|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Scottish Independence
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry, 'virtual disappearance of Tories' is incorrect. 15 MPs, I think.
One Scottish Tory MP at Westminster (leading to the oft-repeated statistic that Scotland has more pandas than Tory MPS) There are 15 Tory MSPs at Holyrood, through proportional representation. I don't know offhand how many Tory MSPs there would be under a first-past-the-post system.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry, 'virtual disappearance of Tories' is incorrect. 15 MPs, I think.
You think wrong. They have 1 MP in Scotland. They have a few more MSPs, largely due to the regional lists.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
The voting system in Scotland also means that we have two Green MSPs, whereas Westminster has only one.
The current three main Conservative MSPs, Ruth Davidson, Murdo Fraser and Jackson Carlaw are all "list" MSPs, i.e. not elected under the first-past-the-post part of the vote.
[ 02. December 2013, 19:13: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you think independence is the next grand step of humankind, mandated by the Holy Scriptures, then go for it. Though such thinking only confirms in my mind that pro-independence expectations are more messianic that realistic.
And your mind appears from what you state to work in weird and wonderful ways! The scriptural quote was in support of the argument that risks must be taken in life and to avoid them is to loose what you have. To somehow establish a singularity between that argument and the case Scottish independence, let alone a postulation of divine providence, suggests that you have become quite carried away. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you think independence is the next grand step of humankind, mandated by the Holy Scriptures, then go for it. Though such thinking only confirms in my mind that pro-independence expectations are more messianic that realistic.
And your mind appears from what you state to work in weird and wonderful ways! The scriptural quote was in support of the argument that risks must be taken in life and to avoid them is to loose what you have. To somehow establish a singularity between that argument and the case Scottish independence, let alone a postulation of divine providence, suggests that you have become quite carried away.
You brought it up. Was it too much to assume that you weren't being irrelevant?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
Louise, the problem with all the political analysis you've linked to is that they insist on isolating the elections from everything else, as if, for example the loss of the '64 election would have had absolutely no lasting effect on anything. This is an absurd assertion. How Wilson's leadership of the party would have been affected is an unanswerable question, but to say it would have had no effect at all is absurd. Ditto the elections in the 70s. You seem to suggest you can answer them though, so how about you flesh out some details? And why were the good bits of legislation in the 60s inevitable then but endless Tory austerity is inevitable now?
It seems however that it has to be asserted in order to justify the sense of victimhood that is central to the SNP's case: that Scotland has been the victim of governments chosen by England, which is rubbish. For most of the last century there were plenty of Scots Tories, or rather "unionists" as they were for most of that time. Scots votes were key to Labour victories in the 60s and 70s because the results were close. That was also why there was a referendum in the late 70s: because the Callaghan govt was weak and needed to cut deals. In '79 the number of Scots Tory MPs went up, and it was only in the 80s there was a shift leftward. It wasn't until '97 that the Tories were ousted completely: in tune with the collapse of their support elsewhere. And of course Scots were key to the whole New Labour project: occupying the treasury and the Attorney general's office, as well as the F.O. at one point, with their MPs being key in their support for tuition fees. While you and I may have been unhappy, loads of Scots kept voting New Labour, when they had more alternatives than in England.
In comparison places like the North-East which really has always been left have tended to be far less well represented in government.
To say however that Scotland hasn't significantly affected British politics is a denial of history.
As for what you're voting for, the problem is, you just don't know. It's not a plan it's a principle: that Scotland should be an independent country. What form that will take hasn't been thrashed out yet so it's inevitably more of a shot in the dark.
Salmond has made clear he wants the pound and the BofE as lender of last resort. What price will he want/need to pay to get it we don't know: neither does he. We don't know if an agreement is actually possible. Ditto NATO membership, only more so. Ditto the EU. All these things are without precedent. To say one side or the other will have to accept something is absurd: neither side has to accept anything if they don't want to, but what then?
Now if you're really saying you don't give a stuff what Scotland has to go through so long as it has a chance to develop its own identity as a nation, I guess that's unanswerable, except to ask why now, when Scotland has more devolved power than in 1978 when it had none? But if you're backing it on the assumption of a particular political outlook being dominant and successful i.e. a left one, that just seems naive.
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If the Italian government is able to organise fair elections for the representation of the Italian diaspora, it should be a piece of cake for the more competent administrators of Scotland.
Untrue. Because the Italian diaspora are identified via Italian citizenship. There is no such thing as 'Scottish citizenship' currently by which to perform an equivalent action.
