other European countries, for example?

The % matters in terms of it becoming an issue because people do not think about these things for no reason. The opposition to immigration in parts of England is not directly connected to the % of ethnic minorities, but I believe it is significantly influenced by it, as a narrative about how immigrants are the problem can only carry weight where there are enough immigrants for people to actually believe it. We are all prejudiced, but our environment influences how that prejudice manifests.

Furthermore, the current dynamic of nationalism in Scotland is different because the focus can be put onto Westminister, the Tories, and more broadly the English as the "problem". Whilst more immigration may change the tone of the argument, I'm also considering a post-independant Scottish scenario where the more undesirable belly of nationalism may very well begin to start targeting other minorities with its ire.

4 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I actually think liberals can go against what their values ought to be when discussing things they feel as though they need to defend - authoritarian Islam customs being an example, which can be the definition of illiberal. And I say this as someone who considers themselves a progressive who does defend when people attack regular Muslims for no reason. While you could argue that these people calling themselves liberals are not following a core tenant, that would also likely be pointed out to be No True Scotsman, which is fitting.

Depends what you mean by "defend". As it is commonly stated, there is a difference between attacking Islam and attacking Muslims. But I acknowledge the line is difficult to pin exactly and many people can and do feel threatened on a personal level by such criticisms, and being careful about how you phrase yourself and where you do it is important.

I think one can say that if you're outright defending authoritarian customs being a good thing then that is just overcompensating for the whole heteronormativewhitemalepatriarchal view of society that western culture is rooted in.

4 hours ago, Tryhard said:

1. The possibility of rejoining the EU, as I am a Remainer. That said, I'm not really opposed to letting Brexit happen while we are in the UK.

This is not neccessarily exclusive to an independant Scotland.

4 hours ago, Tryhard said:

2. Would federalisation even get on a ballot? You said it yourself but people haven't exactly shown interest in it and while Corbyn said he would 'consider' it, that's a pretty tepid response. Independence has already been on it and people immediately know what it is about and have strong feelings on it. From what I understand, Westminister purposely left it off the ballot for the fear that it would take votes away from a "no" to independence vote in 2014 (and they didn't want to go ahead with federalisation), so it's unlikely that it would even be gone through with. It's already lucky enough that they let us vote on independence. I remember David Cameron promising that Scotland would get increased powers if we voted no to independence, and as far I know (correct me if I'm wrong), we got dick all.

To the last point, they did get increased powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_2016

To the previous points, that is not an argument for independance so much as a recognition that federalism has failed to catch on as an idea. I challenge you to think about why that is and why nationalism caught on. FYI I am pro federal UK too.

4 hours ago, Tryhard said:

3. I don't believe federalisation is practical because if they did actually get on the ballot it would likely need people of all parts of the UK to vote on it, and while I'm sure Wales and NI would be happy to, I'm not sure it would be viewed favorably in England, or if they even care about it - but one of the arguments for Brexcit was that the "EU is becoming too federal", ridiculous as that is, and would likely ascribe the same argument.

I disagree. The West Lothian Question ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question ) has a lot of popular sympathy in England, and in the conservative aprty. It is merely the framing of it that is important.

4 hours ago, Tryhard said:

4. As much as we were talking political demographics, if the Tory train continues in England, it's unlikely for Scotland to have much say in getting Labour a majority unless the SNP just totally collapses (which is a possibility, but I don't exactly forsee it). I hope the political climate changes soon in accordance with this snap election in the UK because being under a Tory majority government for so long with no real viable opposition just fucks all of us. I would prefer we were out of the country with the huge austerity cuts.

I mean the fact we got a bunch of Tories in north of the border has basically saved May. Labour knocked out a lot of Tories in England, but we provided the extra seats they needed to be able to reach a majority with the DUP. You cannot really argue that Scotland doesn't have "much of a say" here since if the SNP had hung onto a mere 6 or so seats then there would be a truly hung parliament unless the Liberals decided to help the Tories, which is definitely not happening in the current political climate.

