Independence - how would you vote?

[Pink Freud 985]

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 6,756]

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

[renton 5,267]

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 6,756]

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 5,267]

*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 898]

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

[doulikefish 4,746]

Think the last few pages have shown us that xbls signature is required about now

[Thistle_do_nicely 2,889]

I would assume, when choosing the question, they factored in how readilly it could be comprehended by the majority of the electorate? *

"Should Scotland be an independent country?" reads, to me, as being more straightforward reading to the layman than "Should Scotland be a sovereign nation state?" which could cause confusion for some people.

I mean I could well be wrong, and I'm very much on the side that, when it comes to our political system, the negotiations with the EU and Westminster over the terms of independence, that semantics will be crucial e.g. maritime borders, but I can see why the question is phrased the way it is, in broad terms, for the referendum.

*everyone else is using big words on this thread so i didn't want to be left out lol

Edited April 2, 2013 by Thistle_do_nicely

[renton 5,267]

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.

So basically, whether or not Scotland being independent will result in a happier lot for the people of Scotland. Well, I think we can all get on board with that.

[Swampy 2,276]

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.

But it's only "going on" with a few hand-wringers. In the context of the independence debate, nobody cares about this. I don't think this can be denied. Everyone involved knows what "independent country" means in the context of a referendum.

Those suddenly convinced that this is a Really Big Deal that Totally Matters would do well to look at opinion polling regarding the public's priorities. "Precise definition of country" is conspicuously absent from literally every poll carried out to date on this subject.

Outside of this thread and a few well-fed newspaper columnists, nobody cares about this. At all. Because it's not an issue, and everyone knows exactly what "independent country" is shorthand for.

[Pink Freud 985]

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.

State and Country are pretty much interchangeable. Nation and Country or State are not.

And yes, it really matters, because nationality isn't the same as the above. If it were, I, as a Scotsman, would have a vote in the referendum, and an Englishman living in Edinburgh wouldn't. My nationality would trump the obvious requirements of the resident of the country. I trust that that might put a more "practical" slant on it.

Honestly, xbl I get because he is just incapable of admitting when he's wrong. You I'm surprised at.

[Swampy 2,276]

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.

At time of writing I'm more qualified on this subject than Ad Lib. I like to think of myself as a "thinking person." I'm not nervous about this in the least because everyone knows what the shorthand means, and no voters actually care about this.

There is some utterly wonderful hyperbole going on, though, which means I don't regret reading the last few pages on this topic. I believe someone even said it "cuts right to the heart" of the independence issue, which would come as a surprise to literally everyone else ever, since they don't care.

[xbl 1,233]

Honestly, xbl I get because he is just incapable of admitting when he's wrong. You I'm surprised at.

I've pointed out directly several times now that I am not saying you're all wrong. At no point am I saying that. You seem to have reading problems with this aspect. Touch of the Paisley boy shining through? What I am saying is that this stuff just doesn't matter in reality!

Or in other words:

Outside of this thread and a few well-fed newspaper columnists, nobody cares about this. At all. Because it's not an issue, and everyone knows exactly what "independent country" is shorthand for.

Or in other words:

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.

[Ad Lib 2,621]

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.

If you'd actually read the thread, you would realise that it's not just about people understanding what the ballot paper means. It's about the TERMS OF THE DEBATE.

It's about the actual arguments for independence and the justifications they employ. xbl says (paraphrase) that we should be [an] independent [state] because we are a nation and lots of other nations have a corresponding independent [state]. This isn't an argument. Nation, and the very particular connotations of nation that distinguishes the word from (sovereign) state (necessarily, otherwise he says "we should be a state because we are a state and lots of other states are a state") are being invoked as an explanation as to why independence is the best option in the Scottish case.

What is being contested is that nation is relevant to the question. Instead, it is contested that some of the components of group identity, some of which are present in nation, but not all, are what actually provide the justification for independence. It's about democracy and the nature of state power; not the flag, not the cultural identity. It's the political territory that matters, and the "nation" is largely unaffected by the state structures of independence or otherwise. The only circumstances in which nation is relevant to independence or self-determination is when the very essence of the nation is being suppressed. See also, genocide and war crimes.

