Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

Again, though, WHY? What is significant about being a nation that makes a nation different from any other political territorial unit? What makes a nation so special that it needs or should have independence rather than being part of one or more bigger sovereign states. Provide your reasons. As they'd say in a maths class: show your working. Don't just restate your conclusion.

Its an emotional decision. And it isn't my only reason for independence, I've provided reams of other reasons in the past. But one reason is that I believe that my country (Scotland), should have control over its own destiny, just like, say, Ireland or Germany has. What kind of justification do you expect me to provide for what is an emotional reason? I believe that we're a nation, and as a country, we should have control over our destiny. I want to see us representing Scotland on the world stage, not representing Britain, which is a state that I see as a foreign country.

We are not Yorkshire, we are Scotland. As far as I'm concerned, that is enough of a reasoning for me.

[wirez]

A lot of the issue should be about trust. Who do you actually trust to do the right thing for Scotland? Is it a load of politicians in Westminster who we more than likely did not vote for and who don't really give a toss if they are unpopular up here as they know they have a safe seat down south? Or do we leave it to people that are directly responsible to the Scottish people and know that we can boot them out if they don't deliver for Scotland?

It is also the sheer incompetence of the current UK setup that galls me. We recently had Defence Minister Philip Hammond looking down his nose at the prospect of a Scottish armed forces "Join the Navy and see the Clyde" he said, this while standing in front of the multibillion pound white elephant aircraft carriers that are being put together at Rosyth. He boasted about the jobs that this brings for Scotland and it was a reason we are all better together. What he didn't add is that one of the Carriers is going to be mothballed and the other might not have the preferred planes as they say they can't afford it! Well what the f**k was the point in building them then? I'm sure they will come in really handy in clashes with the Somali pirates floating about in their rubber dinghies. So, if for some the issue is about jobs, they should have used the cash for something constructive like fixing the fucking state of the roads! Aye we really are better together eh?. Rant over - Vote YES

[Ad Lib]

Its an emotional decision. And it isn't my only reason for independence, I've provided reams of other reasons in the past. But one reason is that I believe that my country (Scotland), should have control over its own destiny, just like, say, Ireland or Germany has. What kind of justification do you expect me to provide for what is an emotional reason? I believe that we're a nation, and as a country, we should have control over our destiny. I want to see us representing Scotland on the world stage, not representing Britain, which is a state that I see as a foreign country.We are not Yorkshire, we are Scotland. As far as I'm concerned, that is enough of a reasoning for me.

If it's emotion, then fine. But if it comes down to emotion then it's of no use to persuading those who have no emotional fealty or an emotional fealty to the British state. They're the people you need to persuade to win the referendum and that's why you need to shift the debate. That's why saying that my pro-indy speil is somehow inadequate or boring is to miss the point. It's not aimed at people like you. It's aimed at the suspicious middle classes that are the big dent in the Yes vote.

[Swampy]

Oh come on that's hugely disinenuous. Healthy criticism is healthy criticism irrespective of whether it takes place in this thread in respect of the remarks of an individual or whether it's in the national press in respect of a remark made by Alex Salmond or Johann Lamont. When a claim by BetterTogether that is nonsense is posted on here by a poster you don't go to the national press and vigorously contest the article in a massive public forum. You take the piss (rightly) out of Tryfield and the grunts on this thread for its own sake. You won't change (m)any people's opinions, but you will discredit bad opinions. You have FREQUENTLY posted to criticise the OPINIONS of BritNats on this thread where what they have been saying is logically incoherent and/or just plain nonsense. If you are to be honest with yourself, you should do the same when xbl does the same on the other side, or else shut the f**k up about hypocrisy and "complicity" by inaction of people like H_B for the opinions expressed by new accounts from craven inbred Dundee fans.

What am I supposed to be deploring, precisely? Paste something in and I'll make the requisite noises of disapproval if I feel they're warranted.

