Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jun 4, 2014 in Politics | 1 comment

UKIP voters must surely support Scottish independence, no?

[This post got lost in our new database migration]

UKIP have done spectacularly well in the recent local and European elections in the UK> They were a fringe group of right-wing Euro/climate/immigrant-skeptics. They are now not so fringe, having, post-recession, harnessed the fear vote. Whilst I don’t deny the need for immigration reforms, supporting UKIP in any way to do this is clearly the wrong option.

Being essentially a cross-class, conservative wave of nationalistic euphoria, UKIP have really appealed to the British voter, to the voter who has a sense of national pride.

Ironically, in England, and perhaps to some extent Wales, these are voters who vociferously argue for Scotland to remain in Great Britain, who argue to keep our Kingdom United. And yet, without so much as a remote understanding of the Exchange Rate Mechanism or the Lisbon Treaty, they would drop the UK out of Europe. Together we are stronger! Unless that involves dirty foreigners and Euro-types.

Essentially, my point is that UKIP supporters really should avoid double standards and agree with Scottish independence.

On the other hand, I think we are stronger together. On both counts.

  • Pingback: British Protesters Promise “Conquest of India”, Followed By Enactment of Sharia | No Cross No Crescent()

  • Daydreamer1

    I’m not so sure about that. You are arguing politics from the point of view of a philosopher (fair enough given your interests and position), but I think the world is better understood if we use the hypothesis that biology and neurology are more dominant factors than good philosophy.

    I like objective reality because you can make a good argument for their being a right and wrong answer. We spend so much time arguing that morality is relative and not absolute against those who do not see grey, but then you argue that political positions are wrong because of morality. Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t and will note vote UKIP. Conservatism is conservatism though. We have an explanation for it now don’t we? You have put up links to experiments showing that free will is riding railtracks in this very subject. Peoples political opinions relate to their disgust response. The brain science podcast did a special on disgust (which I think I might have sent to you) explaining the role of the cingulate insulata etc. Conservatives have a stronger disgust response – the science shows us that the disgust response is conditioned by experience, especially when young and in formative years.

    So looking at conservatism and UKIP as well we should predict that they would be against Scottish independence. They are basically a group of society voting based on a stronger response from their cingulate insulata (which is creating a less than pleasant sensation that they are left to live with). That part of their brain normalised in their youths, so they hunger for a return to conditions more similar to that. If that is what conservatism is then arguing double standards produced from it misses what it is by attempting to look at it, and predict it, using an invalid tool.

    —–

    As a second point note that I am not saying it is right. We exist today only because of the most violent of our instincts – not just the most rosy. We are the product of a very large sequence of evolutionary steps, and evolution favoured many traits and abilities that we don’t want people freely practising. I guess what I am saying is that what I believe this shows is that people don’t think through positions, do not behave perfectly rationally. Didn’t we know that already though? Haven’t you printed many comments on this very site that would have let us predict UKIP’s direction on this?

    I guess what I mean is that double standards is an intellectual judgement. Politics is better understood as an emergent phenomena that spans more of our biology and mental landscape.