Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
deansyme
|
Straw says England is dominant within the Unionso much for all equal as 1 nation, eh?
check this out -
| Quote: | Straw warning over Scots relations
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said the UK government and England "must be careful" about exercising power within the Union if the current relationship with Scotland is to continue.
Mr Straw, who looks after constitutional affairs, told GMTV's Sunday Programme that Britain was stronger as a result of the union, and "if it broke we would all be diminished."
While he would not be drawn into discussions about a potential autumn General Election, he did hint that there may be a change in the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood.
Mr Straw was also asked how he would reassure the English about maintaining links with Scotland when the devolved country has so much public money going into it.
He told the programme: "England is dominant within the Union, we are over 80% of the population, earn 85% of the money, so we've got to be careful about how we use our power within this Union if we want this union to continue.
"Now, I believe that both England and Wales and Scotland benefited from the active Union in 1707, three centuries ago.
"I still believe that this is very strongly in Scotland's interest, Wales' interest and Northern Ireland's, but I also believe really strongly in our interests as well.
"Scottish devolution was voted on overwhelmingly by English members of Parliament. It is power devolved. It is not power, ultimately, given away. It's devolved from Westminster."
"We've got to be understanding with the Scots and the Welsh. Not indulgent - I don't have any writ at all for Alex Salmond and the SNP, who want to break the Union in two."
Westminster SNP Leader Angus Robertson MP said: "The problem for Jack Straw is that the relationship between Scotland and England within the Union is unequal, as he himself concedes. That is why the best answer to the issues that he raises is a new 21st century relationship for our two nations, based upon equality of status and mutual respect." |
Dean
|
Aventinian
|
Jack Straw is a rather funny little man in my opinion, and to be frank this is nothing more than a funny turn of phrase.
What he says is of course true, however that situation is not dominance except in the word's very widest sense. I do not sit in my home and think that, as a white man, I dominate the ethnic minorities of my country; or as a man, I am dominated by the numerically superior forces of the monstrous regiment of women in the UK.
|
deansyme
|
pPersonally I think Jack Straw is talking out the hole in his behouchie.
Makes you wonder how much of this '85% of the money' is from our industries - i.e oil, gas, etc which is effectively stolen from us every year.
Dean
|
Aventinian
|
| deansyme wrote: | pPersonally I think Jack Straw is talking out the hole in his behouchie.
Makes you wonder how much of this '85% of the money' is from our industries - i.e oil, gas, etc which is effectively stolen from us every year.
Dean |
Well, considering the majority of oil and gas is not counted in official terms as being from Scotland, being outside its economic zone, he's probably quite correct. Moreover, even if Scotland was running at a profit in the Union, it's quite possible it'd be pulled down by Wales and Northern Ireland if grouped with them.
Anyway, I didn't realise you owned an oil-field... I certainly don't.
|
inga
|
This sitch is as follows:
England outvotes Scotland but does not outrank it.
Or, more specifically, most of the British electorate lies within the English borders, period. England is only dominant in the sense that Extracalifornian-USA is dominant over California.
Democracy is all about being ruled by your neighbours.
~Iain
|
George
|
| Aventinian wrote: |
Well, considering the majority of oil and gas is not counted in official terms as being from Scotland,... |
A good point, surprised it came from yourself.
|
Economist
|
| inga wrote: | England outvotes Scotland but does not outrank it.
|
It does. In virtually all measurements: population, wealth, land area and so on.
| inga wrote: | | Or, more specifically, most of the British electorate lies within the English borders, period. England is only dominant in the sense that Extracalifornian-USA is dominant over California. |
Extracalifornian-USA is not one administrative unit. Indeed, going further, unlike England, extracalifornian USA is not a nation, or a country. It is made up of 49, nominally contiguous, but relatively different states, without one opposing identity to California, within a federation. Another not entirely unrelated point to that, is that California is shielded from that by having far more political and economic autonomy within the US, than Scotland has within the Union. Indeed, if Scotland had as much autonomy as California has (impossible within a unitary state), then it is pretty certain there wouldn't be a United Kingdom or British electorate. Ergo, on one hand, the decentralised nature of the United States makes your comparison invalid, whilst on the other hand, your comparison is equally invalid because of the 4 nation/country structure of the UK.
| inga wrote: | | Democracy is all about being ruled by your neighbours. |
I know. Those Americans must be sick fed up of being ruled by those bloody Canadians and Mexicans. And spare a thought for the Russians, who have just about more neighbours than anyone else - they mustn't get a word in edgeways when it comes to ruling their own country. 
|
Aventinian
|
| Economist wrote: | | Extracalifornian-USA is not one administrative unit. |
Nor is England. It is either run from the central legislature (like Extra-Cal USA) or from more local bodies (like ECUSA)
| Quote: | | Indeed, going further, unlike England, extracalifornian USA is not a nation, or a country. |
The problem is such concepts are thoroughly pointless and irrelevant to politics. Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, they're simply made up terms to suggest some sort of cultural superiority.
