Which country has been facing a bigger existential crisis lately, UK or US?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:08:38 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Which country has been facing a bigger existential crisis lately, UK or US?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which country has been facing a bigger existential crisis lately, UK or US?
#1
United States
 
#2
United Kingdom
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 69

Author Topic: Which country has been facing a bigger existential crisis lately, UK or US?  (Read 1813 times)
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 16, 2016, 10:35:04 PM »

Which country has been facing a bigger existential crisis lately, UK or US?

The US has been facing a lot of trouble, with the UK usually held as a beacon of light compared to it. Especially with the Tea Party phenomenon, with the intentional shutdown and intentional near-default, and now with the Trump phenomenon.

But, the UK narrowly avoided dissolution with the Free Scotland vote, and may now be "putting up walls" with the rest of Europe with a vote on leaving the EU that seems very possible. And these question, and strike at, the actual identity of the United Kingdom as a state.
Logged
Gunnar Larsson
Rookie
**
Posts: 150
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2016, 11:01:26 PM »

The Tea Party and Trump makes the US a less nice US. After a Scottish Independence the UK would have been something else than the UK. So, not really close.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2016, 11:02:50 PM »

I'm no Brexiteer, but to say that leaving the EU would 'question, and strike at, the actual identity of the United Kingdom as a state' strikes me as odd. In any case the answer is still Britain.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2016, 11:10:59 PM »

The United Kingdom in the sense that any vote to leave the European Union would also mean the eventual dissolution of the UK as well.

For all our troubles, I highly doubt that the United States will face anything similar in scope.  
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2016, 01:01:09 PM »

I'm no Brexiteer, but to say that leaving the EU would 'question, and strike at, the actual identity of the United Kingdom as a state' strikes me as odd. In any case the answer is still Britain.

What 'Brexiteers' don't fully get is that being part of the EU is a part of modern British identity and in many ways, keeps it together. Our entry to the then EEC happened at the same time the Northern Irish troubles and Scottish Nationalism was politically taking off. The EU promoted economic unity on a wider scale, while industry in the UK was struggling.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2016, 01:14:50 PM »

The interesting thing is that Britishness is really a Scottish (and yeah also NORN ION) concept; there was never a question of two identities in England or even Wales, where 'British'* just = as you were plus an extra flag with a bit of blue on it.

*As a national-political identity. Obviously all parts of the islands are part of a distinctive cultural region, whether part of the United Kingdom now or in the future or not. And had been so long before the Act of Union.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2016, 02:10:06 PM »

The interesting thing is that Britishness is really a Scottish (and yeah also NORN ION) concept; there was never a question of two identities in England or even Wales, where 'British'* just = as you were plus an extra flag with a bit of blue on it.

*As a national-political identity. Obviously all parts of the islands are part of a distinctive cultural region, whether part of the United Kingdom now or in the future or not. And had been so long before the Act of Union.

That's because England and Wales was the a priori state. So they didn't have to acclimatise. 'Britain' was what you had to define when you added on a political element. Of course there was never an ecclesiastical or legal (as in law) union, and initially those things were more important before the concept of the nation state. Indeed 'Britain' wasn't really defined as a thing until you had to sell it in WW1.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2016, 12:20:31 PM »
« Edited: June 18, 2016, 12:25:11 PM by Sibboleth »

Oh for sure. But I think this explains a lot of the misunderstandings between Scottish polity and that of the rest of GB, which have resulted in (thus far) 45% of the Scottish electorate voting to break away. Both sides of the political relationship have a very different understanding of what it is and don't really understand that this is the case. The phrase 'the Union' is basically never used south of the Tweed for instance. Or consider the Thatcher government: there was genuinely no awareness at all that making the Scottish Secretary the Government's Man In Scotland (rather than Scotland's Man In The Government) would be seen as breaching a constitutional convention.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2016, 01:11:54 PM »

Oh for sure. But I think this explains a lot of the misunderstandings between Scottish polity and that of the rest of GB, which have resulted in (thus far) 45% of the Scottish electorate voting to break away. Both sides of the political relationship have a very different understanding of what it is and don't really understand that this is the case. The phrase 'the Union' is basically never used south of the Tweed for instance. Or consider the Thatcher government: there was genuinely no awareness at all that making the Scottish Secretary the Government's Man In Scotland (rather than Scotland's Man In The Government) would be seen as breaching a constitutional convention.

