stooges of the Kremlin

Wings Over Scotland


Playing by Madrid Rules

Posted on October 30, 2017 by

We’re not a Catalonian-politics website and we don’t even have an opinion on whether Catalonia should be independent, but sometimes it’s easier to understand the workings and failings of the media if you watch how it behaves on a subject you’re not directly and closely involved with. Last week was one of those weeks.

Below is a clip from yesterday’s edition of Sunday Politics Scotland. It features a man called José Rodriguez Mora, who was introduced to SPS viewers neutrally as simply an academic from Edinburgh University but was in fact instrumental in the creation of a stridently anti-independence Catalonian political party.

He was brought on to give voice to what has become the universal UK-media spin on events in Catalonia – that both sides are to blame, that the Catalan government was provocative and irresponsible to call an “illegal” referendum, and that the only way for the area to achieve independence is through the 1978 Spanish constitution, despite it expressly forbidding any such action and its cornerstone of existence (also known as the “Preliminary Title”) being “based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation”.

So in the striking absence of any useful information in the press, we thought we’d do a little digging and see how that might work.

The first point to note is that the Spanish constitution is – by design – very difficult to amend, placing a series of onerous obstacles in the way of any proposed change.

The largest is the requirement for a succession of supermajorities – variously 60% or 67% – in Spain’s two houses of Parliament. Catalan representatives alone have no chance of achieving such a vote, numbering just 47 of the 350 seats in the Congress of Deputies, very VERY broadly the Spanish equivalent of the House Of Commons.

The ruling party of Mariano Rajoy, the Partido Popular (PP) – implacably opposed to independence or any sort of referendum in Catalonia – currently runs a minority administration in the DoC, with just 38% of the seats. So in theory the Catalans, if they could get the support of every opposition party (some of whom also have ambitions of independence), could get fairly close-ish to a supermajority in the Congress.

However, they would then have to do the same in the upper house, the Senate, where the PP holds 56% of the seats and the combined opposition just 44%. That’s plainly impossible in any practical sense, and even if by some implausible miracle they were able to succeed then any amendment would still be subject to a general election, new 67% supermajorities in each of the two parliamentary houses following that election, and finally approval in a Spain-wide referendum, which it would undoubtedly lose.

So in effect, saying the Catalans could achieve independence through the constitution is like saying the SNP could win the same thing for Scotland by persuading the rest of the UK parliament to vote for it – it’s “perfectly possible” in a purely abstract theoretical sense, but could never happen in reality. The arithmetic will always prevent it.

The British and Scottish media, however, has made no attempt to explain any of this, and has colluded with the official Spanish government line at every turn. The most startling example is the way every UK news outlet has casually and repeatedly asserted as fact that the turnout for the October 1 referendum was 43%.

The intention of that, of course, is to suggest apathy and an inconclusive result, but it’s a remarkable empirical distortion of both the truth and the most basic principles of language. Hundreds of thousands of votes were seized by the Spanish police on the day, and the best guesses at the percentage of eligible voters who actually succeeded in casting their votes into a ballot box are around 57%.

Additionally, large numbers of people turned out to vote but were prevented from doing so by police closing polling stations and removing ballot papers and boxes before they could be used, both on the day and preceding days. It therefore seems an extremely conservative estimate to suggest that the REAL percentage turnout – that is, people who went out intending to vote – was at least in the 60s.

(We must presume that other would-be voters were deterred from even trying, purely out of entirely justified fear for their safety, but there’s no means of counting those.)

Of the votes which were able to be counted, over 92% were cast for independence. Statistically the percentage in the seized boxes would be the same, which would mean that even counting every single non-voter as a No, at least 51% of the entire eligible electorate voted for independence – a clear and unarguable mandate.

(Realistically, of course, turnout is never anything like 100% and the actual proportion of the votes cast that were for independence – which is how referendums are counted – would therefore have been significantly higher, and certainly beyond the “decisive” 55% achieved by the No campaign in Scotland’s indyref.)

For comparison, just 37% of the eligible UK electorate voted for Brexit, and 47% of the eligible Scottish electorate voted to remain in the UK. Among the Catalan ballots that weren’t seized and were properly counted, more than 38% of the electorate voted for independence, so even despite the Spanish government’s best attempts at stealing the votes and violently suppressing turnout, Catalan independence still has more of a mandate than the UK is leaving the EU on.

To witness even the best and most diligent of UK journalists not only rejecting these unarguable facts but openly mocking them has been a dismaying and alarming sight.

What is happening in Catalonia in 2017 is indisputably an affront to democracy. The result of a referendum which was conducted with impeccable dignity and propriety under incredible intimidation is discounted, but the people of Catalonia are permitted no legal recourse to achieve their aim.

Their democratically-elected government has been dissolved for no other crime than trying to discover the will of its people. Their media is being taken over by the state. Their politicians are being imprisoned under medieval treason laws. The chief of police has been fired. If these things happened in a Third World country it would rightly be regarded as a coup and the UK press would be baying for military intervention.

(Readers are, most obviously, invited to consider the UK’s reaction if Spain had sent in riot police to violently disrupt a referendum in Gibraltar, then declared the government “dissolved” and invaded despite the residents voting to stay in the UK.)

The core principles of the UN Charter on self-determination are being ignored by the international community. Countries whose own independence was achieved “illegally” and often with much bloodshed turn their backs on the heroically peaceful Catalans, while the international media parrots laughable and transparently false propaganda on behalf of the Spanish government.

(Ireland recognised Kosovo’s 2008 unilateral declaration of independence, which was proclaimed by its parliament without any referendum at all, in just 12 days.)

You cannot say that people who cast their votes but then had them stolen by riot police “didn’t turn out”. You can’t say that those who went to a polling station to vote only to find it smashed up and/or closed by the same riot police “boycotted” the referendum. You can’t say that a government given no lawful options for “properly finding out” what its citizens want is behaving irresponsibly by seeking the best, most peaceful and most democratic solution open to it.

At least, not unless you’re playing by Madrid Rules.

Print Friendly

    2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 07 11 17 11:54

      Playing by Madrid Rules » Best content from the Internet

    665 to “Playing by Madrid Rules”

    1. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      You don’t really know anything other than what tradition has led you to believe. I find your interest in Scotland’s democracy more than irritating, and your desire to retain the union, a demostration that your patriotism is not moderate. Britain is not one nation.

      I obviously have a different perspective than yourself, as your life potential has not been blighted by the political values of another country – McCrone Report.

      And you can fuck right off with the sectarian guilt shit. That problem was born with the union and won’t be resolvable until the union is ended.

      Which country’s democracy is Scotland seeking to undermine? Scotland’s or England’s? Which country’s democracy is England seeking to undermine?

    2. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      You’ve got a rather colonialist appreciation of what democratic liberty entails, don’t you old chap? Probably why you’re all over the place trying to describe patriotism.

      Gomberg, Paul — Patriotism Is Like Racism

      Gomberg further argues that “moral regard is universal – all count equally and positively in deciding what to do [… and] in conflicts between nationalities the moral universalist will not patriotic” (145). For Gomberg, there is an incongruency between moral universalism and patriotism; they cannot exist together. Patriotism, by its very definition, requires that one must put the needs of his or her own kind above the needs of others, and this is contradictory to moral universalism, in which “actions are to be governed by principles that give equal consideration to all people who might be affected by an action” (144). According to Gomber, “the patriot will fight for the national community while the moral universalist will not” (145). This is problematic because in order for patriotic acts to be moral, they cannot differentiate between kinds, and that is exactly the purpose of patriotism, to favor your kind over others: even “the moderate patriot [would] be more committed to the preservation of the institutions and traditions of his or her own nationality than to those of other nationalities” (146).

      http://lvnrg.vtcath.org/?p=419

    3. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave: “but the United Kingdom is now, to everyone but pedants, …. just a name! IF Scotland left the United Kingdom, it would still be called the United Kingdom.

      Only if Scotland allowed it to keep the name, which of course would come at a price in the negotiations. According to Lord Forsyth in the House of Lords on 28 Feb 2012 – and he’s completely correct (he even repeated it later):

      If Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom would cease to exist“.

      Sorry to rain on your parade.

      https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120228-0001.htm

      In 1707, we had the union of the Parliaments. The kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707 because the United Kingdom was created. Therefore, it is illiterate as well as misleading to suggest that there would still be a United Kingdom. If Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom would cease to exist.

      Doncha just love accuracy from a Conservative ex-SOS for Scotland?

    4. LowlanDair says:

      There is a distinct whiff of a D Notice being issued over this. The sudden shift of the coverage on Saturday by Sky and the BBC, both immediately parroting the official UK line suggests that this was done through the formal channels of the British State.

    5. heedtracker says:

      I really do feel sorry for you sometimes –

      So you should sensibled. Its hideous being under the control of an endless red and blue tory creep show, that England votes for, and then shits all over Scotland, for our own good ofcourse, its always for Scots own good.

      I do sometimes wonder if you English are actually aware of hard Scots like me loath this farce UK, the site of the union jack on our soil, the bullshit we have to listen to, to make us stay in the uk, your endless great British warfare, that you lot use our beautiful country as your private WMD dump and on it goes… but YOU won, in victory, magnanimity sensibledave, if only.

    6. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi yesindyref2 at 5:41pm.

      THANK YOU!

      8=)

    7. Rock says:

      Dave McEwan Hill,

      “Rock at 9.32

      “The EU and powerful leaders of EU members have made it perfectly clear that the referendum was illegal and that Catalonia is not welcome in the EU.”

      Provide some evidence for this statement.

      The EU has pointed out that the Spanish Government judges the referendum illegal and the EU has made no statement that Catalonia is not welcome in the EU. The notion that the EU would prevent an independent Catalonia being a member is absurd.”

      You need to get out of your “independence supporting” The National balloon to notice the evidence.

    8. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Rock.

      You don’t have to be in any sort of balloon to see that the EU has backed the wrong horse.

      Next question…

    9. CameronB Brodie says:

      Rock
      I’m not saying you’re wrong but to what degree do you understand European politics? Does this not sounds pretty modern socialism compared to BLiS____d?

      About Spectrezine

      We are a radical journal of the European Left and welcome contributions on the whole range of subjects covered in our pages.

      The Nation State, Sovereignty and the European Union

      2) NATIONS AND NATIONALITY COME BEFORE NATIONALISMS

      Nations exist as communities before nationalisms and Nation States. To analyse nations and the national question in terms of “nationalisms” is philosophical idealism, looking at the mental reflection rather than the thing it reflects. Nations evolve historically as stable, long-lasting communities of people, sharing a common language and territory, and the common culture and history that arise from that. On this basis develop the solidarities, mutual interests and mutual identification that distinguish a people from its neighbours. Some nations are ancient, some young, some in process of being formed. Like all human groups – for example the family, clan, tribe – they are fuzzy at the edges. No neat definition will encompass all cases. The empirical test is to ask people themselves. If they have passed beyond the stage of kinship society where the political unit is the clan or tribe, people will invariably know what nation they belong to.

      That is the political and democratic test too. If enough people in a nation wish to establish their own independent State, they should have it. For democracy can exist normally only at the level of the national community and the Nation State. The reason is that it is within the national community alone that there exists sufficient solidarity, mutual identification and mutuality of interest among people as to induce minorities freely to consent to majority rule and obey a common government based upon that. Such solidarity is the basis of shared citizenship. It underpins a people’s allegiance to a government as “their” government, and their willingness to finance that government’s tax and income-transfer system, thereby tying the richer and poorer regions and social classes of the Nation State together.

      The solidarities that exist within nations do not exist between nations, although other solidarities may exist, international solidarity, which becomes more important with time, as modern communications, trade, capital movements and common environmental problems link all nations together in global inter-dependence as part of the modern “global village.”

      http://spectrezine.org/europe/Coughlan.htm

    10. Tinto Chiel says:

      @Ghillie 12.03: you’re welcome!

      Got one for The Home Secretary too.

    11. CameronB Brodie says:

      Rock
      What I meant was that I think you’re a bit pessimistic in your outlook. Support for indy will grow over the next 18 months, as realisation of the Brexit impact kicks in. British Labour are floundering and fraught with internal cramps. The Tories are the English nationalist party and don’t even attempt to hide their contempt for Scotland. A disposition that British Labour aims to master in order to compete with the Tories.

      The current political scene in Europe is in flux but I think Scotland can expect to count on more support from within Europe than might appear to be on offer. This is good, as the EU can be reformed.

      I don’t think the First Minister will find herself in the situation you picture. Of course, I could be wrong.

    12. Rock says:

      CameronB Brodie,

      “Rock
      What I meant was that I think you’re a bit pessimistic in your outlook.”

      “I don’t think the First Minister will find herself in the situation you picture. Of course, I could be wrong.”

      Quite unexpectedly, a one in a 1000 years golden opportunity arose with the SNP having 56 out of 59 MPs, 50% of the vote, a remain vote in Scotland, the EU’s eyes favourably) on Scotland, the unionist parties without leaders and completely lost.

      That was the moment to strike. Scotland was on the verge of independence.

      But Nicola spectacularly squandered this once in a 1000 years golden opportunity by wasting more than a year flogging a dead horse – a separate deal for Scotland which was never going to happen.

      The result: Nicola outsmarted by the collusion between Saints Theresa and Ruth on one hand, and Corbyn on the other, fall in SNP support from 50% to 37%, loss of half a million voters and 23 MPs.

      There is no guarantee that the SNP will get a majority in 2021. In my view, it is highly unlikely. The black arts department of the British establishment will make sure it doesn’t happen.

      Despite the pretendy “sovereignty” and boasting of the clueless pompous armchair pundits posting here, Scotland is again as far away from independence as ever.

      Is there any wonder I am pessimistic?

    13. yesindyref2 says:

      @BDTT
      Curious guy Forsyth, he did something similar recently, forget what it was, maybe something about the Clyde frigates. I think something or someone annoys him, and then he just speaks his mind.

      He says some amazing stuff like (from the Herald in Sep 2016) about Project Fear:

      It was absolutely appalling. I was regularly telling George Osborne to stop running a negative campaign, to stop telling the Scots that they were too wee and too poor to run their own affairs, that they couldn’t have the pound. It simply wasn’t credible.

      We started off in that campaign with only 28 per cent supporting independence and we ended up with 45 per cent.

    14. CameronB Brodie says:

      Rock

      But Nicola spectacularly squandered this once in a 1000 years golden opportunity by wasting more than a year flogging a dead horse – a separate deal for Scotland which was never going to happen.

      The FM had to prove Westminster does not deal with Scotland in good faith. This has pretty much been achieved. I think you’re the one flogging a dead horse.

    15. sensibledave says:

      heedtracker 7:03 pm

      You wrote: “Its hideous being under the control of an endless red and blue tory creep show, that England votes for, and then shits all over Scotland, for our own good ofcourse, its always for Scots own good.

      OK Heedy. I will take that comment at face value. I accept that you personally feel oppressed and that you cannot get the government you want to vote for. Agreed?

      Tell me the solution (and btw, it has to be a democratic solution).

    16. sensibledave says:

      Yesindyref

      You wrote “Only if Scotland allowed it to keep the name, which of course would come at a price in the negotiations.

      … I dont care what some Lord Forsythe said in Feb 2012! Whilst, obviously, I cannot “know” this, my assumption is that the rest of us would still call ourselves the UK rather than going through some renaming process.

      More interestingly, why would you care?

      Is it that antipathy thing again? Not content with achieving your political goals – you would also want to kick us on the way out?

      I would suggest that most people do not dwell on the “meaning” of the name of the state. For instance, what does New Zealand mean (its not new – its been there for billions of years FCS!).

      As one of the more “moderate” contributors here on Wings indyref, it surprises me that even you are not content with achieving your own aims, but that you feel the need to cause discomfiture to everyone else as some sort of “punishment”.

      At least Heedy doesn’t even attempt to hide his antipathy. As far as he is concerned, apart from about 1.5m voters in SCotland that voted SNP, everyone else in the UK are evil oppressors who spend their lives thinking of ways to do him down. He doesnt “get” democracy. I expected better from you but, hey ho.

    17. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      Kindly fuck off, we get enough symbolic violence from the BBC in Scotland.

      Positive Psychology and Self-Determination Theory: A Natural Interface

      Abstract

      This chapter discusses both the positive psychology movement (PPM) and self-determination theory (SDT), arguing that SDT is a prototypical example of a positive psychology theory. SDT provides a nuanced, integrated, and scientifically supported framework for understanding optimal functioning, while also addressing “negative” processes that can get in the way of optimal functioning. Two primary prescriptions for positive psychology researchers are derivable from SD: that the autonomy-supportiveness of providers will be crucial for the success of any positive intervention or context, and that the success of positive interventions or contexts can be gauged by how well they meet participants’ needs. Accusations that positive psychology is overly individualist are considered from the lens of SDT, which has already faced and answered such challenges. We suggest that the PPM might adopt SDT as a general framework within which to conduct many types of positive psychology research.

      https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-90-481-9667-8_2

      Motivation and Self-determination Theory

      Intrinsic motivation is self-authored and endorsed and leads to more interest, excitement and confidence than motivation based on external rewards or punishments. Intrinsic motivation is generally inherent in humans and will flourish when circumstances permit.

      Intrinsic motivation is strongly affected by three psychological needs, each of which is affected by the social context:

      Competence — Can be increased by optimal level of challenge and effective feedback.Here are links to some musings about effective feedback: Effective Negative Feedback, Effective Positive Feedback, Process Praise versus People Praise.

      Autonomy — Having an internal locus of control, freedom to determine own behavior. Can be increased by having choice, acknowledgement of feelings, and opportunities for self-direction.Interestingly enough, the authors reference a meta-analysis that confirms “that all expected tangible rewards made contingent on task performance do reliably undermine intrinsic motivation.” (p. 70). I don’t think it is quite as simple as removing all contingent rewards — since there can be an evolution to reach intrinsic motivation that goes through various types of extrinsic motivation. But it may explain the frustration that managers find when rewards do not have exactly the impact they expect.I have another friend who made big difference in the motivation of the people he managed by giving them explicit goals and then leaving it up to them when and how they worked on the goals. That’s a story for another day.

      Relatedness — Having a sense of security and relatedness. Can be increased by having people around who care about you. This relates to one of the 12 questions that Gallup** finds very associated with high productivity work places: “Someone at Work cares about me as a person.”

      https://theanocoaching.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/motivation-and-self-determination-theory/

      Grit and Perseverance in Developmental Psychology – A Close Interview With Angela Duckworth
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiPleOusNcM

    18. sensibledave says:

      CameronB Brodie 2:24 pm

      You wrote “Dave … Kindly fuck off, we get enough symbolic violence from the BBC in Scotland.”

      … Very classy vocabulary Camo! …. No, well not until the Rev’ does it to me.

      With respect to the rest of your cutting and pasting, I have no idea what you are talking about or the relevance of whatever message you believe it transmits.

      I left a message for Heedy above asking him to tell me what you propose as the solution to the “problem” of Scottish Indpendence (given that the majority of SCottish voters don’t appear to want it.

      Please enlighten me as to your well thought out proposals. Remeber Camo, the outcome needs to arrive as the result of a democratic process. Things to bear in mind:

      1. When asked in 2014, the majority of voters in SCotland said no.
      2. In the most recent GE, the majority of voters in SCotland voted for parties where the manifesto commitment was to Brexit.

      …. can’t wait.

    19. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      You lack understanding despite my efforts to educate.