The idea that your remarks on this forum about the McCrone Report or BritNat hypocrisy has any effect on the wider debate is preposterous. This thread has a tiny audience of which fewer still are not already largely decided in which way they intend to vote. This is itself hypocritical of your pooh poohing of H_B's insistence that he doesn't have to answer for people who are manifestly cretinous.

You're missing the point of what I posted: I'm not talking about this thread in isolation. I'm saying that what you're arguing matters about to literally nobody, whereas things like McCrone matter to a huge number of people. Not on P&B - people in general.

This entire thread doesn't matter to the electorate at large. It doesn't matter to Pie and Bovril at large. Stop pretending you're taking some sort of utilitarian calculation about what is and isn't important in this thread.

I'm not pretending. Do you think I'm sitting here with a cache of information I'm not posting about the thrilling difference between the words nation and country? I don't care because these things don't matter, at all, to anyone.

xbl is saying that Scotland should be an independent state "because other nations are independent states". Do you agree or disagree with that reasoning, or do you think that the moral basis of states and institutions and independence and democracy are more complicated than that? That's the dispute here.

I don't personally hold that view but I think it's a perfectly legitimate reason for someone to want statehood for Scotland, given that nation-states already exist. So, I disagree with that reasoning, and am more apt to agree with you that there's a heck of a lot more to it than that... but I don't have a problem with other people using the nation-state rationale.

It's not about "oh but everyone understands the question". It's about whether people properly understand what the terms of a debate about statehood are, what's actually at stake and what is the best form of the argument on both sides. Surely someone of your intelligence realises that an argument that essentially amounts to "nations and states should basically be the same thing and if they're not then we should pretend they are because, erm, no reason" isn't a very good one, and one that others who are against or indifferent to independence will not be impressed by.

I don't think people not impressed by independence would be especially bothered one way or another, because if they were at least one of them would have told a pollster by now. This question doesn't matter, at all, to anyone.

Further, I don't think that someone ticking 'yes' on the ballot because they regard Scotland as a nation deserving of a state, and someone ticking 'yes' on a ballot because they have a post-national view of statehood, are in any way different to the net outcome.

This question doesn't matter, its nuances don't matter, and it will have absolutely zero impact on anything that happens next year.

[Ad Lib]

What am I supposed to be deploring, precisely? Paste something in and I'll make the requisite noises of disapproval if I feel they're warranted.

Half-assed arguments that appeal to nationalism.

You're missing the point of what I posted: I'm not talking about this thread in isolation. I'm saying that what you're arguing matters about to literally nobody, whereas things like McCrone matter to a huge number of people. Not on P&B - people in general.

Your passing comment on the McCrone report on this forum has zero effect on the actual debate. Don't kid yourself otherwise. It certainly doesn't have any greater effect than me saying the debate about statehood needs to be more nuanced to engage those who haven't bough the existing nationalist narrative, civic or otherwise.

I'm not pretending. Do you think I'm sitting here with a cache of information I'm not posting about the thrilling difference between the words nation and country? I don't care because these things don't matter, at all, to anyone.

Don't be facetious. You are SPECIFICALLY a poster on this thread who criticised H_B and other Unionists for not denouncing our Dundee Englisher "facking Salmon" troll. This is tone trolling from you and breathtaking hypocrisy.

And the differences (or rather, the FAILURE on xbl's part to understand them) are very important. It's at the core of his "emotional" argument for independence!

1. I don't personally hold that view but I think it's a perfectly legitimate reason for someone to want statehood for Scotland, given that nation-states already exist.

2. So, I disagree with that reasoning, and am more apt to agree with you that there's a heck of a lot more to it than that... but I don't have a problem with other people using the nation-state rationale.

1. You know as well as I do that's an is ought fallacy.

2. Well neither do I. But I expect them to justify the nation-state rationale beyond simply stating it. xbl has refused, time and time again, to justify it; simply to state it. Are you seriously telling me that the differences between a nation and a sovereign state aren't relevant to the justification someone provides for a nation-state? I mean really? Come on.

