Scottish Independence (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 01:31:41 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Scottish Independence (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom and being an independent nation?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 46

Author Topic: Scottish Independence  (Read 6887 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,721
United Kingdom


« on: May 06, 2011, 12:10:43 PM »

All of the Americans will vote 'yes' because they mistakenly believe that Scotland is a land of Romance. Most of the British posters will vote 'no' because they mistakenly believe that Scotland is a land of bleakness and Irn Bru.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,721
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2011, 08:35:59 AM »

Symbolically, it's karmic retribution for an English nation that has pillaged other nations for centuries.

Is this the point that someone tells you about the critical role that Scotland - and a very large number of individual Scots - played in the imperial project?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,721
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2011, 08:38:53 AM »

And the NO campaign just found their first winning argument.

The second, I think. This will be the first:



(note I'm not commenting on whether that would be fair or not. Just that it'll get used...)
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,721
United Kingdom


« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2011, 09:15:04 AM »

Going to run out soon though; or at least soon enough for it not to be the sort of automatic bringer of prosperity within the context of independence that it might have been in the 1970s*. Not that I really believe in the doomsday scenarios (a lot of them are based on assumptions even more outdated than 'It's Scotland's Oil!'... and no matter what happens Scotland won't be another Newfoundland), but a lot of the economic arguments for Scottish independence read horribly like boosterism.

*Of course in such a scenario it might have been mismanaged anyway. As it was (though by the British government) in real life; Norway is a wonderfully positive counter-example, of course.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,721
United Kingdom


« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2011, 12:56:20 PM »

And before certain people (or, really, one person) start saying, "Let Padania be Padania" out of spite, I'll just say that my position isn't held out of spite and splitting up Italy is different than splitting up the United Kingdom

Yes, that's true. Italy is newer and much more artificial.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,721
United Kingdom


« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2011, 02:39:06 PM »

I knew it was coming but three minutes? Record timing, Al! Don't worry. Wales won't be fed to the wolves. You'll still be able to mooch off of London for the rest of your life.

Mindless abuse aside, how exactly can you argue that Italy is one and indivisible but that the UK is artificial and ought to be split up while retaining a straight face throughout?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,721
United Kingdom


« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2011, 12:29:54 PM »

The cultural and historical reasons for both examples aside,

Well that's a pretty big factor in discussions on subjects like this. Massive, actually.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The correct word probably isn't country, so much as nation. An important distinction that explains quite a bit on its own, no? I dislike generalising about this subject, but its unavoidable if giving a summary. Scotland, Wales and Ireland were all outside the English state at the time in which it was formed and so when they were all (in their own different ways) incorporated into the British state, they were not incorporated as part of England because (of course) there were not part of England; in all cases there was a lengthy period (centuries in the case of Wales and Ireland) between their conquest by the English state and their formal incorporation. It's also worth noting that the two parts of England that were essentially only semi-incorporated until comparatively recently (Durham and Cornwall) have unusually strong regional identities.

That's the first part dealt with. Then there's the issue of identity; how is it possible to have what you call a 'union of nations under another national umbrella'. The key point here is that all four nations were unified (albeit in a rather ramshackle way) as early as 1603; a long time before the development of modern varieties of nationalism.
Where things get a little more complicated is that when Scotland was formally incorporated in 1707 things were different, something even more true when the colony of Ireland was incorporated in 1801. So in both of these nations there were attempts (locally led, it must be remembered) to impose a new British identity after unification (spectacularly successful in the case of the Ulster Protestants and fairly successful - though not lasting - in Scotland). There was never any attempt to do that in Wales (a remote backwater until the Industrial Revolution, without a large city until the middle of the nineteenth century, and with its own language and distinct religious traditions) or in the case of the Catholic majority in Ireland (who weren't even eighth class citizens until Catholic Emancipation), while in England 'British' identity was effectively just English identity given a new word (and even that didn't really catch on until the twentieth century).
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,721
United Kingdom


« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2011, 01:08:19 PM »

I understand that but the fact of the matter is that one subject contains areas distinguished as "countries" and the other doesn't.

Nomenclature is not a substitute for argument.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is the definition of 'seriously' wanting independence? How many people must have such views in order for it to count, more generally?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's the point. Italy was created in the mid 19th century and so by modern forms of nationalism (things that did not exist when the various nations of Britain were unified or incorporated). So an aggressive form of Italian nationalism (initially the creed of a tiny minority) was imposed on the whole peninsula (and attached islands) in order to create the nation of Italy desired by Italian nationalists. Had Britain been unified at the same point, then you'd have seen a very similar process. What this means, though, is that it is absurd to think of the UK as being an artificial entity, while also viewing Italy is 'natural'. That argument is simply wrong and can be shown to be so.

Which, of course, does not mean that you can't support keeping Italy united while breaking up Britain, it just means that you can't use that specific argument.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Separatism remains a minority opinion in Scotland as well, fwiw.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 14 queries.