Absolutely, politically, the concepts of Britishness/The Union  as 'personal-political' was initially a contrast to 'Irishness', (in that being a unionist was more 'Irish' than being a nationalist) Certainly the migration of Ulster protestants to (or in some cases back) to the Scottish cities in particular at the start of the last century brought that into the Scottish political scene. The imagery, and the rhetoric was easily re-orientated for nationalistic purposes of a different nature during the two wars (and in the National Government)

In Scotland, we got the Unionist Party (in which 'The Union' was interchangeable with the concept of Empire and most importantly with strong industry) Indeed it was a Scotsman's duty to be a Unionist as it promoted 'Scottishness' within the Empire where you could be as Scottish in Australia/New Zealand/Canada etc or in a mine in Yorkshire as you were in Scotland.

As Tories and Unionists became Conservatives they had a well from which to draw in order to establish a concept of Britishness and of 'The Union' out of what was left of the Empire. This was done in many cases to try and take something tangible into Europe. You had to get from Empire (which didn't draw from mid 1800's romantic nationalism) to 'Great Britain' in less than 20 years.

Being in Europe has made Great Britain an entity (flegs, queen, curries, Jessica Ennis) and keeps it that way. This is what those who campaign for Leave can't grasp. British identity doesn't exist without Europe.

There is a sense of the need to be 'interconnected' in Scotland, as it was with the Empire (see emigration) it's now with Europe. It's a genuine 'thing' that really requires more academic study and isn't just an 'oh the Scots like to think they are x' diagnosis that is often made when faced with whether there's a 'Scottish exceptionalism' with respect to the left-right scale, perceived social liberalism/secularism etc.

The Union guaranteed these things. The threat of not being in Europe is the key determiner of what 10% of the Scottish electorate are going to think with respect to their constitutional future.

I don't think the threat to revisit the constitutional question in the near future is an idle one with respect to the outcome of the EU referendum.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2016, 07:49:31 PM »

The interesting thing is that Britishness is really a Scottish (and yeah also NORN ION) concept; there was never a question of two identities in England or even Wales, where 'British'* just = as you were plus an extra flag with a bit of blue on it.

*As a national-political identity. Obviously all parts of the islands are part of a distinctive cultural region, whether part of the United Kingdom now or in the future or not. And had been so long before the Act of Union.

Since Cromwell imo, if not the flight of the Earls.

EDIT: At least for Ireland, perhaps have to wait for the highland clearances for Scotland? But this is something I know nearly nothing about...
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2016, 08:46:47 PM »

the Government's Man In Scotland (rather than Scotland's Man In The Government)

Could you or afleitch explain the difference, in practical terms? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2016, 12:05:57 AM »

the Government's Man In Scotland (rather than Scotland's Man In The Government)

Could you or afleitch explain the difference, in practical terms? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it.

Traditionnally, the Secretary of State for Scotland was the one bringing Scottish issues and defending Scottish points of view in the Cabinet. He was representing Scotland in Cabinet.

Under Thatcher, the Secretary of State for Scotland became the guy announcing and applying the government decisions in Scotland.

Went from a representative to a french prefect, sort of.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2016, 01:19:56 AM »

the Government's Man In Scotland (rather than Scotland's Man In The Government)

Could you or afleitch explain the difference, in practical terms? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it.

Traditionnally, the Secretary of State for Scotland was the one bringing Scottish issues and defending Scottish points of view in the Cabinet. He was representing Scotland in Cabinet.

Under Thatcher, the Secretary of State for Scotland became the guy announcing and applying the government decisions in Scotland.

Went from a representative to a french prefect, sort of.

I guess what I'm asking for is examples (not that I disbelieve it; I'm just curious to know more).
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2016, 11:27:31 AM »

the Government's Man In Scotland (rather than Scotland's Man In The Government)

Could you or afleitch explain the difference, in practical terms? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it.

Traditionnally, the Secretary of State for Scotland was the one bringing Scottish issues and defending Scottish points of view in the Cabinet. He was representing Scotland in Cabinet.

Under Thatcher, the Secretary of State for Scotland became the guy announcing and applying the government decisions in Scotland.

Went from a representative to a french prefect, sort of.

I guess what I'm asking for is examples (not that I disbelieve it; I'm just curious to know more).

It's a tough one to condense (books have been written about it) but basically the Scottish Office was the first attempt at some form of 'devolution', the Secretary had significant powers and come the welfare state, quite a substantial budget in which to deliver for Scotland. It had power to deliver fisheries policy, agriculture, education, prisons and so forth. It was a post with 'teeth' and the office was politically distant as well as geographically distant. From the 50's to the 70's it was almost patrician.

