Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[scott_jambo]

How can you pigeon hole me into what being Scottish is though? I lived in Scotland for 15 years and never once called myself a Scot, because I wasn't.

 

Again, another one who sees the "national identity" as if an absence of opinion on national identity means you cannot have a YES or a NO answer to independence.

 

Let's hear what you would choose. YES or NO.

[Das Root]

Unless, of course, they aren't debatong for a side.

 

 

 

 

You're not a statistician, then.

 

 

People can get a bit too fixated on the numbers imo.

[Das Root]

Unless you are throwing brickbats at all sides and playing agent provocateur. It is easy to do that with the No side as they don't seem to have a strategy. Asking awkward questions of the Yes guys, however, seems to get the hackles up. I did that with the currency question and you yourself said you got bored with it, despite saying yourself that the White Paper is incorrect with its assertions on the matter.

 

 

I don't work in a bank Geoff and in fairness you kept bringing up the same stuff. After a while it does get boring when everything is on repeat. I can only provide the info I can get my hands on, I'm not going to learn finance just to have a chat with you...

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Again, another one who sees the "national identity" as if an absence of opinion on national identity means you cannot have a YES or a NO answer to independence.

 

Let's hear what you would choose. YES or NO.

 

Funnily enough Scott, I was thinking more about this since I took out Aussie citizenship last year. There were motivations behind this since although I had permanent residency, it made more sense to have citizenship rather than farting about with visas. So I now have dual nationality.

 

When I moved to another part of the UK to go to university, I never felt any different in terms of my nationality since I was a British citizen as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That doesn't mean I see myself as being the 'same' as a Scot as an Ulsterman. We aren't. However, we do have a shared heritage.

 

For that reason, if Scots feel different enough from other British citizens to declare an independent country, then that is up to them. That is why I wouldn't vote. So YES or NO cuts no dice with me.

 

That said, there is no reason Scotland could not be independent. There are also no guarantees that it will either be utopia or a complete balls-up at the extreme ends of either argument. That is why the nationality issue should be the defining issue, in my opinion.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I don't work in a bank Geoff and in fairness you kept bringing up the same stuff. After a while it does get boring when everything is on repeat. I can only provide the info I can get my hands on, I'm not going to learn finance just to have a chat with you...

 

The reason I kept bringing it up was the brush-off that it didn't matter when it was fundamental to the sovereignity of any country.

[Das Root]

The reason I kept bringing it up was the brush-off that it didn't matter when it was fundamental to the sovereignity of any country.

 

 

If nobody has an answer for you here, best to go and ask elsewhere? You were looking for some rather indepth and intricate knowledge from posters that just isn't there. Would have been better to lay out your reasoning in full, then explain it further, than bash on about one small part when nobody has a scooby doo if you are correct or not. Fair play if you are a financial whizz kid, but it's not the be all and end all for me. Money is money, is money. Will be there before, during and after. And after, rUK will play ball.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

If nobody has an answer for you here, best to go and ask elsewhere? You were looking for some rather indepth and intricate knowledge from posters that just isn't there. Would have been better to lay out your reasoning in full, then explain it further, than bash on about one small part when nobody has a scooby doo if you are correct or not. Fair play if you are a financial whizz kid, but it's not the be all and end all for me. Money is money, is money. Will be there before, during and after. And after, rUK will play ball.

I wasn't looking for answers, it was a discussion. When [modedit] think the sun shines out of Mr Salmond's arse, it is pleasing to disabuse them.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

*i have a view that a scottish and British identity as something to be proud of*

 

This is where I'm at...example the British army is something to be proud of that's historic.

Unfortunately it's sent round the world under equipped with a improvise adapt overcome moto whilst they are good at it it's an example of pounds before people attitude.

 

I am from a traditional labour voting family who has become unsatisfied with there direction. The Tories are born liars and are only self interested. Leaving me without a recognised party to vote for. At this moment I am undecided but leaning towards a yes vote probably with the hope that a party will emerge with some socialistic values and one that doesn't brown nose America or acts like an empire when in reality we are a small island.

 

 

[Das Root]

I wasn't looking for answers, it was a discussion. When [modedit] think the sun shines out of Mr Salmond's arse, it is pleasing to disabuse them.

