Tony Blair and our football.

[Smoked-Glass]

1 hour ago, Independence said:

 

Not in MY country. The UK is Not a country. It is like the EU. The UK consists of 4 nations who have, joined through legislation, to form a union just as nations in Europe have. Fact! 

Britain then if not UK.   The vote was counted that way.   So like it or not, your country DID vote to leave the EU in 2016.     Fact. 

[Smoked-Glass]

9 hours ago, Independence said:

Lets just stick to what we normally do at any election that is , to count the people who actually voted as we don't know what those who didn't vote would have voted so:

NO	2,001,926	55.30
YES	1,617,989	44.70

 

so I am sure even you would agree very close. I know lots of friends/family who want an independent Scotland but believed the scare mongers before the vote telling them lies such as that they would loose their pension etc etc and so voted No. They won't be fooled again. Many other Scots who do not consider themselves anything but Scottish also believed the 'pledge' and decided to vote No. The only demographic to vote No was the over 65s. This, I am sure, was the elderly worried about their pensions. My mother, 85 at the time, a nationalist, voted No for this very reason.

 

Next time Yes will win. It took two votes to win devolution and it will take two votes to win self-determination.

So do we just keep voting until YES wins?   What if YES wins but we decide to have another one after that cause people aren't happy / misinformed/ scaremongered/etc.    2014 was not supposed to be best of 3, it was a once in a lifetime vote.  Close.. But NO won 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Smoked-Glass

[AlphonseCapone]

Get this shite in the shed ffs. The Terrace is bad enough without the groundhog day Brexit and indie chat. 

[Rudolf]

10 hours ago, Independence said:

Lets just stick to what we normally do at any election that is , to count the people who actually voted as we don't know what those who didn't vote would have voted so:

NO	2,001,926	55.30
YES	1,617,989	44.70

 

so I am sure even you would agree very close. I know lots of friends/family who want an independent Scotland but believed the scare mongers before the vote telling them lies such as that they would loose their pension etc etc and so voted No. They won't be fooled again. Many other Scots who do not consider themselves anything but Scottish also believed the 'pledge' and decided to vote No. The only demographic to vote No was the over 65s. This, I am sure, was the elderly worried about their pensions. My mother, 85 at the time, a nationalist, voted No for this very reason.

 

Next time Yes will win. It took two votes to win devolution and it will take two votes to win self-determination.

I was referring to your post that seemed to imply that the noisy minority that voted for independence were in the majority.

 

Now you're agreeing with me that No voters were in the majority but saying it was close.

 

Remind me of the oil price used by the SNP in their white paper and could you confirm the currency we'd be using for pensions etc etc while you're at it?

 

As for your demographic fact, here's the actual figures:

 

Age 16-19 No 54% Yes 46%

20-24 No 54% Yes 46%

25-28 No 38% Yes 63%

30-39 No 45% Yes 55%

40-49 No 47% Yes 53%

50-59 No 52% Yes 48%

60-69 No 60% Yes 40%

70+ No 67% Yes 33%

 

Think you need to take the blinkers off and stop reading the 'National' for your facts.

 

Edit

 

Apologies to Alphonse, I promise that's my last word!

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Rudolf

[upgotheheads]

12 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Just to clarify - the Norway option WOULD allow free trade deals if it is was single market access only. The customs union aspect is overblown and the Irish border could easily be solved if the exit deal contained full agreements on agrifoods across Ireland, which actually happens now as Ireland as a whole is treated as one veterinary zone. Other goods could go through normal customs labelling and could easily be inspected away from border posts, meaning no need for a "hard" border.

 

Single market and customs union access is "Norway plus".

The Norway option requires Norway to implement most EU regulation, which for the WTO Free Traders in the Tory party would pretty well tie their hands when it come to negotiating 'Free Trade' agreements with other countries. Also of course it requires free movement, which (lets face it) was what the Brexit vote was all about even if it didn't appear on the ballot paper. Free movement of people is what has kept the Scottish (and UK) economy in reasonably  good shape over the last 20 years.

[Independence]

1 hour ago, Rudolf said:

I was referring to your post that seemed to imply that the noisy minority that voted for independence were in the majority.

 

Now you're agreeing with me that No voters were in the majority but saying it was close.

