Independence Referendum

[AndrewT]

Sick 'I have 19% battery left on my phone' brag post from Vinny there.

I think paki is fine when being used in the right way. It becomes problematic when it's followed by a derogatory term. I've noticed here in scotchland, that it is used quite openly, and in a non derogatory way, and it seems to be normal.

I should have added that the term Paki Shop was often used by people in the North East when I was younger.  It always sounded very offensive to me, but people born 50 miles North saw it differently.  Though I expect even them it was used fairly lazily to describe shops owned by people whose relatives had never even been to Pakistan, never mind been born there.  I have no idea how common it still is.   

There's a famous line in one of the early Only Fools and Horses where Del Boy gives a kid 50p and tells him to 'go down the Paki shop and get some sweets'.

Times change though and certainly in England it's just not on any more.

[Doobs]

To be fair to double up, I'd be more likely to use the word Scouser than Jock, as I do think it has potential to offend.  It is probably much better to just say Scottish.

[celtic]

Sick 'I have 19% battery left on my phone' brag post from Vinny there.

I think paki is fine when being used in the right way. It becomes problematic when it's followed by a derogatory term. I've noticed here in scotchland, that it is used quite openly, and in a non derogatory way, and it seems to be normal.

I should have added that the term Paki Shop was often used by people in the North East when I was younger.  It always sounded very offensive to me, but people born 50 miles North saw it differently.  Though I expect even them it was used fairly lazily to describe shops owned by people whose relatives had never even been to Pakistan, never mind been born there.  I have no idea how common it still is.   

There's a famous line in one of the early Only Fools and Horses where Del Boy gives a kid 50p and tells him to 'go down the Paki shop and get some sweets'.

Times change though and certainly in England it's just not on any more.

It's funny you say that, although I hear it a lot up here, it's a word id not feel comfortable using, because of spending 30 years in England, being told it's not an appropriate word to use.

[BorntoBubble]

Don't want to derail the thread much more but it always seems like a time and a place thing to me!

If I was in a bar and fell into an argument with a Scottish bloke (not advisable) but anyway I called him a "***** jock *****" I would say this is being used in an offensive manner. If I said one of my mates is a jock I see this as being fine.

Same for the word paki for me. I also see this with many other terms that eventually get dropped for being racist but mainly beacause they are used in an offensive way. Have grown up saying going the paki shop etc but when I went and worked in an Indian restaurant (run by bangladeshis) I would (out of ear shot of customers) use the word paki as a friendly insult to them amungust friends. In the same way as they would call me a fat white basterd etc. But if a customer called a memeber of staff a paki then all hell broke lose, and did a few times!

[redarmi]

Isn't jock more like Geordie, Tyke, Taff or Scouser rather than Paki?  You'd usually have to put something offensive in front of it to cause offense.  I guess if your whole tone was offensive you could see it as racist, but I don't really see it.

My family by birth is a mixture of Smoggies, Tykes and Jocks.

Always knew there was something I liked about you Doobs....incidentally Smoggy was originally meant to be an offensive term (it was first coined by Geordies) but Teesiders adopted it as their own and it is now used with some pride.  Perhaps if other groups did the same and turned the insults around then we could get rid of a lot of the PC rubbish but then not every group is as laidback, witty and humorous as us. ;-)

[Teacake]

I've not posted on this thread as I've been on here long enough to see how these threads play out and frankly can't be arsed getting into a back and forward argument on here with people who have entrenched views that don't even have a vote when I can be elsewhere doing something constructive However I will post some links to articles I find of interest and could add to the debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

Imagine the question posed the other way round. An independent nation is asked to decide whether to surrender its sovereignty to a larger union. It would be allowed a measure of autonomy, but key aspects of its governance would be handed to another nation. It would be used as a military base by the dominant power and yoked to an economy over which it had no control.

It would have to be bloody desperate. Only a nation in which the institutions of governance had collapsed, which had been ruined economically, which was threatened by invasion or civil war or famine might contemplate this drastic step. Most nations faced even with such catastrophes choose to retain their independence – in fact, will fight to preserve it – rather than surrender to a dominant foreign power.

So what would you say about a country that sacrificed its sovereignty without collapse or compulsion; that had no obvious enemies, a basically sound economy and a broadly functional democracy, yet chose to swap it for remote governance by the hereditary elite of another nation, beholden to a corrupt financial centre?