That is correct, but the SNP have outlined a set of well-defined criteria for who can become a citizen of post-secession Scotland. Surely it would make sense to open up the referendum to the whole of that group which the SNP calls citizens of Scotland?
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hostly reminder/
Commandment 4 saith quote:
If you must get personal, take it to Hell
If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.
There is plenty to discuss here without falling foul of this or any other board guideline or commandment.
Irrespective of your views on Scottish Independence, by posting on this thread you are voting YES to abiding by the Ship's Ten Commandments. If you wish to vote NO, take your disagreement to Hell. Thank you.
/hostly reminder
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
As an outsider, it's hard to imagine British politics without bright young men from Scotland coming down to London to tell the British how they are doing everything wrong. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I Has there been any European Union reaction to the Scottish Independence movement? Does it echo in the other European regional independence movements? Does this seem like an attempt to double representation of the UK? Or is it the policy ignore internal national struggles lest your own be discussed?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If the Italian government is able to organise fair elections for the representation of the Italian diaspora, it should be a piece of cake for the more competent administrators of Scotland.
Untrue. Because the Italian diaspora are identified via Italian citizenship. There is no such thing as 'Scottish citizenship' currently by which to perform an equivalent action.
That is correct, but the SNP have outlined a set of well-defined criteria for who can become a citizen of post-secession Scotland. Surely it would make sense to open up the referendum to the whole of that group which the SNP calls citizens of Scotland?
I knew you'd say that. Which is why I've prepared my response already: ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
There is a fundamental difference between being a citizen, and being eligible to apply for citizenship when the time comes. Unless the SNP is going to make all those people citizens post-independence, whether they want to be citizens or not, then the two lists are not equivalent.
It should be noted that some countries do basically co-opt people into citizenship automatically without consulting the people concerned. Actually, it happens to almost all of us upon our birth... but apart from that, such situations are not especially common.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
...it's hard to imagine British politics without bright young men from Scotland coming down to London to tell the British how they are doing everything wrong.
Hey, I hadn't thought of that!
Can I change my mind? If Scottish independence meant getting Michael Gove out of Westminster I would be all for it!
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Michael Gove went to a state primary in Aberdeen and then won a bursary to fee-paying Robert Gordon's School in Aberdeen, before going to Oxford.
I'd love to know which primary school he went to. That appears to be a closely guarded secret.
[ 03. December 2013, 13:03: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Yes, but he was a product of English higher education, as per my last post. Oxford 1985 to 1988, President of the Oxford Union.Says it all.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Yes, but he was a product of English higher education, as per my last post. Oxford 1985 to 1988, President of the Oxford Union.Says it all.
It does indeed. If only all Education Secretaries could be like Michael Gove.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I'm just curious as to his primary school. Someone told me it was kept quiet because he went to a "really rough" primary and then said they thought it might have been my kids' first primary. So I'm intrigued as to whether Gove started out at the same school as them, and unimpressed if it's regarded as "really rough."
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Judging by the poor standards in English education, Gove is doing a pretty poor job. Thankfully, Scottish education is a devolved matter so he can't do harm to our much better system.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Thankfully, Scottish education is a devolved matter so he can't do harm to our much better system.
Why can't you take pride in what is yours without showing the pathetic insecurity of such shortbread "nationalism", which likes to pretend a sense of superiority over the English in such matters.
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
I'm English but have taught in both systems in the last 5 years. I would not return to teaching in England.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Neither the English nor the Scottish education system is particularly good on international measures, insofar as they can be relied upon.
Except in HE, where Gove's alma mater does rather better than anywhere in Scotland
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Surely it would make sense to open up the referendum to the whole of that group which the SNP calls citizens of Scotland?
It makes no sense from the Yes point of view to do this. I agree with the point made earlier that non-Scots resident in Scotland are more likely to vote Yes than Scots resident outside Scotland.
There is no advantage to the Yes camp in linking their campaign to ethnic nationalism, because they get all its advantages, without being able to be accused pandering to them. Good grief, it is only because an independent Scotland would be an old-fashioned nation-state that this debate is happening at all. It is one of the most monocultural regions of the UK. The "people of Scotland" overwhelmingly, in effect, means ethnic Scots.
Pardon me my cynicism on this one.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The "people of Scotland" overwhelmingly, in effect, means ethnic Scots.
I think you'll find the 2011 census disagreeing with you. On ethnicity (and other stuff) 17% of the population of Scotland were born outside Scotland, 7% of the population born outside the UK. And, of course, many of those born in Scotland would be born of parents who were themselves born outside Scotland. Those numbers would have increased since then.
