Europe fears Scottish independence contagion

[FollowChrist34]

From what I can see, it’s in excellent working order.

 

[freeRadical]

The same may well be true for most Americans. Geographic literacy is not one of our strong suits. However, now that we know better, we can avoid the mistake in the future.

A bit of humor: (which is also educational, as well)

**The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained **
youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

Just because I do not choose to use the distinction, doesn’t mean that I don’t understand the distinction.

 

[freeRadical]

Yes, I would just take the correction with thanks and a little humility. Trust me, if you made this kind of oversight about France and were up against a Frenchman/woman, it would be a whole different story. Consider yourself leniently dealt with here.

(not stereotyping here - many French are very kind and helpful - they have an unfair bad reputation, but if it happens to you even once, you never forget it)

I know the difference, I just choose not to use it.

At least I don’t use the term that my Australian math professor uses when he talks bout the British…

 

[freeRadical]

No wonder… it seems you don’t even understand those terms. Sorry I just hate it when people confuse these terms. You may “know” your history but you don’t know the proper terminology. Americans…

You see, I do understand the terms. I just choose not to use them. I think it’s funny when the British get all riled up about it. Kinda like the whole football vs. soccer thing.

Your statement would have made it more sense if Scotland had declared independence. The people decided democratically that they don’t want to and therefore the Scottish remain British citizens.

The term “British” is the citizenship of the United Kingdom and also a marker of identity. The term “Scottish” would mean the ethnicity. However the two terms are not solid identities and can intermingle. There are people in Scotland today who consider themselves more British than Scottish, or Scottish AND British. There’s also so much integration between England and Scotland in the past 300 years that had independence been declared it would take a long time to properly untangle those connections of integration. Case in point: the Bank of England was founded by a Scotsman; the Bank of Scotland was founded by an Englishman. Independence for Scotland would not be that simple. That’s why the White Paper of the SNP is so thick.

The terms “English” and “Welsh” are also considered ethnicities. To use one of your previous posts it would actually be more accurate to say:

Being British and being Scottish are very very complicated and fluid identities that you cannot just simply put in solid defined groups. Of course if the Scottish had declared independence all that I’ve said would be thrown away and the term “Scottish” would have been a term of both ethnicity and citizenship, just like what the term “Irish” is today.

Just a tangent before the United States declared independence and started the Revolutionary War the colonists considered themselves as both colonists in America and English - and they were very loyal towards Britain. So much that they wanted representation in Parliament; but Parliament itself wouldn’t allow that and taxed them heavily. The colonies declared independence as a reaction to taxation without representation. The separate American identity developed afterwards.

Also another thing, why would you disregard the Welsh? Some of them wanted to break away from the English as much as half of Scotland would.

You just wasted your time trying to “educate” me on something I understand. I guess you shouldn’t assume what I do and do not know.

 

[Vouthon]

You see, I do understand the terms. I just choose not to use them. I think it’s funny when the British get all riled up about it. Kinda like the whole football vs. soccer thing.

You just wasted your time trying to “educate” me on something I understand. I guess you shouldn’t assume what I do and do not know.

So in other words you just like being difficult at other peoples’ expense for the laughs? Very mature behaviour

It is simple common decency to refer to a national group by what they call themselves, rather than bandying your own made-up terminologies around

I am a Scot with Irish ancestry and I am British, I am not English - so if you have a gripe with the English simply call a spade a spade and refer to them as “English”, not British.

As you have admitted knowing, any citizen of the UK is a “Brit” and more narrowly anyone born on the island of Great Britain is British. This is simply a fact. If you don’t like it, lump it

 

[Vouthon]

An interesting article just published by Jim Murphy, a Catholic and prominent leader on the victorious “No” side, writing about his experiences during the campaign for the Daily Mail:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763715/Traitor-Scum-Paedophile-The-sinister-abuse-received-Labour-MP-Jim-Murphy-No-campaign-trail.html

He was MP for East Renfrewshire and a very popular politician.

 

[CaptFun]

"Independence contagion". Funny, never heard those words together duing the Cold War when terrorism and revolution rather than a peaceful election were the vehicles for ushering in new (or potential) leftist governments.

I don’t have a dog in this fight so far because it has come up suddenly (to me) on the radar.

But I know a non-neutral term in a headline when I see one. And these can turn news stories into editorials in their framing.

