S&P changes UK outlook to "Negative" on EU referendum fears...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

And yet 45% of Scots voted against their economic self-interest in the independence referendum.

And many/most of them believed economic propaganda from the Indy campaign that was little short of an outright lie, such as secret hidden oilfields, Scotland paying in more than we take out, Scotland subsidising Westminster, etc.

Most Yes voters genuinely did not, and still do not, believe the economic facts.

I was told in no uncertain terms by an independence supporting Taxi driver in Aberdeen, within the last 2 weeks, that the recent fall in the price of oil was engineered by David Cameron and the Tories to make Scotland think it couldn't be independent and politically sabotage the SNP's efforts to have another indyref quickly.

It's delusion on a mass scale.

But part of the problem is that the cheer leaders for whichever side only highlight the issues they feel support their argument which the undecided (like me) just find to be a turn off. It is a nuanced decision, being told constantly that only one answer is 100% right just doesn't help.

If the Scottish Yes campaign had come out and told the truth, that independence would be highly risky, would almost certainly cost significant job losses, would probably involve leaving the EU at least for some period of years, would ultimately mean adopting another currency, and leave us exposed to significant cuts in public spending or massively higher taxes once the rUK subsidy ended, I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for them.

But they'd have lost the referendum by a much bigger margin had they done so.

The EU campaign will almost certainly be run the same way....

Because there is precisely zero chance of significant numbers of people voting to leave if the pro-out side admit the economic risks of leaving and the real impact that will have on ordinary people's lives.

So they will lie, and lie, and lie some more.

The SNP got away with it not just with their popularity intact, but actually with their popularity enhanced, and unfortunately I suspect UKIP et al will probably see that example and think they can get away with it as well.

Hopefully this campaign will be better run and the main parties will have learned a lesson, and do a better job of countering the propaganda, but I won't hold my breath on that count.

michaels

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Hopefully this campaign will be better run and the main parties will have learned a lesson, and do a better job of countering the propaganda, but I won't hold my breath on that count.

On that one I can assure you the main lesson learned will be what happened to Labour in Scotland and strategists will be worrying about how to avoid that - all other issues will certainly be secondary....

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...

Most Yes voters genuinely did not, and still do not, believe the economic facts.

I was told in no uncertain terms by an independence supporting Taxi driver in Aberdeen, within the last 2 weeks, that the recent fall in the price of oil was engineered by David Cameron and the Tories to make Scotland think it couldn't be independent and politically sabotage the SNP's efforts to have another indyref quickly.

It's delusion on a mass scale.
...

It's a great movie script

Maybe, when things calm down, a satirical film can be made which captures the emotions and perversities of this independence fever.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
The SNP got away with it not just with their popularity intact, but actually with their popularity enhanced, and unfortunately I suspect UKIP et al will probably see that example and think they can get away with it as well.
...

The European politicians can counter the rise of independence parties like UKIP, by offering a compelling vision of the future of a federalised superstate.

Yet they seem either disinterested or genuinely unable to do so.

I'd genuinely like to know what we should/could gain from this super state in 1/2/3 decades.

This is more important to me than the short term issues because it will affect future generations, possibly much more than we realise.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

It's a great movie script

Maybe, when things calm down, a satirical film can be made which captures the emotions and perversities of this independence fever.

The Scottish Nationalist movement is not the first to rely on The Big Lie, and it certainly wont be the last, which is of course one of the reasons why Nationalism can be so very dangerous.

danothy

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So they will lie, and lie, and lie some more.

And presumably know they are lying, which raises the question as to what motivates this behaviour. Often racism is suggested as motivation, but this suggestion seems to offend, so obviously can't be the reason ...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

The European politicians can counter the rise of independence parties like UKIP, by offering a compelling vision of the future of a federalised superstate.

Yet they seem either disinterested or genuinely unable to do so.

Because there genuinely is little to no prospect of Europe becoming a Federalised Superstate in the next few decades.*

Why on earth would they address what at the moment is a non-issue?

I'd genuinely like to know what we should/could gain from this super state in 1/2/3 decades.

This is more important to me than the short term issues because it will affect future generations, possibly much more than we realise.

There is already a commitment from all major UK parties that any further integration that cedes more power to Europe would be put to the voters in a referendum.

If that becomes an issue, we can deal with it then, and the benefits/risks can be addressed in that debate.

The debate we should be having just now is about the benefits and downsides of membership as it exists today and in the near to mid term future.




*There is of course a compelling argument for the Eurozone to move towards closer fiscal and political integration more quickly, but the EZ is not the EU.

Masomnia

kabayiri wrote: »

The European politicians can counter the rise of independence parties like UKIP, by offering a compelling vision of the future of a federalised superstate.

Yet they seem either disinterested or genuinely unable to do so.

I'd genuinely like to know what we should/could gain from this super state in 1/2/3 decades.

This is more important to me than the short term issues because it will affect future generations, possibly much more than we realise.

Exactly K. Ask them why ceding sovereignty to the EU is a good thing and they go strangely quiet.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

danothy wrote: »

And presumably know they are lying, which raises the question as to what motivates this behaviour. Often racism is suggested as motivation, but this suggestion seems to offend, so obviously can't be the reason ...

Nationalists believe in their vision of Nationalism so fervently that they are willing to suffer a significant amount of painful consequences in order to achieve the goal.

The rest of society however are rarely prepared to give up comfort, wealth, prosperity and security for a Nationalist's goals.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Nationalists are so scared of admitting the truth about the risks.

kabayiri

History is not really a good indicator of future events (unless you are in the pre-determined camp), but looking back to the '74 referendum does perhaps provide an illustration of how voters saw things.

Members of my family literally thought it was just a common market, where we standardised the way in which we bought bananas and veg.

I wonder how many would be genuinely surprised at what the EU concept has become.

I'm not as confident as Hamish as to how a "stay" vote will be interpreted; but .... I welcome the referendum as an opportunity to find out what people really want.