Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

This has gone horribly for Ad Lib. No amount of text can hide the fact he is a moron.

No amount of text eh? Not even this much?

The right to self-determination is a legal construct that the UN created for nations in international law. If other bodies want to recognise the right to self-determination for peoples that don't qualify as nations, that's entirely up to them and if they have the power, whether under international law or domestic law to do it, great.

So what does this have to do with planet earth? And will the UN be using the same stormtroopers that will be enforcing the English/Scottish border if negotiations aren't agreed quickly enough post independence? Once again, you've demonstrated absolutely no connection with reality and planet earth.

[H_B]

Right, so nobody has the right to self determination unless they are backed up by the massed armies of the UN? Is this what you are seriously saying?

No.

But one of the most fundamental aspects of declaring a new state is recognition by other states. If other states don't recognise you, and you have no fundamental right to be a state under international law, by virtue of being a people, you will swing in the wind.

How are Yorkshire going to join the UN? Or the EU?

[xbl]

This truly does cut to the heart of the matter.

[H_B]

It's also why there has been in the last century a distinction drawn between internal and external self-determination, in an attempt to preserve territorial integrity, whilst acknowledging the rights of minorities to have appropriate local representation and governmental structures.

Many peoples have been granted devolved powers within the territory of a nation state without external self-determination being invoked in terms of creation of a new state.

[xbl]

Ahem.

I am honestly beginning to think H_B's tactic on this thread is to, as soon as something pro-independence comes along, derail the thread into something so mind-numbingly boring that people stop reading.

[Swampy]

You know, I actually hope Salmond fucks up over the next 24 hours just so we don't have to be subjected to any more of this nonsense.

[vikingTON]

Why does "having distinct national institutions" affect whether or not Scotland should or should not self-determine to be independent though? What is it about having these institutions that creates a moral imperative to become independent if you are Scotland, but not Yorkshire?

Who stated that there was a "moral imperative" to do so?

I suspect when it comes down to it, the working actually vindicates what I said all along. It's not about nations (per se). It's about the political territorial group being normatively distinct and instrumentally better able to govern.

A sense that is entirely aligned with the nation in... just about every European nation-state ever. 'Normatively distinct' and the sense of being better able to govern is precisely how nation-states legitimise their existence.

Again, this non-point of yours is utterly irrelevant to public opinion.

[vikingTON]

The SNP,by trying to break up the Union will also split Scotland.

Stands to reason because if the republicans get their way,there will be a big minority against em.

As did Italy when it became a nation-state, Austria when it became a nation-state, Slovakia when it became a nation state.

In none of the CDU arguments is this considered to be a major problem: only for the Scotch. Perhaps BitterTogether should be running around Czechoslovakia instead, blithely assuring people that breaking up the Union isn't in their best interests.

Right, so nobody has the right to self determination unless they are backed up by the massed armies of the UN? Is this what you are seriously saying?

It's really, really amusing to see the Glasgow Uni undergrad team placing so much emphasis on the League of Nations Mk. II.

No.

But one of the most fundamental aspects of declaring a new state is recognition by other states. If other states don't recognise you, and you have no fundamental right to be a state under international law, by virtue of being a people, you will swing in the wind.

How are Yorkshire going to join the UN? Or the EU?

What does this have to do with Scottish independence again? Are you seriously questioning whether Scotland would be recognised by other states?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

[Ad Lib]

Who stated that there was a "moral imperative" to do so?

This is about what xbl said. If there's not a moral imperative, then there's no imperative at all. By what criteria is it right for Scotland to be independent "because it is a nation" if not the binary state of it being a nation? Is this claiming that ALL nations should be independent states?

A sense that is entirely aligned with the nation in... just about every European nation-state ever. 'Normatively distinct' and the sense of being better able to govern is precisely how nation-states legitimise their existence.

Again, this non-point of yours is utterly irrelevant to public opinion.

Normative distinctiveness isn't unique to nations. Which was my original point. Indeed there's nothing special about the normative affiliation to a nation over that about a province, or a continent, or a town. It just happens that that normative distinctiveness is particularly strong in the case of some nations.

Nations aren't special.

[xbl]

You know, I actually hope Salmond fucks up over the next 24 hours just so we don't have to be subjected to any more of this nonsense.

This. For the love of god this.

[H_B]

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

No, Scotland already meets the criteria. That's not the point though.

And Czechoslovakia is interesting as the break up was never decided by the peoples through a referendum. It was decided by the two governments.

[xbl]

Just to clarify, who's side is Ad Lib on here?

[Ad Lib]

Just to clarify, who's side is Ad Lib on here?

In respect of what issue?

[vikingTON]

This is about what xbl said. If there's not a moral imperative, then there's no imperative at all. By what criteria is it right for Scotland to be independent "because it is a nation" if not the binary state of it being a nation? Is this claiming that ALL nations should be independent states?

At no point has anyone said that Scotland should be independent "just because it is a nation". Even if they did, there is nothing actually wrong with stating that all nations should exist in their own sovereign states. I believe it's a fairly straightforward concept of 'nationalism'. Not sure if you've heard of it before: it's only massively directed state formation and break-up over the last 200 years or so.

Scotland is no different from any other legitimate nation, with the political momentum behind the creation of a state. Whether this happens in 2014 or 2064 is fairly irrelevant.

Which was my original point. Indeed there's nothing special about the normative affiliation to a nation over that about a province, or a continent, or a town. It just happens that that normative distinctiveness is particularly strong in the case of some nations.

Nations aren't special.

At no point in modern history have provincial, town or continenal histories been backed by a coherent political platform, or a credible state structure in which to exercise this affiliation. Therefore, nations are indeed special, as a unit which can quite clearly and almost universally does form a state in close alignment to its stated territories. Perhaps you should consult a map on this one, as I'm just about done peddling your nonsense.

