FREEDOM!!!! [2]

The British attitude survey for 2012 showed-

"a fall in support for Scottish independence, from 30% in 2006 to 23% in 2012.
About 60% said the Scottish Parliament should be running taxes and welfare."

Now either things have changed a lot in the last year (as recent polling shows independence 1 point ahead of the Union or roughly neck and neck) or the sample was too small, but what I found interesting was the apparent contradiction with 60% wanting tax raising powers and control of welfare- two things we cannot do without independence.

Maybe they want devo max? Hasn't that been the most popular option in most polls?

The problem with devo max, and the reason its not an option, is we would never get it.
The problem lies in several factors, starting with business and corporation taxes.
If Scotland (or England) were to lower theirs to attract inward investment it would put two seperate parts of the UK into direct competition with one another, and probably lead to a disastrous rush to the bottom.

The other problem is that if Scotland is given 99% of the fiscal levers (and therefore receive no money from the Treasury) we would have to get 99% of the oil revenue- and its mainly for the oil Westminster is so vigorously fighting to preserve the Union.

The other reason they are wanting to preserve the Union is of course they need somewhere to station the nuclear fleet, and a Scottish Parliament with devo max could vote to get them out of Scotland.

This is also the reason Cameron tells us if we vote no we will get more powers- but refuses to say what any of those powers might be or in what areas. And hence why in Scotland Cameron's stance is known as the 'jam tomorrow' promise.

I'm not really familiar with devo max so I'm not sure what to make of it. I sort of thought it would be like federalism for the UK (isn't that a Lib Dem proposal?). But the way you describe it makes devo max sound like Scotland would be an independent country in all but name.

Except for some key areas- foreign policy, tax powers, law making (Scotland has its own legal system and courts with different rules and ways of doing things than England, and many of our own laws, but we can only make laws in certain areas and we cant refuse a law passed at Westminster).

Are you describing the current situation or the hypothetical situation under devo max? I know that Scotland already has its own legal system though.

Well they have them all now anyway of course, but those are what they would retain at Westminister, with a few others under devo Max.

whats devo max? is it something devolutionary?

Un I dont think so,probably much duller.

When polls were done for what was most popular way back at the start of all this Independence debate devo max was one of three options, and it turned out the most popular by a good bit.
Its almost independence, but retains the Union, minus defense, foreign policy, certain taxations, law, but Scotland would be able to raise and spend its own revenue rather than paying it all into the Westminster pot and relying on a handout.
It didnt make it to the voting options however because neither side wanted it to, the SNP for obvious reasons- it would split their vote, and the Unionist parties because they dont want to give up anything like that much.

I'm curious to see how the Scottish independence referendum effects other independence movements throughout Europe.  I was reading about the big Catalan protest yesterday where reportedly over a million people formed a human chain 250 miles long to protest for independence from Spain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24052713

NB Spain is comprised mostly of "autonomous communities", several of which have major current or recent independence movements.  The central Spanish government is opposed to this and takes a hard line against unilateral secession.  For example, Spain is the only country in Western Europe not to recognize Kosovo as an independent state.

Spains reaction is one of the things the Unionists point to as a reason we wont get into Europe after Independence. That Spain will object and make it difficult so as not give the Catalans ideas.

Hasn't Spain said they won't do that if the UK government signs off on independence, though?

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/4428-spanish-foreign-minister-confirms-that-spain-would-accept-scottish-independence

Yeah but small things like facts dont tend to figure highly in the Unionist arguments so far.

Actually I think the independence case I'm most interested in (other than Scotland ) is Belgium, since they could very well cease to exist and be replaced by Flanders, Wallonia, and potentially an EU capital region in Brussels.

Eldorion wrote:

.... Belgium, since they could very well cease to exist and be replaced by Flanders, Wallonia, and potentially an EU capital region in Brussels.

Would they be able  to share custody of the pissing boy statue? It seems only fair...

"AN INVESTIGATION is being carried out by education chiefs after it emerged a preacher from a creationist Christian sect had been helping at a primary school for more than eight years – apparently without teachers being aware of his fundamentalist views.
Alex Gear, from the Church of Christ, a US-based sect that does not believe in evolution and condemns gay relationships, was invited by the headteacher of Kirktonholme Primary School in East Kilbride to become one of its chaplains.
Mr Gear also ran a club at the school on Monday evenings and spoke to pupils about beliefs as part of their religious education lessons.
The scandal emerged after pupils at Kirktonholme Primary in East Kilbride were sent home with the sect’s creationist books."

"Head Teacher Sandra MacKenzie faced the wrath of more than 100 parents at an emergency meeting of the parent council.
Parent Michelle Blackwood said: “We don’t want her in charge of the kids. She admitted she didn’t read the books, she skimmed through them.
“One parent I spoke to said we should all consider boycotting the school.”
One parent said: “It beggars belief that she wouldn’t know what they stand for.”
Parent Louise Stewart said she was oblivious about the background of the American classroom helpers.
She said: “I have no idea how much junk they have been filling my children’s heads with.”
They wanted to know why the US-based Church of Christ – who deny evolution and believe homosexuals will burn in hell – got to work with their kids.
Karen Maxwell, 52, whose grandson goes to Kirktonholme, said: “It is shocking.
“Parents should give consent for any sort of preaching at all. It’s a nondenominational school."


I am suitably heartened at least by the response by parents. Schools are for learning about things, not for believing in things.
And religious texts should only be given out as part of proper learning about world religions, not as if they are text books of ultimate truth.

It's interesting to me that a primary school would have a chaplain, and that parents would then react so strongly to religious infiltration. It seems perhaps they are not upset at religion per se, just that it wasn't the religion they were expecting.

