Blaven Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I've never been proud to be British. Or a human being? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Would France like to be governed by Germany? Would England like to be governed by France? We want our COUNTRY to govern itself. I want my governments priority to be my country. The UK governments priority isn't Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or even England, it's London. *uck that pal. France being governed by Germany is nothing like this situation. A person in Scotland has as much say as a person anywhere else in the UK. If France and Germany were one nation state, but the government happened to be based in Berlin for example, that would be something similar I suppose, assuming individuals across both countries had an equal say, like we do here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I get that Scotland is a 'country', but I don't see what difference it makes. It doesn't mean that the people living there need to be grouped as a whole all the time, with nationalists desperate to separate themselves as 'a people' away from everyone else. In these islands we can group ourselves any which way, from nationality, class, language, sexuality, race, political beliefs or whatever. I've just never been one to consider nationality all that important. I dislike how nationalists seeks to create divide and emphasise difference. Wonderful sentiment, but unrealistic. Unfortunately the world is and will be for some time divided into nation states. Ours for the moment being the UK. Now unless you would be happy for these islands to be ruled by someone from anywhere in the world, (say Germany or Argentina for example,) you are in small part, a nationalist. ???? Perhaps a "British" nationalist. I also hate certain types of nationalism. I have no problem with nationalism that is inclusive of all in a nation despite their background, is based on the principle of self determination and is not expansive or seeking to dominate others. Very much the Scottish example. I hate nationalism that is overbearing, expansive and seeks to deny other persons the right to determine their own destiny. It is not the fact that peoples and nations are different that causes problems. There is always going to be differences. The issue comes when nations cannot accept that other people are different. They seek to dominate . That is the true evil side of nationalism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 France being governed by Germany is nothing like this situation. A person in Scotland has as much say as a person anywhere else in the UK. If France and Germany were one nation state, but the government happened to be based in Berlin for example, that would be something similar I suppose, assuming individuals across both countries had an equal say, like we do here. How simplistic. Let me ask one question; Who in Scotland agreed (or was even asked) if we would pay towards the London Olympics whilst receiving no UK money for the Commonwealth Games? The central principles of the Barnett formula are being warped by successive governments in regards to what is classed as UK expenditure and there is absolutely nothing that Scotland can do about it with the current representational system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Wonderful sentiment, but unrealistic. Unfortunately the world is and will be for some time divided into nation states. Ours for the moment being the UK. Now unless you would be happy for these islands to be ruled by someone from anywhere in the world, (say Germany or Argentina for example,) you are in small part, a nationalist. Perhaps a "British" nationalist. I also hate certain types of nationalism. I have no problem with nationalism that is inclusive of all in a nation despite their background, is based on the principle of self determination and is not expansive or seeking to dominate others. Very much the Scottish example. I hate nationalism that is overbearing, expansive and seeks to deny other persons the right to determine their own destiny. It is not the fact that peoples and nations are different that causes problems. There is always going to be differences. The issue comes when nations cannot accept that other people are different. They seek to dominate . That is the true evil side of nationalism. I don't think you're grasping this. It isn't anything similar to being ruled by somewhere else. We all have an equal say. IF, I thought that my best interests would be served by a European nation state, then I would be happy to vote for that. If i thought by best interests were to be part of a Berwick nation state of 15'000 people, then I would vote for that. It isn't about nationality for me. I don't consider it as important as a nationalist. I don't agree with grouping millions of people as one and trying to divide them from the rest along national lines 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 There is no definition of country. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/country noun (plural countries)1A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory: HTH Correct. It's like being proud of having blue eyes. Have you ever posted anything that's not completely and utterly idiotic? You make H_B seem rational. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 How simplistic. Let me ask one question; Who in Scotland agreed (or was even asked) if we would pay towards the London Olympics whilst receiving no UK money for the Commonwealth Games? The central principles of the Barnett formula are being warped by successive governments in regards to what is classed as UK expenditure and there is absolutely nothing that Scotland can do about it with the current representational system. Why is a farmer from Duns going to care if London or Glasgow received public money anymore than a farmer in Hexham? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtual Insanity Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I feel the price we would pay for slightly more representative democracy isn't worth it. I'd vote Yes if I was confident there wouldn't be negative consequences, or if I believed the negative consequences were negated by the positive ones. However I feel we would be risking a lot for not much of a return. Having a more representative democracy for the part of the country I live in I think would be a good thing, but it's fairly low down in the list if things that matter to me. Confidemus: I believe Scotland is a country, I'm not sure why I think that matters though. Are you confident that the negative consequences of a Yes vote are likely to be worse than the negative consequences of a No vote? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Builder from Glasgow. Electrician from Leeds. Farmer from Brechin. Fisherman from Whitby. Banker from Edinburgh. Solicitor from London. Mechanic from Cardiff. Unemployed person in Bangor. Chief executive in Inverness. These are the kinds of people who make up the country. If I was desperate to divide these people up into groups, then I wouldn't be starting with nationality. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Why is a farmer from Duns going to care if London or Glasgow received public money anymore than a farmer in Hexham? And with that you have just shown your complete ignorance of public finance in Scotland. And funny you should mention farmers. Perhaps the Duns farmer is more interested in how the Hexham farmer receives more per hectare from the CAP payments than he does. But well done for the own goal. Edited August 20, 2014 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 France being governed by Germany is nothing like this situation. A person in Scotland has as much say as a person anywhere else in the UK. If France and Germany were one nation state, but the government happened to be based in Berlin for example, that would be something similar I suppose, assuming individuals across both countries had an equal say, like we do here. Got past the first line then formulated what you wanted to say and just went with it, did we? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 And with that you have just shown your complete ignorance of public finance in Scotland. And funny you should mention farmers. Perhaps the Duns farmer is more interested in how the Hexham farmer receives more per hectare from the CAP payments than he does. But well done for the own goal. It's not an own goal atall. The point still stands. Why would that concern someone from Duns any more than someone from Hexham? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Got past the first line then formulated what you wanted to say and just went with it, did we?Why even bring up a totally unrelated scenario of one European country being ruled by another. That isn't the situation here. The rest has already been covered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Check the fucking British Nationalists trying to claim they're actually proudly state-blind 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 It's not an own goal atall. The point still stands. Why would that concern someone from Duns any more than someone from Hexham? The amount of public money available to the respective Scottish bodies was reduced by the UK governments decision and had a direct consequence on money available in Scotland. It had no effect on the money available in England (regardless of where it was spent). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Why even bring up a totally unrelated scenario of one European country being ruled by another. That isn't the situation here. The rest has already been covered. Try saying this " Self governance ". Go on. Let the words slip off your tongue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I feel the price we would pay for slightly more representative democracy isn't worth it. I'd vote Yes if I was confident there wouldn't be negative consequences, or if I believed the negative consequences were negated by the positive ones. However I feel we would be risking a lot for not much of a return. Having a more representative democracy for the part of the country I live in I think would be a good thing, but it's fairly low down in the list if things that matter to me. I guess the difference between our opinions is that I believe more representative democracy should always be worth it, but I don't think that is what this is about. We are actually represented from a democratic standpoint in terms of proportion to population but, the democratic issue here is that we do not that we collectively agree on the same issues anymore and it is an issue that has been arguably simmering over the surface for some time. Not only that, I believe there should be more accountability in general. Too often do MPs and MSPs get away with misleading and lying(yes I include both sides) and I simply do not see this changing at all under the system that we have. So what are your higher priorities? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I don't think you're grasping this. It isn't anything similar to being ruled by somewhere else. We all have an equal say. IF, I thought that my best interests would be served by a European nation state, then I would be happy to vote for that. If i thought by best interests were to be part of a Berwick nation state of 15'000 people, then I would vote for that. It isn't about nationality for me. I don't consider it as important as a nationalist. I don't agree with grouping millions of people as one and trying to divide them from the rest along national lines So by your definition, a person who wishes independence for Scotland because the believe they will be better served by that scenario, is not a nationalist. Not in the way of the concept of nationalism that your original post alluded to anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Try saying this " Self governance ". Go on. Let the words slip off your tongue. As I said, it's been covered. Self governance could mean anything from me governing myself, to my street governing it's self, to my town, county, region, nation, state, continent. I'm not a nationalist so it doesn't mean much to me. I prefer to just consider what's best for me and the people I care about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Check the fucking British Nationalists trying to claim they're actually proudly state-blind Its hilarious how they tie themselves in knots over this. The hypocrisy of their criticism of "nationalism"???? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.