Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

LondonJohn said:
Oh, and Scotland is not a country, other than in the vernacular colloquial sense. Just as Venice is not a country, nor Catalonia, nor Thuringia, nor Idaho, nor England.
Click to expand...

This vernacular colloquialism has infiltrated itself into the official terminology of the Office of National Statistics.
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not themselves listed in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) list of countries. However the ISO list of the subdivisions of the UK, compiled by British Standards and the UK's Office for National Statistics, uses "country" to describe England, Scotland and Wales.​
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
In the same way that the people of France, Germany and Poland have a stake in whether the UK is part of the EU? Where was their vote in Brexit?
Click to expand...


You really don't understand the legal and constitutional difference between the EU and the UK? It's worse than even I thought.............
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
So never then. Nobody asked the French or Polish people about Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Click to expand...


Yes they did. The French and Polish people elected representatives to sit in the European Parliament to represent their interests in the EU. The parliament passed European laws and treaties, including the Lisbon Treaty. You might as well say that "nobody asked the people of the England and Wales about the E/W laws on criminal stalking". But of course that would be similarly bone-headed. The people of the UK elected representatives to parliament to debate and consent to these sort of matters on our behalf.

Do you even have the first idea of what representative democracy actually is, and how it works? I'm seriously doubting that you do.
 
Craig B said:
This vernacular colloquialism has infiltrated itself into the official terminology of the Office of National Statistics.
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not themselves listed in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) list of countries. However the ISO list of the subdivisions of the UK, compiled by British Standards and the UK's Office for National Statistics, uses "country" to describe England, Scotland and Wales.​
Click to expand...


Indeed, like I said, one can call Scotland, England, Wales and NI by any description one likes, so long as one doesn't intend to attach legal or constitutional meaning to the description. By all means, describe Wales as the "Principality of Wales". Describe NI as "The Borgian super-monolithic behemoth of Northern Ireland". It doesn't for one single moment change the simple, raw fact that England, NI, Wales and Scotland are officially (in international law) regions of the United Kingdom. Do you understand that?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
You might as well talk to yourself since you don't listen.
Click to expand...


Hahaha, right-o!

While I'm talking to myself and not listening, you might want to ponder the fact that I am not against Scottish Independence per se. I know that causes cognitive dissonance among a certain *ahem* mindset, but I've long realised that many here are mistakenly inferring from my views that I'm some sort of rabid anti-Scots Little Englander who yearns for Empire etc etc. The logic fail alone is amusing.

So I'll state my position again, to see if it gets through. If the UK parliament (which consists of representatives that I and the other citizens of the UK have elected in order to represent our democratic and constitutional interests) decides it is in the best interests of the UK to grant Scotland another independence referendum, and if the Scottish population then vote in a majority for independence, I'll be perfectly content that due process has been followed and the democratic will of ALL the people of the UK has been exercised.

At the same time, I am of the mind that Scottish independence would not be in the best interests of the UK (i.e. "rUK"). I'm also not sure that enough Scottish people are properly informed of the economic ramifications of Scottish independence, and might place their cross in the "Yes" box based on narrow nationalistic, jingoistic factors. However (I repeat), if the UK parliament sees fit to grant another Scottish independence referendum (and honour its outcome), and in that referendum the majority vote is for independence, then I won't have any problem whatsoever with Scotland becoming independent of the UK.

Can you perhaps see an interesting parallel here with the recent EU referendum? I personally didn't think a referendum should ever even have been granted to the people of the UK on EU membership: I thought (accurately, as it appears to have turned out) that a large proportion of the population would not be able to grasp the complex economic and political ramifications, and would vote from a position of incomplete information, ignorance and narrow nationalism. But our elected representatives decided on a referendum. That's how representative democracy works, by the way. And given that the EU referendum was granted and took place, and given that the majority of the UK voters voted "Leave", then I am entirely reconciled to the UK taking that course of action.

