SNP

[theshed]

iam not really into politics and i just put up with whoever is in charge as they are all as bad as each other but i was reading a couple of things that the SNP are talking about bringing in.

 

firstly.... they are talking about giving thieves, drug abusers and fights ect as a fixed penalty offence and charging them ?40 and not giving them a criminal record.

so if i go and shoplift i will just get a fixed penalty of ?40 and i wont be prosecuted but if i get cought speeding i will get a bigger fine and penalty points.

 

also i see the SNP want to be able to set their own tax level and if i was reading it correct they want to put up what we already pay in tax.

 

as i said i know nothing about politics but i dont think the SNP would get my vote

[Guest King]

Crazy if true, where did you read this? I agree with you, I wouldnt vote for them either.

[Boris]

so if i go and shoplift i will just get a fixed penalty of ?40 and i wont be prosecuted but if i get cought speeding i will get a bigger fine and penalty points.

 

 

I'm not an SNP voter myself, however speeding can be fatal hence the penalty. Are you seriously saying that shoplifting is worse?

[theshed]

Crazy if true, where did you read this? I agree with you, I wouldnt vote for them either.

 

the tax issue was in most of the papers this morn aswell as on tv last night and the plans to unveil the new (soft touch) ?40 fines was in the mail.

 

iam sure there are people that vote SNP that will come on here and shoot me down but i might have to get of my arse and vote against them the next time

[Boris]

iam not really into politics and i just put up with whoever is in charge as they are all as bad as each other but i was reading a couple of things that the SNP are talking about bringing in.

 

firstly.... they are talking about giving thieves, drug abusers and fights ect as a fixed penalty offence and charging them ?40 and not giving them a criminal record.

so if i go and shoplift i will just get a fixed penalty of ?40 and i wont be prosecuted but if i get cought speeding i will get a bigger fine and penalty points.

 

also i see the SNP want to be able to set their own tax level and if i was reading it correct they want to put up what we already pay in tax.

 

as i said i know nothing about politics but i dont think the SNP would get my vote

 

The changes to allow Holyrood greater tax raising powers are a response to the Calman Commission and advocated by Labour http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8377028.stm, however I don't doubt that the SNP would want greater control of taxation.

 

Do they want all of us to pay more tax? I doubt it. I think they would wish to increase the higher rates of tax, but I suspect they would leave the standrad rate as it is or even lower it. The current tax raising power of Holyrood is a fudge. You may increase the basic rate of income tax +/- 3p, but nothing to the higher rates thus if you wish to increase tax putting up the basic rate ispobably not politically sound.

[euan64]

iam not really into politics and i just put up with whoever is in charge as they are all as bad as each other but i was reading a couple of things that the SNP are talking about bringing in.

 

firstly.... they are talking about giving thieves, drug abusers and fights ect as a fixed penalty offence and charging them ?40 and not giving them a criminal record.

so if i go and shoplift i will just get a fixed penalty of ?40 and i wont be prosecuted but if i get cought speeding i will get a bigger fine and penalty points.

 

also i see the SNP want to be able to set their own tax level and if i was reading it correct they want to put up what we already pay in tax.

 

as i said i know nothing about politics but i dont think the SNP would get my vote

 

Would you rather not have these criminals just to pay the ?40 fine then the cops can get on with policing real cases and perhaps get the rape prosecution rate higher than the 5% or whatever it is right now.

[theshed]

I'm not an SNP voter myself, however speeding can be fatal hence the penalty. Are you seriously saying that shoplifting is worse?

 

yes i agree with you that speeding can be fatal but i dont agree that when some junkie/ned assaults you that you can remind him that once he has reshaped your nose that his beaviour has just cost him a fine of ?40.

[Boris]

yes i agree with you that speeding can be fatal but i dont agree that when some junkie/ned assaults you that you can remind him that once he has reshaped your nose that his beaviour has just cost him a fine of ?40.

 

Would that be a minor assault though?

 

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/SNP-39soft-on-crime39-with.5858869.jp

[jamboinglasgow]

I have gone off the SNP since they came to power, every time the other parties are against them, instead of listening to their arguments, they cast them off as just the opposition going for political point scoring (just like today with their response towards the opposition's rejection of minimum pricing.)

