Should England have a referendum ?

[Virote_Considon]

I was expressing disbelief that you hold self-determination as an important ideal, considering the need to maintain historical borders trumps it in your view. (unless the countries name is Serbia)

Shan't comment on much else here, but I would like to say that this point kinda rests on the assumption that Traitorfish thinks that the situation in the Former Yugoslavia with regards to Serbian borders was a good outcome - a view which he has not even implied.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Sure get rid of the monarchy, create a constitution protecting freedom of speech and liberty, destroy the current system. I just don't want you bringing your communism into it, an idelogy that's caused the deaths of 100million shouldn't really be given another chance.

Are you sure you're not slightly over-exagerating here? First thing, there's no 100 million people in the first place in the UK... so it would be hard to kill that many.


But anyway, I see your point. Indeed, the Scottish independence isn't only a Scottish business. And it's obvious London won't let it happen so easily. So either there will be no referendum at all, or the conditions of independence will be made unbearable to ensure a victory of the "No".

 

[Oruc]

Shan't comment on much else here, but I would like to say that this point kinda rests on the assumption that Traitorfish thinks that the situation in the Former Yugoslavia with regards to Serbian borders was a good outcome - a view which he has not even implied.

What? no it doesn't rest on that. It rests on whether or not a county can remain in the union if it so chooses, I keep reading that it can't and the only reason I am presented with is the need to maintain historical borders. (I just feel bad about what happened to Serbia)

Are you sure you're not slightly over-exagerating here? First thing, there's no 100 million people in the first place in the UK... so it would be hard to kill that many.

I didn't say 100 million have died in the UK because of communism, but 100 million have died because of communism. It may not be exactly 100 million, but it's a convenient round number.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I didn't say 100 million have died in the UK because of communism, but 100 million have died because of communism. It may not be exactly 100 million, but it's a convenient round number.

In asking if you weren't over-exaggerating, I wasn't talking about the fatalities of the Soviet Union, but in assuming a Scotland getting Republican would lead to a similar outcome.

 

[Oruc]

The exaggeration I was putting in question wasn't about Soviet Union fatalities, but about comparing a Scotland getting Republican with it.

But that specific paragraph I was responding to was about disolving the British state as it is currently, then he said viva la commune. Which I assumed meant replacing it with communism, I'm all for replacing the current system just no communism for me thanks.

 

[Virote_Considon]

What? no it doesn't rest on that. It rests on whether or not a county can remain in the union if it so chooses, I keep reading that it can't and the only reason I am presented with is the need to maintain historical borders. (I just feel bad about what happened to Serbia)

But your argument against Traitorfish' stance is:
That his belief that historic borders should be preserved goes against the notion (that you yourself believe wrong) that the change of Serbia's historic borders was a just outcome.

This requires Traitorfish to believe that such a change was the correct outcome. In fact, what you actually seem to believe (that Serbia's historic borders should have been preserved) only backs up Traitorfish' point.

 

[Oruc]

But your argument against Traitorfish' stance is:
That his belief that historic borders should be preserved goes against the notion (that you yourself believe wrong) that the change of Serbia's historic borders was a just outcome.

This requires Traitorfish to believe that such a change was the correct outcome. In fact, what you actually seem to believe (that Serbia's historic borders should have been preserved) only backs up Traitorfish' point.

It still backs up my point that the United Kingdoms borders should be preserved and if he believes that counties ABCDE in Scotland who vote for independence can drag those of counties FG into independence alongside them, even with a majority in favour of the union in FG. Then what is his arguement against all of the UK voting on the matter of Scottish independence? A majority may be in favour of independence in Scotland but in the country as whole they aren't (hypothetically). I don't see why those counties that don't want to be dragged into Scottish independence are, but Scotland as a whole cannot be kept in the Union even if they don't want it.
An arbitary line has been drawn.

 

[Virote_Considon]

And that arbitrary line is surely the historic and still contemporarily recognised borders of the country which is Scotland?

 

[Oruc]

And that arbitrary line is surely the historic and still contemporarily recognised borders of the country which is Scotland?

Oy vey, you ignore what I mean

 

[Lambert Simnel]

There is a particular word for this but I can't remember it, but that is just your personal experience.

And personal experience has no place in forming an opinion on a matter? I am as much in favour of intellectually rigorous theories as the next man, but every so often it's worth coming up for air and validating it against how the outside world is behaving.

I could say 1/2 or all scottish people die of cancer because of the 2 scottish people I have known 1 died of cancer.

Well, you could be making an irrelevant lie here, as, like most other Englishmen, you've probably encountered far more than two Scottish people. But taking you at face value, I'd suggest that you shouldn't be scared, come out and talk to us - we're quite sociable, really, and usually house-trained

 

[Traitorfish]

It doesn't matter, just say they have overwhelming majority. Basically you said why am I annoyed I don't get a say in what happens to my nation, I don't live in Scotland why should I have a say?. Well why should someone in Aberdeenshire have any influence on those living in Ayrshire? why would they be annoyed if they didn't join them in indepdence, they don't live in the same county what's it got to do with them.

What you're saying here is that the nation-state is a basically unsatisfactory model for a democratic society, because they inevitably demand that the few comply with the demands of the many. I agree. But I don't see what alternative there is that doesn't go rather beyond the bounds of this discussion.

It's an arbitary cut-off point, it could just as easily be constituencies, counties or the entire UK, all of which are very much a thing.

It's not arbitrary, that's what I'm saying: Scotland is already a legal and a political entity. It is in many respects a state within a state, with its own legislature, judiciary, education system, health system, and so on, not to mention the various other aspects of the state that are carried out a local level. It's precisely not an arbitrary basis for partition, because it represents a division that already exists within the United Kingdom, rather than a new one being established and the resultant polities being constructed in reaction to it.

Sure get rid of the monarchy, create a constitution protecting freedom of speech and liberty, destroy the current system. I just don't want you bringing your communism into it, an idelogy that's caused the deaths of 100million shouldn't really be given another chance.

That's an extremely bizarre comment, given the centralising tendencies of Stalinist of Stalinist regimes. Stalin and Mao were rather closer to you on this sort of issue than they were to me.

I was expressing disbelief that you hold self-determination as an important ideal, considering the need to maintain historical borders trumps it in your view. (unless the countries name is Serbia)

I have no interest in historical border at all. It's just that, as I've said, Scotland almost constitutes a legal and political unit, and so provides a more feasible basis for an independent state than just a random chunk of land would.

 

[Pangur Bán]

It still backs up my point that the United Kingdoms borders should be preserved and if he believes that counties ABCDE in Scotland who vote for independence can drag those of counties FG into independence alongside them, even with a majority in favour of the union in FG. Then what is his arguement against all of the UK voting on the matter of Scottish independence? A majority may be in favour of independence in Scotland but in the country as whole they aren't (hypothetically). I don't see why those counties that don't want to be dragged into Scottish independence are, but Scotland as a whole cannot be kept in the Union even if they don't want it.
An arbitary line has been drawn.

Firstly, Scotland doesn't have counties. Secondly, Scotland is already in existence as a legal-political entity, a country within a sovereign state, and its borders are not arbitrary in that regard. It has its own law-making elected body. Moreover, since its annexation at the beginning of the 18th century, its territory has not been altered. Basically, your line of argument could be used against the United Kingdom, or it could be used to undermine the legitimacy of any Scottish or UK-wide elected governent: making your position incoherent. It's pointless too, because no serious person is questioning Scotland's territorial and democratic sovereignty.

Basically, one constituent nation as a constituent nation cannot itself subvert the sovereignty of another; this would be against established norms of international law. But as I said earlier, the UK as a whole can decide to dissolve itself or expel Scotland, or England itself could secede.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Indeed ... I'm hearing this a lot. Now the participation of UK politicians with no experience in this area appears to be making this matter worse. After the Cameron/OSbourne intervention this week, latest Telegraph poll puts vote at 40-43, a big jump in pro-independence support.

Oh there's that, but just hearing what some people post on this forum makes me believe that anti-Scottish Bigotry is alive and well in Britain.

 

[Traitorfish]

What fascinates me is the fact that the people (to some extent here, but more generally as well) who seem to hold the most pronounced contempt for the Scots and for Scotland are also those who seem most hostile to independence; a resentment of the fact that they have to acknowledge the Scots as co-citizens on the one hand, but an unwillingness to cede authority over the region on the other. I know that Tamás' theory of post-fascism was constructed in reference to immigrant populations and Central European right-populism, but I really can't help but see a few connected strands of thought...

 

[ParkCungHee]

What fascinates me is the fact that the people (to some extent here, but more generally as well) who seem to hold the most pronounced contempt for the Scots and for Scotland are also those who seem most hostile to independence; a resentment of the fact that they have to acknowledge the Scots as co-citizens on the one hand, but an unwillingness to cede authority over the region on the other. I know that Tamás' theory of post-fascism was constructed in reference to immigrant populations and Central European right-populism, but I really can't help but see a few connected strands of thought...

I haven't made it through that whole article yet, and I hope I will, but the key difference I see is that Tamas seems to be talking about reversing the enlightenment process of extending citizenship, but I'm wondering if the supposed "British Indentity" ever entered the general English mindset, and if these contradictions aren't the exact same ones they grappled with in the 17th century.