 

 

 

It does though doesn't it? The man's a g.o.d.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

It does though doesn't it? The man's a g.o.d.

 

Each to their own. The man's a politician, a bloody good one, but the sun shining out of a politician's arse? Insert do me a favour smiley here.

[Das Root]

 

 

Each to their own. The man's a politician, a bloody good one, but the sun shining out of a politician's arse? Insert do me a favour smiley here.

 

 

You love him really, economist by trade too. You guys would have lots to talk about.

[Ulysses]

I wasn't looking for answers, it was a discussion. When [modedit] think the sun shines out of Mr Salmond's arse, it is pleasing to disabuse them.

 

It's not surprising that SNP and Yes supporters think highly of the First Minister. He led his party to a comprehensive win at the last election, and he is head and shoulders above the other party leaders and senior figures.

[Ulysses]

 

 

People can get a bit too fixated on the numbers imo.

 

If a poll appears showing an improvement in the Yes vote, or if there's another one of those dodgy polls like the SNP/Panelbase one from August showing a close race, you'll be cutting your arse with a straw to tell us how it means that Yes is winning.

[scott_jambo]

Uly/Geoff - as centrist, risk averse, protectionist zealots, Why can you not just admit you would both select "No", if thereotically you had to vote? Do you really need to skirt around the question so much?

[TheMaganator]

Why are people desperate to put neutrals into one camp or another?

[scott_jambo]

Why are people desperate to put neutrals into one camp or another?

 

Because there isn't a neutral option on the ballot.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Because there isn't a neutral option on the ballot.

So?

A. The two being asked aren't eligible to vote and,

B. Even if they were, you can still be undecided.

[scott_jambo]

So?

A. The two being asked aren't eligible to vote and,

B. Even if they were, you can still be undecided.

 

I'm not asking anyone to join a 'camp', If you're undecided come referendum you will still have to vote yes or no. There is no "undecided" box.

[jambos are go!]

If a poll appears showing an improvement in the Yes vote, or if there's another one of those dodgy polls like the SNP/Panelbase one from August showing a close race, you'll be cutting your arse with a straw to tell us how it means that Yes is winning.

Bet your life they will. And if they can find a way to tamper with respected polls they will do just that. Just as they allegedly use social media to infiltrate media audiences of all sorts. A parcel of rogues - some of them. IMO. Edited December 27, 2013 by jambos are go!

[A Boy Named Crow]

To pished to post properly...later skaters...it was good too!

Edited December 27, 2013 by A Boy Named Crow

[Ulysses]

Bet your life they will. And if they can find a way to tamper with respected polls they will do just that. Just as they allegedly use social media to infiltrate media audiences of all sorts. A parcel of rogues - some of them. IMO.

 

Ach, you're mirror images of each other, so you are. You should stop looking to take pejorative and personalised swipes at your opponents, and stick to arguing why Scotland is better off not being an independent nation.

[Ulysses]

Interesting.

Also interesting that you see national identity as the most important issue to yourself. Maybe that's because you're an irishman.

 

If it wasn't for the fact that Scotland already has a distinct national identity, you wouldn't be having this referendum or this debate.

 

 

Personally, three over riding factors for me are economics, socialist principles and the corruption/aristocracy tendancies of Westminster

 

I get all of that, but I suppose I'm making the points that:-

 

* there's more to life than economics, and we should make an effort not to define ourselves as economic creatures only;

* An independent Scotland would be more conservative than you think;

* There are very few (if any) places on Earth where the centre of power isn't corrupt and elitist in some way.

 

 

I care less about Scottish identity than you, tbh (and British even less so).

 

But you do care less about British identity than Scottish. That means identity matters at some level, and logically that should influence your vote to some degree, albeit minor.

 

 

Uly/Geoff - as centrist, risk averse, protectionist zealots, Why can you not just admit you would both select "No", if thereotically you had to vote? Do you really need to skirt around the question so much?

 

I can't afford to be protectionist. My society's economic well-being and my own standard of living depend greatly on our taking part in a globalised trading economy. Risk averse centrists tend to shy away from extremes, and therefore by definition zealotry.

