[Tycho]

(Original post by Carter78)
I've talked with many British (mostly English) people who have said "allowing the Scots to become independent would be like having a part of your house declare independence, after all it's OUR house!".

I think a better analogy is to compare it to someone in a job. If they want to leave the job then it's their decision, and their employer cannot stop them, irrespective of the impact the decision to leave would have on the company they work for. They can try to persuade them to stay, they can offer them x, y and z, but if they decide to leave then that's final. People have the right to determine their own future, as do sovereign countries like Scotland.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Nick100)
But the arguments used for that change of state all work more effectively for anarchism. The argument is that the nationalists only the principle of "self-determination" when it leads to a favourable outcome for them. And on a related note do you consider Northern Ireland to be a nation?

Just because self-determination benefits more than one political perspective, doesn't mean all of those political perspectives are one and the same. Anarchism is the ultimate version of self-determination, but I think it highly unlikely that it'd work in reality. When the SNP refer to self-determination, they refer to the collective self-determination of the Scottish people. That is opposed to what anarchists would ultimately desire.

(Original post by Nick100)
And again, why wouldn't the change of state work for better for regions of those countries? An independent England would have a population on the same order of magnitude as the current UK so why don't you want to see England broken into multiple countries (about 10 or so)?

Why would it be the business of anyone in Scotland what the people of England decide to do? If they want to split their country into smaller states then that'd be up to them. Surely your argument here is playing into the hands of nationalists?

[Nick100]

(Original post by Tycho)
Looking at it from the opposite side of the coin, could the unionist argument for strength as part of a larger state not extent all the way to globalisation? Would you consider it to be in the best interests of England (or Scotland) if decisions about them were made from, say, New York City?

It depends what the ideology of this hypothetical global government would be. If it would be the same as the status quo then setting it up would be at the very least, a complete waste of time. If it would be authoritarian (which a global government probably would be) then it would much worse. If it would be extremely liberal and with little power over individuals then I would support such a government. An independent Scottish government would not be more liberal, and probably would spend more of GDP than the UK government does hence why I'm against it rather than ambivalent toward it.

And geographical proximity has approximately no bearing on how good the political decisions are. I would rather have political decisions affecting Scotland made by libertarians in Luxembourg than by socialists in Edinburgh, for example.

Clearly the people best placed to make decisions which effect the people of Scotland are the people of Scotland themselves.

I agree but you seem to mistake a group of politicians elected in Scotland for "the people of Scotland". And why can't that sentence be altered to replace "Scotland" with "Britain" or "Aberdeen"?

[Tycho]

(Original post by Nick100)
...but you seem to mistake a group of politicians elected in Scotland for "the people of Scotland". And why can't that sentence be altered to replace "Scotland" with "Britain" or "Aberdeen"?

I think you must have missed one of my earlier posts on this. The government in London were NOT elected by Scotland. If Scotland got its own way then the Conservatives wouldn't be in power, and neither would the Liberals. So clearly the Scottish people don't see the London government as being reflective of their opinions, or responsive to their needs.

Scotland and England are drifting apart, as has been clearly shown by the changes in the political landscape in recent years. I believe that independence is the simple answer which gives the vast majority of people what they want.

[Nick100]

(Original post by Tycho)
I think you must have missed one of my earlier posts on this. The government in London were NOT elected by Scotland. If Scotland got its own way then the Conservatives wouldn't be in power, and neither would the Liberals. So clearly the Scottish people don't see the London government as being reflective of their opinions, or responsive to their needs.

But you could say that about every single constituency which voted Labour. And the same could also be said about any Scottish constituency which did not vote for the SNP. And there is no correlation between the popularity of a government and its competence.

Scotland and England are drifting apart, as has been clearly shown by the changes in the political landscape in recent years. I believe that independence is the simple answer which gives the vast majority of people what they want.

Countries should not be divided because of the results of an election cycle. Even if that seemed like a good idea surely federalization makes more sense than balkanization?

[Psyk]

(Original post by Tycho)
I am of the belief that to have a prosperous state you need a minimum population. I don't know what that minimum is, but I'm willing to bet it's more than a street or so. The population of Scotland clearly exceeds it. That's why I think the argument for an independent Scotland couldn't necessarily be applied to much smaller areas/populations, but can certainly be applied to Scotland as a whole.

There are functional European states with only 10s of thousands of people. Obviously a street is an extreme example, but clearly the population of a reasonably small town can constitute a "nation".

(Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
Erm, there is. While we can debate what "large" actually means in this context, there's no way you could stretch the phrase "large group of people" to apply to one individual. The word nation implies a collective of some sort, not anarchy. Now, we could argue as to whether the number of people on Cyanohydrin's street counts as "large", but it would be rather irrelevant, because I highly doubt they meet the other criterion for nationhood; national identity. That will to remain together that Renan referred to.

So how large is large? Got any specific numbers? Or is it also based on land area? E.g. A small number of people spread over a large area can be a nation, but not the same of people over a small area? Does it make a difference if they live on an island?

(Original post by Tycho)
Just because self-determination benefits more than one political perspective, doesn't mean all of those political perspectives are one and the same. Anarchism is the ultimate version of self-determination, but I think it highly unlikely that it'd work in reality. When the SNP refer to self-determination, they refer to the collective self-determination of the Scottish people. That is opposed to what anarchists would ultimately desire.

What about the collective self-determination of the British people? What size "nation" does self-determination apply to? There may be a Scottish nation, but there is also a British one.

An argument I've seen from Irish republicans is that it's irrelevant that the majority in NI want to remain part of the UK because they are part of a larger Irish nation and self-determination applies to the Irish nation as a whole. The same argument could be used to argue against Scottish independence.

(Original post by Tycho)
I think you must have missed one of my earlier posts on this. The government in London were NOT elected by Scotland. If Scotland got its own way then the Conservatives wouldn't be in power, and neither would the Liberals. So clearly the Scottish people don't see the London government as being reflective of their opinions, or responsive to their needs.

Scotland and England are drifting apart, as has been clearly shown by the changes in the political landscape in recent years. I believe that independence is the simple answer which gives the vast majority of people what they want.

And for 10 years the government in London weren't elected by large parts of England, especially the South East. I don't think recent election results are a good reason for part of a state to secede. We've had 2 years of a Conservative-Libdem coalition (bare in mind that the Libdems did get a number of Scottish seats, so actually the current government was partly elected by Scotland), after over 10 years of Labour which were largely voted for by Scotland.

So you want independence for Scotland because one election didn't go the way most people in Scotland wanted? South East England went through 2 elections that didn't go the way that part of the country voted. So clearly the difference of political opinions isn't a particularly significant part of the argument for Scottish independence.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Psyk)
What about the collective self-determination of the British people? What size "nation" does self-determination apply to? There may be a Scottish nation, but there is also a British one.

Well I believe it's in the best interests of Scotland to self-govern entirely. I also believe it's in the best interests of England to self-govern entirely, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, if they desire. That INCLUDES everyone in Britain, and hence everyone in Britain does have self-determination within this model. The trouble I find with British self-determination is that not everyone in Britain actually experiences it. This is really the crux of the argument. We could debate all night about how big/small/skinny/fat/populated/sparsely populated a state needs to be to be successfully independent, but at the end of the day it's about doing what's right for everyone. Sometimes what's right for everyone involves a happy medium, whereby the highest number of people possible are left with a government that is best placed to meet their needs (ultimately the very idea of having a government in the first place). You seem to believe the British state IS this government, whereas I happen to believe otherwise.

[Psyk]

(Original post by Tycho)
Well I believe it's in the best interests of Scotland to self-govern entirely. I also believe it's in the best interests of England to self-govern entirely, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, if they desire. That INCLUDES everyone in Britain, and hence everyone in Britain does have self-determination within this model. The trouble I find with British self-determination is that not everyone in Britain actually experiences it. This is really the crux of the argument. We could debate all night about how big/small/skinny/fat/populated/sparsely populated a state needs to be to be successfully independent, but at the end of the day it's about doing what's right for everyone. Sometimes what's right for everyone involves a happy medium, whereby the highest number of people possible are left with a government that is best placed to meet their needs (ultimately the very idea of having a government in the first place). You seem to believe the British state IS this government, whereas I happen to believe otherwise.

That didn't really answer my question. You're saying Scotland should self-determine as a collective. It doesn't matter if say one particularly county votes to stay in the Union if the overall majority in Scotland votes for independence.

So why should it be that Scotland is treated as a "unit" of self determination, and not a smaller unit, like a county, or a larger unit like the entire UK? I'm not seriously suggesting people in England should get to vote on Scottish independence, I just think it's important to be clear about what groups of people should get to self-determine.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Psyk)
I just think it's important to be clear about what groups of people should get to self-determine.

