Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
joojie

Any scots out there

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I am from scotland and have made a starteling descovery. I seem to be the only scotish Objectivist.

Will someone please prove me wrong. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No true Scotsman would fail to capitalize Scotland or misspell Scottish. You're cover is blown, Joshua. You'd have us think you hail from the land of the heroic Calcagus, when Epimenides is your true countryman, deny it all you like.

In any event, Nicholas Dykes is from Herefordshire, that's pretty close to Scotland. Also, John Galt was Scottish, though I suppose that doesn't count for much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ninth Doctor, In response to the grammer/spelling mistakes, I have a very small keyboard. sue me.

Nicholas Dykes is, as you say, from Herefordshire, AKA England. Us Scots historicaly don't like the English. In fact, we are having a referendum on gaining independance from the UK in 2014.

As for John Galt being Scottish, This is intresting, but I was more looking for someone to discuss Scottish matters with (like the independance referendum.)

Edited by joojie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember anyone else on the board from Scotland.

In fact, we are having a referendum on gaining independance from the UK in 2014.
Is a 50%+ majority enough for this to pass? I've read that the majority of folk in Scotland don't favor independence, at least not enough to want to rock the boat.

To me, it does not make sense for areas within medium-sized western countries to seek independence unless it would result in a significantly increased support for individual rights. So, if someone wants to split in order to keep more North Sea oil money, that's a pretty bogus reason. If someone wants to split because of some type of ethnic pride, that's just as bogus. If an area is particularly productive and -- as with typical progressive-taxation states -- they are subsidizing other areas, then people who are really interested in individual rights would be campaigning to reduce those tax burdens, not just to bring the spending "home".

Do you support independence? Why, or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pro/anti independance split as prety much 50/50. I personaly support independance 100%. Westminister, who have most of the control in the uk, are almost solely concerned with Engalnd, with very little wory for Scotland. Independance would let us decide our own course and give us fair representation in the EU, if we decide to join. The argument against is almost compleatly economical, but there is no conclusive proof that we would be worse off. We have proven that we can handle power (we have a partialy devolved parlement with lmited decision making abilities) so now it is time for us to walk on our own two feet!

By the way, Reidy, Just having historical figures in our past that don't support Objectivism doesn't mean that Scots nowadays wont support it.

Edited by joojie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Westminister, who have most of the control in the uk, are almost solely concerned with Engalnd, with very little wory for Scotland. Independance would let us decide our own course and give us fair representation in the EU, if we decide to join.
Fair enough. Can you put this in terms of individual rights though? I curious what concrete violations of individual rights take place today that would be protected with self-rule. Are their some type of property rights, freedoms of speech, or some such aspects that would be enhanced by self-rule.

I know little of Scotland, but I come from a country that was once ruled by Britain. Around WW-1, the whole world began to talk of national self-determination, and colonialism lost the moral high-ground. The good of self-rule and self-determination seem obvious enough, but the truth is that democracy and ways in which we vote for leaders is a secondary factor. The primary factor is: how well does a government protect individual rights. We see that most British third-world colonies ended up voting themselves some form of socialism. In fact, these were the best cases; in others, dictators soon took over.

Obviously Scotland is not a third-world country. In intellectual development of ideas like freedom and capitalism, it is like Britain. In fact, some people point to Hume and Smith to show that the Scottish enlightenment actually led the way. Still, my point is that self-rule, as such, is not good unless it will deliver some better protection of individual rights.

Here's a question, what if people living in a state in the U.S. wanted to form a country of their own? How would we judge if this is a good thing or a bad thing? The starting point would be to ask if this new entity will protect individual rights any better. So, for instance, if they wan ted to break away in order to become a little more Christian fundamentalist or a little more socialist, those would be illegitimate -- even if huge majorities within that state supported the move. It is not legitimate for a democracy to infringe on the rights of its citizens.

What if the Scottish Highlanders said that they wanted to form a country of their own because Edinburgh was mostly concerned with the Lowlands. Would you support a move like that? Why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our indevidual rights will be better protected because we will finaly get some representation. In the EU, there are more MEPs for london alone than the whole of Scotland. We are little more than an after thought for Westminister, and with independance, we will be able to represent ourselves fairly.

Scotland owns the majority of the north sea oil, but get very little if any benefit from them. Any money goes to Westminister, And we no longer want to be ruled by looters.

As for the highlands claiming independance, there wouldn't be enough people there. the highlands are mostly uninhabited and uninhabitable. it would be like the mohave desert claiming independance (sans Las Vagas). Plus, we do represent the highlands. They wanted wolves re-intreduced to the highlands, so we re-intreduced them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ninth Doctor, In response to the grammer/spelling mistakes, I have a very small keyboard. sue me.

Don’t worry, I was just messing with you. With the US elections coming up, Epimenides is often in my thoughts.

David Hume and Adam Smith were at U. Edinburgh. That would make it Objectivism-unfriendly territory.

Why do you think Adam Smith is Objectivism-unfriendly? As Enlightenment philosophers go, he’s about as good as it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David Hume and Adam Smith were at U. Edinburgh. That would make it Objectivism-unfriendly territory.

Smith is cited as the father of modern economics and capitalism-wikipedia.

Seems like he would be rather pro Objectivist :rolleyes: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand and Peikoff considered Smith's ethical theory inimical (though I don't know much about it); he was in the last edition of the "Horror File" in The Objectivist. His better-known economics expressly refused to mount an ethical defense of capitalism. The most famous quote from him is something to the effect that free markets are workable but, unfortunately, immoral - not throught the benevolence of the butched and baker... or something to that effect.

Hume also had some good ideas about economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, Ayn Rand was born in russia, but that doesn't mean that they are capitalist or objectivism friendly. You can't judge a country based just on a few historical figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Can you put this in terms of individual rights though? I curious what concrete violations of individual rights take place today that would be protected with self-rule. Are their some type of property rights, freedoms of speech, or some such aspects that would be enhanced by self-rule.

Scotland is significantly to the left of the South of England. Without Scotland, we would not have had a socialist British government for a very, very long time.

With the powers they do have, they tend to be more redistributive (making all university education 100% state funded), and more restrictive (banning the display of tobacco in shops, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland is significantly to the left of the South of England. Without Scotland, we would not have had a socialist British government for a very, very long time.

With the powers they do have, they tend to be more redistributive (making all university education 100% state funded), and more restrictive (banning the display of tobacco in shops, etc.).

While it is true that scotland is a rather socialist country, so is the UK as a whole.

plus, a lot of our 'restrictive' and 'redistributive' policies don't come from us, but the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it–that no substitute can do your thinking...” Atlas Shrugged P3C7

Is that good enough reason for independance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that good enough reason for independance?
That quote is not about nations like Scotland gaining independence. It is about the trait of independence in an individual. e.g. when someone says: "He won't believe that rumor just because everyone is repeating it; instead, he'll make an independent judgement"

The quote describes the concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does the concept not apply to scotland?
Well, the concept of "independence" can apply to Scotland. It can apply to all sorts of situations where you want to describe a certain type of lessened relationship between two or more "things" (people, countries, algebraic variables). However, iIt would be a distraction to discuss why Rand's quote does not apply to Scotland.

Let's focus on political independence. Why is it a good thing? The typical answer is that it would allow people in Scotland to decide things for themselves. Fair enough, but that leads to two questions:

Question 1. What concrete laws would an independent Scottish government pass, which are not in force today? And, what laws will they repeal which are in force today?

Maybe they will roll back some law that limits free-speech...that would be a good thing. Maybe they would also create some new law that would further limit some property right or other. That would be a bad thing. In balance, are you convinced that an independent Scottish government will create a system of laws that protects individual rights better than the current system does?

Question 2. Why not break Scotland up into two or three parts, and allow each to be a country on its own. After all, if more localized decision-making is a good thing, why not make ever-smaller countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SoftwareNerd.

As to question one, no-one can predict with much certanty what specific laws will be enacted, as party politics will still play a role in the shape of our country, but it is almost universaly agreed that step one would be to get all the UK's nuclear stockpile out of scotland, where 100% of it is as of now.

For question two, To take this point to it's logical conclusion, the ideal would be for all men to be self governing, esentialy being the anerchist paradice. What is needed is a government that A. the people respect and B. works in it's citizens intrests. For scotland, Westminister fails at both criteria, but Holyrood passes the former to a certain extent, (although, in fairness, not compleatly) and totaly for the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is needed is a government that ... ... works in it's citizens intrests.
It is not the role of government to work for any and every type of citizen interest. Citizens are supposed to work for their own interests. The role of government is to ensure that individual citizens can work in their own interest and keep and trade the things they own or create, without other citizens using force upon them.

As for the article, the person claims that Scotland pays half a million for nuclear subs. That is an odd way to look at it. After all, the English and Welsh pay too. Obviously, all taxpayers will fund the common army. Also, it is silly to get rid of nuclear weapons. Do you also want to disband the whole army? If not, why single out nuclear weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of economic freedom, an independent Scotland that's in a free trade zone with the rest of Britain would probably be better than the UK (because of inter-jurisdictional competition, which, thanks to the common language and similar culture, would be comparable to competition between US states).

Unfortunately, in terms of other kinds of freedom, that principle doesn't apply. But I don't think Scotland is as religious as Ireland, so a peaceful, orderly split would probably result in a net benefit for Scotland, instead of a trade-off of economic freedom for religiously motivated social controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's focus on political independence. Why is it a good thing? The typical answer is that it would allow people in Scotland to decide things for themselves. Fair enough, but that leads to two questions:

Question 1. What concrete laws would an independent Scottish government pass, which are not in force today? And, what laws will they repeal which are in force today?

Maybe they will roll back some law that limits free-speech...that would be a good thing. Maybe they would also create some new law that would further limit some property right or other. That would be a bad thing. In balance, are you convinced that an independent Scottish government will create a system of laws that protects individual rights better than the current system does?

Question 2. Why not break Scotland up into two or three parts, and allow each to be a country on its own. After all, if more localized decision-making is a good thing, why not make ever-smaller countries?

In what situation would political indepdence be a bad thing? (I always think of Estonia's longtime struggle of gaining independence. They were under the baltic germans, soviets, you name it.. but the people were always better off when they were ruling themselves.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In what situation would political indepdence be a bad thing? (I always think of Estonia's longtime struggle of gaining independence. They were under the baltic germans, soviets, you name it.. but the people were always better off when they were ruling themselves.)

If you choose a country that was under a very socialist regime -- U.S.S.R. etc. -- and then became independent, the odds are pretty good that they did so partly as a reaction to that extreme socialism and so moved to a less extreme stance. So, for counter-examples one has to look at countries that got independence from England, or from the U.S. or from France. The record of these countries has been poor. Very often, they ended up with dictatorial leaders. Some -- like Pakistan -- moved toward religious extremism. The ones where democracy remained robust -- e.g. India -- became far more socialist than Britain.

Even in Europe, Hitler was democratically elected. </end overused example>

As for Scotland, I really doubt that they're ideologically different enough from the rest of the Isle. Regardless of the history, the populations are ethnically very close, with no discrimination that comes in places where one group can be told apart from another by color of skin or clothes they wear.

So, for Scotland to want to be independent is similar to Texas wanting to be independent. In fact, English did not invade and take over Scotland (not in the latest episode that forms the basis for "Great Britain"). Rather, the Scottish king was invited to take over the English throne. That happened about 400 years ago. So, in terms of historical precedent and duration of relationship Texas has a far better claim to independence from the U.S.than Scotland has from the U.K.

Now, please don't respond by saying Texas would do better if it were independent ;). Wouldn't some states do worse if they were independent?

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not the role of government to work for any and every type of citizen interest. Citizens are supposed to work for their own interests. The role of government is to ensure that individual citizens can work in their own interest and keep and trade the things they own or create, without other citizens using force upon them.

As for the article, the person claims that Scotland pays half a million for nuclear subs. That is an odd way to look at it. After all, the English and Welsh pay too. Obviously, all taxpayers will fund the common army. Also, it is silly to get rid of nuclear weapons. Do you also want to disband the whole army? If not, why single out nuclear weapons?

I agree, the states job is not to work for 'any and every type of citizens intrests', but it should not treat part of the country as a nuclear dumping ground. The point of nuclear deterent is that they will never be used, so why is the Scottish public spending half a million for it. You are right, by the way, England, Wales and Northern Ireland( forget about them?) do pay for nuclear deterant, but scotland pays half a million towards somthing we all want out of our country.

The army has a ligitamate use, for self defence (although we are unjustly using it for much more at the moment, unfortunatly), and nukes have no part to play in this. They are wepons of pure offence, imediate anialation, long lasting damage and self immolation from the volly of nukes that are guarenteed to be fired back at the aggressor. In short, the nillist dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...