      Do you not accept Scots culture is different to English culture? Do you not accept culture as a pillar of sustainability? Do you really not understand the concept of universal human rights?

    20. sensibledave says:

      Cameron

      Notwithstanding your patronising efforts to “educate” me, you completely fail to address the bloody issue.

      What is it that you want the Westminster government to do?

      Should they enforce Independence on the majority- despite the clear message that they don’t want it?

      You choose to witter on about the ENglish, Westminster, red tories, blue tories, britnats and all the other pejoratives your crew come up with but the harsh truth is … THE ONLY REASON THE SCOTLAND IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY NOW – IS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY – IN SCOTLAND – DO NOT WANT IT TO BE!

      You blather on about me not understanding that Scottish culture might be different to ENglish culture – as if the whole of Scottish culture is the same and the whole of English culture is the same. There is little similarity in Scottish culture when comparing some run down area of Glasgow with a posh estate in inverness or the Isle of Skye. Just in the same way as there is little similarity between the “culture” in London, Manchester or the countryside in Oxfordshire or the coast in East anglia.

      You are defining SCottish culture by your own narrow definition. Clearly that definition does not constitute the majority view or the majority would have voted for Independence.

      As I said to Heedy, your problem is that your brain just cannot accept that. You look elsewhere and look to blame everyone else but yourself and the people that think the same way you do. You do not seek to educate, you seek to intimidate, threaten, abuse and bluster – and you reap what you sow.

      I recall the stunned disbelief of the comments here after the referendum and after the recent GE result. Who is it that is “out of touch” cameron?

      I ask again, what is it you want the Westminster Parliament to do?

    21. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      Notwithstanding my vain efforts to enlighten, you remain obstinately colonial in outlook.

      “What is it that you want the Westminster government to do?”

      Comply with international law regarding sovereignty, by acknowledging Scotland’s inalienable right to self-determination.

      Comply with the spirit of international development law, by adopting a supportive role in Scotland decision making process. Not monstering Scotland with “Project Fear” and lobbying the world’s leaders to oppose independence. Then we might be able to have a fair and representative referendum.

      More generally, act as a good neighbour and equal partner in a voluntary agreement.

      “Should they enforce Independence on the majority- despite the clear message that they don’t want it?

      This brings me to the BBC in Scotland. As they played a central component of “Project Fear”, their output needs international monitoring for the next indyref.

      Finally, re. the differences between Scottish and English cultures. I’ll make this as simple as possible, Scottish and English cultures have largely been shaped by different religious traditions. This has resulted in influencing different cultural relationships and political outlooks. Scots see the world differently to the English. We are different peoples, one dominant the other subordinate. This is not a sustainable relationship. Attention to the needs of the subordinate will diminishing over time.

      Get it now numb-nuts? All I want Scots to have a fair crack of the whip.

    22. sensibledave says:

      Cameron

      You wrote, in summary “Get it now numb-nuts? All I want Scots to have a fair crack of the whip.”

      I totally understand that that it was you want Cameron. However, when asked, the majority of your fellow voters in Scotland disagreed with you.

      Assuming that you agree that democracy is “a good thing” and that the people in power should look to uphold the majority view of the people of SCotland, I ask again, what do you want the Westminster Parliament to actually do?

      And please, no more stuff about Project Fear, etc. we live in a free country and politicians and commentators will say whatever they want to say and sometimes, they might even tell porkies (just like Ms Sturgeon said she wouldn’t interfere on votes on things like hunting in England and then rallied her troops at the very first opportunity).

      Tell me what the option is to free speech Cameron? Who is going to “vet” what can be said or not? You? Me? The voters are clever enough to work out who is on the level and who isnt. Again, Ms Sturgeon said, in terms of indyref 2, if you think I am bluffing, try me. They called her bluff.

      The difference is you laud your politicians, I am deeply suspicious of all of them. You would do well to wise up and take a closer look at you are being manipulated and controlled by the SNP. As a government in SCotland, could anyone say the have been any better than average (where average, frankly, isn’t very good).

    23. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      Are you deliberately trying to be thick or just wanting to have the last word? Did you read my previous post? Do you think it right that English votes remove Scotland from the EU, despite Scotland voting to remain?

    24. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave
      You’re a lad ain’t you, but perhapd not a very good reader. I want the rUK to be prosperous so we can take all your money with our goods and our scenery. Got a million quid? Come to Scotland and spend the lot, yes please.

      Oh yes, that bit about you not being a good reader, you clearly didn’t fully understand this bit from my posting:

      Only if Scotland allowed it to keep the name, which of course would come at a price in the negotiations.

      You see? It means Scotland has the upper hand in negotiations with the rUK after a YES vote, and in the words of someone or other “I like that”. We have something the rUK needs – the UK – and it don’t come cheap. Fairness in the negotiations will do the job, with little old Scotland holding our end up and not being screwed by the rUK out of a fair settlement, contrary to Osborne’s expectations.

      You want to carry on living in the UK rather than we don’t know what it’ll call itself? Good, it’ll cost you.

    25. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave
      You see, in that silly first White Paper of the precious UK Government back in 2013, they just presumed that they would be the cUK – the Continuing UK, and that the whole of the UK as a name belonged to them.

      But that just isn’t true, the 1707 Acts (and Treaty) of Union were between supposedly 2 equal partners, which means we don’t just own 1/12th of it by population (8.4%), we own 1/2 of it – 50%. And it was called the UK of GB, and even in landmass terms we’re 1/3rd of the GB part, that’s 33.3%. And at the time of that Union in 1707, our population was even 1/4 that of England, that’s 1/5th of the whole – 20%.

      So no, the rUK don’t get the UK for free or by demand, it buys our half of the UK of GB, it pays for it in the terms. And see that currency, the GBP? We own half of that as well, the UK Government don’t get to tell us we own nothing.

      So, you see the problem sensibledave? It’s the arrogance and dishonesty of that Government of the UK that’s the problem, wanting to steal what is not rightfully theirs, not those of us who just stand up for our rights – which is half of the acronym “UK”. And the currency sterling – GBP – notice that is GBP, not rUKP.

      When Scotland leaves the UK, the UK ceases to exist, unless our half of it is bought out at a fair price by the rest of the UK. That’s fair now, isn’t it sensibledave?

    26. John Gerard says:

      It would be no harm to read this excellent article over this issue from the New York Times that puts some perspective on the nonsense that has been written to date by the MSM and many blogs.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/28/world/europe/spain-catalonia-basque-independence.html

    27. sensibledave says:

      CameronB Brodie 5:10 pm

      You wrote “Are you deliberately trying to be thick or just wanting to have the last word? Did you read my previous post? Do you think it right that English votes remove Scotland from the EU, despite Scotland voting to remain?”

      No Cameron, you seem to have cornered the market on being thick. The EU referendum was a UK referendum, not some bloody “regional” opinion poll. All the counties around me in voted Remain by a considerable margin. Those constituencies add up to more than the whole of Scotland. But, because it was a UK election, it doesnt matter what i voted or what the majority around me voted, the overall result went the other way. Oxfordshire “lost” and so did Scotland. Thats democracy for you.

      In matters affecting the UK voted on at Westminster or in UK referendums we are all equal. One man One vote. Why on earth should your vote carry more weight than mine. Scotland is in the UK because Scots voted to remain in the UK – so it goes with what the majority decide for the UK. Simple as that.

      You know this. You just choose to not accept it (it is your right to keep fighting). Until and unless the Scots have another referendum (which if you had again now – you know you would lose again) then you have to go with the UK majority view just like me.

      Is there anything about that that you do not understand???

    28. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi sensibledave at 1:49pm.

      You finished off with (anyone interested in what else you typed can reread your comment):-

      “Is there anything about that that you do not understand???”

      There does seem to be evidence of a lack of understanding, but it is yours.

      The UK came into being through a “voluntary” treaty between two kingdoms – Scotland and England. Either party can walk away from that treaty if they so desire.

      The major difference between the two kingdoms is that in the English kingdom, the people are subjects of the monarch. The English monarch signed over the sovereignty of the monarchy to the English parliament, some years before the Treaty of Union, 1706/7.

      However, in Scotland, the people of Scotland are sovereign, as mentioned in the Declaration of the Clergy, 1309, and confirmed in the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320, accepted as the true situation by God’s envoy on Earth, The Pope, in 1328. Think of ‘the divine right of Kings’.

      From,
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

      The divine right of kings, divine right, or God’s mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God.
      The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.
      It is often expressed in the phrase “by the Grace of God”, attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.

      Thus the assertion in the Declaration of Arbroath,

      But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless prince, King and lord, the lord Robert.
      [snip]
      Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English.
      It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

      That’s from,
      https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//research/declaration-of-arbroath/declaration-of-arbroath-transcription-and-translation.pdf

      So, God’s envoy on Earth accepted that the Scots could ‘sack’ their monarch if he acted against the interest of Scots, meaning that the people of Scotland are sovereign, not the monarch.
      That is why the current monarch we share is ‘Elizabeth the 2nd of England and ‘Elizabeth Queen of Scots’. Note – ‘of Scots, not ‘of Scotland’.

      Under Scottish sovereignty, the monarch is ‘of the Scots’, not ‘of the country, Scotland’. By the Declaration of Arbroath, Scots are, effectively, citizens of Scotland. By the divine right of kings, the people of England are subjects of the monarch.

      And that’s why, when Scots voted 62% to remain in the EU, they were expressing their sovereignty. The fact that it puts certain noses out of joint is neither here nor there.

      No offence…

    29. sensibledave says:

      Cameron

      You wrote “Under Scottish sovereignty, the monarch is ‘of the Scots’, not ‘of the country, Scotland’. By the Declaration of Arbroath, Scots are, effectively, citizens of Scotland. By the divine right of kings, the people of England are subjects of the monarch. And that’s why, when Scots voted 62% to remain in the EU, they were expressing their sovereignty. The fact that it puts certain noses out of joint is neither here nor there.

      … sorry Cameron, you are just so wrong. When the average Scot voted on the EU referendum they were expressing their views in the context of the UK’s position (not Scotland’s) and they knew it.

      You refuse to accept and act on the basis of the democratic outcome of the referendum. Your fellow Scots democratically outvoted you in the indyref. Not me. Not Westminster or the Queen not the Tories …. Just your feloow Scots. They voted to remain part of the Uk and to be governed by the Westminster Parliament just like me in Oxfordshire (where we also voted to Remain).

      You know all of this and your arguments are the only ones you can make to hang on to some semblence of a notion that you are “oppressed by the nasty English … its made up, manufactured poppycock Cameron. Scotland voted to be part of the UK. The UK voted to leave the EU. So be it.

    30. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi sensibledave.

      I’m Brian, not Cameron. You appear unable to accept that there are two distinct legal frmeworks in the UK and, under one of them, the citizens are sovereign. If a majority of Scots vote for a course of action, their will be done…

      In that EU referendum, 62% of sovereign Scots voted to remain EU citizens. That cannot be disputed. The fact that the majority of subjects in England and Wales voted to remove their EU citizenship, while the subjects in Northern Ireland also voted in favour of retaining EU citizenship, only proves that we are all part of a broken union.

    31. sensibledave says:

      Brian.

      No Brian.

      The Eu referendum was a vote to decide the majority in the UK (the UK that the Scots recently voted to be part of with everything that means). We are going round in circles. Your argument is specious. England is sovereign too but as part of the Uk we live with the result of the UK outcome – whatever that may be.

      You keep trying to claim some moral high ground based upon a false premise. Your views on Scottish Independence is, democratically speaking, are a minority view. Every time the majority view is upheld you squeal about oppression and nasty Westminster and nasty right wing English people oppressing you. It really does wear thin. All these cries of “foul” and false grievance are just silly.

      I have asked a number of times above. What is it that you want the Westminster parliament to do? Impose Independence on the majority???

    32. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi
      sensibledave says at 9:27 am.

      You typed,
      “England is sovereign too but as part of the Uk we live with the result of the UK outcome – whatever that may be.”

      I’ll don my pedantic hat here. “England” is not sovereign – sovereigny lies with the monarch, by “the divine right” and the English monarch delegates sovereignty to the Westminster parliament, not to the country.

      In Scotland, the people are sovereign. That’s why we have our own legal system.

      You finished by asking,
      “I have asked a number of times above. What is it that you want the Westminster parliament to do?”

      I want the Westminster parliament to cease its arrogance in presuming to speak for all the nations in this broken union of TWO kingdoms. The sovereign people of Scotland made a decision that we wanted to stay in the EU. Westminster should, probably reluctantly, show some respect for that decision.

    33. Liz g says:

      Brian Doonthetoon @ 8.33
      Might even be a good start for Westminster to try a keeping to the Actual terms and conditions of the Treaty that they signed up to in the first place Brian.
      And then start offering reparations for all the times they have breeched it!

    34. sensibledave says:

      Brian

      You wrote “I want the Westminster parliament to cease its arrogance in presuming to speak for all the nations in this broken union of TWO kingdoms. The sovereign people of Scotland made a decision that we wanted to stay in the EU. Westminster should, probably reluctantly, show some respect for that decision.”

      … you are being deliberately obtuse, and you know it.

      The Westminster Parliament is there – exactly – to speak for all nations in the United Kingdom. Further defined by a “majority” of all of the people in all the nations in the United Kingdom … as you well know.

      The alternative road you seem to suggest is that Westminster becomes completely incapable of doing anything … because one of the nations in the United Kingdom has majority that disagrees with a particular policy.

      The stunning irony here is that the only nation in the United Kingdom that has voted (in modern times) to democratically display and express their desire for the current Westminster establishment to continue “as is”.

      As is so often the case Brian, you seek to find grievance, discrimination and oppression where none exists. The majority of Scots want the Westminster Parliament to continue to do what it does. You personally may not like it because, obviously, you want an Indpendent Scotland and you want to stay in the EU. I voted to stay in the EU and I personally want significantly more devolved powers in England – but my views do not form the democratic majority so I am outvoted.

      I could shout about the nasty MPs and the nasty Westminster and the nasty people wanting to oppress me just because I am an Englishman living in a Tory constituency whose views are ignored. I could blame the SCots for voting for a party whose Leader whose leader has no democratic mandate to influence laws that affect me and my life – but attempts to use her position to do so every day of her working life. I could do all of that Brian, but the reality is that democracy has determined these outcomes – and I know of no credible alternative!

      You appear to want the minority to impose their will on the majority – that is the difference between us.

      And, BTW, I care not a jot about thye constant backward looking history lessons that you and Pethers seem hell bent on repeating at every given opportunity. Everyone knows how Westminster and the other devolved parliaments and assemblies work now, today. Everyone understands that and makes decisions based upon that. Implicitly, Even Ms sturgeon accepts the status quo as being the way things are – and that only democratic voting will change that status quo.

    35. liz Gray says:

      Brian Doonthetoon @ 8.33
      Can I also don’t my pedantic hat for a moment Brian.

      It’s a classic mistake to say that Westminster speaks for us.
      Although it has to be said that,is indeed the impression that they give!
      Westminster is actually supposed to represent us.
      It’s a subtle but important difference Brian.

      They only make an attempt at it now and again …the Vow being the most obvious example….
      Mostly when they stop looking after their business interests for a minute, their efforts are spent placating the majority which is obviously in England.

      They even have some who claims this is the proper thing to do if democracy is to work…..how mad is that?
      If a Union can’t find suitable solutions that satisfy both members then it needs to go.

      Scotland voted in 2014 & 2015 for Westminster to represent and to try to achieve as far as possible her needs and wants.

      But no once again that Parliament is using the weight of numbers of the English MP’S to work only for England,and trying to tell us that’s democracy and that we actually voted for it?
      The difference now though is that half of Scotland and rising is no buying the lie anymore.

    36. sensibledave says:

      Liz Gray (& Brian)

      On the basis that we 3 are the only people left here on this thread now, you can stop all the party politics bulls**t.

      You wrote “But no once again that Parliament is using the weight of numbers of the English MP’S to work only for England,and trying to tell us that’s democracy and that we actually voted for it?
      The difference now though is that half of Scotland and rising is no buying the lie anymore.”

      No Liz. Completely wrong again!

      The only way I can demonstrate it – is by repeating that which I have highlighted many times already – but which you choose to ignore. i.e. democracy.

      Scotland voted to remain part of the UK. Yes? Not me. Not “Westminster”, not bloody Tories in the “sarf”. Just Scots Liz (and, after the results of the EU Referendum, the majority of SCots also voted for parties where the manifesto commitment was to leave the EU).

      Your whole stance is based upon the result of another democratic process – that hasn’t yet taken place, i.e. indyref2 and, furthermore based upon the idea that you know that the outcome will be reversed – for which, frankly, there is not one scrap of evidence as everything points to a hardening against Independence. You may fervently wish that it was otherwise, but that is all it is, a wish.

      It is your assertion that “The difference now though is that half of Scotland and rising is no buying the lie anymore.” .

      I see no evidence support your stance – only evidence (i.e. the most recent GE) that supports the opposite position.

      Given a reasonable passage of time (i.e post Brexit) then, if Ms Sturgeon, or her replacement, believes there has been a significant change in Scotland such that a reversal in opinion is likely then few “darn sarf” would have an objection to another referendum.

      What we wont lie down for though, is less than a couple of million Scots ruining the future of nearly 70 million people just because they can. We are all Brexiteers now Liz, regardless of how we voted, because we are all going to Brexit. I know you want a crap deal because you believe that will increase the chances of you achieving your very narrow focus of Independence but rest of us will be stuck with the deal we get for the rest of our lives. It is therefore vital that the best deal possible is achieved – if that means that that a million and half Independence supporters in Scotland “have the box lid closed for a couple of years” then that is fair, right and proper for the rest of us – in my humble opinion.

    37. David says:

      We interrupt this Sensible Dave MeMeMe Show to bring you the following important announcement –

      This article is about the situation in Catalonia, and how the British and Scottish media is failing us by not reporting the truth about it.

      Hopefully all commentators here can get back on topic. I’ll start it off:
      In my opinion Catalan leader Puigdemont has outplayed Rajoy’s Spanish government at every turn since the Catalan Indy referendum.
      – No violence from the Indy side, so no excuse for reprisals or thuggery from Rajoy’s fascists.
      – Moving to Brussels, giving speeches there in the heart of the EU has kept the Catalonian Question in the headlines throughout Europe.
      – Handing himself over to the Belgian police, to be questioned and released on the same day shows how arbitrary and compromised the Spanish judicial system is.
      – British media can try all the ‘look a separatist 37% squirrel’ articles they want, the Catalan news will not go away.

      Finally, just for a wry laugh:
      Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish David Mundell. Dear oh dear.

    38. Liz Gray says:

      Sensible Dave @ 2.33
      Well that’s quite a few things that ye are accusing me of there.
      Especially since I wasn’t even talking to you.
      And I am not in the least bit interested in answering your unfounded accusations about my motives or my character.
      Please do not butt in to my conversations again.
      In the highly unlikely event that you were lucky enough for me to wish to address you…you will know. as I will refer to you by name.
      But until then dinay flash yersel wi anything I am discussing.
      Are we clear?

    39. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi sensibledave.

      OK, so you don’t appear to give any credence to the UK’s history.

      Here’s the fact: the UK, as we know it, exists because of the Treaty of Union. You can’t possibly disagree with that?

      Legally typing, it was a treaty entered into voluntarily by two kingdoms. Do you doubt that?