[topcat]

iam not really into politics and i just put up with whoever is in charge as they are all as bad as each other but i was reading a couple of things that the SNP are talking about bringing in.

 

firstly.... they are talking about giving thieves, drug abusers and fights ect as a fixed penalty offence and charging them ?40 and not giving them a criminal record.

so if i go and shoplift i will just get a fixed penalty of ?40 and i wont be prosecuted but if i get caught speeding i will get a bigger fine and penalty points.

 

also i see the SNP want to be able to set their own tax level and if i was reading it correct they want to put up what we already pay in tax.

 

as i said i know nothing about politics but i dont think the SNP would get my vote

 

On the other hand the fixed penalty should mean that lots of petty offences that would otherwise never make it to court will at least be punished.

 

Some of these will go to people who might otherwise have been up in front of the Sheriff and got a ?100 fine but probably more of them will go to people who'd have been given no more than a telling off.

 

Living near Lothian road I often see half hearted, pavement dancers who would seem like the ideal recipients for this kind of thing.

 

Of course we wont know for sure how it works in practice until it happens but it looks to be worth further consideration.

[Guest King]

Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP putting her case forward for independence on Question Time at the moment.

 

[blairdin]

In fairness, I think Nicola Sturgeon has came accross pretty well on this tonight. Whether you agree with her party policies or not, she's a good politician. IMHO.

[systemx]

In fairness, I think Nicola Sturgeon has came accross pretty well on this tonight. Whether you agree with her party policies or not, she's a good politician. IMHO.

 

In fairness I agree that she did come across well.I still think that herself and Swinney,along with The Great Leader himself, are the only politicians of note in the SNP

[2NaFish]

In fairness I agree that she did come across well.I still think that herself and Swinney,along with The Great Leader himself, are the only politicians of note in the SNP

 

Then, with the exception of annabel goldie, they are the only politicians of note in scottish politics.

[Jambo66]

Would you rather not have these criminals just to pay the ?40 fine then the cops can get on with policing real cases and perhaps get the rape prosecution rate higher than the 5% or whatever it is right now.

 

Poor example imo. Rape cases have huge difficulties for the simple reason that there tend not to be any witnesses other than the victim, and the accused is likely to say that there was consent. These 2 factors make convictions extremely difficult to achieve. More police or having more police time spent on rape cases is unlikely to have any impact on conviction rates.

[Patrick Bateman]

as i said i know nothing about politics but i dont think the SNP would get my vote

 

I know nothing about the social interactions and cultrual values of people who live across the Russian Stepps. So I won't express an opinion on the matter until I have sufficient knowledge and awareness of the subject...

[redjambo]

Life is easy for me. It doesn't matter what policies the SNP come up with, their main policy will always be independence, and as I want Scotland to remain part of the UK, I can never vote for them (unless tactical voting is called for i.e. to keep a Tory candidate out).

[bigwull22]

Total control of the tax revenues would be pefectly acceptable if it included Oil and whisky income too, its still a parliament in name only, either independence or scrap this needless tier of politicians.

[IronJambo]

iam not really into politics and i just put up with whoever is in charge as they are all as bad as each other but i was reading a couple of things that the SNP are talking about bringing in.

 

firstly.... they are talking about giving thieves, drug abusers and fights ect as a fixed penalty offence and charging them ?40 and not giving them a criminal record.

so if i go and shoplift i will just get a fixed penalty of ?40 and i wont be prosecuted but if i get cought speeding i will get a bigger fine and penalty points.

also i see the SNP want to be able to set their own tax level and if i was reading it correct they want to put up what we already pay in tax.

 

as i said i know nothing about politics but i dont think the SNP would get my vote

 

i think they're half way there with the idea as that would free up the courts for more important matters and remember, it costs a lot to take someone to court.

 

i heard a discussion on the radio recently about an initiative somewhere in england (may have been birmingham) where they're going back to basics and if the victim is willing they're making the offender face up to them and apologise for what they've done (and return any stolen goods..). they appear to think its more effective than dragging them through the court system and reckon the offenders are less likely to re-offend

[redjambo]

Total control of the tax revenues would be pefectly acceptable if it included Oil and whisky income too, its still a parliament in name only, either independence or scrap this needless tier of politicians.

