|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
2nd August 2019, 03:02 AM | #1 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Is Scotland a country? (From: Brexit: Now What?)
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
2nd August 2019, 03:09 AM | #2 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
2nd August 2019, 03:34 AM | #3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
|
2nd August 2019, 05:07 AM | #4 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
|
2nd August 2019, 05:12 AM | #5 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
|
2nd August 2019, 05:15 AM | #6 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
That's no more enlightening than the politically meaningless term 'country'.
I'm still not sure what makes Scotland any different to Texas or NSW other than "It's a country!", which seems meaningless, as nobody can tell me what that means. Or "Nationhood", which I'm suspecting will be as significant as 'country'. Someone want to tell me what 'nationhood' means? Preferably with a link or similar to back it up. |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
2nd August 2019, 05:18 AM | #7 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
I guess it's just the Yankee in me. "Country" is top level. A country... under another country doesn't make sense to me. The UK isn't an international organization like the UN or the EU, it's a country made up of countries which is just... weird to me.
Probably just all terminology. Europeans seem to see a huge difference between "country" and "nation" that's all Greek (no pun) to me. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
2nd August 2019, 05:35 AM | #8 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
Me: Scotland is a country
People: No it isn't. 'Country' is a special word with special meaning and Scotland isn't one. It's just like a state or a region Me: But it's a country. Look the UK says it's a country and everything People: So what? There is nothing special about being a country. It's a meaningless word. The word isn't special in any way. Me: So WTF was your point then? |
2nd August 2019, 05:45 AM | #9 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
I don't believe 'It's a country' carries any weight at all. I don't see it as relevant seeing as the term 'country' seems to be meaningless. I simply don't see that the term carries any weight at all. What can a 'country' (Scotland) do that a notcountry (NSW, Texas) can't? |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
2nd August 2019, 05:45 AM | #10 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
It may well be weird to you. It's a fairly unique situation.
The UK isn't a country. It's a union of countries. And you can even start an argument about whether Northern Ireland is a country or whether it's just a part of the country of Ireland if you want. Part of the reason why this is complex and there are greater levels of subtlety maybe in European thinking is because the map of Europe has gone through a lot of changes. Was the Soviet Union one country? I'm sure Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc would say no. It was a state made up of several countries. When the Germans invaded Europe did the countries they took over cease to be countries? |
2nd August 2019, 05:48 AM | #11 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
|
2nd August 2019, 05:54 AM | #12 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
Because you, and others, seem to think that it is of significance. If it isn't why has anyone mentioned it. I didn't bring it up, I just challenged its relevance. If you want to know why I'm arguing about it, ask the person who first put the "It's a country", or "Nationhood!" card on the table like it was the ace of trumps. If you agree that it is of no significance whatsoever, then we are in hearty agreement. If you don't agree (And I freely admit I may be missing information, that's why I'm asking for it) then I'm inviting you to show me your working. |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
2nd August 2019, 06:07 AM | #13 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
It's merely a statement of fact that Scotland is a country.
If someone was arguing that a banana is just a fruit like any other then it's perfectly legitimate to point out that it isn't a fruit at all. And no amount of pointless to and fro over whether fruit is a meaningful term or whether it really means something else or whether it makes sense to anyone that a banana can be not a fruit is going to change the facts. I can't speak for Texas as I am no expert on the US constitutional arrangements. And I certainly couldn't care less whether you or anyone else thinks that the difference is important. What matters is that Scotland is a country. That the sovereignty of Scotland lies with the people of Scotland. And that BoJo's government will have not a speck of legitimacy in Scotland if they are wiped out at the next election. |
2nd August 2019, 06:18 AM | #14 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
With the information I currently have that is of no note whatsoever. It's an utterly meaningless statement.
If you can show me that being a 'country' is of any significance in international law or international statesmanship, then I'm listening. All I have so far is "It's a country". Which holds zero weight. Can you show me what you've read or seen that makes you think that being a 'country' is in any way a significant or relevant thing. What can a country (Scotland) can do that a notcountry (Texas, NSW) cannot? |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
2nd August 2019, 06:27 AM | #15 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
|
2nd August 2019, 06:31 AM | #16 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
How does the one follow from the other? Can you show me where this is coming from? Some document or statute that shows that what you say above has any significance in international law or diplomacy? What effect do you think your statement has? What weight does it apply to your argument? I'm afraid I just don't get it, It just seems to me like meaningless bluster. It clearly means something to you and I'd just like to know what and from which authority or academic source you derive the information to form your opinion. Can anyone not emotionally invested in the topic please tell me if I'm making any sense here? Because the answers I'm getting just don't seem to fit the question I'm asking. Am I asking it wrong? |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
2nd August 2019, 06:36 AM | #17 |
should be banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 19,364
|
If the people of Scotland want another referendum on independence what is the process?
My understanding is that legally it can't have such a referendum without the agreement of the UK parliament which suggest that if sovereignty for Scotland lies anywhere it is in Westminster. |
2nd August 2019, 06:41 AM | #18 |
Trainee Pirate
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 3,664
|
I'm not emotionally invested in this, you are both posting on an internet forum which means none of what you do has any significance whatsoever. Neither of you will succeed in convincing the other that they are right. However you have learned something today.
