Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Scotland / England Border
- Thread starter clapham_gull
- Start date
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
He felt you were bullying him. You quoted me as a way of deflecting from the issue in hand, which is indeed mindless whataboutery. You posting the word "wow" in response doesn't really cut it I'm afraid.
I'll ask you again about the matter in hand: are you still insisting with a misguided sense of authority that Scotland isn't a country?
I'm confident I wasn't, but I apologised that he was offended anyway.
He felt you were bullying him.
It wasn't deflecting, as I've pointed out I had already apologised to him anyway. You are extremely rude to me and I'm allowed to point that out.
Cut it? As if you're the judge.
You just carry on insulting me, I'll leave you to it.
Er, good I guess.
Feel free to point out I was being rude to you, but me being rude to you doesn't mean you weren't bullying him. It was deflecting because you chose to make an issue out of it rather than answer the awkward question as to whether you are still absolutely insistent that Scotland isn't a country.
Well I judged that posting "Wow" was inappropriately condescending in lieu of rational argument. Oh, "and I'm allowed to point that out".
Ah vintage you. Deflect, deflect, ignore the question in hand of any real substance in case you feel humiliated. I'll do it on your behalf: Scotland IS a country by many if not most definitions, and YOU are WRONG to have pulled up anyone for suggesting otherwise. That is a fact.
Last edited:
blue-shifted
Banned
So Triggaaarrr
I’m a bit of an outsider on this one, but my general observation is that you do continue to drive an argument forward long after you’ve realised yourself that you don’t have a defendable point
Positioning yourself as the resident pedant, I’m guessing you feel like you have no wiggle room to admit you’re wrong on stuff. I’ll guess you reason, often quite rightly, that others are likely to have to do some work, feed the kids etc and just can’t compete timewise in terms of posts per day. But winning is sometimes losing.
Why not try going the other way at times? A bit of a “yeh I cocked that up” or a “I didn’t think that but you’ve talked me round”. It actually feels great. You can then get on with arguing other stuff you actually believe is true
Just realised how passive aggressive that all sounds. Well, none of us are perfect
I’m a bit of an outsider on this one, but my general observation is that you do continue to drive an argument forward long after you’ve realised yourself that you don’t have a defendable point
Positioning yourself as the resident pedant, I’m guessing you feel like you have no wiggle room to admit you’re wrong on stuff. I’ll guess you reason, often quite rightly, that others are likely to have to do some work, feed the kids etc and just can’t compete timewise in terms of posts per day. But winning is sometimes losing.
Why not try going the other way at times? A bit of a “yeh I cocked that up” or a “I didn’t think that but you’ve talked me round”. It actually feels great. You can then get on with arguing other stuff you actually believe is true
Just realised how passive aggressive that all sounds. Well, none of us are perfect
Thanks I have an understanding of what sovereignty is and isn't. Now that you have googled it so do you
I didn't use your rudeness as any proof that I wasn't bullying him.
It's not an awkward question at all, it's something I'm interested in and can easily answer. But I've had enough of the way you talk to me. You don't like me, you constantly insult me, and I'm bored of it. So I said I wouldn't bother replying to your points any more, and you said you were fine with that. But here you are still, arguing on your own and continuing to insult me. There are plenty of examples where I've got something wrong on NSC and then said so. But while I like a good debate and can argue a point where I think I'm right, I'm not interested in debating with someone who keeps insulting me, so I won't. You can write wrong and fact in capitals if it makes you feel good. I obviously don't agree with you, but won't bother debating it.
I don't.
I don't position myself as the resident pedant, it's simply an admission of guilt. There are plenty of threads where I've thought I was wrong and said so. This isn't one of them.
I don't.
I have.
Which is what I do.
For those that want to read a view that’s different to their own, I’ll show how these points relate to England:
Generally accepted list of countries of the world (England isn’t in it):
http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/howmany.html
What is a country, and how is a country defined? http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/country_definition.html
“There are three terms you come across when you try to discover how countries are defined.
These are ...
1) The Montevideo Convention
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
(a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory;
(c) government; and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Article 3 of the Convention also declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states, so a country can exist even if other countries don't recognize it.”
England satisfies b (as does Brighton). It doesn’t satisfy any of the others points.
“2) Constitutive theory of statehood
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state or country as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This means that so long as enough other countries recognize you as a country, you ARE a country, even if you don't have control over your territory or a permanent population.