 

Disagree. I'm all in favour of devolution of powers from central government to the regions. Each region in a country has its own unique flavour, in everything from economy to culture, and it's preferable to have power as close to the people it effects as possible. The UK is certainly odd in only having three devolved regions for a country its size. However if the English regions don't want devolved control over their own affairs, then that's up to them.

[IronJambo]

Total control of the tax revenues would be pefectly acceptable if it included Oil and whisky income too, its still a parliament in name only, either independence or scrap this needless tier of politicians.

 

i sincerely hope you don't think there would be much left of that if Scotland were to gain (not sure gain is the right word!) independance

[bigwull22]

To be honest your all like an abused housewife, too scared to leave your abusive husband, break away and watch England sink into the Right wing mire of the 51st state of the USA and laugh.

[redjambo]

To be honest your all like an abused housewife, too scared to leave your abusive husband, break away and watch England sink into the Right wing mire of the 51st state of the USA and laugh.

 

And you're like a guy who obstinately wants to do everything himself rather than stick together with your long-time mates with whom you've been doing well for quite a while now.

[Patrick Bateman]

And you're like a guy who obstinately wants to do everything himself rather than stick together with your long-time mates with whom you've been doing well for quite a while now.

 

 

The statistics would firmly disagree with you on that point.

 

Independence is a natural state and I'm confident it will be realised if/when the proles have the facts slowly and deliberately spelled out to them.

[Boris]

The statistics would firmly disagree with you on that point.

 

Independence is a natural state and I'm confident it will be realised if/when the proles have the facts slowly and deliberately spelled out to them.

 

When that happens the human race will be truly independent and bourgeois notions of things like nationality, which only serve to dilute the political consciousness of the working class and to subjegate them, will be cast aside as a warm sense of internationalism takes hold and leads humanity to its true "natural state".

[redjambo]

The statistics would firmly disagree with you on that point.

 

Independence is a natural state and I'm confident it will be realised if/when the proles have the facts slowly and deliberately spelled out to them.

 

Now that's a patronising attitude if I've ever heard one. So the fact that we're not independent yet is because the people in this country are too thick to understand that it's better for them. Has it ever crossed your mind that people are, in general, smart enough to make up their own minds and have simply, to date at least, decided that independence is not for them?

 

"Independence is a natural state". What on earth do you mean by that? And how far does this concept go? Should we be looking to return to independent city-states?

 

Statistics? Ok, to misquote, publish or be damned.

[Patrick Bateman]

When that happens the human race will be truly independent and bourgeois notions of things like nationality, which only serve to dilute the political consciousness of the working class and to subjegate them, will be cast aside as a warm sense of internationalism takes hold and leads humanity to its true "natural state".

 

I'd argue that national mentalities and constructions are a natural part of the human psyche and notions of nation states (of one form or another, be it tribal, etc) have existed since time immemorial and are therefore unlikely to ever change. Belief in these structures is intrinsic and natural to most groups (if not individuals) and there is a wealth of historical and sociological evidence which would support this claim.

[IronJambo]

The statistics would firmly disagree with you on that point.

 

Independence is a natural state and I'm confident it will be realised if/when the proles have the facts slowly and deliberately spelled out to them.[/QUOTE]

 

thankfully most people aren't as easily brainwashed as you

[Boris]

I'd argue that national mentalities and constructions are a natural part of the human psyche and notions of nation states (of one form or another, be it tribal, etc) have existed since time immemorial and are therefore unlikely to ever change. Belief in these structures is intrinsic and natural to most groups (if not individuals) and there is a wealth of historical and sociological evidence which would support this claim.

 

That's why the notion of the nation state took hold so far back as the mid 19th century?

 

But In one sense I can agree with you when you say

(of one form or another, be it tribal, etc)

as this would include the largest "nation state" of them all i.e. the working class.

[Patrick Bateman]

Now that's a patronising attitude if I've ever heard one. So the fact that we're not independent yet is because the people in this country are too thick to understand that it's better for them. Has it ever crossed your mind that people are, in general, smart enough to make up their own minds and have simply, to date at least, decided that independence is not for them?