Under Thatcher (and to be fair, Callaghan before her, though not Wilson) it was perceived Scotland was a testing ground and or dumping ground for public policy before it was 'tried for real' in England. What's curious about this, is that this perception was denied politically and academically until such times as freedom of information released government papers in many ways confirmed that these attitudes had existed.

The most well known example was testing the Poll Tax in Scotland in 1988, two years before it was introduced in England. David Willets in 1986 argued for 'juicy cuts' in Scottish spending as it may prove popular 'the envious north of England might even welcome an attack on the pampered Scots over the border. On the other hand, George Younger (Scottish Secretary) is reported to be very ‘emotional’ on the subject and may well threaten to resign.'

Younger couldn't stop Thatcher's plans to make steel mils in Gartcosh and Ravenscraig obsolete and couldn't protect the budget. He couldn't get the money to plug the cost of changing the local taxation system which had to be borne by local councils.

This was important not because Scotland should have suffered 'less' than elsewhere in the UK, but that Thatcher refused to accept or acknowledge the political clout of the Scottish Office and it's large civil service while at the same time allowing education, prisons etc, which were technically by Act of parliament 'separate' (as was the NHS) to 'drift' while she concentrated on England and Wales. The ship was rudderless. Money was tight but direction in terms of policy was gone. It was harder and harder to get Parliament to consider '(Scotland) Acts'; acts pertaining to strictly Scottish affairs as had been the case since 1707. And if it did, there was nothing particularly 'exceptional' about them. After Younger moved in 1986, she had a succession of Scottish Secretaries who were neutered.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2016, 01:22:49 PM »

Thanks for explaining.

I note that part of Thatcher's response to the dispute with Younger was to move him to Defence. Was that seen as a backhanded promotion at the time?
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2016, 03:14:01 PM »

Thanks for explaining.

I note that part of Thatcher's response to the dispute with Younger was to move him to Defence. Was that seen as a backhanded promotion at the time?

He took over from Heseltine. Perhaps it was replacing like with like. Though he had shadowed the portfolio in the 70's if I remember correctly.
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,563
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2016, 06:09:49 AM »

The latter thing about policy being allowed to "drift" is also important since arguably that separated the two bits even more.  An example that comes to mind quickly is the fact that I'm pretty sure that NHS Scotland's organisational structure is a lot closer to the structure of the whole NHS in 1979 than the England and Wales NHS's frankly weird structure - because Thatcher was focused on England and Wales on those sort of issues the Scottish NHS managed to dodge lots of the market-based reforms introduced in the 80s and 90s.  I'd also argue that it gave us a better base to build the Health Service on but that's something which others might disagree with.

I think that lots of people are overstating what Scotland's reaction to a leave vote would be.  I wouldn't entirely trust opinion polls on that quite yet since people generally aren't very good at considering a hypothetical and the polls swing dramatically when you get close to the referendum (look at both the independence and the EU referendum) but generally there doesn't seem to have been a significant swing towards independence according to polls asking about an independence referendum after a Leave vote on Thursday, nor really an insatiable demand for one if it happens.  I'm sure that there'll be a referendum if that happens (I don't think that it will) but its not going to be a landslide either way, it'll be at least as close as the one two years ago was.

I don't think that we'll see a successful vote anytime soon if we aren't dragged out of the EU.  I imagine that international observers may have thought that independence was certain in Quebec after the PQ were re-elected after the 1980 referendum there when as we now know it really wasn't, and I think that we'll be similar unless you get a Westminster government that's incredibly hostile towards Scotland.  You have a minority of people shouting for a new referendum every day but they are small and frankly meaningless; the most important people are the "soft" voters who I don't think have any appetite for another indyref - I was a soft Yes and I have absolutely no interest in reopening the question, and honestly would probably vote No if one was held now, although probably Yes if EU membership was at risk if we staying in the UK. 
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2016, 08:41:25 PM »

Even more relevant now...
Logged
Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]
tsionebreicruoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2016, 06:07:35 PM »

France isn't bad at it either.

It seems to be more pronounced by countries that used to feel themselves as a 'cool concept' or something like that lately, rather than by countries that don't especially care about having an identity rather based on values than on cultural heritage, UK being kinda more in between than France and US though. Or something.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2017, 10:09:40 AM »

With the twin stories of election chaos in the UK, and Trump scandals and possible coming impeachment in the US, I definitely think it's relevant to bump this thread (and it's not too old either). If this post is deleted, please let me know if it's better to restart this thread, but I don't think so.

Also, you can change your original vote.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 14 queries.