      Therefore, as it is an internationally recognised TREATY, either partner to the treaty can withdraw, if it feels that the other party has broken the terms of the treaty.

      That is where we are now. When the majority of Scots express a desire to withdraw from the treaty, the UK is finished. England (with its dominions Wales and Northern Ireland) can once again be an independent kingdom, the same as Scotland will be.

      It’s coming yet for a’ tha…

    40. Liz Gray says:

      David @ 7.58
      Well said David and thanks for the reminder.
      Ma wee bit of housekeeping is done and I will stick to the topic from now on

    41. sensibledave says:

      Liz Gray 7:58 pm
      Sensible Dave @ 2.33

      You wrote “But until then dinay flash yersel wi anything I am discussing. Are we clear?”

      Its a forum Liz not the unanswerable thoughts of Chairman Mao! This thread is very old and there was only Brian and I still left. With the greatest of respect – you butted in on my conversation. But hey, I know that you are not big on etiquette and I will just have to accept that some people are very rude sometimes (or I wouldn’t last long here).

      As for “David’s” late interjection, he should be aware that an article that is over a week old and has over 500 comments – is likely to meander a bit when only a couple of folk are left on the thread. The only people that find the thread O/T by then, and feel the need to censure others because of it, are typical of the pedants and control freaks that are often prevalent here.

      As for his comment about the “Mememe show” – I was having an almost private conversation with Brian on a week old thread – so hardly trying to hog the limelight. Are you always a d**k head David or are you just putting on a show for me?

    42. sensibledave says:

      Brian Doonthetoon 7:59 pm

      You wrote “That is where we are now. When the majority of Scots express a desire to withdraw from the treaty, the UK is finished. England (with its dominions Wales and Northern Ireland) can once again be an independent kingdom, the same as Scotland will be.

      And then you wrote “It’s coming yet for a’ tha…”

      Firstly, AT LAST! you have finally got it Brian! i.e. when the majority of Scots express a desire to to withdraw from the treaty… etc”

      When/if that happens Brian I will be just as happy as I am now, maybe even happier if I allow my more selfish side to rise to the surface. I am a democrat Brian. Whatever the majority of Scots want – they should have – which is why Scotland isn’t Independent now.

      It is increasingly clear that there are many like you Brian .. operating under the false premise that the average English person desperately wants to keep Scotland in the Union against its will. For the record, it was the Westminster parliament (that you seem to keep needing to say is made up of predominantly English MPs) that passed a Bill to hold a referendum in Scotland on Independence. Were the people of England outraged? Did they march in the streets and hold fervent rallies pleading with the jocks to stay? No Brian. We just carried on and watched with interest – but that is about all.

      So, moving on to your attempted “threat” or “gloat” (I am not sure what it was)… I don’t care Brian. Nor do most people in England. As far as I can see, England will be a lot better off financially and, politically speaking, I will have less chance of being governed by a loonie left party in the future and I wont have to put up with Ms Sturgeon trying to affect my life and laws when she has absolutely no mandate to do so (i.e. she isn’t a member of any parliament that has jurisdiction over me).

      And, even if those potential benefits aren’t real or don’t come to pass, I am a democrat, and will therefore be content that the majority in Scotland have got what they wished for. Genuinely.

      I have noted this “tone” a number of times Brian. In order for you to enjoy Scottish Independence, do you also need to feel that you have somehow “damaged” me and my fellow country folk by leaving the UK? Freud would have a field day with all your weird hang ups Brian.

    43. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi sensibledave at 2:28 pm.

      You typed,
      “It is increasingly clear that there are many like you Brian .. operating under the false premise that the average English person desperately wants to keep Scotland in the Union against its will.”

      Your comments are becoming rather surreal, sensibledave. Can you do a Rock and point out where I have ever accused “the average English person” of desperately wanting “to keep Scotland in the Union against its will”?

      There’s no doubt that there is an element of the British establishment that sees Scotland as its ‘cash cow’ and that’s why that establishment went into overdrive in the last couple of weeks of the indyref1 campaign, after that opinion poll was published, showing YES in the lead.

      The ultimate was “The Vow”, backed by the three main unionist parties leaders, a couple of days before the referendum.

      And what did Cameron announce at 7am on the 19th September, 2014, after the result was known? EVEL – making MPs from Scottish constituencies in the UK parliament second-class members. Your average English person just hasn’t realised that Westminster isn’t there for their benefit – it’s there to ensure the upper hand of the British establishment continues.

      I had a holiday in Cornwall in 1983. In the pub one evening, we got into conversation with a couple from Newcastle. To cut to the chase, their complaint was that the North-East was neglected by “London”.

      Fast forward to 2007 and I was on holiday in Bexhill On Sea, a two hour rail trip from London. What was their complaint? It was, particularly, about digital TV. All the new stuff went to London first and they, on the south coast, were forgotten about.

      Do you not get it, sensibledave? The “average English person” is just as much a victim of the British establishment as Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. Not quite enough of us up here have seen the light to date but our time is coming ever closer.

      You also opined,
      “As far as I can see, England will be a lot better off financially”

      JEEZ! You’ve really fallen for the establishment propaganda, iye? (“Iye”, rhymes with the “i” in “tight” – Dundonian contraction of “don’t you think?”)

      Which country of the UK has been consistently running a trade surplus? Scotland exports more than it imports. England imports more than it exports. Which country could be more successful if independent?

      http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/08/12/scotland-is-the-only-part-of-the-uk-running-a-consistent-trade-surplus/

      You also declared,

      “and, politically speaking, I will have less chance of being governed by a loonie left party in the future and I wont have to put up with Ms Sturgeon trying to affect my life and laws when she has absolutely no mandate to do so (i.e. she isn’t a member of any parliament that has jurisdiction over me).”

      Who’s the “loonie left party”? Certainly not the SNP – it’s a slightly left of centre party. Check out “Political Compass” to see who are the “loonie left” parties and who are the loonie right parties.

      https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015

      You then observed,
      “I am a democrat, and will therefore be content that the majority in Scotland have got what they wished for. Genuinely.”

      Well that’s just dandy. However, you then finished your contribution by spoiling it in typing,

      “do you also need to feel that you have somehow “damaged” me and my fellow country folk by leaving the UK? Freud would have a field day with all your weird hang ups Brian.”

      Do a Rock again, and point out where I have expressed a wish to “damage” you and your “fellow country folk”.

      Finally, tell me what my “weird hang ups” are. I feel that knowledge could be helpful in my efforts to assimilate on your planet.

    44. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave

      I am a democrat Brian. Whatever the majority of Scots want – they should have – which is why Scotland isn’t Independent now.

      No you are not. The 2014 indyref was a travesty of democracy and the Vow was a sham. The majority of Scots want more autonomy and were led up the garden path by Gordon Brown and the BBC.

      And, even if those potential benefits aren’t real or don’t come to pass, I am a democrat, and will therefore be content that the majority in Scotland have got what they wished for. Genuinely.

      You’re about as honest as the Vow. Go and clue yourself up on ethics and international development law and see if you still hold your opinion. Until then, kindly do one.

    45. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi sensibledave.

      I’ll just add this, without comment, for you to read.

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN-raoiWsAA6FXB.jpg:large

    46. David says:

      Is the Spanish government led by Mariano Rajoy happy to be seen using violence against peaceful people in Catalonia, in order to cover up its own issues with corruption?
      It seems national media in Spain will do Rajoy’s work for him, by denying coverage of anything that might show his administration in a bad light.

      Spanish media don’t mind showing a bit of police violence, however, as there appears to be a sizeable part of the Spanish people have authoritarian leanings, and will support their police wholeheartedly in whatever they do.

      Thatcher used the Falklands to get Britain to rally round – seems like Rajoy is using Catalonia in the same way.
      Being pro-Catalonia is being un-Spanish, unpatriotic.
      Desperate tactics from Madrid. They may delay independence for a time, but they are making it more likely to happen.

    47. sensibledave says:

      Brian, Cameron et al

      … we’re done. I have repeated, regularly the recent electoral and referendum results and explained my personal, resultant position. You argue that I am wrong to hold the views I do – that is your right.

      If you care what I think, personally, I think the repeated history lessons are as useful as a chocolate tea pot. If all you have is your interpretation of ancient agreements rather than acknowledging that which Ms Sturgeon clearly acknowledges (i.e. the Westminster Parliament rules the UK, The SCottish Parliament has devolved powers to deal with devolved issues) then we are really not going to make any progress are we.

      I can’t be bothered to keep repating myself further in answer to the same boring stuff from you and Cameron so I’ll just pick up on a couple of points…

      You wrote “EEZ! You’ve really fallen for the establishment propaganda, iye? (“Iye”, rhymes with the “i” in “tight” – Dundonian contraction of “don’t you think?”). Which country of the UK has been consistently running a trade surplus? Scotland exports more than it imports. England imports more than it exports. Which country could be more successful if independent?

      Why on earth do you care? It relates to my point about “damage” It looks like, as well as wanting Scottish Independence, you need me to accept, be worried, be concerned and beg you not to leave so that you can some greater satisfaction on your way out – like some weird mutant version of the Stolkhom Syndrome.

      You seem to be suggesting that England is the net beneficiary of the Barnett formula? Please tell me you don’t believe that Brian.

      You wrote “Finally, tell me what my “weird hang ups” are. I feel that knowledge could be helpful in my efforts to assimilate on your planet.”

      1. You believe I won the Scottish Independence referendum
      2. You truly believe that most people in England want to keep Scotland in the Uk against their will.
      3. You believe that I must want SCotland to stay in the UK
      4. You don’t believe that the majority of Scots voting to stay in the UK should mean that they have to go along with what the majority in the UK decides.
      5. You appear to believe that “England” has one view on everything.
      6. You appear to not understand that the majority of Tory heartlands voted Remain in the EU ref.
      7. And you cannot comprehend why a Remainer would accept the will of the majority (you have “form” on that sort of thinking).
      8. Your total rationalisation for the indyref1 result is the “vow” (which, quelle surprise, everyone other than Indy supporters believes has been delivered).
      9. You see similarities between the situation in Catalonia and in Scotland.
      10. You think Ms Sturgeon always tells the truth
      11. You believed her when she said she wasn’t bluffing

      etc, etc

    48. David says:

      Think I’ll have sausages for tea tonight.
      Or maybe a wee omelette.

    49. sensibledave says:

      David

      … times hard up there David?

      …. We use eggs to make omelettes down here!

    50. sensibledave says:

      Come on david …, you have to admit that was a little bit funny?

    51. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave “You seem to be suggesting that England is the net beneficiary of the Barnett formula? Please tell me you don’t believe that Brian.

      Actually it is, if you look up what the Barnett formula actually does, rather than what a lot of people think it does. Its principle and effect is “convergence”, so that resources will be shared not by need, but per capita. Which takes no account of need for, for instance, Scotland with four times as much land and therefore distance, for the comparable head of population, and a lot of islands, but still has to maintain the NHS, education, transport, communications and even government, both central and local.

    52. yesindyref2 says:

      Come on sensibledave, where’s your answer to that? Are you looking up the Barnett formula right now to see how it actually works?

    53. sensibledave says:

      Hi Yesindyref … what are you doing returning to this dead thread. You must really be short of something to do .. or is it that you just love hanging out with me?

      How are you maths Yesindy? You know … percentages, averages, that sort of stuff?

      The UK average expenditure per head is/was £8788. The only nation in the UK that gets less than the average …… is …England at £8529.

      For the record, when those figures came out, Scotland was at 10152 (about 19% more per head than in England) whilst Wales got £9709 and NI got £10876.

      Now, you are going to have to show me some pretty whizzy maths to spin your yarn yesindy.

      When you do your maths, please take into account the number of people that live in each country to help with the demonstration of how the SCots contribute more to the UK pot than the English.

      On the other hand, you might take the trouble to examine your motives for getting involved.

      I know you just can’t grasp this indyref … but i really don’t mind. It is a fair price to pay for people to choose their own independent, democratic path.

      Are you another one that needs me to not want Scotland to be Independent just because I might be a bit worse off?

      You really don’t understand the English do you. Is there a country or protectorate or member of the commonwealth, that exists anywhere in the world that has expressed a desire to not be constitutionally related to the UK and ENgland – and been forced to “remain” against their will? … No.

      Was Scotland given the option … Yes? What did they say? … No thanks.

      As always indyref, Scotland should have whatever governance the majority of Scots want. I don’t car. YOur problem is a very large bunch of Scots who disagree with you … not me.

    54. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave “How are you maths Yesindy?

      Like Mr Kipling Cakes SD, exceedingly good in fact. Somewhat better certainly than your reading skills it seems, as you ignored the import of what I said, which is that you need to look up what Barnett actually does, which is to apportion increases to the block grant year to year according to population ratios. Hence convergence, though it would never actually converge completely. Think about it SD, draw a graph, rather than go off into some sort of pretty weird grievance huff.

      You really don’t understand the English do you?

      Did I ever tell you SD, that though born and weaned in Scotland I was brought up and schooled to A level in sarf-east London? Great place too!

    55. sensibledave says:

      God Afternoon … if you are still there yindy!

      You are struggling a bit here Yindy. There can be no torturing of any branch of mathematics that can result in you successfully arguing that the ENglish receive less than the average – and that the English are the only country to receive less than the average and that all the other countries receive more than the average.

      The English always pay more than their “fair share” Yindy.

      But that is OK. That is the agreement. We English are all about democracy and honouring agreements. We get lambasted for it. Even hated for it, but hey, we English are content that we operate to high moral and ethical standards and we take comfort and strength from that.

    56. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave
      Are you for real, or are you too scared to admit you’re wrong and I’m right? I’ve no idea what your posting is about, I’m never one to be easily distracted by waffle, but it’s got nothing to do with the Barnett Formula that I’m talking about.

      Which is that increases to the block grant via Barnett are worked out on a straight population proportional basis. In fact Barnett was introduced to shortcut the haggling and negotiating that used to go on between the UK Government and its Scottish Office over budgets back in the 60s, when the occasional Scottish Secretary would actually try to stand up for Scotland. It’s proportional, not according to needs.

      So what you get sensibledave is this, ignoring Wales and NI to make it easy, and pretending that it’s always been a straight 1/10 that Scotland gets compared to what is budgetted for England, in relation to our population always being 1/10th of that of England:

      for the sake of totally nominal figures, if the starting figure back in 1978 was England £150 billion, 1/10th would be £15 billion, but Scotland got £20 billion at that time to reflect our geography and needs, then allowing for increases to the English budget and taking a strictly Barnett increase, you could get this series of numbers, and the corresponding %age more that Scotland gets compared to England. Remember, this is purely illustrative, not actual figures.

      Year – England – Scotland – %age more
      1978 – £150 bn – £20 bn – 33%
      1983 – £200 bn – £25 bn – 25%
      1988 – £250 bn – £30 bn – 20%
      1993 – £300 bn – £35 bn – 17%
      1998 – £350 bn – £40 bn – 14%
      2003 – £400 bn – £45 bn – 12.5%
      2008 – £450 bn – £50 bn – 11%
      2013 – £500 bn – £55 bn – 10%
      2018 – £550 bn – £50 bn – 9%

      2118 – £1550 bn – £150 bn – 3%
      2218 – £2550 bn – £250 bn – 2%

      Do you now understand the principle of “convergence”? Or do you want to go off on some rant about hey we English are so something or other, and avoid the principle of convergence yet again?

    57. yesindyref2 says:

      Apologies, typo there in the 3rd last set and so in the next two lines. The last 3 of the series should be:

      2018 – £550 bn – £60 bn – 9%

      2118 – £1550 bn – £160 bn – 3%
      2218 – £2550 bn – £260 bn – 2%

    58. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave
      Incidentally sensibledave, when you say “The English always pay more than their “fair share””, you’re not even talking about the English, you’re talking about different regions of England, very different in the benefit they receive from the Union.

      London does very well out of the Union, followed by the South-East, and then a little more than average, the East, Other regions of ENGLAND sensibledave, don’t do as well, with the North-East the worst, followed by the North-West and the South-West, all of which do WORSE than Scotland. Sadly for them they don’t have oil, though the North-East did while it was getting asset-stripped to become what one Lord called “a wasteland”.

      The Union is shit for most of England, as well as for Wales and Northern Ireland, and of couse Scotland though we do better than Wales out of it. The Union asset-strips rersources and funnels them into London, and thence into a few greedy pockets, while leaving poverty even in London itself. Some Union, eh, sensibledave? Doesn’t even work for London.

    59. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi sensibledave.

      Adding to what yesindyref2 has typed, I’ll offer you these three graphics to chew over.

      The first is from The Herald, from around 10 years ago.

      https://sites.google.com/site/webgaffer/home/uploaded-pics-page-1/Herald-TaxAndSpend-1000.jpg
      (Click on it to get the bigger version.)

      You should be able to see that the SE of England, according to the figures, is subsidising the rest of the UK. (Excluding Scotland – one can spend £38 on a decent night out.)

      Of course, you can’t take figures in isolation; You have to take other aspects into consideration so have a look at this, which shows the distribution of GDP and the distribution of wealth:-

      https://sites.google.com/site/webgaffer/home/uploaded-pics-page-7/GDP-per-Head-Wealthiest.jpg
      (Once again, click on it to get the bigger version.)

      Lastly, and kinda co-relating to the previous graphic, look at this graphic, showing the distribution of infrastructure spending in England.

      https://sites.google.com/site/webgaffer/home/uploaded-pics-page-8/infra-1000.jpg
      (Once again, click on it to get the bigger version.)

      Is it any wonder that when people find themselves remote from London, geographically and spiritually, they feel neglected? Where do you think that English ‘Leave’ vote, pushed by the extreme right wing, came from?

    60. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      Facts become powerful when placed in their situated in the correct context. The manner the UK’s economy has developed historically simply does not benefit Scotland.

      Industrialization and national development in the British Isles

      Summary

      This article examines the relationship between industrialization and regional inequality in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, from 1851 to 1961. Data on several indicators of economic and social development have been collected by county units from published government statistics. Whereas industrialization is often thought to contribute to national development through the gradual effacement of regional inequality, no such pattern is evident in this case study. On the contrary, the structural position of the Celtic fringe did not improve as a consequence of long?term industrialization in Britain.

      The Celtic lands within the British Isles have instead undergone a type of dependent development similar to that described among societies of the Third World. The spatial diffusion of industrialization has been sharply constrained in the Celtic territories, resulting in economic and social dualism. Celtic counties have consistently had lower per capita incomes than comparably industrialized counties within England. It is suggested that the historically persistent disadvantages of these regions may in part be due to the existence of racial stereotypes of Celtic culture which have been institutionalized within England.

      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00220387208421418

      Fast-forward through stagflation, Thatcher’s supply side revolution and the consolidation of a low-skill/low-wage economy.

      The Scale of Economic Inequality in the UK
      Wealth Spread Between Great Britain’s Regions and Nations

      Wealth is also unevenly spread across Great Britain. An average household in the South East has almost twice (183%) the amount of wealth of an average household in Scotland7.

      https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk

      SPATIALLY REBALANCING THE UK ECONOMY: THE NEED FOR A NEW POLICY MODEL

      4 TOWARDS A NEW POLICY MODEL

      What is needed is a thoroughgoing reassessment of the UK’s spatial political economy. This would not eschew the significance and role of such processes as agglomeration, but would place these within an interpretative framework that assigns key importance to the form, operation and spatial organisation of the nation’s core institutions, governance structures, political arrangements and policy-making machinery.

