Scottish Independence (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 10:26:32 AM
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 7031 times)
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« on: June 12, 2011, 12:53:30 PM »

Absolutely. I've never been a fan of a union of countries. Let all three be totally independent (though I know some or all of the other three probably have little desire for that. Then there's the one that would possibly become part of another republic).

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.

On a somewhat related note, I was playing a game with some friends last night and the subject of Scotland was brought up. The object of the game was to correctly guess whether a statement was true or false. The statement: "St. Patrick was originally from Britain, kidnapped and brought to Ireland." I, of course, said that it was true. Naturally, a heavy dose of stupidity followed, with people spouting the urban legend that St. Patrick was actually Italian. I chose to ignore that. Then the other participants got angry when I explained the answer. I said that it was true because St. Patrick was actually from Scotland. I was shouted down and told that Scotland is not part of Britain. "Yes, it's part of the island of Britain. It's part of the United Kingdom." One friend tried to back me up by saying, "It's part of the United Kingdom" as if to say that it isn't part of Britain. Trying to then explain that it's on the island of Britain didn't do me any good either. "Nobody in Scotland would say that they're British." At that point, I wasn't even going to try to get into the complexities of the matter, not that anyone would have let me anyway.  Tongue
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2011, 01:24:47 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.

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.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2011, 01:37:32 PM »

Considering how young Italian is as a national language, how strongly it's been trying to bear down over regional dialects, etc...

Seriously, Phil, can you say that Sardinia is a natural part of Italy?

About as natural to Italy as whatever cave Al is from to Kensington, London.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2011, 03:18:27 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?

The cultural and historical reasons for both examples aside, I don't understand why Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland have the distinction of being countries yet don't actually act like countries except in weird, random areas (like sports...sometimes). I just don't get the point of having a union of nations under another national umbrella.

Then there's the issue of actually wanting to be independent. Scotland, at the very least, has a sizable amount of citizens that want independence. "Padania" - which is totally made up - isn't home to serious secessionist sentiments and even when the feelings were the most serious, secessionists were still overwhelmingly outnumbered.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2011, 07:19:08 PM »


They probably have as much in common as Philadelphia does with Fulton County, PA. Or what does NYC have in common with Wyoming County, NY? And those are even the same states, try comparing San Francisco to Loup County, Nebraska.

Even though you disagree with it, that's my point. That doesn't mean I'm advocating for all of these areas to be independent of each other; it's just highlighting the question: why have the distinction of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland as countries if they can't act as countries?
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2011, 07:32:12 PM »

Yeah, seems that way to me too. I don't know if Phil supports Quebec independence, but Quebec is far more different from the rest of Canada than the UK nations are from each other.

Fine by me. It would give me a France, Jr. to dislike on my own continent!
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2011, 12:27:43 PM »

(And yes, the right thing for Sardinia too. Though a bit more autonomy wouldn't hurt, I think.)

You people will do anything to try to undermine The Beautiful Place. Disgusting.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2011, 12:47:10 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.

I understand that but the fact of the matter is that one subject contains areas distinguished as "countries" and the other doesn't. Also, one subject contains a sizable group of people that seriously want independence and the other doesn't. When Italy is made up of areas that are "countries" and when a sizable group of people seriously want independence, we'll discuss it.

The fact of the matter is that as much as Italians may whine about the other geographical and cultural ends of the country, the movement to secede isn't serious. Even at its height in the area most receptive to secessionist sentiments (the north), secession has been a minority opinion. So even if you could appropriately relate the differences in parts of Italy to the differences between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, the desire serious desire to break away has to be present. That's a pretty big - massive, actually - reason why I can get away with calling for secession in one area but not another.  Wink
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2011, 05:02:30 PM »


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

Oh, you know, more than 25-30%.




Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe they were just as artificial at the time but the sentiments in Scotland and Northern Ireland seem to point to the United Kingdom being more artificial. When a sizable amount of people within an area of the Italian peninsula persistently call for independence, we can make the comparison to the United Kingdom.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough but the most recent poll I found showed it at 37%. That's still an impressive showing.
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 13 queries.