Never mind that I personally wanted the UK to remain in the EU, nor that I didn't think the UK parliament should ever even have granted a referendum on this matter in the first place. Cos, you know, that's how representative democracy works. Otherwise, for example, everyone who didn't vote Labour during a period of a Labour government and parliamentary majority, or who didn't vote Conservative during a period of Conservative government and parliamentary democracy, would have the "right" to complain that their will was not being exercised by the elected parliamentary representatives. But that ain't how it works, is it?
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes they did. The French and Polish people elected representatives to sit in the European Parliament to represent their interests in the EU. The parliament passed European laws and treaties, including the Lisbon Treaty. You might as well say that "nobody asked the people of the England and Wales about the E/W laws on criminal stalking". But of course that would be similarly bone-headed. The people of the UK elected representatives to parliament to debate and consent to these sort of matters on our behalf.

Do you even have the first idea of what representative democracy actually is, and how it works? I'm seriously doubting that you do.
Click to expand...

I'm seriously doubting that you understand the question.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I'm seriously doubting that you understand the question.
Click to expand...


What does that empty "reply" even mean? Can you explain further what you mean by it, please? And at the same time, can you learn a little about how the European parliament works and how it represents the interests of the populus of the member nations (hint: it's quite similar in principle to the UK national parliament or the Scottish regional parliament)?
 
LondonJohn said:
Hahaha, right-o!

While I'm talking to myself and not listening, you might want to ponder the fact that I am not against Scottish Independence per se. I know that causes cognitive dissonance among a certain *ahem* mindset, but I've long realised that many here are mistakenly inferring from my views that I'm some sort of rabid anti-Scots Little Englander who yearns for Empire etc etc. The logic fail alone is amusing.

So I'll state my position again, to see if it gets through. If the UK parliament (which consists of representatives that I and the other citizens of the UK have elected in order to represent our democratic and constitutional interests) decides it is in the best interests of the UK to grant Scotland another independence referendum, and if the Scottish population then vote in a majority for independence, I'll be perfectly content that due process has been followed and the democratic will of ALL the people of the UK has been exercised.

At the same time, I am of the mind that Scottish independence would not be in the best interests of the UK (i.e. "rUK"). I'm also not sure that enough Scottish people are properly informed of the economic ramifications of Scottish independence, and might place their cross in the "Yes" box based on narrow nationalistic, jingoistic factors. However (I repeat), if the UK parliament sees fit to grant another Scottish independence referendum (and honour its outcome), and in that referendum the majority vote is for independence, then I won't have any problem whatsoever with Scotland becoming independent of the UK.

Can you perhaps see an interesting parallel here with the recent EU referendum? I personally didn't think a referendum should ever even have been granted to the people of the UK on EU membership: I thought (accurately, as it appears to have turned out) that a large proportion of the population would not be able to grasp the complex economic and political ramifications, and would vote from a position of incomplete information, ignorance and narrow nationalism. But our elected representatives decided on a referendum. That's how representative democracy works, by the way. And given that the EU referendum was granted and took place, and given that the majority of the UK voters voted "Leave", then I am entirely reconciled to the UK taking that course of action.

Never mind that I personally wanted the UK to remain in the EU, nor that I didn't think the UK parliament should ever even have granted a referendum on this matter in the first place. Cos, you know, that's how representative democracy works. Otherwise, for example, everyone who didn't vote Labour during a period of a Labour government and parliamentary majority, or who didn't vote Conservative during a period of Conservative government and parliamentary democracy, would have the "right" to complain that their will was not being exercised by the elected parliamentary representatives. But that ain't how it works, is it?
Click to expand...

Again none of this was what I responded to. Its not helpful to make a series of claims and then make different ones when challenged.

Scotland is a country.
Scotland is more than a region of the UK
Scotland is NOT a nation state.

That you continually equate these three things is merely a display of either your ignorance or disdain for Scotland. That you continue to do so after being corrected suggests the latter.

As for your position. Unless you are a resident of Scotland it matters not one jot what you think or what you are 'content' with. The Scottish people don't need to answer to you or contribute to your contentment in any way.