What would you say about a country that exchanged an economy based on enterprise and distribution for one based on speculation and rent? That chose obeisance to a government that spies on its own citizens, uses the planet as its dustbin, governs on behalf of a transnational elite that owes loyalty to no nation, cedes public services to corporations, forces terminally ill people to work and can’t be trusted with a box of fireworks, let alone a fleet of nuclear submarines? You would conclude that it had lost its senses.

So what’s the difference? How is the argument altered by the fact that Scotland is considering whether to gain independence rather than whether to lose it? It’s not. Those who would vote no – now, a new poll suggests, a rapidly diminishing majority – could be suffering from system justification.

System justification is defined as the “process by which existing social arrangements are legitimised, even at the expense of personal and group interest”. It consists of a desire to defend the status quo, regardless of its impacts. It has been demonstrated in a large body of experimental work, which has produced the following surprising results.

System justification becomes stronger when social and economic inequality is more extreme. This is because people try to rationalise their disadvantage by seeking legitimate reasons for their position. In some cases disadvantaged people are more likely than the privileged to support the status quo. One study found that US citizens on low incomes were more likely than those on high incomes to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary.

It explains why women in experimental studies pay themselves less than men, why people in low-status jobs believe their work is worth less than those in high-status jobs, even when they’re performing the same task, and why people accept domination by another group. It might help to explain why so many people in Scotland are inclined to vote no.

The fears the no campaigners have worked so hard to stoke are – by comparison with what the Scots are being asked to lose – mere shadows. As Adam Ramsay points out in his treatise Forty-Two Reasons to Support Scottish Independence, there are plenty of nations smaller than Scotland that possess their own currencies and thrive. Most of the world’s prosperous nations are small: there are no inherent disadvantages to downsizing.

Remaining in the UK carries as much risk and uncertainty as leaving. England’s housing bubble could blow at any time. We might leave the European Union. Some of the most determined no campaigners would take us out: witness Ukip’s intention to stage a “pro-union rally” in Glasgow on 12 September. The union in question, of course, is the UK, not Europe. This reminds us of a crashing contradiction in the politics of such groups: if our membership of the EU represents an appalling and intolerable loss of sovereignty, why is the far greater loss Scotland is being asked to accept deemed tolerable and necessary.

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City.

To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable.

Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of power. It has failed to reform the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance and first-past-the-post voting (another triumph for the no brigade). It is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing their editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every opportunity. The concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies outweigh those of the majority; the concerns of corporations with no lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken, corrupt, dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this?

Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an opportunity to rewrite the political rules. To create a written constitution, the very process of which is engaging and transformative. To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice.

To deny this to yourself, to remain subject to the whims of a distant and uncaring elite, to succumb to the bleak, deferential negativity of the no campaign, to accept other people’s myths in place of your own story: that would be an astonishing act of self-repudiation and self-harm. Consider yourselves independent and work backwards from there; then ask why you would sacrifice that freedom.

[celtic]

I've not posted on this thread as I've been on here long enough to see how these threads play out and frankly can't be arsed getting into a back and forward argument on here with people who have entrenched views that don't even have a vote when I can be elsewhere doing something constructive However I will post some links to articles I find of interest and could add to the debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

Imagine the question posed the other way round. An independent nation is asked to decide whether to surrender its sovereignty to a larger union. It would be allowed a measure of autonomy, but key aspects of its governance would be handed to another nation. It would be used as a military base by the dominant power and yoked to an economy over which it had no control.

It would have to be bloody desperate. Only a nation in which the institutions of governance had collapsed, which had been ruined economically, which was threatened by invasion or civil war or famine might contemplate this drastic step. Most nations faced even with such catastrophes choose to retain their independence – in fact, will fight to preserve it – rather than surrender to a dominant foreign power.

So what would you say about a country that sacrificed its sovereignty without collapse or compulsion; that had no obvious enemies, a basically sound economy and a broadly functional democracy, yet chose to swap it for remote governance by the hereditary elite of another nation, beholden to a corrupt financial centre?

What would you say about a country that exchanged an economy based on enterprise and distribution for one based on speculation and rent? That chose obeisance to a government that spies on its own citizens, uses the planet as its dustbin, governs on behalf of a transnational elite that owes loyalty to no nation, cedes public services to corporations, forces terminally ill people to work and can’t be trusted with a box of fireworks, let alone a fleet of nuclear submarines? You would conclude that it had lost its senses.