And, there is considerable cultural diversity even within those who were born in Scotland with parents and grandparents born in Scotland. Just as there would be if I replace "Scotland" with "England" (or, indeed practically any other country). There is more to Scottish culture than tartan, bag pipes and tossing the caber.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Tell me, at least, that the defining characteristic is not ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) haggis.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Surely it would make sense to open up the referendum to the whole of that group which the SNP calls citizens of Scotland?
It makes no sense from the Yes point of view to do this. I agree with the point made earlier that non-Scots resident in Scotland are more likely to vote Yes than Scots resident outside Scotland.
There is no advantage to the Yes camp in linking their campaign to ethnic nationalism, because they get all its advantages, without being able to be accused pandering to them. Good grief, it is only because an independent Scotland would be an old-fashioned nation-state that this debate is happening at all. It is one of the most monocultural regions of the UK. The "people of Scotland" overwhelmingly, in effect, means ethnic Scots.
Pardon me my cynicism on this one.
I consider myself Scottish. I live in Scotland and will be voting for independence in September 2014.
I was born and educated in England (Essex) and am of mixed race (white/ Asian). I love living in Scotland and enjoying all the advantages she offers. It is a far more open and equal society than England and, generally, a far happier place. Yes, there are problems but we are working to overcome these.
Please feel free to express cynicism but preferably only if you have lived and worked in Scotland, and experienced the quality of life offered here.
[please feel free to practice your UBB code]
[ 03. December 2013, 19:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tell me, at least, that the defining characteristic is not haggis.
If it is, I'm in on the grounds of a single visit in 2000. I found it delicious. Mind you, I did try a version in a high class restaurant.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tell me, at least, that the defining characteristic is not haggis.
If you're not keen on a whole plateful of haggis, something like a haggis and mozzarella panini, or chicken breast stuffed with haggis, in a whisky cream sauce, might convince you that haggis is, in fact, delicious.
I wouldn't recommend haggis pizza, though.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tell me, at least, that the defining characteristic is not haggis.
If you're not keen on a whole plateful of haggis, something like a haggis and mozzarella panini, or chicken breast stuffed with haggis, in a whisky cream sauce, might convince you that haggis is, in fact, delicious.
I wouldn't recommend haggis pizza, though.
A fried haggis and chip supper is delicious
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I prefer living in Massachusetts to living in Southern California, but that doesn't lead me to conclude that they must obviously be made separate countries.
I am sure the Canadians will be able to explain how well independence prevents cultural influence seeping north from a larger, wealthier country. Whatever differences a mind can cook up between the Scottish and the English that is.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tell me, at least, that the defining characteristic is not haggis.
If it is, I'm in on the grounds of a single visit in 2000. I found it delicious. Mind you, I did try a version in a high class restaurant.
[Tangent] Come out to ours next time we have it. I managed to catch(!) the last available haggis in the city on Friday for our St Andrew's Day meal.[/Tangent]
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
So, basically, the arguments for independence consist of the grievances felt by all regions of the UK, coupled with the positive aspects of much of rest of the UK. But of course as Scotland is a nation, these attributes can be dressed up as this sort of romantic holier-than-thou-Scotland-is-a-more equal-fluffier-and-happier-country-than-England cods-wallop...
Move on people there's nothing see here...
[ 03. December 2013, 21:39: Message edited by: Yam-pk ]
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yam-pk:
So, basically, the arguments for independence consist of the grievances felt by all regions of the UK, coupled with the positive aspects of much of rest of the UK. But of course as Scotland is a nation, these attributes can be dressed up as this sort of romantic holier-than-thou-Scotland-is-a-more equal-fluffier-and-happier-country-than-England cods-wallop...
Move on people there's nothing see here...
So you're full-square behind total European integration then?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I prefer living in Massachusetts to living in Southern California, but that doesn't lead me to conclude that they must obviously be made separate countries.
I am sure the Canadians will be able to explain how well independence prevents cultural influence seeping north from a larger, wealthier country. Whatever differences a mind can cook up between the Scottish and the English that is.
And yet national borders exist. At what point are they justified? Language? But in that case, large parts of both north and South America should run together rather more than they do. History? Borders come and go all the time. Quite a few of the current ones do not reflect the wishes of those living either side of them - hence any number of current wars, insurrections and more or less violent efforts at secession.