 

Remind me of the oil price used by the SNP in their white paper and could you confirm the currency we'd be using for pensions etc etc while you're at it?

 

As for your demographic fact, here's the actual figures:

 

Age 16-19 No 54% Yes 46%

20-24 No 54% Yes 46%

25-28 No 38% Yes 63%

30-39 No 45% Yes 55%

40-49 No 47% Yes 53%

50-59 No 52% Yes 48%

60-69 No 60% Yes 40%

70+ No 67% Yes 33%

 

Think you need to take the blinkers off and stop reading the 'National' for your facts.

 

Edit

 

Apologies to Alphonse, I promise that's my last word!

 

Ill stick to my beliefs and facts. Thanks though for your interest.

[Independence]

2 hours ago, Smoked-Glass said:

So do we just keep voting until YES wins?   What if YES wins but we decide to have another one after that cause people aren't happy / misinformed/ scaremongered/etc.    2014 was not supposed to be best of 3, it was a once in a lifetime vote.  Close.. But NO won 

Agreed. Any referendum vote should only be won with a 60% vote Yes. It will come.

[Hearts_fan]

2 hours ago, Smoked-Glass said:

So do we just keep voting until YES wins?   What if YES wins but we decide to have another one after that cause people aren't happy / misinformed/ scaremongered/etc.    2014 was not supposed to be best of 3, it was a once in a lifetime vote.  Close.. But NO won 

 

Thankfully we live in a society where people are allowed to campaign for change.

 

As and when Scotland becomes a normal, independent nation, a campaign for the re-unification of the former UK will be perfectly legitimate and will be welcomed as part of a democratic society.

[Independence]

2 hours ago, Smoked-Glass said:

Britain then if not UK.   The vote was counted that way.   So like it or not, your country DID vote to leave the EU in 2016.     Fact. 

My country, Scotland, voted decisively to remain within the EU. The UK/Britain is not a country but a state made up of 4 nations.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Independence said:

My country, Scotland, voted decisively to remain within the EU. The UK/Britain is not a country but a state made up of 4 nations.

Sorry to break it to you, but the UK is officially a country. Scotland is a country because of historic geopolitics, while the UK is a country because it's a sovereign state. 

They may be classed as countries for different reasons, but they're both countries I'm afraid. 

[Unknown user]

9 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

Thankfully we live in a society where people are allowed to campaign for change.

 

As and when Scotland becomes a normal, independent nation, a campaign for the re-unification of the former UK will be perfectly legitimate and will be welcomed as part of a democratic society.

 

Correct

[Francis Albert]

To get back on (or at least closer to) the topic, "UK/Britain is not a country" is about as deluded as Tony Blair's claim (when representing a North East England constituency)  to have watched Jackie Milburn from the terraces of St James Park.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Hearts_fan]

2 hours ago, Smoked-Glass said:

So do we just keep voting until YES wins?   What if YES wins but we decide to have another one after that cause people aren't happy / misinformed/ scaremongered/etc.    2014 was not supposed to be best of 3, it was a once in a lifetime vote.  Close.. But NO won 

 

If you are truly concerned with promises made in 2014, then let's talk about promises made in 2014. 

 

Things the No camp claimed, off the top of my head:

 

"lead us, don't leave us" – by "leading us" the UK evidently meant we'll drag you with us and ignore your voice at every turn.

 

"vote No to protect Scotland's place in the EU" – hmmm how's that going?

 

"Devo-max" – what happened to that?

 

"triple lock on pensions protected by voting No" – another promise by the UK that has disintegrated before our eyes.

 

"Scots better off in the UK" – one in four children living in poverty, and this is increasing. People killing themselves due to poverty caused by benefit sanctions imposed by UK government policies.

 

"promises to invest in renewables industry" – funding for Scottish renewables industries slashed.

 

All these broken promises and more, and yet all we hear form unionists is the accusation that Scottish people should give up their democratic rights to campaign for change even if circumstances change.

 

All things being equal post 2014, perhaps the independence referendum would have been the only one for 25 years. 

 

That our society is being dismantled by a malevolent UK government makes it rational to campaign for change.

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Hearts_fan

[Hearts_fan]

8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Sorry to break it to you, but the UK is officially a country. Scotland is a country because of historic geopolitics, while the UK is a country because it's a sovereign state. 