      Spatially rebalancing the UK economy is not just about (yet) another round of spatially-focused policy programmes and initiatives seeking to promote the advantages of agglomeration in cities outside London, better co-ordinating economic and spatial planning between the constituent parts of the UK, boosting innovation in the regions, or improving the infrastructures of city-regions outside the south of England, necessary and important though such interventions might be.26 At this potentially decisive moment, it must also be about more fundamental change, about the need to undertake a long-overdue spatial rebalancing of the nation’s institutional and governance architectures. To put the issue simply, the critical task is to spatially decentre the power structures that drive and manage economic growth and development….

      http://www.regionalstudies.org/uploads/documents/SRTUKE_v16_PRINT.pdf

    61. CameronB Brodie says:

      A little dated (2011), but here’s a stark picture of the spatial imbalance of economic activity/performance within the UK. I don’t see Brexit improving an already unsustainable spatial distribution of UKOK economic activity.

      Scotland lacks the liberty to shape an economy for the benefit of Scotland. We also lack control over our natural resources. This is undoubtedly a colonial state of affairs.

      Regional economic indicators
      with a focus on the relationship between skills and productivity

      Drivers of productivity

      HM Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) have identified five key drivers of productivity – investment, innovation, enterprise, competition and skills – that can help explain differences in productivity across regions.

      Alongside these five key drivers, other factors, such as connectivity, industrial structure and region-specific assets can have a strong influence on regional productivity performance.
      https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/productivitymeasures/methodologies/regionalproductivitymethodology/elmrfeb11ogutcm77228845.pdf

    62. CameronB Brodie says:

      IMHO, the political union between Scotland and England impairs the ability of each nation to live within their own means.

      A REVIEW OF INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
      A REPORT FOR SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE TAYSIDE

      PART 2: THE CONCEPT OF INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

      2.1 The Theoretical Background

      The Development of Alternative Measures

      Anderson (1991) offers a clear illustration of both strands. His discussion of alternative economic indicators provides a straightforward critique of the current quantification procedures used to measure the value of national output and the use of this as a proxy for changes in welfare. It identifies the failure to include an allowance for the depletion of environmental capital which is compounded by the inclusion of added value attributed to measures to tackle pollution and waste. It points to the inability of national accounts to cope with improvements in welfare which do not generate tangible increases in physical output (such as the reduction in the working week), and the total absence of any distributional considerations with respect to the consumption of outputs. It then argues the case for the use of alternative indicators, which offer parallel ways of describing economic processes:

      ” the economy considered from a monetary or financial point of view (which is the one emphasised by present-day economics);

      the economy considered as consisting of human beings organised together in particular ways;

      and

      the economy considered as a set of arrangements for mediating the relationship between human beings and the natural world” (Anderson 1991, p.46).

      On this basis, Anderson argues that conventional indicators of economic performance can only provide insights into the first way of describing the economic process, and that we require new indicators to describe the impact of economic processes on humans and between humans and the environment. The criteria which are suggested for identifying good indicators to this end are listed in Table 2.1.

      Table 2.1: Seven criteria for selecting ‘good indicators’ (Anderson 1991, pp.49-51)

      2.2 Sustainable Development: the New Paradigm

      For such criticisms to produce changes, it is insufficient to expose the shortcomings of the conventional methodology. The key step is to provide an acceptable alternative paradigm which supports these alternative indicators. Sustainable development has succeeded in fulfilling this function. The Brundtland definition:

      “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, p.43)

      has proved acceptable both to the critics of the conventional approaches for assessing development and to the advocates of environmentalism. Brundtland allowed environmental concerns to be set clearly within the context of poverty and development, albeit from the perspective of international under-development:

      “It is impossible to separate economic development issues from environmental issues; many forms of development erode the environmental resources upon which they must be based, and environmental degradation can undermine economic development. Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality” (ibid., p.30).

      http://www.trp.dundee.ac.uk/library/pubs/set.html#2.2

    63. sensibledave says:

      …. you will understand that i cannot respond to all of the points raised above.

      Some observations ….

      1. The country of England pays more than it receives and subsidises the net cost of running the UK. You can play with the numbers however you like but that fact remains.

      2. With respect to distribution within England, and with the greatest respect – surely that is a matter for the English? How Scots decide on the divvy up between the Isle of Skye and East Glasgow is a matter for Scots.

      3. You wrote “Some Union, eh, sensibledave? Doesn’t even work for London.”.

      It is what it is. If England wasn’t subsidising the other nations then things could be different, but we do and we will not change it because we are committed to it until the people of nations within the Union decide they want change. For whatever reasons, when the UK Parliament (which everyone keeps reminding me is made up of predominantly English MPs) passed a bill to have a referendum on Scottish Independence in Scotland (those bloody, anti-democracy and anti-self determination, “oppress the jocks” English folk!) … and the Scots, yes the Scots – (not me, not the English, not “The Red, blue or Pink, Britnat, UKOK Tories, Labour, Libdems, UKippers or Greens, not the Welsh nor the northern Irish) – voted to remain part of the Union.

      And the result? All those listed above, but predominantly the “English” are, according to most here on Wings, responsible for suppressing the democratic will of the people of Scotland!

      Many commenters spend so much time here on wings and boast that they don’t listen to the news or read the papers so the only stuff they ever read, apparently, are the articles and comments on Wings. They read the thoughts of the Heedy and Proud Cybernat and the other nut jobs, and end up believing all of their c**p and join in and become part of some grudge/grievance based cabal that has lost touch with the reality of how we have arrived at where we are.

      4. When I ask what it is that you – given the results of the Scottish referendum and the recent GE where Scots voted to be part of the UK and voted, in the majority, for parties opposed to Scottish Independence and pro, leaving the EU – want ….. all I get is the ridiculous proposition that the some “regions” of the Uk should be allowed to veto a proposition of the UK parliament and, implicitly, the other 60 odd million of us in the Uk and governed by the the UK Parliament, should just lie down and accept the complete loss of our democracy. You will howl and scream and counter argue… but tell me where my logic is wrong!

      Ms Sturgeon used to be admired in England as a politician of conscience and commitment. We may not have liked her politics or her aims – but she was admired and highly respected. Then she got some power. Then she immediately turned into just another dishonest, disingenuous, lying politician.

      She started off slowly with the fox hunting vote in England (BTW did Holyrood ever get round to increasing the protection of foxes in Scotland to level the foxes in England have? … No! the brazenly hypocritical, dishonest, dis-ingenuous have done jack!

      Now, she may wonder why her reputation in England has fallen? Does she stop to think why I should listen to her or take any notice of anything she has to say (it will almost certainly be dishonest/disingenuous)?

      I voted to Remain in the EU referendum. The referendum was run on a one person, one vote basis. However, she, and many on here, believes that her vote is more valuable and relevant than mine and that her vote should carry the power of veto, unlike mine, ffs.

      She has absolutely no democratic relationship to me, an Englishman. She has not been elected to any Parliament that makes laws that affect me – yet she believes she has!

      She plots and schemes to come up with plans and strategies that will cause the most difficulty in Westminster (to my government and therefore to me) – not because she believes she representing the will of the majority of folk in Scotland – but because she believes if she can wreck things for everyone then that might lead to an Independent SCotland.

      That is her right. We live in a democracy.

      But lets not confuse her “rights” with her being right. She has played her cards now – and, as a result, has been effectively sidelined as far as her involvement in Brexit is concerned at UK Parliament level, because she has demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that she is not in the slightest bit interested in the democracy of the Uk – only in the interests of pro Independence, EU Remain voters – and will contribute nothing to a UK Brexit – other than to try and frustrate it at every turn.

      The final ignominy for her were the videos of her threatening the rest of us with indyref2 – designed to occur when it has the potential to irrevocably damage the potential deal that the UK might achieve with the EU – and hence damage the rest of mine, and my family for the rest of our lives.

      Again, it is her right to “threaten” that.

      It is also my right, via my government, to “call” her on her bluff. “I’m not bluffing” she implored – whilst bluffing like the bluffmost bluffperson. Her dishonesty and dis-ingenuousness, once again, laid bare for all to see.

      I am ranting now, so I will cease.

    64. sensibledave says:

      Oh, and BTW … could we revisit the subject of Westminster MPs not working hard enough in their constituencies and at Westninster and, instead, using their position to feather their own nests and reputation. Unlike Ms Sturgeon, Mr Salmond is an MP at Westminster and is part of the constitutional process that makes the laws that affect me and my family …. the self-serving hypocrite.

    65. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      You incorigable old colonialist you.

      The majority of Scots want more autonomy than Westminster is prepared to make available. Scots were promised more power if they stayed in the union. We were lied to.

      The spirit of international development law is such that the British state should be assisting Scotland to become an independent nation state.

      Now, do you support the state of Israel? If so, I’ll expect you to support Scottish self-determination and statehood. You do support the protection of cultural diversity?

      Or are you admitting you’re a rascist?

    66. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave “I am ranting now, so I will cease.

      Indeed, it was a load of quatsch, oh look, a squirrel, and nothing at all to do with Barnett being actually a straight proportional distribution by head of population for increases to the base budget, and therefore being a formula for convergence, and arguably a con job perpetrated on Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland many years ago.

      A point you have clearly conceded, but don’t have the grace to do so explicitly, innuendo and deflection, not facts and reality, being your only debating tool.

    67. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi sensibledave, typing on 11 November, 2017 at 10:32 am.

      You typed,
      “Unlike Ms Sturgeon, Mr Salmond is an MP at Westminster and is part of the constitutional process that makes the laws that affect me and my family …. the self-serving hypocrite.”

      If that statement demonstrates your knowledge of current UK politics, it’s no wonder yesindyref2 refere to your input here as “a load of quatsch”.

      Just to get you up to speed, I’ll let you into a secret – well, obviously a secret as far as your news sources go – Alex Salmond has been a private citizen since he lost his seat in the general election earlier this year. He now runs his own media company, Slàinte Media.

      Thus, he has no input into any legislation that affects you and your family. Therefore, your accusation of his being a hypocrite is wrong. That show of ignorance leaves you in a very poor light with respect to the worthiness of your input here.

    68. sensibledave says:

      Yindy, Cameron and Brian

      I typed a long response yesterday to your various points – but it was not accepted.

      I don’t know this, but part of my response was to a question posed to me above, which has now disappeared, “…. are you a racist” and therefore I will have typed the word “racist” in my response – which is why, assume, my comment was not accepted.

      I can’t be bothered to retype it all.

      I will cut and paste from my comment at 4.03 above which restates the position that you seem totally incapable of accepting and therefore why you will never make any progress …
      I wrote “Is there a country or protectorate or member of the commonwealth, that exists anywhere in the world that has expressed a desire to not be constitutionally related to the UK and England – and been forced to “remain” against their will? … No. Was Scotland given the option … Yes? What did they say? … “No thanks”. As always indyref, Scotland should have whatever governance the majority of Scots want. I don’t care. Your problem is a very large bunch of Scots who disagree with you … not me.”

      Doubtless you will respond with the normal “we wuz robbed” stuff and how the vow swung it, etc, etc. … its rubbish and you know it.

      It is clear that Ms Sturgeon doesn’t want a referendum anytime soon because she knows she will lose it. In addition, she will not commit to demanding a date, post Brexit, because she also fears she would lose that too. So we are left with her bluff … which has been “called”.

      Somehow, she manages to fire up her troops to write the stuff that you guys write about the glaring injustice of it all. Its us red, blue, pink, UKOK, BRitnat ordinary folk in England (who actually, in the main, couldn’t give a toss) that is oppressing the will of the Scottish people. Your inability to see that the only reason that Scotland is not now an Independent country is because Scottish folk voted against it – is just stunning.

      But its the “blame culture” isn’t it. Much better to create a fictitious bogey-man and aim or all your arrows at him than accept the truth and examine why it is that the majority of Scots prefer to be ruled in Westminster than by the SNP in Holyrood.

    69. CameronB Brodie says:

      Piffle!.

    70. sensibledave says:

      Which bits are untrue, “piffle” Cameron?

      I will take your silence as a “win”.

    71. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      All you have is subjective pish Dave.

      It is the moral obligation of all to protect cultural diversity. Not to do so is to adopt a discriminatory stance which can be interpreted as racist against the peoples who’s cultures is not valued as meriting protection.

      Do you support Israel? Do you support Scottish independence? Are you a racist?

    72. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      Anglo-American liberal culture begat scientific racism, which provided moral justification for slavery and colonialism. Scientific racism is colour-blind. Scientific racism is alive and well in Westminster and Whitehall culture.

      ….Holding up a mirror to mainstream philosophy, this provocative book explains the evolving outline of the racial contract from the time of the New World conquest and subsequent colonialism to the written slavery contract, to the “separate but equal” system of segregation in the twentieth-century United States. According to Mills, the contract has provided the theoretical architecture justifying an entire history of European atrocity against non-whites, from David Hume’s and Immanuel Kant’s claims that blacks had inferior cognitive power, to the Holocaust, to the kind of imperialism in Asia that was demonstrated by the Vietnam War.

      Mills suggests that the ghettoization of philosophical work on race is no accident. This work challenges the assumption that mainstream theory is itself raceless. Just as feminist theory has revealed orthodox political philosophy’s invisible white male bias, Mills’s explication of the racial contract exposes its racial underpinnings.

      http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100376800

    73. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      English culture does not have a good history with respect to gender and race equality. Where do you think British exceptionalism comes from? Where do you think the Scottish Cringe originates?

      Prejudice and Discrimination is Learned

      Children learn prejudice and practice discrimination “through living in and observing a society where prejudice exists” (What to Tell Your Child About Prejudice and Discrimination, n.d.). For example, children may learn it from watching television, or reading books or magazines. Prejudice is defined as “attitudes or opinions about a person or group simply because the person belongs to a specific religion, race, nationality, or other group” (What to Tell Your Child About Prejudice and Discrimination, n.d.). Discrimination on the other hand is “when people act on the basis of their prejudices or stereotypes, they are discriminating” (What to Tell Your Child About Prejudice and Discrimination, n.d.). Children’s thoughts and feelings are significantly influenced by the people around them. Therefore, they may observe that “some people won’t associate with members of certain groups or that members of some groups rarely, if ever, occupy influential positions in the school or community” (What to Tell Your Child About Prejudice and Discrimination, n.d.).

      Sadly, “if no one addresses these instances of exclusion, a child may grow up thinking that this is the way it is supposed to be, and that people who have been discriminated against deserve this treatment because they are inferior in some way” (What to Tell Your Child About Prejudice and Discrimination, n.d.). Therefore, it is crucial for the issues of prejudice and discrimination to be addressed when and where they happen to express injustices “and to let children know such ideas and actions are unacceptable in a democratic society” (What to Tell Your Child About Prejudice and Discrimination, n.d.). Some ways parents can help their children with regards to prejudice include: “help[ing] [there] children become sensitive to other people’s feelings, make sure [there] children understand that prejudice and discrimination are unfair, [or to] teach [there] children respect and appreciation for differences by providing opportunities for interaction with people of diverse groups” (What to Tell Your Child About Prejudice and Discrimination, n.d.).

      https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2015/04/05/prejudice-and-discrimination-is-learned/

    74. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      We lost in 2014 and accepted the result. That does not mean we gave up our humanity or struggle for liberty and political sovereignty.

      A Social Cognitive Approach to Studying Racial Stereotyping in the Mass Media

      Social Cognition and Stereotyping

      ….The social cognition approach conceives of stereotypes as belief systems characterizing various social groups (e.g., Hamilton, Stroessner, & Driscoll, 1994). This perspective views stereotypes as cognitive structures or categories similar to other social schemas (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986). These cognitive structures affect the encoding and processing of information, particularly information pertaining to outgroup members. The implication of the social cognition perspective is that the only way to stop stereotyping is to prevent the cognitive mechanism from operating or undermine its influence (e.g., Devine, 1989; Hamilton, Stroessner, & Driscoll, 1994). This is a difficult task, especially when there is evidence to suggest stereotype activation is automatic (Devine, 1989). Hamilton and Trolier (1986) suggest that it is essential to attend to the cognitive processes involved in the stereotyping process in order to discourage the use of stereotypes.

      http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/prba/perspectives/winter2000/tdixon1.pdf

    75. CameronB Brodie says:

      @David Torrance
      Do you not accept “international morality” constitutes the boundaries of legitimate sovereign action? Can you critically justify English hegemony over Scotland?

      The utopia and reality of sovereignty: social reality, normative IR and ‘Organized Hypocrisy’

      Abstract. This article applies E. H. Carr’s analysis of utopia and reality, and a Searlean-constructivist analysis of rules and norms, to the concept of ‘sovereignty’ in general, and Stephen Krasner’s argument in Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy in particular. In doing this, the article charts a theoretical space that incorporates insights from classical realism, scientific realism, and philosophical (social) constructivism. To view ‘utopia’ and ‘reality’ as distinct yet equally important planes of International Relations (IR) inquiry, thereby treating ‘sovereignty’ as a single concept with descriptive and normative elements, highlights both the merits and the shortcomings of Krasner’s approach. Furthermore, this type of analysis suggests a fruitful way to continue a contemporary normative discussion about what sovereign entities ought to do.

      http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/45793/1/S0260210508008048a.pdf

    76. sensibledave says:

      …. you can forget all of the smoke and mirrors cameron. There is no equivalence between Scotland and Israel – or Catalonia.

      You rattle on on about self-determination whilst seeking to undermine that very freedom nut job.

      THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND SELF DETERMINED THAT THEY WANTED TO REMAIN PART OF THE UK FFS!

      Which part of that do you not understand?

    77. CameronB Brodie says:

      THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND SELF DETERMINED THAT THEY WANTED TO REMAIN PART OF THE UK FFS!

      Under sever pressure to do so from HMG, against all international legal norms regarding sovereignty and self-determination, FFS.

      We are nationals of different nations, so it is understandable that we have different epistmologies.

      Your’s is that of a national who’s nation ditermins it’s future. My world view is that of a national who’s nation gets what another nation allows it to have.

      You might have the perspective of the master but I’m not your slave.

      You’re lack of willingness to accept truths that undermine your prejudice, indicates an unwillingness to discuss maters honestly. You are not a moderate person, IMHO.

    78. CameronB Brodie says:

      Why do I think Dave is a racist? He does not appear to consider all peoples have cultures of equal value to one another. Not a good look Dave.

      …. you can forget all of the smoke and mirrors cameron. There is no equivalence between Scotland and Israel – or Catalonia. – Dave

    79. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi sensibledave.

      I go with what Cameron has posted. You didn’t deign to address your ignorance regarding Alex Salmond’s status as a private citizen, presumably because you, in your own mind, realised you had gibbered a stream of ‘Jackie Bailie’, and decided to give it the body swerve.

      Unfortunately, what you post here is here until the server retires. The veracity of your input here has its “gas at a peep” – you have blown it.

    80. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      Do you not acknowledge that Scots are a people who are to a degree shaped by an historic brutality against them, much like European Jews were. Are you forgetting Britain is not one nation, it is the political union of Scotland and England?

