Independence - how would you vote?

[Ad Lib]

Ok, first of all an apology. It appears I have been using social democracy quite incorrectly as Wiki would appear to say that Social Democracy and Socialist Democracy that is a reformist path to eventual Socialism are one and the same thing.

That certainly wasn't my understanding of it but there you go you learn something new every day.

When i talk about 'social democracy' being the consensus view in Scotland i am talking about left of centre democratic politics with strong belief in the necessity and desireability of the welfare state for example: NHS, social housing, a strong public sector and a safety net benefits system.

Your definition of social democracy is so broad that a lot of Tories and virtually all social liberals are included. That consensus exists in the UK.

[Mushroom]

DING DING DING ladies and gentlemen we have bingo. Thank you Mushroom.

Phew... I was genuinely a little bit uncertain I was understanding you correctly.

Oh and you're correct - I am a recent convert to pro-indy. I don't and never have given a monkeys about national identity, I decided yes because I see no hope for UK political culture. They've managed with the help of the media to create enough hegemony to scaremonger people into not changing their little castle which works rather well for the politicians.

[invergowrie arab]

Independence means being a sovereign state with the capacity to enter into treaties with other states and international organisations. Sorry, but that's what it is. I'm in every bit as much of a position to tell you what an independent state is as the Oxford English Dictionary. Sorry.

Not all Labourites are social democrats (some are socialists, some are even left-wing conservatives). Very few Liberal Democrats are social democrats. The SNP is a broad coalition from socialists to John Swinney. This crude little exercise is facile and not a fair representation of the actual political make-up of Scotland.

yeah i ballsed that up.

The point i was attempting to make is where the majority of people sit in Scotland politically (if you like, the consensus) does not fit with what people are seeing happening in the rUK. The fight is to convince people that if they want that kind of Scotland it wont be achieved through sticking wth Westminster. that is nothing to do with nationalism, civic or otherwise, but it is to do with policies. People can be against trident but believe a reformist Labour party will get rid of it so still not see that as a reason to vote Yes. However when you start adding up everything else that is going on it begins to paint a picture of where the future should lie.

However, your bit above about the instiutions is really interesting and you can be sure I'll be nicking it.

[invergowrie arab]

Your definition of social democracy is so broad that a lot of Tories and virtually all social liberals are included. That consensus exists in the UK.

It might be within the general population but i certainly don't recognise it in the governments we have had over the past 30 years.

[Pink Freud]

Indeed, it is a very simple definition.

Is there such a thing as a Kurdish nation? Yes, seems to be. Is there such a thing as an independent Kurdistan? No. As it stands, there isn't. Therefore, when I say that Scotland should have the same rights as any other independent country, and you pop up with "what about the Kurdish nation", then you can see why I am confused.

And as I've said many times, I'm not one of the intellectual elitists. I don't care about the subtle hair splitting differences. The argument just isn't that complicated, and I'm just your average person. If I was to discuss independence with my friends, not one of them would correct me over my use of "state", "nation", or "country", because it simply isn't important. What I don't understand is why the hair splitters continue to ply me with complicated technical questions when I've said many times that I don't follow the discussion on their level. I'm one of the 99%, not one of the ivory tower 1%.

You didn't, you said any other independent nation. You can call it hair splitting, the facts say different. There is a fundamental difference between a nation and a state. The fact that that doesn't seem to matter to you is both surprising and worrying.

[Davi3j]

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.

in your opinion

--------------------------------------------

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.

Again your own presumptive opinion being laid out as a fact which shouldnt be challenged...

-----------------------------------------------------

Independence means being a sovereign state with the capacity to enter into treaties with other states and international organisations. Sorry, but that's what it is. I'm in every bit as much of a position to tell you what an independent state is as the Oxford English Dictionary. Sorry.

Edit: and for the record, I had a dummy for about a week. My mother gave up on it because I kept deliberately spitting it out.

Not all Labourites are social democrats (some are socialists, some are even left-wing conservatives). Very few Liberal Democrats are social democrats. The SNP is a broad coalition from socialists to John Swinney. This crude little exercise is facile and not a fair representation of the actual political make-up of Scotland.

And who said otherwise...although here you are putting independence in a simplistic viewpoint, to suit your argument, but when anyone else uses simplicity you have to bog the whole thread down with junk explaining why we cant use simplistic arguments...so in essence now that you have contradicted yourself by using a simplistic viewpoint you should maybe go and study some more.

[xbl]

You didn't, you said any other independent nation. You can call it hair splitting, the facts say different. There is a fundamental difference between a nation and a state. The fact that that doesn't seem to matter to you is both surprising and worrying.

Is Kurdistan an independent Nation? No. Right, as I said before, shut up.