4 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I can see your point, but it's also not the popular idea, and I'm thinking practically. That and perhaps the people of Scotland do have a interest in our defence and foreign relations ourselves instead of being part of selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, for example.

Yes, but we would have a say in that, just not an exclusive say in it. Again, sure, it's not popular, but think about why Federalism is not popular and Nationalism is.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Irysa

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I heard there was a huge turnout of voters between 18 and 24. Like 70% huge. If only we could get that in the States.

23 hours ago, Tryhard said:

over Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (which for those in America is sort of a Bernie Sanders style of politician although Corbyn is further left than Sanders)

Oh, so he and his supporters loudly proclaim themselves the heart of the party despite him only being registered as a part of it for a few months? Yeah, I think we can all do without third party wedges each election year.

[Res]

Corbyn has been with the Labour Party since 1974...

 

[Tryhard]

5 hours ago, Irysa said:

Furthermore, the current dynamic of nationalism in Scotland is different because the focus can be put onto Westminister, the Tories, and more broadly the English as the "problem". Whilst more immigration may change the tone of the argument, I'm also considering a post-independant Scottish scenario where the more undesirable belly of nationalism may very well begin to start targeting other minorities with its ire.

The nationalists I've seen generally did not seem to hate the English people, they expressed their dislike for Westminister and the Tories, of course, but never did I really think they believed what they did because they wanted to punish the English other than noting their perception of the political differences between the English and Scottish and their view of an ill-fated union of 300 years.

This is, of course, because I expect them to be consistent with their views when a post-independent Scotland would occur. It's not like they outright come out and tell you what they think of minorities as for UKIP. If they did change in such a way after this has occurred, this would be them doing a U-turn that I would like to think would be looked upon unfavourably.

5 hours ago, Irysa said:

This is not neccessarily exclusive to an independant Scotland.

How is it going to occur otherwise? I remember you saying that you would not be willing to vote no if another independence referendum does come up after Brexit - do you still think this way and if so is it because the most likely way of us rejoining the EU is us also leaving the UK?

5 hours ago, Irysa said:

To the last point, they did get increased powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_2016

To the previous points, that is not an argument for independance so much as a recognition that federalism has failed to catch on as an idea. I challenge you to think about why that is and why nationalism caught on. FYI I am pro federal UK too.

Fair enough. There seemed to be almost nothing said about in the wake of two years of the independence referendum so I wasn't even sure if additional powers were delegated.

Your implication seems to suggest that it's what you said earlier, that the focus of Scottish nationalism is hatred of Westminister, the Tories and the English. As I've said, I'm open to the idea of federalisation if it did occur but if you are saying that's not extreme enough for some/a majority of nationalists, then are you sure that they haven't given you any arguments against federalisation if they reject the idea or for independence over it that isn't that they just dislike the English?

5 hours ago, Irysa said:

I mean the fact we got a bunch of Tories in north of the border has basically saved May. Labour knocked out a lot of Tories in England, but we provided the extra seats they needed to be able to reach a majority with the DUP. You cannot really argue that Scotland doesn't have "much of a say" here since if the SNP had hung onto a mere 6 or so seats then there would be a truly hung parliament unless the Liberals decided to help the Tories, which is definitely not happening in the current political climate.

Ruth Davidson did well to revitalise the Scottish Tories from being pretty much dead in the water previously but I still wonder if this will continue. You said it's because of Brexit that a portion of the SNP base flipped to Tory and maybe you're right, but what are they going to do after "Brexit" has been done and dusted? Go back to the SNP, stay with the Tories, or back to Labour? It's hard to say. I'd still say there is a political differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK, even if I can agree with you that there has been "hidden" Tory support in Scotland, there does still seem to be a leaning towards the left IMO. I think this may be a temporary benefit for the Tories due to the circumstances.