      CULTURES, NATIONS AND NATIONALISM

      Abstract Despite the current aspirations towards globalization and universalization, and as a response to the ever-increasing superiority, dominance and the hegemony of powerful countries over the rest of the world, there is more and more support for national particularism, and the aspirations towards the egoism of national and cultural identities are more and more pronounced. By asking certain questions and thinking certain thoughts about on the cited relationship (between culture, nations and nationalism), this paper makes a unique contribution to the discussions on this complex issue, while considering the following topics: the type of effect of the national cultural sense, as well as of the extreme forms of the ideology of nationalism in the field of culture; what role the modern mass media have in realizing cultural cooperation between different nations, but also in building national stereotypes and prejudices; can the projects of globalism and multiculturalism be realized but with the preservation of cultural idiosyncracies, the specificities of different nations and the sovereignty of their states; is there any danger or
      hope in the division of mankind into nations?

      http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/pas/pas201102/pas201102-04.pdf

      NATIONALISM AND IDENTITY POLITICS IN INTERNATIONAL
      RELATIONS

      Summary
      Nationalism is a multi-faceted phenomenon. Expressing both claims for recognition and for superiority, it is marked by an intrinsic moral ambivalence. Politically, its emergence has coincided with the affirmation of liberal and democratic ideas, and in particular the notion of popular sovereignty. It expresses the political identification of citizens with their state, and the policies of governments to reinforce such identification. It is based on the existence of a shared national identity, relying on the presence of historical, cultural, language or religious bonds. However, because of the imperfect congruence of states and national identities, nationalism has also developed outside and against nation-state, to affirm the rights of minorities.

      Since the international system is based on sovereign nation-states as its constituent units, nationalism is an intrinsic feature of it, often underestimated by International Relations theory. Nationalist policies of states, the competition for economic and political power in an international context where economic and political power differentials remain outspoken, contribute to the persistence of nationalism. Because statehood is the established form of recognition of national identities, the international system is moreover confronted with a permanent tension between maintaining the stability of the state system, and claims of minorities for statehood. While reluctant to accept such claims, except in the specific case of colonies, the international system has been more attentive to the cultural, linguistic and religious rights of minorities.

      In the present political context, where nation-states remain the basic units of he international system, the demise of nationalism does not seem to be an immediate prospect. Policies defending the rights of minorities, recognizing their identities, respectful of claims of groups to acquire a public voice, and providing for the diminishment of unequal access to political power and of economic imbalances may nevertheless contribute to pacify nationalism.

      http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c14/e1-35-01-06.pdf

      Emancipatory International Relations: A Conceptual Introduction

      ABSTRACT

      Although international relations theory is witnessing a veritable explosion of theoretical works in the general area of what I call, for reasons that will become clearer below, Emancipatory International Relations (EIR), a full length critical study of this genre of theorizing has not yet been written, so far as I am aware. My project is to fill the lacuna. This will involve describing, analyzing and criticizing a group of theories whose central assumptions and presuppositions have been shaped by continental philosophy, especially those derived from the work of Kant, Marx and Nietzsche. In my study I will examine certain common features of theories or discourses loosely divided into four groups: Kantian cosmopolitan; international critical theory; poststructuralist and postmodernist theories; and feminist international relations theories. My goal is in this paper is to describe these forms of emancipatory international relations and to examine why they count as emancipatory and how they differ from other kinds of theory.

      I see no reason why we should not be business like about the nebulous

      http://iteas.net/emancipatory-international-relations-a-conceptual-introduction/

    81. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave: “Yindy, Cameron and Brian . . . Doubtless you will respond with the normal “we wuz robbed” stuff

      Why address that to me SD? I was talking about the Barnett Formula, and how you don’t understand it at all. You still don’t it seems, but don’t have the guts to admit it.

      Are you totally incapable of sticking to the point? Which in my case is the Barnett Formula?

    82. sensibledave says:

      CameronB Brodie 0:17 pm

      You wrote “Do you not acknowledge that Scots are a people who are to a degree shaped by an historic brutality against them, much like European Jews were. Are you forgetting Britain is not one nation, it is the political union of Scotland and England?

      FFS no Cameron, I haven’t “forgotten”. Have you not forgotten that the same applies to the people of England too (Romans and Vikings to name but a couple of somewhat unwelcome interlopers with a aprticular desire for brutality towards English folk).

      I have perhaps moved on a tad though Cameron. I am not proposing that we nuke Rome or bomb Scandinavia. I realise that times have changed and these people are our friends now.

      Try and pay attention now Cameron. All those “bad” things happened in days of yore when people we were missing a very important right i.e. the right to vote in a one man one vote election (now updated to one person one vote). I am increasingly aware that the whole “democracy” thing has passed you by – so to speak.

      The people of Scotland were given the right to vote in a referendum where they could self-determine their future, their country and how they would be governed – those rights resulted from the the democratically elected MPs representing the whole of the UK (made up, of course, by predominantly English MPs) voting democratically to give them that right.

      The people of Scotland used their democratic right to vote and express their opinion with respect to Independence or remaining in the UK. They self-determined that each Scottish person should have exactly the same power to decide the future of the UK … as me. Like the majority of Scots and those of us (of greater numbers than the Scots) that live in my constituency and those around me, I was outvoted in the EU referendum.

      Your constant, ridiculous assertion that the people of Scotland should have powers that I do not have would make me a second class citizen. In fact, it would mean less than 2 million people in Scotland would be first class citizens and the rest of us have no vote that counts unless we happen to agree with those 2 million voters.

      Do you not see how silly that is Cameron. That is my last explanation to you. If you can’t “get it” after that, then nothing further I write will have any different result.

      There is none so blind as those that will not see.

    83. sensibledave says:

      yesindyref

      You wrote “Are you totally incapable of sticking to the point? Which in my case is the Barnett Formula?”

      I do not have the time to engage with everyone above on whetever bee that they might have buzzing at that particular moment.

      If it helps you – I will agree that the Barnett formula works the way you say in return for you agreeing that ENgland are “net contributors” to the cost of running the UK. Okay?

    84. sensibledave says:

      Before I go Cammy

      … you wrote “You might have the perspective of the master but I’m not your slave.”

      … you have lost the plot sir. You are not Brave Heart and this isnt a cheap movie we are living.

      Just so I understand, when you write “you” could you just explain who you mean. Do you mean me, sensibledave, has the perspective of a master – or do you mean some other person, grouping or entity?

      And, if by “master”, you really meant “democrat”, do let me know … not.

    85. CameronB Brodie says:

      … you have lost the plot sir.

      And, if by “master”, you really meant “democrat”, do let me know … not.

      How many years has Dave been posting on WOS, in opposition to Scots achieving self-determination? Wanting to retain the hegemonic imbalance in UKOK power relations, suggests Dave has a very particular conception of what democracy entails. Then again, Tories tend to opposed to all forms of human emancipation.

      Dave
      Bigots are generally blind to their own prejudice. You’re a good example of this.

    86. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave
      I don’t have to have your agreement about Barnett, it’s the way I described it, which you’re still too lazy to look up for yourself.

      As for “net contributors” to the UK, I have no idea if England is a net contributor since 1707, there are no full-scale account books, and England isn’t even devolved.

      in 1707 England had a whole loead of war debt it bribed off and threatened the nobles of Scotland into taking on on behalf of Scotland, and since then wood, coal and other resources, including more than half our oil and a whole load of fish and whisky, so it looks like Scotland is a “net contributor”, a massive one.

      My parents were Welsh, and I happen to know the UK took huge quantities of copper, lead, tin, silver, gold and of vourse, coal out of Wales, so it looks like Wales is also a massive “net contributor”. Don’t know about Northern Ireland and before it, Ireland, it has of course contributed warhsips and other ships, but even if it wasn’t a net “contributor”, the amount would be small in comparison.

      So what makes you think England is a “net contributor” since 1707? On the face of it, it looks like a big taker, a subsidy junkie.

    87. yesindyref2 says:

      @me
      I forgot the iron ore from Wales, hence its steel industry, and it used to be so rich in so many other ways until ruthlessly exploited, much like Cornwall and even Devon. There’s a similar story for the North of England, and even the Midlands.

    88. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave
      But to sum up Sensible Dave, and take it that step further looking at history, taxation was introduced in medieval times in England to pay for the excesses of the nobles who just loved to wage war on each other and anyone else interested in playing the game of war, while they ruthlessly exploited anyone in any part of the globe unable to defend themselves.

      In this day and age it’s likely the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are “net contributors”, all of us, with the slight problem in that it gets funnelled into the hands of the very few filthy rich dudes who squirrel it away so it doesn’t even contribute to what they call “the economy”.

    89. sensibledave says:

      yindy

      ….. I am trying to achieve an uncontentious conclusion with you. How about “People in England are the only people in the the UK to receive less than the average per capita sum?

    90. sensibledave says:

      Cameron

      You wrote “How many years has Dave been posting on WOS…. ”

      … quite a few now Cammy

      You continued “…., in opposition to Scots achieving self-determination?”

      … I refer you to ALL of my previous answers, EVER, you numbskull! I am totally in support of Scotland’s right to self determination (as a result of a democratic process) … and always have been.

      I think, over time Cammy, you have redefined the use of the ENglish language to mean what you stupidly think it means … evidenced by the fact that you unashamedly keep using the word seemingly without any comprehension of what it actually means.

      You then went on …. “Wanting to retain the hegemonic imbalance in UKOK power relations, suggests Dave has a very particular conception of what democracy entails. Then again, Tories tend to opposed to all forms of human emancipation.

      … ah the old UKOK meme. It had to come out didn’t it. Whenever you (or the other nut jobs like Heedy or Proud Cybernat) have run out of logic or reason, out it comes.

      Finally, in a momentary lapse into self-awareness you wrote “Bigots are generally blind to their own prejudice” – you are spot on there Cammy (I wondered what the B stood for in your name …. and now all is clear!

    91. CameronB Brodie says:

      … you have lost the plot sir.

      And, if by “master”, you really meant “democrat”, do let me know … not.

      Re. bigots and racists. Exclusionary and oppressive social power structures reproduce themselves organically.

      Bandura – Social Learning Theory

      Observational Learning
      Mediational Processes

      SLT is often described as the ‘bridge’ between traditional learning theory (i.e., behaviorism) and the cognitive approach. This is because it focuses on how mental (cognitive) factors are involved in learning.

      Unlike Skinner, Bandura (1977) believes that humans are active information processors and think about the relationship between their behavior and its consequences. Observational learning could not occur unless cognitive processes were at work. These mental factors mediate (i.e., intervene) in the learning process to determine whether a new response is acquired.

      Therefore, individuals do not automatically observe the behavior of a model and imitate it. There is some thought prior to imitation, and this consideration is called mediational processes. This occurs between observing the behavior (stimulus) and imitating it or not (response).

      There are four mediational processes proposed by Bandura:

      1. Attention: The extent to which we are exposed/notice the behavior….

      2. Retention: How well the behavior is remembered….

      3. Reproduction: This is the ability to perform the behavior that the model has just demonstrated….

      4. Motivation: The will to perform the behavior….

      https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html

      Bandura and Social Learning Theory
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjTxQy_U3ac

      Introduction to Critical Ethnography
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkhgm_cCr7Q

    92. CameronB Brodie says:

      … I refer you to ALL of my previous answers, EVER, you numbskull! I am totally in support of Scotland’s right to self determination (as a result of a democratic process) … and always have been.

      Dave’s method is one of focusing on subjective detail in order to obscure the objective true world.

    93. sensibledave says:

      Cammy

      In case you didn’t guess … I don’t read cut and paste stuff from you as, and you you keep proving it, they irrelevantto the matter in hand.

      I know you think they are Cammy … but they are not … and that is the full explanation of why you keep embarrassing yourself publicly with stuff even the other nut jobs back off from supporting.

    94. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave’s just admitted he is closed to enlightenment. A classic characteristic of a bigot.

    95. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave “People in England are the only people in the the UK to receive less than the average per capita sum

      Nope.

      Like I say if you take it back to the start of the UK, and further back than that where neccessary, and accumulate interest and regular repayments on a compound basis to what should have been paid back to whoever, and add into that an arcane and virtually non-existent inter and even intra “region” system accounting, amortised over several centuries, basically speaking absolutely nobody in the UK or even the whole planet has the slightest scoobie where we are off as individual countries, in any one year let alone overall over the UK’s inglorious and exploitative history.

      Except as I say, all of us peasants have contributed to the best of our abilities in the UK, for the sake of the few, by the many, and have been and still are being, exploited mercilessly as cannon and electronic bank balance fodder.

    96. sensibledave says:

      CameronB Brodie 5:06 pm

      You wrote: “Dave’s just admitted he is closed to enlightenment. A classic characteristic of a bigot.”

      No, Dave admitted that talking to a wall (a very thick one at that) is a waste of time.

      You are very good at posing questions (albeit stupid and irrelevant ones) Cammy.

      Let me ask you just two to see if you are really of this planet.

      Now, I don’t want any waffle. I don’t want some irrelevant “cut and paste” extract. The answer to the following questions each requires just a one word answer…. are you ready Cammy? ……

      1. In the Scottish Independence referendum held in Scotland, run by Scottish polling staff in Scottish polling stations with only people eligible to vote in Scotland voting … in answer to the referendum question Cammy, ….. did a majority of voters vote Yes (i.e. for independence) or No, to not have Independence? Remember Cammy, one word answer only!

      2. Given that I am telling you that I, sensibledave, live in South Oxfordshire in the constituency of Henley and Thame, and where I have no Scottish ancestry, I don’t live in Scotland and have never lived in Scotland and am not registered to vote in SCotland…. did I, personally, affect the voting intentions of any Scot, in any way?

      Cue … more bulls**t and irrelevance from Cammy … wait for it….

    97. CameronB Brodie says:

      IMHO, Dave is in dire need of Enlightenment. He needs to thoroughly up-to-date his epistemology, a Scottish invention that is at the heart of any good critical scientific theory.

    98. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      Your description of the procedures followed in 2014, gives no insight into the human experience of the event. A majority voted No but it was not an honest plebiscite.

      Your not a supporter of Scottish self-determination, you’re a FUD merchant. Your normative bias is profound.

    99. yesindyref2 says:

      @CameronB Brodie: “Dave’s method is one of focusing on subjective detail in order to obscure the objective true world.

      Sadly 99.999% of the planet do the same thing when it comes to money matters, which are a total mirage, all smoke and mirrors.

      if a worldwide benevolent dictator wanted to address worldwide poverty it could be well on its way to a progressive solution by taking control of the worlds computers, and wiping out all financial data, shredding it to binary zeroes – and the backups.

      Ctrl Alt Del.

    100. CameronB Brodie says:

      yesindyref2
      Another post-modern problem is that folk tend to think in the here-and-now. It’s hard to live historically in a manner that looks forward. It’s hard to hold on to authentic culture and human values, sod future generations.

    101. yesindyref2 says:

      @CameronB Brodie
      Shhh, you’ll confuse poor sensibledave 😎

    102. Liz g says:

      Cameron b Brodie @ 5.54
      Aye and don’t forget Cameron, that there might just be a few Scots who were polite enough to actually read the interference he runs and lost the will to get out of bed and vote!
      Ergo….affecting the vote by his particular brand of busy body!
      Unlikely I know but not impossible….otherwise how would he be explained in polite circles?

    103. CameronB Brodie says:

      Liz g
      His style is to represent the moderate, conservative opinion. He is only able to do so by ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

      I’d have thought is smorgasbord of cold FUD would give any self-respecting adult the boak.

    104. sensibledave says:

      … I just knew you wouldn’t let me down Cammy.

      All waffle and devoid of any notion of reality.

      …. “his style is to represent the moderate, conservative opinion”

      … nailed it Cammy …. because if I do fit any description of any wing of any mainstream party, then I probably most closely resemble “a moderate conservative”.

      Whilst we are having a go at stereotyping, I would put you down as anti-democratic, left wing ideologue ….. despite no evidence, anywhere on the planet, ever, that anti-democratic, left wing ideology based politics … leads to the betterment of a country or its people.

      How did I do?

    105. Liz g says:

      I would have said it was mair a pix and mix fae pets at Home Counties ..wi the same result,right enough

    106. CameronB Brodie says:

      If Dave was open to Enlightenment, he would appreciate I am attempting to articulate Critical Theory, which holds central importance to an emancipated understanding of European culture. Far from being a left-wing ideologue, I’ve attempted to incorporate anthropological, semiotic, historical, post-colonial, ecological, educational, race and legal theory perspectives aimed at highlighting the difference between political agency and struggle. I’ve also added a bit of “Value” theory and relied quite extensively on World Bank and HMG documentation as support. I’ve also used a fair bit of psychological and sociological science and stuff, as well.

      Dave apparently doesn’t approve of the Royal Town Planning Institute’s academic program. I imagine he’d probably think Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bo Diddley were communists. 🙂

      Dave
      Political Compass reckons I’m Gandhi.

    107. sensibledave says:

      Cammy

      … You wrote “he would appreciate I am attempting to articulate Critical Theory, which holds central importance to an emancipated understanding of European culture”

      … please tell me you are joking… otherwise you would just be a pompous, pretentious ass. Are you enlightened by my help?

    108. CameonB Brodie says:

      How is it possible to judge critically without recourse to an examination of evidence?

      It isn’t.

      Dave
      You’re a bigot.

    109. yesindyref2 says:

      @CameonB Brodie
      Not a bigot I think, just a closed mind.

    110. CameronB Brodie says:

      yesindyref2
      Thanks.

      A closed mind who’s prejudices undermine the liberty and well-being of a culture that is not their own. I think that’s the disposition of a bigoted racist, frankly.

    111. sensibledave says:

      … as you can imagine, I am totally swayed by your recent comments.

      All my life I have been a democrat and believed in the power of the ballot box, but, in just a few paragraphs of dynamic text, you have now convinced me that those who are democratically outvoted should be given the power. …… watdyafink?

    112. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      I’m glad you’re finally seeing the error of your ways. We’ll have you manning a Yes stall soon.;)

      Critically Sovereign: Indigenous Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies

      “Critically Sovereign is pure Indigenous brilliance from start to finish, making intelligent, incisive, and elegant interventions in fields often wrought by division and controversy. These outstanding essays embody the highest levels of excellence and ground conversations around gender, sexuality, and feminist studies in the proper frame—Indigenous self-determination. This is a book I’ve been waiting for.” — Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, author of, Dancing on Our Turtle’s Back: Stories of Nishnaabeg Re-Creation, Resurgence, and a New Emergence.

      https://www.dukeupress.edu/critically-sovereign

    113. CameronB Brodie says:

      Back on topic, sort of.

      World Bank, International Monetary Fund and State Sovereignty:
      A Critical Insight

      Sovereignty is an exclusive right of an independent state and its citizens to exercise authority within its geographical territory, while in relation with other states, the state government usually exercises its sovereign powers”. It can be said that the state membership of World Bank and the IMP could limit their sovereignty, however it is not obligatory for states to become members of these international organizations. But, it is obligatory for international organizations to respect the principles of state sovereignty and limit themselves to the conferred powers as such organizations cannot on their own determine their competence.” The entire world depends on the coexistence of sovereignties between states, yet these sovereignties arc legitimately exercised by international organizations when delegated by states through a treaty.”

      http://tinyurl.com/y78zre3q

      A Critical Analysis of EU Member State Sovereignty under the Treaty of Lisbon. Sovereignty v Democracy.