I don't think people not impressed by independence would be especially bothered one way or another, because if they were at least one of them would have told a pollster by now. This question doesn't matter, at all, to anyone.Further, I don't think that someone ticking 'yes' on the ballot because they regard Scotland as a nation deserving of a state, and someone ticking 'yes' on a ballot because they have a post-national view of statehood, are in any way different to the net outcome.This question doesn't matter, its nuances don't matter, and it will have absolutely zero impact on anything that happens next year.

Pollsters don't ask questions like "is the way this debate is being framed disengaging you and if so is it because people are conflating nations and states too much". This fatalistic approach to the holy shrine of polling you've erected bears no relation to the way polling actually works. My argument about disengagement is far too nuanced and complex to be adequately accounted for in an "any other complaints" section of a YouGov web poll or an IpsosMori phone call.

The reason understanding these distinctions matter is because if you want to win, you have to attract both groups. We've probably saturated the nation-statists who buy into the Scottish nation-state. The unsaturated market is the post-national state people and the BritNats, who you can only win over by other means. All I had the audacity to say is that the way you pursue those people is to talk about institutional aversion to reform within the Westminster structures, and not to wast your time limiting your audience. See also why it's stupid to market a Yes vote as a social democrat paradise when many potential voters for independence are not social democrats and are actively put off by such a proposition.

[Dunning1874]

People who will be voting No - are you happy with Tory rule, aye?

Maybe it's just a kneejerk and when the outrage over the welfare reforms dies it'll have no lasting effect, but I've had a few who were undecided or not politically engaged saying they're now voting Yes for the opportunity to be permanently rid of governments Scotland haven't voted for. We'll see how much the anti-Tory element can be capitalised on.

[BarryHills]

Not content with ruining the TA forum and Misc Football, Savage Henry stumbles into Gen Nonsense.

I normally like to catch up with this, but pages of turgid shite tonight lads.

[Swampy]

Half-assed arguments that appeal to nationalism.

I've seen xbl say that this is his opinion and that he thinks he's entitled to it. Needless to say I agree that he's entitled to it. What I haven't seen is xbl put this forward as some kind of universal blueprint for independence. As far as I'm concerned, if he wants to appeal to the concept of a nation-state in a world already comprising nation-states, he's welcome to do so. I think there are more compelling reasons, personally, but I certainly don't think civic nationalism is a *terrible* idea in the world that we live in (and I know from past experience that it's civic, as opposed to ethnic nationalism to which xbl subscribes.)

So, nah, I'm cool with it.

Your passing comment on the McCrone report on this forum has zero effect on the actual debate. Don't kid yourself otherwise. It certainly doesn't have any greater effect than me saying the debate about statehood needs to be more nuanced to engage those who haven't bough the existing nationalist narrative, civic or otherwise.

I enjoy posting about things that matter in the context of the actual debate. I find page upon page of derail based on something that matters to nobody to be unenjoyable. Neither of these is predicated, even slightly, on my posts having an impact beyond (or even on) this forum. Again: read.

Don't be facetious. You are SPECIFICALLY a poster on this thread who criticised H_B and other Unionists for not denouncing our Dundee Englisher "facking Salmon" troll. This is tone trolling from you and breathtaking hypocrisy.

And the differences (or rather, the FAILURE on xbl's part to understand them) are very important. It's at the core of his "emotional" argument for independence!

Well, I've explained why I'm declining to criticize them. I don't think that it's a problem. If he was an ethnic nationalist I'd have a huge problem with it. But he ain't, so... it's all good as far as I'm concerned. We already live in a civic nation-state, after all. (It's weird how it's only since the Scotches are getting uppity that this societal arrangement has somehow become a problem...)

