Racist - really?
Explain.
Is this not about Scotland and the Union?
Most of the rhetoric in this thread is obsessed with England with nary a mention of Northern Ireland or Wales.
As far as I am aware the Welsh share exactly the same legal system and NHS as England yet you mention Scotland in comparison to England only.
Just like in the good old days of the empire when England was often a synonym for Britain.
This is such an excellent example of the Straw Man fallacy that I cannot let it go.
I say that I believe Steophan has a very limited idea of life in Scotland and that this explains some of his blindness to the views of others.
He insists that Scotland and England are incredibly similar
I provide a list of major political, social and cultural differences
You the say “It has to be said, hardly rallying cries for independence, Pjen.”
In a couple of months time someone will claim that a ten pence charge on a plastic bag was an excuse made by me for independence.
That is how Straw Man argumentation abuses the concept of debate.
I think that it is wrong for people to vote Conservative.
And have those irritating provinces to the North which are oh so similar, yet not in the same state. Maybe the USA should annex Alberta because Albertans are closest politically and culturally to Americans.
And no state of the union has a 45% in favour of separation together with a separate culture and history.
I hesitate to say ‘straw man’, but that was not what I was trying to say with my comment. It was a half-meant and light-hearted jibe at wanting independence because of Scotland not liking Westminster stopping it doing its own thing, and seeing things like this as an aspiration for the differences between Scotland and the rest of the Union. I meant nothing more than that.
Straw Man is the imputation of an argument to a person which they never made, then demonstrating how fatuous and false the argument is, then claiming a debating victory
“It has to be said, hardly rallying cries for independence, Pjen.”
I never said it was, you implied that I did, claimed it was bs.
Straw Man.
No, you didn’t. Whilst you try to find out what “straw man” means, you could also attempt to find out the difference between “major” and “slight”.
Well, that doesn’t surprise me. You’ve shown quite clearly that you want people to vote against their best interests.
To the outside observer your use of the straw man is better defined as “not a literal restatement of my words so I will waive away with the straw man phrase.”
To other readers what you are calling the straw man is not a straw man but usually reasonable restatements of what you argue, often in the obscure fashion. It is for this reason people here are making fun of your use of the phrase.
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1.Person 1 asserts proposition X.
2.Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against X.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
For example:
Quoting an opponent’s words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person’s arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[2]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Yes we are all aware of the definition of the fallacy. it is also the case that it appears that a large number of the readers including those who care not very much about the substance do not see you using it correctly, but as an excuse. It is like your partial quote of a definition of couple in english, a selective and incorrect application. It is without doubt you will not see this et voila…
Yes.
Understandable, seeing as the majority of posters from elsewhere in the Union are English and the thread is about Scotland and the Union. A similar phenomenon would occur in any thread on Northern Ireland and the Union. Further, as much of the discussion in this thread now centres around public spending in the respective Home Nations, you’d hardly expect the Welsh and Northern Irish to be complaining seeing as they’re net drains on the Union.
But, for balance, and as you requested it, here it is: Northern Ireland is an embarrassing money sink that doesn’t add anything to the Union other than headaches and a source of diplomatic disputes with our nearest neighbour. The country has a dedicated “marching season” for overt displays of sectarianism, for fuck’s sake, that inevitably descends into running street battles between the two sides. The fact that Cameron had to pledge an extra £1 billion in public money to Stormont as a “sweetener” for the parties in Northern Ireland to actually sit around a table and form a government due to a dispute over flags, or some other stupid shit, is yet further proof that we in England are better off alone. The place already receives the most public spending out of anywhere in the UK and further billions are being thrown around because of a flag dispute? Enough of this bullshit.
You’re wrong. NHS Wales is a separate body to the English NHS. The Welsh legal system is also separate, and has been since the Welsh devolved administration started introducing Wales-specific legislation.
The last two threads have been incredibly depressing. I remain a Unionist and consider myself British, not English.
You are displaying Anglo Saxon attitudes. The English tend to have a slippery sense of Britishness where it is essentially Englishness, whilst the outer nations have a more refined idea of the difference between their nationality and Britisness.
About Wales, it shares a legal structure with the UK for both criminal and civil matters and has done so for five hundred years. As far as civil administration goes it has some laws that differ from England but these are not so extensive nor automatic as Scottish legislation. Scotland on the other hand has a totally separate system of criminal and civil law that has never been amalgamated with England and also has a long history pre-dating devolution of major differences in administrative law, now in many areas controlled solely by Scottish primary legislation under devolution.
I have no problem considering myself British but supporting Scottish nationalism. I spent my youth considering myself British but supporting US statehood as that was my place of residence.
I don’t deny that. I consider myself to place the interests of the Union above that of any particular country of the UK, though. I am quite at ease with Scotland, Wales and NI receiving more money, and having a presence on English affairs, as I think the nature of the Union justifies it. But that’s just me.
The sense of Englishness is increasing more and more. To be honest, I would say that it started at the Euro 96 tournament in England, where suddenly everyone started flying the English flag. Before then it was a very rare thing indeed.
So, basically, I think your simplified definition of “displaying Anglo Saxon attitudes”, which I guess is the new “neo-colonialist attitudes”, are outdated. But that doesn’t surprise me one iota.
But, as is the problem in all democracies, what power should the majority have over the minority. This is a universal problem, but when such a minority forms a majority within their area of the state, then tensions are bound to arise. Well formed federations have complex checks and balances to limit federal powers. Britain is a mongrel polity with no federal structure, although devolution is beginning to address that. If Westminster acts seriously over EVEL then we may have the beginnings of a solution, but that cannot merely be about English rights without addressing the federal question.
No. As I explained, there is a tendency for the English to see Britisness defined by Englishness, but the other nations to see their nationality in a complex relationship with Britishness. It is a majoritarian attitude.