      It is necessary to briefly discuss relevant primary issues arising from the Member States in accordance with the European limitation of their sovereign rights; it is interesting to look briefly at the UK in reference to the issue of the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty. Tension increased with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1st December 2009, particularly on matters regarding EU governmental state sovereignty. At this juncture I draw to attention the choice of the use of issues arising particularly with government state sovereignty, It is essential that a careful distinction be drawn here between the idea that the Lisbon Treaty infringes on the sovereignty of the Member State Government by becoming more democratic as opposed to becoming as sometimes described as a supranational State. This important distinction will be further drawn upon throughout….

      https://sites.google.com/site/349924e64e68f035/issue-4/a-critical-analysis-of-eu-member-state-sovereignty-under-the-treaty-of-lisbon-sovereignty-v-democracy

      National Sovereigntism and Global Constitutionalism: An Adornian Cosmopolitan Critique

      Abstract

      There are two dominant schools of thought addressing problems of cosmopolitanism and (international) conflict: democratic national sovereigntism, inspired by Hegel, and global constitutionalism, inspired by Kant and reformulated by Habermas. This paper develops a third position by reading Adorno’s critique of both theoretical traditions. Rather than compromising between these camps, Adorno triangulates between them. Critically illuminating their respective deficiencies in view of the changing conditions of a globalized modern world has critical implications for cosmopolitics. Although largely negative, Adorno’s critique provides an important framework for a contestatory reformulation of cosmopolitanism, one that is better equipped to confront societal and political global conflicts insufficiently reflected in sovereigntist and global constitutionalist models.

      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14409917.2016.1117811

    114. sensibledave says:

      … No I wont be manning a Yes stall, or a No stall , because it is purely a matter for Scottish folk to resolve and I am ambivalent to the outcome.

      … and before you write something else that is as ridiculous as it is irrelevant, you have already told me (in so many words) that you don’t believe in democracy.

    115. CameronB Brodie says:

      … No I wont be manning a Yes stall, or a No stall , because it is purely a matter for Scottish folk to resolve and I am ambivalent to the outcome.

      A clear lie given Dave has been posting on WOS for years now, in defense of the status quo.

      … and before you write something else that is as ridiculous as it is irrelevant, you have already told me (in so many words) that you don’t believe in democracy.

      Can you believe a person who has just shown you they are dishonest?

    116. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave
      Interesting that you failed with an answer to my germane points made above. You see the problem is Dave old chap is that you, sensibledave, live in South Oxfordshire in the constituency of Henley and Thame. And according to the sets of figues that try to show Scotland having a deficit, show that the only parts of England that don’t have a deficit are London, the South-East and by a small margin, the East of England.

      Which means old chap, that if you accept the figues from the ONS, that you are subsidised according to these fgures, by the people of London. You’re a subsidy junkie.

    117. CameronB Brodie says:

      Would an anti-democrat utilise Critical Theory in order to justify their argument? Don’t be silly. Is it possible to update the epistemology of the ultra-yoon? Probably not. Those who are open minded? Absolutely.

      Nationalism and international relations

      Structure of the guide

      Chapter 1 introduces the ‘nation’ as a fundamentally contested concept that can be defined in either civic or ethnic terms. Civic nations are understood to be comprised of modern unions of citizens as expressed in the political will of individuals (contracts, covenants, plebiscites, etc.) and the democratic institutions that these acts create and sustain. In contrast, ethnic nations are folk communities of language and culture with origins in the primordial past. These divergent definitions of ‘nation’ are associated with equally divergent theoretical explanations of the origin and spread of nations: modernism and primordialism. The analytical content and political implications of these conceptual and political debates will be identified and discussed.

      http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/sites/default/files/programme_resources/lse/lse_pdf/subject_guides/ir2084_ch1-3.pdf

      NATIONALISM AND IDENTITY POLITICS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

      Nationalism has a second root in reflections on cultural specificity, which originated in Germany during the second half of the eighteenth century as a reaction to the cultural hegemony exercised by France. This version of nationalism was greatly enhanced as the French Revolution led to expansionist wars of annexation, and reactions against French politics took the form of nationalism. The growing tendency (in the nineteenth century) of states to implement policies of cultural homogenization enhanced the spread of cultural nationalism in minority groups not possessing a state, and highly contributed to their political mobilization in nationalist movements.

      ….Nationalism is thus multifaceted and contingent in its contents and in its articulations, since it tends to appear in combination with an extremely wide variety of other doctrines, from Marxism to liberalism to racism. This variety reflects the manifold purposes of nationalist mobilization, and the plurality of meanings attributed to nation-building. Its earliest manifestations in the nineteenth century were strongly concerned with national sovereignty, and hence with liberalism. The racial nationalism of the late nineteenth century functioned as an expansionist colonialist ideology, but also a tool in
      intra-European power struggles.

      Anti-colonialist nationalism, oriented against imperial powers and an international order perceived as unjust, frequently made use of a socialist and sometimes Marxist language. The articulation of nationalism in combination with universalist political doctrines reveals how it includes a reflection on the international geopolitical order, and a program to stabilize, reform or challenge this order. The variety of doctrines in which nationalist claims and grievances are articulated once again draws attention to its contingent and political nature.

      http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c14/e1-35-01-06.pdf

      Nationalism at the centre and periphery of Capitalism

      ABSTRACT

      In this work I show that nationalism, together with liberalism, socialism, efficientism and the environmentalism, is one of the ideologies of the modern societies. In the first section, I define nation as the form of society politically organized that is born with the Capitalist Revolution and leads to the formation of the nation-state, and nationalism as the corresponding ideology: its objective is the autonomy and the national economic development. In the second section, I distinguish the nationalism of the central countries from that one of the peripheral countries; while in the first the nationalism is implicit, in the peripherals is explicit or then turn to the cosmopolitism. In the third section I argument that the imperialism, even being inevitable between strong and week countries, will change its characteristics when this relation of forces is modified as a consequence of the nationalism of the dominated ones. Still in this section, I make one brief reference to Brazil. Finally, I come back to the ideologies of the capitalism to show that, differently from the others, the nationalism is a particularist ideology, which increases the resistance to it and facilitates the task of domination of the central countries. Yet, the nationalism does not disappear because it is an organizer principle of the capitalist society.

      http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-40142008000100012&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

    118. sensibledave says:

      Cameron

      You wrote a big, fat lie “A clear lie given Dave has been posting on WOS for years now, in defense of the status quo.”

      I have never sought to defend the status quo. If Scotland had voted Yes I would have been just as happy. But this gets us to the heart of the matter Cammy. You need to be able to blame me. You need to paint me as the bogey man. You need to say it was me that made you lose the referendum.

      The reality is Cammy, incredibly, the Scots were offered the right to make Scotland an Independent country … and they said NO!!???!!?

      What is it about you, your fellow nationalists and the thought of the SNP running an Independent Scotland that made this offer so unattractive that the population of Scotland prefer to be governed by Westminster (where the parliament, as you keep telling me, is made up of predominantly English MPs) – than the likes of Ms Sturgeo?????

      Do you not see that you must be missing something, big time, Cammy.

      You are left floundering around making up total lies in orderedr to justify and comprehend of your position.

      In all of the years that I have been posting here on Wings, show me one comment where I have expressed a preference for Scotland to remain in the UK. Dont waste your time Cammy, I never have. I don’t care.

      One thing I do care about Scotland, is that whilst Scotland is a part of the UK, then my vote and my democratic rights in a one person one vote system carry exactly the same rights as a Scot (ensuring that Scottish voters do not have the power of veto over the UK parliament decisions despite being part of the minority in the UK.

      The other thing is about precious democracy and about seeing it upheld.

      The statement I make most about Scotland is about the will of the people Cammy. If SCots want Independence – then they should have. If they don’t want Independence then they shouldn’t have it thrust upon them by zealots who believe they know the hearts and minds of their country folk better than they do.

      You just lie Cammy. You lie to, and about, me all the time. Even more alarmingly, you are lying to yourself.

      Which is why, I suspect, you will be spewing out the same garbage for a good few years yet here on Wings.

    119. sensibledave says:

      You should be proud of Cammy. I backed you up on another thread!

      Someone was arguing that you don’t even have the brains of an idiot.

      I defended you manfully and said you do – and got him to agree!

      Are you proud of me?

    120. sensibledave says:

      yesindyref2 3:00 pm

      Yindy, you waffled on “You see the problem is Dave old chap is that you, sensibledave, live in South Oxfordshire in the constituency of Henley and Thame. And according to the sets of figues that try to show Scotland having a deficit, show that the only parts of England that don’t have a deficit are London, the South-East and by a small margin, the East of England……You’re a subsidy junkie.

      A few things Yindy (and I would have hoped for better from you)

      1. London is part of my country, England.
      2. As it happens, I work in London a lot, but that is irrelevant.
      3. You may not understand the concept of “commuting”, but many folk that live in the “home counties” … work in London.

      The major issue that you need to address Yindy, is why do you care?

      Once again, you appear to “need” me to accept that England will be financially worse off if Scotland was Independent. Please try and understand this once and for all Yindy. I DONT CARE!!!

      You may base your democratic ideals purely on finances… I don’t. If Scotland wants to be Independent then so be it. If it costs England a few bob, then that is the price of democracy.

      However, I am confident that England will be fine thanks – so please don’t worry about us. If NI or Wales wants to go, that is fine too.

      You really need to examine all of this. Read the thread above. Cammy is on the same tack as you, as is Liz and Brian.

      It doesnt seem to matter what I say, you lot have some ridiculous preconceived notion that you “know” me and you “know” the motivations of ordinary English folk. You prove, with your comments that you know absolutely nothing.

      Everyone complains when an English person pops up and offers a different perspective to the standard “me too” narrative on Wings. The only way you appear to be able to rationalise this different point of view is that I must be a liar. I must want to oppress the jocks. I must want to hang on to Scotland against the will of the people. I must think all of that – or I might just be pointing out things that are so far from your preconceived notion that you would have to totally reevaluate your strategy.

      You might have to use your brains and finally work out the reasons why Scotland is NOT an Independent country.

      I can help you with a big clue … but you really need to understand it (rather than immediately blame me) …. the majority of SCOTS VOTERS don’t want independence from the UK!!

      I know I am wasting my time because I must have written it a hundred times at least here on Wings. If you do read this, you will immediately ignore it and carry on with the inane meme that everyone in England is a Yoon that is desperate to oppress the jocks. And this is why you, like the others, will struggle to convert those you need to convert … because there is little that is attractive about your message or tactics.

      Even if you did read and understand that then I am sure the next time I comment then you, and the nut jobs will robotically revert to the “sensibledave is a Yoon”, sensibledave is a BRITNAT, sensibledave is a UKOK RED Blue pink Tory jock oppressor.

      Then I will smile to myself in the knowledge that just over the border in Scotland is a bunch of loons that don’t know their a**s from their elbow. The SNP master race meme will be reignited to deliver the “truth” that everyone else in the UK is a sub species in comparison to the oh-so-enlightened, intelligent and moral SNP voter. Hey ho.

    121. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave
      Good Heavens, you do seem to have very poor reading skills to get any of that mist as the Germans say, from my postings. you’re determined to attribute sentiments to people that they – we – never expressed, and don’t think. Did you miss the bit where I said I was brought up in London? And worked all over the UK including – yes – England. I’ve probably drunk (and been drunk) in more pubs all over England than you have, though I don’t think I ever got to Barnstaple, sadly. Lucky them.

      Actually I think both England and Scotland will be BETTER OFF economically and in all ways parted permanently, as the current, past and ongoing stramash wastes a lot of energy and initiative – and money. Better as good Independent neighbours than in each others pockets, and you are living proof of that. Blow the moths off your own wallet, it’s your round! Anyway, I hope your economy booms through the roof when we part company, we want your tourists and your business, kerching.

      As you seem determined to play us all the Last Post, get your trumpet out, and give it one more tune – voluntary of course.

    122. sensibledave says:

      Yindy

      Had you not joined in with the Cammy, Liz and Brian with the requirement upon me to accept that ENgland will be “worse off”, post Scottish Independence, then I would have left you out of it.

      But you joined in.

      Its about that “we need you to really want us to stay thing … so that we can thumb our noses when we leave attitude” .. which, I am afraid, doesn’t wash. I really don’t mind if SCotland votes for Independence. I observe however, that there is little attractive in so many of the “Independence” methods and tactics.

      The “SNP master race” meme is as insulting as it is obnoxious and arrogant.

    123. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi sensibledave at 3:02 pm.

      You typed,

      “I observe however, that there is little attractive in so many of the “Independence” methods and tactics.

      The “SNP master race” meme is as insulting as it is obnoxious and arrogant.”

      I’ve got to ask: which particular “methods and tactics” do not attract you? As you live outwith Scotland, why should it make any difference to you, as we won’t be trying to get you to vote YES in the indyref2 campaign?

      Also, can you explain what the ““SNP master race” meme” is? Maybe with examples? (Show all working.)

    124. sensibledave says:

      Yindy

      Examples of the “master race” meme … every time someone uses the term, Yoon. Every time someone uses the term, Unionist. Every time someone uses the term, UKOK, BRitNAt, Red Tory, Blue Tory Pink Tory, Tories in general, Labour supporters in general…. i.e. everyone else in nearly 70 million inhabitants of the UK …. other than less than 2 million that voted for the SNP in a Scottish election.

      …. numerous examples are available an almost every thread I believe – help yourself.

      I know yindy, ……. its only when the mirror is held up does the reality actually dawn.

      If you were to ask me why it is like it is . I would say it is ingrained and cultural now. Many on here genuinely believe they are superior human beings, either because they seek Independence for SCotland, or because they are anti-nuclear, or because they want the the sick to be healed or the poor to be made better off. Those of us that have different views on achieving the same goals are dismissed and abused as uncaring or hateful … you know this Yindy.

      Here’s a little thing just to remind you of just how insidious and blatantly hypocritical and xenophobic your lot can be.

      You will recall, not long after the previous GE. In the run up to the election, on live TV, Ms Sturgeon stated specifically that the SNP would not vote on things like “Foxhunting in England”. Then she sent in her troops and the motion had to be withdrawn because it wouldn’t pass (as an aside, it also lead to EVEL).

      Here on Wings were the positively joyous supporters. Do you remember the cartoon? the poor ENglish foxes running and hiding behind the SCottish lion that would “save” them.

      All the while, in the background, it was known that the laws on Foxhunting in SCotland protected foxes less than ENgland! That was quite some time ago Yindy. And what has been done to protect the scottish foxes and, at least, bring them up to the levels of protection in England?

      Nothing, zip, nada!

      Has anybody asked here on WIngs, where are the law changes promised back then?

      No, Yindy, the whole thing was about, and limited to, wrecking …. simply because they could wreck. That is the sum total.

      Talking of outrage, there were 1000s of words of outrage here on the scurrilous EVEL laws that were designed purely to undermine democracy in SCotland you would think?

      HOw’s that going Yindy? Have you even heard of one EVEL law that you can bring to mind … let alone show as an example of the degradation of your democratic rights. AT the time, ENglish MPs and anyone that supported EVEL were the very devil incarnate.

      Faux outrage and grievance – that is all it was. And that Yindy is the problem. It pretty much doesn’t matter what any Westminster government does or will do … the SNP will be against it … om principle (or at least faux principle)! IN addition, Ms Sturgeon will claim she speaks for the people of Scotland when, in actual fact, most of the time she is only speaking for some of the voters that voted for the SNP – and they will agree, unquestioningly, with almost anything she says. Why is that Yindy. Where are the “shades”, “wings”, rebels, “principled?

      Its tribal Yindy, its not intelligent politics. Its tribal within SCotland and that extends into the UK. Scots appear to be more “comfortable” with tribalism it seems. Sectarianism and Football – dictate ones politics FFS?

      That is third world stuff that we, in ENgland, just don’t have Yindy.

    125. yesindyref2 says:

      But you joined in

      No I didn’t, I explained Barnett to you. Your lie is still a lie, no matter how many times you lie it.

      But keep digging, while I get some more popcorn.

    126. yesindyref2 says:

      @sensibledave
      I see you have replied to Brian Doonthetoon’s posting, but have addressed it to me, you really are getting yourself in a right fankle!

    127. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Sensidav at 4:44 pm.

      Back in the late 60s, my peer group came up with a phrase that did not disrepect those bereft of sight but rather disrespected those who uttered opinions, without any understanding of what they were uttering but, more importantly, thought that their utterings had some merit, being their opinions formed in some altenative universe fed by the UK’s Establishment media.

      Thus, I have detected that most (if not all) of your 4.44pm post is just you “gibbering Braille”.

      You typed,
      “Examples of the “master race” meme … every time someone uses the term, Yoon. Every time someone uses the term, Unionist. Every time someone uses the term, UKOK, BRitNAt, Red Tory, Blue Tory Pink Tory, Tories in general, Labour supporters in general…”

      When the Unionists invented the term “cybernat”, I embraced it immediately, as did many independence supporting Scots, who can afford some sort of online device. The term “Unionist” has been in existence since 1707. Why do you see it as pejorative? It refers to someone who believes that the union of our two kingdoms is “the right thing”.

      I don’t believe that but I am referred to as a “separatist”. I, and others who support the principle of an independent Scotland aren’t looking for “separation” from anything. What we are looking for is the ending of the Treaty of Union between our two kingdoms.

      You also typed something rather pertinent. I agree with you – “I would say it is ingrained and cultural now.”
      You believe all the $h!t that has poured out of the UK Establishment’s media over the decades – it is culturally ingrained in your psyche.

      You then asked,
      “Has anybody asked here on WIngs, where are the law changes promised back then?… Talking of outrage, there were 1000s of words of outrage here on the scurrilous EVEL laws that were designed purely to undermine democracy in SCotland you would think?…”

      You really aren’t up to speed, uryi? We Scots were PLEDGED, in the days before the 2014 referendum, that so many devolved powers were coming our way that we’d be wetting ourselves. What was it it Crash Gordon said about “federalism”? Watch the videos below and hear all the LIES that Crash Gordon came out with. All the stuff that he suggested were coming Scotland’s way were voted down by Labour in the UK parliament.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L17r-P7yAw

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwfvL4jQVDA

      And you pour scorn on our lack of belief in the words of the UK establishment?

      What happened at 7am on the 19th September 2014? Cameron stood outside 10 Downing Street and announced that MPs elected to the UK parliament from Scottish seats would not be allowed to vote on certain issues, thus demoting them as Members of the UK parliament.

      You don’t understand how Scots felt about that, because you are saturated with the UK establishment’s take on things. It’s not your fault – you are brainwashed without realising it.

    128. CameronB Brodie says:

      As far as I’m concerned, Dave has consistently acted against Scotland’s best interests, despite what he may claim. His contribution has generally veered towards the cold-FUD end of the spectrum and has shied away from substantive issues, such as natural justice and the functionally deficit process of plebiscite in 2014. Instead, he has preferred to focus on specific issues and subjective detail that support his argument.

      Dave still fails to grasp the lack of Scotland’s political agency and an impartial media. He also appears not to accept that the implications of our democratic deficit are harmfull to both Scotland and England’s well-being – the British state does not provide an equilibrium of power amoung the component nations, therefore, there can not be plural democracy within the Palaces of Westminster, dominated as they are by English Lords and voters. Dave apparently doesn’t understand democracy in a multicultural, multi-national society.

      Dave
      I want to believe you but your normative bias is profound. Almost as profound as your willful ignorance. Emancipate yourself and support our cause enthusiasticly. If not, stop with the cold FUD and get out of Scotland’s way.