1. You know as well as I do that's an is ought fallacy.

2. Well neither do I. But I expect them to justify the nation-state rationale beyond simply stating it. xbl has refused, time and time again, to justify it; simply to state it. Are you seriously telling me that the differences between a nation and a sovereign state aren't relevant to the justification someone provides for a nation-state? I mean really? Come on.

1. No, it's not. I'll touch on this again at the end of my post. For the purpose of this conversation I'm not especially bothered about nation-states and their existence, but they already exist, we're already in a (civic version of) one, and whether or not Scotland is independent will change neither of these things. I find any objection to an independent, civic nation-state of Scotland completely unconvincing when these self-same people are happy to live in an identical arrangement as long as it's got a Union Jack.

2. I'm saying I don't care about them because they're not relevant to whether or not the Scottish electorate votes for independence next year. I'm not sure how much plainer I can make it.

More...

[Swampy]

Pollsters don't ask questions like "is the way this debate is being framed disengaging you and if so is it because people are conflating nations and states too much". This fatalistic approach to the holy shrine of polling you've erected bears no relation to the way polling actually works. My argument about disengagement is far too nuanced and complex to be adequately accounted for in an "any other complaints" section of a YouGov web poll or an IpsosMori phone call.

Yes, and your argument about disengagement, nuanced and shiny though it is, is of absolutely no concern to anyone, as seen by the complete absence of even a simplified version from it from any polling data, public debate, etc.

The reason understanding these distinctions matter is because if you want to win, you have to attract both groups. We've probably saturated the nation-statists who buy into the Scottish nation-state. The unsaturated market is the post-national state people and the BritNats, who you can only win over by other means. All I had the audacity to say is that the way you pursue those people is to talk about institutional aversion to reform within the Westminster structures, and not to wast your time limiting your audience. See also why it's stupid to market a Yes vote as a social democrat paradise when many potential voters for independence are not social democrats and are actively put off by such a proposition.

The post-national state people can have you tickle their bellies for them if you want to. I'm not interested in engaging them because we already live in a civic nation-state. If they were that bothered about it (which they're not: nobody is) they'd have raised this objection before the Scotches got uppity.

Nobody cares about this, at all.

[Mr Hahn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22003165

So the Queen gets another £5m on the taypayer. Get this bitch to f**k.

[paranoid android]

Maybe it's just a kneejerk and when the outrage over the welfare reforms dies it'll have no lasting effect, but I've had a few who were undecided or not politically engaged saying they're now voting Yes for the opportunity to be permanently rid of governments Scotland haven't voted for. We'll see how much the anti-Tory element can be capitalised on.

A lot, I hope.

[Davi3j]

That's it, I'm done...Ad Lib (yes voter), has convinced me my reasons for voting yes are all wrong...f**k sake that means I'll have to vote no ...well done Ad Lib, that was a success, eh?

pages upon pages of pedantic claptrap...guys and gals, if you want to vote yes, just do it. There is many different reasons why someone wants to vote yes, and if it doesn't conform to someone's idealistic view, f**k 'em. Hey we live in a democracy, we're allowed to protest vote if we want...Sally down the road doesn't care about nationhood or States etc, she just wants rid of Trident, Jim next door isn't interested in sovereignty, he thinks he would be better off with independence because of the spare room subsidy, and I say go for it, vote yes for your own reasons.

night all

[Ad Lib]

I've seen xbl say that this is his opinion and that he thinks he's entitled to it. Needless to say I agree that he's entitled to it. What I haven't seen is xbl put this forward as some kind of universal blueprint for independence.

No one has suggested he has to.

As far as I'm concerned, if he wants to appeal to the concept of a nation-state in a world already comprising nation-states, he's welcome to do so. I think there are more compelling reasons, personally, but I certainly don't think civic nationalism is a *terrible* idea in the world that we live in (and I know from past experience that it's civic, as opposed to ethnic nationalism to which xbl subscribes.)