 

 

I'm not asking anyone to join a 'camp', If you're undecided come referendum you will still have to vote yes or no. There is no "undecided" box.

 

Is voting compulsory in Scotland? My recollection is that it is not.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Uly/Geoff - as centrist, risk averse, protectionist zealots, Why can you not just admit you would both select "No", if thereotically you had to vote? Do you really need to skirt around the question so much?

I wouldn't vote. I have already said I would abstain on principle.

 

I live in a country where it is compulsory to vote and I do not like being "forced" to vote. Indeed, I almost spoiled my ballot papers for that reason.

 

And I honestly don't care what Scotland decides. The only impact on me will be to get Scottish passports for the kids.

[jambos are go!]

Ach, you're mirror images of each other, so you are. You should stop looking to take pejorative and personalised swipes at your opponents, and stick to arguing why Scotland is better off not being an independent nation.

Ach, you're mirror images of each other, so you are. You should stop looking to take pejorative and personalised swipes at your opponents, and stick to arguing why Scotland is better off not being an independent nation.

I'm unaware of Radio Phone ins or Studio Audiences being unbalanced by a plethora of No supporters. I had a swipe at some YES supporters not individuals. Nothing personal in that.

 

Going back to the early days of this thread I'll repeat the fundamental ( but not only)basis for my support for the Union. The Union is not just a political and economic entity. It is also a social and family union with IIRc 2 million born Scots living elsewhere in the UK. That equals around 40% of born Scots. If you add second generation Scots there are probably more 'Ethnic' Scots in the rest of the UK than in Scotland. And given that 40% figure then within a Generation or two most Folk (or their Families) voting in the Referendum will be living in the rest of the UK. The Union has produced melting pot of UK Bloodlines. You don't really need any other evidence of the success of the Union.

[Alba gu Brath]

It's not surprising that SNP and Yes supporters think highly of the First Minister. He led his party to a comprehensive win at the last election, and he is head and shoulders above the other party leaders and senior figures.

 

He's thought highly off by a lot of people apparently - if you believe the polls that is, and I know that you do.

 

Even female voters favour him over Cameron and Miliband while almost all had not even heard of Lamont.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-ladykillers/

[Alba gu Brath]

I'm unaware of Radio Phone ins or Studio Audiences being unbalanced by a plethora of No supporters. I had a swipe at some YES supporters not individuals. Nothing personal in that.

 

Going back to the early days of this thread I'll repeat the fundamental ( but not only)basis for my support for the Union. The Union is not just a political and economic entity. It is also a social and family union with IIRc 2 million born Scots living elsewhere in the UK. That equals around 40% of born Scots. If you add second generation Scots there are probably more 'Ethnic' Scots in the rest of the UK than in Scotland. And given that 40% figure then within a Generation or two most Folk (or their Families) voting in the Referendum will be living in the rest of the UK. The Union has produced melting pot of UK Bloodlines. You don't really need any other evidence of the success of the Union.

 

Scots diaspora? Immigration? Emigration? How many people do you know with a foreign (non-UK) partner/husband/wife? Heard of the EU?

 

Can't believe people are still playing the race/blood card in 201314.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Scots diaspora? Immigration? Emigration? How many people do you know with a foreign (non-UK) partner/husband/wife? Heard of the EU?

 

Can't believe people are still playing the race/blood card in 201314.

 

Its not major for some posters. That much is clear. But I'll hazard a feeling of Britishness or the belief in an affinity to either Scotland only or also Britain will sway more than childcare or not enacting rights for shares policies.

[JamboX2]

 

 

He's thought highly off by a lot of people apparently - if you believe the polls that is, and I know that you do.

 

Even female voters favour him over Cameron and Miliband while almost all had not even heard of Lamont.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-ladykillers/

 

I'm not surprised by this. However coverage of Scots politics is woeful. Worse than in NI and Wales on their domestic politics. If we had better coverage from the jokes that are STV and BBC Scotland then more faces might be kent.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I'm not surprised by this. However coverage of Scots politics is woeful. Worse than in NI and Wales on their domestic politics. If we had better coverage from the jokes that are STV and BBC Scotland then more faces might be kent.

 

People will get interested in politics if politicians give them reasons to be interested.

