|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Scottish Independence
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The point is that the voters in England are noticeably more anti-immigrant than those in Scotland so "an election or two" won't fix the problem because the voters in England don't give a shit about a problem affecting Scotland. And that is the crux of the issue. When it comes to casting votes, Scotland is about as important to English voters as France is. Scotland needs to make these decisions for itself as there isn't enough shared feeling to allow voters in Scotland to trust in the benevolence of voters in England.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
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".
Your link gives figures for the 2001 census, I'd linked to the 2011 census. Despite ludicrous restrictions on immigration imposed from Westminster there is ongoing net migration to Scotland, so even the 2011 figures will be out of date (but, the most recent available). The corresponding "white Scottish" figure for 2011 is 84% ( Table 2 of this pdf ) - some of whom will be born outside Scotland, of course, so that doesn't necessarily contradict my earlier figures. Certainly, "white Scottish" is the majority, but >15% of the population claiming alternative ethnicity is a substantial figure. I don't have time to find the comparable figures for the rest of the UK, but my gut feeling is that outside London, 15-20% "non-indigenous" (ie: including people moving into the area from other parts of the UK) is probably fairly typical.
Certainly, the claim from the Scottish Government/YES campaign that we live in a multicultural society is well founded. Not just in the numbers from the census. Also from experience, travel around large towns in Scotland and you will see a wide range of ethnic restaurants, often stores catering to particular ethnic groups. Listen to the people on the street and there will be a large range of accents and languages (even after excluding the tourists).
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
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.
No, it is the same argument: an absurdist reductionist counter isn't a valid counter.
Which of the current powers reserved by Westminster wouldn't be better served by transferring them to either Holyrood or Brussels? I can think of only one off the top of my head, and that's transnational infrastructure.
For sure, I can think of several that might be best served for further devolution within Scotland to a regional or local level, but none which require an exact UK-sized authority.
The exact same argument applies to the UK as a whole. It's simply the wrong size and too lop-sided to make effective decisions for the whole.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
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.
I think that picks up the main thrust of the comparison with anti-EU instincts in relation to Scottish Independence.
Those who have objections to further European integration, or actively seek the removal of the UK from the EU, raise a set of arguments. They include the one Anglican't used, there are others. A very broad summary (that I recognise doesn't do justice to the arguments) could include:
- I feel like a British citizen, not European
- My instinctive loyalties are with the UK not the EU
- I think EU policies do not meet the needs of the UK economy
- There are policies that I think the UK should enact, but are prevented doing so by Brussels
When it comes to Scotland, the arguments look remarkably similar:
- I feel like a Scottish citizen, not British
- My instinctive loyalties are with the Scotland not the UK
- I think UK policies do not meet the needs of the Scottish economy
- There are policies that I think Scotland should enact, but are prevented doing so by Westminster
--------------------
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
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
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.
No, I said Scotland would have the liberty to join the Schengen agreement without consent of WM, if it felt this served its purposes, e.g. for tourism. Please read what was argued. Of course, the argument does not start and stop there as you represent it in this response, it was merely an example.
2.So I hear? I haven't seen any that would thrill me.
Zach, I regret to inform you that your taste is not the measure of all things. The arguments are out there for liking or disliking, and for discussion. They don't pop out existence just because you've decided that you don't want to buy into them.
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.
What exactly are you saying with this statement? Are you saying that it is virtually impossible that Scotland would be granted admission? If so, I would be curious to your reasoning.
4.This simply fails to understand that "status quo" means. Nothing in "status quo" means "it will stay this way forever and ever, amen."
If I fail to understand the true meaning of "status quo", please do enlighten me. While you're at it, you may also wish to rewrite the entire wikipedia page on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo
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.
If you treat "identity" as a synonym of "nationalism", then this may go some way to explaining the one-dimensionality of some of the arguments you have presented here.
Ever heard of religious identity, gender identity, language identity, professional, identity, group identity, ... all things which can be held simultaneously and explain the complexity of the phenomenon?
