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

Because as a nation, we should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other independent country.

And here's the nub:

Why? What is it about being a nation that MEANS we should have the same rights and responsibilities as other sovereign states. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Because as a nation, we should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other independent country.

Do you differentiate between a nation and a people?

If so, what are the properties of a "nation" that differentiates it from a people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because as a nation, we should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other independent country.

Interesting. Does the Kurdish nation - which does exist, just not as a state, have those rights? Before Israel, was there or was there not a Jewish nation? Words matter, some more than others, and in this case, Ad Lib is correct, and you are utterly wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to be honest, I find the historical status of geographical regions to be irrelevant.

If Westminster was working for us, I'd be all for the union - but it isn't and as a result I would rather Scotland was independent than maintaining the status quo. I would however also be in favour of independence for London or any individual region (eg. Cornwall, hell even Yorkshire if they want it!) who wants to take back control of their own affairs.

The fact is, we are discussing whether a bit of land stretching from Wick to Gretna and its surrounding islands that is known culturally as "Scotland" should become an independent country. The fact it historically was an independent nation before really doesn't have any bearing on the future but the fact it was will inevitably play on the identity and the emotions of the electorate. The two things really shouldn't have any bearing on the debate - but sadly it will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Does the Kurdish nation - which does exist, just not as a state, have those rights? Before Israel, was there or was there not a Jewish nation? Words matter, some more than others, and in this case, Ad Lib is correct, and you are utterly wrong.

Is Kurdistan independent? Right, well shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you differentiate between a nation and a people?

If so, what are the properties of a "nation" that differentiates it from a people?

I love how people line up to ask questions of the guy who has already said that he doesn't follow all the technical nonsense.

What do you mean by people? Do you think in terms of geography or ethnicity? Are the Scots a people? And does that include new scots such as those of Pakistani descent who were born here?

In many ways, I would argue that a people and a nation are similar in that the people are part of a nation, but that all depends on what you mean by people!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xbl you would be as well just calling chaps on this and moving on. Ad lib is technically correct and thats the best kind of correct for some people.

Ive never said that he is wrong about whatever he is talking about, just that it is utterly irrelevant to reality. I thought we were moving though, apparently he had asked "for the final time".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is precisely why, if the independence camp want to win, they have to stop the groupthink, which Better Together will largely get away with. "Cause we're a nation m'kay" short-circuits the best justification for independence. Indeed not only is it unpersuasive to people who don't consider nationhood particularly relevant to the question, it might actually be actively off-putting to those who identify with a British nation and perceive Scottish independence as an attack on their sense of being. Now of course that second group are wrong about the existence and nature of that threat, but to prove them wrong and to make them RECEPTIVE to the instrumental arguments of benefit of independence we actually have to reject the nationalistic reasoning, even civic nationalism, of the SNP and of the xbl "m'kay" mentality.

We have to show them that governance exists independently of national identity and sense of belonging, and that governing institutions relate to political, not cultural, communities. We have to show them that Scotland is a better political community because of its capacity to deliver democracy in its structures in ways that Westminster can't or won't. We have to show that it will be better able to give communities control over their affairs. We have to show that it better serves things like the defence and international interests of the communities that are pooling together resources to form that state in the first place.

These are the fundamental questions. That's why the constitution matters on independence. That's why local democracy matters. That's why it's not about the Scottish nation. If you think that it's predominantly or only about nation, then you really don't understand the question. There isn't an inherent moral claim to a certain basket of rights and responsibilities for sovereigns states, let alone nations. Their claims are instrumental, to more fundamental values, and that essential truth calls for a more nuanced debate about what this question really asks us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive never said that he is wrong about whatever he is talking about, just that it is utterly irrelevant to reality. I thought we were moving though, apparently he had asked "for the final time".

You provided a semblance of a response, which confirmed my initial suspicions. I then followed it up explaining why you were wrong and asking you a different question, whether you could actually justify your re-assertion. Beware partially answering a final question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is precisely why, if the independence camp want to win, they have to stop the groupthink, which Better Together will largely get away with. "Cause we're a nation m'kay" short-circuits the best justification for independence.

stopped reading here as this isn't what i have been hearing at Yes meetings or from friends in the Yes camp or what I have been speaking to about on the doorsteps. For sure the SNP stick a Saltire on the flyers and figurative saltire on the policies but people are talking about this being a fight for social democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You provided a semblance of a response, which confirmed my initial suspicions. I then followed it up explaining why you were wrong and asking you a different question, whether you could actually justify your re-assertion. Beware partially answering a final question.

And at what point do you dull lawyer types accept that I, like 99% of people, dont care about your pointless nuances? They simply arent important to the average person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ad Lib is perfectly correct here incidentally.

And the most crucial aspect you haven't addressed xbl. Why shouldn't the people of Yorkshire have the same rights as the people of Scotland in this regard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite right. And that is why the debate rages throughout Scotland. About whatever you just said.

Jesus Christ you can be a facetious twat.

I know from having spoken to other people who were a) undecided or b) BritNats/No voters, that arguments about nations are at best ineffectual and at worst counter-productive. The only people I've managed to convince to change their mind or to vote Yes are those who I've provided justifications through democracy and localism and constitutional renewal.

My analysis here isn't a normative description about what's passing for a "debate" in the public discourse just now. Indeed it's a critique of it. At the moment you have two ever more solidified camps slinging (often party-political) mud at each other, not engaging with each other's critiques and making grandiose promises about how their side is the land of milk and honey. What we need to do is to shift that debate onto what independence is actually about. It's not about the economy. It's not about tuition fees. It's not about national identity. It's about what institutions best enable us to govern ourselves well in accordance with the principles of liberty and democracy. The undecideds are disengaged and the No voters are antipathetic. To change that we have to change the debate.

Edit: and actually Mushroom's post encapsulates excellently the argument I've been making. IIRC he's a recent convert to independence. Nations have no bearing on the views of the genuinely undecided. Democracy does. Talking about what independence actually means for what state powers do what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stopped reading here as this isn't what i have been hearing at Yes meetings or from friends in the Yes camp or what I have been speaking to about on the doorsteps. For sure the SNP stick a Saltire on the flyers and figurative saltire on the policies but people are talking about this being a fight for social democracy.

Oh even better. Exclude everyone in Scotland who believes in Scottish independence but who is against social democracy. Genius, that.

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...