[JamboX2]

 

 

People will get interested in politics if politicians give them reasons to be interested.

 

That too. But Scottish media outlets are poor in their coverage.

[southside1874]

Or the greed by which Scots parliamentarians and financiers blew all the cash on Darien, shattering the national economy in the.hope of somehow dominating trade in the Carribean - already dominated by the Spanish and English. Greed of capitalist aristocratic Scots which impoverished the ordinary Scots below them in some foreign imperialistic adventure.

 

What came next was Union. For the rights and wrongs of its foundation it sure helped turn Scotlands fortunes around through time.

 

Just a classic example of the English helping themselves. You are aware that we shared the same monarch at the time? I don't think Scotland wanted to dominate the Caribbean but merely have a piece of the action. You are aware that the English instructed foreign investors to withdraw their financial support for the expedition? You are aware that the Spanish were encouraged to attack the colony? We obviously didn't expect the underhanded treatment dished out by our "friends" who we shared the same monarch with. We got sold down the river then and we have been sold down the river since then.

 

What I see from both sides of this debate is folk who have made up their mind how they will vote and they find information that suits their agenda based on the propaganda distributed. We owe it to ourselves to look at this with an open mind. The politicians in place just now will come and go and we will be here. I don't base my opinion on the nonsense that comes from the politicians in place just now. It's turned into/turning into a tit for tat nonsense. The more tit for tat that goes on then the least likely we are from finding the truth.

 

Now what is the truth?

[Ulysses]

 

He's thought highly off by a lot of people apparently - if you believe the polls that is, and I know that you do.

 

Even female voters favour him over Cameron and Miliband while almost all had not even heard of Lamont.

 

I'm not at all surprised he's well thought of by people apart from Yes supporters. He's miles ahead of anyone else in the senior ranks of politics in Scotland. My point was in response to a comment about his popularity with Yes supporters.

 

It's also noteworthy how much more popular he is with women than the idea of voting Yes is.

[redm]

If the basis for assumption that the white paper has failed to influence polls is still based on those conducted from 27th Nov to 2nd Dec, then I'm amazed anyone would consider that a true representation of views. The white paper is enormous, it's detailed, it had been online 24 hours when polling began and hard copies weren't yet due to be posted out for another two weeks. How the heck was it supposed to have influence within that timeframe?

 

I found it mad that anyone paid attention to those polls however the results still got a massive amount of news coverage but none of them even went near the idea that folk might just not have managed to read it yet. Funny that.

 

Re: identity stuff. It's something I have feelings on for sure but it's way down the list of reasons why I'll vote Yes. My identity won't change much and the changes that will occur are unlikely to cause me any torment or difficulty. It's not a key issue for me.

Edited December 28, 2013 by redm

[southside1874]

I don't think I'll ever read this white paper. Personally, I think the guys from the SNP are about the most truthful and honest politicians on the block just now. They produce a paper proposing their thoughts on Scotland's future. This can and will change, and really is open for anyone to poke at. I'm not voting for any politician or political party in the referendum. I'm voting for an independent Scotland. Cameron has recently said to Scotland that Britain is not broken. that we will not be EU members if independent and several other bits......bla bla bla. He says to the South of "Britain" The UK is broken and offers a vote on whether to remain in the EU... as he clearly doesn't think it's in his best interests to remain in the EU. FFS. The UK is selling every company and every bit of land to the highest bidder. Our stockmarket is full of companies owned by foreign investors and our housing market is driven by foreign capital. We create poverty to keep the cost of living down and therefore keep inflation in check. The figures are all fudged to suit.

 

If you export enough goods then you don't need to create poverty to keep inflation in check as you create foreign investment by selling goods. The UK doesn't create enough goods to sell therefore it keeps inflation in check to attract foreign cash. This foreign cash is invested in our companies and housing stock. Scotland produces enough goods through drink, food and energy to sell our produce to gain this foreign cash without creating poverty for the sake of lower inflation. Anyway............You have some choice, I'm not the economist to explain it properly and I ain't the politician to make a song. However, I have seen some figures that would make your blood boil if you felt concerned.

 

By the very nature of things, we wont agree. The problem with us Scots is we won't agree to disagree. We just don't know the truth.