They may be classed as countries for different reasons, but they're both countries I'm afraid. 

 

A country the UK may be by a technical definition. A nation it is not.

 

Scotland is a nation.

 

And it's an undeniable right of any Scot to point out that their nation of Scotland voted to remain in the EU.

 

And I'll say it again, my nation voted to remain in the European Union.

 

 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

A country the UK may be by a technical definition. A nation it is not.

 

Scotland is a nation.

 

And it's an undeniable right of any Scot to point out that their nation of Scotland voted to remain in the EU.

 

And I'll say it again, my nation voted to remain in the European Union.

 

 

Nope, the UK is also a nation. 

 

It might not be the country/nation you identify with, but it's a nation alright. 

 

The United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern Ireland is the official title of the state. Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England are often called the Home Nations. All of them can be described as countries, or nations, as can the UK in its entirety. None of them are independent states, however.

[Boab]

13 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

To get back on (or at least closer to) the topic, "UK/Britain is not a country" is about as deluded as Tony Blair's claim (when representing a North East England constituency)  to have watched Jackie Milburn from the terraces of St James Park.

 He was born in 53’ and the great Milburn chucked it in 57’ so, even though most agree he’s a snake, it’s possible. Think he was born in Edinburgh so might have happened. Taken as a nipper maybe but no way would he have remembered it.

You wouldn’t trust him with your change !

[Hearts_fan]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Nope, the UK is also a nation. 

 

Well, I appreciate your viewpoint, and I'll read more into that. I suspect what is happening is variations in the legitimate meanings of words.

 

However, I think it would be quite difficult to argue that a definition of the word 'nation' is a 'group of nations' as that would seem to a bit contradictory for want of a better word.

 

Perhaps legally the UK acts as if it's a nation (in the contexts of dealing with actual nations), but I don't see how a union can be described as a nation.

 

Every day is a school day though.

 

However, if our motivation is to respect the right of a union to be regarded as a nation, it would seem fair to extend the same courtesy to Scotland, an actual nation. 

[Francis Albert]

28 minutes ago, Boab said:

 He was born in 53’ and the great Milburn chucked it in 57’ so, even though most agree he’s a snake, it’s possible. Think he was born in Edinburgh so might have happened. Taken as a nipper maybe but no way would he have remembered it.

You wouldn’t trust him with your change !

 

28 minutes ago, Boab said:

 

Family lived in Glasgow for a while after he was born but I believe moved to Australia the following year, returning to the UK in '58. So unless taken to St James as a babe in arms ... it didn't happen.

[Hearts_fan]

46 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Nope, the UK is also a nation. 

 

It might not be the country/nation you identify with, but it's a nation alright. 

 

In the above post, you also quoted the following description from somewhere – I'm not sure if someone previously quoted this on the thread or if you were sharing it yourself, but it appeared in your response to me as quoted text:

 

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the official title of the state. Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England are often called the Home Nations. All of them can be described as countries, or nations, as can the UK in its entirety. None of them are independent states, however."

 

The problem with the above statement is that you've presented it as if it's a description of reputable source, when it may not be. Is it? 

 

After a quick google search, the above quote appears to be merely a public comment on a webpage owned by The Guardian, posted by a guy named "Gareth Roberts, Edinburgh, Scotland". Maybe that's you? 

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-84806,00.html

 

Is he quoting an official definition, or is it just his opinion that the UK is a nation? 

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Hearts_fan

[Boab]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

 

Family lived in Glasgow for a while after he was born but I believe moved to Australia the following year, returning to the UK in '58. So unless taken to St James as a babe in arms ... it didn't happen.

 Seems the most likely !

A shifty individual !

[Smoked-Glass]

1 hour ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

Well, I appreciate your viewpoint, and I'll read more into that. I suspect what is happening is variations in the legitimate meanings of words.

 

However, I think it would be quite difficult to argue that a definition of the word 'nation' is a 'group of nations' as that would seem to a bit contradictory for want of a better word.

 

Perhaps legally the UK acts as if it's a nation (in the contexts of dealing with actual nations), but I don't see how a union can be described as a nation.

 

Every day is a school day though.

 

However, if our motivation is to respect the right of a union to be regarded as a nation, it would seem fair to extend the same courtesy to Scotland, an actual nation. 