 

"Independence is a natural state". What on earth do you mean by that? And how far does this concept go? Should we be looking to return to independent city-states?

 

Statistics? Ok, to misquote, publish or be damned.

 

1. Not quite, but I'd argue that if every person in Scotland was given an objective summary (as far as is possible) of the facts surrounding the formation of the Union and the net problems (and benefits) of it's existence, they'd likely chose independence. Most arguments I've heard in favour of the union surround Scotland's apparent "inability" to survive by itself and that we'd somehow be plunged into a feudal and jingoistic nightmare, rather than any positive reasons. Fear is a powerful tool.

 

2. Intelligence is relative and difficult to prove. I haven't branded the population stupid because that wouldn't be fair or right. However, I'd argue that ignorance is the bigger issue here. Nobody can know what an independent Scotland would actually be like or capable of, hence fear being an apt tool for those who benefit from the Union's existence. I am also ignorant of what Scotland would absolutely be like were it to regain independence (another key term) but I'm aware of a number of comparative states who have thrived. To put it simply, I can't think of a nation on earth within the past 50 years which has regretted or suffered from becoming independent.

 

3. Of course things could be divided down to city states and what not (ie the City of London + the rest of England) but this isn't practical for obvious reasons. However, given the number of dissolved unions (Yugoslavia, USSR, Ottoman, etc) it would suggest that Unions of this nature (ie collections of nation states bound together) have a limited shelf life according to their benefit.

[Patrick Bateman]

The statistics would firmly disagree with you on that point.

 

Independence is a natural state and I'm confident it will be realised if/when the proles have the facts slowly and deliberately spelled out to them.[/QUOTE]

 

thankfully most people aren't as easily brainwashed as you

 

 

Ah, right, because I provide a reasoned argument that people don't (want to) agree with, I must be brainwashed. Care to explain how my argument shows signs of brainwashing? I'd say it's lucid and reasoned, myself.

[2NaFish]

I'd argue that national mentalities and constructions are a natural part of the human psyche and notions of nation states (of one form or another, be it tribal, etc) have existed since time immemorial and are therefore unlikely to ever change. Belief in these structures is intrinsic and natural to most groups (if not individuals) and there is a wealth of historical and sociological evidence which would support this claim.

 

The idea of nationality is relatively new. As recently as the american war of independence people fought for the rights of their state against the british rather than their own 'nation'. It was the victorian pre-occupation with nation building and the nation as the ultimate form of civilization that caused them to write history, and thus shape our perceptions, with the view that all actions that lead to the creation of nations as they knew them were positive, and anything else as merely a blip.

 

Therefore, an otherwise dreadful king such as John was lauded by many as his reign saw the signing of magna carta, whereas King Stephen's reign was treated, untill the last 20 years of so, as something of an anomaly as the english 'nation' was divided during his tenure. Long story short, nations are a victorian idea and may be as ephemeral as other victorian ideas.

[Big D]

I've continually asked Unionists if the people running U.K.PLC are doing a good job. They use this business similie constantly to say the Board (govt) are growing the business and benefitting everyone in U.K.PLC. When I ask them what should they do about the horrendous underperformance of their Scottish Branch, using their own statistics to verify this fact (sic), these great British businessmen say we'll pump the profits in to prop them up because they feel sorry for us. If scotland is underperforming, let us go. If it is not underperforming, stop lying.

[IronJambo]

 

 

Ah' date=' right, because I provide a reasoned argument that people don't (want to) agree with, I must be brainwashed. Care to explain how my argument shows signs of brainwashing? I'd say it's lucid and reasoned, myself.[/quote']

 

if you care to delve deeper than the propoganda an independant Scotland is no more than a romantic notion. there is no real feasibility to back it up. Scotland simply can't afford independance.

 

anyone looking at both sides of the argument can see that the snp's figures don't add up. oil? whilst i have no doubt that westminster has been playing down oil reserves in a way to help stave off an independant Scotland most of what Scotland has left would be shared out in the divorce anyway.