[Alfred]

This thread is one of the better ones I've seen regarding discussion on the various points of view, so a big thank you to all of you who have kept this at a grown up and non-petty level.

 

 

[Alfred]

Re the identity thing.... It really isn't part of the discussion for me.

 

The whole point is around governance at a more local and granular level, the one size fits all model has worked well for the UK in the past but it's time has gone (IMHO), the fact that different regions etc need subsidies and the like to make up for negative impacts of central government legislation is an indicator, this is true across the UK, not just Scotland.

 

When the vote comes around every voter in Scotland will be able to vote whether Scottish, English, Polish (even Irish Uly! ;-) ) , the point is if you choose to live, work and pay taxes etc here then you are entitled to have the choice.

 

I feel Scottish now as part of Britain and I'll feel the same if we were independent, I'll also add that works the other way as well, independence doesn't stop me being British, heck Scotland is part of Britain after all.

[jambos are go!]

I don't think I'll ever read this white paper. Personally, I think the guys from the SNP are about the most truthful and honest politicians on the block just now. They produce a paper proposing their thoughts on Scotland's future. This can and will change, and really is open for anyone to poke at. I'm not voting for any politician or political party in the referendum. I'm voting for an independent Scotland. Cameron has recently said to Scotland that Britain is not broken. that we will not be EU members if independent and several other bits......bla bla bla. He says to the South of "Britain" The UK is broken and offers a vote on whether to remain in the EU... as he clearly doesn't think it's in his best interests to remain in the EU. FFS. The UK is selling every company and every bit of land to the highest bidder. Our stockmarket is full of companies owned by foreign investors and our housing market is driven by foreign capital. We create poverty to keep the cost of living down and therefore keep inflation in check. The figures are all fudged to suit.

 

If you export enough goods then you don't need to create poverty to keep inflation in check as you create foreign investment by selling goods. The UK doesn't create enough goods to sell therefore it keeps inflation in check to attract foreign cash. This foreign cash is invested in our companies and housing stock. Scotland produces enough goods through drink, food and energy to sell our produce to gain this foreign cash without creating poverty for the sake of lower inflation. Anyway............You have some choice, I'm not the economist to explain it properly and I ain't the politician to make a song. However, I have seen some figures that would make your blood boil if you felt concerned.

 

By the very nature of things, we wont agree. The problem with us Scots is we won't agree to disagree. We just don't know the truth.

The truth is the Union is valued and popular with a majority of Scots as shown in poll after poll.

[A Boy Named Crow]

I'm unaware of Radio Phone ins or Studio Audiences being unbalanced by a plethora of No supporters. I had a swipe at some YES supporters not individuals. Nothing personal in that.

 

Going back to the early days of this thread I'll repeat the fundamental ( but not only)basis for my support for the Union. The Union is not just a political and economic entity. It is also a social and family union with IIRc 2 million born Scots living elsewhere in the UK. That equals around 40% of born Scots. If you add second generation Scots there are probably more 'Ethnic' Scots in the rest of the UK than in Scotland. And given that 40% figure then within a Generation or two most Folk (or their Families) voting in the Referendum will be living in the rest of the UK. The Union has produced melting pot of UK Bloodlines. You don't really need any other evidence of the success of the Union.

 

Sorry, what? In what way is the migration of people relevant to this debate? Would you have the UK reunified with Australia, NZ, the USA etc? It just seems an utterly bizarre point to bring up!

[JamboX2]

Re the identity thing.... It really isn't part of the discussion for me.

 

The whole point is around governance at a more local and granular level, the one size fits all model has worked well for the UK in the past but it's time has gone (IMHO), the fact that different regions etc need subsidies and the like to make up for negative impacts of central government legislation is an indicator, this is true across the UK, not just Scotland.

 

When the vote comes around every voter in Scotland will be able to vote whether Scottish, English, Polish (even Irish Uly! ;-) ) , the point is if you choose to live, work and pay taxes etc here then you are entitled to have the choice.

 

I feel Scottish now as part of Britain and I'll feel the same if we were independent, I'll also add that works the other way as well, independence doesn't stop me being British, heck Scotland is part of Britain after all.