      EMPIRE-, STATE- AND NATION-BUILDING AND DECONSTRUCTING IN SPAIN

      Introduction

      Spain is probably the clearest case of failure in the attempt to build a large nation-state in Europe. Against old expectations, the relatively recent establishment of democracy in Spain has not helped to build a large nation-state. Rather, it has favored the integration of Spain into the European democratic empire along with the development of small, increasingly self-governing nations. The so-called Spanish ‘state of autonomies’ is not an equilibrium, in the sense of a stable institutional solution for the relations between different territorial communities, but a frame for competition among territories and for the development of increasing demands for selfgovernment. Homogenization of language and culture in Spain has decreased during the last decades. The Spanish state will not, thus, be what it could have been, a uniform nation-state under the Westphalian and French models. It actually tends to move increasingly away from that model.

      In the 21st century, building a Spanish nation-state, in the sense of a political organization based on effective sovereignty, power monopoly and the homogenization of the population, is an unviable endeavor. In homage to Juan J. Linz, this paper builds on several of his findings regarding the processes of state-building and nation-building in Spain and tries to go over. The Linz’ main points that are identified and highlighted here are the following:

      1) Spain is a case of frustrated state-building and failed nation-building.

      2) Modern Spain can be conceived as a multinational state, the first of its kind in Europe; building a nation-state in Spain is nowadays both unfeasible and undesirable.

      3) Democracy, however, can exist and survive, in spite of the absence of a nation-state, on the basis of federal and consociational politics permitting the accommodation of multiple national groups. The Spanish ‘state of autonomies’ can be an appropriate institutional frame to create legitimacy for the Spanish state and prevent secession and conflict.

      http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=863A1631F628FBEE76172C6522D9D5B4?doi=10.1.1.548.6376&rep=rep1&type=pdf

      Racism: Individual, Institutional, and Cultural

      Racism has a long history in the United States (U.S.). In actuality, it has existed since the inception of the country, manifesting itself in atrocities initially against Native Americans, and subsequently against African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans. Responsible citizens in a democratic society would agree that racism should be eradicated from the mindset and practices of its individuals, institutions, and cultural ideologies. However, even after the Civil Rights Movement and the passing of civil rights legislation, racism continues to hold a profound grip on the country.

      When many people hear the term racism, they envision flagrant acts of violence by White supremacists such as members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). They may also envision bumbling acts of ignorance and stupidity like those such as by Archie Bunker. These widespread images truly reflect on this debilitating social problem, but they are too simplistic to explain racism’s complex manifestations in socie …

      https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-0-387-71799-9_343

      Pluralistic Democracy, Theory of

      a bourgeois reformist theory, according to which political power in the contemporary bourgeois state has become the “collective power” of many organizations and groups, such as entrepreneurs’ associations, the church, trade unions, political parties, and farmers’ organizations. As a result, according to the theory’s proponents, a universal, “plural” democracy is being established as a variety and specific form of “pure democracy.”

      The rise of the theory of pluralistic democracy is associated with the increasing complexity of the political system under contemporary capitalism and with the sharpening of the class struggle. Under these conditions, the classical doctrine of the separation of powers has been replaced by the theory of institu-tionalism, which serves as the ideological basis for the theory of pluralistic democracy. Other sources of the theory of pluralistic democracy include bourgeois political scientists’ ideas concerning pressure groups and interest groups (A. Bentley), social reformist constructs about the “power of organizations” (K. Kautsky and J. Renard), and the “legal pluralism” of the American sociologist R. M. Maclver. Since World War II the most widely known adherents of the theory of pluralistic democracy have been G. Heckscher and S. Finer. The bourgeois reformist and right-wing socialist concepts of “countervailing forces,” the “diffusion of power,” and the splintering of sovereignty are related to the theory of pluralistic democracy.

      In reality, the political power (dictatorship) of the monopolistic bourgeoisie is unitary, even though it is exercised through various channels (the power of the state, the influence of the bourgeois political parties, and the activities of entrepreneurs’ associations and the church). The struggle of the working class and other strata of the working people has some influence on the policies of the ruling circles, but under capitalism, working-class organizations never share in state power.

      In its treatment of the socialist political system, the theory of pluralistic democracy shows an anticommunist bias. The theory, which is in general characterized by eclecticism, is an attempted criticism of historical materialism’s monistic conception of political power and the state.

      https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Pluralistic+Democracy%2C+Theory+of

    129. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave doesn’t appear to acknowledge he values an attempt at methodological nationalism that has failed. It does not proved Scotland the opportunity to express it’s political identity. It treats Scotland as a colony.

      Nationalism

      The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of a nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and specifically about whether an individual’s membership in a nation should be regarded as non-voluntary or voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.

      It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states — whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty. While many states are nations in some sense, there are many nations which are not fully sovereign states. As an example, the Native American Iroquois constitute a nation but not a state, since they do not possess the requisite political authority over their internal or external affairs. If the members of the Iroquois nation were to strive to form a sovereign state in the effort to preserve their identity as a people, they would be exhibiting a state-focused nationalism….

      https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

      Emerging States & Claims to Autonomy and Independence

      States like to pretend that they are “eternal,” but states are really quite ephemeral. Old states fall apart and new ones come into being. In the 1990s, Czechoslovakia divided into two states, while Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union collapsed into many smaller states. What moves people to claim the right to form a new state, and what leads to a successful outcome (i.e. independence)? In a globalizing world, with decreasing national sovereignty and closer ties between people everywhere, what is the attraction of forming another independent state? Repressive governments, denying minority populations their rights, seem to be the main impetus for independence movements. But once independence is gained, other minorities may, in turn, be disregarded or oppressed in the new emerging state. As an alternative to independence, some groups call for increased autonomy within the same state. Though, increased autonomy sometimes increases claims for future independence.

      https://www.globalpolicy.org/nations-a-states/emerging-states–claims-to-autonomy-and-independence.html

      The Dissolution of Yugoslavia: Roots of the Conflict

      Yugoslav dilemmas vs. European dilemmas

      ….Yugoslavia was a complex community that tried to find the best solution for the problems that it faced and that the world faces today: those are the problems that mainly center on the peaceful and harmonious coexistence of historical, cultural, political, economic, and religious and civilization differences. In the end Yugoslavia failed to find a sustainable solution. The international community has still been searching for the right answers, the answers that would truly reflect and correspond with the spirit of the times….

      https://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/360-the-dissolution-of-yugoslavia-roots-of-the-conflict

    130. sensibledave says:

      Brian

      You wrote:

      “What happened at 7am on the 19th September 2014? Cameron stood outside 10 Downing Street and announced that MPs elected to the UK parliament from Scottish seats would not be allowed to vote on certain issues, thus demoting them as Members of the UK parliament.

      You don’t understand how Scots felt about that, because you are saturated with the UK establishment’s take on things. It’s not your fault – you are brainwashed without realising it.”

      Your ridiculous faux outrage and grievance and victim-hood … expressed in a few short words!

      At the risk of revisiting the whole argument again, Brian it is just “change”. Various solutions have been implemented to give greater degrees of devolved powers to all the different UK nations. I can argue that ENglish MPs are third class MPs ffS! There is a whole raft of issues in SCotland that English MPs no longer have any influence over… same in Wales and NI.

      As you should bloody well know though Brian, any EVEL law can ONLY be passed with a full vote in the full house of Parliament with all MPs of all constituencies from the whole of the UK, passing the law. Outrageous oppression of our Scottish brethren eh Brian!

      If you really, genuinely, believe that you have been disadvantaged by that then I don’t know what to say to you (given devolution of powers to SCotland upon which English MPs have no input whatsoever).

      You “outrage and grievance” monitor is set so low Brian that you probably believe that the English Rugby team beating the Australians was purely to oppress the jocks.

      You are beyond parody Brian.

      BTW….. Protection of foxes in Scotland?

    131. sensibledave says:

      CameronB Brodie 2:21 am

      You wrote, because you are an idiot ”

      “As far as I’m concerned, Dave has consistently acted against Scotland’s best interests, despite what he may claim. His contribution has generally veered towards the cold-FUD end of the spectrum and has shied away from substantive issues, such as natural justice and the functionally deficit process of plebiscite in 2014. Instead, he has preferred to focus on specific issues and subjective detail that support his argument.

      Yeas I know, I am awful Cammy. There’s me believing that the will of the people is expressed via the ballot box as a result of a democratic process .. when all the time you, uniquely, “know” what the people of SCotland really want and I should ignore those inconvenient truths.

      Give me a break Cammy (btw … I don’t read the extracts that you keep posting …. they are pretentious nonsense.

    132. sensibledave says:

      yesindyref2 8:42 pm

      You wrote “I see you have replied to Brian Doonthetoon’s posting, but have addressed it to me, you really are getting yourself in a right fankle!”

      If I did I apologise. Its hard to differentiate one load of b******s from another sometimes.

    133. CameronB Brodie says:

      I wonder if Dave thinks his wilful ignorance is mature?

      Dave
      I don’t debate with bigots.

    134. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave’s apparent beliefs.

      1. the 2014 indiref was an example of a legitimate plebiscite.

      2. Westminster has upheld the outcome.

      3. the earth is flat (probably but no confirmation possible from his position)

      Dave appears not to have noticed I have accepted the outcome but not the result. He is also desperate to ignore the radical change in circumstances since 2014.

      We know Dave is a Conservitive. We know Conservitives place little value on equality and don’t handle ethics well. We also know they place high value on authority and tradition. Dave needs to open himself to enlightenment.

      I may have bruised Dave’s home-county sensibilities but if it walks like a duck…

    135. sensibledave says:

      CameronB Brodie 11:52 am

      Dave’s “absolute” beliefs (as well as the absolute belief of every democrat anywhere in the world)..

      1. the 2014 indiref was an example of a legitimate plebiscite.

      2. Westminster has upheld the outcome.

      3. Cammy, is a flat-earther that disregards all the evidence and prefers to only believe what he believes – despite, and rather than, that which stares him in the face in 1. & 2 above.

      You wrote: “Dave appears not to have noticed I have accepted the outcome but not the result”.

      You havent accepted the result Cammy… that is the point, you are not a democrat.

      He is also desperate to ignore the radical change in circumstances since 2014.

      What? Do you mean the most recent GE where the majority of SCottish voters voted for parties that are against SCottish Independence and where their manifesto commitment was to “leave” the EU? And where the SNp lost a load of seats/ Those changed circumstance?

      You wrote: “We know Dave is a Conservitive.

      Excellent detective work Cammy!

      You wrote “We know Conservitives place little value on equality and don’t handle ethics well. We also know they place high value on authority and tradition. Dave needs to open himself to enlightenment.

      … No! “we” don’t know any of that Cammy. You love to stereotype and characterise whole populaces (i.e. shorthand for “Make S**t up”).

      There is a word (beginning with the letter “r”) that sums up that sort of thinking Cammy.

      You wrote “I may have bruised Dave’s home-county sensibilities…..”

      Haha, you wish Cammy. I have been writing on WoS for a number of years, your insults are nought compared to the other rubbish that some come out with. Truly, you are “minor league” Cammy.

      Tell me, if someone constantly and persistently referred to you as being a terrorist – and no matter what you knew, no matter what you write, no matter what evidence you give to demonstrate an alternate conclusion – that someone ignored all of the facts and, like some inept robot, just kept repeating the same lies regardless of the truth that you shared with them…. would you think.

      A) I must be a terrorist then

      or

      B) Cammy is an a*** hole?

    136. CameronB Brodie says:

      “You havent accepted the result Cammy… that is the point, you are not a democrat.”

      “… No! “we” don’t know any of that Cammy. You love to stereotype and characterise whole populaces (i.e. shorthand for “Make S**t up”)”

      Dave is closed to enlightenment, so he is ignorant of the big picture and his judgement can be discarded as unsound.

      I wonder if Dave would have told Martin Luther King he wasn’t a democrat and that emancipation of the marginalised is wrong?

    137. sensibledave says:

      Cammy

      Again, just so I know Cammy, are you arguing that Scottish Independence should be forced upon the majority in Scotland by the Westmminster Government (even though, when asked, they said “no thank you”).

      BTW Cammy please restrict your answer to Yes or No. No extracts, no comments about my “elightenment” – my views are irrelevant and whether I am “enlightened” or not.

      The only views that matter are the people of Scotland.

      Again, in case you have missed it the other hundred times, it is not me you need “enlighten”. I am all about democracy and the rightful aspirations of the majority.

      You, on the other hand, are all about talking to the wrong people about the wrong thing from a totally wrong perspective.

      I sort of “get” where you are coming from Cammy. I “Get” that you believe an Independent Scotland is your rightful destiny. I get that, and on a personal level, I hope your dreams are fulfilled. However, not at the price of oppression of the Scottish people by a minority thereof.

      Again, you think that Scottish Independence is a threat to me. You want and need it to be a threat to me. But it isnt and never will be. I am ambivalent, I don’t care (I think I may have written those words before (a few hundred times)).

      But, again, you will revert to SNP robot mode, ignore my heartfelt statements and, because you need me to want you to stay in the UK for some screwed up reason, you will carry on with the same c**p as ever. Hey ho!

    138. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave’s ignorance is profound and self-inflicted. I don’t think he approaves of science.

      I have never called for UDI, only for pluralism to be respected. As such, a democratic plebiscite is essential to determine Scotland’s opinion. The 2014 plebiscite was far from honest and democratic, yet Dave bases his opinion on the assumption that it was. Dave also does not want to acknowledge that circumstances have changed dramatically, following England’s vote to leave the EU.

      Dave isn’t stupid but he hopes you readers are.

    139. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      sensibledave @ 13:22,

      For someone who professes to care so little, why do you give every appearance of feeling the opposite? In the words of an old US saying, “if you cry for a nickel, you’ll die for a dime”.

      Methinks thou protesteth too much.

      No-one on here wants to force anyone in Scotland to do anything they don’t want to do, so do try to live up to your moniker. We are happy to have another fair opportunity to resolve the constitutional paradox caused by Brexit – against our clearly expressed will may I remind you, mr. democrat.

      All it takes is a new referendum to decide. It’s your friends who are dead set against that happening, mr happy neutral democrat, and we all know why.

    140. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Robert J. Sutherland at 4:35 pm.

      You typed,
      “For someone who professes to care so little, why do you give every appearance of feeling the opposite? In the words of an old US saying, “if you cry for a nickel, you’ll die for a dime”.
      Methinks thou protesteth too much.”

      I read an article at the Internet Archive that somebody posted a link to on WOS. It described the various methods that trolls use, to try to take command of a thread. (The article dates back to the usenet days.)

      One method that jumped out at me was that the troll will ALWAYS try have the last word on a thread. This is so that if newbies are on the page for the first time, the troll’s comment at the end will be the one that they see.

      So, a couple of weeks ago, I decided that on this page, he/she wouldn’t. CameronB Brodie, indyref2 and Liz g have been helping out. Welcome ti the wee clubbie!

      sensibledave – you were sussed ages ago. We will prevail!

    141. sensibledave says:

      Brian 9.41

      Er Brian, your “learned” theories might have some validity … if all of this discourse wasn’t happening on a thread that is over 3 weeks old and is almost “private” in its nature. BY your own definition, “trolls” seek the limelight.

      However, it is good to know, that at least you personally, now accept that you have been writing b******s for the last three weeks, just to keep the discussion going – and you don’t really believe the guff you have been putting out.

      I’ll take that as a “win”.

    142. sensibledave says:

      CameronB Brodie: 2:08 pm

      You wrote “Dave isn’t stupid (very true) but he hopes (knows)
      (some) readers (cammy, Brian and R Sutherland) are.

    143. sensibledave says:

      Robert J. Sutherland 4:35 pm

      You wrote “No-one on here wants to force anyone in Scotland to do anything they don’t want to do,”

      … Excellent progress so far then Mr S!

      You wrote “… do try to live up to your moniker”.

      … Every word I type oozes confirmation of my moniker.

      You Wrote “We are happy to have another fair opportunity to resolve the constitutional paradox caused by Brexit”

      … er, the “constitutional crisis” only exists in your rather befuddled mind. The Scots were asked a very simple question in the referendum “Should Scotland be an Independent country?” The majority of Scots voted No. … thus, in response to that very clear democratic instruction, Scotland remained part of the UK with each voter in Scotland having the same degree of representation in Parliament at Westminster as me – and their vote in UK referenda counting exactly the same as mine – and every other voter in the UK.

      Earlier this year, with the result of the Brexit referendum known and with the full knowledge of the issues and difficulties that lay ahead in trying to extract the UK from the EU, in The GE, the majority of Scottish voted for parties that were against Scottish Independence and where the parties manifesto commitments was to leave the EU.

      And your warped interpretation of those events? … ” – against our clearly expressed will may I remind you, mr. democrat.”

      The EU referendum was a UK referendum. We in South Oxfordshire voted to “Remain in the EU … as did the majority of voters in areas in Scotland.

      Because it was a UK referendum making a decision about the future of the UK (the UK in which the voters in Scotland had recently, decisively, voted to be part of) then the result was decided by the majority in the UK. This meant that you, together with a majority in some areas of Scotland and me, together with the majority of voters in South Oxfordshire (as well as many other “Shires” in the South East of ENgland) were outvoted …. democratically, fairly and squarely.

      You wish to argue that the vote of a Scottish voter, voting on matters affecting the UK, should carry more weight or rights than mine.

      You should not be surprised to learn that I, rather strongly, disagree.

      Now, you can torture your analysis of recent elections and referendums all you like, but the only people that agree with your analysis are some (only some btw) of the Yes voters in the Scottish Independence referendum. The other 50 odd million of us are comfortable that a sensible, fair, democratic process has taken place and we have ended up where we are as a result of that process.

      Furthermore, everyone has noted that everyone (including Ms Sturgeon – but excluding some here on Wings) that there is little appetite or calling for indyref2 at this time. Ms Sturgeon clearly knows that the majority in Scotland still do not want Scotland to be an Independent country.

      cue.. the senseless Dave jibes because he has pointed out the stunningly obvious – and we can’t have that can we.

      Finally, on the subject of whether Scotland should be an Independent country or not, if asked, I would reply that I am ambivalent.

      This makes me closer to your favoured outcome – than the majority of Scottish folk! This means if we were to “graph” this outcome, I am a greater ally to you than most Scottish people.

      Funny old world eh!

      All it takes is a new referendum to decide. It’s your friends who are dead set against that happening, mr happy neutral democrat, and we all know why.

    144. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave apparently doesn’t respect well-grounded opinion. That should tell you evertything you need to know about Dave, who I think considers himself of superior intelect and duty bound to manage the unrully north Brit serfs.

      Dave
      You’re a Conservative and so normatively bound and closed to enlightenment. That is a dire combination and a major cause of your sense of “right-mindedness”, IMHO.

      Get yourself sorted and learn something about ethical being and humility.

      Identity Regulation as Organizational Control: Producing the Appropriate Individual

      Abstract

      This paper takes the regulation of identity as a focus for examining organizational control. It considers how employees are enjoined to develop self-images and work orientations that are deemed congruent with managerially defined objectives. This focus on identity extends and deepens themes developed within other analyses of normative control. Empirical materials are deployed to illustrate how managerial intervention operates, more or less intentionally and in/effectively, to influence employees’ self-constructions in terms of coherence, distinctiveness and commitment. The processual nature of such control is emphasized, arguing that it exists in tension with other intra and extra-organizational claims upon employees’ sense of identity in a way that can open a space for forms of micro-emancipation.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6486.00305/full

    145. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi sensibledave.

