Reply to: Referendums

[Mulder]

"A majority of Scots are in favour of bein in the EU"

Wrong, based on polling support for the EU is slightly higher in Scotland than for rUK but is broadly inline with rUK, support for leaving the EU is higher than for leaving the UK. Ironic since Alex Numpty is happy to give Scots a referendum to leave the UK but opposes one regarding the EU.

[Dominic Connor]

Obviously I'm at the English end of things and might have missed it, but could you give examples of the Scottish being "lectured" ?

As for the Scots who vote on money not being worth it, that does seem to be the main issue, for better or worse.

UKIP would die tomorrow if someone convinced English voters that the EU made them richer.

Most of what I see are spending plans, often things I might support, but not really costed or paid for. It would appear that both you and I have a higher opinion of the Scottish people than do the Nats.

I can possibly see a Scottish government being (say) 25% better at generating growth, which translates into having (about) 0.5% more money to spend each year than staying in the UK. Even then this 0.5% would not kick in this side of 2020 because a referendum in 2014 means actual independence in at least 2017 and time for the hopefully better government to take effect.

The spending has been promised much more quickly than that.


To do that to a mature economy would be very impressive and from decades of listening to British politicians of all ilks I have grown sceptical of the "we can pay for this through growth" argument.

[aardvark]

It is the nominative neuter singular of the gerundive, 'referendus'. Referendum therefore means 'thing to be referred'.

The confusion comes in that the gerund is also referendum, but that is not what we are using in English.

[expat]

The departure of Scotland will hurt Labour and the LibDems for the benefit of the Tories who are being rattled by UKIP. It is very easy to see a situation like that for the EU where the government feels it has to be seen to be "tough on Scottish scroungers", who want all the goodies but none of the costs of breakup.

"Scottish Scroungers" is not yet an active term in politics, but I guarantee you that something like this will be in the Daily Mail the day after negotiations start, regardless of what Scotland asks for.

You are right about the latter, but that is not new. I'd just say, not the day after, but every day after.

As for "all the goodies but none of the costs", that is the whole point: let us ring out own till, and whether we are better or worse off, at least we don't get lectured about it any more. Any Scot who wants independence only because he thinks it might pay better, does not deserve it.

As for the former point, that ought not to be so. Labour will just have to shift in such a way that they are one of the two main parties again. This always happens: parties are not collections of principles (though their members may be driven by them), they are responses to the politics of the society in which they operate, different positions along the axis of the main political division in the country. How they express themselves seems to come out of the voting system, in the UK it has led for a very long time to 2 major parties plus 1 (very) minor. In e.g. NL (pace Mich) they have a more complex system which allows for 2 axes: L-R, and Prod-Papist. Something similar but different shows in NI.

Anyway, the point is not that Labour would be wiped out, it is that England or rUK would have a different axis and therefore (once Labour got with the idea) a different Labour.

BTW not a problem for the Lib Dems, the Orange Book Lib Dems are already realigned, they only continue to do well in Scotland because people there are still voting for the Liberals, not noticing that they don't exist any more. In fact it might be the more interesting question, whether the Lib Dems in Scotland and England might diverge more widely than any other group.

[expat]

It is the nominative neuter singular of the gerundive, 'referendus'. Referendum therefore means 'thing to be referred'.

The confusion comes in that the gerund is also referendum, but that is not what we are using in English.

Well, ISTM that it is used here to mean the vote itself, not the subject to be voted on. Therefore it is a noun, and so a gerund. What you say would be right if it referred to the question, not to the vote. But we say that we are "holding a referendum".

Perhaps we should call it a "plebiscite". I can't imagine what could ever go wrong with a word based on the Latin word "plebs".

[RetSet]

Sorry, it's a gerund, not a gerundive (i.e. a noun, not an adjective), so is not declinable.

But I do like the quality of discussion in General.


Edit: apparently in Latin it is a gerundive, although we use it as a gerund in English. So I could be wrong: perhaps if it's a Latin word we should decline it as the Romans do. Personally I still think (a) it's a gerund when we use it, and (b) it's an English word taken from Latin, not a Latin word.

There are several possible answers (expect in the referendum itself).

It is the nominative neuter singular of the gerundive, 'referendus'. Referendum therefore means 'thing to be referred'.

The confusion comes in that the gerund is also referendum, but that is not what we are using in English.

FFS 'Vote'.

Lets' not complicatify it...

[Old Greg]

Sorry, it's a gerund, not a gerundive (i.e. a noun, not an adjective), so is not declinable.

But I do like the quality of discussion in General.


Edit: apparently in Latin it is a gerundive, although we use it as a gerund in English. So I could be wrong: perhaps if it's a Latin word we should decline it as the Romans do. Personally I still think (a) it's a gerund when we use it, and (b) it's an English word taken from Latin, not a Latin word.

There are several possible answers (expect in the referendum itself).

It is the nominative neuter singular of the gerundive, 'referendus'. Referendum therefore means 'thing to be referred'.

The confusion comes in that the gerund is also referendum, but that is not what we are using in English.

[expat]

Referendum is a gerundive, not a gerund, so is declinable.

Sorry, it's a gerund, not a gerundive (i.e. a noun, not an adjective), so is not declinable.

But I do like the quality of discussion in General.


Edit: apparently in Latin it is a gerundive, although we use it as a gerund in English. So I could be wrong: perhaps if it's a Latin word we should decline it as the Romans do. Personally I still think (a) it's a gerund when we use it, and (b) it's an English word taken from Latin, not a Latin word.

There are several possible answers (expect in the referendum itself).

[Old Greg]

IMHO it is not, in English (or British). I do have Higher Latin and I do know never to decline a gerund (or a beer), but I'm not writing Latin at the moment. ISTM that referendum is an English loan-word from Latin, not a Latin word.

