ThePortForum.com

Such a gracious acceptance of defeat by King Salmon. The best part of last night's radio coverage was when the result of the Shetlands was announced. The Beeb interviewed the MSP for the Shetlands, who said that regardless of the result of the referendum Shetland and Orkney were going to remain part of the Union since that was what the people of the islands wanted and had shown with an overwhelming majority in their voting. He challenged Salamander to disregard the will of the people who had been given the chance to vote on independence - it was great! And did I understand Cameron correctly? We're now going to have a referendum on whether England should remain part of the Union?

Given that there is only a passing mention of port in this review thread, please may I have permission to move it to the "Beers, Spirits, Cigars and Pork Pies" section of the forum?

No objection. When doing so please delete this post.

The Queen's message following Scotland's referendum.

Alex Salmond's resignation speech.

I congratulate him for having the moral fortitude to fall on his sword.

Unfortunately, it appears he will be replaced by another type of fish.

DRT wrote:I congratulate him for having the moral fortitude to fall on his sword.

I wonder what fraction of the Noes were not wanting a politician for whom a result is more important than honest reasoning. I wonder whether an undertaking not to be iScotland’s first PM would have caused a Yes.

It cannot be tested.

leading to What the Scotland Yes campaign should admit.

It has been interesting watching this from Spain over the last couple of weeks, where the referendum and it's implications for Spanish domestic politics suddenly caught a lot of national media attention, as well as following the impassioned social media debates of London-based Scots who have not actually lived in Scotland for their entire adult life.... (I know very few "Yes" supporters. I know fewer voters).

The "No" vote seems to have been hailed as a great success, as well as being a triumph of democracy. I can't help but feel more pessimistic.

Set aside the fact that the quality of information available to the electorate has been pitifully low, this referendum was originally supposed to put an end to questions about the shape of the union for a generation - instead I fear the relatively narrow "No" vote will only serve to re-open questions about further devolvement (including Devo-max...). Divides have surfaced that cannot be easily closed and the unanswered call for change amongst a very significant minority of the Scots electorate will continue to fester. Conversely, I think there will be resentment (particularly in England) if there's ever a perception in that inevitable debate that the rest of the Union is now expected to genuflect to the Scots for the kind favour they have done the rest of us by voting "No". We shall see.

As an aside, I was also genuinely surprised by the outpouring of praise for Gordon Brown's speech. You'd think the politics of "Hope and Change" might have lost its allure…but perhaps I'm too jaded and should re-watch!

I agree with what you say, Rob.

I think the closeness of the vote and some of the Devo-Max concepts being talked about now for Scotland and the more militant parts of England (Yorkshire, Cornwall, etc) are in danger of fracturing the Union to a point where it becomes an irrelevance. The remote and less-wealthy regions of this country might look back with a great degree of bitterness when the Federal State of London is one of the most wealthy and powerful states on the planet with the Federal State of Yorkshire looking like a scene from Mad-Max.

It says a lot that the most highly praised "Noer" was Gordon Brown!

Rob: UK reports suggest that the Catalans were disappointed with the No. But could it be that a precedent of a No allows Madrid to take the risk?

DRT wrote:The remote and less-wealthy regions of this country might look back with a great degree of bitterness when the Federal State of London is one of the most wealthy and powerful states on the planet with the Federal State of Yorkshire looking like a scene from Mad-Max.!

Cornwall could hardly be worse off in relation to the Renaissance City-State of London than it is now! I think those of us in the more far-flung edges of the Union, and suffering from the most egregious democratic deficits (no opportunity to have a choice of UK-wide parties at elections in NI, for instance) might welcome a properly federalised UK, with equal devolution of powers across the board rather than this dog's dinner we have at the moment, with different scraps tossed out willy-nilly by the last New Labour government to the different nations. In that instance, each region could put in and get back something far more closely related to what it has / needs. Germany has poor states and the federal system there throws up its own idiosyncrasies but it works well for them overall, I think, and it's a much larger polis than ours.
Is there something about the UK as a concept, or value, that we fear losing? If so, what is it, please?

djewesbury wrote:Germany has poor states and the federal system there throws up its own idiosyncrasies but it works well for them overall, I think, and it's a much larger polis than ours.