I'm not sure there needs to be an arbitrary rule with this. Why does there need to be? The issue is far too complex to draw definite, internationally-recognised, rules in my view.

Scotland becoming independent wouldn't be a world first. The issue at hand is whether Scotland should become independent or not, and for me the question to answer with this individual case is whether it would be a good thing. I believe it would be. There's far more to it than just the differing political opinions. I don't want my country to have nuclear weapons. I don't want my country to take part in unnecessary foreign wars. The money spent on these would be better spent on public services, for which the average person would truly benefit. Independence is the only way this is ever likely to happen.

Now if the referendum was held and the majority of Scotland voted "yes", then the whole of Scotland should be independent. Any counties which voted "no", were NOT voting for themselves to remain part of the union, they were voting for the whole of Scotland to remain part of the union. It wouldn't be possible to make the assumption that a county which voted "no" were voting to remain, themselves, within the union, as the question clearly refers to Scotland only. Therefore any talk of a fragmented version of Scotland after the referendum is unrealistic at best, and scaremongering at worst.

[Psyk]

(Original post by Tycho)
I'm not sure there needs to be an arbitrary rule with this. Why does there need to be? The issue is far too complex to draw definite, internationally-recognised, rules in my view.

Scotland becoming independent wouldn't be a world first. The issue at hand is whether Scotland should become independent or not, and for me the question to answer with this individual case is whether it would be a good thing. I believe it would be. There's far more to it than just the differing political opinions. I don't want my country to have nuclear weapons. I don't want my country to take part in unnecessary foreign wars. The money spent on these would be better spent on public services, for which the average person would truly benefit. Independence is the only way this is ever likely to happen.

Now if the referendum was held and the majority of Scotland voted "yes", then the whole of Scotland should be independent. Any counties which voted "no", were NOT voting for themselves to remain part of the union, they were voting for the whole of Scotland to remain part of the union. It wouldn't be possible to make the assumption that a county which voted "no" were voting to remain, themselves, within the union, as the question clearly refers to Scotland only. Therefore any talk of a fragmented version of Scotland after the referendum is unrealistic at best, and scaremongering at worst.

So why is Scotland being taken as a whole? And not say all parts of the UK that mostly voted Labour? And why not on a county by county basis? You still haven't answered that. Why does it make sense for Scotland to be treated as one indivisible unit, but not the UK?

I actually agree that if there's going to be any kind of referendum on independence at all, it does make sense to take Scotland as one "unit" for potential independence. I'm just wondering if you'll come to the same conclusions for why it makes sense.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Psyk)
So why is Scotland being taken as a whole? And not say all parts of the UK that mostly voted Labour? And why not on a county by county basis? You still haven't answered that. Why does it make sense for Scotland to be treated as one indivisible unit, but not the UK?

I actually agree that if there's going to be any kind of referendum on independence at all, it does make sense to take Scotland as one "unit" for potential independence. I'm just wondering if you'll come to the same conclusions for why it makes sense.

Looking back in history you see that the two countries were independent before the creation of the union - each with their own monarchs. The referendum proposed by the SNP in 2014 seeks to dissolve this union. I suspect that Scotland has always been seen as more of a single entity than Britain as a whole has been (and the same applies to England). Going back to their original status seems much more logical than completely fragmenting, if indeed any break up is decided upon.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Nick100)
But the arguments used for that change of state all work more effectively for anarchism. The argument is that the nationalists only the principle of "self-determination" when it leads to a favourable outcome for them. And on a related note do you consider Northern Ireland to be a nation?

And again, why wouldn't the change of state work for better for regions of those countries? An independent England would have a population on the same order of magnitude as the current UK so why don't you want to see England broken into multiple countries (about 10 or so)?

Declaring victory doesn't mean that you win. The argument is never refuted using any principle; the best you can come up with is a fudge (i.e. declaring nations to special collectives which somehow override things like ideologicial collectives and assuming that everyone must be member of a nation).

Do you support anarchy? I don't. If you don't support anarchy, I believe the exact same as what you are saying, except I believe the State should change, that is all. Scotland is a country and therefore when it wishes to be independent, that should be accepted. If you do support anarchy, then why have a problem with Scotland being independent?

I do believe NI is a country and the majority in NI support that, which should be accepted and respected until anything changes.