As for the Scottish people being uninformed on the economic ramifications the level of debate in Scotland was fairly detailed in the prior referendum. Certainly far greater than the equivalent debate south of the border which largely consistently of made up claims about Scotland being scroungers and welfare junkies. If you want a textbook example of ignorance and ludicrous logic ask a random English person to comment on Scottish independence. As you continue to prove.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
We weren't discussing the constitutional difference. Keep up.
Click to expand...


Uhhhhh.... yes we were. You were (embarrassingly incorrectly) claiming that the fact that the people of France, Germany and Poland had no stake in whether the UK is part of the EU was comparable to whether the people of the UK (via, of course, their democratically elected representative in the UK national parliament) should have a say in whether or not Scotland leaves the UK.

And the reason why its a fatuously incorrect and improper comparison is, in fact, explicitly related to law and constitution. The EU is a confederated political (and in some instances also fiscal and economic) union of member nations. Each nation state that is a member of the EU has agreed to suborn certain political and economic rights to the EU, but each remains an individual sovereign state in its own right. Which makes the situation (e.g. the UK within the EU) fundamentally different in law and constitution from the position of Scotland (a region of the UK) within the UK. The UK is not, in law or constitution, a "region of the EU". Nor is any other member nation state of the EU.

Please try to do some research and learning before making such stultifyingly incorrect statements as the one above. Thanks.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Again none of this was what I responded to. Its not helpful to make a series of claims and then make different ones when challenged.

Scotland is a country.
Scotland is more than a region of the UK
Scotland is NOT a nation state.

That you continually equate these three things is merely a display of either your ignorance or disdain for Scotland. That you continue to do so after being corrected suggests the latter.

As for your position. Unless you are a resident of Scotland it matters not one jot what you think or what you are 'content' with. The Scottish people don't need to answer to you or contribute to your contentment in any way.

As for the Scottish people being uninformed on the economic ramifications the level of debate in Scotland was fairly detailed in the prior referendum. Certainly far greater than the equivalent debate south of the border which largely consistently of made up claims about Scotland being scroungers and welfare junkies. If you want a textbook example of ignorance and ludicrous logic ask a random English person to comment on Scottish independence. As you continue to prove.
Click to expand...


As you were! (I'd also point out that you're getting into dangerous personalisation territory. Back off please).

Scotland is a region of the UK. Not a country. In law.

ETA: looking again, it seems a large driver of bigotry here is your continued (mis)use of the term "English" to describe those on the other side of the debate (who are obviously not your jingoistically despised enemies as well *puts on "Flower of Scotland" at full volume and marches around in kilt and warpaint*). It also points very strongly to your inability to understand the situation properly. "English" is not the issue here. It's "citizen of the United Kingdom". Perhaps if you stop to think about that for a short while, and substitute "citizen of the United Kingdom" for "English" into your "rhetoric", things may become clearer.
 
Last edited:
And, by the way, as Darat and I have pointed out to you several times now, all citizens of the UK have a legitimate vested interest in whether or not Scotland remains in the UK, and, what's more, all citizens of the UK have the absolute and unfettered right (via their democratically-elected representatives in the UK national parliament) to decide whether or not Scotland should be granted independence from the UK. That's a fact. If you are still either unable or unwilling to believe this, then I very, very strongly suggest you read up a lot more on UK law, international law and the mechanisms involved in one region of a sovereign nation trying to become independent from that sovereign nation.
 
LondonJohn said:
What does that empty "reply" even mean? Can you explain further what you mean by it, please? And at the same time, can you learn a little about how the European parliament works and how it represents the interests of the populus of the member nations (hint: it's quite similar in principle to the UK national parliament or the Scottish regional parliament)?
Click to expand...

That you think the workings of the European Parliament are relevant shows that you haven't understood the question. The point Darat raised was the principle of whether the PEOPLE of England and Wales have a say in the future of Scotland. They don't. It's really as simple as that.

Just as the people of Germany have no say in the UK election or the people of Poland have any say in the Brexit referendum.

That's a separate issue to whether the UK government does. And has nothing to do with specific internal workings of the EU.
 
