• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Referendum on Scottish Independence

Darat said:
It is not something that usually comes up apart from in discussion like this so it's not surprising that you don't hear it much but absolutely I do consider England as a region in the sense I use it for Wales or Scotland or any other the bits and pieces that make up the UK.

And I also hear "Scottish regions" being used.
Click to expand...

How do you reconcile these two paragraphs?. English region is a term in common use: Scottish region less so but still heard quite often. A region is (in this sense at least) an administrative entity. Does it not tell you something that one does not refer just to "regions"? You need the identifier because the law is different in england and scotland and that is because they are separate countries.

I accept that you think of england as a region of the uk: as a matter of logic you must do so, given your position. But since I have never heard anyone refer to it in that way I still maintain that usage does not reflect the reality. Since you find no occasion to refer to it in that way yourself it has no function in language nor in law. The way we actually use the language tells us more about reality than any theoretical notion as to how we might use it. At least so I think

You are slightly misrepresenting what I said, which was "...snip... that does still have constituent regions, some of which we still call "countries"..."
Click to expand...

If I am misrepresenting you, then I am sorry. But your way of expressing this is not neutral, Darat. I disagree that it is made of regions "some of which we still call countries". They are countries and I need no condescension nor sops from you to make them so. If you do not mean to come across that way then I apologise: but I would ask you to consider the implications of what you say because you presumed your conclusion at best

That you do not consider the UK a country is to me just a flat out denial of reality.
Click to expand...

Fair enough: nothing hangs on it. If Scotland secedes it will still be a country, if it is a country now. If you want to think it will be a different country that is fine as well.

Well it is something that I have suggested in the past, but it is not what is usually discussed in these threads about Scotitsh independence and indeed in the latest SNP white paper they are quite clear that the English are not welcome in their new nation!
Click to expand...

Well that is quite a change in policy and one that I regret. However I am confident that the question of english regions wishing to join Scotland is not going to arise so I don't really care.

There is also the argument that the counties of Norhumberland and Cumberland are historically/culturally intermeshed with Lowland Scotland. Perhaps even more so that the Highlands and Lowlands are! (That is said in jest but I think there is some truth in it._
Click to expand...

I agree.


Yet most people I know consider themselves British and their "regional" heritage - whether that be Scottish, Welsh, English or Yorkshire.
Click to expand...

I can only think you do not know many scots: or perhaps ex-pats see things differently (I have certainly come across that amongst scots living in england: though not often), and those are the scots you have most frequently encountered.

However that may be it does not touch the question raised: do you agree that in the hypothetical situation proposed, those who see themselves as having a regional heritage in cumberland or northumbria, faced with a choice of joining Scotland or remaining with england, would choose the latter? If you do why is that, do you think?



Why?
Click to expand...

I used to be with scottish gas: I discovered they were charging me a great deal for my power. I switched: they phoned me to say they would match my new deal. I refused.

I got my internet from one company for a long time: someone told me it was very expensive and I should switch. When I phoned the original company to tell them I was switching they offered me a much better deal. I refused

That is why
 
Last edited:
darat said:
Well it is something that I have suggested in the past, but it is not what is usually discussed in these threads about Scotitsh independence and indeed in the latest SNP white paper they are quite clear that the English are not welcome in their new nation!
Click to expand...

You should be more careful with statements like that. Some might take them out of context and accuse you of telling porkies.
 
I find these discussions very interesting. As someone "English" (only ever in inverted commas to signify that I'm technically English, but its not a description I often apply to myself) living in Scotland, I'll presumably have a vote in any coming referendum, but I really have no strong opinion on the outcome at all. I slightly lean towards independence because it means I can escape from the threat of being governed by the Tories again, but other than that there hasn't been much to sway me one way or the other.

I do quite like the idea of having a dual nationality passport too though.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
I find these discussions very interesting. As someone "English" (only ever in inverted commas to signify that I'm technically English, but its not a description I often apply to myself) living in Scotland, I'll presumably have a vote in any coming referendum, but I really have no strong opinion on the outcome at all. I slightly lean towards independence because it means I can escape from the threat of being governed by the Tories again, but other than that there hasn't been much to sway me one way or the other.

I do quite like the idea of having a dual nationality passport too though.
Click to expand...

If I was the bigot I have been accused of being, then I would only have one answer to that:rolleyes:
 
Cynic said:
Was the American civil war illegitimate because the South didn't get the North's vote first? Was the revolutionary war illegitimate because we didn't get King George's sign off?
Click to expand...
Pre-dates the UN as an international institution with legal power.

You'll note those were both wars, because one region wanted to do something the other parts didn't agree with -- and tried to stop it.
Click to expand...
Scotland could declare war I suppose. Is war "legitimate"? I doubt that the international community would think so in that case.