How do you come to be the arbiter of nationhood? Jimmy.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Yam-pk:
So, basically, the arguments for independence consist of the grievances felt by all regions of the UK, coupled with the positive aspects of much of rest of the UK. But of course as Scotland is a nation, these attributes can be dressed up as this sort of romantic holier-than-thou-Scotland-is-a-more equal-fluffier-and-happier-country-than-England cods-wallop...
Move on people there's nothing see here...
So you're full-square behind total European integration then?
This absurd argument comes up again and again.
The end of the pro-union argument isn't European integration any more than the end of the pro-independence argument is division of Scotland into 5.3 million completely personalized countries.
[ 03. December 2013, 22:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I prefer living in Massachusetts to living in Southern California, but that doesn't lead me to conclude that they must obviously be made separate countries.
I am sure the Canadians will be able to explain how well independence prevents cultural influence seeping north from a larger, wealthier country. Whatever differences a mind can cook up between the Scottish and the English that is.
And yet national borders exist. At what point are they justified? Language? But in that case, large parts of both north and South America should run together rather more than they do. History? Borders come and go all the time. Quite a few of the current ones do not reflect the wishes of those living either side of them - hence any number of current wars, insurrections and more or less violent efforts at secession.
How do you come to be the arbiter of nationhood? Jimmy.
As I said upthread, I really don't care about the question of the morality of national borders. I am only interested in whether the risks of independence are worth the credible rewards.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yam-pk:
So, basically, the arguments for independence consist of the grievances felt by all regions of the UK, coupled with the positive aspects of much of rest of the UK. But of course as Scotland is a nation, these attributes can be dressed up as this sort of romantic holier-than-thou-Scotland-is-a-more equal-fluffier-and-happier-country-than-England cods-wallop...
Move on people there's nothing see here...
Come on, you Scottish workers for the yes vote, you could use this post. Just put it up in prominent places; just as football managers put up stuff in the dressing room criticizing the team.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Yam-pk:
So, basically, the arguments for independence consist of the grievances felt by all regions of the UK, coupled with the positive aspects of much of rest of the UK. But of course as Scotland is a nation, these attributes can be dressed up as this sort of romantic holier-than-thou-Scotland-is-a-more equal-fluffier-and-happier-country-than-England cods-wallop...
Move on people there's nothing see here...
Come on, you Scottish workers for the yes vote, you could use this post. Just put it up in prominent places; just as football managers put up stuff in the dressing room criticizing the team.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So you're full-square behind total European integration then?
This absurd argument comes up again and again.
The end of the pro-union argument isn't European integration any more than the end of the pro-independence argument is division of Scotland into 5.3 million completely personalized countries.
And yet the reason it keeps on coming up is that it cuts the ground away under your feet. You want the Scots to be run from Westminster, but you'll be damned if the UK is run from Brussels.
They're the same argument: what's sauce for the EU goose is sauce for the Unionist gander.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I don't accept that. I feel like I'm a British citizen, with instinctive loyalties and solidarity with other Britons. I don't feel like I'm a European citizen. Certainly not in any political sense.
You might not agree with that position, but there's no inherent contradiction.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So you're full-square behind total European integration then?
This absurd argument comes up again and again.
The end of the pro-union argument isn't European integration any more than the end of the pro-independence argument is division of Scotland into 5.3 million completely personalized countries.
And yet the reason it keeps on coming up is that it cuts the ground away under your feet. You want the Scots to be run from Westminster, but you'll be damned if the UK is run from Brussels.
They're the same argument: what's sauce for the EU goose is sauce for the Unionist gander.
No, it doesn't. Because of that argument you just ignored.
Furthermore, I would be all for European integration if it had clear benefits. I don't see any inherent value to independence. I value democracy and making a living.
[ 03. December 2013, 23:31: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hampstonian
Apprentice
# 17912
|
Posted
When I have been to SNP/Yes Scotland meetings (listening in as a non-Scot), one issue that did come up a fair deal was the extent to which the City of London (the Square Mile) was alleged to run the rest of the country in quite a colonialist-hegemonic way.
Even within Greater London, the City has a colonialist force over poorer London boroughs, never mind its economic dominance over the regions of England.
It was discussed that part of the message coming out of the demand among a significant number of people for Scottish independence, arose from this sense of economic hegemony of a monied political elite - though maybe not clearly articulated as such.
I don't know, and would be interested to hear the views of others on this thread.
I certainly got the sense that the Yes Scotland campaign had a vision to build a kind of society based on egalitarian values - whether that would be build of viable nation state may be open for discussion. There does though seem to be an element of economic protest informing this question.
