Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

The Union has long operated as internal colonialism; this is just the next step in de-colonising the system.

It'll be interesting to see how often Conservative ministers promise that there will be no border between UK and ROI but there will be a hard border between England and Scotland, despite none of this making any sense.

View on HN

On the point of internal colonialism: it might have been true once, but certainly not true today.

All of the countries in the union have seats in Westminster, dedicate ministers and committees, as well as their own devolved parliaments. I'd say things are much worse for counties in the North of England, than for the other countries in the UK.

The nature of democracy means the majority rules, which will always be problematic for minority communities. The only solutions I can see are to be more cohesive and unified in opinion, divorce completely, or accept differences as the cost of peace and stability and continue working to improve the balance.

I grew up in the north of England, Cumbria to be exact. My extended family are all in the north of Scotland.

There is no doubt in my mind that the loser in all of this is the north of England. They are repeatedly denied a voice, publicly scorned, and they see all their talent move south or abroad. England is a lopsided country and I don't know how to fix it.

> the loser in all of this is the north of England. They are repeatedly denied a voice

Well, they had their voice, they cast their lot, they were the deciding vote for Brexit. Now they can lie in the bed they made for themselves. No pity lost from anyone up beyond the Wall or down in the South.

Don't be so stupid.

People throwing the towel in and blaming others for everything that is wrong is how we've ended up in this political mess. No leaders. No vision. Just pity and blame.

The North of England has consistently been stripped of its talent for the last fifty years. To blame them for wanting change and not being attracted to the same campaign you were is idiotic.

The 200 year-old idea that democracy means majority rules is rather naive. Naive in the sense that it assumes a simplistic model of political dynamics where every voter is an independent agent, and this assumption has not stood up well to history. The impact of political movements and demogogues, as well as economic coercion of the working classes, has shown that it is in fact possible for a democracy to be controlled by minority interests. It turns out that most people are vulnerable to the influence of thought leaders with their own agenda, can be manipulated to act against their interests, and so it can not be said that the majority of voters exercise political agency.

Hi philipov... I would be really interested to hear your proposed solution.

I think it'll take many changes along the lines of: a constitutional convention to patch holes in the bill of rights; restoring financial independence to states so they can act as a check on the power of the national government; and universal basic income to eliminate financial coercion of the electorate. But I'm not convinced that will work, or even that it's possible. There are serious practical and political barriers. I think the existence of private institutions that are "too big to fail" is a very dangerous situation to be in. On the other hand, it's not clear how it's possible to prevent our political process from being captured by special interests while also avoiding descent into tyranny of a different form.

Wouldn't the first step be to abolish the welfare state? That way it eliminates financial coercion of the electorate and stops the viability of r-selection reproduction that resulted in the demographic shift that enables these sorts of politicians in the first place?

> Wouldn't the first step be to abolish the welfare state?

Universal Basic Income is the very definition of welfare state, and the purpose of which is to counter the effect special interests coercion. To abolish it would be to empower the lobbyists and too-big-to-fail corporates

No, I think the first place to start is figuring out how, even assuming you come up with a plan that works, to ever get it implemented it in good faith when both political parties represent a threat to free society. Both sides of the aisle have already been captured, and will never allow legislation that threatens their hold on power. They will eviscerate it with amendments and poison it with riders.

> majority rules, which will always be problematic for minority communities

This is arguably the big problem of the 20th and 21st centuries: not all questions are sensibly amenable to majority rule, and minorities must have rights and protections against discriminatory politics. This tends to grate a bit with the majority, which is tolerable in OK economic times but can be vulnerable to demagogues.

Protection of minorities is baked into the Good Friday agreement. It's also differently baked into the Human Rights Act, which seems to be part of why the HRA is so unpopular in some quarters.

Hi biofox, there are other solutions... for example changing from a democracy to a republic.

As an aside, I think that most people don't understand these concepts because the word 'democracy' is used so much in political rhetoric and in the media that people have taken it to mean a representational system of government. For example the US is not a democracy... it is a republic, while the UK is indeed a democracy (which causes the problems that you mention). Both are still representational systems of government.

To give an extreme example say you have 3 foxes and 1 sheep at a table and all 4 of them represent a country. In a democracy the majority rules, and it would be perfectly legal for the 3 foxes to vote and eat the sheep.

However in a republic, legal limits are placed on the government (think constitution), which has implications for all citizens--but especially minorities. In a republic with a constitution that states that all citizens have the right to life and liberty, those 3 foxes could vote to eat the 1 sheep but that sheep is protected by the constitution. Therefore in that example, the vote would be illegal.

It is no coincidence that the founding fathers of the United States set America up to be a republic and why constitutional matters are so important even today.

Now having said all this I am aware that many believe that the UK has an "unwritten" or uncodified constitution. While I don't outrightly reject this concept, I believe it doesn't give a country a strong ethical or moral foundation because it does not offer clarity or consistency when ethics or morality are legally challenged. Ideally ethics and morality are codified in law so that all citizens know where they stand with regards to the power of their government.

Coming back to the issue of Scottish independence, it could be rooted in the very real problem that most people are nescient--or worse, selectively ignorant--about these issues. Unfortunately in the UK we seem to be perpetually locked in a 'treat the symptoms rather than the disease' scenario.

> All of the countries in the union have ... their own devolved parliaments.

England?

In 2014, 55% of Scots voted to stay. If we are to learn the lessons of the Brexit referendum, you need consensus to enact any major change to people's citizenship rights. Consensus there is not.

Yes - but Brexit has shot away the status quo and is proceeding to remove people's free movement and other rights without consensus. Change is now underway whether we want it or not. Scotland has to pick a European future or an increasingly risky looking English future.

" If we are to learn the lessons of the Brexit referendum, you need consensus to enact any major change to people's citizenship rights. Consensus there is not."

UK citizens were never given a vote on their 'citizenship' rights in the EU.

UK citizens only voted to join the EEC - not the EU. They voted to join what was essentially a 'trade block'. Not a supra-federal state. (UK citizens were not given a vote on the treaty of Rome.)

The French voted against the treaty of Rome - and guess what? Their Parliament enacted it! How's that for consensus?

Same thing in the Netherlands.

In Ireland, they were forced to 'keep voting until it passed'.

Most other countries did not get a referendum on joining the EU.

There was never any 'popular consensus' on the EU as we know it - it likely may never have existed if it were put to referendum.

I would argue that a 'strong consensus' would be needed to have Scottish, Catalonian or Quebec separation - those are parts of nations.

The EU is not quite the same thing.

While that might be the case, the resounding pro-remain vote in Scotland at the EU referendum is convincingly a vote for EU membership. It's fair to say that there is a popular consensus that Scotland should be a member of the EU.

This post seems to have become a victim of "disagreement downvoting". Whether or not it's correct I think it's a well made point, I wish the moderation system worked more for contribution than consensus.

It's off-topic: the subject is Scotland independence, not the failings of the democratic processes of the EU.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com