 

i say brainwashed because anyone that thinks Scotland can seriously survive as an independant nation is clearly only looking at one side of the coin

[Patrick Bateman]

Scotland simply can't afford independance.

 

anyone looking at both sides of the argument can see that the snp's figures don't add up. oil? whilst i have no doubt that westminster has been playing down oil reserves in a way to help stave off an independant Scotland most of what Scotland has left would be shared out in the divorce anyway.

 

i say brainwashed because anyone that thinks Scotland can seriously survive as an independant nation is clearly only looking at one side of the coin

 

1. On what basis can you claim Scotland "cannot afford" independence. Do you mean financially, socially, culturally, etc? On that line of argument, how can nations like Norway, Slovenia, Croatia, or even Andorra, survive? It's a baseless argument.

 

2. Something which has historical reality, not only a historical reality which is enshrined in historical documents, cannot be dismissed as "romantic" if you aren't willing to dismiss most notions of nation states as romantic. Again, a baseless argument.

 

3. As I have argued through a number of different issues, I'd say that not only can the argument be convincing, but that it's dependent upon taking multiple factors into account. I am yet to see ANY solid evidence from ANY unionists which would even suggest that Scotland could *not* survive. And that's because no evidence exists. As I have said, the best solution is to make comparisons with other nations and circumstances and begin to draw conclusions from that. If you do, you'll start to see where I'm coming from. If you don't, then I'd suggest you are the one who is brainwashed, as you passively accept the status quo without remotely challenging it or your own views.

[Big D]

i say brainwashed because anyone that thinks Scotland can seriously survive as an independant nation is clearly only looking at one side of the coin

 

Have a guess how many of the 127 nations which have gained their independence since 1945 were told the same thing by their former rulers. Bet they are all very glad they didn't believe the same nonsense you do.

[redjambo]

1. Not quite, but I'd argue that if every person in Scotland was given an objective summary (as far as is possible) of the facts surrounding the formation of the Union and the net problems (and benefits) of it's existence, they'd likely chose independence. Most arguments I've heard in favour of the union surround Scotland's apparent "inability" to survive by itself and that we'd somehow be plunged into a feudal and jingoistic nightmare, rather than any positive reasons. Fear is a powerful tool.

 

Thanks for your reply Odysseus. To be honest, I'm not pleased about how and why the Union was formed, and I think that Scotland has had a raw deal from time to time over the last 300 years but, on the whole, I think that the UK has worked well, a synergy of the varied peoples that make it up. So much time has passed now that we should be looking at the UK on its current merits and defaults, not looking back three centuries at a tale of deceit and greed.

 

I'm actually confident that Scotland could survive as an independent nation, why wouldn't it? There are a number of small countries in existence, many which have faced much greater difficulties than we would, in Europe to show that it would work. I just think that Scotland is doing better as a constituent nation within the UK than it would independently.

 

2. Intelligence is relative and difficult to prove. I haven't branded the population stupid because that wouldn't be fair or right. However, I'd argue that ignorance is the bigger issue here. Nobody can know what an independent Scotland would actually be like or capable of, hence fear being an apt tool for those who benefit from the Union's existence. I am also ignorant of what Scotland would absolutely be like were it to regain independence (another key term) but I'm aware of a number of comparative states who have thrived. To put it simply, I can't think of a nation on earth within the past 50 years which has regretted or suffered from becoming independent.

 

Fair enough. The SNP has been around for many moons now. Why hasn't it so educated the public yet?

 

3. Of course things could be divided down to city states and what not (ie the City of London + the rest of England) but this isn't practical for obvious reasons. However, given the number of dissolved unions (Yugoslavia, USSR, Ottoman, etc) it would suggest that Unions of this nature (ie collections of nation states bound together) have a limited shelf life according to their benefit.

 

It was practical before, cities like Venezia and Danzig being very prosperous. Why would it not be practical now?

 

I would have to agree with you on the limited benefit of the unions you mentioned (apart from the Ottoman Empire which was as its name implies and doesn't fit in with the other two). However should all collections of nation states be tarred with the same brush? Since the divorce rate is so high these days, should married couples just be looking at all those other failures and throwing in the towel? This isn't really an argument for splitting up a union that has lasted 300 years and has solidified over time into a successful and diverse nation.