Civic nationalism is a terrible idea. And even if it weren't the burden of proof is for those advocating it. That it's less worse than ethno-nationalism is neither here nor there. It is not an intellectually credible basis for a state. That nation states exist doesn't alter that. There is no moral virtue in civic nationalism as a justification for anything.

I enjoy posting about things that matter in the context of the actual debate. I find page upon page of derail based on something that matters to nobody to be unenjoyable. Neither of these is predicated, even slightly, on my posts having an impact beyond (or even on) this forum. Again: read.

If you don't enjoy posting about these things then, uh, don't post about them, or post about something else. But don't take the moral high ground against others when they decline to post about things they see no point in posting about. Don't be a hypocrite.

Well, I've explained why I'm declining to criticize them. I don't think that it's a problem. If he was an ethnic nationalist I'd have a huge problem with it. But he ain't, so... it's all good as far as I'm concerned. We already live in a civic nation-state, after all. (It's weird how it's only since the Scotches are getting uppity that this societal arrangement has somehow become a problem...)

Uh, straw man bullshit on your part there. I criticise civic nationalism in all its forms. I've done so consistently whenever it's been raised in recent years. I'm asking you to hold Scottish civic nationalists to the same standard as British civic nationalists, who you have mocked and attacked in the past for arguments appealling to nationalist sentiment that aren't rooted in any sort of ethnic specificity.

If you argue Scotland should be independent because of a civic nationalist rationale, the very least you (by which I mean xbl) should do is provide an actual justification for that form of nationalism, rather than simply state it again and again and go "don't interrogate me, I'm just a humble peasant" whenever he's asked for actual criteria to differentiate.

1. No, it's not. I'll touch on this again at the end of my post. For the purpose of this conversation I'm not especially bothered about nation-states and their existence, but they already exist, we're already in a (civic version of) one, and whether or not Scotland is independent will change neither of these things. I find any objection to an independent, civic nation-state of Scotland completely unconvincing when these self-same people are happy to live in an identical arrangement as long as it's got a Union Jack.

2. I'm saying I don't care about them because they're not relevant to whether or not the Scottish electorate votes for independence next year. I'm not sure how much plainer I can make it.

1. I support and independent Scotland. I'm the one making this argument. Your entire "haw look at the hypocrisy" is manifestly ill-founded. No one here has sought to defend civic nationalism in a British context. Stop pretending the argument is something it isn't. Or at least fucking read it before you criticise!

2. It is relevant because post-nationalist undecided and No voters exist. Radical proposition, I know.

[xbl]

I really don't see the issue with believing that Scotland should be a nation like any other independent country?

I want my country to set its own policies, to control things like immigration (to bring in more people!), tax, and energy policy. I want a team to support in the Olympics, to be able to tell people where Im from without then having to follow up with "no, not England", I want to believe that my country stands on its own two feet and takes responsibility for itself and its actions, right from the top down.

I dont want that for (say) Arbroath or Angus, because they are not my country, and I dont want that for Britain because that is a foreign state to me. I want that for my country though because I am a Scot.

And I dont see a damn thing wrong with holding this opinion. As I said, its not my only reason by a long way, but it is one reason.

[Ad Lib]

Yes, and your argument about disengagement, nuanced and shiny though it is, is of absolutely no concern to anyone, as seen by the complete absence of even a simplified version from it from any polling data, public debate, etc.

It is of concern to many. The entire argument is that people don't notice or engage with the debate precisely because it doesn't press these buttons. And the nuances of such a discussion aren't the sort of thing that are REMOTELY apt to being displayed to any detailed extent in the superficial polling that polling companies do. They do not ask participants, in any detail, if they feel engaged with the debate or what causes that. What we do know is that the middle classes are the most against independence and that a significant proportion of the population do feel disengaged by the mud-slinging which has thus far centred on a) the economics b) the transition and c) national identity. We know that the current messages aren't making an impact. I know from my limited public campaigning on this, that appeals to democracy and institutions are particularly well received by people who are otherwise hardcore Unionists or undecided. I strongly suspect this would replicate itself across the population if anyone bothered to pursue it. My entire argument is that we need to broaden our arguments if we are to win over these people because of the relative groups we have already saturated from the previous BritNats and don't knows. We don't win the referendum by sooking up to the base.

