| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are the CyberNats |
| a help to the SNP? |
|
81% |
[ 9 ] |
| a hindrance for the SNP? |
|
18% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 11 |
|
| Author |
Message |
agentmancuso
Collecting my 'Our Scotland' Pension!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 2008
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
 Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | Does this mean that you believe in one world government? |
No. I believe in subsidiarity.
| Quote: | | If as I strongly suspect you see a future for the UK as a national state with a sovereign right to control its immigration policy etc then you my friend are a nationalist as well by that definition. |
You suspect wrong.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Holebender
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1368
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Subsidiarity requires a sovereign body from which power is devolved downwards to the appropriate level. What do you see as the overarching body?
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Collecting my 'Our Scotland' Pension!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 2008
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Subsidiarity requires a sovereign body from which power is devolved downwards to the appropriate level. What do you see as the overarching body? |
Nowadays sovereignty lies with the European Union. But the whereabouts of technical sovereignty is not really the issue. What matters is the possession of actual power - I believe power should be devolved down to the lowest practicable level and away from the state out into the community wherever possible.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
I really have nothing else to do!!!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll start by reminding you that you wrote this previously:-
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Nationalism certainly claims to exist in the interests of the people. But in reality it acts in the interest of only some people. By definition, it necessitates the singling out of some other people as not us. |
On checking these links out:-
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0506/serbia.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2270575.stm
do you now understand what I was getting at when I mentioned one world government earlier in the thread?
I think you also need to brush up on your knowledge of federalism and move out of the prevailing crown in parliament Westminster sort of mindset if you really do think that sovereignty only lies with the EU. A loose confederation like the EU inherently involves a sharing of sovereignty because only some of the sovereignty of the member states is ceded to the European Union.
Last edited by William_Cleland on Thu May 08, 2008 11:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1368
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Subsidiarity requires a sovereign body from which power is devolved downwards to the appropriate level. What do you see as the overarching body? |
Nowadays sovereignty lies with the European Union. But the whereabouts of technical sovereignty is not really the issue. What matters is the possession of actual power - I believe power should be devolved down to the lowest practicable level and away from the state out into the community wherever possible. |
Don't you understand that it is those who do the devolving who have the power, not those who receive their largesse? If they didn't have the power in the first place they'd be in no position to devolve it. It's like a manager delegating in the workplace.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4413
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Subsidiarity requires a sovereign body from which power is devolved downwards to the appropriate level. What do you see as the overarching body? |
True subsidiarity renders sovereignty an obsolete concept. The EU has already made that more or less the case already.
| Holebender wrote: | | Don't you understand that it is those who do the devolving who have the power, not those who receive their largesse? If they didn't have the power in the first place they'd be in no position to devolve it. It's like a manager delegating in the workplace. |
I wasn't aware bodies like the EU, who exercise the concept of subsidiarity, ever had supreme authority over the states of Europe.
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Collecting my 'Our Scotland' Pension!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 2008
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Don't you understand that it is those who do the devolving who have the power, not those who receive their largesse? If they didn't have the power in the first place they'd be in no position to devolve it. It's like a manager delegating in the workplace. |
Well yes, obviously. But as I said the theoretical whereabouts of sovereignty isn't the main issue: the actual possession of legal power is. As no less an authority than Enoch Powell said, Power devolved is power retained.
In practice this needn't matter a great deal. Westminster has the legal sovereignty to abolish Holyrood, or to remove any powers from Holyrood that it sees fit. But that isn't going to happen, so the functioning practical power to legislate on devolved issues is squarely in Holyrood's hands.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Collecting my 'Our Scotland' Pension!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 2008
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | do you now understand what I was getting at when I mentioned one world government earlier in the thread? |
No.
| Quote: | | I think you also need to brush up on your knowledge of federalism and move out of the prevailing crown in parliament Westminster sort of mindset if you really do think that sovereignty only lies with the EU. |
It is unclear how the end of that sentence connects with its beginning. Sovereignty lies with the EU in the strict sense that EU law trumps domestic law.
| Quote: | | A loose confederation like the EU inherently involves a sharing of sovereignty because only some of the sovereignty of the member states is ceded to the European Union. |
All of the sovereignty of the member states is ceded. Much of the practical power is devolved back to member states. Who in turn devolve it to national parliaments, regional assemblies, and local authorities.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Collecting my 'Our Scotland' Pension!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 2008
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | True subsidiarity renders sovereignty an obsolete concept. The EU has already made that more or less the case already. |
Yes, that's the (admittedly slightly clumsy) distinction I'm trying to make between 'sovereignty' and 'practical power'.
