Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wee Bully

Independence - how would you vote?

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not technical nonsense. It goes to the heart of self-determination as enshrined by the UN Charter, very deliberately worded.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Ad Lib

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

i think you confuse what is important to you and your group of friends with what everyone thinks is important. For many people who are swithering or moving towards Yes it most certainly is about Trident, the NHS, the future of the Welfare State, renewable energy, tuition fees, the future within the EU.

However, if institutions and principles of liberty and democracy are important to you then that is important too. What Yes need to , and it is Yes Scotland's plan to do this but I have seen little evidence of it in the public domain so far, is say whatever your vision of Scotland in the future and whatever that eans to you you have a choice of two roads in 2014. What road takes you down the road of your vision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Despite what the university politics clubs would have you believe social demcracy, the NHS and the welfare state are consensus issues within Scotland and Scottish civic society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you confuse what is important to you and your group of friends with what everyone thinks is important. For many people who are swithering or moving towards Yes it most certainly is about Trident, the NHS, the future of the Welfare State, renewable energy, tuition fees, the future within the EU.

However, if institutions and principles of liberty and democracy are important to you then that is important too. What Yes need to , and it is Yes Scotland's plan to do this but I have seen little evidence of it in the public domain so far, is say whatever your vision of Scotland in the future and whatever that eans to you you have a choice of two roads in 2014. What road takes you down the road of your vision?

Most of the people I've persuaded were anything but remotely of my political persuasion in other respects and many of them I hardly even know.

For those who are swithering, it's not about these other things. If it was about Trident they'd already be voting yes. If it were about tuition fees (lol idiots) then they'd still already be voting yes. Ditto everything else.

No, the actual undecided group either don't care, or don't think these issues are determinative. Take it back to basics and justify independence with reference to control of institutions and democracy. It's about making people believe that politics will be relevant to them again; not that particular policies will be pursued.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Why can't they? If there is a desire amongst the people who live in Yorkshire to be an independent state, is there any reason that they cant be a country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite what the university politics clubs would have you believe social demcracy, the NHS and the welfare state are consensus issues within Scotland and Scottish civic society.

Social democracy is not the consensus view of Scotland or Scottish civic society.

"The NHS" is a consensus issue across the whole of the UK. Wrongly, might I add. We should be open to German-style alternatives.

"The welfare state" is a consensus issue across, er, Europe.

Unfortunately for you, social democracy doesn't have a monopoly on universal healthcare or the welfare state. Liberals created the welfare state and conservatives have defended it in the decades since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it back to basics and justify independence with reference to control of institutions and democracy. It's about making people believe that politics will be relevant to them again; not that particular policies will be pursued.

Ok lets explore that briefly because that is interesting. how did you explain to these people that they would have control of these democratic structures and instiutions, what bodies are you speaking about and how does independence change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I don't think you quite get what Ad Lib is getting at here. I think his thoroughness is distracting you from the main point.

There may be a Scottish identity, there may have once been an independent country known as Scotland - but it is all irrelevant to this debate.

If an independent government is right for Scotland it doesn't matter what social and cultural links we share with anywhere, whether the current Scotland is technically a nation or a region or a state or a province or a Pictish Duchy has absolutely no bearing on whether we should vote yes or no next year.

Same with Yorkshire - just because Yorkshire isn't and as far as I'm aware never has been an independent nation, if it was the best path going forward for the people of Yorkshire, they absolutely should go for it. Sadly because of their strong "English" and "British" identities I doubt most of the population have ever given it a serious though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant. It's a nation. That's kind of the whole point.

It isn't an independent nation though, is it? If I was to say, that Scotland should have the same rights as any other nation, then you're quite right to include Kurdistan. However, if I was to say that our country should have the same rights as any other independent nations, then you can understand why I'd be a bit confused when you bring up Kurdistan.

Now just to emphasise yet again, I am not disagreeing with whatever Ad Lib is talking about. I'm sure that his fellow constitutional lawyers and hair splitters are applauding the way he is masterfully explaining whatever it is he is talking about. So I am not saying he is wrong.

I'm am merely pointing out that what he is saying and the way he is saying it is of no relevance to most people on planet earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Ad Lib...Ive been supporting independence for Scotland for as long as I can remenber, I've voted for the one party, (SNP) all my days as they were the only viable party who would ever have been in a position to deliver it (as we are now), Ive being doing this since you were running about sucking a dummy tit and wearing nappies, so please dont fall out of school and land in Uni thinking you are in any position to tell people what Independence means, because it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people

Edited by vip3r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't an independent nation though, is it? If I was to say, that Scotland should have the same rights as any other nation, then you're quite right to include Kurdistan. However, if I was to say that our country should have the same rights as any other independent nations, then you can understand why I'd be a bit confused when you bring up Kurdistan.

Now just to emphasise yet again, I am not disagreeing with whatever Ad Lib is talking about. I'm sure that his fellow constitutional lawyers and hair splitters are applauding the way he is masterfully explaining whatever it is he is talking about. So I am not saying he is wrong.

I'm am merely pointing out that what he is saying and the way he is saying it is of no relevance to most people on planet earth.

It's a simple definition though - really simple. And what is worrying with you when you go down this route is the kind of crass demagoguery that makes thinking people nervous. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social democracy is not the consensus view of Scotland or Scottish civic society.

"The NHS" is a consensus issue across the whole of the UK. Wrongly, might I add. We should be open to German-style alternatives.

"The welfare state" is a consensus issue across, er, Europe.

Unfortunately for you, social democracy doesn't have a monopoly on universal healthcare or the welfare state. Liberals created the welfare state and conservatives have defended it in the decades since.

Can you name a time when Scotland did not elect at least a 2/3 majority of representatives from social democratic parties? To be fair to you I'll let you just have Labour and the SNP even though many tories and Lib Dems would consider themselves to be social democrats too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite what the university politics clubs would have you believe social demcracy, the NHS and the welfare state are consensus issues within Scotland and Scottish civic society.

That's just arrant nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...