Your passport says British.   The 2016 was a British vote and this was made clear before it took place.  IE it will go down to the total amount of votes cast UK wide.  

 

Doesn't do much good to say "Scotland voted to stay or Nottingham voted to leave etc...."   its totals that matter. 

 

The vote was worded. SHOULD BRITAN LEAVE THE EU.   

[alwaysthereinspirit]

On ‎30‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 11:27, skwif1 said:

I was under the idea that if the leagues were to merge Scotland would no longer be able to field a National side, and we would need to become GB or UK United.

 

No English national team either then. Non starter for them if that's a rule.

[doctor jambo]

On the bright side it would mean the abolition of the National side!

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 hours ago, upgotheheads said:

The Norway option requires Norway to implement most EU regulation, which for the WTO Free Traders in the Tory party would pretty well tie their hands when it come to negotiating 'Free Trade' agreements with other countries. Also of course it requires free movement, which (lets face it) was what the Brexit vote was all about even if it didn't appear on the ballot paper. Free movement of people is what has kept the Scottish (and UK) economy in reasonably  good shape over the last 20 years.

Indeed. Free movement has been the problem from Day 1. May hates it.

[Hearts_fan]

16 minutes ago, Smoked-Glass said:

Your passport says British.   The 2016 was a British vote and this was made clear before it took place.  IE it will go down to the total amount of votes cast UK wide.  

 

Doesn't do much good to say "Scotland voted to stay or Nottingham voted to leave etc...."   its totals that matter. 

 

The vote was worded. SHOULD BRITAN LEAVE THE EU.   

 

Let's face it, you have no idea what my passport says.

 

You're correct though in your fragmented sentences above: the referendum question was worded. 

 

However, if you're suggesting that the wording of the question was "SHOULD BRITAN LEAVE THE EU" [sic], then you are incorrect. 

 

The question that was asked was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

 

You are focusing on the idea that it was a UK-wide vote, which no right-minded person is disputing. Self-evidently, the whole of the UK is leaving the EU because the results were taken from all of the UK. Conveniently for England, the overall result aligns with theirs (with 86% of the population, it's no surprise).

 

Take a moment to imagine a scenario where Scotland voted 100% leave, with England voting to remain. Imagine in that scenario Scotland's vote tipped the scales, creating a leave vote.... Can you imagine the UK government doing what it's been doing for the past three years, if it was the will of the people of Scotland and not of the people of England? I can imagine that in every possible scenario – past, present and future – the UK government listens to the electorate of England first, every one else later, if at all.

 

Thankfully, my nation, Scotland, voted decisively to remain in the EU. It's clear what we wanted. It's measurable what we're not getting.

 

What is your interest in this anyway? What is your motivation for equating the nation of Scotland with a city of England? 

 

I suspect that many of those who – like yourself – seek to diminish Scotland by downplaying our position as a nation, have either some sort of selfishly-motivated vested interest in weakening the idea of Scotland, or simply have so little faith in Scotland that they cling to the apron-strings of "Mummy" England. 

 

There are others who hold what they see as legitimate hopes for Scotland's prospects within the UK. 

 

In any case, anyone who holds Scotland dear would never reduce the value of our nation to no more than that of an English city. You just did. David Mundell does it regularly, and he's a snivelling shapeshifting snake.

[Smoked-Glass]

8 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

Let's face it, you have no idea what my passport says.

 

You're correct though in your fragmented sentences above: the referendum question was worded. 

 

However, if you're suggesting that the wording of the question was "SHOULD BRITAN LEAVE THE EU" [sic], then you are incorrect. 

 

The question that was asked was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

 

You are focusing on the idea that it was a UK-wide vote, which no right-minded person is disputing. Self-evidently, the whole of the UK is leaving the EU because the results were taken from all of the UK. Conveniently for England, the overall result aligns with theirs (with 86% of the population, it's no surprise).

 

Take a moment to imagine a scenario where Scotland voted 100% leave, with England voting to remain. Imagine in that scenario Scotland's vote tipped the scales, creating a leave vote.... Can you imagine the UK government doing what it's been doing for the past three years, if it was the will of the people of Scotland and not of the people of England? I can imagine that in every possible scenario – past, present and future – the UK government listens to the electorate of England first, every one else later, if at all.

