Jump to content

Independence - how would you vote?


Wee Bully

Independence - how would you vote  

1,135 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Ad Lib's post is perfectly reasonable. I fully expect him to be attacked by the same people who rightly complain about negative campaigning.

It's reasonable in its definitions but it misses the point that nobody cares. In the context of an independence debate it's deeply clear what 'independent country' means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's reasonable in its definitions but it misses the point that nobody cares. In the context of an independence debate it's deeply clear what 'independent country' means.

It's not just about people knowing what the question means. It's about how the whole debate should be framed and the sort of sub-questions we should, as an electorate, be asking, in order to answer it. If people want to start talking about nations and saying that we should be independent because we are a nation, they have to explain why nationhood is relevant to this question. They have to explain why it's not legitimate for other units of society than nations to be alternative bases for statehood (such as the British state itself). It's not an answer to say "we are a nation"; merely to restate the problem. What needs to be articulated by "nationalists" as opposed to "pro-independence" people is why nationhood is the key to this question.

I don't think nationhood is the key to this quesiton. I think democracy and decentralised power are the keys to this question. It means a more complicated debate, but I think it's a better debate and one which actually provides a more intelligent narrative about what Scotland can do differently with independence that it cannot do now and to change the whole culture behind the idea of policy-making and governance from that which currently exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just about people knowing what the question means. It's about how the whole debate should be framed and the sort of sub-questions we should, as an electorate, be asking, in order to answer it. If people want to start talking about nations and saying that we should be independent because we are a nation, they have to explain why nationhood is relevant to this question. They have to explain why it's not legitimate for other units of society than nations to be alternative bases for statehood (such as the British state itself). It's not an answer to say "we are a nation"; merely to restate the problem. What needs to be articulated by "nationalists" as opposed to "pro-independence" people is why nationhood is the key to this question.

I don't think nationhood is the key to this quesiton. I think democracy and decentralised power are the keys to this question. It means a more complicated debate, but I think it's a better debate and one which actually provides a more intelligent narrative about what Scotland can do differently with independence that it cannot do now and to change the whole culture behind the idea of policy-making and governance from that which currently exists.

Shite.

Its up to the campaigns to explain things, not the voters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just about people knowing what the question means. It's about how the whole debate should be framed and the sort of sub-questions we should, as an electorate, be asking, in order to answer it. If people want to start talking about nations and saying that we should be independent because we are a nation, they have to explain why nationhood is relevant to this question. They have to explain why it's not legitimate for other units of society than nations to be alternative bases for statehood (such as the British state itself).

Stopped here because even if everything up to it was true, this doesn't follow at all. Unless someone holds that only nationhood is sufficient for statehood this doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stopped here because even if everything up to it was true, this doesn't follow at all. Unless someone holds that only nationhood is sufficient for statehood this doesn't matter.

You're mischaracterising my argument. Even if it's only a part of their reason, they need to explain why it is a part of their reason. xbl constantly goes on about "independent nations". I simply ask: why is the nation bit in any way relevant, let alone determinative, of the question? When it's about independence of an area that encompasses a nation, and you say that we should do something "because we're a nation" or, as xbl has often argued it, "to be an independent nation [sic]" they have to explain why nation is relevant at all to why we should be an independent state.

It's like being asked "why should Thistle wear long sleeved shirts" and we get the answer "Thistle should wear stripey jumpers because their club has two famous colours". There might be compelling reasons for Thistle to wear long-sleeved shirts, like Scotland is fucking baltic. Thistle might indeed have two famous colours that should be stripey. But that doesn't explain why we should wear jumpers or long-sleeved shirts, which is what they originally asked us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

:huh::unsure::lol:

I think AdLib has officially climbed up inside his own rectum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're mischaracterising my argument. Even if it's only a part of their reason, they need to explain why it is a part of their reason. xbl constantly goes on about "independent nations". I simply ask: why is the nation bit in any way relevant, let alone determinative, of the question? When it's about independence of an area that encompasses a nation, and you say that we should do something "because we're a nation" or, as xbl has often argued it, "to be an independent nation [sic]" they have to explain why nation is relevant at all to why we should be an independent state.