[Swampy]

Spectacular own-goal alert!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-leader-alex-salmond-faces-referendum-rethink-as-sun-sets-on-alliance-with-rupert-murdochs-news-international-8556199.html

[vikingTON]

No, Scotland already meets the criteria. That's not the point though.

Thanks. I'm not sure what your point actually is though. Something for the Yorkshire independence thread though, presumably.

And Czechoslovakia is interesting as the break up was never decided by the peoples through a referendum. It was decided by the two governments.

It's not altogether interesting: most nation-states have formed without the direct consent of the people involved. Were Cameron and Salmond to agree to a dissolution of the Scottish-English union tomorrow, there'd be nothing particularly illegitimate about this.

[xbl]

Spectacular own-goal alert!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-leader-alex-salmond-faces-referendum-rethink-as-sun-sets-on-alliance-with-rupert-murdochs-news-international-8556199.html

SNP leader Alex Salmond faces referendum rethink as sun sets on alliance with Rupert Murdoch's News International

In a significant blow to Alex Salmond's attempt to close the gap on the current substantial pro-Union lead, senior management sources inside News International in both London and Glasgow told The Independent that The Scottish Sun, which backed Mr Salmond in his landslide victory at the 2011 Holyrood election, is not looking to back the SNP ahead of the 18 September vote next year.

[xbl]

The latest opinion poll puts support for independence at 36 per cent, support for Scotland to remain in the Union at 46 per cent, and those undecided at 18 per cent. With a shift away from any radical change widely expected to occur as the referendum gets closer, the "Yes" campaign technically needs to be close to 60 per cent within the next 12 months.

This is bollocks. It doesn't need to be close to 60% at all.

A senior boardroom source at NI in London said "The Scottish Sun will not be backing the SNP on independence. We will have a neutral stance".

This on the other hand is fantastic!

[Dunning1874]

Spectacular own-goal alert!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-leader-alex-salmond-faces-referendum-rethink-as-sun-sets-on-alliance-with-rupert-murdochs-news-international-8556199.html

The latest opinion poll puts support for independence at 36 per cent, support for Scotland to remain in the Union at 46 per cent, and those undecided at 18 per cent. With a shift away from any radical change widely expected to occur as the referendum gets closer, the "Yes" campaign technically needs to be close to 60 per cent within the next 12 months.

What the f**k are they talking about? Why on earth would support need to be at 60% by April 2014?

[Ad Lib]

At no point has anyone said that Scotland should be independent "just because it is a nation". Even if they did, there is nothing actually wrong with stating that all nations should exist in their own sovereign states. I believe it's a fairly straightforward concept of 'nationalism'. Not sure if you've heard of it before: it's only massively directed state formation and break-up over the last 200 years or so.

Scotland is no different from any other legitimate nation, with the political momentum behind the creation of a state. Whether this happens in 2014 or 2064 is fairly irrelevant.

It's just as well I never used the word "just" then, isn't it? I focused on what xbl said, and refused to elaborate upon, that Scotland should be a sovereign state because it is a nation. He didn't explain why there was an imperative link between the two. Indeed again, I'll simply observe that there are many states which aren't nations and many nations which aren't states. Many peoples who qualify under the definition of nations don't want to be states and an increasing number of states don't rely upon the concept of nation as heavily to justify their existence.

And as you should be perfectly aware by now, I'm anti-nationalist, including civic. Quite a lot of people are apathetic to nationalism, including civic. Some people are actively nationalist in a non-Scottish way (they're called BritNats). The YesScotland campaign has largely saturated the ScotNats. They'll be voting Yes anyway. They make up the lion's share of the 30-35% that consistently poll in favour of independence. If you want to make that last shift, to make the referendum properly game on, you have to win over post-nationalists and BritNats. To do that, you have to use a narrative that doesn't rely on the moral or intuitive appeal to the Scottish nation, because they aren't interested in or are against it as an idea.

Particularly in the case of BritNats, the task is about trying to persuade them that their British national identity will not be compromised by an independent Scotland. It's about showing that the question is not about their nationality, but about how they govern themselves, and how they can get better democracy and better lives out of working with a new set of institutions. We might even look to argue that their sense of British belonging would be enhanced by a situation where small advanced independent states work closely with one another from a position of greater mutual respect. To save the British nation, we have to break the British state.

At no point in modern history have provincial, town or continenal histories been backed by a coherent political platform, or a credible state structure in which to exercise this affiliation. Therefore, nations are indeed special, as a unit which can quite clearly and almost universally does form a state in close alignment to its stated territories. Perhaps you should consult a map on this one, as I'm just about done peddling your nonsense.

I note immediately your use of the word "modern" to prevent the invocation of the city-states like Athens, but I'll let that slide as conditions and the nature of the international community are no longer comparable. I'd observe that some city states do still exist, though. Singapore and Monaco are things, right? They're uncommon, for largely utilitarian grounds, but by the same measure many multinational states exist, again on utilitarian grounds. Belgium is a thing, right? Bolivia is a thing, right? India is a thing, right? The UK is a thing, right? No one is suggesting that nation states aren't prevalent or sustainable. We're just saying they're not inherently necessary, nor indeed is the nation component essential, for them to function effectively as sovereign entities in the globalising community.

Scotland isn't a good basis for a sovereign state because it's a nation. It's a good basis for a state because it's politically stable, has decent administrative capacity, and can probably better deliver a participative democratic environment than the alternative can. These phenomena overlap with some of the aspects of Scottish nation, but they aren't contained by nation and they aren't the entirety of nation.

They're separate issues.