The post-national state people can have you tickle their bellies for them if you want to. I'm not interested in engaging them because we already live in a civic nation-state. If they were that bothered about it (which they're not: nobody is) they'd have raised this objection before the Scotches got uppity.

Again, you're erecting a straw man here. When they already exist in a civic nationalist state, their challenge is different and they approach it in different ways. They might seek to push changes, for example, by arguing for weakening the difference in law between a citizen and someone who's just there. For example, people like me argue that immigration laws should be relaxed, citizenship laws made very loose, and that public services shouldn't discriminate in favour of people who are domiciled here.

When the question is "should Scotland be a sovereign state" and you are arguing that it should be *because* it's a nation, what is at stake is different. I'm not arguing that the British state is legitimate because it's a nation. Neither is Savage Henry, or Pink Freud, or H_B. That it has at some point or another attempted to justify itself with respect to nation is neither here nor there. We're asking for a more intelligent form of the argument. We're asking for the Yes campaign to engage in terms which directly rebuts and discredits, for example, the BetterTogether rhetoric about how people feel like they will have their Britishness attacked by Scottish independence. We're asking for a nuanced argument that says "you can have a national identity without having to have a state align with it. Your Britishness is not under threat; this is about governance and institutional renewal". We need to build a narrative that says you can be in favour of Scottish independence and still feel, nationally, British. We need to strengthen the view that questions about statehood are about something OTHER THAN nation.

[Ad Lib]

I really don't see the issue with believing that Scotland should be a nation like any other independent country?

1. Scotland IS a nation. Already.

2. Not all nations are independent countries. Not all independent countries are nations.

I want my country to set its own policies, to control things like immigration (to bring in more people!), tax, and energy policy. I want a team to support in the Olympics, to be able to tell people where Im from without then having to follow up with "no, not England", I want to believe that my country stands on its own two feet and takes responsibility for itself and its actions, right from the top down.

I dont want that for (say) Arbroath or Angus, because they are not my country, and I dont want that for Britain because that is a foreign state to me. I want that for my country though because I am a Scot.

And I dont see a damn thing wrong with holding this opinion. As I said, its not my only reason by a long way, but it is one reason.

But WHY is Scotland "your country"? Why is "country" significant? Why don't you want Arbroath to have an Olympics team? Show your working. Why Scotland?

[xbl]

1. Scotland IS a nation. Already.

2. Not all nations are independent countries. Not all independent countries are nations.

But WHY is Scotland "your country"? Why is "country" significant? Why don't you want Arbroath to have an Olympics team? Show your working. Why Scotland?

Because Arbroath is not my country, Scotland is. Likewise, Britain is no nation of mine either.

[Ad Lib]

Because Arbroath is not my country, Scotland is. Likewise, Britain is no nation of mine either.

Why?

Edit: I'm not being snarky here. This argument amounts to "I prefer Smarties because I like them more than Rolos". No explanation given as to why you actually prefer them; just a restatement of the fact that you prefer them. That's not a coherent preference-based rationale that you can export to anyone else. They either agree with you or they don't.

An argument requires analysis.

[paranoid android]

Can't really be doing with the semantic arguments about countries, nations and nation states.

Scotland has had to suffer years of rule by governments that its people have voted against - this is our chance to put a stop to that.

Why people want to continue with a situation that sees their votes continually ignored is beyond me.

It's an opportunity to take part in a democracy that will be more direct than we've ever seen.

Vote Yes now, and your vote will count forever - vote No, and continue to be ignored and walked over.

[xbl]

Why?

Not everything can be explained logically.