I think that is the point. The UK is already small. It doesn't need to be smaller.

30% of the population live in London and the counties of the south east of England. If that part of the country is given they ability to raise its own taxes and spend that tax as it sees fit the long term implications for the rest of the country could be horrific. The new sections of the M1 north of Leeds, HS-2 and the re-generation of cities in the north of England, Northern Island and Scotland are not being paid for by the people who live in those places. They had better hope those infrastructure improvements are finished before London gets the choice of keeping its taxes for itself.

We are small enough. We do not need to be smaller. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look for ways of making things fairer for all.

DRT wrote:30% of the population live in London and the counties of the south east of England. If that part of the country is given they ability to raise its own taxes and spend that tax as it sees fit the long term implications for the rest of the country could be horrific.

Surely we have done enough together, bad and good, exploring the world, forging and losing an empire, shedding blood against foes bad and worse, and inventing many things — our language, the measurement of longitude, the understanding of gravity, the idea of a loyal opposition, cold-climate aged Vintage Port, rhubarb crumble and custard — that our relationship is worth more than merely a transfer of taxes.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:30% of the population live in London and the counties of the south east of England. If that part of the country is given they ability to raise its own taxes and spend that tax as it sees fit the long term implications for the rest of the country could be horrific.

Surely we have done enough together, bad and good, exploring the world, forging and losing an empire, shedding blood against foes bad and worse, and inventing many things — our language, the measurement of longitude, the understanding of gravity, the idea of a loyal opposition, cold-climate aged Vintage Port, rhubarb crumble and custard — that our relationship is worth more than merely a transfer of taxes.

Agreed. But in any divorce, even if just a seemingly reversible trial separation, money drives behaviours that soon cause permanent memory loss.

DRT wrote:30% of the population live in London and the counties of the south east of England. If that part of the country is given they ability to raise its own taxes and spend that tax as it sees fit the long term implications for the rest of the country could be horrific. The new sections of the M1 north of Leeds, HS-2 and the re-generation of cities in the north of England, Northern Island and Scotland are not being paid for by the people who live in those places. They had better hope those infrastructure improvements are finished before London gets the choice of keeping its taxes for itself.

We are small enough. We do not need to be smaller. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look for ways of making things fairer for all.

A federal government takes federal taxes that are distributed across the entire nation. Not much different to what happens now, just perhaps a little more equitable. Federal taxes pay for big infrastructural projects and the like. If London feels the need to hike taxes for its residents to pay for things it wants for itself, then it can do that, but I rather doubt that any administration doing so would be very popular.

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:30% of the population live in London and the counties of the south east of England. If that part of the country is given they ability to raise its own taxes and spend that tax as it sees fit the long term implications for the rest of the country could be horrific. The new sections of the M1 north of Leeds, HS-2 and the re-generation of cities in the north of England, Northern Island and Scotland are not being paid for by the people who live in those places. They had better hope those infrastructure improvements are finished before London gets the choice of keeping its taxes for itself.

We are small enough. We do not need to be smaller. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look for ways of making things fairer for all.

A federal government takes federal taxes that are distributed across the entire nation. Not much different to what happens now, just perhaps a little more equitable. Federal taxes pay for big infrastructural projects and the like. If London feels the need to hike taxes for its residents to pay for things it wants for itself, then it can do that, but I rather doubt that any administration doing so would be very popular.

I do not claim to fully understand the differences between the various political and constitutional systems by which a country can be run. But I do have a dislike for too many layers of government and for the creation of political boundaries that widen the gap between belief systems and socioeconomic groups. For my entire life I have wondered what the first word in the United States of America actually means as I have never seen a country more divided on so many levels. I have no desire to live in the United States of the United Kingdom. It would be expensive and divisive and would not solve anything. Plus, being being able to say to the rest of the world that we are from USUK might appeal to the Farageites.