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Those who have objections to further European integration, or actively seek the removal of the UK from the EU, raise a set of arguments. They include the one Anglican't used, there are others. A very broad summary (that I recognise doesn't do justice to the arguments) could include:
- I feel like a British citizen, not European
- My instinctive loyalties are with the UK not the EU
- I think EU policies do not meet the needs of the UK economy
- There are policies that I think the UK should enact, but are prevented doing so by Brussels
When it comes to Scotland, the arguments look remarkably similar:
- I feel like a Scottish citizen, not British
- My instinctive loyalties are with the Scotland not the UK
- I think UK policies do not meet the needs of the Scottish economy
- There are policies that I think Scotland should enact, but are prevented doing so by Westminster
Actually, I think you do do justice to the arguments. Besides the economic arguments (which on current record look like ending in stalement), there is risk-aversion/incumbancy, and of course the question of identity. For British, European identity is weak (for many Europe = "the Continent", which they are certainly not), and this might explain a lot of British Europhobia.
Coming to British identity, there is a degree of assymmetry between the English and Scottish perspective. For the English, who make up 95% of the British, British = English with a mild and interesting Celtic flavouring.
For the Scottish, it is essentially Englishness, with a few isolated bits of themselves swimming in it. On the one hand, Britishness entails pride in being part of something bigger with history and global reach, on the other hand, it incorporates the dread of getting lost in it and becoming something one is not.
Ultimately, this might be where the battleground will lie as the referendum date approaches.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Those who have objections to further European integration, or actively seek the removal of the UK from the EU, raise a set of arguments. ... A very broad summary (that I recognise doesn't do justice to the arguments) could include:
- I feel like a British citizen, not European
- My instinctive loyalties are with the UK not the EU
- I think EU policies do not meet the needs of the UK economy
- There are policies that I think the UK should enact, but are prevented doing so by Brussels
When it comes to Scotland, the arguments look remarkably similar:
- I feel like a Scottish citizen, not British
- My instinctive loyalties are with the Scotland not the UK
- I think UK policies do not meet the needs of the Scottish economy
- There are policies that I think Scotland should enact, but are prevented doing so by Westminster
The arguments are exactly the same, which is why I agree with the "independence" side of both of them.
What I don't get is the fact that there seems to be a large number of people who accept and agree with the arguments when the subject is Scottish independence from Britain, but not when the subject is British independence from Europe. How can the exact same arguments be valid for one cause but not for the other?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
As one of those who leans towards Scottish independence (though, still in the undecided camp) and would like to see greater European integration the simple answer is that I think neither the UK nor the EU as they are currently structured actually works.
What I would like to see is a Europe in which as much government as possible is maintained at the local scale, and by "local" I mean smaller than nation states - even Scotland in many aspects would be too large an area for some parts of government. I also think that there are some aspects of government that need larger structures.
On the larger scale, I think defence is something that needs large scale. I personally consider the White Papers claims that a Scottish only defense force would be viable to be very poorly argued. I would also say that in the modern world, even the UK as a whole is not able to maintain a military force capable of meeting all potential needs. I think we need to be looking towards some form of European joint defense force; but that also needs a European government able to command that force into action for the good of Europe and individual nations in Europe, without first having to get agreement from all national governments.
There are also economic issues that require large government. Even if Scotland adopts a Scottish currency with a Scottish bank as lender of last resort, rather than maintains the pound/Bank of England system, that's not going to make Scotland economically independent. Scotland is still going to depend on international trade, many businesses in Scotland are still going to be owned by corporations outside Scotland, Scottish products are still going to have meet standards set in other nations. Scotland is still going to have to be part of international government establishing trade rules, common standards etc. The UK as a whole is too small for such a level of government, which is why the UK joined with Europe in the first place.
--------------------
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
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
What is perhaps slightly different is that the term "European" (unlike the English language usage of the term "American") is currently a geographical term, and not a political one (e.g. a Canadian is not an American by merit of not living in the US, a Swiss is still European despite not living within the EU). "British" is foremostly a political term.
