| 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. |
| Zed |
Why Should We Care About Scottish Independence?Why Should We Care About Scottish Independence?http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mv9yb Mon 14 Sep 2009 22:00BBC Four Tue 15 Sep 2009 02:45BBC Four Thu 17 Sep 2009 01:30BBC Four By his own admission, Michael Portillo finds it difficult to get worked up either way about Scottish independence. But is he, and the English, too complacent? Would England suffer a crisis of identity without Scotland and could Scotland cope on its own? Should Scottish demands for independence be taken seriously? These are some of the questions that Michael Portillo and guests chew over in this edition of Dinner With Portillo. At the table are columnist and broadcaster Rod Liddle, Scottish historian Michael Fry, former First Minister of Scotland Henry McLeish, broadcaster and writer Hardeep Singh Kohli, Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at the University of Oxford, Tom Clougherty, Executive Director of the Adam Smith Institute, and Timothy Garton Ash, Professor of European Studies at the University of Oxford. |
||||
| magister ludi |
portillo....mmmmm....and they say alex salmond is smug | ||||
| Zed |
Just bringing this back to the top as a reminder that this programme is on tonight (if at all interested  )
|
||||
| Cruachan |
Having just watched this, my main impression was that it was yet another opportunity lost to have a considered debate. Well done BBC4 for showing it at all (as part of their Scotland "season") The whole discussion was of course seen through the prism of England, i.e. the "we" meant the English. But the main theme running through the discussion was that the vast majority of the population of the UK think little about Scottish independence and care less. If thats the case why do the Unionist parties think this is such a vote winner to stand in the way of a Referendum? Its perhhaps no surpise that the fact that a Referendum Bill will be presented at Holyrood within six months simply has not registered with anyone I talk to. There was also very little, even from the apparently staunch Unionists around the dinner table about the great benefits of the Union. There was no great call to arms for the great future of the British state. I thought McLeish kept pretty quiet for most of the programme. |
||||
| Zed |
Have to agree it was seen from an English perspective. Fry was surprisingly good. Koli jumps back to unionism/federalism (same thing ?) McLeish was quiet, think he was just there for the free grub 
The t**t of the night was Rod Liddle (?) with his "Scotland is not a Nation" comment. Aye right ! Good to see programmes like this though, albeit on BBC4 |
||||
| Aventinian |
I don't believe in 'nations' at all, but when these nations don't share the borders of states it becomes even more arbitrary. After all, what is a nation? Something that people identity as being a nation? Circular reasoning. Is it to do with cultural distinction? In that case, there are plenty of places more culturally distinct than Scotland that aren't classified as nations. Personally, it's the sort of thing I'd say to wind up a Nat or two. Let them get into great tangled webs with their own self-contradictory definitions and pseudosociological hocus-pocus, whilst everyone else can have a good laugh. |
||||
| George |
You've been banging your head again haven't you. |
||||
| Stevie |
I pity the wall... well... not really. | ||||
| mairead |
Why should we care about Scottish Independence? Erm, maybe because we are SCOTS. | ||||
| Stevie |
They may be a bunch of flatulent, drunken haggis munching swirling kilt bagpipe blowing scrappers BUT they're our flatulent, drunken haggis munching swirling kilt bagpipe blowing scrappers.
Wait a minute... that's only the ones from Glasgow... still, Alba gu brąth. |
||||
| babykitten |
We know that all you believe in is 'the law'. You must be a lawyer, or maybe an accountant. You are perfectly entitled to not believe in the concept of nations, many don't, but I get the impression that if the British landmass consisted of two states which were comprised of hundreds of horizontal strips of land a few miles wide interlaced together, you'd defend that, simply because it's 'the law' and the state is supreme. You are clearly a man (I think?!) of intellect. I think you'd really benefit from lightening up a bit on the whole legality of things and think about things from a "what's 'right'" point of view rather than this attitude that the law is the law is the law and is somehow infallible. Ultimately the law is what can be enforced through, well, force, particularly the barrel of a gun. However, sometimes that same gun will overrule the law itself and there are plenty historical examples of that. The law is very much theoretical. It's useful to know, certainly, but it doesn't provide all the answers to what will happen in life, that's for sure. |
||||
| Aventinian |
Oh, by no means. The state is not supreme, but neither are cobbled-together cultural groups given status by people with political agendas. No, what is supreme is the individual. Law is only valid and of use so long as it satisfies that supreme consideration.
You are perhaps correct there, indeed I've seen the tendency often in those who are, like myself, perhaps more conscious than most of the separation of law and morality. Stating a legal position, or even simply taking the liberal line of suggesting the state should not act in a specific instance - whilst ignoring the moral and ethical considerations which can be held privately - is often quite boring. |
||||