| Quote: | | I wasn't aware bodies like the EU, who exercise the concept of subsidiarity, ever had supreme authority over the states of Europe. |
Legally, the EU is where the buck stops.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
I really have nothing else to do!!!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | William_Cleland wrote: | | do you now understand what I was getting at when I mentioned one world government earlier in the thread? |
No. |
Should be obvious enough. Only with a one world government and a global citizenship is no line drawn between them (i.e. non-citizens) and us (citizens). There isn't a state or a major political movement anywhere in the entire world that doesn't fit the definition of nationalism that you outlined above.
| agentmancuso wrote: | | William_Cleland wrote: | | A loose confederation like the EU inherently involves a sharing of sovereignty because only some of the sovereignty of the member states is ceded to the European Union. |
All of the sovereignty of the member states is ceded. Much of the practical power is devolved back to member states. Who in turn devolve it to national parliaments, regional assemblies, and local authorities. |
You have obviously never lived in a country run on the basis of a federal constitution and have no idea what the Lib Dems are actually advocating when they talk about a federal Britain. Did all the stuff about the UK's red lines pass you by when the European Union constitution was being negotiated?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3235898.stm
UK ministers have set out a series of "red lines" they say they will not allowed to be crossed in negotiations over the new European constitution. The government says the UK is ready to veto the whole project if it does not get its way on these key issues.
The "red lines" were outlined in a white paper earlier this year:
* Defence: The UK says it must remain in control of its own defence and foreign policy. There must be no European defence cooperation which undermines or replaces Nato (the Atlantic alliance headed by the US which includes most of Europe).
* Treaty changes: The UK says it opposes the removal of the national veto for major decisions on the EU's future.
* Tax: Taxation must be decided by nation states alone. The draft constitution would allow for majority voting on measures to tackle cross border tax fraud - British ministers think this would allow the EU into the tax field by the back door.
* Justice: The UK says it is determined to stop majority voting being introduced for steps towards harmonising European common law systems. It also insists it will not give up the UK's right to carry out frontier patrols.
* Social Security: The British argument here is that social support systems are very complicated and so the EU should only be allowed to make changes through unanimous votes.
* European resources: The UK wants any changes to the EU's right to raise certain funds to be agreed by unanimity alone. That would protect the controversial British annual budget rebate, secured by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
Political federalism is a political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national and state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._states
A U.S. state is any one of the fifty subnational entities of the United States, although four states use the official title "commonwealth". The separate state governments and the federal government share sovereignty, in that an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their state of domicile.[1] However, state citizenship is very flexible, and no government approval is required to move between states (with the exception of convicts on parole).
The United States Constitution allocates power between the two levels of government in general terms. By ratifying the Constitution, each state transfers certain sovereign powers to the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not explicitly transferred are retained by the states and the people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Collecting my 'Our Scotland' Pension!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 2008
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | Only with a one world government and a global citizenship is no line drawn between them (i.e. non-citizens) and us (citizens). |
There is a difference between accepting the reality of boundaries that have come about through tribalism and actually promoting the erection of new boundaries out of tribalism.
| Quote: | | There isn't a state or a major political movement anywhere in the entire world that doesn't fit the definition of nationalism that you outlined above. |
There is one. Liberalism.
| Quote: | | Did all the stuff about the UK's red lines pass you by when the European Union constitution was being negotiated? |
No. But it just confirms what I was saying before about legal sovereignty being distinct from practical power. Of course the UK, as a society hampered by nationalist rednecks of one kind or another, feels the need to draw these 'lines in the sand' and all the rest of it. But it's a largely posture for the tabloids.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
I really have nothing else to do!!!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your definition of nationalism was clearly flawed because liberalism would require a one world government approach to not to fit into it. In reality it never has taken that form and liberalism, in fact, went hand in hand with nationalism when the values of the Enlightenment swept across Europe in the 19th century as the modern nation state emerged.
Now that you want to move the goalposts a bit the obvious flaw in your new approach about tribalism creating new boundaries would be why having Scotland emerging as a member state of the EU is supposed to be such a big deal, if you really do believe in subsidiarity and you are not just using it as a debating ploy? An independent Scotland moves the national level of government closer to people, which is what subsidiarity purports to be all about, after all. The movement of Polish people to the UK in recent years also shows that the new boundaries wouldn't actually mean very much in employment and economic terms and even in the ability of people from other parts of the UK to vote in future Scottish elections.