Also, the Brussel has only weak sovereignty over any of its constitutent members. London has full sovereignty over all of the UK's constituent parts.
[crossposted in response to Marvin t. M.]
[ 04. December 2013, 10:22: Message edited by: Molopata The Rebel ]
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
What exactly do you mean by normative? I think Public International Lawyers have criteria for determining whether a state can be a state, but as you say they probably are descriptors. (And without getting side-tracked into a Hartian analysis of PIL, there's arguably no higher level of governance on the issue, either.)
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.
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.
I don't disagree with this - nations have to be able to function on a day-to-day basis. But isn't this only half the story? Arguments for and against the existence of independent nation states do not only exist on a functional basis but also on an emotional basis, don't they?
Isn't some of the desire for Scottish nationhood based on an emotional desire for it, which may or may not depend on whether the current arrangements are working satisfactorily?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I don't get is the fact that there seems to be a large number of people who accept and agree with the arguments when the subject is Scottish independence from Britain, but not when the subject is British independence from Europe. How can the exact same arguments be valid for one cause but not for the other?
Scotland isn't positing an independence outside of the EU. Anything that involves the UK, however much of it is left, being outside of the EU is ... I'm trying to think of any other way to describe it other than "bat-shit crazy", but I can't.
I'll say to you what I said to Zach/Anglican't: I can't think of any Westminster powers that can't be better served by being devolved up or down other than UK-wide infrastructure projects.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
@ Alan Cresswell
Again I find myself agreeing.
To take thing a bit further (and in doing I do not purport to be representing Alan’s view), Scottish independence makes most sense within a European framework. Scotland going it entirely alone and lost halfway across the Atlantic on its own (a picture that the No camp likes to project) really would not offer a good prospect for independence.
Europe is not sexy at the moment, however closer European union is going to happen, not because Europeans want it, but because Europeans will be forced to pull their weight jointly in light of challenges from other emerging political and economic blocks around the world. In the case of closer European union, Scotland in its current from won’t be a region, but a region of a region, and as such would eventually, at a functionally level, probably be reduced to an English curiosity. This, to me, is one of the most compelling reasons for independence. Of course, with all the argumentional baggage involved in getting the inevitably of closer European across, I can fully understand why Yes Scotland has not made a thing of this perspective.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What I would like to see is a Europe in which as much government as possible is maintained at the local scale, and by "local" I mean smaller than nation states - even Scotland in many aspects would be too large an area for some parts of government.
I'm all for smaller and more local government.
quote:
I also think that there are some aspects of government that need larger structures.
Here we disagree.
quote:
On the larger scale, I think defence is something that needs large scale. I personally consider the White Papers claims that a Scottish only defense force would be viable to be very poorly argued. I would also say that in the modern world, even the UK as a whole is not able to maintain a military force capable of meeting all potential needs. I think we need to be looking towards some form of European joint defense force; but that also needs a European government able to command that force into action for the good of Europe and individual nations in Europe, without first having to get agreement from all national governments.
Why would we need a defence force at the continent-wide level? Who exactly are we defending against, and why do we need such a massive force to defend against them?
I mean, the only current world armies I can think of that would require a Europe-level force to have any hope of defending against them are Russia, the USA and China. And frankly, if any of those three attacked Europe the continent would be toast either way.
I simply cannot imagine an independent Scotland having so many enemies that a Scottish-only defence force would be insufficient to meet their needs. Other considerably smaller and poorer nations seem to manage without being invaded every other week.
quote:
There are also economic issues that require large government. Even if Scotland adopts a Scottish currency with a Scottish bank as lender of last resort, rather than maintains the pound/Bank of England system, that's not going to make Scotland economically independent. Scotland is still going to depend on international trade, many businesses in Scotland are still going to be owned by corporations outside Scotland, Scottish products are still going to have meet standards set in other nations. Scotland is still going to have to be part of international government establishing trade rules, common standards etc. The UK as a whole is too small for such a level of government, which is why the UK joined with Europe in the first place.