Tell you what, when all the nations gather together for the world cup, and the whole country gets behind their team, especially when their national anthem is sung, that must jar with you lot? Especially if the camera then zooms in on one of that country's secretary of state, who is singing the national anthem while supporting his country. Does that blow your mind?

[Pink Freud]

Is Kurdistan an independent Nation? No. Right, as I said before, shut up.

Tell you what, when all the nations gather together for the world cup, and the whole country gets behind their team, especially when their national anthem is sung, that must jar with you lot? Especially if the camera then zooms in on one of that country's secretary of state, who is singing the national anthem while supporting his country. Does that blow your mind?

Oh please:

A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.

A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.

If that doesn't matter to you, then fine. Just don't expect to be taken seriously with your wee tantrums when someone calls you out on it.

[Ad Lib]

You didn't, you said any other independent nation. You can call it hair splitting, the facts say different. There is a fundamental difference between a nation and a state. The fact that that doesn't seem to matter to you is both surprising and worrying.

I think he might genuinely not understand the reason you've referred to Kurdistan.

PF's point, at least as I understood it, was that actually, nations overlap with states all the time. Sometimes what is understood, culturally or in other respects, to be part of a territory associated with two or more nations, overlaps. In the Kurdistan example, the area of Kurdistan is encompassed by Turks, Iraqis, even bits of Syria and Armenia. Those are all nations, and identities, and they all overlap. Some people even assume several of them. Just like in the UK, where people feel British and Scottish, or Welsh, or a form of Irish at the same time. It's why we have this cultural discussion about places like Berwick, even though the political borders have been agreed and settled.

You see, nationhood isn't the key to statehood. A lot of nations have a state to call their own, but quite a lot don't as well. There isn't an inherent, incontestible, moral claim of a nation to sovereign statehood. Nations are fluid constructs, which engage, but are not the only form of engagement of, political identity and statehood. We are asking you a simple question, but one which goes to the heart of the very complex social structures of nation and state in the global community. And it appears, xbl, that you can't answer it.

[Ad Lib]

in your opinion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

Again your own presumptive opinion being laid out as a fact which shouldnt be challenged...

This is my experience of speaking to undecided and No voters. Trust me. There's a lot of them.

And who said otherwise...although here you are putting independence in a simplistic viewpoint, to suit your argument, but when anyone else uses simplicity you have to bog the whole thread down with junk explaining why we cant use simplistic arguments...so in essence now that you have contradicted yourself by using a simplistic viewpoint you should maybe go and study some more.

You told me I'm not allowed to define what Independence is. I told you I am. Because it has a meaning. In the dictionary. This isn't oversimplification. This is just what it is. I'm amused by the suggestion that I'm being told by different people, simultaneously, that I'm over-simplifying and over-complicating the same thing at the same time, though.

[xbl]

And it appears, xbl, that you can't answer it.

What gave you that clue? Was it the part where I said I belonged to the 99% rather than the 1%? Was it the part where I said I didn't care? Was it the part where I dismissed it as not relevant to the discussion? Was it the part where I said that I didn't follow all that intellectual hair splitting nonsense?

The vast majority of people simply don't care about these things, because it is perfectly clear what they are talking about.

[Davi3j]

You told me I'm not allowed to define what Independence is.

um...when?

what I said is it means different things to different people.

You want to go with dictionary definitions? try number 2, thats what independence means to most people I talk to.

independence

 

in·de·pend·ence

[in-di-pen-duhns] Show IPA

noun

1.

Also, independency. the state or quality of being independent.

2.

freedom from the control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others.

3.

Archaic. a competency.

[xbl]

Oh please:

A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.

A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.

If that doesn't matter to you, then fine. Just don't expect to be taken seriously with your wee tantrums when someone calls you out on it.

So is the state of (say)Texas the same as the State of France? Crucially, to 99% of the population, the words are more or less interchangeable and depend on context. I'm not saying that you're all wrong. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that at all. I am simply saying that those of us that keep things real in tha' ghettos, which is most of the population, simply don't think about the distinction in all that much detail and just use whatever word sounds better.

For example, in the song "A Nation Once Again", "Nation" fits better than "State". And by your (and presumably the rest of the hair splitting gang) definition, that song is invalid, as Ireland were always a nation all along.

"And Ireland long a province be, a nation once again"

Presumably, it was always a nation? And also a province? So really, it should have been:

"And Ireland long a nation be, a nation continuing on"

or

"And Ireland long a nation be, a sta - te once again"

?

[Ad Lib]

um...when?

what I said is it means different things to different people.