Edit: I have just seen the sensible suggestion that 'referendums' should be used for several votes on one issue, and 'referenda' for several votes on several issues.


And my question was nothing to do with Scottish or rUK passports, but with how to keep European citizenship, which is important to me. Would I have to naturalise as a citizen of another EU country?

Referendum is a gerundive, not a gerund, so is declinable.

[expat]

One of the biggest ironies of the Nationalist position is that it assumes the Westminster government will be gentlemanly about it.

Only in public.

[Dominic Connor]

Referendums are happening in the wrong order. If the UK/England voted against the EU, then Scotland voted, independence would be much more likely. A majority of Scots are in favour of bein in the EU (ironic about the FUD coming from Spain, that Scotland would be out and England in, against the wishes of both peoples).

Spain is worried that if the UK breaks apart, it will be nex and can be expected to screw a bit wit the Scots during negotiations. But it does reflect EU rules and these must be changed to allow Scotland to join on the terms Mr. Salmond wants, for instance by default Scotland would have to join the Euro, they'd need an exception made.

Any contractor must know that the worst possible way to negotiate terms is for the other side to know you have no other option.

The Nats have said Scotland will join the EU and I don't doubt it will, which puts the negotiators in a terrible position, they can't come back empty handed and can't hide this fact.

The devil will be in the detail, Spanish fishermen would like a bigger slice of the fish, Germany and Italy are very keen on "energy security" which might restrict Scotland's ability to run the oil & gas the way they want to. This is not a "maybe", they've tried before and the UK basically told them to screw themselves, but from a stronger position of being a member with a veto.

Much has been made of how Westminster has screwed up Eu farming subsidies for Scotland, if re-negotiating Scotland will have to make the case to much poorer members like Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, etc as to why comparatively rich Scots should get subsidies, even laying fairness aside the whole EU agricultural policy is brutally venal, everyone will try and shaft Scottish farmers as a reflex, not even a policy.

Scotland wants to deal with the energy companies with a harder hand than Westminster, indeed so do the English and Welsh, but part of the negotiations will reflect that much of the energy infrastructure in Scotland s owned by the French, that will be a tough fight.

None of this will be as stark as giving half of the gas to Germany who is about to try and swim a sea of piss for screwing up ts energy supply, it will be a horde of "technical measures", which will be hard to resist. If the EU negotiatiors say there must be a clause in the agreement that "respects the integrity of energy supply", where the clause is 147 pages of French legalese where (like so many) French technical terms the words were just made up, then will a Scots negotiator say "no, we won't join then"....?
Really ?

This again is not an abstract idea, it was interesting to see the evolution of the highly pro-EU people sent by the last government to negotiate the EU constitution.

They started off bright eyed and idealistic, but were ground down and finally flipped when they were refused an English translation of various drafts.

That was for a big country which was quite prepared to walk away if "red lines" were crossed. As we saw, every country in the EU had a veto for the constitution, a non-member by definition does not. This has meant little countries joining have not been treated with the sort of respect the big ones got. Britain got free movement of labour for us on day one, the newer littler EU members don't and have had intrusive inspections by eurocrats and been told, not asked to make structural changes.

Of course the mindset of eurocrats is unification, so Brussels will not be as hard nosed as it could be, but as above every member has a veto, *including* East Wales, or whatever the the rest is called.

If England/Wales/NI votes to leave, it will still have a veto on Scottish membership until it actually does so and may be (bloody) minded to use it, or more likely as yet another lever to be applied against Scotland in negotiations.

Or E/W/NI could stay a member and more easily use the threat of veto against Scotland in the huge number of negotiations Scotland must have with it.

One of the biggest ironies of the Nationalist position is that it assumes the Westminster government will be gentlemanly about it.

What if UKIP becomes more powerful ?
The negotiations will happen in the next parliament and maybe the one after that.

Yes it is called the *UK* independence party, but in its flaky grey heart it means English.

The departure of Scotland will hurt Labour and the LibDems for the benefit of the Tories who are being rattled by UKIP. It is very easy to see a situation like that for the EU where the government feels it has to be seen to be "tough on Scottish scroungers", who want all the goodies but none of the costs of breakup.

"Scottish Scroungers" is not yet an active term in politics, but I guarantee you that something like this will be in the Daily Mail the day after negotiations start, regardless of what Scotland asks for.

[expat]

Is it not 'referenda'?

IMHO it is not, in English (or British). I do have Higher Latin and I do know never to decline a gerund (or a beer), but I'm not writing Latin at the moment. ISTM that referendum is an English loan-word from Latin, not a Latin word.

Edit: I have just seen the sensible suggestion that 'referendums' should be used for several votes on one issue, and 'referenda' for several votes on several issues.


And my question was nothing to do with Scottish or rUK passports, but with how to keep European citizenship, which is important to me. Would I have to naturalise as a citizen of another EU country?

[Old Greg]

Thats because this is not an identify vote. It's a vote for residents that want economic self determination. Besides they can get a Scottish passport if they want to, they just have to give up their rUK one.

Say, anyone want to buy my passport? 10 months left. Give you a good price for it.

Perhaps a Scottish passport should be given to any UK citizen who wants one, but denied to any UK citizen prepared to pay money for it.

[scooterscot]

But I don't get a vote, although English people living in Scotland will get a vote and then afterwards won't be able to be citizens.

Thats because this is not an identify vote. It's a vote for residents that want economic self determination. Besides they can get a Scottish passport if they want to, they just have to give up their rUK one.

Say, anyone want to buy my passport? 10 months left. Give you a good price for it.

[Old Greg]

It was not listening to people like you that made me fail Latin at school.

FTFY