So what’s the difference? How is the argument altered by the fact that Scotland is considering whether to gain independence rather than whether to lose it? It’s not. Those who would vote no – now, a new poll suggests, a rapidly diminishing majority – could be suffering from system justification.

System justification is defined as the “process by which existing social arrangements are legitimised, even at the expense of personal and group interest”. It consists of a desire to defend the status quo, regardless of its impacts. It has been demonstrated in a large body of experimental work, which has produced the following surprising results.

System justification becomes stronger when social and economic inequality is more extreme. This is because people try to rationalise their disadvantage by seeking legitimate reasons for their position. In some cases disadvantaged people are more likely than the privileged to support the status quo. One study found that US citizens on low incomes were more likely than those on high incomes to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary.

It explains why women in experimental studies pay themselves less than men, why people in low-status jobs believe their work is worth less than those in high-status jobs, even when they’re performing the same task, and why people accept domination by another group. It might help to explain why so many people in Scotland are inclined to vote no.

The fears the no campaigners have worked so hard to stoke are – by comparison with what the Scots are being asked to lose – mere shadows. As Adam Ramsay points out in his treatise Forty-Two Reasons to Support Scottish Independence, there are plenty of nations smaller than Scotland that possess their own currencies and thrive. Most of the world’s prosperous nations are small: there are no inherent disadvantages to downsizing.

Remaining in the UK carries as much risk and uncertainty as leaving. England’s housing bubble could blow at any time. We might leave the European Union. Some of the most determined no campaigners would take us out: witness Ukip’s intention to stage a “pro-union rally” in Glasgow on 12 September. The union in question, of course, is the UK, not Europe. This reminds us of a crashing contradiction in the politics of such groups: if our membership of the EU represents an appalling and intolerable loss of sovereignty, why is the far greater loss Scotland is being asked to accept deemed tolerable and necessary.

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City.

To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable.

Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of power. It has failed to reform the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance and first-past-the-post voting (another triumph for the no brigade). It is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing their editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every opportunity. The concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies outweigh those of the majority; the concerns of corporations with no lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken, corrupt, dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this?

Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an opportunity to rewrite the political rules. To create a written constitution, the very process of which is engaging and transformative. To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice.

To deny this to yourself, to remain subject to the whims of a distant and uncaring elite, to succumb to the bleak, deferential negativity of the no campaign, to accept other people’s myths in place of your own story: that would be an astonishing act of self-repudiation and self-harm. Consider yourselves independent and work backwards from there; then ask why you would sacrifice that freedom.

I see a lot of these reversed questions posed. I don't really get how it helps the yes campaign.

[Kmac84]

Think Jocks as a term has hardly ever been used as an offensive word, as opposed to the historical use of the word "Paki". 

Really don't see it personally as any different to Geordie, Brummie, Saffa, Aussie, Kiwi, Pom, Rosbif.  But I guess it's in the eye of beholder, so I'd not use it if anyone found it distasteful. 

It's not.  I have never met anyone Scottish who would take offence if you called them a jock.

I know a few. Personally I don't take any issue with it, I don't particularly like it because it makes no sense. 

Similarly I don't mind been called Scotchy when in Ireland, but that makes sense. 

What is the historical context of Jock?

As for Paki, meh, it's a whole different ball game.  For many different reasons I think it's best not to use terms like that unless your audience know's the contextual term. 

[Kmac84]

Sick 'I have 19% battery left on my phone' brag post from Vinny there.

I think paki is fine when being used in the right way. It becomes problematic when it's followed by a derogatory term. I've noticed here in scotchland, that it is used quite openly, and in a non derogatory way, and it seems to be normal.

I should have added that the term Paki Shop was often used by people in the North East when I was younger.  It always sounded very offensive to me, but people born 50 miles North saw it differently.  Though I expect even them it was used fairly lazily to describe shops owned by people whose relatives had never even been to Pakistan, never mind been born there.  I have no idea how common it still is.   

There's a famous line in one of the early Only Fools and Horses where Del Boy gives a kid 50p and tells him to 'go down the Paki shop and get some sweets'.

Times change though and certainly in England it's just not on any more.

It's funny you say that, although I hear it a lot up here, it's a word id not feel comfortable using, because of spending 30 years in England, being told it's not an appropriate word to use.

Anyone using it should be slapped in the face with Celtic Fans Against Racism sticker. 

[celtic]

Sick 'I have 19% battery left on my phone' brag post from Vinny there.