 

See above.

[IronJambo]

1. On what basis can you claim Scotland "cannot afford" independence. Do you mean financially' date=' socially, culturally, etc? On that line of argument, how can nations like Norway, Slovenia, Croatia, or even Andorra, survive? It's a baseless argument.[/b']

2. Something which has historical reality, not only a historical reality which is enshrined in historical documents, cannot be dismissed as "romantic" if you aren't willing to dismiss most notions of nation states as romantic. Again, a baseless argument.

 

3. As I have argued through a number of different issues, I'd say that not only can the argument be convincing, but that it's dependent upon taking multiple factors into account. I am yet to see ANY solid evidence from ANY unionists which would even suggest that Scotland could *not* survive. And that's because no evidence exists. As I have said, the best solution is to make comparisons with other nations and circumstances and begin to draw conclusions from that. If you do, you'll start to see where I'm coming from. If you don't, then I'd suggest you are the one who is brainwashed, as you passively accept the status quo without remotely challenging it or your own views.

 

i'm quite short of time but please please don't patronise.

 

I notice you miss the Republic of Ireland and Iceland from you're list of countries that are thriving on their own. No mention of Kosovo either, where the people are really struggling (albeit happy).

 

Norway - Their taxes on consumer good are extortionate. Its a VERY expensive country to live in. Do you want Scotland to go that way?

 

I don't know a great deal about the other countries you mention but from what i do know they don't represent from what i would want from my own country.

 

Tell me what any of these countries have that Scotland doesn't have, or what they do better? poor argument unless you can show us what they're doing better.

 

Of course Scotland could survive, its sheer lunacy to say it couldn't. I don't think anyone is saying that unless you mis-interpret what is said. you have to ask yourself at what cost could Scotland survive?

 

Please, i would love you to convice me as i'd be all for it.

[IronJambo]

i say brainwashed because anyone that thinks Scotland can seriously survive as an independant nation is clearly only looking at one side of the coin

 

Have a guess how many of the 127 nations which have gained their independence since 1945 were told the same thing by their former rulers. Bet they are all very glad they didn't believe the same nonsense you do.

 

who rules Scotland in your mind? last i checked Scotland was part of a union that it had a voice in. If Scotland has little voice left in westminster thats down to ourselves for voting in a devolved parliament to distance ourselves from it.

[2NaFish]

No mention of Kosovo either, where the people are really struggling (albeit happy).

 

Kosovo is not a recognised nation. And even if it were, i think you'd struggle to make a good analogy between their situation and scotland's.

[DC_92]

 

i'm quite short of time but please please don't patronise.

 

I notice you miss the Republic of Ireland and Iceland from you're list of countries that are thriving on their own. No mention of Kosovo either' date=' where the people are really struggling (albeit happy).

 

[b']Norway - Their taxes on consumer good are extortionate. Its a VERY expensive country to live in. Do you want Scotland to go that way?[/b]

 

I don't know a great deal about the other countries you mention but from what i do know they don't represent from what i would want from my own country.

 

Tell me what any of these countries have that Scotland doesn't have, or what they do better? poor argument unless you can show us what they're doing better.

 

Of course Scotland could survive, its sheer lunacy to say it couldn't. I don't think anyone is saying that unless you mis-interpret what is said. you have to ask yourself at what cost could Scotland survive?

 

Please, i would love you to convice me as i'd be all for it.

 

Norwegians are paid high salaries in proportion to this. Norway has a high standard of living, good education standards and a high life expectancy.

 

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article579769.ece

[redjambo]

Kosovo is not a recognised nation. And even if it were, i think you'd struggle to make a good analogy between their situation and scotland's.

 

I suppose everything is in the definitions, but Kosovo is actually recognised by 63 UN member states and Taiwan. So perhaps it's best described as a partially recognised nation. I agree though, due to its complicated situation, not the best of comparisons to make.

[shaun.lawson]

When that happens the human race will be truly independent and bourgeois notions of things like nationality, which only serve to dilute the political consciousness of the working class and to subjegate them, will be cast aside as a warm sense of internationalism takes hold and leads humanity to its true "natural state".