| Quote: | | Another not entirely unrelated point to that, is that California is shielded from that by having far more political and economic autonomy within the US, than Scotland has within the Union. Indeed, if Scotland had as much autonomy as California has (impossible within a unitary state), then it is pretty certain there wouldn't be a United Kingdom or British electorate. Ergo, on one hand, the decentralised nature of the United States makes your comparison invalid, whilst on the other hand, your comparison is equally invalid because of the 4 nation/country structure of the UK. |
Meanwhile England has zero of this autonomy of which you speak... yet you are arguing that it is dominant?
I'll put aside your belief that somehow Britain cannot be federalist or more devolved since, as I've mentioned many times before, I think it's nonsense.
| Quote: | | inga wrote: | | Democracy is all about being ruled by your neighbours. |
I know. Those Americans must be sick fed up of being ruled by those bloody Canadians and Mexicans. And spare a thought for the Russians, who have just about more neighbours than anyone else - they mustn't get a word in edgeways when it comes to ruling their own country. |
A paradox created by Nationalist Democracy. A problem of your ideology's making. However this bizarre anomaly does not alter the point made.
|
Economist
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Nor is England. It is either run from the central legislature (like Extra-Cal USA) or from more local bodies (like ECUSA) |
So you are arguing that a unified England doesn't exist - because that was the crux of my point. My point was that the rest of the USA, without California is (a) not the USA and (b) is split further into states or - administrative units of their own, with their own legal systems etc.
| Aventinian wrote: | | The problem is such concepts are thoroughly pointless and irrelevant to politics. Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, they're simply made up terms to suggest some sort of cultural superiority. |
That's what you may think, Aventinian, and it is a pretty "violent" and unconventional viewpoint, which of course you are entitled to. Within that context, I am arguing nothing about cultural superiority. I'm sorry that you have difficulty in comprehending that point, which I've made lots of times before
| Aventinian wrote: | | Meanwhile England has zero of this autonomy of which you speak... yet you are arguing that it is dominant? |
It quite clearly is, for the reasons, that I pointed out - larger population size, more weight in terms of economic considerations - the ability to outvote Scotland on all issues - reserved and devolved and so on.
| Aventinian wrote: | | I'll put aside your belief that somehow Britain cannot be federalist or more devolved since, as I've mentioned many times before, I think it's nonsense. |
I know you do. I'm extremely happy to demonstrate again why a federalist or more devolved Britain is an impossibility if you wish? Or I could just link to the thread there was a few months back where the concerted effort between yourself and the LibDem (can't remember his name) failed to provide a coherent rationale as to why the UK would survive an arrangement.
| Aventinian wrote: | | A paradox created by Nationalist Democracy. A problem of your ideology's making. However this bizarre anomaly does not alter the point made. |
Not at all. I was merely mocking the assertion that democracy is all about being ruled by your neighbours. It doesn't really alter any point, but then it didn't have a point to start with - because it's nonsense really, isn't it? 
|
inga
|
| Economist wrote: | | inga wrote: | England outvotes Scotland but does not outrank it.
|
>It does. In virtually all measurements: population, wealth, land area >and so on.
No, that's my point. I'm making a distinction between influence and authority. England wields greater influence than Scotland but does not wield greater authority("rank"). The British as a whole have a hard time understanding this kind of distinction (the idea of organisational principles goes against the British intellectual tradition, which includes Scotland). Scotland cannot have "independence from England", because Scotland is not ruled by England.
If the French or Americans were in our (British) situation, they'd never have settled for the lopsided arrangement we have now. They'd have equal devolution everywhere -- or independence for those who want it. Ironically, it is this kind of longstanding cultural characteristic that I feel ought define a nation, rather than mere "identity", which is easy-come, easy-go.
If you outline a smaller section of a unified democratic state(e.g. Britain), it is inevitably going to be describable as less influential, and less wealthy, than the rest.
| inga wrote: | | Or, more specifically, most of the British electorate lies within the English borders, period. England is only dominant in the sense that Extracalifornian-USA is dominant over California. |
>Extracalifornian-USA is not one administrative unit.
Extra-Scotlandic Britain is not one administrative unit either -- it is three (Wales, England and N.Ireland).
So my analogy is quite fitting.
>Indeed, going further, unlike England, extracalifornian USA is not a >nation, or a country.
Extracalifornian USA is not a whole country either, because it lacks California.
I'm not being pedantic -- I really chose my analogy carefully.
>It is made up of 49, nominally contiguous, but relatively different states, >without one opposing identity to California, within a federation. Another >not entirely unrelated point to that, is that
Britain is like a federation but with a big gap where England has no assembly of its own -- England is ruled directly by the British government.
>California is shielded from >that by having far more political and >economic autonomy within the US, >than Scotland has within the Union.
There are grounds for disagreement there. I have at hand a secondary school Modern Studies textbook, that focuses on an analogy between devolved assemblies in Britain and American states.
>Indeed, if Scotland had as much autonomy as California has (impossible within a unitary state), then it is pretty certain there wouldn't be a United Kingdom or British electorate. Ergo, on one hand, the decentralised nature of the United States makes your comparison invalid, whilst on the other hand, your comparison is equally invalid because of the 4 nation/country structure of the UK.
I think you are taking too literally the "format" of the British nation -- like the person who claims we are different from a republic because we have a monarch.
Britain might not technically be a federation, but a similar effect can be achieved, if desired. The constitution is very pliable.
| inga wrote: | | Democracy is all about being ruled by your neighbours. |
I know. Those Americans must be sick fed up of being ruled by those bloody Canadians and Mexicans. And spare a thought for the Russians, who have just about more neighbours than anyone else - they mustn't get a word in edgeways when it comes to ruling their own country. |
The Americans certianly get sick of being ruled by their neighbouring sub-states. Washingtonians often dislike their federal government being infleunced by Texan voters, for example.
Democracy means getting ruled by your next-door neighbours. What one must justify is why the electoral neighbourhood should stop at Hadrian's wall.
~Iain
|
Dave Coull
|
Inga wrote "What one must justify is why the electoral neighbourhood should stop at Hadrian's wall" - who is this "one" you are talking about?
I don't know what country you come from, Inga, but if your knowledge of Scottish history, politics, and culture is as bad as your knowledge of geography, one can only hope that being on this forum will contribute to your education. At the eastern end of Hadrian's Wall, in the town of WALLSEND, you are in England, and about SEVENTY MILES south of the border with Scotland. Even at the western end you are about six miles into England. The entire wall is in England. Nobody has to justify what you suggest because NOBODY in any political party or organisation claims Hadrian's Wall as a border.
|
inga
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | Inga wrote "What one must justify is why the electoral neighbourhood should stop at Hadrian's wall" - who is this "one" you are talking about?
I don't know what country you come from, Inga, but if your knowledge of Scottish history, politics, and culture is as bad as your knowledge of geography, one can only hope that being on this forum will contribute to your education. At the eastern end of Hadrian's Wall, in the town of WALLSEND, you are in England, and about SEVENTY MILES south of the border with Scotland. Even at the western end you are about six miles into England. The entire wall is in England. Nobody has to justify what you suggest because NOBODY in any political party or organisation claims Hadrian's Wall as a border. |
Yes, I have been there. Hadrian's wall is very often used as a journalistic device to clear political borders from our minds. It's not to be taken literally.
Inga
|
Economist
|
| inga wrote: | | No, that's my point. I'm making a distinction between influence and authority. England wields greater influence than Scotland but does not wield greater authority("rank"). The British as a whole have a hard time understanding this kind of distinction (the idea of organisational principles goes against the British intellectual tradition, which includes Scotland). Scotland cannot have "independence from England", because Scotland is not ruled by England. |
I actually think you have a tenuous point here, but I think it really is something based on semantics rather than anything else. Your point about the distinction of "independence from England" is accurate given the structure of the United Kingdom - it is independence from the United Kingdom, rather than England which we seek.
| inga wrote: | | If the French or Americans were in our (British) situation, they'd never have settled for the lopsided arrangement we have now. They'd have equal devolution everywhere -- or independence for those who want it. Ironically, it is this kind of longstanding cultural characteristic that I feel ought define a nation, rather than mere "identity", which is easy-come, easy-go. |
There are plenty of things which define a "nation", identity is important, but only but one of those things.
| inga wrote: | | If you outline a smaller section of a unified democratic state(e.g. Britain), it is inevitably going to be describable as less influential, and less wealthy, than the rest. |
| inga wrote: | Extra-Scotlandic Britain is not one administrative unit either -- it is three (Wales, England and N.Ireland).
So my analogy is quite fitting. |
No your anology is not quite fitting. I do apologise for missing out Northern Ireland and Wales in the issue, but in the broad side of things - given the construction of the component parts of the United Kingdom, their influence, authority, rank - or whichever meaningless term you describe the countries and nations of the UK and their position within the UK. I suspect, given that it is blindingly obvious, you know what I'm alluding to.
| inga wrote: | Extracalifornian USA is not a whole country either, because it lacks California.
I'm not being pedantic -- I really chose my analogy carefully. |
Yes and it is demonstrably failing, because there is no anology to be had, for a whole host of structural, political and other reasons. Not to mention the issues of nationhood, national idenity and all the other constituent ingredients of Scottish and (increasingly) English politics. Such constitutional stresses and pressures are lacking from the anology you are trying to use here.
| inga wrote: | | There are grounds for disagreement there. I have at hand a secondary school Modern Studies textbook, that focuses on an analogy between devolved assemblies in Britain and American states. |
Oh, I'm perfectly sure that unlike your previous assertions, there are analogies to be had on this issue, that really doesn't need to be proven. I'm more interested in facts and practice. As I said before, there are much more potent ingredients in the mix here - that influence the overall politics of Scotland (such as nationhood) compared to the internal affairs of countries such as the United States.
| inga wrote: | | Britain is like a federation but with a big gap where England has no assembly of its own -- England is ruled directly by the British government. |
| inga wrote: | | Britain might not technically be a federation, but a similar effect can be achieved, if desired. The constitution is very pliable. |
Your second point is closest to reality. The United Kingdom is nothing like a federation. It is a centralised and unitary construction. Devolution has not altered that focus, The Constitution is extremely pliable, I entirely agree, however its whole focus in predicated on the centralisation of power and the centralisation of authority. Incidentally, the last European country to reconfigure itself from a unitary to a federal state was Belgium. Even Belgium didn't have the structural impediment of one part of that federation being ten times larger than its next component part.
| inga wrote: | | I think you are taking too literally the "format" of the British nation -- like the person who claims we are different from a republic because we have a monarch. |
Not at all. I'm not talking about the "British nation" at all (given I don't believe such a thing exists, except in the fevered imaginations of Unionists everywhere. And if such a thing did exist then I'm not a part of it and want nothing to do with it). I'm talking about the step from autonomy to nationhood, in Scotland.
|
Blackleaf
|
Considering that England constitues 80% of the UK's population and around 85-90% of its economy then I think Jack Straw is right in what he says. It's pure logic.
|
Blackleaf
|
| deansyme wrote: | pPersonally I think Jack Straw is talking out the hole in his behouchie.
Makes you wonder how much of this '85% of the money' is from our industries - i.e oil, gas, etc which is effectively stolen from us every year.
Dean |
GDP
England: $2.2 trillion
Scotland: $172 billion
GDP per capita
England: $44,000
Scotland: $33,360
Scottish and English economies - a comparison
Scotland
Scottish £10 banknotes
Scotland has a highly developed western style open mixed economy which is closely linked with that of the rest of Europe and the wider world. Traditionally, the Scottish economy has been dominated by heavy industry underpinned by the shipbuilding, coal mining and steel industries. Petroleum related industries associated with the extraction of North Sea oil have also been important employers from the 1970s, especially in the north east of Scotland. De-industrialisation during the 1970s and 1980s saw a shift from a manufacturing focus towards a more services orientated economy. Edinburgh is the financial services centre of Scotland and the sixth largest financial centre in Europe in terms of funds under management, behind London, Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich and Amsterdam,[56] with many large finance firms based there, including: the Royal Bank of Scotland (the second largest bank in Europe); HBOS (owners of the Bank of Scotland); and Standard Life.
In 2005, total Scottish exports (excluding intra-UK trade) were provisionally estimated to be £17.5 billion, of which 70% (£12.2 billion) were attributable to manufacturing.[57] Scotland's primary exports include whisky, electronics and financial services. The United States, The Netherlands, Germany, France and Spain constitute the country's major export markets.[57] In 2006, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Scotland was just over £86 billion, giving a per capita GDP of £16 900.[58]
As of 2006, the unemployment rate in Scotland stood at 5.1% - marginally above the UK average, but lower than in the majority of EU countries
************************
England
The City of London is a major business and commercial centre and the world's foremost financial centre
England's economy is the second largest economy in Europe and the fifth largest economy in the world. It follows the Anglo-Saxon economic model. England's economy is the largest of the four economies of the United Kingdom, with 100 of Europe's 500 largest corporations based in London.
As part of the United Kingdom, England is a major centre of world economics. One of the world's most highly industrialised countries, England is a leader in the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors and in key technical industries, particularly aerospace, the arms industry and the manufacturing side of the software industry.
The Bullring shopping complex in Birmingham (England's and Britain's 2nd largest city) attracted 36.5 million visitors in its début year upon opening in 2003.
London exports mainly manufactured goods and imports materials such as petroleum, tea, wool, raw sugar, timber, butter, metals, and meat,[28] exporting over 30,000 tonnes of beef last year, worth around £75,000,000, with France, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain being the biggest importers of beef from England.[29]
English and Welsh £20 note
The central bank of the United Kingdom, which sets interest rates and implements monetary policy, is the Bank of England in London. London is also home to the London Stock Exchange, the main stock exchange in the UK and the largest in Europe. London, is one of the international leaders in finance[30] and the largest financial centre in Europe.
Traditional heavy and manufacturing industries have declined sharply in England in recent decades, as they have in the United Kingdom as a whole. At the same time, service industries have grown in importance. For example, tourism is the sixth largest industry in the UK, contributing 76 billion pounds to the economy. It employs 1,800,000 full-time equivalent people — 6.1% of the working population (2002 figures).[31] The largest centre for tourism is London, which attracts millions of international tourists every year.
As part of the United Kingdom, England's official currency is the Pound Sterling (also known as the British pound or GBP).
wikipedia.org
So we can see that England is vastly dominant, and Scotland is puny. Jack Straw is right.
|
Pip
|
Blackleaf, Straw wasn't boasting, he was telling us to shut up and know our place. He is a self-hating traitor who loathes everything English.
This isn't a game of nation top-trumps.
|
Aventinian
|
| Economist wrote: | | There are plenty of things which define a "nation", identity is important, but only but one of those things. |
It's about the only important things. Nations cannot be defined objectively - there is only the subjective consideration of 'X is a nation' made by individuals.
Largely, I dismiss such concepts as convenient fictions and cultural snobbery. I wouldn't care to argue what is a nation given between two choices (say Scotland vs. Texas) since I think it's is irrelevant.
| Quote: | | Your second point is closest to reality. The United Kingdom is nothing like a federation. It is a centralised and unitary construction. Devolution has not altered that focus |
Yes, but it makes it entirely irrelevant to day-to-day government. Sure, the state might be unitary - power may well flow from another institution rather than a constitution, however that does not affect the actual governance of the area.
| Quote: | | Not at all. I'm not talking about the "British nation" at all (given I don't believe such a thing exists, except in the fevered imaginations of Unionists everywhere. And if such a thing did exist then I'm not a part of it and want nothing to do with it). I'm talking about the step from autonomy to nationhood, in Scotland. |
Now this is what I'm getting at - the sheer insanity behind this strand of Scottish nationalism. How, in the wildest flights of fancy, can you possibly acknowledge a Scottish nation yet deny the existence of a British one? It's inconsistent and illogical.
You don't have to be 'part of' it - I don't particularly see myself as part of this apparent Scottish nation either. Does that mean it no longer exists? Of course not.
Interesting point: rather more people seem to believe in a British nation than a Scottish one - 50,000 more entries for the former term appear on a Google search.
|
inga
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Economist wrote: | | There are plenty of things which define a "nation", identity is important, but only but one of those things. |
It's about the only important things. Nations cannot be defined objectively - there is only the subjective consideration of 'X is a nation' made by individuals.
|
Yes and no.
Identifying nations is like indentifying the clouds in the sky (e.g. by counting them).
Two people may not agree on what is one cloud and what is two -- but there _is_ an objective reality in the sense that both people are looking at same cloud pattern (they are both considering real variations in the sky pattern).
Be aware that just because different people subdivide different things differently in their mind, that doesn't mean that there are no real bases for distinction.
| Quote: |
Now this is what I'm getting at - the sheer insanity behind this strand of Scottish nationalism. How, in the wildest flights of fancy, can you possibly acknowledge a Scottish nation yet deny the existence of a British one? It's inconsistent and illogical.
|
True, in two ways.
Firstly, the phrase "Scottish, not British", is literally non-sense. "British" means "of or pertaining to Britain", and Britain, by definition, includes Scotland.
It's not a trivial point. It highlights the lack of thought that goes into the way we communicate these ideas.
Moreover, I refuse to believe that there is such a thing as a Scotsman who does not recognise that British society does, on some level, have an exclusive description of its own. If it didn't, works such as Bill Bryson's Notes on a Small Island would have seemed very disjointed.
For example, whoever heard of a Scotsman going to England and experiencing true "culture shock" (aside from the shock one would expect from setting foot in a big metropolis for the first time)?
~Iain
|
inga
|
| Quote: |
No your anology is not quite fitting. I do apologise for missing out Northern Ireland and Wales in the issue, but in the broad side of things
|
It is you who raised the question of whether the rest of the sovereign state [extracalifornian USA\extrascotic Britain] is one administrative unit or many. It was you who implied that it *is* relevant. I personally didn't think it was relevant, but then you brought it up.
| Quote: |
- given the construction of the component parts of the United Kingdom, their influence, authority, rank - or whichever meaningless term you describe the countries and nations of the UK and their position within the UK. I suspect, given that it is blindingly obvious, you know what I'm alluding to.
|
Yes, I agree it is, as you say, "blindingly obvious" that England is more influencial, but my distinction between influence and rank is not, as you have said, meaningless.
For England to outrank Scotland, Englishfolk would get more votes than them. They do not.
The English border encircles more voters, but those English voters have equal status to Scottish voters (with respect to Britain-wide politics). It is ethically tautological to say that this is unfair on Scotland. It isn't. At least, it is not undemocratic.
If all of Britain's internal subdivisions were abolished altogether, where would the injustice lie? I do not wish this, but I'm asking it to unmask your principles.
| Quote: |
The United Kingdom is nothing like a federation.
|
It is something like a federation. It is a parliamentary democracy, subdivided into smaller parliamentary administrations. Even if the analogy ends there, it has already gone quite far.
| Quote: |
It is a centralised and unitary construction. Devolution has not altered that focus,
|
Well talk specifics here. What focus? Why not, and why is that bad? Certainly certain politics are more Scotland-focused now that we have devolution.
| Quote: |
The Constitution is extremely pliable, I entirely agree, however its whole focus in predicated on the centralisation of power and the centralisation of authority.
|
So let me check whether I understand you correctly. The difference between the UK and the USA, that makes the UK less fair, is the fact that the British central authority can both give and take away devolution, whereas the American federation cannot? That's what I undersatand by "the focus is predicated on".
Alright, that's technically correct, but what does that entail? The fact that Scottish devolution is "predicated on" the British central authority, need not alter the effectiveness of devolution. It's like saying that our democracy is predicated on a dictatorship (the Queen). Yes, but what of it?
~Inga
|
Aventinian
|
| inga wrote: | True, in two ways.
Firstly, the phrase "Scottish, not British", is literally non-sense. "British" means "of or pertaining to Britain", and Britain, by definition, includes Scotland. |
I'm not sure I agree with that essentially. Nations are not related to land, but exist within the minds of people. Strictly, Scotland could never be a nation, only a certain group of people who consider themselves to be Scottish could do that.
As such, I don't believe a nationality has to be bound by the restrictions of temporal reality. While one might be able to stretch the limits and say that Scottish identity was fundamentally a British identity because one fitted into a geographical meaning of the latter term (in being mostly found within Great Britain) I think that would be conflating two separate meanings of "British" and pretending they were the same.
In that sense, I believe if someone believes he is Scottish and not British then he can be .
| Quote: | | For example, whoever heard of a Scotsman going to England and experiencing true "culture shock" (aside from the shock one would expect from setting foot in a big metropolis for the first time)? |
Oh, certainly. With this I agree. But it can also be noted that the strongest identities can be very similar and based on divisions that do not really exist. Take for example Ireland: the Northern "Unionist community" really have no enormous cultural difference from the Northern "Nationalist community" - yet they consider themselves very separate on the basis of what? Religion? Most of them are increasingly apathetic to that. Politics? Well, there are plenty of people on one side of the divide that do not agree with the political beliefs associated therewith. It's really just a sense of separation bourne from other matters.
There's definitely a British nation, so long as people still identify with being British - which the majority do - and so long as there is a common culture, which there undoubtedly is. Which is why I'm so curious as to what Economist will use as a defence of his position...
|
inga
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | inga wrote: | True, in two ways.
Firstly, the phrase "Scottish, not British", is literally non-sense. "British" means "of or pertaining to Britain", and Britain, by definition, includes Scotland. |
I'm not sure I agree with that essentially. Nations are not related to land, but exist within the minds of people.
|
Maybe, but there are other ways to communicate one's identity without oxymorons. Even if there was no British state, and no British identity, "Scottish, not British" is still non-sense. "Britain" is a word that includes Scotland, independent or not. It's like saying "Mexican, not American".
What they really mean is "I don't identify with Britain in any meaningful way". Or "I don't think the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the island is any greater than that between Scotland and other European countries". Those statements at least make sense.
| Quote: |
As such, I don't believe a nationality has to be bound by the restrictions of temporal reality. While one might be able to stretch the limits and say that Scottish identity was fundamentally a British identity because one fitted into a geographical meaning of the latter term (in being mostly found within Great Britain) I think that would be conflating two separate meanings of "British" and pretending they were the same.
|
Alright then. So imagine Scotland is independent of the UK, and the rest of the UK remains unchanged. Why would the state containing England and Wales be "British" but not Scotland?
| Quote: |
In that sense, I believe if someone believes he is Scottish and not British then he can be .
|
Yet the Scottish Nationalist is still a product of his environment, which we call "Britain", so his "I'm not British" claim becomes a little spurious.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | For example, whoever heard of a Scotsman going to England and experiencing true "culture shock" (aside from the shock one would expect from setting foot in a big metropolis for the first time)? |
Oh, certainly. With this I agree. But it can also be noted that the strongest identities can be very similar and based on divisions that do not really exist. Take for example Ireland: the Northern "Unionist community" really have no enormous cultural difference from the Northern "Nationalist community" - yet they consider themselves very separate on the basis of what? Religion? Most of them are increasingly apathetic to that. Politics? Well, there are plenty of people on one side of the divide that do not agree with the political beliefs associated therewith. It's really just a sense of separation bourne from other matters.
|
True -- consider also Black Nationalism, which includes black people untouched by any African or Carribean cultural influences whatsoever.
~Inga
|
Dave Coull
|
Inga wrote about "Scottish, not British" that "it's like saying 'Mexican, not American' ".
Okay, so all of the inhabitants of two continents, North America and South America, from the frozen wastes of northern Canada, through the tropical Amazon rainforest, to the frozen wastes of Tierra Del Fuego at the other end, can be considered as "Americans". Nevertheless, in popular usage, "American" is usually identified with the USA. So in popular usage, "Mexican not American" makes a kind of sense, and so does "Scottish not British".
"Imagine Scotland is independent of the UK, and the rest of the UK remains unchanged. Why would the state containing England and Wales be 'British' but not Scotland?" - good question. If the term is used in a purely geographical sense, then both Canada and Argentina and all of the other independent states in their two continents are American.
|
Holebender
|
| inga wrote: | Hadrian's wall is very often used as a journalistic device to clear political borders from our minds. It's not to be taken literally.
Inga |
And yet you insist on "British" being taken literally to mean anyone from "Britain", which seems to mean Great Britain in your definition. If that is the case, Shetlanders, Lewismen, etc. can be "Scottish, not British" as they are not from Great Britain but are from the legal jurisdiction of Scotland.
|
inga
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | Inga wrote about "Scottish, not British" that "it's like saying 'Mexican, not American' ".
Okay, so all of the inhabitants of two continents, North America and South America, from the frozen wastes of northern Canada, through the tropical Amazon rainforest, to the frozen wastes of Tierra Del Fuego at the other end, can be considered as "Americans". Nevertheless, in popular usage, "American" is usually identified with the USA. So in popular usage, "Mexican not American" makes a kind of sense
|
But the ambiguity of the word "American" _would_ be a problem if there was a similar nationhood debate concerning North America. Why clutter an already subjective and badly debated issue with ambiguous jargon?
~Inga
|
Holebender
|
I note you didn't address my comment on the validity of "Scottish, not British" in the case, for example, of a Shetland Islander.
It is the very ambiguity of terms like "American" and "British" which makes phrases like "Mexican, not American" or "Scottish, not British" perfectly logical in the right context. In other words, "American" and "British" have several meanings, not just the one meaning you choose to define them by so your statement about the non-sense of "Scottish, not British" or "Mexican, not American" is, itself, nonsense!
|
inga
|
| Holebender wrote: | | inga wrote: | Hadrian's wall is very often used as a journalistic device to clear political borders from our minds. It's not to be taken literally.
Inga |
And yet you insist on "British" being taken literally to mean anyone from "Britain", which seems to mean Great Britain in your definition. If that is the case, Shetlanders, Lewismen, etc. can be "Scottish, not British" as they are not from Great Britain but are from the legal jurisdiction of Scotland. |
They are not from the British mainland but they are from Britain nonetheless.
A Scot is a Briton, just as a Souix is an American, the French are European, and the Japanese are Asian. Even if the Scots are not typically British, they are still an example against which one decides whether something else is British, because they are, by definition, British. There are no other logical ways of interpreting it.
~Inga
|
Avatar
|
| Quote: | | A Scot is a Briton, just as a Souix is an American, the French are European, and the Japanese are Asian. Even if the Scots are not typically British, they are still an example against which one decides whether something else is British, because they are, by definition, British. There are no other logical ways of interpreting it. |
So by your definition people in NI who consider themselves British are actually Irish and not British. Also by your definition anyone from Ireland or Britain is not European, which is nonsense.
|
Holebender
|
You seem determined to define "Britain" to suit yourself. Scotland is an unambiguous term, but Britain can mean anything from the big island off the coast of France to the UK of GB & NI. This is catching you out as badly as your sloppy use of "Hadrian's Wall" did earlier in this same thread.
|
Aventinian
|
| Holebender wrote: | | You seem determined to define "Britain" to suit yourself. Scotland is an unambiguous term, but Britain can mean anything from the big island off the coast of France to the UK of GB & NI. This is catching you out as badly as your sloppy use of "Hadrian's Wall" did earlier in this same thread. |
Or indeed any British territory. Hence the use of the plural "Britains" during the empire.
All the same, it seems all a bit of a daft argument.
|
RadgeJougal
|
| inga wrote: | | just as a Souix is an American |
A North American maybe, but not a USAn - they live in Canada too.
|
inga
|
I have a good idea.
Let's conduct this debate in E-Prime. E-Prime is a dialect of English that makes prejudice and ambiguity difficult to communicate. It's English with the construction "to be" removed.
So, for example, you can't say "he's black". Instead you have to say "he looks black", etc.
~Inga
|
Holebender
|
And you consider that "a good idea"?
I have a better idea; why don't you define your terms so you'll have no wiggle room when someone tears your nonsense apart?
|
RadgeJougal
|
| Quote: | Let's conduct this debate in E-Prime. E-Prime is a dialect of English that makes prejudice and ambiguity difficult to communicate. It's English with the construction "to be" removed.
So, for example, you can't say "he's black". Instead you have to say "he looks black", etc. |
It's still ambiguous. Someone looking "black" could refer to their ethnicity or being covered in coal.
|
inga
|
| RadgeJougal wrote: | | Quote: | Let's conduct this debate in E-Prime. E-Prime is a dialect of English that makes prejudice and ambiguity difficult to communicate. It's English with the construction "to be" removed.
So, for example, you can't say "he's black". Instead you have to say "he looks black", etc. |
It's still ambiguous. Someone looking "black" could refer to their ethnicity or being covered in coal. |
That's not ambiguity. The statement only has one meaning, and then says nothing more about the reason why he's black(which is not the statement's jobsworth).
E-Prime was invented to force lateral thinking, increase precision and make prejudice less communicable. It helps avoid talking at cross-purposes. It abolishes platonic ideas.
So for example, "I am Scottish", must be translated into one or more of the following:
"I belong to Scotland", "I identify with Scotland", "Scotland's environment influenced my upbringing", etc, etc.
~Inga
|
Holebender
|
So all those possible interpretations are what you consider unambiguous?
Look at your other example; "he's black" is unambiguous. That man is black. "He looks black" can have multiple meanings. He looks like a black man, because he is a black man. He looks black because he's covered with coal dust. He has negroid features, even though he's light-skinned. He looks like he's in a foul mood.
It seems to me your E-Prime has the effect of introducing ambiguity and confusion where none existed before.
|
inga
|
| Holebender wrote: | So all those possible interpretations are what you consider unambiguous?
Look at your other example; "he's black" is unambiguous. That man is black. "He looks black" can have multiple meanings. He looks like a black man, because he is a black man. He looks black because he's covered with coal dust. He has negroid features, even though he's light-skinned. He looks like he's in a foul mood.
|
There is no "because", so the sentence cannot be said to be ambiguous in that respect.
That's not multiple meanings. That's just multiple causes for why the fact is true. The sentence itself has one concrete meaning(you look at him and you see black -- allowing for the fact that "brown" is maybe a better word, but that's a seperate issue).
~Inga
|
Holebender
|
The sentence has a concrete meaning, but multiple interpretations are possible. The original "he IS black" has only one possible meaning in present day usage. Therefore your attempt to make things less ambiguous has backfired.
|
inga
|
| Holebender wrote: | | The original "he IS black" has only one possible meaning in present day usage. |
But it doesn't; that's the point. "He is black" has many meanings that are used as one, and so debates become cloudy and tangled. For example, statements like "black on the inside".
You've also've touched on a second benefit of E-Prime -- It makes absurdities plainer.
For example, this quote by a Nazi in a movie: "They[the Jews] are arrogant and self-obsessed and calculating and reject the Christ, and I will not have them pollute German blood!"
Translated into E-Prime, you'd have to say something more palpably untrue, such as: "They bequeath their non-Christianity to their offspring genetically". Prejudicial ideas are more vulnerable to logic if stated in E-Prime.
~Inga
|
Holebender
|
I'm sorry, he is black is an unequivocal statement. Black on the inside or anything else is different; apart from the word "black" your phrase uses different words. It's like there's no equivalence between "he is Scottish" and "Scottish shortbread". Both phrases contain the word "Scottish" but that's where any similarity ends. Your E-Prime is a load of nonsense.
|
Aventinian
|
| Holebender wrote: | | I'm sorry, he is black is an unequivocal statement. Black on the inside or anything else is different; apart from the word "black" your phrase uses different words |
There is such a thing as Black culture. It influences the culture of white people as well as black skinned people, and obviously a number of the latter completely ignore it.
|
agentmancuso
|
| inga wrote: |
Identifying nations is like indentifying the clouds in the sky (e.g. by counting them).
Two people may not agree on what is one cloud and what is two -- but there _is_ an objective reality in the sense that both people are looking at same cloud pattern (they are both considering real variations in the sky pattern).
Be aware that just because different people subdivide different things differently in their mind, that doesn't mean that there are no real bases for distinction. |
That's very true. But it goes deeper: aside from the dispute as to formation, the recognition of such an entity as 'clouds' is per se a subjective conclusion, albeit a shared one in this case.
|
agentmancuso
|
| Holebender wrote: | | The sentence has a concrete meaning, but multiple interpretations are possible. The original "he IS black" has only one possible meaning in present day usage. |
No it doesn't. It has many possible meanings depending on the context. E-prime is ugly, I'll grant you that, but it doesn't introduce ambiguity, it merely highlights the permanent and inescapable presence of ambiguity to those who pretend to live in a black and white world.
|
|
|
|