England is one country and has no strong desire it would seem, to be independent from the rest of the UK. Furthermore, no region of England by majority wishes to be independent from the main nation of England either. This isn't about anarchy. It's about people from a country or a defined region stating their desire to be independent, that should be accepted.

I haven't declared victory. I'm just saying, unionists changing the debate to one of anarchy shows they are either wayyy off topic or have no real reasons for why the union should be maintained.

Also saying that what I have said is "fudge" does seem quite silly when you are producing irrelevant arguments about anarchy, which is not what the pro-indy crowd are campaigning for.

[L i b]

(Original post by Cmca1)
At what point was I racist? An English MP representing an English constituency, will put the interests of his constituency first, England second and the UK third. Equally an MP from Scotland will put the interests of their constituency first, Scotland (which already has policy divergence on devolved areas) and the UK 3rd etc etc. That's not racist. Where does race come into it and how did you manage to find that racist?

You assume that from someone's Englishness, they will somehow put English people over the national interest. That is inherently racist. If you said the same about an Asian MP prioritising the issues of their race, or a female MP prioritising people of their gender, then I'd say it'd hold the same basis of prejudice.

You are effectively suggesting that MPs who happen to be English are somehow racist against non-English people. That is a crass and absurd generalisation.

Since when did "a white person, a black person, a woman, a man, a straight person, a homosexual" all become different races? And where did I mention anything racist? Sheer ignorance of the fact that I have already said I do not care for the nationalities that people decide to pick whether in the UK or outside the UK.

Evidently you do if you perceive that people who don't share your idea of identity cannot do certain jobs or represent you.

Secondly, the number of MEPs in Europe is not done proportionally. Consideration is given to the smaller states to prevent the dominance of 3 or 4 countries in the EU and to ensure all areas can be represented. So Scotland would get more MEPs, do you think they'd get the same number as Malta? 6 again?

As I've said, there is no system for ascribing numbers. It is a matter of mutual negotiation.

I never said closely bonded politically. The closest political bonds they would have would be in the EU and British Isles groups such as the British-Irish Council. But they would still have very closely linked economies and within the EU, citizens would have entitlement to free movement, etc.

Fair play.

[L i b]

(Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
Since my debate with Lib in the other thread, I've come across a lecture given in 1882 by the French philosopher Ernest Renan, which, me not being a student of political science, I had previously been unaware of. In it he describes the nation as a large group of people bound together simply by the will to be together rather than an agglomeration of people bound together by language, religion or ethnicity. He says of Switzerland;

It's circular logic which creates nations under such idea. "I have an identity - is it a national identity? Yes, because it pertains to a nation. Is my group a nation? Yes, because we share in a national identity".

So far as I see it, identities are all much the same: Glaswegian or Scottish, Manx or British, Bavarian or Londoner. The only time people pretend they are 'national identities' is when they want some sort of special treatment.

If the will to remain in the same sovereign state no longer exists; if a nation within that state wishes to become independent, who are we to make it do otherwise? Renan described the nation as a "daily referendum". A Quebecois neverendum if you like. I couldn't agree more. If a majority of Scots no longer subscribe to the British nation or state, I'm not going to tell them otherwise. Same to Euskadi, Catalonia, Sardinia and Britanny.

I completely disagree that states should be based on nationalism. I do not feel particularly European in any meaningful way, much less do I see it as a national identity - yet I strongly support the European Union.

[L i b]

(Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
Ah, that tired old strawman. Principally, I would have nothing against your street declaring itself independent. I would have nothing against you declaring your house independent, attaching rocket boosters to your foundations and going on a holiday to the moon. I would suggest that these occurrences are about as likely as pigs flying over the frozen wastelands of hell, but no, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

If that were allowed, there'd be nothing whatsoever to stop us setting up the Western Isles as some sort of offshore tax haven and becoming filthy rich. There'd be nothing stopping a certain area from receiving investment from the central government then declaring independence before they contributed in return.

There are plenty of reasons why that sort of thing is unprincipled. Chiefly it is advocating anarchy. And it's not a strawman, he asked you a question.

(Original post by Cmca1)
Firstly, it's a joke the top point.

Secondly, I believe Scotland as an independent state should self-determine, what's inconsistent with that?

As I have said countless times, Scotland cannot self-determine. It is not a conscious entity. Scottish people can self-determine, and do within the UK.

(Original post by Tycho)
I'm not sure there needs to be an arbitrary rule with this. Why does there need to be? The issue is far too complex to draw definite, internationally-recognised, rules in my view.