Contrary to your depiction of nationalist rednecks there are actually very sound reasons for being very careful when drafting a federal constitution. A brief perusal of American history might tell you why but of course first you would actually have to understand what federalism is all about first before you would be able to grasp why. Federations work best from a states' rights sort of angle when there is a very clear delineation of state and federal sovereignty and there is no ambiguous grey area like the Commerce Clause of the US constitution, which can later be used to legally justify pushing federal authority much further than had ever originally been intended by the people drafting the constitution. Most of Blair's red lines were about ensuring that clarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Collecting my 'Our Scotland' Pension!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 2008
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | Your definition of nationalism was clearly flawed because liberalism would require a one world government approach to not to fit into it. |
No it doesn't. Liberalism has no place for essential political entities. Nations are formed through historical accident.
| Quote: |
In reality it never has taken that form and liberalism, in fact, went hand in hand with nationalism when the values of the Enlightenment swept across Europe in the 19th century as the modern nation state emerged. |
Indeed. The autocratic European empires of the time were quite rightly viewed as a hindrance to liberal democracy.
| Quote: | | why having Scotland emerging as a member state of the EU is supposed to be such a big deal, if you really do believe in subsidiarity |
Because I would have very serious reservations about the future development of an independent Scotland. Look at what happened to Ireland after it became independent - a sub-fascist clerically dominated theme park. They got over it in the end, when the money started rolling in from Europe, but it took a long time.
| Quote: |
An independent Scotland moves the national level of government closer to people, which is what subsidiarity purports to be all about, after all. |
Yes. It's the single best argument that separatists have, and the reason I was a member of the SNP for 15 years. Unfortunately it gets drowned out by talk of 'national pride'.
| Quote: |
The movement of Polish people to the UK in recent years also shows that the new boundaries wouldn't actually mean very much in employment and economic terms and even in the ability of people from other parts of the UK to vote in future Scottish elections. |
True.
| Quote: | | you would actually have to understand what federalism is all about first before you would be able to grasp why. .. Most of Blair's red lines were about ensuring that clarity. |
I understand perfectly well what federalism is about, as I suspect, does Mr Blair. His 'red lines' had bugger all to do with clarity, and plenty to do with posing as 'tough on Europe' for the benefit of the Daily Mail reading ex-Tories who brought him to power.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1368
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do you honestly think Scotland circa 2020 would be anything like Ireland circa 1920? If not, why even bother to mention it?
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
I really have nothing else to do!!!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My jaw dropped on reading that as well given we had just been discussing the finer points of the EU in this thread, which wasn't around in 1920 and has been largely responsible for the positive changes in the RoI over the last generation, but I probably shouldn't have been surprised. He also thought all sovereignty had been ceded by the member states to the EU after all so he clearly isn't Brain of Britain material politically. Difficult to take him seriously any more. He probably demonises people for supporting the SNP because he simply doesn't understand the finer details of politics and differing political philosophies and so can only put together a crude set of stereotypes. Not behaviour that's confined to any political philosophy of course. You will find people like that who are overly dogmatic and opinionated right across the political spectrum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Collecting my 'Our Scotland' Pension!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 2008
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | He also thought all sovereignty had been ceded by the member states to the EU |
European law trumps member state law. Fact.
| Quote: |
It has been ruled several times by the European Court of Justice that EC(European Community-first pillar) law is superior to national laws. Where a conflict arises between EC law and the law of a Member State, EC law takes precedence, so that the law of a Member State must be disapplied. |
| Quote: | | after all so he clearly isn't Brain of Britain material politically. Difficult to take him seriously any more. He probably demonises people for supporting the SNP because he simply doesn't understand the finer details of politics and differing political philosophies and so can only put together a crude set of stereotypes. |
The only demonising going on comes from you. But then, it's well established by now that you resort to aggressively ad hominem attacks whenever you loose an argument.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek
Last edited by agentmancuso on Sat May 10, 2008 2:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Collecting my 'Our Scotland' Pension!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 2008
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Do you honestly think Scotland circa 2020 would be anything like Ireland circa 1920? |
Yes. In that the political arena will continue to be dominated by obsessive concern for Scotland's constitutional relationship with the UK for a very long time afterwards. And in that a sizable element of the population will react to changing/difficult circumstances by aggressively asserting their "identity" and banging on about "national pride" when we should be trying to fix potholes and leaking roofs instead.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
I really have nothing else to do!!!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | The only demonising going on comes from you. But then, it's well established by now that you resort to aggressively ad hominem attacks whenever you loose an argument. |
After your behaviour in the Scots Language thread the gloves came off. You have consistently shown sneering disrespect for other users on here so you are the last person who should be making comments about ad hominen attacks from others. I haven't lost this argument and it is farcical for you to claim so.
Last edited by William_Cleland on Sat May 10, 2008 2:53 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Collecting my 'Our Scotland' Pension!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 2008
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We have established that EU law takes precedence over the law of member states. It is evidently nonsense to describe a body that takes second place in matters of law as 'sovereign' in any way.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
I really have nothing else to do!!!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 855
|
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The key words in what you have linked to are "where a conflict". Not much point being in a club set up by complex supranational agreements like the Maastricht Treaty if any member state can enact laws that conflict with it is there? Blair and his red lines clearly illustrate that very sizable areas of sovereignty remain with the member states, which are not covered by treaties like Maastricht and, therefore, can't be a source of conflict in legal terms. I am not going to go tit-for-tat with you on this for 20 pages. I suggest you read a book about federalism and educate yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
