Question Time

[Ad Lib]

Previously you have argued that the concept of nationhood is based on a community of individuals recognising their territory as such. The law does not enter into it (only into statehood and nation-state status). Therefore, by your definition, the confederacy is a country, because:

1. There are individuals within who consider it a nation enforced into a union by war.

2. It has what you define as "its own" government.

It does not, of course, have statehood or sovereign status, nor does it have any kind of "confederate government" - but that's irrelevant to your given definitions of what constitutes a country. Ad Lib the homespun Rebel Johnny; who knew?

 

It's your bullet point one that doesn't follow. The Confederacy did not consider itself to be a different "nation" from the Union from which it seceded. Some of the individuals living there might have, but the Confederacy itself did not assert that.

[Antlion]

It's your bullet point one that doesn't follow. The Confederacy did not consider itself to be a different "nation" from the Union from which it seceded. Some of the individuals living there might have, but the Confederacy itself did not assert that.

And yet you have argued that the concept of nationhood is predicated on people within a territory considering themselves to be a nation. As long as there are people who consider the Confederacy a nation waiting to "rise again" (and I can assure you there are a worrying number willing to rally under the banner of "their" Confederate flag) then the Confederacy is "a nation with its own government" and thus a country. It is certainly as much of a country as you claim Cornwall (or Strathclyde) is.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Antlion

[Glenn Medeiros]

 

 

2. Notice you have asked whether "the SNP" had a mandate, not "Scotland". The answer is of course that yes, they had a political mandate, but they very clearly didn't have a legal one until the UK Government consented to a section 30 Order, which they were well within their rights to refuse. 

 

Cameron told his audience: "You might want to think 'well why are we having this referendum, why take the risk?' I think it is the right thing to do for this reason. The Scottish people elected in 2011 a Scottish National party government in Edinburgh with Alex Salmond at its head. One of their policies was to have a referendum on the future of Scotland being a part of the UK.

"I felt, as the prime minister of the UK, I had a choice. I could either say to them 'well you can't have your referendum, it is for us to decide whether you should have one.' I think that would have led to an almighty and disastrous battle between the Westminster parliament and the UK government and the Scottish government and the Scottish first minister. So I did what I thought was the right thing, which was to say 'you voted for a party that wants independence, you should have a referendum that is legal, that is decisive and that is fair.'"

[Tibbermoresaint]

The Confederacy certainly considered itself to be a separate nation.

[Mortar Bored]

"You may be somewhat correct on that."

No, just completely correct.

Constitutions define the conditions in which democracy can meaningfully be said to exist. They are the basis of legitimate government.

So, by your own admission, the constitution in apartheid SA was the basis for a legitimate government?

Also, should the constitution be preserved without impunity?

What conditions do you think render a constitution illegitimate?

[Ad Lib]

And yet you have argued that the concept of nationhood is predicated on people within a territory considering themselves to be a nation. As long as there are people who consider the Confederacy a nation waiting to "rise again" (and I can assure you there are a worrying number willing to rally under the banner of "their" Confederate flag) then the Confederacy is "a nation with its own government" and thus a country. It is certainly as much of a country as you claim Cornwall (or Strathclyde) is.

 

The existence of one person who believes something is a nation doesn't make it a nation. It requires broad acceptance of the relevant peoples that they are a nation and that was not the case for the Confederacy.

 

Even if we were to say that the Confederacy is a nation though, so what? That doesn't confer them any rights.

 

 

Cameron told his audience: "You might want to think 'well why are we having this referendum, why take the risk?' I think it is the right thing to do for this reason. The Scottish people elected in 2011 a Scottish National party government in Edinburgh with Alex Salmond at its head. One of their policies was to have a referendum on the future of Scotland being a part of the UK.

"I felt, as the prime minister of the UK, I had a choice. I could either say to them 'well you can't have your referendum, it is for us to decide whether you should have one.' I think that would have led to an almighty and disastrous battle between the Westminster parliament and the UK government and the Scottish government and the Scottish first minister. So I did what I thought was the right thing, which was to say 'you voted for a party that wants independence, you should have a referendum that is legal, that is decisive and that is fair.'"

 

 

Yes, Cameron thought it was expedient, given the political environment, to allow the referendum to happen. Like he says though, he had a choice.

 

The Confederacy certainly considered itself to be a separate nation.

 

No it didn't. It considered itself to be a separate state.

[Ad Lib]

So, by your own admission, the constitution in apartheid SA was the basis for a legitimate government?

Also, should the constitution be preserved without impunity?

What conditions do you think render a constitution illegitimate?

 

Nope. I didn't say their Constitution was a legitimate one.

 

A constitution that disenfranchises on the basis of race is illegitimate.

 

I said that constitutions are the basis of legitimate government. I did not say that all constitutions were the basis of legitimate government.

[Antlion]

The existence of one person who believes something is a nation doesn't make it a nation. It requires broad acceptance of the relevant peoples that they are a nation and that was not the case for the Confederacy.

Even if we were to say that the Confederacy is a nation though, so what? That doesn't confer them any rights.

Having particular national "rights" is not listed on your definition of being a "country". It claims only that any given nation must have "its own government", which you claim the Confederacy has, right now, as we speak.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Antlion

[Ad Lib]

Having particular national "rights" is not listed on your definition of being a "country". It claims only that any given nation must have "its own government", which you claim the Confederacy has, right now, as we speak.

 

I didn't say you had to have national rights to be a country.

 

I dispute that the Confederacy is or ever was a nation, and to be a country you have to be a nation.

 

I have no problem, if people believe that the Confederacy is a nation, with accepting that it is a country.

 

Because being a country doesn't confer you any special privileges or rights. It merely provides a descriptive state of being.

[Antlion]

I didn't say you had to have national rights to be a country.

I dispute that the Confederacy is or ever was a nation, and to be a country you have to be a nation.

I have no problem, if people believe that the Confederacy is a nation, with accepting that it is a country.

Because being a country doesn't confer you any special privileges or rights. It merely provides a descriptive state of being.

Like Wales prior to devolution?

[Mortar Bored]

How do you feel about a constitution that disenfranchises a nation state through that constitution?

[Ad Lib]

Like Wales prior to devolution?

Wales was very clearly a nation for centuries, and had distinctive governing arrangements prior to devolution, including the disestablishment of the Church. It has, since the inception of the UK Parliament, had representatives in it. I would say it's a nation and a country and has been for a very long time.

 

How do you feel about a constitution that disenfranchises a nation state through that constitution?

 

I would say that's a contradiction in terms. A Constitution of a nation-state cannot disenfranchise a nation-state unless it is an absolute monarchy or an aristocracy or an oligarchy.

 

If you mean one which disenfranchises a nation within it, then I would say that is a bad constitution, and may, depending on the particulars, be illegitimate.

 

I do not believe that a Constitution which denies a constituent nation the right to hold a referendum on secession, or to secede, is disenfranchising that nation.

 

ETA: As I argue in my thesis, which is currently sitting at 65,000 words or so on this stuff, I think that constitutions which fail to enshrine clear secession rights are potentially self-destructive constitutions that expose the pathology of the rule of law, but not illegitimate ones.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Ad Lib

[Antlion]

Wales was very clearly a nation for centuries, and had distinctive governing arrangements prior to devolution, including the disestablishment of the Church. It has, since the inception of the UK Parliament, had representatives in it. I would say it's a nation and a country and has been for a very long time.

That's all very jingoistic and fluffy, but I wasn't really asking whether or not you think Wales is a country (since you have already said you think it is). I'm curious as to what uniquely Welsh "rights" it was granted through the centuries in which its government was the British one. After all, what good is being a country if you don't get "rights" denied a non-country, right? Wales must have been getting something that, say, Perthshire didn't get - otherwise its "country" status within the UK was a deceptive piece of flannel.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Antlion

[Ad Lib]

That's all very jingoistic and fluffy, but I wasn't really asking whether or not you think Wales is a country (since you have already said you think it is). I'm curious as to what uniquely Welsh "rights and privileges" it was granted through the centuries in which its government was the British one. After all, what good is being a country if you don't get "special rights and privileges", right?

 

And I answered that question.

 

The disestablishment of the Church of England and a discrete local government settlement are two such examples of special privileges the UK Constitution chose to confer on Wales before devolution.

[Antlion]

And I answered that question.

The disestablishment of the Church of England and a discrete local government settlement are two such examples of special privileges the UK Constitution chose to confer on Wales before devolution.

Several hundred years and the benefits of Wales being "a country" are that the UK allowed the English Church to be disestablished there (after two centuries of governance and enforcement of it), and a "discrete" local government settlement which was presumably also "discreet", because I've never even heard of it?

I'm afraid that really doesn't invite one to consider that being a country within the UK is anything to brag about. In fact, I'd say it's rather pathetic and paltry in comparison to what similarly-sized sovereign countries have done (and been able to do) with truly "their own" governments in the same period of time.

[Glenn Medeiros]

Ad lib will be back to tell us about how the areas which thrived under the union would have been better off independent.  While the areas who've suffered under the union should be eternally grateful for their suffrage.     

[Ad Lib]

Several hundred years and the benefits of Wales being "a country" are that the UK allowed the English Church to be disestablished there (after two centuries of governance and enforcement of it), and a "discrete" local government settlement which was presumably also "discreet", because I've never even heard of it?

I'm afraid that really doesn't invite one to consider that being a country within the UK is anything to brag about. In fact, I'd say it's rather pathetic and paltry in comparison to what similarly-sized sovereign countries have done (and been able to do) with truly "their own" governments in the same period of time.

 

I don't care about whether being a country in the UK is, in and of itself, something to brag about.

 

I find the idea that you'd brag about the "status" of a country pretty peculiar.

[Antlion]

I don't care about whether being a country in the UK is, in and of itself, something to brag about.

I find the idea that you'd brag about the "status" of a country pretty peculiar.

Like claiming that a country is "punching above its weight"; "leading the world"; "being a major player on the world stage"; "being proud to have magnified strength and international clout"?

[Todders]

Pursuant of articke 11b, subparagraph 1, subsection 3 of the 1605 Flapplewopper Act, Ad Lib is a boring c**t.

[Ad Lib]

Like claiming that a country is "punching above its weight"; "leading the world"; "being a major player on the world stage"; "being proud to have magnified strength and international clout"?

 

They're peculiar if you're only proud because it's your country doing it, rather than that you're proud of the effects of it doing so.