Precisely - so in absence of a set rule, you're simply going to rely on arbitrary discrimination to decide who gets to be independent and who doesn't.

Scotland becoming independent wouldn't be a world first. The issue at hand is whether Scotland should become independent or not, and for me the question to answer with this individual case is whether it would be a good thing. I believe it would be. There's far more to it than just the differing political opinions. I don't want my country to have nuclear weapons. I don't want my country to take part in unnecessary foreign wars. The money spent on these would be better spent on public services, for which the average person would truly benefit. Independence is the only way this is ever likely to happen.

Nuclear weapons, so far as I'm concerned, are simply a nationalist hand-wringing exercise. They pretend to care far beyond what any sensible person would. They often argue that nuclear weapons are now virtually useless in our post Cold War society. If that is the case, they should be quite relaxed about something which they don't believe will ever be militarily useful.

As for 'foreign wars' - I disagree with you - but you'd be far more likely to get the UK to pursue a less military-based foreign policy than you would be to turn Scotland into a separate country.

[Kapellen]

(Original post by Aj12)
Same place we get most of it already. Norway.

The UK will have a far easier time than Scotland due to its size. We are far more reliant on the services industry and things like finance than we are oil. Even our manufacturing industry is pretty good. The UK including Scotland would be far better off facing the end of North Sea oil than Scotland will alone. As you keep saying Scotland is a nation of 5 million people the UK of 60 million would have a far easier time than a dependent on oil Scotland will.

The argument that Scotland is too poor and over-subsidised can’t be used except by the right-wing commentariat. The figures are contested, but we do know that Scotland is the richest part of the UK outside of London and the South East, the overheated hothouse of the British economy. I don't know what population size has to do with anything? Where is more prosperous? Norway or the UK? Denmark or the UK? Austria or the UK? In fact the ten wealthiest countries in Europe are all very small in size.

18% of your economy based on finite resources. Why can you not see just how much this throws into question the long term ability of Scotland to prosper as an independent nation?

Last year Scotland contributed 9.6% of U.K. taxes, yet received only 9.3% of U.K. spending in return with just 8.4% of the population. Take a geographical share of oil revenues into account and its 2011 budget deficit would be just 4.4% of gross domestic product, versus an equivalent figure for the U.K. of 6.6%.

There is now little dispute that Scotland on its own can be a viable economy. But just how strong depends on where you come down on the big arguments over oil, currency and how effectively an independent Scotland can govern.

The North Sea oil has a long time left (decades at least). This is sufficient time for a Scottish focused government to diversify the economy (and an argument for independence as well..Scotland could attract industries where it has a competitive advantage to relocate — be it asset management, game development or green renewable energy...in fact the crux of the nationalist argument is that Scotland underperforms because a dysfunctional Westminster political system has systematically relegated its interests) - the claim of vanishing oil has been turning up since the 1970s. Latest reports estimate 24 billion barrels remain, equating to a wholesale value of some £1.5 trillion at today’s prices.

Lol English imperials. Get over yourself and quit being a tool. No one in England sees Scotland as some colony there for our own benefit. I just think there are fundamental flaws in independence that no one seems able to answer.

What are your real reasons for all your endless negative comments? Does it annoy you that large numbers of Scottish people want to seek a different path for their country? One away from endless wars alongside the Americans, one away from the UK which is on path to become the most unequal developed nation on the planet, a London government that appears like a throwback to the Edwardian era, the end of nuclear weapons in our country, the catastrophic failure of the Labour Party to create a progressive political narrative? As David Greig says "For 25 years, Scottish nationalism has been a civic, social-democratic, multicultural movement. Nationalists have opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they opposed Trident. They have openly campaigned for more immigration. The SNP proudly asserts the multicultural nature of modern Scotland with its MSPs taking the parliamentary oath in Urdu, Gaelic, Italian and English. Nationalists promote and engage with the EU. They advocate sustainable energy, land reform, arts funding… So there comes a moment when we turn and look at each other – England and Scotland – and realise we just want different things. No matter how hard I try, I can no longer rationalise voting for parties that can never give my community what it wants"

I think Scotland will do better in the union,

Why do you think this? Scots, after three hundred years of psychological shelter, have the courage to step forth on their own. Scots left the union in spirit a long, long time ago and most Scots have nothing to lose - although as usual, there are political and economic elites in edinburgh that are no doubt thinking about how to avoid a popular democractic Scotland with a left leaning slant.

it will be economically stronger in the union than it will on its own.