Note: I just remembered we have a no politics rule. We need to keep this friendly or delete it.

Re 'no politics': I think we are keeping this at a sufficiently abstract level for now! And I would never suggest we have anything other than a friendly conversation either!

djewesbury wrote:Re 'no politics': I think we are keeping this at a sufficiently abstract level for now! And I would never suggest we have anything other than a friendly conversation either!

Agreed. It was a warning to myself more than to others.

djewesbury wrote:Is there something about the UK as a concept, or value, that we fear losing? If so, what is it, please?

To take us back to wine, or at least Hillaire Belloc; the poem 'Jim' ends with the line

"And always keep a hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse"

Which seems to sum up the 'No'* campaign.

*Edit as suggested by someone who pays attention.

He was a very bad little boy.

EDIT: don't you mean to No campaign..?

Yes, or do I mean no?

Ah. I thought so.
Or did I?

You know, looking back on it I think living in the UK would be much more interesting, even liberating now if Scotland had voted for independence; "bliss was it in that dawn to be alive".

But then I think about the Chinese prayer about 'may we live in uninteresting times'.

So I'm not sure.

I agree with the second of those. Remember, Wordsworth turned into a right old cantankerous reactionary.

LGTrotter wrote:You know, looking back on it I think living in the UK would be much more interesting, even liberating now if Scotland had voted for independence; "bliss was it in that dawn to be alive".

"Interesting" like watching Big Brother or TOWIE is "interesting"? Hmmm? Maybe not.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:You know, looking back on it I think living in the UK would be much more interesting, even liberating now if Scotland had voted for independence; "bliss was it in that dawn to be alive".

"Interesting" like watching Big Brother or TOWIE is "interesting"? Hmmm? Maybe not.

The poem continues; "But to be young was very heaven!"
I wonder if the young in Scotland, who stopped watching Towie et al and got engaged with politics, broadly coming out on the yes side, would agree with our sentiments. I think the possibility of change galvanised debate, this is a good thing. The no campaign won but 45% of the population voted to leave the UK. I think that might represent a mandate most British prime ministers would be happy to govern the UK with. This may be the high point of Scottish nationalism, but I wouldn't count on it.

Anyway, I thought I would be talking to the pork pies and cigars by now.

Admins are all off on a spree. We're in charge now.
What if we have a vote to leave and set up our own separate forum. 'The Real Port Forum', or 'The Continuity Port Forum'?

Admins now back from their mountainous adventure. Just three tastings to go before flying home to prevent the TRPF gaining the momentum.

LGTrotter wrote:...45% of the population voted to leave the UK...

I'm waiting for one of the mathematicians to point out that when 45% of the voters vote in a particular way, but the voters only represent 84.5% of the electorate and the electorate only represented 80% of the permanent inhabitants of Scotland, this does not mean that 45% of the population voted yes.

But the point about most Westminster governments wishing for that kind of mandate is very true.

AHB wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:...45% of the population voted to leave the UK...

I'm waiting for one of the mathematicians to point out that when 45% of the voters vote in a particular way, but the voters only represent 84.5% of the electorate and the electorate only represented 80% of the permanent inhabitants of Scotland, this does not mean that 45% of the population voted yes.

"Less than one third" would more accurately describe it.

AHB wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:...45% of the population voted to leave the UK...

I'm waiting for one of the mathematicians to point out that when 45% of the voters vote in a particular way, but the voters only represent 84.5% of the electorate and the electorate only represented 80% of the permanent inhabitants of Scotland, this does not mean that 45% of the population voted yes.

I assume that the same mathematics of limitation applies to the no vote. And the turnout at The UK general election has been running at around 60% for the last few elections.

Edit; I have also neglected to mention that Alex was right to point out the inaccuracy in my 45% comment. Shamefaced.