--------------------
Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine
Twitter: @MYAlHussaini YouTube: Muhammad Al-Hussaini
Posts: 6 | From: London, United Kingdom | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Zach (and others), it's not an absurd argument in either direction because there simply isn't any SPECIFIC level of integration that can be pointed at, on an objective basis, to say "that ought to be a country", or "that is too large to be a country", or "that is too small to be a country".
If the human race should start colonising other planets, one can well imagine a whole variety of governance arrangements springing up from multiple countries on a single planet to a single country on multiple planets. There's nothing to preclude either.
All of the indicators of being a country are descriptors, mostly having to do with independent governance that isn't answerable to a higher level of governance. But none of those indicators are in any way normative.
The only meaningful test of whether something 'should' be a country or not is whether the present arrangements are working. If Massachusetts and California and whatever state is most non-Massachusetts are all coping just fine with present arrangements, then fine, don't change them. If there's a problem, then fine, look at fixing it.
The very essence of a desire for Scottish independence is a sense that present arrangements aren't working satisfactorily. There's nothing inherently right or wrong about an independent Scotland, in the same way that there's nothing inherently right or wrong about an independent United Kingdom, an independent Vatican City or an independent Flanders.
[ 04. December 2013, 01:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Zach (and others), it's not an absurd argument in either direction because there simply isn't any SPECIFIC level of integration that can be pointed at, on an objective basis, to say "that ought to be a country", or "that is too large to be a country", or "that is too small to be a country".
I actually agree, and have clearly said that neither complete European integration or division of countries are necessarily bad.
What's absurd is the argument that support for British unity or rejection of nationalism obliges one to support complete European integration. This is simply false.
quote:
The only meaningful test of whether something 'should' be a country or not is whether the present arrangements are working. If Massachusetts and California and whatever state is most non-Massachusetts are all coping just fine with present arrangements, then fine, don't change them. If there's a problem, then fine, look at fixing it.
You are agreeing with me, but writing like we disagree. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
The very essence of a desire for Scottish independence is a sense that present arrangements aren't working satisfactorily. There's nothing inherently right or wrong about an independent Scotland, in the same way that there's nothing inherently right or wrong about an independent United Kingdom, an independent Vatican City or an independent Flanders.
Where did you get the idea what I thought Scottish independence was wrong?
What I've said, again and again and again, is that, all things considered, Scotland is doing well enough as part of the Union, and no credible promise from the pro-independence crowd seems worth the risk to the status quo.
Of course, that's only a statement of my values. People here seem to feel that independence has a value of its own, because Scotland is so different and oppressed by England. They are free to vote accordingly, but I'm free to think that's a pile of nationalist claptrap and to say so.
[ 04. December 2013, 01:55: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The "people of Scotland" overwhelmingly, in effect, means ethnic Scots.
I think you'll find the 2011 census disagreeing with you.
I think you'll find the Scottish Government's figures agree with me. 88% of Scottish residents identify as "white Scottish". The referendum will, in substance, be a vote conducted by and for white Scots. If they want independence, independence they shall have.
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Please feel free to express cynicism but preferably only if you have lived and worked in Scotland, and experienced the quality of life offered here.
Thank you for your kind invitation, but I decline. I lived in Scotland for half a decade and am now more happily resident elsewhere.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What I've said, again and again and again, is that, all things considered, Scotland is doing well enough as part of the Union, and no credible promise from the pro-independence crowd seems worth the risk to the status quo.
With respect, I think the very reason that you've got some people's back up is that it's not really your place to offer an assessment. In the same way that it isn't mine.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What I've said, again and again and again, is that, all things considered, Scotland is doing well enough as part of the Union, and no credible promise from the pro-independence crowd seems worth the risk to the status quo.
With respect, I think the very reason that you've got some people's back up is that it's not really your place to offer an assessment. In the same way that it isn't mine.
I have said things like "But it's not really up to me" in practically all of my posts in recognition of the fact that I don't get a vote, and that Scottish people don't actually have to prove anything to me.
Non-Americans on these boards offer their opinions on American domestic policies all the time. I think gambling a nation's future for something so paltry as nationalism is folly. That's merely my opinion on this line of Scottish affairs. They can take it or leave it.
[ 04. December 2013, 03:01: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What I've said, again and again and again, is that, all things considered, Scotland is doing well enough as part of the Union, and no credible promise from the pro-independence crowd seems worth the risk to the status quo.