As is the nature of independence and self-determination, it is precisely these sorts of disagreements that define them as a group in the first place. Suggesting that a group trying to decide if it wants to leave your union or not isn't going about it legitimately because they failed to consult the opposition doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
You have it backwards. It is precisely why extant checks and balances exist, to deter subsets of nations waltzing off into the sunrise when they think the following wind happens to be favourable. You pretty much cannot do it peacefully. Not to say it can't be done of course. I seriously doubt it is worth Scotland's while to make like a breakaway state.
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
How do you reconcile these two paragraphs?. English region is a term in common use: Scottish region less so but still heard quite often. A region is (in this sense at least) an administrative entity. Does it not tell you something that one does not refer just to "regions"? You need the identifier because the law is different in england and scotland and that is because they are separate countries.

...snip..
Click to expand...

It all depends on how you are using the word region - I use it in different ways depending on the context, don't you. And how I used it in this thread did not use it in the context of "administrative" region.

Fiona said:
I accept that you think of england as a region of the uk: as a matter of logic you must do so, given your position. But since I have never heard anyone refer to it in that way I still maintain that usage does not reflect the reality. Since you find no occasion to refer to it in that way yourself it has no function in language nor in law. The way we actually use the language tells us more about reality than any theoretical notion as to how we might use it. At least so I think
Click to expand...

You have totally lost me - I used a word that simply means "an area of land" and you have built a huge edifice, referring to all sorts that simply was not in what I actually posted.

Fiona said:
If I am misrepresenting you, then I am sorry. But your way of expressing this is not neutral, Darat. I disagree that it is made of regions "som of which we still call countries". They are countries and I need no condescension nor sops from you to make them so.
...snip...
Click to expand...

I would hold that it is your interpretation is that which is not neutral, not my words, to state that my wording is "condescending" is an emotional response to a very simple clear descriptive sentence. You are the one bringing emotions not in my words to the discussion.


Fiona said:
I can only think you do not know many scots: or perhaps ex-pats see things differently (I have certainly come across that amongst scots living in england: though not often), and those are the scots you have most frequently encountered.

...snip...
Click to expand...

I do know a lot of Scots, I have Scottish relatives, friends from childhood and so on, I doubt I know as many as you because I do not live in Scotland.

Fiona said:
However that may be it does not touch the question raised: do you agree that in the hypothetical situation proposed, those who see themselves as having a regional heritage in cumberland or northumbria, faced with a choice of joining Scotland or remaining with england, would choose the latter? If you do why is that, do you think?
Click to expand...

Apart from some of the border regions areas of the two counties I would expect them to decide not to join the new Scottish nation but join the new don't-know-what-it-would-be-called-nation that included the region of England. And why? Because, very sadly, people do not seem to make such decisions based on rational grounds.



Fiona said:
I used to be with scottish gas: I discovered they were charging me a great deal for my power. I switched: they phoned me to say they would match my new deal. I refused.

I got my internet from one company for a long time: someone told me it was very expensive and I should switch. When I phoned the original company to tell them I was switching they offered me a much better deal. I refused

That is why
Click to expand...

I don't understand your reasoning.
 
Darat said:
It all depends on how you are using the word region - I use it in different ways depending on the context, don't you. And how I used it in this thread did not use it in the context of "administrative" region.

You have totally lost me - I used a word that simply means "an area of land" and you have built a huge edifice, referring to all sorts that simply was not in what I actually posted
Click to expand...

Ok. They are indeed areas of land: but that is not all they are. If that is all you mean we have no problem: but areas of land do not have political aspirations nor loyalties etc. So I do not really see how it helps this discussion; but no matter


I would hold that it is your interpretation is that which is not neutral, not my words, to state that my wording is "condescending" is an emotional response to a very simple clear descriptive sentence. You are the one bringing emotions not in my words to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I do not think so. Since I disagree that it is a region which we "still call" a country; but rather take the view that it is a country: I maintain that you presumed your conclusion. I do not think I imported that, nor do I think it is emotional to react to a proposition presented as description when that "description" is in fact the essence of the dispute.

Apart from some of the border regions areas of the two counties I would expect them to decide not to join the new Scottish nation but join the new don't-know-what-it-would-be-called-nation that included the region of England. And why? Because, very sadly, people do not seem to make such decisions based on rational grounds.
Click to expand...

People will differ about what they see as rational but I do not disagree with you here. And I think you make my point. I happen to think separation is a rational aspiration: I know that other people reach the same conclusion on different bases. But the fact remains that you seem to agree they would not join Scotland in part because they see themselves as english: and that was the substance of my point

I don't understand your reasoning.
Click to expand...

Hmm. What I am saying is that I have no wish to have dealings with any institution which exploits me until I notice, and then makes offers they could have made at any time: I have no respect for that kind of thing and while I recognise it is pragmatic on their part I will do my tiny part to make them suffer for it. The fact I have not enough power does not change my view
 
Darat said:
People who want Scottish independence, for whatever reason, want to create a country called Scotland that has never previously existed, in other words a new country and to do so they will have to end a country that has existed for 300 years.
Click to expand...