Why?

Just because Scotland does well in the union does not mean it would do well on its own.

Why not?

Independence throws a whole load of new issues at Scotland.

Yep, exciting times for Scotland!

Debt

Scotland would expect to inherit a fair share of the national debt. However you should also consider the other side of the balance sheet. If we are expected to carry our share of the UK's liabilities Scotland should also be due her share of the assets.

Defence

foreign policy,

The spur that converted me to Scottish independence was to do with foreign policy. And it was through it that I came into contact with members of the SNP. From the thought that we wouldn’t have been dragged into that disaster of Iraq and others if we had been independent, everything else flowed from that. Scottish defence isn't r’s not rocket science: an independent Scotland can have a small military establishment in keeping with the size of the country and the economy. I doubt many would support total de-militarisation, but there is nothing to stop us having a small, mobile army capable of defending the country and/or participating in e.g. UN peacekeeping operations or any other external roles that are approved or in keeping with the particular circumstances of the time. If you take a look the amount currently spent in Scotland on the military is MUCH lower than the contribution Scotland makes, so it is an argument the SNP should be making that we could in fact spend less on defence, and yet obtain the same or more, and pocket a useful difference to spent on other priorities. Just look at somewhere like Ireland for the sort of military force and what sort of military conflicts Scotland will be involved in when we become independent.

Any Scot wanting to pursue a military career would be free to join the rUK forces, as are Europeans and Commonwealth citizens. In fact it's likely that any Scot serious about a career in the military would do that as the opportunities would, of course, be far greater in the larger service.

As for foreign policy. Scotland has no ambitions to be a world power or sabre rattle on the Americans behalf so it is equally unlikely she would have any "enemies". No nation in the last 30 years has threatened Norway, an equally small and oil rich nation, so why would anyone try to threaten Scotland? People need to approach this debate from the correct side. Look at what other countries do, not what the UK does. The UK has not gotten over the fall of the empire, and still tries to act as if it "owns" half the world. Other countries, meanwhile, spend enough to defend their territory, and to contribute to international coalition forces when they deem it necessary. This is the role for Scotland to take, and hopefully rUK can change and become a peaceful nation in time as well (it is hard to see the rUK successfully defending its "world leader" top-table status in some international organisations. (G20, UN etc) Almost certainly some other member nations would seize the opportunity to contest the place of the reduced state). Essentially we need a Defence force not an offence force as the UK has at present - there will be no focus on overseas wars, but on securing its own territory and on making a contribution to international peace and security – for instance, by involvement in disaster relief and involvement in UN peacekeeping missions.

its Currency

We would initially use £ sterling. Sterling is as much Scotland's assent as it is that of rUK.

I could go on but the independence movement seems reluctant to answer any of these. issues.

Au contraire! Nats are very keen to answer all of these issues!

[Cmca1]

(Original post by L i b)
You assume that from someone's Englishness, they will somehow put English people over the national interest. That is inherently racist. If you said the same about an Asian MP prioritising the issues of their race, or a female MP prioritising people of their gender, then I'd say it'd hold the same basis of prejudice.

You are effectively suggesting that MPs who happen to be English are somehow racist against non-English people. That is a crass and absurd generalisation.

Evidently you do if you perceive that people who don't share your idea of identity cannot do certain jobs or represent you.

As I've said, there is no system for ascribing numbers. It is a matter of mutual negotiation.

Fair play.

I've never been racist and the comments you are quoting are not racist. If you have been in some way offended by what I have said, I apologise. However the comments stand. But, let's put it differently. If you listen to what MPs from Scotland, Wales and NI say when they are running for election, they will always say things like "We will stand up for Scotland/NI/Wales at Westminster." Are those MPs or political parties being racist? Equally, is it racist if someone from England says "Ah, those Scottish MPs come down here and vote on English law, when we can't vote on theirs in national assemblies?" What you are saying is about perspective.

To back up what I'm saying, this is what Carwyn Jones had to say on the Welsh Labour Party website:
"At the heart of all we do will be our determination to fight for jobs and grow the Welsh economy. Ours is an ambitious, positive vision of the nation we can become. In everything we do we will stand up for Wales and lead our country forward with ambition."

http://www.welshlabour.org.uk/
Is he racist?

There may be no set way of determining the number of MEPs, but generally from what has happened before, it is reasonable to expect, that Scotland, currently represented by 6 Scottish MEPs would have more MEPs when independent than Malta.