Trade agreements do not require any surrendering of sovereignty. Being part of international agreements does not require being subordinate to international government.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Scotland isn't positing an independence outside of the EU.
Then it isn't positing independence, just trading one set of masters for another. And the new masters will be even bigger, further away and less likely to give a shit than the current ones.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Scotland isn't positing an independence outside of the EU.
Then it isn't positing independence, just trading one set of masters for another. And the new masters will be even bigger, further away and less likely to give a shit than the current ones.
Your usual binary approach doesn't work here. It's a different relationship, and I'm reasonably certain you know that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why would we need a defence force at the continent-wide level? Who exactly are we defending against, and why do we need such a massive force to defend against them?
I didn't say we needed a massive defense force. As you say, there's no one threatening to invade Europe.
In the current global climate the primary need for a defense force is flexibility rather than size, and usually an ability to operate remote from home. That, to me, seems to basically require a naval force and/or freedom to operate from bases in other nations. And, in a lot of cases a naval force would also need air support, ie: aircraft carriers become vital. Yes, Scotland, and every other nation could operate a navy with a couple of aircraft carriers and associated support vessels. But, most of the time they'll not actually be doing anything. Alternatively, instead of there being dozens of aircraft carrier groups in different European nations doing nothing most of the time there was a European navy then that could provide the same level of protection for the interests of European nations and participation in international peace keeping and humanitarian actions, with a fraction of the number of ships and associated costs.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
[crosspost - replying to Doc Tor]
I know that people say that. I'm unconvinced of the truth of it.
[ 04. December 2013, 13:13: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I didn't say we needed a massive defense force. As you say, there's no one threatening to invade Europe.
Then we don't need to worry too much about defence on the continental level.
quote:
Alternatively, instead of there being dozens of aircraft carrier groups in different European nations doing nothing most of the time there was a European navy then that could provide the same level of protection for the interests of European nations and participation in international peace keeping and humanitarian actions, with a fraction of the number of ships and associated costs.
You mean stuff like invading other countries to secure oil supplies and playing "World Police"? I'd prefer us to stop doing that sort of thing altogether. As far as I'm concerned the only thing we need a defence force for is to defend our nation against invasion.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You mean stuff like invading other countries to secure oil supplies and playing "World Police"? I'd prefer us to stop doing that sort of thing altogether. As far as I'm concerned the only thing we need a defence force for is to defend our nation against invasion.
What about delivering emergency aid to Filipinos?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I would say there are still some roles for a military operating away from home bases. How about protecting shipping from piracy? Or, defending overseas territories?
Also though I'm not ecstatic about some recent military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been other recent peace-keeping missions that have been better formulated (even if the execution was sometime less than perfect, but then asking perfection is possibly a bit too much). Operations in Bosnia, for example.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You mean stuff like invading other countries to secure oil supplies and playing "World Police"? I'd prefer us to stop doing that sort of thing altogether. As far as I'm concerned the only thing we need a defence force for is to defend our nation against invasion.
What about delivering emergency aid to Filipinos?
I don't see that that has to be the exclusive remit of the armed forces. You could just as easily charter a few container ships on the rare occasion that such disasters warrant an international response.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Container ships aren't generally sitting around doing nothing. They're usually fully loaded on route from one port to another, or rapidly unloading and loading to get going again. They don't make money sitting in port going nowhere. The same with commercial aircraft, except as they're rarely more than a few hours from destination airport they could be loaded with supplies quickly (although, they're then not available for whatever they'd otherwise be doing - eg: moving stuff for courier companies).
Most of the time naval vessels aren't actually doing anything. At least, nothing that couldn't rapidly be abandoned when something more urgent comes up. They also usually have higher top speeds, and are usually equipped with helicopters (or can accomodate helicopters obtained elsewhere) which is often vital in aid situations where international airports and large docks may be either damaged or simply in the wrong place.
There aren't any large organisations with the people, the equipment and the training of military forces. There are small specialist organisations able to get small numbers of people into disaster areas quickly (eg: to search earthquake ruins for survivors). But, apart from airmed forces, no organisations able to airlift bulk supplies, medi-vac casualties, set up emergency medical facilities within a few days.