 

Thankfully, my nation, Scotland, voted decisively to remain in the EU. It's clear what we wanted. It's measurable what we're not getting.

 

What is your interest in this anyway? What is your motivation for equating the nation of Scotland with a city of England? 

 

I suspect that many of those who – like yourself – seek to diminish Scotland by downplaying our position as a nation, have either some sort of selfishly-motivated vested interest in weakening the idea of Scotland, or simply have so little faith in Scotland that they cling to the apron-strings of "Mummy" England. 

 

There are others who hold what they see as legitimate hopes for Scotland's prospects within the UK. 

 

In any case, anyone who holds Scotland dear would never reduce the value of our nation to no more than that of an English city. You just did. David Mundell does it regularly, and he's a snivelling shapeshifting snake.

 

My interest, and what should also be everyone's top interest, is about referendum results being binding and counting.    It does no good having one and then to not act on the outcome of it.   Also no good to have another one so soon after just having had one. 

 

I d rather we just didn't have one at all if we re not gonna go with the winner. 

 

I would be making the same arguments if YES  or REMAINE had won too Btw. 

 

[stan]

14 hours ago, Independence said:

 

NO	2,001,926	55.30
YES	1,617,989	44.70

 

so I am sure even you would agree very close. The only demographic to vote No was the over 65s. 

10/11% gap in a binary vote is pretty decisive.

Your demographics info is wrong.

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

In the above post, you also quoted the following description from somewhere – I'm not sure if someone previously quoted this on the thread or if you were sharing it yourself, but it appeared in your response to me as quoted text:

 

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the official title of the state. Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England are often called the Home Nations. All of them can be described as countries, or nations, as can the UK in its entirety. None of them are independent states, however."

 

The problem with the above statement is that you've presented it as if it's a description of reputable source, when it may not be. Is it? 

 

After a quick google search, the above quote appears to be merely a public comment on a webpage owned by The Guardian, posted by a guy named "Gareth Roberts, Edinburgh, Scotland". Maybe that's you? 

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-84806,00.html

 

Is he quoting an official definition, or is it just his opinion that the UK is a nation? 

 

 

I normally hate to spoon feed (you googled that but didn't bother to google what defines a nation?) but you're generally a reasonable poster so here's the definition of a nation from Black's Law Dictionary (although American,  other sources are available which say the same thing in different words, it's a generally accepted definition):

 

Quote

nation, n. (14c) 1. A large group of people having a common origin, language, and tradition and usu. constituting a political entity. • When a nation is coincident with a state, the term nation-state is often used....

 

...

2. A community of people inhabiting a defined territory and organized under an independent government; a sovereign political state....

 

 

The UK is a country, Scotland is a country, both are also nations. Oh, and Wales isn't a principality!

Edited May 2, 2019 by Smithee

[Hearts_fan]

50 minutes ago, Smoked-Glass said:

 

My interest, and what should also be everyone's top interest, is about referendum results being binding and counting.    It does no good having one and then to not act on the outcome of it.   Also no good to have another one so soon after just having had one. 

 

I d rather we just didn't have one at all if we re not gonna go with the winner. 

 

I would be making the same arguments if YES  or REMAINE had won too Btw. 

 

 

Are you saying that lies, misinformation, media influence, illegal campaign spending (the list goes on) don't cast any questionable light on voting patterns?

 

All of these things were at play in the EU referendum. All of these tactics were deployed by the Leave camp to influence voting patterns.

 

When we have swathes of people realising now that what they were promised was never going to happen, would you say it's fair to ask the people again, "Are you sure you want this?" A second referendum is not asking different people to overrule the result of the first group, it's asking the same people are you sure you would still vote the same way given that you know now what you didn't back then? 

 

Is offering democracy undemocratic somehow? 

[upgotheheads]

 

 

 

 

 

nation, n. (14c) 1. A large group of people having a common origin, language, and tradition and usu. constituting a political entity.

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I normally hate to spoon feed (you googled that but didn't bother to google what defines a nation?) but you're generally a reasonable poster so here's the definition of a nation from Black's Law Dictionary (although American,  other sources are available which say the same thing in different words, it's a generally accepted definition):

 

 

The UK is a country, Scotland is a country, both are also nations. Oh, and Wales isn't a principality!

 

Scotland has a different origin, language  and tradition from other parts of the UK. for example the Scottish Church and legal systems, the very stuff of tradition, are very different from the English examples.

 

The full title of the UK is 'The United Kingdom of Scotland England and Northern Ireland' note the lack of mention of Wales as in this context Wales is a principality. Scotland and England are countries, Wales is de facto a country and Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom.

 

Great Britain is a geographical expression not a polity.

 

The United Kingdom is a state. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not states (although England thinks it is).

 

States are described as having negotiating privileges with other states, that is they have such things as armies, diplomats and Embassies. Despite what John Lennon said, England does not have an Army, or a Navy or an Air Force for that matter, but the United Kingdom does. The UK is therefor a State

 

 

 

 

[upgotheheads]

1 hour ago, Smoked-Glass said:

 

My interest, and what should also be everyone's top interest, is about referendum results being binding and counting.    It does no good having one and then to not act on the outcome of it.   Also no good to have another one so soon after just having had one. 

 

I d rather we just didn't have one at all if we re not gonna go with the winner. 

 

I would be making the same arguments if YES  or REMAINE had won too Btw. 

 

 

It's like 10 hikers standing in the fog. They can't see the way ahead and can't decide which way to go . They decide to have a vote. 6 vote to go forward, 4 vote to go back. Then the fog clears and they find themselves standing on the edge of a cliff.

 

You can guess the rest.

Edited May 2, 2019 by upgotheheads

[Hearts_fan]

45 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I normally hate to spoon feed (you googled that but didn't bother to google what defines a nation?) but you're generally a reasonable poster so here's the definition of a nation from Black's Law Dictionary (although American,  other sources are available which say the same thing in different words, it's a generally accepted definition):

 

 

The UK is a country, Scotland is a country, both are also nations. Oh, and Wales isn't a principality!

 

Describing me as "generally a reasonable poster" is a little bit patronising, but whatever... 

You normally hate to spoon feed? Aye right. You were quite happy to spoon feed me when you thought you'd uncovered a gem of a formal definition, which it turns out was apparently written by Joe Bloggs. 

 

It's not my role in this discussion to back up your argument. Besides, despite your new dictionary definition of nationhood, I still don't buy the idea that the UK is a nation.

 

I don't believe that definition was written with the UK in mind. Would the EU be a nation by the same definition? 

 

Probably not. It would be quite easy to argue that both the EU and the UK are unions of nations of peoples with different origins, languages, traditions, and this would appear to invalidate the first of your definitions, which implies that not 'any' but 'all' of the aforementioned features are common to a nation. 

 

The fact that Scotland has its own devolved government would appear to invalidate the second of the definitions. 

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

 

 

 

 

nation, n. (14c) 1. A large group of people having a common origin, language, and tradition and usu. constituting a political entity.

 

 

 

 

Scotland has a different origin, language  and tradition from other parts of the UK. for example the Scottish Church and legal systems, the very stuff of tradition, are very different from the English examples.

 

The full title of the UK is 'The United Kingdom of Scotland England and Northern Ireland' note the lack of mention of Wales as in this context Wales is a principality. Scotland and England are countries, Wales is de facto a country and Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom.

 

Great Britain is a geographical expression not a polity.

 

The United Kingdom is a state. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not states (although England thinks it is).

 

States are described as having negotiating privileges with other states, that is they have such things as armies, diplomats and Embassies. Despite what John Lennon said, England does not have an Army, or a Navy or an Air Force for that matter, but the United Kingdom does. The UK is therefor a State

 

 

 

 

 

Think you need to look up your definitions mate, you've got a few things wrong there.

 

The full title is actually the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (great Britain refers to the island we live on, none of Scotland, England or Wales get a mention)

 

Wales isn't a principality. A principality is an area ruled by a Prince - Wales' reigning monarch is a queen. 

 

Your final paragraph would be accurate if referring to sovereign states - England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are states, but not sovereign states. The UK is both a state and a sovereign state.

 

Look them up if you don't believe me!

 

FWIW I'm very aware that Scotland has a separate history, tradition, legal system etc but it doesn't change the definition of the words. 

You left out the second definition of a nation by the way, the once that confirms the UK's status

 

"2. A community of people inhabiting a defined territory and organized under an independent government; a sovereign political state"

[upgotheheads]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Think you need to look up your definitions mate, you've got a few things wrong there.

