LL-L "Resources" 2003.05.19 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 19.May.2003 (05) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Colin Wilson <lcwilson at btinternet.com>
Subject: LL-L "Resources" 2003.05.14 (08) [E]

At 23:49 14/05/03, Uilleam Stiùbhart wrote:
>Secondly, if there is a large audience, couldn't it be possible to
>create an independent Scots television or radio station, one publically
>funded? I've no way to know myself, so please enlighten me.

An independent station wouldn't be publicly funded, and would need to
make its revenue from advertising. The main problem would be that the
station's agenda would need to be approved by the state before a
licence to broadcast would be issued. We don't have a free market in
broadcasting here, and all broadcasting (whether public or commercial)
is regulated by the state.

>As for the word independence, what would you call a possible secession?

Personally, I prefer to speak of "withdrawal from the UK". Often,
unionist politicians talk about "separation"; but in my view they
have it the wrong way round, as it's actually the current arrangement
that involves our separation (from e.g. normal involvement in the
international community).

>R. F. Hahn wrote
>I'm wondering if it would have to be technically a "secession" if there
>were restoration of complete autonomy, or self-determination.  But then
>again, what would *I* know?  What is it the people of Scotland want?

I'm far from being an expert on these matters, but I don't think it
would be a secession in the strict sense of the word. Secession is
when a territory, previously an integral part of another, ceases to be
such. As Scotland has always been a different jurisdiction from the
other
territories in the UK, I don't think the idea of secession really
applies.
Of course, I'll stand corrected if someone knows better.

As for what people here want: there's no single answer to that, there
being a variety of opinion how we ought to be governed. I think most
people, at a purely instinctive level, would like to be outside the UK.
On the other hand, enough of us have been persuaded that this is
somehow impracticable, for it not to happen.

Guidwull tae awbodie,

Colin Wilson.

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================