Independence - how would you vote?

[Ad Lib]

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.

It's not just a debate about that. Perversely, that's all that xbl wants to turn it into, so he can marginalise it. It's about knowing what we're talking about so we can frame the broader debate properly. He's sidestepping ALL of the substantive arguments and going "och you're just quibbling about a tiny semantics thing".

[xbl]

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.

As I said in the very post you quoted, I am not saying that you are wrong. and yes, I am using a folk song. Because the folk song is an expression of popular consciousness, an example of how language works in reality, rather than in the dusty realms of academia.

[Pink Freud]

As I said in the very post you quoted, I am not saying that you are wrong. and yes, I am using a folk song. Because the folk song is an expression of popular consciousness, an example of how language works in reality, rather than in the dusty realms of academia.

Ah yes - legality, history, political studies, economics...all those dusty academic studies that hold absolutely no relevance for our brave leader of the people.

Seriously, this is poor, poor stuff xbl, and all you've succeed in is showing how utterly intransigent you are when faced with the little niceties like how you actually frame your points of reference. You expect Scotland to take its place in the EU without words and their definitions mattering? You think that those in positions of legal authority and political power will just say, "oh aye, I see what he means right enough"?

Look, maybe it's worth pointing out that the 99% understand the concepts and what they want, but it will be, as it is always is, the 1% who will decide exactly how this will work to make you realise that your "common man" schtick might divert the conversation on a football message board, but it will never, ever mean a damn thing when push comes to shove on this. Law, politics and power all depend on semantics, they all depend on debate and argument, and most importantly, agreed definition.

[Assasinach]

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.

go for #3.

i have a dependent, which suggests i'm independent.

#1 doesn't exist if #2 is a pre-requisite , as some are trying to suggest. unless you is grizzly adams

[Davi3j]

dull legalistic hair splitting pish

ok, so tell me, why is the United Nations called the "United Nations" when membership is only open to States...is it because the United States as a name was already took?

[xbl]

ok, so tell me, why is the United Nations called the "United Nations" when membership is only open to States...is it because the United States as a name was already took?

I presume the Kurdish Nation is part of this, right?

Edited for pishpoor grammar.

[Ad Lib]

ok, so tell me, why is the United Nations called the "United Nations" when membership is only open to States...is it because the United States as a name was already took?

It was coined by FDR. One can only presume that United Sovereign States of Earth bore too much of an acronymic resemblance to the USSR.

ETA: what misnomers will you be bringing to our attention next? The WTO perhaps? After all Eritrea, South Sudan, Turkmenistan, North Korea, Somalia, Monaco and Saint Marino aren't even obervers!

[Savage Henry]

It is precisely how the powers that be manoeuvre Scotland within the international community of states that will determine the success, failure or otherwise of an independent Scotland. Likewise, it is, as Mushroom says, precisely how those issues of sovereign statehood impact upon the nation (the people) that will determine the popular vote. Or at least should do. The matters of state impinge upon the matters if the nation. This is not semantics, it is the basis of social democracy. Kurdistan's independence - or lack thereof - is a practical example of how a nation without a state operates. It is directly analogous with Scotland; whether sovereignty as a state would enable or prevent the Kurdish nation from flourishing is a contemporaneous debate here.

[Savage Henry]

In principle, the United Nations is made of representatives of the peoples. Ostensibly, it is distinct from states and only has the authority to act as and when it does after being ratified by states. It isn't the United States because it does not have the authority to act as a collective of state administrations. It is neither supranational nor a state in and of itself. In theory.

The EU is actually a more interesting example.

[Pink Freud]

In principle, the United Nations is made of representatives of the peoples. Ostensibly, it is distinct from states and only has the authority to act as and when it does after being ratified by states. It isn't the United States because it does not have the authority to act as a collective of state administrations. It is neither supranational nor a state in and of itself. In theory. The EU is actually a more interesting example.

Oh noes! Facts! Words! Explanations!