Yes, this point has come through, so it doesn't need to be repeated yet again and again and again. I respect that. Of course, our mutually cherished governance principle (democracy) does also allow for other views to be expressed, and (shudder) perhaps even prevail. In divergence to your assessment, various arguments have been raised, i.a.
1. Scotland could be doing better than it currently is, either as part of the Union (e.g. Devo-Max) or outwith the Union.
2. The pro-independence crowd actually do offer some promising arguments.
3. The risks involved in moving towards independence are manageable and when balanced against possible gains and losses indeed worth it, at least from a current day perspective.
4. There is no status quo.
5. The benefits of independence extend beyond economic considerations to those of identity (e.g. being a Massachusian is a more salient identity feature than being an American would be comparable to the feelings of many Scots - this would probably sound a little absurd to most north-eastern Americans, but it is a perspective which considerably changes a lot of things, including the evaluation of risks and awards of independence).
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Yes, this point has come through, so it doesn't need to be repeated yet again and again and again. I respect that. Of course, our mutually cherished governance principle (democracy) does also allow for other views to be expressed, and (shudder) perhaps even prevail.
Apparently, I do have to keep repeating it, because people keep asking me to answer for positions I don't believe in.
As for your arguments,
1.This is obvious, but as yet the more credible benefits looks pretty small. You proposed the possibility of Scotland offering more tourist visas. Woo?
2.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Strange, I hit "edit," finished the message, then it wouldn't let me post the edit. Anyway,
quote:
Yes, this point has come through, so it doesn't need to be repeated yet again and again and again. I respect that. Of course, our mutually cherished governance principle (democracy) does also allow for other views to be expressed, and (shudder) perhaps even prevail.
Apparently, I do have to keep repeating it, because people keep asking me to answer for positions I don't believe in.
As for your arguments,
1.This is obvious, but as yet the more credible benefits looks pretty small. You proposed the possibility of Scotland offering more tourist visas. Woo? On the other hand, it could be better off in the Union. Not that you or others will even think about the possibility.
2.So I hear? I haven't seen any that would thrill me.
3.I haven't seen much cognizance of risks at all. It seems beyond question, for example, that Scotland will be admitted to the EU, when that is by no means a given, or even very likely.
4.This simply fails to understand that "status quo" means. Nothing in "status quo" means "it will stay this way forever and ever, amen."
5.Ah, "identity." Another word for nationalism. I still consider "we're just so special and different" a poor basis for making policy decisions. You can, on the other hand, have all the identity you like in the union.
[ 04. December 2013, 04:33: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Zach82, have you visited Scotland? Or are you of Scottish descent? You're obviously very interested in Scottish independence, and I'm wondering where you're getting your sense of the zeitgeist from?
I live in a part of Scotland that certainly doesn't feel "oppressed." The oil industry is doing well. We have low unemployment, a good quality of life, good state schools. But much of this is despite, rather than because of, current Government policy. The oil will run out one day, and what then? Independence seems to be more forward-looking than Westminster governance in that respect.
Aberdeen currently has more job vacancies than people to fill them. This is partly because most vacancies are for skilled posts requiring specialised knowledge, and most of the unemployed are unskilled. The oil industry is very mobile, and needs to be able to recruit world-wide. Yet Westminster immigration policies are not helpful in this respect.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82, have you visited Scotland? Or are you of Scottish descent? You're obviously very interested in Scottish independence, and I'm wondering where you're getting your sense of the zeitgeist from?
My lack of connection to this affair has been repeated lots and lots of times.
If you're asking because no one but a Scottish person could possibly understand the case for independence, then I'll chalk up another one in "The folly of nationalism" column.
quote:
I live in a part of Scotland that certainly doesn't feel "oppressed." The oil industry is doing well. We have low unemployment, a good quality of life, good state schools. But much of this is despite, rather than because of, current Government policy. The oil will run out one day, and what then? Independence seems to be more forward-looking than Westminster governance in that respect.
It's forward-looking to cut your nation off from a much larger and wealthier economy when the central part of the Scottish economy is about to be tapped out?
OK. Your choice. I don't get it.
quote:
Aberdeen currently has more job vacancies than people to fill them. This is partly because most vacancies are for skilled posts requiring specialised knowledge, and most of the unemployed are unskilled. The oil industry is very mobile, and needs to be able to recruit world-wide. Yet Westminster immigration policies are not helpful in this respect.
I haven't said there aren't any disadvantages to being part of the Union. There are always tradeoffs. Considering a change in immigration policy can be effected with a mere election or two, I wouldn't think the yoke too heavy in this case.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