Ahem,


  • Great Britain was created three hundred years ago.
  • The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created 209 years ago
  • The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was created 88 years ago.

There seems to be plenty of fairly recent precedent for mucking about with what the overall entity is called and what it contains, with or without (actually, only without) a plebiscite of all the inhabitants. So the claims of destroying an ancient nation are really just hyperbole.
 
As an outsider, I don't see why the entire UK should be polled for an independence referendum. It seems an issue of self-determination to me, so I don't know why other people should have a say on Scottish independence.

Actually, I am more interested in the type of referendum it is. From the polls I saw a few months back, depending on the number and type of options on the referendum, lots of interesting things could happen.
 
What is likely to happen in that case is that the vote will be split to the point where nothing can be said to have been decided. Opponents of whichever option is the most popular will aggregate all the other votes and say, look far more people opposed this option than voted for it. They will then add all the people on the electoral roll who didn't vote, and say, a whopping 84% (or whatever) of the entire electorate didn't vote for this option. These people are therefore implacably opposed to it (even if they coudn't be bothered to vote, or voted for an option that was fairly similar), so it can't possibly be implemented.

Rolfe.
 
Francesca R said:
A referendum only for people in Scotland about breaking up the UK would be as illegitimate as only asking people over 50 or who owned more than £500,000 in assets, or who were female. Void and meaningless.
Click to expand...

Huh? Let's try an analogy. When the people of Kosovo wanted independence, should the Serbs from the rest of Serbia also have been consulted on the matter?

Or look at the more peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia, where the Slovak Parliament signed a declaration of independence, whereupon the state was split, though the Czech population nor the Czech MPs where in majority in favour of that.

As to the discussion if Scotland is a country, there's a lot to say in favour of that, though there's no formal legal definition of the term. Scotland is a regional entity, it has (arguably) its own identity, its own legal system, (limited) self-government, prints its own banknotes, and has its own football team. I think you can legitimately say that Scotland constitutes a country within the state of the United Kingdom, much as that the Netherlands (the European part) is a country within the state of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, alongside the countries of Aruba and the Dutch Antilles.

As an outsider from across the Channel, I get the feeling that a lot of issues that are discussed in this thread are utterly irrelevant. Mind, a majority of the laws nowadays does not come from Westminster but from Brussels. It seems to be more about a sense of independence (though there's Brussels again of course) and the feeling that Westminster doesn't give Scotland the short end of the stick, but that Holyrood can fairly use Scottish tax money for Scotland.

I really don't care if the EU consists of 27 or 28 states (BTW, there's a perfect number for you) - except for the obligatory round of negotiations on the numbers of commissioners and MEPs. If you want independence, go for it.

Two practical questions though:
1) would I be able to pay with real currency in an independent Scotland? I mean, the ones you now use aren't even legal tender.

2) would I have to show my passport at the Scottish border? If Scotland would join Schengen, you'd indeed have the situation of a heavy fortified border between Scotland and England, as Scotland then had to defend Fortress Europe against those funny furriners from the south.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
As an outsider, I don't see why the entire UK should be polled for an independence referendum. It seems an issue of self-determination to me, so I don't know why other people should have a say on Scottish independence.
Click to expand...
I agree. In the North East of England we had a referendum for a regional assembly (the vote went the wrong way but that is a separate issue). Only people living in the region could vote even though the result would have diluted the responsibilities of parliament. Same principle with Scotland just the dilution would be more homoeopathic.

I wouldn't like to see an independent Scotland. I am therefore pleased that the SNP are pushing for a vote at a time when the public is against the idea. It should put another vote off for a few years leapfrogging periods when the result could be a lot closer.
 
mbp said:
I guess I don't understand why an independent Scotland wouldn't want to be in NATO.
Click to expand...

Why commit your nation to defense of other nations and commit the national treasure ensuring that defense when you can free ride?
 
There was a SNP MSP on radio 5 the other day saying how wrong it was that people 300 miles away should be making decisions that affect the lives of people in Scotland. It is a shame the interviewer didn't ask how she felt about people 500 miles away making decisions that affect the lives of people in Scotland.
 
ddt said:
2) would I have to show my passport at the Scottish border? If Scotland would join Schengen, you'd indeed have the situation of a heavy fortified border between Scotland and England, as Scotland then had to defend Fortress Europe against those funny furriners from the south.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I'll just exercise the chip on my shoulder again. The United Kingdom has had a land border with an entirely independent country for 90+ years, and has managed it fairly successfully. Currently the border is not only unpatrolled, but unmarked. In the past it has been more restricted, but there was a small scale internal war in the UK then. ;)

Part of the UK split off 90 years ago, the sun didn't fall from the sky then, and it won't now if the process is repeated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom