You take the high road...

[BWFC_Insane]

The "never again ruled by a Tory government" line is a very strong argument for the yes vote in Scotland.

I don't get why people get nationalistic about this. A group of people from our country are campaigning to leave it. Very strong campaigning. That in itself tells a story. And when you listen to their arguments for why they should leave, without getting into a economic debate, they have very good reason for not wanting to be ruled by Westminster.

In fact I would say most places in the UK outside of London have a very strong argument for not wanting to be ruled by Westminster.

Personally I think we should think on, rather than blazing out cheap nationalistic jibes. I feel far more connected to Scotland and the issues they have than I do to London and the Tory dominated South East. I'm genuinely surprised that most people in the North of England aren't also feeling the same way.

How can you have the campaign without the economic debate? Surely the two are fairly closely linked?

You can't. But I meant in the sense that a lot of that debate is tit for tat speculation. A bit like the EU debate, I'm far from convinced that the arguments help, because it isn't what the majority of people will vote on, other than "I'm scared what will happen so I'm voting no".

What I meant was that I'm slightly sad that a lot the arguments being put forward are "you can't have our currency you can't have the Euro, you won't have any jobs left etc etc" scare tactics, rather than "look how great this country is, why would you want to leave".

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

The "never again ruled by a Tory government" line is a very strong argument for the yes vote in Scotland.

I don't get why people get nationalistic about this. A group of people from our country are campaigning to leave it. Very strong campaigning. That in itself tells a story. And when you listen to their arguments for why they should leave, without getting into a economic debate, they have very good reason for not wanting to be ruled by Westminster.

In fact I would say most places in the UK outside of London have a very strong argument for not wanting to be ruled by Westminster.

Personally I think we should think on, rather than blazing out cheap nationalistic jibes. I feel far more connected to Scotland and the issues they have than I do to London and the Tory dominated South East. I'm genuinely surprised that most people in the North of England aren't also feeling the same way.

How can you have the campaign without the economic debate? Surely the two are fairly closely linked?

You can't. But I meant in the sense that a lot of that debate is tit for tat speculation. A bit like the EU debate, I'm far from convinced that the arguments help, because it isn't what the majority of people will vote on, other than "I'm scared what will happen so I'm voting no".

What I meant was that I'm slightly sad that a lot the arguments being put forward are "you can't have our currency you can't have the Euro, you won't have any jobs left etc etc" scare tactics, rather than "look how great this country is, why would you want to leave".

I think the problem is that the SNP are saying a lot of things that are questionable and if not questioned many will believe them as fact. My issue with the whole thing is that the so called white paper reads much more like an election manifesto - we know how good politicians are at keeping those promises usually don't we

[BWFC_Insane]

I think the problem is that the SNP are saying a lot of things that are questionable and if not questioned many will believe them as fact. My issue with the whole thing is that the so called white paper reads much more like an election manifesto - we know how good politicians are at keeping those promises usually don't we

Well indeed. But both sides are.

I mean it is what politicians do. It is like the myth propagated by right wing media and politicians that people on job seekers benefits are the root cause of all problems in the country. People suck it up and believe it, and the facts are largely ignored.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It is a fascinating question - to what extent can groups within a democracy decide the whole thing isn't for them and just go their own way... and the structures of law and convention, and the power of the status quo that stop this happening.

There might, for example, be American states that would consider going their own way rather be ruled by Obamas and Clintons.

[BWFC_Insane]

It is a fascinating question - to what extent can groups within a democracy decide the whole thing isn't for them and just go their own way... and the structures of law and convention, and the power of the status quo that stop this happening.

There might, for example, be American states that would consider going their own way rather be ruled by Obamas and Clintons.

Or Bush's......

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It is a fascinating question - to what extent can groups within a democracy decide the whole thing isn't for them and just go their own way... and the structures of law and convention, and the power of the status quo that stop this happening.

There might, for example, be American states that would consider going their own way rather be ruled by Obamas and Clintons.

Or Bush's......

Perhaps... but it's the 'we have the right to bear arms to fight against the government' lot that I was thinking of.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

It is a fascinating question - to what extent can groups within a democracy decide the whole thing isn't for them and just go their own way... and the structures of law and convention, and the power of the status quo that stop this happening.

There might, for example, be American states that would consider going their own way rather be ruled by Obamas and Clintons.

American states are just that - states (i.e. regions) of America- albeit with far more rights and powers that the regions have here.
Scotland is a nation.
Slovakians and Czechs looked at the idea of Czechoslovakia and decided as nations with a distinct and seperate national characteristic that it wasnt for them.
Bosnians, Slovenes Croats likewise with Yugoslavia.

States can be made and unmade, nations are immutable

[William the White]

You CAN actually go and live thete Bill. There's still time. I could arrange the removals men.


More seriously, taking your point about the essentially non-Toryness of the place it would remove 60+ seats from the existing Parliament ... almost none of which are Tory and would make England much less to your taste.

Can't live there... too far for Tuesday night League Cup matches...

And yes, since I don't live in Scotland I'm hoping for a No vote for that reason... But, as I said, if I did, it would be 'yes'...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It is a fascinating question - to what extent can groups within a democracy decide the whole thing isn't for them and just go their own way... and the structures of law and convention, and the power of the status quo that stop this happening.

There might, for example, be American states that would consider going their own way rather be ruled by Obamas and Clintons.

American states are just that - states (i.e. regions) of America- albeit with far more rights and powers that the regions have here.
Scotland is a nation.
Slovakians and Czechs looked at the idea of Czechoslovakia and decided as nations with a distinct and seperate national characteristic that it wasnt for them.
Bosnians, Slovenes Croats likewise with Yugoslavia.

States can be made and unmade, nations are immutable

What does it mean to describe a nation as 'immutable'?

Aren't we largely talking about matters of historical accident, here?

[Prufrock]

Not sure I get that. Is it not a 'nation' because it was a 'state' for ages historically?

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

immutable might be too strong
but i would argue that nations are more permanent than "historical accidents"- hence the survival of Scotland as an idea despite the attempt of some at the time of the Union to rebrand it as North Britain.
i do concede and hope you agree that constructs like the USSR, the Gouvernement General, the Hapsburg Empire, the European Union and the United Kingdom are historical accidents

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

immutable might be too strong
but i would argue that nations are more permanent than "historical accidents"- hence the survival of Scotland as an idea despite the attempt of some at the time of the Union to rebrand it as North Britain.
i do concede and hope you agree that constructs like the USSR, the Gouvernement General, the Hapsburg Empire, the European Union and the United Kingdom are historical accidents

My problem is not that 'immutable' is too strong, but that is one of those rhetorical words that, on examination, doesn't mean much.

Here's a question though - do you think the formation of a new 'nation' as opposed to 'state' is a theoretical impossibility?

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

immutable has a clear definition (permanency ;inflexibility-among others)
i'm puzzled by your idea it is a "rhetorical" device

absolutely
The United States of America would an obvious example of a nation created where one did not exist before.
But the United Kingdom is more like the USSR i would argue in that it was a construct grafted on to 4 existing nations

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

immutable has a clear definition (permanency ;inflexibility-among others)
i'm puzzled by your idea it is a "rhetorical" device

absolutely
The United States of America would an obvious example of a nation created where one did not exist before.
But the United Kingdom is more like the USSR i would argue in that it was a construct grafted on to 4 existing nations

Ok - it has clear definition that clearly doesn't apply in this context given your second point.

I suppose I'm saying that people deliberately misuse it for rhetorical effect.

What would it take, given that new nations can be created, for a US state or collection of states to become a new nation?

[bobo the clown]

There is a geographical logic to some countries shape, not to others. Also language, history. Culture you can argue but that's pretty amorphous.

Iberia would make sense as a country. The Portuguese split from that single entity of course. But then the rest of Spain looks logical. However, that's as fractured any nation as you'll see.

Belgium, language and cultural reasons split it into two possible nations. In fact 3 as there's a Germanic area also.

Switzerland could easily not exist in it's existent shape. I've never heard any moves to break it up though.

The USA is only the country it is due to a series of chances. It could very easily not have some of those states as members. It could have been very, very different. There could easily be a different history which had a nation in the North East (very much New England in spirit and language), a French nation in the South, a Spanish nation in the West ... and so on. I don't see any break away in the USA as remotely likely at the moment, but it's not out of the question.

Quebec is a very similar situation to Scotland I guess.

It's funny that so often the very people who seem to see that "one Ireland" is the logical situation there also seem to think that splitting Scotland and England is equally logical.

I'd much prefer Scotland to vote to stay in the UK. But what I really do want is a once & for all decision. I also want the Scots to stop wanting their cake and eating it ... which is very much what Salmond is playing at and he knows he is, and it's dishonest. I just hope his voters do, really, too.

But if there IS a vote to exit, then good luck to them. However, they will then have to learn to stand on their own two feet ... and quickly. The Irish found, after a mere 15 years of glory, that the Celtic Tiger tends to burn out as quickly as it arose.

[Worthy4England]

Like most conversations of this nature, the immutability generally only depends on how far back you want to go.

As an Englishman living in England, I've always viewed Scotland, Wales and Ireland as their own countries, so I have no problem at all with them voting for their own country status and not being a part of the United Kingdom. If they do so, then they need to be their own country with all that entails. Own currency, own defence, own health and welfare services etc. That's not to preclude, grouping together for the sake of defence (for example) as we do in NATO and the like, but the baseline should be "it's in your court as an independent country, with both parties determining whether they want to or not"

Salmond's notion that somehow there should be an obligation to keep a Scottish currency in with Sterling, I believe isn't his to pick. I think it's up to both Countries agreeing to do so, as opposed to either having an obligation to do so. I also think there's an interesting debate around the level of national debt - I mean, a fair chunk of it will have undoubtedly been generated by the Royal Bank of Scotland - which should need to change it's name, until Scotland gets some sort of monarchy (it is actually reverting it's banking to William's and Glynn's although not sure this is particularly to do with the Scottish vote)

[Worthy4England]

It's funny that so often the very people who seem to see that "one Ireland" is the logical situation there also seem to think that splitting Scotland and England is equally logical.

I'd much prefer Scotland to vote to stay in the UK. But what I really do want is a once & for all decision. I also want the Scots to stop wanting their cake and eating it ... which is very much what Salmond is playing at and he knows he is, and it's dishonest. I just hope his voters do, really, too.

But if there IS a vote to exit, then good luck to them. However, they will then have to learn to stand on their own two feet ... and quickly. The Irish found, after a mere 15 years of glory, that the Celtic Tiger tends to burn out as quickly as it arose.

Interesting, I'd be for one Ireland, but am happy for Scotland (or Wales) to go their own way. In fact I'd positively encourage Wales and help dig the trench around it, to show it was separate.

I'm equally happy if the Scots choose to stay, but I agree with you that Salmond does appear to want his cake and eat it.

[BWFC_Insane]

There is a geographical logic to some countries shape, not to others. Also language, history. Culture you can argue but that's pretty amorphous.

Iberia would make sense as a country. The Portuguese split from that single entity of course. But then the rest of Spain looks logical. However, that's as fractured any nation as you'll see.

Belgium, language and cultural reasons split it into two possible nations. In fact 3 as there's a Germanic area also.

Switzerland could easily not exist in it's existent shape. I've never heard any moves to break it up though.

The USA is only the country it is due to a series of chances. It could very easily not have some of those states as members. It could have been very, very different. There could easily be a different history which had a nation in the North East (very much New England in spirit and language), a French nation in the South, a Spanish nation in the West ... and so on. I don't see any break away in the USA as remotely likely at the moment, but it's not out of the question.

Quebec is a very similar situation to Scotland I guess.

It's funny that so often the very people who seem to see that "one Ireland" is the logical situation there also seem to think that splitting Scotland and England is equally logical.

I'd much prefer Scotland to vote to stay in the UK. But what I really do want is a once & for all decision. I also want the Scots to stop wanting their cake and eating it ... which is very much what Salmond is playing at and he knows he is, and it's dishonest. I just hope his voters do, really, too.

But if there IS a vote to exit, then good luck to them. However, they will then have to learn to stand on their own two feet ... and quickly. The Irish found, after a mere 15 years of glory, that the Celtic Tiger tends to burn out as quickly as it arose.

Do you not think it is logical that Scotland might want to 'have their cake and eat it' given they've had decade upon decade of the shitty end of the stick?

I certainly feel that way right now living in the North West of England and I've felt similar living in other areas of the country too....

[bobo the clown]

So .... Scotland's had the shitty end of the stick.

The North-West has the shitty end of the stick.

Other areas of the Country, while you've lived there, have similarly had the shitty end of the stick.


mmmmmm .... sometimes one should look inward y'know.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

immutable has a clear definition (permanency ;inflexibility-among others)
i'm puzzled by your idea it is a "rhetorical" device

absolutely
The United States of America would an obvious example of a nation created where one did not exist before.
But the United Kingdom is more like the USSR i would argue in that it was a construct grafted on to 4 existing nations

Ok - it has clear definition that clearly doesn't apply in this context given your second point.

I suppose I'm saying that people deliberately misuse it for rhetorical effect.

What would it take, given that new nations can be created, for a US state or collection of states to become a new nation?

Why does it not apply? I would argue that in the context of Scottish nationhood "immutable" is a perfectly reasonable definition of how most Scots feel about their identity - whether they vote to break with the Union or not.

To your latter question I cant speak for whether Carolinians or Mississipians or whoever still have secessionist tendencies or not. I would doubt it given the strong tradition of states rights that came out of the reconstruction period. Perhaps they believe that they can have their cake and eat it by staying wiithin the Union?

I do find all this " they, ll have to learn to stand on their own feet" argument a tad patronising. That Scotland would be a viable independent country is to my mind more credible than the arguments predicting economic armageddon if it did break away.