You said "don't ... tell me what independence means". At no point was I imposing my understanding of independence upon you. All I ever said was that there is a meaning of independence, clearly defined as sovereign statehood, and that the debate about independence needs to shift away from substantive policy guarantees and instead into a discussion about what independence actually entails. It's not about securing the welfare state. It's about how decisions are made and who makes them.

You want to go with dictionary definitions? try number 2, thats what independence means to most people I talk to.

independence

2. freedom from the control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others.

Not sufficiently specific. This freedom isn't a binary concept. It's a continuum. When we are talking about independent states we are talking about a specific class of state body recognised by the UN as having the capacity 1) to control their internal affairs and 2) to sign treaties.

It doesn't actually mean complete freedom from the influence of others. It's independence, not self-imposed isolation, that we're choosing. We will continue to be influenced by and supported by and aided by others as an independent country. That's what the global community of states is for...

I have put forward a case that nationhood is not relevant to the question of whether Scotland should be a sovereign state. I have explained, in detail, why I think more fundamental questions of democracy and the use and abuse of power are the relevant arguments to the actual clash between the cases for a Scottish state and the continuation, in whatever form, of the British one. If you and xbl think that nationhood is relevant, then frankly, cool story bro. But justify it. Don't just go "ooh uh my brain hurts I wanna talk about something else".

[Ad Lib]

So is the state of (say)Texas the same as the State of France? Crucially, to 99% of the population, the words are more or less interchangeable and depend on context. I'm not saying that you're all wrong. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that at all. I am simply saying that those of us that keep things real in tha' ghettos, which is most of the population, simply don't think about the distinction in all that much detail and just use whatever word sounds better.For example, in the song "A Nation Once Again", "Nation" fits better than "State". And by your (and presumably the rest of the hair splitting gang) definition, that song is invalid, as Ireland were always a nation all along."And Ireland long a province be, a nation once again"Presumably, it was always a nation? And also a province? So really, it should have been:"And Ireland long a nation be, a nation continuing on"or"And Ireland long a nation be, a sta - te once again"?

Disanalogous. The Irish struggles were born out of a perception that their very identity as a nation was also under threat. Unless you are suggesting that Scotland is not being allowed to be a nation in the sovereign state of the UK, this point is drivel and moot.

[xbl]

Disanalogous. The Irish struggles were born out of a perception that their very identity as a nation was also under threat. Unless you are suggesting that Scotland is not being allowed to be a nation in the sovereign state of the UK, this point is drivel and moot.

Even I can see some goalposts being very quickly shifted here.

[Ad Lib]

Even I can see some goalposts being very quickly shifted here.

How? A song about the Irish nation (not the Irish state) refers to Ireland becoming a nation again. This represents an accurate use of the word nation in a song.

This does not mean that nation is interchangeable with state in either the Irish or the Scottish context. Next?

[xbl]

How? A song about the Irish nation (not the Irish state) refers to Ireland becoming a nation again. This represents an accurate use of the word nation in a song.

This does not mean that nation is interchangeable with state in either the Irish or the Scottish context. Next?

So there was never an Irish Nation at that point? But there is a Kurdish Nation at the moment?

[Mr.Bojangles]

Has this debate about the semantics of state vs nation really gone on for four pages? Outside of the intellectuals who get turned on by the nuance of wording this brings absolutely nothing to the debate.

[Pink Freud]

So is the state of (say)Texas the same as the State of France? Crucially, to 99% of the population, the words are more or less interchangeable and depend on context. I'm not saying that you're all wrong. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that at all. I am simply saying that those of us that keep things real in tha' ghettos, which is most of the population, simply don't think about the distinction in all that much detail and just use whatever word sounds better.

For example, in the song "A Nation Once Again", "Nation" fits better than "State". And by your (and presumably the rest of the hair splitting gang) definition, that song is invalid, as Ireland were always a nation all along.

"And Ireland long a province be, a nation once again"

Presumably, it was always a nation? And also a province? So really, it should have been:

"And Ireland long a nation be, a nation continuing on"

or

"And Ireland long a nation be, a sta - te once again"

?

Yeah, OK, you just keep it real xbl. You just can't stand being wrong, can you? Are you seriously going to try to use a folk song to prove a point about legal definition on a thread about independence?

So far as political and legal identity is concerned, yes, Texas is EXACTLY the same as France, if you go by the definition of Statehood as a self governing political entity, which is the only way to go. The States in the US have more powers than the States in the EU in certain ways. Try declaring a unilateral death penalty under the Human Rights act and see how far you get. Is it a nation? Absolutely not, though it arguably was one before it joined the US.

Still, so long as the majority agree with you, that's all fine. So long as we all know we're dealing with a demagogue who believes in the tyranny of the majority, it's all good.