That said, I'm willing to set aside this issue if I believe it to be beneficial to do so, and I wouldn't call myself solely voting around this one issue. I'm interested to see how a UK under a Labour majority with Jeremy Corbyn or some successor close to his views would look like, if that occurred before independence (though undoubtedly the entire thing has been dealt a blow from this snap election which is obvious)

4 hours ago, Gustavos said:

I heard there was a huge turnout of voters between 18 and 24. Like 70% huge. If only we could get that in the States.

Oh, so he and his supporters loudly proclaim themselves the heart of the party despite him only being registered as a part of it for a few months? Yeah, I think we can all do without third party wedges each election year.

~72%. Young people turned out pretty consistently. Edit: Actually, not sure how correct this is.

That's not really what I meant, but he is indeed disliked within the party by a certain wing.

 

I think it's pretty great that May has to grovel to the DUP considering they have suspicious links to terrorism after calling out Corbyn for his associations. The worse part is that the DUP are pretty much Irish Republicans. Climate change deniers, creationists, homophobic, oppose abortion, corrupt. While if they try to push these policies on the rest of the UK through a coalition with the Tories, the Tory base will reject them, them being anywhere close to mainstream power is worrying. 

Unfortunately, it looks like the two party system is alive and well and Labour are the only "real" other option.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Tryhard

[Irysa]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

How is it going to occur otherwise? I remember you saying that you would not be willing to vote no if another independence referendum does come up after Brexit - do you still think this way and if so is it because the most likely way of us rejoining the EU is us also leaving the UK?

Brexit can be stopped (final deal being voted on in some manner or other) or negociations can occur in ways that enable caveats for Scotland. For example, the border in Ireland cannot go back to a hard border, and nobody wants to see that. I believe things like this can be worked on.

As for another indyref, at the time I was pretty frustrated and hadn't really considered the alternatives. If there was one today, I'd vote no. If the brexit deal is a total disaster and no further options were on the table I'd probably abstain or consider yes in an indyref.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Your implication seems to suggest that it's what you said earlier, that the focus of Scottish nationalism is hatred of Westminister, the Tories and the English. As I've said, I'm open to the idea of federalisation if it did occur but if you are saying that's not extreme enough for some/a majority of nationalists, then are you sure that they haven't given you any arguments against federalisation if they reject the idea or for independence over it that isn't that they just dislike the English?

I have never heard an argument for this that didn't ultimately boil down to emotional appeals to Scotland being distinct enough from the r.UK to warrant it's own status as an independant state or mistrust of how the federal government would function.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Ruth Davidson did well to revitalise the Scottish Tories from being pretty much dead in the water previously but I still wonder if this will continue. You said it's because of Brexit that a portion of the SNP base flipped to Tory and maybe you're right, but what are they going to do after "Brexit" has been done and dusted? Go back to the SNP, stay with the Tories, or back to Labour? It's hard to say. I'd still say there is a political differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK, even if I can agree with you that there has been "hidden" Tory support in Scotland, there does still seem to be a leaning towards the left IMO. I think this may be a temporary benefit for the Tories due to the circumstances.

Depends a lot on how much credability the SNP manage to assert during this Parliament, whether Indyref2 looks feasible anytime soon and whether they continue to dissapoint in Holyrood.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I think it's pretty great that May has to grovel to the DUP considering they have suspicious links to terrorism after calling out Corbyn for his associations. The worse part is that the DUP are pretty much Irish Republicans. Climate change deniers, creationists, homophobic, oppose abortion, corrupt. While if they try to push these policies on the rest of the UK through a coalition with the Tories, the Tory base will reject them, them being anywhere close to mainstream power is worrying. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40229826

relevant.

[Radiant head]

the scotland thing is so frustrating.  i'm guessing snp and labour split a lot of the left-leaning vote.  labour gaining in scotland again though is incredible. 

still though, after how bad the polls looked, this election is the best thing to happen in 2017 so far.  may did the impossible and pulled off an even bigger self-own than both cameron and hillary.  and now tories are forced to coalition with fucking dup, which gives them no leverage for negotiating brexit lmao. 

and now the blairite labour mp's are finally btfo and will get behind my man jezza.  good times ahead.  

Edited June 10, 2017 by Radiant head