Whether that justifies having armed forces is another question. But while we have them, they may as well do something useful.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
I don't disagree with this - nations have to be able to function on a day-to-day basis. But isn't this only half the story? Arguments for and against the existence of independent nation states do not only exist on a functional basis but also on an emotional basis, don't they?
Isn't some of the desire for Scottish nationhood based on an emotional desire for it, which may or may not depend on whether the current arrangements are working satisfactorily?
I didn't restrict whether an arrangement is 'working' to some kind of functional, quantitative analysis. It equally covers whether it is 'working emotionally'. "This isn't working for me" is, I think, both an emotional statement and a practical one.
I suspect the two tend to co-exist.
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by DocTor:
No, it is the same argument: an absurdist reductionist counter isn't a valid counter.
Your absurdist reductionist argument deserves an absurdist reductionist answer. Your argument fails even a basic awareness of what I am arguing, since I am not proposing some moral obligation to unity.
And people wonder why I get tired or repeating myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
No, I said Scotland would have the liberty to join the Schengen agreement without consent of WM, if it felt this served its purposes, e.g. for tourism. Please read what was argued. Of course, the argument does not start and stop there as you represent it in this response, it was merely an example.
It was a credible promise of independence, and one of the few offered so far to boot. I can't conceive of why it would make independence entirely worthwhile, but as you remind me, it's not up to me.
quote:
Zach, I regret to inform you that your taste is not the measure of all things. The arguments are out there for liking or disliking, and for discussion. They don't pop out existence just because you've decided that you don't want to buy into them.
Jesus LORD, I have said it's not up to me so many gawddmamn times now. What should really be cause of consternation, for all Scots, is that the arguments for independence do not seem to be open to ANY critical examination from the outside at all.
quote:
What exactly are you saying with this statement? Are you saying that it is virtually impossible that Scotland would be granted admission? If so, I would be curious to your reasoning.
Countries like Spain, who are dealing with their own secessionist movements, have every reason to keep Scotland out. Even then, it's been really difficult for lots of otherwise qualified countries to enter the EU. It seems to me that independence is much more likely to get Scotland out of the EU than a few years of conservative governments.
quote:
If I fail to understand the true meaning of "status quo", please do enlighten me. While you're at it, you may also wish to rewrite the entire wikipedia page on the subject.
The status quo referenced is "Scotland is in the UK." If the circumstances around that status quo change, then Scotland can vote again in a decade or so. It's just silly to think I am arguing that union will benefit Scotland now and forever.
quote:
If you treat "identity" as a synonym of "nationalism", then this may go some way to explaining the one-dimensionality of some of the arguments you have presented here.
Ever heard of religious identity, gender identity, language identity, professional, identity, group identity, ... all things which can be held simultaneously and explain the complexity of the phenomenon?
I treat 'identity' as a synonym for 'nationalism' in this case because the identity referenced is national identity. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
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 Doc Tor:
I'll say to you what I said to Zach/Anglican't: I can't think of any Westminster powers that can't be better served by being devolved up or down other than UK-wide infrastructure projects.
We have state legislatures in the United States.
They are MORE, not less, insanely corrupt and inefficient than the federal government. And I come from one of the most liberal states in the union. It isn't a given, to me, that the legislature 6 miles from my house would do any better than the one 900 miles away.
Though maybe "Scottishness" really is powerful enough to overcome the natural instincts of politicians and monied elite classes. Who knows?
[ 04. December 2013, 14:48: 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
Just to introduce some whimsy to a souring argument, the Massachusetts General Court does have one thing over the Congress of the United States. Instead of meeting under God, it meets under Cod.
True story.
[ 04. December 2013, 15:29: 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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The status quo referenced is "Scotland is in the UK." If the circumstances around that status quo change, then Scotland can vote again in a decade or so.
But, as said, "Scotland is in the UK" is not a static concept. The details of the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK change. Every piece of legislation passed through Westminster or Holyrood changes the relationship, often by only trivial degrees it must be said.