[renton]

So, what is the point of all this? Some people want Scotland to become a sovereign state, this is the more technical term that everyone and their dog understands when, on the ballot paper it says ' should Scotland be an independent country' Everyone gets that. Moreover, while the function of independence is to bring about a system of governance that meets the specific needs of our nation (by functioning as a state - or independent country) it is not surprising that many, in a country (or state, or nation, or whatever) often thinks of itself through a prism of left wing poltiics should see indy as a short cut to bringing about a more social democratic future, and given that the high profile right wing voices are all contemptuous of the idea of independence, there is no one really to challenge the notion that indy should be about the construct that allows a new politics to flourish, rather than being aobut one specific form of political thought.

So what, really, is everyone arguing about?

[Savage Henry]

"Legalistic pish" surely, PF?

[xbl]

So what, really, is everyone arguing about?

"Legalistic pish"

[Ad Lib]

So, what is the point of all this? Some people want Scotland to become a sovereign state, this is the more technical term that everyone and their dog understands when, on the ballot paper it says ' should Scotland be an independent country' Everyone gets that. Moreover, while the function of independence is to bring about a system of governance that meets the specific needs of our nation (by functioning as a state - or independent country) it is not surprising that many, in a country (or state, or nation, or whatever) often thinks of itself through a prism of left wing poltiics should see indy as a short cut to bringing about a more social democratic future, and given that the high profile right wing voices are all contemptuous of the idea of independence, there is no one really to challenge the notion that indy should be about the construct that allows a new politics to flourish, rather than being aobut one specific form of political thought.

So what, really, is everyone arguing about?

The bit in bold is wrong. That's not what it's about. It's not about Scotland the nation. It's about Scotland the political territory and the people that live in it. They're different.

Also, most of the evidence you get from polling on this suggests that Scotland is within the margin of error on the left-right spectrum compared to the rest of the UK. It's hugely exaggerated. The cleavages of our politics with the rest of the UK are not actually that basic economic divide, despite what the structure of our party system might suggest.

[Pink Freud]

So, what is the point of all this? Some people want Scotland to become a sovereign state, this is the more technical term that everyone and their dog understands when, on the ballot paper it says ' should Scotland be an independent country' Everyone gets that. Moreover, while the function of independence is to bring about a system of governance that meets the specific needs of our nation (by functioning as a state - or independent country) it is not surprising that many, in a country (or state, or nation, or whatever) often thinks of itself through a prism of left wing poltiics should see indy as a short cut to bringing about a more social democratic future, and given that the high profile right wing voices are all contemptuous of the idea of independence, there is no one really to challenge the notion that indy should be about the construct that allows a new politics to flourish, rather than being aobut one specific form of political thought.

So what, really, is everyone arguing about?

*sigh* read the thread. Definitions matter. If they didn't, "rise now and being a nation again" would make sense, and that really IS a pile of pish.

[Savage Henry]

The cleavages of our politics? Now we're back on track!

[renton]

The bit in bold is wrong. That's not what it's about. It's not about Scotland the nation. It's about Scotland the political territory and the people that live in it. They're different.

Also, most of the evidence you get from polling on this suggests that Scotland is within the margin of error on the left-right spectrum compared to the rest of the UK. It's hugely exaggerated. The cleavages of our politics with the rest of the UK are not actually that basic economic divide, despite what the structure of our party system might suggest.

Oh for fucks sakes, right the fucking political territory and the people in it, who all know who they are I assume, so again, beyond the pedantry of demanding the correct legal definition for everything, what's the actual argument here?

[Savage Henry]

Renton; whether or not the state will be in a better position to negotiate with other states and actors in order to provide a healthier and more successful nation. The distinction between state and nation is fundamentally what will result in a successful, progressive Scotland or not.

[renton]

*sigh* read the thread. Definitions matter. If they didn't, "rise now and being a nation again" would make sense, and that really IS a pile of pish.

Pages of this shite? No fucking way. I get that definitions matter, I get that language is important - it's an argument I've made myself in another thread. For the sake of invention ,for the sake of translating ideas, definitions matter. In this case, people in every day usage conflating 'state with 'country' with 'nation' hardly seems to matter, I'm pretty sure that when the ballot says 'independent country' they know, for all practical applications, what is being asked of them.

[Wee Bully]

There is no argument. It is purely a display of pseudo-intellectual snobbery.