So, you can see that the two definitions allow for different numbers of countries to exist. “
England isn’t recognised as soverign by other states. England cannot enter into negotiations with countries around the world.
“3) Declarative theory of statehood
The Declarative theory of statehood is based on the 4 criteria specified in the Montevideo Convention.”
So under England doesn’t count as a country under any method recognised for determining what is a country.
Generally accepted list of countries of the world (England isn’t in it):
http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/howmany.html
What is a country, and how is a country defined? http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/country_definition.html
“There are three terms you come across when you try to discover how countries are defined.
These are ...
1) The Montevideo Convention
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
(a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory;
(c) government; and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Article 3 of the Convention also declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states, so a country can exist even if other countries don't recognize it.”
England satisfies b (as does Brighton). It doesn’t satisfy any of the others points.
“2) Constitutive theory of statehood
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state or country as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This means that so long as enough other countries recognize you as a country, you ARE a country, even if you don't have control over your territory or a permanent population.
So, you can see that the two definitions allow for different numbers of countries to exist. “
England isn’t recognised as soverign by other states. England cannot enter into negotiations with countries around the world.
“3) Declarative theory of statehood
The Declarative theory of statehood is based on the 4 criteria specified in the Montevideo Convention.”
So under England doesn’t count as a country under any method recognised for determining what is a country.
*sigh*
Nobody is arguing that the definition you have found is a valid definition of a country - it's just that there many other definitions too. And you declared with a misplaced sense of authority that Scotland was not a country. I don't know how many times people have explained to you that actually, yes it is - and personally I provided a definition that showed as much.
I'm sorry, but you are spectacularly missing the point if you think posting your own definition of what constitutes a country in any way makes what you said remotely justifable.
There, said without name-calling.
Nobody is arguing that the definition you have found is a valid definition of a country - it's just that there many other definitions too. And you declared with a misplaced sense of authority that Scotland was not a country. I don't know how many times people have explained to you that actually, yes it is - and personally I provided a definition that showed as much.
I'm sorry, but you are spectacularly missing the point if you think posting your own definition of what constitutes a country in any way makes what you said remotely justifable.
There, said without name-calling.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
While England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are not themselves listed in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) list of countries, the ISO DOES list the subdivisions of the UK, compiled by British Standards and the UK's Office for National Statistics, and uses "country" to describe England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland, in contrast, is described as a "province" in the same lists.
I thank you for your support. I was obviously put out by the egregious forensic deconstruction of one word of my trivial post that was unrelated to the topic of the thread. I don't understand why the bloke randomly decided to tw@t me. Espcially given that I think he's a good poster (a view that he can't deny - count the thumbs up I've given him) and that he knows full well I value his views, especially after he inspired me to take some actions about an issue that will remain private (because it concerns a third party - he will know what I'm on about).
Anyway, I took a quick peek on here at lunch (from my work pc that does not have my complicated password saved) and noted that he said that if I though he was bullying me he apologises. If the apology is sincere I accept it. OK [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION]?
Hopefully this can be consigned to history now and, as we all know, the past is another country. Tish boom.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,332
given all that, if we assume neither England or Scotland are a country and only a country can enter negotiations, how do we explain the Act of Union 1707? also topical, is the EU a country under the Montevideo convention? (yes, it is)
England and Scotland were separate countries before the union - both with their own parliament, and power to make such decisions. None of the home nations have the power to make such decisions now.
Country can be used in loser terms, like the West Country, and the Black Country, for example. But I think the meaning most of us think of for a country is one like that defined in the Montevideo convention. Across the world it's important and means something. If any area (for example, Catalonia or Hong Kong) wants to call themselves a country, they don't suddenly become a country. If local politicians call them a country, that doesn't make them a country either.
Good question. I think it falls down in a few areas. For example, the UK has it's own currency, which can't be controlled by the EU. Each country within the EU has their own army which the EU can't control. Countries within the EU can also control their own borders regarding immigration (despite there being free movement for EU citizens). And crucially, and country can leave the EU if they want, the EU doesn't have the power to stop them. That's not the same for areas within a country - for Example, Texas doesn't have the power to leave the USA.
brakespear
Doctor Worm
wow, this thread took off eventually
edit:
edit:
Last edited:
