Davi3j Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 There does seem to be some substance in this. It has been picked up by a number of journalists. What does everyone else think? http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/200409-david-camerons-cunning-plan-put-the-old-firm-in-england-to-preserve-the-union/ end of the Union, and end of the OF. winner even if it did go ahead, which i very much doubt, it wouldn't make that much of a difference...load of bollocks imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 ::applause::I use the terms nation, country, and state interchangeably depending on context. I also use region, province, country, and shire interchangeably. Is it really so important? As I said, I'm just your average kid from tha ghettos, not one of you fancy dan constitutional lawyer types. When it comes to vote, I'm not going to have to reach for the smelling salts and the fainting couch because the question says "Scotland should become an independent country" rather than "nation", "state", or whatever. Yes it's very important. Because that's what the entire debate about whether you should be a sovereign state boils down to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Yes it's very important. Because that's what the entire debate about whether you should be a sovereign state boils down to!Right. So up and down the land, living rooms are filled with the discussion "do we want to be a state, a nation, a country, a statelet, a nation state, a sovereign country, or a mixture of these? This is CRUCICAL!". Rubbish. I don't see the distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I see IDS is claiming that he can live on £50 a week. So naturally, there's an online petition asking him to prove it. It's trending on twitter just now, sky news has reported it and it's 50k and rising. I'm sure he could easily live on £50 a week, considering all the expenses he'll be able to claim back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryHills Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Right. So up and down the land, living rooms are filled with the discussion "do we want to be a state, a nation, a country, a statelet, a nation state, a sovereign country, or a mixture of these? This is CRUCICAL!". Rubbish. I don't see the distinction. ...Is the correct answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Yes it's very important. Because that's what the entire debate about whether you should be a sovereign state boils down to! awww...here me all starry eyed thinking its about being in control of our own destiny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 awww...here me all starry eyed thinking its about being in control of our own destiny Sovereign destiny, nation state destiny, or the destiny of our country? Remember, this is crucial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Right. So up and down the land, living rooms are filled with the discussion "do we want to be a state, a nation, a country, a statelet, a nation state, a sovereign country, or a mixture of these? This is CRUCICAL!".Rubbish. I don't see the distinction. We already are: a nation and a country. There's no such thing as a statelet or a sovereign country. We don't have the choice to be a nation state or another kind of state, so nation is irrelevant. The question we're being asked is precisely about whether Scotland should become a sovereign state: one which has full international legal personality (and internal sovereign control over domestic matters) or whether it should instead retain the current arrangement or some variation thereof while exercising international legal personality through the United Kingdom and domestic autonomy through devolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Sovereign destiny, nation state destiny, or the destiny of our country? Remember, this is crucial. looks like we should be ok as long as we dont call Scotland a "nation"...nation state should be ok though >>> clicky just waiting for Ad Lib to explain in excruciating detail how wrong this is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 looks like we should be ok as long as we dont call Scotland a "nation"...nation state should be ok though >>> clicky just waiting for Ad Lib to explain in excruciating detail how wrong this is... No, this is nonsense. Scotland is a nation. You can call Scotland that all you like, and can continue to do so even when the referendum is lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 looks like we should be ok as long as we dont call Scotland a "nation"...nation state should be ok though >>> clicky just waiting for Ad Lib to explain in excruciating detail how wrong this is... That link is wrong. Plenty nations have sovereignty. They're called nation states. Scottish independence isn't about nations. It's about states. This really isn't complex, but it's important because it explains what we're actually arguing about. We're arguing about whether Scotland should have international legal personality, not whether it should have a recognised common culture, because that's already the case. Unless you believe that nations are both a necessary and sufficient component of the moral basis for sovereignty, the independence debate is not about, or constrained to, questions of nationhood, nationality or national identity. It's about how we make political decisions through state structures, what state structures should exist, and what constitutional arrangement is most likely to deliver that. If you think it's about nationhood and nationhood alone, you have to provide a justification for that. Why is the Scottish nation so politically significant that there is a moral case for it to be sovereign and for it to exercise that sovereignty separately from the UK state structures of which it is presently a part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 ::applause::I use the terms nation, country, and state interchangeably depending on context. I also use region, province, country, and shire interchangeably. Is it really so important? As I said, I'm just your average kid from tha ghettos, not one of you fancy dan constitutional lawyer types. When it comes to vote, I'm not going to have to reach for the smelling salts and the fainting couch because the question says "Scotland should become an independent country" rather than "nation", "state", or whatever. Yes it's very important. Because that's what the entire debate about whether you should be a sovereign state boils down to! That link is wrong. Plenty nations have sovereignty. They're called nation states. Scottish independence isn't about nations. It's about states. This really isn't complex, but it's important because it explains what we're actually arguing about. We're arguing about whether Scotland should have international legal personality, not whether it should have a recognised common culture, because that's already the case. Unless you believe that nations are both a necessary and sufficient component of the moral basis for sovereignty, the independence debate is not about, or constrained to, questions of nationhood, nationality or national identity. It's about how we make political decisions through state structures, what state structures should exist, and what constitutional arrangement is most likely to deliver that. If you think it's about nationhood and nationhood alone, you have to provide a justification for that. Why is the Scottish nation so politically significant that there is a moral case for it to be sovereign and for it to exercise that sovereignty separately from the UK state structures of which it is presently a part? short version awww...here me all starry eyed thinking its about being in control of our own destiny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nifty shade of grey Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 ...And be a nation again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Ad Lib's post is perfectly reasonable. I fully expect him to be attacked by the same people who rightly complain about negative campaigning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 No, this is nonsense. Scotland is a nation. You can call Scotland that all you like, and can continue to do so even when the referendum is lost. H_B just doesn't do irony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Ad Lib's post is perfectly reasonable. I fully expect him to be attacked by the same people who rightly complain about negative campaigning. I wouldn't say anyone is attacking Ad Lib...just pointing out that he has a hard time calling a spade, a spade sometimes he just puts in extra where it just isn't needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I wouldn't say anyone is attacking Ad Lib...just pointing out that he has a hard time calling a spade, a spade sometimes he just puts in extra where it just isn't needed To extend your gardening analogy, independence is not about a) deciding which flower-bed to dig up to put the daffodils in (see the SNP shoving their policies into a constitution) or b) whether we should have our own stockpile of conifers because that guy down the street with a similar house has got his own stockpile too (nations). It's about whether, as occupants of a shared garden, we want to take our corner and make the decisions for ourselves about what to plant in the beds on our side, or whether we want to sacrifice overall control for a share in the resources of a bigger garden, which might not be to our best advantage, given the tastes and types of tools the rest of the UK prefer to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 How can you make such a basic thing seem so dull? Our choice is simpler than your waffle. Do we take a chance on growing our own with our own garden, or do we grow what were told and hand over our produce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 How can you make such a basic thing seem so dull? Our choice is simpler than your waffle. Do we take a chance on growing our own with our own garden, or do we grow what were told and hand over our produce? Again, it's not that straightforward. The alternative is not full communism. We are not Westminster's slave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 I'm afraid Brussels sees Scotland as a wee region. Remember Catalonia has 13 MEP's. How many we got again? Just to make things clearer for XBL, here's the map. Catalonia is recognised as "separate", Scotland isn't. http://www.mepranking.eu/state.php?st=PC&order=name#ranking Another failing of the union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.