LondonJohn said:
And, by the way, as Darat and I have pointed out to you several times now, all citizens of the UK have a legitimate vested interest in whether or not Scotland remains in the UK, and, what's more, all citizens of the UK have the absolute and unfettered right (via their democratically-elected representatives in the UK national parliament) to decide whether or not Scotland should be granted independence from the UK. That's a fact. If you are still either unable or unwilling to believe this, then I very, very strongly suggest you read up a lot more on UK law, international law and the mechanisms involved in one region of a sovereign nation trying to become independent from that sovereign nation.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. It's up to the people of Scotland to determine the future of Scotland and every sensible commentator on the issue will tell you exactly the same thing. This was absolutely recognised and acknowledged by all parties at the last referendum.
 
LondonJohn said:
ETA: looking again, it seems a large driver of bigotry here is your continued (mis)use of the term "English" to describe those on the other side of the debate (who are obviously not your jingoistically despised enemies as well *puts on "Flower of Scotland" at full volume and marches around in kilt and warpaint*). It also points very strongly to your inability to understand the situation properly. "English" is not the issue here. It's "citizen of the United Kingdom". Perhaps if you stop to think about that for a short while, and substitute "citizen of the United Kingdom" for "English" into your "rhetoric", things may become clearer.
Click to expand...

Did you seriously just accuse me of overstepping the mark then post that? English describes a person from England. It is not synonymous with a citizen of the UK. If you think it is perhaps you need to stop and think about your bigotry and jingoism rather than insulting others with pathetic stereotypes like these?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
That you think the workings of the European Parliament are relevant shows that you haven't understood the question. The point Darat raised was the principle of whether the PEOPLE of England and Wales have a say in the future of Scotland. They don't. It's really as simple as that.

Just as the people of Germany have no say in the UK election or the people of Poland have any say in the Brexit referendum.

That's a separate issue to whether the UK government does. And has nothing to do with specific internal workings of the EU.
Click to expand...


Jesus. Yes, the people of England, Wales and NI do (and should) have a say in the future of Scotland. How can you possibly not understand that by now? They have a say via their elected parliamentary representatives in the UK national parliament. It is the UK parliament alone that will decide whether Scottish independence (assuming, for a moment, that this is the will of the majority of the Scottish population....) is in the best interests of the UK.

If the UK parliament decides that Scottish independence is not in the best interests of the UK - and thus does not pass legislation granting Scotland independence - then Scotland will not become independent of the UK. Do you doubt the truth of this? (If you do, perhaps ask someone you know who is well-versed in the politics and legality of this, who will set you straight, seeing as you appear unwilling or able to hear it from me......)

The EU, on the other hand, is set up and run under an entirely different constitutional and legal framework. Which means, for example, that no, the people of Poland or France have no say in whether or not the UK remains part of the EU. Again, ask someone you know who understands international politics and law to go through it all with you, since again you seem unable or unwilling to hear me point out the very real and large difference between the two situations.
 
LondonJohn said:
Indeed, like I said, one can call Scotland, England, Wales and NI by any description one likes, so long as one doesn't intend to attach legal or constitutional meaning to the description. By all means, describe Wales as the "Principality of Wales". Describe NI as "The Borgian super-monolithic behemoth of Northern Ireland". It doesn't for one single moment change the simple, raw fact that England, NI, Wales and Scotland are officially (in international law) regions of the United Kingdom. Do you understand that?
Click to expand...
And the area that later became the Republic of Ireland? What was it? A mere part of a "Region".

Algeria was in international law a group of départements of the French Republic ... until 1962. But in these cases the respective Empires failed to appreciate that constitutional change was inevitable, with unpleasant consequences. However, we may confidently expect better sense from the UK government nowadays, in the event that the Scots indicate they want to change, and Scotland, refuses to be a Region, where
Sark rins over Solway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands ...​
and expresses a desire to become a country and a nation again.

All this "Region" nonsense will be swept away to join the rest of the Imperial detritus of "protectorates" and "crown colonies", now mouldering quietly in History's middens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom