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.
|
chicmac
|
The Brit Nat inconsisteny re international democracy.In domestic politics, the job of democracy is to elect a representative government which will create a culturally aligned corpus of legislation, Educational provision, Welfare provision etc. The perspective of the nation is determined partly by this process (there are other feedback mechanisms and means of changing national cultural perspective).
In normal international relations, matters requiring representation by each nation do NOT disadvantage a contributing nation's perspective simply because it happens to have a smaller population.
The unique perspective offered by each nation is a viable and very useful thing in its own right and much more important to the proceedings than how many people happen to live within its borders.
Population size is largely an arbitrary thing, a mere matter of luck, based mostly on geographical area, fertility and resources. However, the benchmarks, customs and mores of a nation combine to give one, very valuable, unique perspective.
If international matters are to be weighted by population, such that more populous nations have a pro rata right to their perspective, then China and India will effectively decide everything.
To say that the larger population of England must count more within the Union, but not that of Germany, China or India in regard to EU or World affairs is totally inconsistent.
Yet that does appear to be the position of Brit/Eng Nats.
Its a bit like saying fat people should have a say 1.7 vote whereas thin people only a 0,7 vote.
|
Luke P
|
You are specifically referring to what here? Seats in parliament? England doesn't exist in an official capacity. Westminster constituencies are determined along population lines, one MP per x '000 people, which seems entirely a matter of practicality. Or are you thinking of something else which I can't think of?
|
chicmac
|
| Luke P wrote: | | You are specifically referring to what here? Seats in parliament? England doesn't exist in an official capacity. Westminster constituencies are determined along population lines, one MP per x '000 people, which seems entirely a matter of practicality. Or are you thinking of something else which I can't think of? |
Probably.
|
Luke P
|
What then? I happen to think citizens of any country should be equally represented. It's just my opinion but maybe I'm just old fashioned.
|
chicmac
|
| Luke P wrote: | | What then? I happen to think citizens of any country should be equally represented. It's just my opinion but maybe I'm just old fashioned. |
So in your opinion, re the past, India should have headed up the Empire when they were in it?
I take it you have signed up for Mandarin 1.0.1 re the future?
|
Luke P
|
Please answer the question. You are being vague and specious. あ 歩歩ううゆうぇ
|
Holebender
|
It seems pretty obvious to me. When, say, Malta and China get involved in a debate at the UN each is regarded as a sovereign state and each has equal status. Yet when British Nationalists talk about relation between the countries of the UK they always insist everything should be done on a pro-rata population basis.
Of course, no-one would realistically expect Malta and China to be considered complete equals, but their relations are definitely not conducted on a population proportional basis.
|
Aventinian
|
| Holebender wrote: | It seems pretty obvious to me. When, say, Malta and China get involved in a debate at the UN each is regarded as a sovereign state and each has equal status. Yet when British Nationalists talk about relation between the countries of the UK they always insist everything should be done on a pro-rata population basis.
Of course, no-one would realistically expect Malta and China to be considered complete equals, but their relations are definitely not conducted on a population proportional basis. |
That would be the moral and consistent way of doing things, of course. However it would also be utterly impossible in practice. There are huge swathes of the world that can barely hold a national election never mind vote for a, say, United Nations Parliamentary Assembly.
In the European Union we are moving further from this starting point of state sovereignty and equality towards a more equitable union of individual European citizens. Quite rightly so; long may it continue.
|
Luke P
|
| Holebender wrote: | It seems pretty obvious to me. When, say, Malta and China get involved in a debate at the UN each is regarded as a sovereign state and each has equal status. Yet when British Nationalists talk about relation between the countries of the UK they always insist everything should be done on a pro-rata population basis.
|
What do you mean by "everything"? Please come up with an example.
|
Holebender
|
Hey, I was just explaining the earlier posts which you seemed to be having trouble comprehending.
|
chicmac
|
| Holebender wrote: | It seems pretty obvious to me. When, say, Malta and China get involved in a debate at the UN each is regarded as a sovereign state and each has equal status. Yet when British Nationalists talk about relation between the countries of the UK they always insist everything should be done on a pro-rata population basis.
Of course, no-one would realistically expect Malta and China to be considered complete equals, but their relations are definitely not conducted on a population proportional basis. |
Of course size can in practice make a difference. If every nation was close to the average of around 25 million then there wouldn't be a problem. However nation populations range from billions to tens of thousands.
Clearly, should one of the superpowers decide to exeercise its might then there is not a lot smaller nations can do about it. The old might is right argument. However even the behemoths have to take cogniscence of World opinion eventually.
The bigger problem rather oxymoranically, is with the very small nations. Say less than 100,000 or maybe more.
When nations are too small to provide all the services required by their population e.g. tertiary education, specialist medical care, etc. then one has to weigh the rights of the individual against the right of the identified people to independence. Such nations do exist but often as protectorates or quasi-autonomous states or by some arrangement with a larger nation.
It would also be the case that nations that small would probably not have a fully developed and maintained national perspective.
However, for certainly anything over a couple of million, all the normal perspective shaping mechanisms should be in place and the nation concerned should have its opinion on international matters accorded the same rwespect and voting rights on international matters as other nations.
|
Luke P
|
You still aren't explaining how this relates to the UK. Please provide examples or it is hot air.
|
Stevie
|
Great gibbering gibberish Batman.
Independence and national sovereignty have no truck with population arithmetic.
Independence is not a statistic.
One island does not one nation make and James VI was a dick.
Glad to see you've dropped the 'Nationalist' my Northumbrian friend.
|
Luke P
|
Gazooks Robin, methinks me smells a non-argument. Let's get back to the speciousmobile before this great wall of conjecture falls down all around us...
(Like I already said, I'm not controlling what it says under my name).
|
Aventinian
|
| Bravehand wrote: | | One island does not one nation make and James VI was a dick. |
Tell that to your ideological allies in Ireland.
|
Dave Coull
|
Perhaps with certain well-known examples from the Pacific or the Caribbean in mind | Bravehand wrote: | | One island does not one nation make |
| Aventinian wrote: | | Tell that to your ideological allies in Ireland. |
It is a mistake to assume that anyone who supports independence for Scotland must automatically support the unification of Ireland. There will no doubt be some adjustments by northern Irish politicians following Scottish independence, but I wouldn't make too many assumptions about what form these adjustments may take. Northern Ireland may simply continue indefinitely as part of a United Kingdom with England and Wales, or there might eventually be some sort of condominium involving the Republic and the Kingdom, or it might eventually become a sort of autonomous statelet, or indeed the unification of Ireland might actually happen one of these distant centuries. It is perfectly possible to be a supporter of independence for Scotland and have no particular views on what the people of Northern Ireland "ought" to do.
|
Shagpile
|
| Luke P wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | It seems pretty obvious to me. When, say, Malta and China get involved in a debate at the UN each is regarded as a sovereign state and each has equal status. Yet when British Nationalists talk about relation between the countries of the UK they always insist everything should be done on a pro-rata population basis.
|
What do you mean by "everything"? Please come up with an example. |
I know you...... you're that Glasgow Labour councillor from 'The Herald' Forum....... yet another new name.
|
Shagpile
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Bravehand wrote: | | One island does not one nation make and James VI was a dick. |
Tell that to your ideological allies in Ireland. |
Oops, that's a tad unfair....... and provocative.
|
Luke P
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | Luke P wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | It seems pretty obvious to me. When, say, Malta and China get involved in a debate at the UN each is regarded as a sovereign state and each has equal status. Yet when British Nationalists talk about relation between the countries of the UK they always insist everything should be done on a pro-rata population basis.
|
What do you mean by "everything"? Please come up with an example. |
I know you...... you're that Glasgow Labour councillor from 'The Herald' Forum....... yet another new name. |
If you're talking about me, I fear you are mistaken.
|
Shagpile
|
Possible........ only fair to let you know what I'm thinking; there's an immmmminent election.... don't ya know!  
|
Aventinian
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | Possible........ only fair to let you know what I'm thinking; there's an immmmminent election.... don't ya know! |
What is it with the obsession on this forum of accusing people of being other people? It's not only amongst the ideological outsiders, but amongst the Nationalists themselves. I, for my part, was accused plenty of times of being Agentmancuso.
It's Conspiracy Theory Central around here.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | What is it with the obsession on this forum of accusing people of being other people? |
I don't think it's just this forum. You can get the same sort of thing on forums of a totally different nature. It's a fact the internet makes it easy for people to pretend to be who and what they are not, and it's a fact that considerable numbers of folk take this opportunity. My own daughter joined a discussion forum under a man's name, and only confirmed she was in fact female much later, and only to some of the other posters (the less obnoxious ones). In that case, the motive was, she wanted to be accepted as "one of the lads" in the discussion, without being condescended to, and without some of the other (youngish, male) posters trying to chat her up. But the motives for pretending are not always so simple. Here on Our Scotland, there was the notorious case of that poster who was totally obsessed with Tommy Sheridan and his party, and who would go on and on and on about this obsession, and would become very abusive towards anyone who objected. The moderators finally got fed up of her/him and banned him/her, but the same poster has reappeared several times since then, under various other names and disguises. The same posting style, the same obsessions, and even the email address and track suggesting a post coming from the same direction. Now, I personally feel pity for any poor unfortunate whose sense of self-identity is so underdeveloped they feel the need to pretend to be somebody else. But I recognise that such psychologically damaged folk do exist, and that they can be a bit of a nuisance. | Aventinian wrote: | | I, for my part, was accused plenty of times of being Agentmancuso. |
The aforementioned looney-tunes obsessed with Tommy & co accused me of being both Rinty and Holebender. Rinty is a senior member of Tommy's party Solidarity, Holebender is a moderately centre-right member of the SNP, while I am so far from being able to toe ANYBODY's party line, the Anarchist Workers Association expelled me as a trouble-maker way back in 1978. Any accusation of me pretending to be somebody else is liable to be laughed at, because anybody who knows me will know I'm far too full of my own self-importance to pretend to be anybody but me. But the fact that some really ludicrous accusations are sometimes made doesn't alter the fact that the internet does make it easy for folk to pretend to be who and what they are not, and that significant numbers of folk (lacking a strong sense of their own identity) do take this opportunity.
|
Luke P
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | the Anarchist Workers Association expelled me as a trouble-maker way back in 1978. |
Hilarious. 
|
Dave Coull
|
| I wrote: | | the Anarchist Workers Association expelled me as a trouble-maker way back in 1978. |
| Luke P wrote: | | Hilarious. |
Yes, it IS isn't it? Even at the time I thought it was quite funny, and now, looking back, it's downright hilarious. Keith Nathan proposed the expulsion motion at the end of a long Saturday session of heated argument. With about 30 folk present the motion was carried by a majority of 2. I wasn't the only one expelled that day, but my name was at the top of Keith's list. As it happened, the community centre where this meeting took place had been booked for a two day conference, both Saturday and Sunday, by the local, South London anarchist group, some of whose members were expelled, and the rest resigned from the AWA in solidarity. So we had a place to meet the next day, but the folk who voted for our expulsion didn't. Keith Nathan has been a member of various Trot groupings since then, I think his latest thing is called the "New Socialist Alliance". http://www.workersliberty.org/sto...good-response-leeds-no2eu-meeting John Bangs, the "anarchist" who seconded Keith's motion to expel myself and others, went on to become the Assistant General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers http://www.teachers.org.uk/ . I only hear of him when I see him on the television news, talking about something to do with the teaching profession or pensions. But I soon re-established, and remained on, friendly relations with Nick Heath http://libcom.org/tags/nick-heath who also voted for my expulsion that day.
|
Aventinian
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Yes, it IS isn't it? Even at the time I thought it was quite funny, and now, looking back, it's downright hilarious. |
Rather reminds me of Hugh MacDiarmid being expelled from the SNP (or was it the NPS back then?) for being a Communist, and then being expelled from the Communist Party of Great Britain for being a Scottish nationalist.
|
Luke P
|
I used to be an anarchist but I couldn't hack the discipline.
|
|
|
|