 

Would you not say being "British" is an identity related to the British State of the UK and NI? I know identity isn't the be all and end all. However it's key to this. The idea you will be British in 2016, or that the generation which follows as the "first independent generation" (one slogan for the SNP government of 2016 on no doubt) will feel that, to me is bizzare. Scotland will no longer be part of the UK. Therefore you won't be a British citizen and by virtue of that not British. I doubt many, if any, person in the ROI calls themselves British, or did much beyond 1922.

 

To me identity is about what you are apart of and what your nation is. In that sense I'm a Scot, British and a European - Scotland-UK-EU. Once, or if, we are inependent that element is gone.

[A Boy Named Crow]

 

 

Would you not say being "British" is an identity related to the British State of the UK and NI? I know identity isn't the be all and end all. However it's key to this. The idea you will be British in 2016, or that the generation which follows as the "first independent generation" (one slogan for the SNP government of 2016 on no doubt) will feel that, to me is bizzare. Scotland will no longer be part of the UK. Therefore you won't be a British citizen and by virtue of that not British. I doubt many, if any, person in the ROI calls themselves British, or did much beyond 1922.

 

To me identity is about what you are apart of and what your nation is. In that sense I'm a Scot, British and a European - Scotland-UK-EU. Once, or if, we are inependent that element is gone.

 

Great Britain is an island, the biggest of the British Isles. Scotland is located in the northern part of Great Britain. Scots would continue to be British post-independence, just not citizens of the UK. Much like a Sweedish person is Swedish, Scandinavian and European.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Great Britain is an island, the biggest of the British Isles. Scotland is located in the northern part of Great Britain. Scots would continue to be British post-independence, just not citizens of the UK. Much like a Sweedish person is Swedish, Scandinavian and European.

National identity is more than where you are situated geographically. I don't feel European despite living in Europe (except during the Ryder Cup).

[JamboX2]

Great Britain is an island, the biggest of the British Isles. Scotland is located in the northern part of Great Britain. Scots would continue to be British post-independence, just not citizens of the UK. Much like a Sweedish person is Swedish, Scandinavian and European.

National identity is more than where you are situated geographically. I don't feel European despite living in Europe (except during the Ryder Cup).

 

Out of these two statements I agree with Maganator. I have never met many from Scandinavia. However, is that not a description for the area. I don't know if it's a "nationality" or a "citizenship".

 

You are European by virtue of EU membership in terms of your citizenship. You are British by your virtue of being a citizen of the UK and NI. Hence the Irish don't call themselves British despite Ireland, containing the ROI, being apart of the British isles.

 

I don't think geographic location makes you anything. I think it's the political and social affinities and descriptions which determines this. After a Yes vote I would not be British. I am not a British citizen at that point - dual nationality aside - I would be Scottish.

[A Boy Named Crow]

 

 

 

Out of these two statements I agree with Maganator. I have never met many from Scandinavia. However, is that not a description for the area. I don't know if it's a "nationality" or a "citizenship".

 

You are European by virtue of EU membership in terms of your citizenship. You are British by your virtue of being a citizen of the UK and NI. Hence the Irish don't call themselves British despite Ireland, containing the ROI, being apart of the British isles.

 

I don't think geographic location makes you anything. I think it's the political and social affinities and descriptions which determines this. After a Yes vote I would not be British. I am not a British citizen at that point - dual nationality aside - I would be Scottish.

 

I'd say it's a question of personal preference, but you seem to be making an issue out of nothing. The UK has a history, a history Scotland has been a part of. You can choose to identify with that history if you want. Similarly Scotland would share a language and many cultural references with the RUK. If you want to get all het up about not having the same passport then bash on, but equally, if you wanted to, you could continue to identify with those sharing a language and culture with yourself across the British Isles. Nae beef!

[Patrick Bateman]

I find it a bit weird when people heavily tie their identity to where they're from. I'd say identity is more a construct of your actual surroundings and upbringing, as well as your achievements and the people you socialise with. It's not something I take conscious pride in, per se. That's why I find the folk who go on about being 'proud to be from X' because athlete Y managed to win a race, pretty curious people. I mean, is there nothing else in their lives that make them proud or for them to identity with?

 

As others have said, if this was about Scottish identity versus British identity, then why are numerous English, French, Polish, and various other non-Scots going to vote Yes? Besides, as we've seen with the census, a majority of people in Scotland consider themselves Scottish only. That's a fact that no amount of rhetoric can change. However, whether this translates into an independence vote is an entirely different matter. It'll be won on whether people believe Scotland should take control over its own affairs, or whether we really do have the 'best of both worlds' and are better off continuing to delegate those affairs to Westminster. I'd say the ?1.3 trillion national debt, ongoing wars and unequal society created under Westminster's watch should make that decision self-evident. But then, being a brain washed Yes supporter who just happens to use facts to support my arguments, I would say that, wouldn't I?

[Ulysses]

.....if this was about Scottish identity versus British identity.....

 

If this wasn't about Scottish identity, you wouldn't have a Parliament, you wouldn't be having this referendum and you wouldn't be having this debate.

 

It is already accepted that a distinct and separate Scottish identity exists, and very few people would try to argue that it does not. So now the question is whether that separate Scottish identity survives and thrives best in a constitutional arrangement in which Scotland is a nation within a nation, or one in which Scotland is separate and independent.

[Patrick Bateman]

If this wasn't about Scottish identity, you wouldn't have a Parliament, you wouldn't be having this referendum and you wouldn't be having this debate.

 

It is already accepted that a distinct and separate Scottish identity exists, and very few people would try to argue that it does not. So now the question is whether that separate Scottish identity survives and thrives best in a constitutional arrangement in which Scotland is a nation within a nation, or one in which Scotland is separate and independent.

 

Identity is an intangible, unquantifiable cultural construct. Things like poverty, national debt and democratic deficits are quantifiable. There won't be any debates as to whether Holyrood or Westminster is better placed to 'manage' identity, because neither institution can do so directly, whereas they can with those things that are quantifiable.

[Alba gu Brath]

If this wasn't about Scottish identity, you wouldn't have a Parliament, you wouldn't be having this referendum and you wouldn't be having this debate.

 

It is already accepted that a distinct and separate Scottish identity exists, and very few people would try to argue that it does not. So now the question is whether that separate Scottish identity survives and thrives best in a constitutional arrangement in which Scotland is a nation within a nation, or one in which Scotland is separate and independent.

 

What is this identity?

 

And what differentiates Norway from Sweden from Denmark? LInguistically there is virtually nothing between their languages. Historically, not much more. Remember that the word 'nation' has the same root as 'nativity' or 'birth'. The first nations were extended families - clans, tribes and communities. Hence why Clan MacGregor refers to itself as a 'race'. As I've said before, even within indigenous Scottish Gaelic 'culture' there were different 'cultures'.

 

The modern idea of a nation surpasses this. Sure, identity has some part to play but in a small world where most, or at least many, of us are mixed or married to foreigners, the auld Celtic Scottish identity cannot be the central plank in our arguments. Many other nations balance this well - Switzerland has four official languages for example. Even in Germany you have pockets of Sorbish - a Slavoc tongue present there for 1500 years - an island in a sea of Germanic. Today - the Sorbs are modern Germans too. In Finland, all children become bilingual in Finnish and Swedish. All learn English and some learn the Sami languages of the north. One identity? I don't think so.

 

This is where Yes have played it well. Gaelic and other aspects of our indigenous identity should be represented but to make them the be-all and end-all is to goose-step down a road of patriotism. The only people who seem to have misty-eyed nostalgia and flag-waving patriotism as their ace-cards are the Unionists.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Alba gu Brath

[JamboX2]

I find it a bit weird when people heavily tie their identity to where they're from. I'd say identity is more a construct of your actual surroundings and upbringing, as well as your achievements and the people you socialise with. It's not something I take conscious pride in, per se. That's why I find the folk who go on about being 'proud to be from X' because athlete Y managed to win a race, pretty curious people. I mean, is there nothing else in their lives that make them proud or for them to identity with?

 

Is that not confusing national identity with personal identity? I have plenty personal achievements and moments I'm proud of, and ones I'm not proud of. People feel pride in where they are from, no matter where that is. I know folk who grew up in places which are dumps and feel immense sense of pride for those places and the people from there.

 

At the Olympics it was pride in Team GB, much like you feel pride in your club when you win a cup or when you win a match. The pride in the nation, for me, came from seeing how well the team did, how it brought people together, and how we managed to pull off a very succesful Olympic games and made a good show of it. Not only that it celebrated great events in our history - the NHS, our shared culture, our history and the people. It was the Best of British. Much as I'm sure the Commonwealth games will be the Best of Scottish.

 

As others have said, if this was about Scottish identity versus British identity, then why are numerous English, French, Polish, and various other non-Scots going to vote Yes? Besides, as we've seen with the census, a majority of people in Scotland consider themselves Scottish only. That's a fact that no amount of rhetoric can change. However, whether this translates into an independence vote is an entirely different matter. It'll be won on whether people believe Scotland should take control over its own affairs, or whether we really do have the 'best of both worlds' and are better off continuing to delegate those affairs to Westminster. I'd say the ?1.3 trillion national debt, ongoing wars and unequal society created under Westminster's watch should make that decision self-evident. But then, being a brain washed Yes supporter who just happens to use facts to support my arguments, I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

As Uly said if national identity didn't come into it Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland wouldn't have devolved institutions. The fact we do suggests we believe in a different way and have different values as part of our identity as Scots, Welsh etc. So do the English, and hence the anger from many at the direction of domestic politics in Westminster for English only services. As for the part in bold those issues may well cause a Yes vote, that's your prospective on them, in terms of the wars etc I agree (as I've said I don't think these are failings of Westminster but failings of diplomacy and an adherence to Pax Americana). However, if people take the view that Westminster and not policy and political conviction is the problem and they vote Yes it will be because they think as Scots we will be better placed at solving these issues with some inherent basic values of our nature that being British and being part of Britain will stops us from resolving them. You can see that in some Yes Scotland stuff, talking of unique "Scottish values" and that we are more compassionate - something Ms Sturgeon regularly trots out. That will therefore mean people deciding this on a belief our identity will make a difference in rectifying issues.

[JamboX2]

Identity is an intangible, unquantifiable cultural construct. Things like poverty, national debt and democratic deficits are quantifiable. There won't be any debates as to whether Holyrood or Westminster is better placed to 'manage' identity, because neither institution can do so directly, whereas they can with those things that are quantifiable.

 

But a belief we as Scots alone are better at solving the tangible issues suggests national identiy does have an impact on this for the nationalist view.

[Patrick Bateman]

But a belief we as Scots alone are better at solving the tangible issues suggests national identiy does have an impact on this for the nationalist view.

 

I have never, ever said Scots are particularly better at solving problems. However, when Westminster has failed to the extent that it has, and when you consider other countries comparable (or smaller size) to Scotland in terms of population size and assets are significantly better managed, then independence makes more sense. If it could have happened within the United Kingdom, why hasn't it? You've said you want a no vote because it means we remain part of the same foreign policies which cost vast sums of money, whilst people here live live in relative and fuel poverty in an otherwise wealthy and energy rich nation. I don't think that's acceptable, I can't see where this change will come from by voting no, because the political leverage will disappear and Scotland's needs will never be the paramount consideration at Westminster, nor should it be because of the numbers.

 

Independence creates options that do not exist as part of the UK. That excites me. A no vote guarantees more of the same uncertainties; democratic deficit, wasteful military spending, failed tax system and out of touch Governments. You seem to think there will be reform following a No vote; reform requires political leverage and will. You do not gain leverage by dispensing with it, ever. Indeed, I find it astonishing that Labour have the gall to make promises without power, and that people trust a Tory government who have implimented numerous damaging policies. Before they came to power, they said they'd tax the bankers; they went on to cut the top rate of tax. They said they'd 'Go green' and they scrapped energy related taxes for a short term boost. They didn't say anything about selling off the royal mail yet did it anyway, undervalue too. I'd much rather have the 'uncertainty' of independence with greater control over Scotland's future, rather than the uncertainty created by us having 9% of control as we do right now and being part of reckless, short term thinking that dictates Westminster politics. Now, I know you've said 'But you can't PROVE independence will change that' and of course I can't, I'm not saying it will, but to continue down this well travelled, and totally failed path, when independence offers a different direction, is astonishing.