It's like being asked "why should Thistle wear long sleeved shirts" and we get the answer "Thistle should wear stripey jumpers because their club has two famous colours". There might be compelling reasons for Thistle to wear long-sleeved shirts, like Scotland is fucking baltic. Thistle might indeed have two famous colours that should be stripey. But that doesn't explain why we should wear jumpers or long-sleeved shirts, which is what they originally asked us.

Your analogy is shite and I couldn't care less about your initial 'point' regardless. Must do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I was right. The absurd abuse continues. "Shite", "nobody cares"... Mere deflections from the fact that, without expressing a pro or anti feeling one way or the other, Ad Lib has identified precisely what's going on here. No idea what's going on with the extended gardening metaphor, though, it doesn't work on any level!

Actually, to answer an earlier point, I think voters are more coherently persuaded by other voters than they are by either campaign. Rightly or wrongly I put more faith in the contents of this thread, in between the vitriol, than the daft literature put together by Better Together or the Yes lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folk from all sides should take a look at this blog http://wingsoverscotland.com/ . For the avoidance of doubt I have nothing to do with it, but it is fun, sometimes a bit barking and definitely pro indy.

I'm sure loads of folk on this thread would love to disassemble some of the arguments, but 50,000 monthly readers and almost a million page views show that there is something going on. Oh and the guy has just crowdsourced £33k to go full time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I was right. The absurd abuse continues. "Shite", "nobody cares"... Mere deflections from the fact that, without expressing a pro or anti feeling one way or the other, Ad Lib has identified precisely what's going on here. No idea what's going on with the extended gardening metaphor, though, it doesn't work on any level!Actually, to answer an earlier point, I think voters are more coherently persuaded by other voters than they are by either campaign. Rightly or wrongly I put more faith in the contents of this thread, in between the vitriol, than the daft literature put together by Better Together or the Yes lot.

We're right though. Incidentally "nobody cares" hardly qualifies as abuse! He's asking a question that nobody on planet earth cares about.

He claims I have to explain why I say "nation"? Its because its catchier than "state". Thats it. The words are more or less interchangeable as far as im concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Maybe Hollywood can help.get some rich Irishman to pay for it,a drunken racist Australian to play the Scottish gardener who fights back after the English smug rotter kind of Terry Thomas bloke cheats at the village Marrow growing competition.

Nothing "dull" about that and it might just swing things the republicans way next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're right though. Incidentally "nobody cares" hardly qualifies as abuse! He's asking a question that nobody on planet earth cares about.

He claims I have to explain why I say "nation"? Its because its catchier than "state". Thats it. The words are more or less interchangeable as far as im concerned.

They mean completely different things! Indeed if you think nation means state then part of your argument is literally "Scotland should be a state because it's a state". Even you can work out the problem with that. The fact that you treat the two as the same is itself central to your argument. You think Scotland should be independent because of its qualities as a nation. Many of your adversaries are against you precisely because they contest a) that governing must be reduced to nations or b) that they prefer the UK as their "nation" or think their national sense of being (even if Scottish) better served by the Union.

So I'll try one last time. Why nations? Why is that relevant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They mean completely different things! Indeed if you think nation means state then part of your argument is literally "Scotland should be a state because it's a state". Even you can work out the problem with that. The fact that you treat the two as the same is itself central to your argument. You think Scotland should be independent because of its qualities as a nation. Many of your adversaries are against you precisely because they contest a) that governing must be reduced to nations or b) that they prefer the UK as their "nation" or think their national sense of being (even if Scottish) better served by the Union.

So I'll try one last time. Why nations? Why is that relevant?