There IS a bit of neutral info that can be gleaned though. The headline writer (at least) and probably someone (or some group) within the story thinks (and is afraid that) this Scottish anomaly is about to catch on and be repeated elsewhere. Makes me wonder where.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763715/Traitor-Scum-Paedophile-The-sinister-abuse-received-Labour-MP-Jim-Murphy-No-campaign-trail.html

MY FEARS ALLAYED - NO SUBTLE EDITORIALIZING HERE. IT’S A CLEAR “NO” BASED REPORT

Later that day … I read the story … including the REAL headline. Lol. None of the subtle misleading I expected to find. The story is straightforwardly one sided (reportage about one side of the independence campaign … and the NO (thanks) spokesperson Labour MP
Jim Murphy) … his first person account in fact.

I’m neither Scottish nor English (Welsh nor NORTHERN Irish) … but were I to have voted in this election … it probably would have been No (thanks). The thanks is important because I’m kind of glad they had this election (versus riots, vandalism and such especially).

Yet I generally favor the Conservatives in the UK, not Labour. And if the “Freedom” movement tended more toward free market capitalism and away from a moribund socialism I might have been more tempted to vote Yes.

People are afraid of the unknown though. And revolutions, peaceful or otherwise, sometimes get hijacked away from the most highminded by the most lowly principled (thinking of Russia 1917 here especially).

DID THE GREAT SILENT MAJORITY RIDE AGAIN?

The results being the opposite of what the display of window posters would have had one guess reminded me of the Presidential elections of 1968 and 1972 (the Nixon “Great Silent Majority” elections … especially 1972 where the majority was over 60% - a record in my lifetime for a Presidential election).

The ballot is always better than the bullet. The winning side’s wise framing of it’s NO ***(thanks) *** and “Better Together” campaigns probably defused the drive … (contagion??!) of the independence movement by its courteous and unitive language. IMO But the YES side will get concessions I bet. Things won’t be quite the same as business as always.

 

[Coatimundi]

An interesting article just published by Jim Murphy, a Catholic and prominent leader on the victorious “No” side, writing about his experiences during the campaign for the Daily Mail:

After a while my meetings became impossible places to guarantee public safety – I had to halt my tour and seek police advice. To this day, I still don’t know how high up in the Yes campaign these actions were sanctioned, but I do know how widespread they became.

I lost count of how many No voters told me they were too worried to wear a sticker or display a poster. The effect was that visually, the Yes campaign appeared to speak for the majority. If the vote was decided by which campaign had the most window posters, then Scotland would be independent.

This is in line with the reasoning of the journalist Bill Coles, when he predicted a comfortable victory for the union. He claimed that although opinion polls regularly showed 10% of the public were undecided, leaving the contest up for grabs, most of those “undecided” individuals were actually in the “No” camp but unwilling to be public about it. Coles mentioned the hostility in the air during the latter weeks of the campaign as a major motivator.

 

[FollowChrist34]

An interesting article just published by Jim Murphy, a Catholic and prominent leader on the victorious “No” side, writing about his experiences during the campaign for the Daily Mail:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763715/Traitor-Scum-Paedophile-The-sinister-abuse-received-Labour-MP-Jim-Murphy-No-campaign-trail.html

He was MP for East Renfrewshire and a very popular politician.

I find this kind of intimidation worrisome. It is the antithesis of what modern democracy is supposed to be about. If this happened in America (unless of course the politician was on the far right and making war on women), there would be such outrage and soul-searching. Sounds like it was a very small group of the Yes supporters, and every society has its discontent, fringe elements. But I wonder if the threatening atmosphere made a negative impression on undecided voters, actually helping the No side. There’s nothing wrong with being proud of one’s country; it’s a shame it got so intense in a few. I saw an article about a partially sighted No campaign volunteer handing out leaflets who was struck in the face.

 

[graciew]

In any case,contributions of the worst that has happened may not always be very helpful.
For some understandable reason,particularly a request for independence, the atmosphere becomes tense. We need not look any further than our own countries’ history…
It is not just any kind of choice,independence means profound changes,at every level .from personal documentation to international level.

There is also much uncertainty at play .

It is not just voting for a president/party who ultimately has a term and then it is over.

I think it is time for both sides to humbly take a break and acknowledge that whatever brought them or keeps them apart,needs to be addressed . But for now,I would say peace and some time to get a calm perspective.IMHO