I think paki is fine when being used in the right way. It becomes problematic when it's followed by a derogatory term. I've noticed here in scotchland, that it is used quite openly, and in a non derogatory way, and it seems to be normal.

I should have added that the term Paki Shop was often used by people in the North East when I was younger.  It always sounded very offensive to me, but people born 50 miles North saw it differently.  Though I expect even them it was used fairly lazily to describe shops owned by people whose relatives had never even been to Pakistan, never mind been born there.  I have no idea how common it still is.   

There's a famous line in one of the early Only Fools and Horses where Del Boy gives a kid 50p and tells him to 'go down the Paki shop and get some sweets'.

Times change though and certainly in England it's just not on any more.

It's funny you say that, although I hear it a lot up here, it's a word id not feel comfortable using, because of spending 30 years in England, being told it's not an appropriate word to use.

Anyone using it should be slapped in the face with Celtic Fans Against Racism sticker. 

Even if it's not being used in a racist way?

[maccol]

Think Jocks as a term has hardly ever been used as an offensive word, as opposed to the historical use of the word "Paki". 

Really don't see it personally as any different to Geordie, Brummie, Saffa, Aussie, Kiwi, Pom, Rosbif.  But I guess it's in the eye of beholder, so I'd not use it if anyone found it distasteful. 

It's not.  I have never met anyone Scottish who would take offence if you called them a jock.

I certainly wouldnt

[Kmac84]

Think Jocks as a term has hardly ever been used as an offensive word, as opposed to the historical use of the word "Paki". 

Really don't see it personally as any different to Geordie, Brummie, Saffa, Aussie, Kiwi, Pom, Rosbif.  But I guess it's in the eye of beholder, so I'd not use it if anyone found it distasteful. 

It's not.  I have never met anyone Scottish who would take offence if you called them a jock.

I certainly wouldnt

Clearly, but then your happy to give away your sovereignty.  Subversiveness is an odd trait never understood it myself. 

[maccol]

Sick 'I have 19% battery left on my phone' brag post from Vinny there.

I think paki is fine when being used in the right way. It becomes problematic when it's followed by a derogatory term. I've noticed here in scotchland, that it is used quite openly, and in a non derogatory way, and it seems to be normal.

I should have added that the term Paki Shop was often used by people in the North East when I was younger.  It always sounded very offensive to me, but people born 50 miles North saw it differently.  Though I expect even them it was used fairly lazily to describe shops owned by people whose relatives had never even been to Pakistan, never mind been born there.  I have no idea how common it still is.   

There's a famous line in one of the early Only Fools and Horses where Del Boy gives a kid 50p and tells him to 'go down the Paki shop and get some sweets'.

Times change though and certainly in England it's just not on any more.

It's funny you say that, although I hear it a lot up here, it's a word id not feel comfortable using, because of spending 30 years in England, being told it's not an appropriate word to use.

Anyone using it should be slapped in the face with Celtic Fans Against Racism sticker. 

Even if it's not being used in a racist way?

"Pakis" is a generic term for the local corner shop ,pretty much irrespective of the ethnic background of the owner

[maccol]

Think Jocks as a term has hardly ever been used as an offensive word, as opposed to the historical use of the word "Paki". 

Really don't see it personally as any different to Geordie, Brummie, Saffa, Aussie, Kiwi, Pom, Rosbif.  But I guess it's in the eye of beholder, so I'd not use it if anyone found it distasteful. 

It's not.  I have never met anyone Scottish who would take offence if you called them a jock.

I certainly wouldnt

Clearly, but then your happy to give away your sovereignty.  Subversiveness is an odd trait never understood it myself. 

As I alluded to earlier itt I believe any subversion and indeed betrayal of the Scottish people could come about through the Yes vote prevailing in this vote

[Kmac84]

Think Jocks as a term has hardly ever been used as an offensive word, as opposed to the historical use of the word "Paki". 

Really don't see it personally as any different to Geordie, Brummie, Saffa, Aussie, Kiwi, Pom, Rosbif.  But I guess it's in the eye of beholder, so I'd not use it if anyone found it distasteful. 

It's not.  I have never met anyone Scottish who would take offence if you called them a jock.

I certainly wouldnt

Clearly, but then your happy to give away your sovereignty.  Subversiveness is an odd trait never understood it myself. 

As I alluded to earlier itt I believe any subversion and indeed betrayal of the Scottish people could come about through the Yes vote prevailing in this vote

Makes sense.