Well as ive said multiple times, I, and other people I know, would happily use the terms interchangeably. Scotland is a country right? Well it also has a National team? Argh! Two different words to describe the same thing! To most people, whatever esoteric nonsense you and savage henry are talking about simply doesn't register in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as ive said multiple times, I, and other people I know, would happily use the terms interchangeably. Scotland is a country right? Well it also has a National team? Argh! Two different words to describe the same thing! To most people, whatever esoteric nonsense you and savage henry are talking about simply doesn't register in reality.

You've completely sidestepped my question. Please engage.

If you don't do it this time, then frankly I can't be arsed with you and it's your problem.

A nation is "a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent or history". They may also share a territory or a form of government.

A sovereign state (shorthand independent state, independent country, independent, state) is a group of peoples with international legal personality. It has the capacity to enter into treaties with other states and to participate directly as a signatory member of treaty organisations.

A country doesn't in and of itself mean anything. It can be a form of shorthand for sovereign state, but that would mean claiming Scotland isn't a country, which few people would claim. Country, insofar as it does mean anything, simply means a territory recognised as distinct in political geography. It includes, but is not constrained to, sovereign states.

The Scottish independence debate is not about whether Scotland is a nation or a country (it is already both). The question is about whether it should be a sovereign state.

So I ask you for the absolutely final time: why do you think that nationhod (under the definition given above) is relevant or determinative of the question of whether Scotland should become a sovereign state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've completely sidestepped my question. Please engage.

If you don't do it this time, then frankly I can't be arsed with you and it's your problem.

A nation is "a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent or history". They may also share a territory or a form of government.

A sovereign state (shorthand independent state, independent country, independent, state) is a group of peoples with international legal personality. It has the capacity to enter into treaties with other states and to participate directly as a signatory member of treaty organisations.

A country doesn't in and of itself mean anything. It can be a form of shorthand for sovereign state, but that would mean claiming Scotland isn't a country, which few people would claim. Country, insofar as it does mean anything, simply means a territory recognised as distinct in political geography. It includes, but is not constrained to, sovereign states.

The Scottish independence debate is not about whether Scotland is a nation or a country (it is already both). The question is about whether it should be a sovereign state.

So I ask you for the absolutely final time: why do you think that nationhod (under the definition given above) is relevant or determinative of the question of whether Scotland should become a sovereign state?

Ad Lib,

this is you being pedantic beyond belief, this means nothing to your average everyday person, you know, the people who will be voting either yes or no. Terminology is not what is important to the vast majority of people, maybe in your head it is, but in all honesty apart from yourself, H_B and SH, your in a very lonely little club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Why do I think it matters that we are a nation rather than a province? Because we should have the rights and responsibilities that any independent country should have, and because we are not just Yorkshire.

Ive articulated my assorted reasons for independence many, many times.Im not sidestepping anything here. I just don't get it. As I said, im not a lawyer or a pedant. Im just an average person. You seem to be asking something that nobody cares about.

Unless im misreading and you're asking about general reasons for independence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Why do I think it matters that we are a nation rather than a province? Because we should have the rights and responsibilities that any independent country should have, and because we are not just Yorkshire.

This is exactly it. Why shouldn't Yorkshire be allowed to become independent? I think it should be allowed to. Why is Scotland special? Why, morally speaking, is Norway more significant than Alsace? Your argument has to go beyond saying "we're a nation". I need a general justification for why nations are more important than any other group of people based on similar kinds of characteristics.

Ive articulated my assorted reasons for independence many, many times.Im not sidestepping anything here. I just don't get it. As I said, im not a lawyer or a pedant. Im just an average person. You seem to be asking something that nobody cares about.

This isn't complicated. You conflate nationhood with independence. You seem to think they are the same thing and that international legal personality is something that can and can only and/or should only be enjoyed by groups that qualify as nations? Why?

Unless im misreading and you're asking about general reasons for independence?

I'm asking you to explain WHY Scotland being a nation is a reason for it to be independent (simply going "lots of other nations are independent states" is NOT an answer to this; merely an observation: is isn't ought). Why isn't it more fundamentally that Scotland is a geopolitical unit better capable of governing and being identified with for the purposes of governing than the UK and its equivalent institutions? No nation reference required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...