 

Nonsense. Every human being needs to have a place called home. It's why moving house is so incredibly stressful. It's why the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is so intractable. And it's why Tynecastle is so important to all of us!

 

Like it or not, nationhood has become associated with a place called home for many, many generations now. Deprive people of it, and you'll get anger, confusion and much conflict.

 

Can Scotland survive and prosper by itself? Course it can: it's ridiculous for anyone to argue that it couldn't. The only question is whether people prefer to remain within the UK, or choose something different and new. I have no opinion on that - because it's a matter for the Scottish people, and them alone.

[redjambo]

Nonsense. Every human being needs to have a place called home. It's why moving house is so incredibly stressful. It's why the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is so intractable. And it's why Tynecastle is so important to all of us!

 

Like it or not, nationhood has become associated with a place called home for many, many generations now. Deprive people of it, and you'll get anger, confusion and much conflict.

 

Can Scotland survive and prosper by itself? Course it can: it's ridiculous for anyone to argue that it couldn't. The only question is whether people prefer to remain within the UK, or choose something different and new. I have no opinion on that - because it's a matter for the Scottish people, and them alone.

 

Wow, that's a first. I'm sure you do though, don't you? Just because you aren't going to be involved directly by a certain situation doesn't mean you can't have views on it. And being a citizen of the UK, you would be hugely affected by any decision. So what's it to be Shaun, yes or no? Independence or not?

[shaun.lawson]

Wow, that's a first. I'm sure you do though, don't you? Just because you aren't going to be involved directly by a certain situation doesn't mean you can't have views on it. And being a citizen of the UK, you would be hugely affected by any decision. So what's it to be Shaun, yes or no? Independence or not?

 

If I have an opinion at all, I slightly lean towards independence - because I think it would enable Scotland to become really forward thinking and progressive, probably very pro-European while England remains deeply sceptical.

 

But I was essentially serious in what I said: every people have the right to self-determination, and it's really not for me to opine on what they should do, one way or the other.

[redjambo]

If I have an opinion at all, I slightly lean towards independence - because I think it would enable Scotland to become really forward thinking and progressive, probably very pro-European while England remains deeply sceptical.

 

But I was essentially serious in what I said: every people have the right to self-determination, and it's really not for me to opine on what they should do, one way or the other.

 

It's a difficult one though. What do you define as a "people"? Should the ethnic Russian population in the east of Estonia have the right to self-determination, or the Kurds in Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq, or the Cornish people in south west England? How do we define this? Should we have some form of UN-decided formula where if a certain number of people in a certain area can produce a signed document asking for a referendum then it will be granted? But how do you define these areas? It all gets pretty difficult to manage, and that's why we've had so many wars over the years where people fight over the lands that they inhabit.

 

I wouldn't expect you to opine on what a people should do, just on whether you think independence for that people would be beneficial or not, which you have done. Disagree with you though.

[Boris]

Nonsense. Every human being needs to have a place called home. It's why moving house is so incredibly stressful. It's why the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is so intractable. And it's why Tynecastle is so important to all of us!

 

Equally nonesense Shaun. Remove religion from the Israeli/Palestinian debacle and would there be an issue? Yes, everyone wants a home, but do a few lines on a map make that so? Look at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - two nations states with dare I say hardly any sense of national sentiment amongst their indigenous populations?

 

Like it or not, nationhood has become associated with a place called home for many, many generations now. Deprive people of it, and you'll get anger, confusion and much conflict.

 

Because the idea of nationhood is a smokescreen used by the Bourgeoise to deflect the proletariat from the real issues. See the capitulation of the SPD in Germany 1914 and its chauvanistic policies in supporting war credits.

 

Can Scotland survive and prosper by itself? Course it can: it's ridiculous for anyone to argue that it couldn't. The only question is whether people prefer to remain within the UK, or choose something different and new. I have no opinion on that - because it's a matter for the Scottish people, and them alone.

 

What makes a Scottish person though Shaun? Someone who happens to live in Scotland, or someone who is "Scottish"?