 

The full title is actually the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (great Britain refers to the island we live on, none of Scotland, England or Wales get a mention)

 

Wales isn't a principality. A principality is an area ruled by a Prince - Wales' reigning monarch is a queen. 

 

Your final paragraph would be accurate if referring to sovereign states - England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are states, but not sovereign states. The UK is both a state and a sovereign state.

 

Look them up if you don't believe me!

 

FWIW I'm very aware that Scotland has a separate history, tradition, legal system etc but it doesn't change the definition of the words. 

You left out the second definition of a nation by the way, the once that confirms the UK's status

 

"2. A community of people inhabiting a defined territory and organized under an independent government; a sovereign political state"

 

Your correct about that bit, and I was just about to edit it when I was timed out. Wales, throughout my school years was referred to as a principality but is de facto a Nation.

Edited May 2, 2019 by upgotheheads

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

Describing me as "generally a reasonable poster" is a little bit patronising, but whatever... 

You normally hate to spoon feed? Aye right. You were quite happy to spoon feed me when you thought you'd uncovered a gem of a formal definition, which it turns out was apparently written by Joe Bloggs. 

 

It's not my role in this discussion to back up your argument. Besides, despite your new dictionary definition of nationhood, I still don't buy the idea that the UK is a nation.

 

I don't believe that definition was written with the UK in mind. Would the EU be a nation by the same definition? 

 

Probably not. It would be quite easy to argue that both the EU and the UK are unions of nations of peoples with different origins, languages, traditions, and this would appear to invalidate the first of your definitions, which implies that not 'any' but 'all' of the aforementioned features are common to a nation. 

 

The fact that Scotland has its own devolved government would appear to invalidate the second of the definitions. 

 

It was intended as "normally I wouldn't but seeing as it's you" but you're free to take it how you like. 

 

The definition is the definition, feel free to provide a legal definition that differs.

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

Your correct about that bit, and I was just about to edit it when I was timed out. Wales, throughout my school years was referred to as a principality but is de facto a Nation.

Wales is a funny one, we were all talking about principality stuff a few short years ago, I was surprised to find out the actual definition myself TBH

[Hearts_fan]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It was intended as "normally I wouldn't but seeing as it's you" but you're free to take it how you like. 

 

The definition is the definition, feel free to provide a legal definition that differs.

 

Understood. Often tone isn't clear online.

 

I think we should agree to differ on the nationhood semantics. 

 

I consider it an interesting discussion. 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

Understood. Often tone isn't clear online.

 

I think we should agree to differ on the nationhood semantics. 

 

I consider it an interesting discussion. 

[Unknown user]

The best way I can think of it is that we see terms like nation, or state, or country as being very specific, like cat, or mouse, or dog. In reality they're a bit vaguer than that and include sub groups, more like a four- legged mammal. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Smithee

[Smoked-Glass]

1 hour ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

Are you saying that lies, misinformation, media influence, illegal campaign spending (the list goes on) don't cast any questionable light on voting patterns?

 

All of these things were at play in the EU referendum. All of these tactics were deployed by the Leave camp to influence voting patterns.

 

When we have swathes of people realising now that what they were promised was never going to happen, would you say it's fair to ask the people again, "Are you sure you want this?" A second referendum is not asking different people to overrule the result of the first group, it's asking the same people are you sure you would still vote the same way given that you know now what you didn't back then? 

 

Is offering democracy undemocratic somehowsomehow? 

 

So you do actually want BEST OF THREE then? 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Smoked-Glass

[skwif1]

Sorry that this has developed into a Nationalist/Brexit topic. It was not what I intended.

[Hearts_fan]

4 minutes ago, Smoked-Glass said:

 

So you do actually want BEST OF THREE then? 

 

Why would I want "BEST OF THREE"? It's not a game.

 

I think what I and most fair-minded people want is for political campaigns to be based on facts not fiction.

 

I think we want the right to change our minds when we realise a political campaign was won by false information.

 

The flimsy 51.9% result has given a 100% free pass to an incompetent and selfish political party to do whatever the hell they want. 

 

That is what Brexit resulted in, and no-one voted for such power to be handed to the Tories. 

 

As someone posted earlier, if the clouds clear and you find yourself on the edge of a cliff, only an idiot would continue walking forward.