When the Scottish Government passed legislation on university tuition fees that differs significantly from Westminster that changed the relationship between the two countries, the process of getting a university education in Scotland if you're English or Welsh, or for someone from Scotland going to an English or Welsh university changed. Upgrading the A74, improvements to the West Coast mainline and other infrastructure projects have made travel between Scotland and the rest of the UK easier, that has changed the relationship of the Union. Decisions about how many airports BAA can operate, and whether they need to sell off one of the Scottish ones, change the Union. Increasing experience of different electoral systems in Scotland and cooperative government in Holyrood (until the English LibDems sold their party down the river letting in a majority SNP government anyway) changes how people in Scotland view government, that changes the Union. Changes within the EU affect Scotland and the rest of the UK differently, that changes the Union.
To simply declare "Scotland is in the UK" as though it's a fixed and immutable fact is a naive simplification. It's different now than it was 5 years ago, and even if there wasn't a referendum it'll be different again in 5 years time.
And, Scotland will only vote again in a decade or so if there's only a narrow majority for the No campaign with a decent turn out. Low turn out and/or a large No majority will effectively shelve the question for this political generation, in which case we'll be back here debating the question in 25-30 years.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I am, of course, only saying that the present terms of Scottish membership in the UK seem fair enough , and will probably be so for the foreseeable future. It just seems false to me to insist you have to give up these otherwise fair terms because you won't be able to vote on it again for 10 or 30 years.
--------------------
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
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Coming to British identity, there is a degree of assymmetry between the English and Scottish perspective. For the English, who make up 95% of the British, British = English with a mild and interesting Celtic flavouring.
For the Scottish, it is essentially Englishness, with a few isolated bits of themselves swimming in it.
The basis of your figures is wrong. According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population in 2012 was 63.7 million and
"The estimated populations of the four constituent countries of the UK in mid-2012 are 53.5 million people in England (84.0%), 5.3 million in Scotland (8.3%), 3.1 million in Wales (4.7%) and 1.8 million in Northern Ireland (2.8%)."
(from here )
As for "ethnic British", the closest figures from ONS is that for "White British" which was the largest group at 45.1 million (80.5 per cent). 91.0 per cent of the usual resident population identified with at least one UK national identity (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, and British) in 2011.
(Reference here )
Both are a long way from 'the English make up 95% of the British'.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
Thanks for that, Rev. You are entirely correct. That was a typo. I meant to write "85%".
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
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".
Your link gives figures for the 2001 census, I'd linked to the 2011 census. Despite ludicrous restrictions on immigration imposed from Westminster there is ongoing net migration to Scotland, so even the 2011 figures will be out of date (but, the most recent available). The corresponding "white Scottish" figure for 2011 is 84% ( Table 2 of this pdf ) - some of whom will be born outside Scotland, of course, so that doesn't necessarily contradict my earlier figures. Certainly, "white Scottish" is the majority, but >15% of the population claiming alternative ethnicity is a substantial figure. I don't have time to find the comparable figures for the rest of the UK, but my gut feeling is that outside London, 15-20% "non-indigenous" (ie: including people moving into the area from other parts of the UK) is probably fairly typical.
Certainly, the claim from the Scottish Government/YES campaign that we live in a multicultural society is well founded. Not just in the numbers from the census. Also from experience, travel around large towns in Scotland and you will see a wide range of ethnic restaurants, often stores catering to particular ethnic groups. Listen to the people on the street and there will be a large range of accents and languages (even after excluding the tourists).
I think 15% is insignificant compared to 84% and, with respect, I don't think the existence of a few curry houses in Woodside alters that. I also disagree that the inclusion in that 84% of those born outside Scotland is a point of any significance. There is nothing abnormal for a person born of two Scottish parents in England to consider himself Scottish. It is national identity, rather than place of birth, that really counts in questions like these.