[Psyk]

(Original post by Cmca1)
Scotland is a country and therefore when it wishes to be independent, that should be accepted.

I don't disagree that Scotland is a country in some sense of the word. But what is a country? What makes Scotland and England countries in their own right? The UK is a country as well isn't it?

Saying Scotland should have the right to be independent because it is a country isn't really making a point. If you're going to assign special rights to places that we call "countries" then you should be clear about what a country is, and why Scotland qualifies as one. It should also be consistent. Quebec isn't a country, does that mean their independence movement is less valid than the Scottish one?

So please define the word country. This isn't a rhetorical question, I really want to know, because no one seems to know what a country actually is

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Psyk)
I don't disagree that Scotland is a country in some sense of the word. But what is a country? What makes Scotland and England countries in their own right? The UK is a country as well isn't it?

Saying Scotland should have the right to be independent because it is a country isn't really making a point. If you're going to assign special rights to places that we call "countries" then you should be clear about what a country is, and why Scotland qualifies as one. It should also be consistent. Quebec isn't a country, does that mean their independence movement is less valid than the Scottish one?

So please define the word country. This isn't a rhetorical question, I really want to know, because no one seems to know what a country actually is

Scotland has plenty of the characteristics of a country and you know that, both historically and today.

Quebec on the other hand is a region which can be easily identified or marked out as one which has a large proportion of people who wish to be independent. Where a majority support independence, I believe it should be granted to them, provided it has been sought for through legitimate means.

Not even David Cameron is wrangling over the definition of the word 'country' at the moment.

[Tycho]

(Original post by L i b)
Precisely - so in absence of a set rule, you're simply going to rely on arbitrary discrimination to decide who gets to be independent and who doesn't.

There's nothing discriminatory about it. There is enough support in Scotland for Scottish independence to be voted upon, and hence why there will be a referendum. Prior to the epic election win of the SNP, nobody was talking about individual counties becoming independent, so why the sudden nonsence talk of it now? If there was enough support for counties to become independent then they'd be having referenda on it. As there isn't, it's just ridiculous nonsense by unionists who are - frankly - running out of ideas. The most legal and democratic way to settle such disputes is by asking the people in a referendum. What, exactly, would you propose to do differently? Ask everyone if they firstly wanted their own households to self-govern, and then another referendum for their street to self govern, then their town, and so on... ? It's such a ridiculous argument, and makes you look silly. There needs to be no arbitrary rule, because no such rule can possibly be detailed enough to govern it. The will of the people in a given area will ultimately determine its future, not some arbitrary rule. The will of the Scottish people will determine their future, not some unionist arbitrary rule stating otherwise.

Incidentally, isn't it highly hypocritical of you to suggest something wrong with Scotland becoming independent, yet you - I presume by affiliation of your support for the union - support the British government's fight to help other countries become independent? And how ironic that the British government seek to disarm other nuclear powers (or indeed prevent them from acquiring such nuclear weapons in the first place), yet you feel it imperative that Britain ramains one. Do as I say, not as I do sort of thing?

(Original post by L i b)
Nuclear weapons, so far as I'm concerned, are simply a nationalist hand-wringing exercise. They pretend to care far beyond what any sensible person would. They often argue that nuclear weapons are now virtually useless in our post Cold War society. If that is the case, they should be quite relaxed about something which they don't believe will ever be militarily useful.

So are you actually suggesting that it's worth spending billions on a military weapon that will never be used? These weapons are useless from Scotland's point of view. It's not an independent deterrant, they are never going to be launched, and a situation is never likely to come up whereby we might require such weapons. The SNP argument is more to do with the waste of resources as a result of having them, than the actual dangers posed by having such weapons. The money used to maintain them would be far better spent on improving education and the NHS.

(Original post by L i b)
As for 'foreign wars' - I disagree with you - but you'd be far more likely to get the UK to pursue a less military-based foreign policy than you would be to turn Scotland into a separate country.

Utter nonsense. Britain has a long history of invading other countries and getting involved with things that is essentially none of their business. If you think that's more likely to change than Scotland becoming independent then you are naive at best, but more likely dillusional. You also fail to realise that Scotland is - already - a separate country, with its own government. Scotland has been slowly moving towards independence for the last couple of decades, and there is an inevitability about the eventual destination. This is clearly something you simply cannot accept... change.