[Smoked-Glass]

Just now, Hearts_fan said:

 

Why would I want "BEST OF THREE"? It's not a game.

 

I think what I and most fair-minded people want is for political campaigns to be based on facts not fiction.

 

I think we want the right to change our minds when we realise a political campaign was won by false information.

 

The flimsy 51.9% result has given a 100% free pass to an incompetent and selfish political party to do whatever the hell they want. 

 

That is what Brexit resulted in, and no-one voted for such power to be handed to the Tories. 

 

As someone posted earlier, if the clouds clear and you find yourself on the edge of a cliff, only an idiot would continue walking forward.

 The remain and YES campaigns also lied.

[Hearts_fan]

1 minute ago, Smoked-Glass said:

 The remain and YES campaigns also lied.

 

I'm not going to waste any more of my time debating with someone whose typical response to a reasoned contribution is a CAPS LOCK MALFUNCTION.

[Boab]

So......football !

What’s all that about ?

[Smoked-Glass]

25 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

Why would I want "BEST OF THREE"? It's not a game.

 

I think what I and most fair-minded people want is for political campaigns to be based on facts not fiction.

 

I think we want the right to change our minds when we realise a political campaign was won by false information.

 

The flimsy 51.9% result has given a 100% free pass to an incompetent and selfish political party to do whatever the hell they want. 

 

That is what Brexit resulted in, and no-one voted for such power to be handed to the Tories. 

 

As someone posted earlier, if the clouds clear and you find yourself on the edge of a cliff, only an idiot would continue walking forward.

The cloud clearing is a very poor analogy which is why I didn’t respond to that point before.   Just as likely is the clouds could clear and you find you were right to move because a sinkhole opened up behind you.

 

 

Treating voters like they “didn’t know what they were voting for” or “they were lied to so the whole vote is void” is an insult to people regardless of how they voted.                 

 

 For Brexit people voted for the “idea of Brexit”  and not HOW it was to be done.   There were asked if they want Britain to be an independant country or remain in the EU.

 

 

For Indy in 2014 people voted for the idea that Scotland will stay part of Britan.  (if Britan then decided to leave the EU in the future then we have to abide by that because Scotland is still part)

 

 

 

It is simply not democratic to ignore referendums.   Imagine if we ignored general elections citing that people were “ill informed”  

Edited May 2, 2019 by Smoked-Glass

[Smoked-Glass]

24 minutes ago, Hearts_fan said:

 

I'm not going to waste any more of my time debating with someone whose typical response to a reasoned contribution is a CAPS LOCK MALFUNCTION.

Fair enough.  Was fun debating with you.  Better luck next time.    X

[Hearts_fan]

12 minutes ago, Smoked-Glass said:

The cloud clearing is a very poor analogy which is why I didn’t respond to that point before.   Just as likely is the clouds could clear and you find you were right to move because a sinkhole opened up behind you.

 

 

Treating voters like they “didn’t know what they were voting for” or “they were lied to so the whole vote is void” is an insult to people regardless of how they voted.                 

 

 For Brexit people voted for the “idea of Brexit”  and not HOW it was to done.   There were asked if they want Britain to be an independant country or remain in the EU.

 

 

For Indy in 2014 people voted for the idea that Scotland will stay part of Britan.  (if Britan then decided to leave the EU in the future then we to abide by that because Scotland is still part)

 

 

 

It is simply not democratic to ignore referendums.   Imagine if we ignored general elections citing that people were “ill informed”  

 

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with any of it.

 

You're just willingly sticking your head in the sand to uphold some romantic principle of democracy.

 

I mean, since when did facts matter when it comes to making decisions? 

 

This notion of people being insulted is an idea perpetuated by the Leave camp, who are clever enough to deploy it to divide and conquer the population. 

 

Its classic manipulation: "Set the people against each other so they don't blame us". Make them think they're insulting each other by simply holding an opinion of what happened.

 

When people lie, the fault is with the liars, not with those who believed them.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Hearts_fan

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, Smithee said:

Sorry to break it to you, but the UK is officially a country. Scotland is a country because of historic geopolitics, while the UK is a country because it's a sovereign state. 

They may be classed as countries for different reasons, but they're both countries I'm afraid. 

good yin!

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

good yin!