Here there is a very clear divide between religious schools and government funded schools. They may teach the same things, but if there's a chaplain there would almost definitely not be government funding or a government investigation. Religious schools are completely up to the private organizations and the parents that choose to send their kids there.

It's interesting to me that a primary school would have a chaplain, and that parents would then react so strongly to religious infiltration.- Halfwise

Schools here are under Local Council Authority Control.
On a school to school basis there is a fair amount of variation that the Head teacher and Parents Board can bring in.
In my own area we have a Primary School with Catholic Assistance- if you want your child to have a Catholic School based education they can go there, but non Catholics can still go and their parents can opt them in or out of the Catholic teachings side of things.
Another school is nondenominational, but specialises in languages, particularly Gaelic.
These differences are usually driven by the desires of the parents.
If a school says it has a chaplain, an you dont mind them getting some prayers and stuff at Assemblies, then your kids go there, if you do mind you go to a school without one, or if that's not possible you can opt your child out of any religious activity the school might do.

In the case sighted I would say that the parents probably expected when told there was a chaplain that the Chaplain would be a mainstream Christian sort. They probably did not expect (quite rightly one might argue) that they would be from a fundamentalist church from the US with views the majority of Scots would find offensive.

Further to that there is a legal issue, all texts given out to children on school premises have to be vetted first, schools cant just give out literature on whatever political or religious subject they like, it has to go through the process of assuring its balanced, taught in a constructive manner ect first.

I reflexively rankle at the idea of having a chaplain in a public school (meaning government-run, in the American sense of the word), but I think your post highlights some of the differences in American and Western European approaches to Christianity.  The American government is nominally totally secular and all religion is supposed to be a private affair, so the Supreme Court has ruled that you can't have officially-scheduled prayer in public schools.  But religion in America also tends much more towards the hard-line variety.  Whereas in Western Europe you have a lot of countries with established churches (though I don't think Scotland technically has one anymore) but it's by and large a very moderate phenomenon that isn't a big part of most people's lives. That's my understanding anyway, I could be mistaken.

though I don't think Scotland technically has one anymore- Eldo

 Church of Scotland- suitably progressive as Churches go, been spending the last 40 years looking about at other churches arguing over women in the clergy and wondering what all the fuss is about, they asked their women ministers but they didn't see what all the fuss was about either.  

I think in Scotland among secular Scots (and I include a lot in that who are nominally of a religion but are only ever in a church for weddings, baptisms and funerals but lead secular lives with secular ideas) religion is seen as a reasonable thing to teach to young children.
It gives a good framework to teach the morally accepted norms of society- the problem arises when people expect you to carry those ideas on as facts into adulthood.
Its as silly as being expected to continue a belief in leprechauns into adulthood, or the Easter Bunny.
Faery stories and folk tales have their place to teach our children the basic rules of society within a graspable framework. Religious teachings that demonstrate moral messages belong in the same category.
So a lot of non religous Scots dont actually mind their children getting taught religion as a moral framework (most of us were), they do object to it being taught as a fundamental set of truths however, especially if they dont know their children are being taught it.

A couple decades ago when I was over there, I spent most of my time in the Highlands and Islands.  The Church was everywhere, in every part of daily life it seemed, and the division between Kirk and Free Kirk seemed particularly similar to religion in much of rural America.  

As I understand it here, the Church of Christ is a blanket term that's used by hundreds of different church groups who have no central leadership (other than Christ of course...). . If I remember the Free Kirk keeps splitting going off and in different directions like this as well.  Nice people really, as long as you don't get started on theology... 

I'm guessing that a dogmatic FreeKirk teacher in the schools would have been spotted quickly and watched carefully, but in this case the American slipped past the radar. Does that sound about right?

Thing about the Highlands and Islands is they have a very small percent of the population. Those areas never recovered from the Clearances. Currently in the Highlands there is 8.5 people to every square kilometre, on Skye its 2.2 compared to 3, 378 for Glasgow.

But even somewhere like where I live the Church till has an active role running charities and the like, and most people think thats a good thing, just dont expect us to believe in it.
For most secular Scots the Church is a functional thing, they perform particular roles in society, we want to keep those roles, keep the idea helping others because its the right thing to do is off itself enough a reason to do it- we just dont want the believe it or else part of the doctrine.

"I'm guessing that a dogmatic FreeKirk teacher in the schools would have been spotted quickly and watched carefully"

Im not sure, probably not I think for the reason given above, most people assume its being properly done, like having your bins collected or something, and not thought anymore of it- it was only when they saw the creationist books and anti-gay stuff their kids were bringing home it came to their attention.
If it had been someone from the wee frees they wold have got the same treatment only if they'd pulled a similar stunt.

I think it's not that much different here then. The Church of Christ about 5 miles down the road is the most socially active in the community, collecting food and household goods and distributing it to the those in need.

(They put on a good show on Sundays too. There's a drum set, electric guitar, bass and keyboard always ready up behind the pulpit.)

As far as the small percentage of the population, bear in mind that I'm very much of the minority myself so my sympathies run strongly that way.

The only real difference I see between here and the US is scale and the balance has already swung here in terms of numbers.
In the US there is a secular/religious divide between urban and rural- its exactly the same here only there is hardly anyone left in the rural bit. And out of those the numbers who are still of the literal, give no ground on anything religious sort are limited and falling.

I can't quite figure out where the Scots clergy comes from, sounds like nobody over there is very religious.

I think the reason we have to have such a strong secular/religious divide here is that there's a greater tendency for the religious to go overboard with it. Likely because the strong divide allows it. Separation and strong religion tend to feed off each other.