 

I'm born and bred in Scotland, but my Mum was born in Mablethorpe, her Dad in Dudley and her Mum in Aberdeen. Am I Scottish? Or can I justifiably say I am English? Or my cousins, born in Chingford but both parents and sets of granparents are Scottish. Are they Scottish or are they English?

[shaun.lawson]

It's a difficult one though. What do you define as a "people"? Should the ethnic Russian population in the east of Estonia have the right to self-determination, or the Kurds in Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq, or the Cornish people in south west England? How do we define this? Should we have some form of UN-decided formula where if a certain number of people in a certain area can produce a signed document asking for a referendum then it will be granted? But how do you define these areas? It all gets pretty difficult to manage, and that's why we've had so many wars over the years where people fight over the lands that they inhabit.

 

I wouldn't expect you to opine on what a people should do, just on whether you think independence for that people would be beneficial or not, which you have done. Disagree with you though.

 

Fair point, and one which often gets raised when self-determination is mentioned! For the record, I think the Palestinians have a right to self-determination, as do the Kurds, and the Chechens; the Cornish do not though. I guess, for the purposes of this debate, that Scotland and England have been historically recognised entities for well over a thousand years is key; but you're quite right in expounding on the legal complexities.

 

Out of interest RJ, has your frequently nomadic lifestyle, travelling around and experiencing many different cultures caused you to instinctively recoil from anything resembling nationalism? It'd make sense - because no matter their nationality, all human beings have essentially similar needs and aspirations after all.

[shaun.lawson]

Equally nonesense Shaun. Remove religion from the Israeli/Palestinian debacle and would there be an issue? Yes, everyone wants a home, but do a few lines on a map make that so? Look at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - two nations states with dare I say hardly any sense of national sentiment amongst their indigenous populations?

 

Yes, there certainly would. The issue revolves around a people losing their home. That Saudi Arabia and Pakistan lack such sentiment must have something to do with both being relatively new nations, I'd have thought.

 

Because the idea of nationhood is a smokescreen used by the Bourgeoise to deflect the proletariat from the real issues. See the capitulation of the SPD in Germany 1914 and its chauvanistic policies in supporting war credits.

 

Patronising and ridiculously over-simplistic. See the euphoria of the peoples of Eastern Europe when finally freed from Communist tyranny. See also the euphoria in Germany when it at last reunited, and the celebrations marking the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall only three weeks ago.

 

What makes a Scottish person though Shaun? Someone who happens to live in Scotland, or someone who is "Scottish"?

 

I'm born and bred in Scotland, but my Mum was born in Mablethorpe, her Dad in Dudley and her Mum in Aberdeen. Am I Scottish? Or can I justifiably say I am English? Or my cousins, born in Chingford but both parents and sets of granparents are Scottish. Are they Scottish or are they English?

 

Good question. FIFA would argue that it could be either; I'd argue that a Scottish person is simply someone who feels Scottish by blood, or naturalisation.

[redjambo]

Fair point, and one which often gets raised when self-determination is mentioned! For the record, I think the Palestinians have a right to self-determination, as do the Kurds, and the Chechens; the Cornish do not though. I guess, for the purposes of this debate, that Scotland and England have been historically recognised entities for well over a thousand years is key; but you're quite right in expounding on the legal complexities.

 

Out of interest RJ, has your frequently nomadic lifestyle, travelling around and experiencing many different cultures caused you to instinctively recoil from anything resembling nationalism? It'd make sense - because no matter their nationality, all human beings have essentially similar needs and aspirations after all.

 

Got it in one Shaun. Yup, I'm all in favour of promoting and being proud of cultural diversity (I hitch-hike everywhere in a kilt, I couldn't get away with saying otherwise ) but nationalism leaves me cold. It goes even as far as a dislike of seeing national flags flying (I judge the maturity and self-confidence of a country by how many flags its citizens fly - the fewer there are, the better).

 

There's far too much nationalism about and it's usually more destructive than constructive. I know it sounds hippyish, but the only way I try to judge people is by whether they are good or bad (and that means the whole spectrum of goodness and badness and all its mixes, not some black or white thing), not by any other factor. It's something I think we as a human race have lost sight of, blinded by external factors such as race, colour, religion, sports team supported, tribe, sex, age, where we live, clothes, size etc. etc.