If you want to piss off a Scot, tell them Scotland isn't a country, if you want to piss off someone English, tell them it is.* *Does not work for all Scots or English people. |
2nd August 2019, 06:51 AM | #19 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
2nd August 2019, 06:56 AM | #20 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
2nd August 2019, 06:58 AM | #21 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
2nd August 2019, 07:03 AM | #23 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
Well, that's a given.
Quote:
There are much, much better arguments for and given by Scottish Nationalist than this one. I just figured I'd missed something. Now I'm figuring I havne't, but I'm open to correction. |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
2nd August 2019, 07:25 AM | #24 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
They vote for it (already done), pass it through the Scottish Government (in process) and then hold it.
Quote:
Quote:
That sovereignty rests with the Scottish people dates back at least to the declaration of Arbroath and that never changed. |
2nd August 2019, 07:46 AM | #25 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
That Scotland is a country is not an argument for or against anything. It is a statement of fact.
If your follow up question to that is 'so what?' then all well and good. But that doesn't change the fact of the matter. If you wish to know the difference between Scotland and Texas or NSW then you would need to find someone who understands the ins and outs of Texas status in the Union or NSW's status in Australia's constitution. You may wish to ask: 1. Does the sovereignty of Texas/NSW lie with the people of Texas/NSW? On what basis? 2. Can Texas/NSW secede from the Union/Australia legally? On what basis? How would it be achieved? 3. Does the USA recognise Texas as a country? Does Australia recognise NSW as a country? |
2nd August 2019, 07:47 AM | #26 |
should be banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 19,364
|
They have voted for another referendum? When did this happen?
Quote:
Quote:
|
2nd August 2019, 07:53 AM | #27 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
2nd August 2019, 07:59 AM | #29 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
|
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
2nd August 2019, 08:01 AM | #30 |
should be banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 19,364
|
|
2nd August 2019, 08:44 AM | #31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
|
IMO country implies international political standing that Scotland does not have. It could separate from the UK and become a country but until it does, its not a Country. Nation may be a more appropriate term as it’s grown to be used for groups of people that consider themselves distinct but don’t have any particular political standing internationally.
FWIW, Scotland has less direct control of it’s affairs than Canadian Provinces do, and culturally is probably less distinct from the rest of the UK than Quebec and maybe even Newfoundland are from the rest of Canada. That last part is somewhat subjective though so ymmv. |
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
2nd August 2019, 09:07 AM | #32 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
|
Texas and Scotland.
Geographic region? Check. So they are countries. Unique culture and distinct dialect? Check. So they are nations. Political body? Check. So they have governments. State? Oooh, this is where it gets tricky. The big issue is the perceptions that are generated from international diplomacy. Basically, there are conditions under which it is considered inappropriate to overtly display one or several of these aspects in dealings with other entities. State implies status to deal with other entities of status. In both the U.S. Federal model and the U.K. union of countries model, it would be improper for officials of a subordinated political entity to directly interact and coordinate affairs with officials of a foreign state. When it does happen, it is almost always initiated and guided by diplomatic personnel at some level. Any attempt to draw upon legitimacy from a constituent geographic part or population group in doing so has immediate consequences for the legitimacy of the recognized state in the eyes of other states. I mean look at how Nicola Sturgeon and Junker had to go "pontificating out loud and in public voices" about whether Scotland breaking away would allow it to rejoin the EU. The closest they got was allowing her to "lobby", but Junker was very clear that the EU would not "interfere in the British process." ETA: Then you've got the attitude of other EU members with their own separatist issues like Spain, who quite clearly repudiated the whole thing: "I want to be very clear: Scotland does not have the competence to negotiate with the European Union. Spain opposes any negotiation by anyone other than the government of the United Kingdom” Scotland and Texas are not states in the sense of "Nation-State." (the use of which may help clarify the discussion or just further confuse everyone...) Interestingly, though, for these two entities, they both were at one time. That, of course, creates a whooooole other kind of attitude. |
2nd August 2019, 09:20 AM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
|
Any part of any country can decide to succeed. The truly relevant questions are whether the country will accept it and whether the international community will accept it. Czechoslovakia ns may be perfectly content to separate into Slovakia and the Czech Republic and face an easy path to be accepted internationally. Things would not go so smoothly for Tibet, even though most of the world thinks it should be an independent country.
I don’t think the UK would oppose Scotland succession militarily, but if the separation didn’t happen on mutually agreed to terms Scotland would have a tough rode to international acceptance IMO. |
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
2nd August 2019, 09:32 AM | #34 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
That's what I said a page back. What makes you a country is whether other countries consider you a country.
I can plant a flag in my backyard and declare my house "Morguetopia" all I want and go on about the "right" of a people to declare sovereignty. But since the city of Jacksonville, County of Duval, State of Florida, and United States of America aren't going to stand for those kind of shenanigans I might as well declare myself the Pope. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|