      Here’s a corresponding link for you.

      https://tinyurl.com/ybzwy4hk

      And for peeps who find themselves here, looking for information, rather than an England-located poster typing ‘Jackie Bailie’, the following two links are for you.

      https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/

      http://www.businessforscotland.com/

    146. sensibledave says:

      Brian, Cammy, Mr S

      Again …

      ….. “You Wrote “We are happy to have another fair opportunity to resolve the constitutional paradox caused by Brexit”

      … er, the “constitutional crisis” only exists in your rather befuddled mind. The Scots were asked a very simple question in the referendum “Should Scotland be an Independent country?” The majority of Scots voted No. … thus, in response to that very clear democratic instruction, Scotland remained part of the UK with each voter in Scotland having the same degree of representation in Parliament at Westminster as me – and their vote in UK referenda counting exactly the same as mine – and every other voter in the UK.

      Earlier this year, with the result of the Brexit referendum known and with the full knowledge of the issues and difficulties that lay ahead in trying to extract the UK from the EU, in The GE, the majority of Scottish voted for parties that were against Scottish Independence and where the parties manifesto commitments was to leave the EU.

      And your warped interpretation of those events? … ” – against our clearly expressed will may I remind you, mr. democrat.”

      The EU referendum was a UK referendum. We in South Oxfordshire voted to “Remain in the EU … as did the majority of voters in areas in Scotland.

      Because it was a UK referendum making a decision about the future of the UK (the UK in which the voters in Scotland had recently, decisively, voted to be part of) then the result was decided by the majority in the UK. This meant that you, together with a majority in some areas of Scotland and me, together with the majority of voters in South Oxfordshire (as well as many other “Shires” in the South East of ENgland) were outvoted …. democratically, fairly and squarely.

      You wish to argue that the vote of a Scottish voter, voting on matters affecting the UK, should carry more weight or rights than mine.

      You should not be surprised to learn that I, rather strongly, disagree.

      Now, you can torture your analysis of recent elections and referendums all you like, but the only people that agree with your analysis are some (only some btw) of the Yes voters in the Scottish Independence referendum. The other 50 odd million of us are comfortable that a sensible, fair, democratic process has taken place and we have ended up where we are as a result of that process.”

      …. That summarises the nub of our discussion. You have no response other than to make some inane argument that you “know” what the people of Scotland want – more than they do.

      When/if ever, indyref2 happens, the I, personally, will be there demanding that the outcome of the referendum is implemented – whichever way it falls.

      I know that you all have difficulty with this concept – but there must be a beginners course in democracy that you could all take?

    147. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave knows best.

      Choosing National Identity
      by Frank Bechhofer and David McCrone[1]
      University of Edinburgh

      Abstract

      This paper examines national identity in England and Scotland, arguing that it is necessary to understand how people construe it instead of simply assuming that it is constructed from above by the state. It adds to qualitative data on this issue by discussing recent survey data, from the British and Scottish Social Attitudes surveys 2006, in which for the first time people are asked about their reasons for making a specific choice of national identity. In so doing it fleshes out the responses given to a well known survey question (the so-called ‘Moreno’ question) providing a greater understanding of what a large sample of people are saying when they make these territorial identity choices.

      The English and the Scots handle ‘national’ and ‘state’ identities differently, but the paper shows there is considerable similarity as regards reasons for choosing national identity. Both English and Scottish ‘nationals’, those placing greater weight on their ‘national’ as opposed to their ‘state’ identities, choose to do so mainly for cultural and institutional reasons. They are not making a ‘political’ statement about the break-up of Britain. At the British end of the scale, there are patterns in the English data which throw into doubt easy assertions about ‘being British’. Simply assuming, as some politicians and commentators do, that ‘British’ has singular meanings is unfounded.

      The future of the United Kingdom as presently constituted may lie in the hands of those who describe themselves as equally national (English or Scottish) and British. Devolution influences which national identity people choose in all three sets of national identity categories but these effects are sociologically most interesting in this group. Devolution seems to have encouraged them to stress the equality of the two nations in the British state, recognising that they are equal partners, that one can be equally proud of a national and a British identity, and that it is not necessary to choose one over the other.

      http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/3/3.html

      Understanding National Identity
      Book Review
      Anthony P. Cohen

      http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/scot.2016.0159

      David McCrone: The Scottish referendum – what’s nationalism got to do with it?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tzj93hb9h4

    148. sensibledave says:

      Brian, Cammy, Mr S

      Again …

      ….. “You Wrote “We are happy to have another fair opportunity to resolve the constitutional paradox caused by Brexit”

      … er, the “constitutional crisis” only exists in your rather befuddled mind. The Scots were asked a very simple question in the referendum “Should Scotland be an Independent country?” The majority of Scots voted No. … thus, in response to that very clear democratic instruction, Scotland remained part of the UK with each voter in Scotland having the same degree of representation in Parliament at Westminster as me – and their vote in UK referenda counting exactly the same as mine – and every other voter in the UK.

      Earlier this year, with the result of the Brexit referendum known and with the full knowledge of the issues and difficulties that lay ahead in trying to extract the UK from the EU, in The GE, the majority of Scottish voted for parties that were against Scottish Independence and where the parties manifesto commitments was to leave the EU.

      And your warped interpretation of those events? … ” – against our clearly expressed will may I remind you, mr. democrat.”

      The EU referendum was a UK referendum. We in South Oxfordshire voted to “Remain in the EU … as did the majority of voters in areas in Scotland.

      Because it was a UK referendum making a decision about the future of the UK (the UK in which the voters in Scotland had recently, decisively, voted to be part of) then the result was decided by the majority in the UK. This meant that you, together with a majority in some areas of Scotland and me, together with the majority of voters in South Oxfordshire (as well as many other “Shires” in the South East of ENgland) were outvoted …. democratically, fairly and squarely.

      You wish to argue that the vote of a Scottish voter, voting on matters affecting the UK, should carry more weight or rights than mine.

      You should not be surprised to learn that I, rather strongly, disagree.

      Now, you can torture your analysis of recent elections and referendums all you like, but the only people that agree with your analysis are some (only some btw) of the Yes voters in the Scottish Independence referendum. The other 50 odd million of us are comfortable that a sensible, fair, democratic process has taken place and we have ended up where we are as a result of that process.”

      …. That summarises the nub of our discussion. You have no response other than to make some inane argument that you “know” what the people of Scotland want – more than they do.

      When/if ever, indyref2 happens, the I, personally, will be there demanding that the outcome of the referendum is implemented – whichever way it falls.

      I know that you all have difficulty with this concept – but there must be a beginners course in democracy that you could all take?

    149. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      As my interaction with sensibledave is at an end, I’ll just stick in some interesting links for people who stumble across this page.

      https://twitter.com/GAPonsonby

      https://twitter.com/yestories

      (You don’t need a Twitter account to read.)

      http://newsnet.scot/

    150. CameronB Brodie says:

      Scottish self-determination threatens the very fabric of the Conservative identity, which would be emasculated by Scottish independence. Dave is far from impartial.

      British Political Parties and National Identity

      Introduction

      Numerous political leaders, among whom Gordon Brown stands out for the number of speeches he devoted to the issue, have publicly worried about the weakness of the common citizenship in the UK and the threat to the survival of Britishness, which has been the only common thread in competing discourses between and within parties. Conservative leaders like John Major and William Hague have accused New Labour of undermining Britishness with their reckless policies on devolution, Europe and immigration. Brown instead attempted to promote a “British Way” made of shared values such as freedom, tolerance, fairness and internationalism (Brown 1999)….

      Definitions
      By “national identity” I mean classically the identity of a political community, including the sharing of symbols, memories and a common political culture. Following Benedict Anderson, I take into account the “imagined” nature of many of these communities, which use myths of a more or less real past to construct their collective identity and entrench their citizens’ loyalty to the nation (Anderson 1991). We will see that it is particularly true of the Conservative party in Britain, which has built its own identity on a specific definition of Britain. Collective identities evolve more slowly than individual identities, and governments may find it hard to change popular perceptions of their identity (Smith 1992: 65)–as New Labour has experienced in government.

      This is a book about language and the way politicians choose to use it to formulate and construct a vision of the world which gives meaning to Britain as a nation-state. It is therefore an analysis of the rhetoric, rather than the reality, of British identity. We start from the premise, loosely derived from linguistic/structuralist analysis, that discourse is meaningful in itself and not just through the message it conveys, and that it tells us a lot about the values and the strategy of its user.

      In the political arena, discourse is used to convince voters and to give legitimacy to actors. They attempt to impose a dominant discourse which conceptualises the environment in which voters find themselves. More generally, discourse contributes to giving meaning to the environment in which the polity needs to find a place for itself, which in contemporary Britain is particularly problematic….

      Making sense of Britishness

      Numerous historians and commentators have lately attempted to understand the nature and evolution of the British national sentiment from the 17th century. Britishness covered several nations, making it an “awkward idea” (Colls 2002 : 42). It first represented a state, rather than a nation. Historically, being British was a relatively new “civic” identity which was superimposed on older, more “ethnic”, or at least cultural, English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish identities, which were easier to identify. As Bernard Crick put it,

      ‘British’ is a political and legal concept best applied to the institutions of the United Kingdom state, to common citizenship and common political arrangements. It is not a cultural term, nor does it correspond to any real sense of the nation. (Crick 1991: 97)

      It therefore refers to a citizenship rather than a nationality McCrone and Kiely 2000). Linda Colley has convincingly shown that Britishness was the result of a conscious effort, after the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland, to establish a common purpose among the then three united nations through colonial expansion across the seas, in which the different nations participated and from which they benefitted. She also stressed the role of protestantism in unifying the country and the unity against a common enemy, on the continent, to give this sense of a common destiny….

      The failure to resolve the fundamental problems of the imbalance between Scotland and England that the proposals in the Bill* make inevitable will eventually and inevitably lead to English resentment. The undermining and marginalising of Scotland’s position in the United Kingdom and within the Councils of the European Union will inevitably lead to Scottish resentment…Last but certainly not least is the failure to provide any assurance or definition on the face of the Bill on the future financial relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom…Each of the areas that I have set out provides the rocks on which the United Kingdom could ultimately founder.4 – Michael Ancram

      http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/58067

      Choosing National Identity

      Conclusion
      7.1
      We began this article by arguing that ‘national identity’, compared with ‘nation’ and ‘nationalism’ is the poor relation of this trilogy, more often than not seen as their derivative. We end by placing the methodological and substantive conclusions discussed in the previous section in the context of that introduction. Our evidence, drawing as it does on both qualitative and quantitative data, indicates that national identity has its own dynamic and momentum. Indeed, individuals have the capacity to choose national identity, especially in situations, as in England and Scotland, where ‘citizenship’ and ‘national identity’ are perceived as distinct.

      In the results presented here, but also in our wider work, one can see that individuals have considerable capacity to give meaning to national identity according to particular contexts, not in the sense that these are derived from ‘society’ or more commonly, ‘state’, but in a highly personal way. National identity then is certainly not to be seen as handed down from on high and equated with citizenship. Nor is it a trivial attribute adopted carelessly and without consequences from a range of options, much as consumers choose a brand of coffee in the supermarket. As the legal theorist Neil MacCormick (1996:566) pointed out, national identity is one of the most significant contexts for the ‘contextual individual’. He observes: ‘it is not theoretical imaginings but the facts of political life that give national identity a special place in the contextual definition of the contextual individual in her/his character as a political animal’.

      http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/3/3.html

      A respectable Englishness

      The emergence, or rather re-emergence, of England and Englishness continues apace. The Brexit vote was in part inspired by UKIP (a sort of English national party), and supported most decisively by England (53.4 per cent to 46.6 per cent). 72 per cent of those who think of themselves as English voted out compared with 43 per cent of those whose primary identity is British.

      If we are from England, it is increasingly there in our language—the English NHS or English schools—and in our sense of ourselves. This identity shift has been overwhelmingly bottom-up and socially conservative, even nativist, though not unambiguously or permanently so.

      It is an emergent property and as it grows it will become more mainstream, more respectable and more liberal. The gradual ‘Englishification’ of two groups will hasten this, though both processes will be slow and faltering: the educated middle class and ethnic minority England….

      http://www.fabians.org.uk/a-respectable-englishness/

    151. sensibledave says:

      Cameron

      You wrote (or quoted) “The emergence, or rather re-emergence, of England and Englishness continues apace. The Brexit vote was in part inspired by UKIP (a sort of English national party), and supported most decisively by England (53.4 per cent to 46.6)

      Haha Cammy!

      You are desparate man … “The Brexit vote was “IN PART” inspired by UKIP …”. What “part” Cammy? 5% or %0% or 75% what part?

      Was that part bigger or smaller than the 55.7% of Scots folk that voted for either the Labour or Conservative party in the last GE . the GE where both of those parties fought the GE on a pro-Brexit ticket?

      You attempt to judge English folk by the same standards as Scots Cammy. We dont have the Celtic/Catholic/SNP versus Rangers/ Protestant/Lab/Con culture here Cammy. As has been discussed, your attempts at national stereotyping or defining Englishness are completely and totally flawed.

      Try and get you head round this Cammy … the Tory “shire” heartlands vote “Remain”. The vote was won by non tory voting “blue collar” vote, often in solid Labour territory in the north. Down here Cammy, we are melting pot. People vote the waythey think. Religion, football and political affiliation do not define the vote in the referendum.

      The author’s attempts at defining Englishness are as unedifying and corrupt as defining Scottishness as meaning kilts and white heather … or laying face down drunk in the street.

      Stop reading or writing this b******s Cammy. It is of no relevance whatsoever to the debate.

      The one thing we know (because the Scots were asked)is that the majority of Scots do not think that SCotland should be an Indpendent country (on that day back then). Everything else is biased conjecture until there is another vote … and that is not happening this year or next… as you well know.

    152. sensibledave says:

      YINDY?? ARE YOU STILL THERE?

      You asked about the SNP “Master race” meme …. checkout the links from Brian above at 3.53.

      In essence, the theme is that there is the figure of common sense, integrity and brains represented by a lion on behalf of the people of Scotland (or a minority thereof). Then there is everyone else (nearly 70 million of us), represented by a buffoonish figure that wears a Union waistcoat.

      As someone that is representative of the majority of folk in ENgland that really doesnt care whether SCotland stays or goes, all it does is demonstrate that the cartoonist , and those that think it is “great” … don’t know their a***s from their elbows.

      As long as that mind set exists, the cause of Scottish Independence will continue to look unattractive to those that are not yet committed and, as seems to be the case, turn off some of those that were committed. But, as I always say at this point in proceedings, the cartoons are part of a society that values free speech and therefore fine …. albeit, in my view, self-defeating.

      Getting someone to accept that they are a “baffoon” first – as part of their “conversion” – is unlikely to be a fruitful marketing strategy (as is being proven).

    153. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi CameronB Brodie.

      That was an interesting article, written by David Goodhart and Eric Kaufmann, “A respectable Englishness”.

      http://www.fabians.org.uk/a-respectable-englishness/

      I raised a virtual eyebrow at the second last paragraph:
      “One other trend that may help the normalisation of Englishness is the clipping of London’s wings. The Brexit vote was in part an English provincial rebellion against over-weening London, both economically and culturally. (Englishness does exist in the capital, often strongly held in places like Romford and Bexley, but it is now an increasingly minority identity.)”

      I note a poster above appears to assume that you can read the authors’ minds. Perhaps he could email the authors to get the answer to his query, rather than hope that your mind-reading powers kick in.

    154. sensibledave says:

      Alternatively ….

      …. One other trend that may help the normalisation of SCottishness is the clipping of the SNP’s wings. The General ELection was a provincial rebellion against the over-weening SNP both economically and culturally.

      White Heatheriness doesn’t exist amongst the majority of the population in SCotland. It does exist in some areas of Glasgow but it is an increasingly minority identity who also think that Braveheart was reality TV and that the ENglish voted against Scottish Independence.. Haha!. You couldn’t make it up!

      For god’s sake man! There is no definition of Englishness any more than there is Scottishness – no matter how many pseudo intellectual quotes you produce. Any attempt at trying to do so is just the stereotyping of a whole race and there is a name for that ….. d**k head!

      A Rangers supporting protestant Labour supporter is just as SCottish as an Celtic supporting, Catholic SNP MSP! There is no “average” or “mean” position that has any validity intellectually.

      The average of those to positions is an “average” but the actual average doesn’t and can’t, exist.

    155. CameronB Brodie says:

      I think Dave is foaming at the mouth now, attempting to frame me as anti-English. My “attempt to judge English folk” was a sharing of academic insight and opinion, a large portion coming from Cambridge Scholars Publishing and the Fabian Society.

      It appears Dave has yet to discover the properties of honesty and grace.

    156. CameronB Brodie says:

      Brian Doonthetoon
      Hi Brian, I should remind folk that the Fabian Society members are predominantly English nationals and instinctively British nationalists at heart. The Fabian Society was staunchly against Scottish independence in 2014. The Fabian Society do not support the emancipation of marginalised communities, at least not as far as Scotland is concerned.

    157. sensibledave says:

      Cammy & Brian

      I repeat, regardless of the fact that you two simpletons wish it was otherwise, there is no “English” position on anything.

      As I keep reminding you, the only thing we know for certain is that the majority of Scots do not want Scotland to be an Independent country. We absolutely know this because they were asked and they answered accordingly.

      You have absolutely no idea what the “English” think because no one has asked us, in a democratic referendum, anything relating to the matters that you two thickos keep banging on about.

      The clues you could look at is the almost complete ambivalence demonstrated by the ordinary folk in England in the run up to the Scottish referendum. We can speculate that the “English”, above all, are democrats, and judged that Scotland’s future should be left to the Scots to decide. It was, and we know the result.

      I’ve warned you about cherry picking quotes to back up your position on anything. I could pick out lots of quotes from lots of Scots that think many in the Independence movement are corrupt, sectarian, xenophobes that are hell bent on wrecking the UK because they can’t get the support to leave it. It doesn’t make it so though, does it.

      As an example, as I understand it, The Fabian Society had 7000 members in 2016, of which, the majority of its members are also members of the Labour Party.

      At best then, The Fabian Society represents the majority view of 7000 members (3501?) socialists! … and you expect me to receive that “opinion” as you “sharing academic insight”! Give me a break!

      Do try and respond to my very simple points with cogent arguments and I will be “all ears”. But spare me the the cherry picked, stereotyping b******t.

      If we want to use stereotyping, should I look at the recent GE and indyref and conclude that the “average” view of Scotland, on the issue of Independence, can be summarised as being those of a Rangers supporting, protestant, Unionist? Is that helpful to anything? No it isn’t – so don’t project the same silliness in characterising the “English” and then you might make some progress.

    158. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave
      Whatever.

      Scots have enough to contend with, interpreting the everyday misrepresentations and spin in our media, we don’t need your added layers of traditionalist bollocks and distraction. Kindly show some grace and let the home-team have the last kick of the ball. You can show the world you posses humility and have confidence in your argument?

    159. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi CameronB Brodie.

      “Kindly show some grace and let the home-team have the last kick of the ball.”

      Nicely put!

    160. sensibledave says:

      Brian Doonthetoon 7:13 pm

      “Kindly show some grace and let the home-team have the last kick of the ball.”

      Grace? A sentiment that it is almost impossible to find amongst commenters here chaps.

    161. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi CameronB.

      That was a bra’ Wings get-together in Jolly’s the other week, iye? According to Chas Anderson, the next will be in Glenrothes in April.



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top