I can't find equivalent stats for "white English" in England, but I note that in the last UK census, "white British" was 91% in Scotland compared to the mid 80s in most of England, and 45% in London. So I think both my points stand: 1. Scotland is comparatively monocultural and 2. white Scots will determine the outcome of this vote without the Yes camp courting suicide by explicitly courting their vote.
--------------------
"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:
It is national identity, rather than place of birth, that really counts in questions like these.
Yes, of course. But, place of birth (and, certainly where you were brought up) must surely be a large influence on your national identity. Someone born in England (of Scottish parents) who only moves to Scotland as an adult may identify as Scottish, but their experience will mean that that identity will be different from someone who has always lived in Scotland. They may feel more British than Scottish, they may be wanting to reclaim their Scottish roots and find themselves more Scottish than the average Scot. Who knows? But, for sure their background will be important in how they see their national identity.
quote:
So I think both my points stand: 1. Scotland is comparatively monocultural and 2. white Scots will determine the outcome of this vote without the Yes camp courting suicide by explicitly courting their vote.
Certainly "white Scottish" is the large majority in Scotland, and so will as a result be the key constituency in the referendum. But, the division of "yes", "no", "unsure" in the "white Scottish" group is such that neither side can ignore the rest of the population - and quite a few of the rest, even though they aren't "white Scottish", will vote Yes. Because the reasons for independence are valid (or not, depending on your point of view) regardless of ethnic national identity.
I still consider your claim that Scotland is "monocultural" to be inaccurate. Regardless of the stats for "white Scottish". Simply because "white Scottish" is itself multicultural. Just take language (with the associated songs, stories, poetry etc) as a measure of culture. We have within "white Scottish" at least 3 languages, depending on where you draw the boundary between a language and a dialect - English, Scots, Gaelic, Doric (language or dialect of Scots?) being the four most significant. The variations between the cultural groups with those languages may be less than the variations between those and cultures from elsewhere in Europe or the Indian subcontinent (to take two broad cultural categories both well represented in the population of Scotland), but they are variations and not a single culture nonetheless.
--------------------
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
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
Here's a thought. If Scotland leaves the Union, can we PLEASE re-design the flag to include the black and gold cross of St David in place of the Saltire. Seriously though, what would the Union flag look like if Scotland leaves?
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
Here's a thought. If Scotland leaves the Union, can we PLEASE re-design the flag to include the black and gold cross of St David in place of the Saltire. Seriously though, what would the Union flag look like if Scotland leaves?
A white cross on a white background.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There was some discussion of this upthread. I suspect it will stay the same for some time (after all, the Fleur de Lys remained on the Royal Standard unti 1801).
Indeed. It would be important for the UK government to take their time with it for three reasons - to make sure they get it right, to demonstrate their continued sovereignity, and to remind the Scottish that seceding means they no longer have any say in when, how and what decisions are made in the UK.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
A white cross on a white background.
Adopting the flag currently being used by the English Cricket Board would be an interesting move.
[fixed code]
[ 12. December 2013, 11:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There was some discussion of this upthread. I suspect it will stay the same for some time (after all, the Fleur de Lys remained on the Royal Standard unti 1801).
Indeed. It would be important for the UK government to take their time with it for three reasons - to make sure they get it right, to demonstrate their continued sovereignity, and to remind the Scottish that seceding means they no longer have any say in when, how and what decisions are made in the UK.
I agree. Also, regardless of the symbols on the flag, the Union Jack is a flag to which I - as a British citizen - feel a great deal of allegiance. It's bad enough that my country is potentially going to be broken up without any opportunity to be consulted, but I wouldn't want the flag that I know and love to be changed too.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Though maybe "Scottishness" really is powerful enough to overcome the natural instincts of politicians and monied elite classes. Who knows?
People who have read Scottish history know.
It's hard to think of a more money-grubbing, venal, short-sighted parcel of rogues than the Scottish ruling class in the 18th century.
But that's all irrelevant, just as the economic arguments are irrelevant.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Union flag is a royal one, not a national one. And it came into use before the Act of Union. Brenda will still be Queen of Scots. No reason at all for anyone to stop using it who doesn't want to.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