[vip3r 137]

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.

ok so myself and everyone i talk to want independence as they are fed up being raped by westminster...ad lib wants independence as he thinks Scotland should be a State and not a nation,

Edited April 2, 2013 by vip3r

[ThatBoyRonaldo 1,838]

I just googled to find an alternative definition for 'nation state' and ended up registering for a forum-based political roleplay game.

And I'm still having a more productive day than all of you.

[Pink Freud 985]

I've pointed out directly several times now that I am not saying you're all wrong. At no point am I saying that. You seem to have reading problems with this aspect. Touch of the Paisley boy shining through? What I am saying is that this stuff just doesn't matter in reality!

And I've just demonstrated that it does matter in reality, in a very tangible way - I, as a Scottish national, am unable, rightly, to vote in the independence referendum due to my current residency being that of another country. If nationality were the issue, no one in Scotland would be able to vote unless they were a Scottish national. That would be appalling, undemocratic and borderline racist IMO.

[Ad Lib 2,621]

ok so myself and everyone i talk to want independence as they are fed up being raped by westminster...ad lib wants independence as he thinks Scotland should be a State and not a nation

Factually inaccurate. I did not say I thought Scotland should not be a nation. I've merely said that its being a nation is not, for me, a relevant factor, and more dispassionately, a determining matter, of the question of whether Scotland should be a sovereign state, which is the question we're being asked.

It's not about us being "raped" by Westminster. It's about whether we are best able to control our lives under one political system or another. The way Westminster allocates resources or treats the polity of Scotland may be relevant to that question, but it's not the bigger picture.

At time of writing I'm more qualified on this subject than Ad Lib. I like to think of myself as a "thinking person." I'm not nervous about this in the least because everyone knows what the shorthand means, and no voters actually care about this.

"More qualified"? Remind me again what the relevant qualifications are for being able to express a coherent logical argument about a political phenomenon?

Moreover, this argument hasn't been about whether or not people understand what the implications of a Yes vote is. They know it means we will become a sovereign state. But it affects whether or not we have the right debate about how we should vote. Having a debate about "nations" is fine if people can show specifically why nations, rather than simply the political territory, is a relevant factor. They haven't even attempted to do that despite people like xbl saying that we should be an independent country "because other nations are too".

There is some utterly wonderful hyperbole going on, though, which means I don't regret reading the last few pages on this topic. I believe someone even said it "cuts right to the heart" of the independence issue, which would come as a surprise to literally everyone else ever, since they don't care.

The question of what you're actually talking about really does actually go to the heart of the debate. If you spend all your time going on about something of tangential relevance to the question the independence debate is asking you (i.e. fluffy nation stuff) you're missing the more important arguments about power and how it is used and what it means for the democratic process and faith in our institutions. Edited April 2, 2013 by Ad Lib

[Swampy 2,276]

The word 'nation' is being used as shorthand, you know this already. None of this matters. At all. Everyone knows what's at stake. Nobody cares about Yorkshire. It's going to be fine.

The part about qualifications was to head off PF's accusation that only easily-led mouthbreathers or mustache-twirling rabble-rousers could be so base as to not care about something that doesn't matter.

The question of what you're actually talking about really does actually go to the heart of the debate. If you spend all your time going on about something of tangential relevance to the question the independence debate is asking you (i.e. fluffy nation stuff) you're missing the more important arguments about power and how it is used and what it means for the democratic process and faith in our institutions.

Your concern is noted. Edited April 2, 2013 by Swampy

[Ad Lib 2,621]

The word 'nation' is being used as shorthand, you know this already. None of this matters. At all. Everyone knows what's at stake. Nobody cares about Yorkshire. It's going to be fine.

What is it used as "shorthand" for when xbl says we should be a sovereign state because we are a nation and we should have the same power as other "independent nations" [sic.]?