"Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"
We are also informed that "Mr Salmond was addressing parliament on the 253rd anniversary of the birth of Scotland's national poet, Robert Burns."
Burns's most famous use of "should" in the poem that starts with that word leaves no room for doubt about what the author wants to say. And even if it did, such is poetry. Yet in a text that is supposed to have legal validity and
Lack of clarity is not very Burnsian, but rather... fishy. Did Mr Salmond have any Catalans among his advisors?
I don't think Mr. Salmon has among his advisors' team some Catalan. Which I'm very convinced is that Catalan government needs desperately a troop of Salmon's advisors.
ReplyDeleteArnau, President Mas said not long ago that he didn't favor an official referendum because Catalan society was not "mature enough", which in his typical patronising and paternalistic way, means that he was quite convinced that separatists would lose such a referendum.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, he's not afraid of the Big Bad Spanish authorities, as some like to think. He's afraid of the Catalan people, it seems.
It's clear that if you organize a referendum is because you're convinced to win it. But first of all, you have to want reach the goal. It seems to me mr. Mas don't has as a goal the independence. He's not interested in a referendum. He uses the word independence as a weapon for negotiate a better economic treatment from Madrid. Which, by the other hand, is totally just and necessary. If mr. Mas uses the independence for negotiate the "Pacte Fiscal" is because he consider the independence movement more strong than the pro-spanish media, as La Vanguardia, El Periodico, etc. want recognize.
DeleteIn this Mr Mas is a realist. He is making use of a movement that arguably is based to no minor extend on economic woes. I think at La Vanguardia they have no different opinion. That does not make them pro-Spanish, but Catalan nationalists who are being realistic, too.
DeleteThat said, I have the opinion that their Catalan nationalism is very utilitarian to begin with. It's good for business.
La raó que dóna el Molt Honorable és que un referèndum per la independència crearia una fractura social (50% contra l'altre 50%) i en canvi el pacte fiscal tindria l'aprovació d'aproximadament un 85% dels electors. Per altra banda, electoralment, li reportaria molts beneficis ja que el PSC es posiciona en contra del pacte fiscal, quan la majoria dels seus votants hi està a favor. El problema el tindrà quan el PP es faci el suec per aquest tema, però potser ja tornarem a estar en periode electoral i està clar que la legislatura la voldrà acabar trencant amb els populars.
DeleteUns punts molt interessants. Ara, una pregunta que queda és què voldrà el PP a canvi? No deixarà pas que en Mas es quedi sol amb el 85% de l'electorat.
DeleteEl PP no voldrà res perquè no hi haurà cap pacte fiscal. El PP té assegurat al voltant d'un 15% i per molt que faci, ni perdrà aquests vots, ni dificilment en guanyarà més. Suposo que el PP català jugarà a la Puta i la Ramoneta amb CiU, i inversament, però les consignes de la direcció general del PP seran clares, ni una sola concessió a les autonomies. Encara que vulguessin relaxar les relacions amb la Generalitat, la realitat és que hi haurà massa deute per pagar i s'hauran de treure diners d'allà on es pugui. Suposo que l'horitzo de Mas serà estirar al màxim la corda per mirar d'aconseguir un bon pacte -que no serà fiscal-, però si no el troba buscarà opcions més arriscades, no crec que independentistes, però sí que vagin més enllà de la Constitució i involucrant la ciutadania. Em recorda una mica Ibarretxe amb el seu pla, pretenia carregar-se el país a l'esquena i durant una temporada li donava bons rèdits electorals, però finalment va acabar en un no-res.
DeleteJo no veig a Mas com a líder popular pels carrers i les places de Catalunya.
DeletePerò qui sap, el noi encara pot aprendre.
Tampoc el veig jo, però potser no tindrà altra sortida.
DeleteMr Salmond's blunder doesn't affect me because I don't live there. Mr Mas better get his border issue straightened out. He cannot be the premier of Catalonia and vote for a Greater Catalonia.
ReplyDeleteWe know he's only fooling around for his very own benefit, but he's being so utterly distasteful that if Catalonia was a better place he'd be sweeping our cigarette butts from Salses to Guardamar.
And back.
Let me run you through the reception Mr Salmond's fishy phrase has received, linguistically speaking. The two possible translations/interpretations are a) it's a conditional and b) it's a prescriptive form. Keep in mind that the distinction in other languages is much clearer than in English.
ReplyDeleteCatalan online outlets, which are mostly leaning towards Catalan nationalism and therefore should show a high degree of sympathy with Salmond, mostly go for the conditional: e-notíces, Nació digital, directe!cat, El singular digital.
Fewer have opted for the rather sympathetic prescriptive form, like crònica.cat and Vilaweb.
Now to the serious newpapers.
La Vanguardia (Catalan nationalist) gives Salmond a hard time, while El Periódico (softly Catalan nationalist) and ABC (centre-right Spanish, quite opposed to Catalan nationalism) take the benevolent option. El País (centre-left) makes Salmond's "clarity" a real-life clarity and translated back renders the question as "Are you in favour of the independence of Scotland?".
Foreign media:
The Germans are a bit slow with their online updates. Stern shows that German language allows for some exploration of a middle ground. "Soll" is not conditional (that would be "sollte") but still a bit weak on the prescriptive side.
The French teach some in Spain the correct use of the subjonctif: "Êtes-vous d'accord pour que l'Écosse soit un pays indépendant?" What a pity that the Auld Alliance didn't get more of a chance.
So what is your "alternative" interpretation again? Scotland should be an independent country conditional on what?
DeleteEl País shows that the question could have been short, straightforward and clear, and that's what the people deserve.
DeleteOr is there some kind of Ivory Tower that comes first?
Look, mate, if you make an accusation or a complaint you have to support it with evidence. So far, you have provided zero evidence that the question as it is now is inadequate. I asked you to explain what it is that could be misinterpreted, and you don't want or can't give an explanation. I should have known. Now I remember why I stopped reading this blog. You're a crackpot with a political agenda who has no interest in having a honest discussion about anything. Goodbye loser.
DeleteMy dear Primo, I have stated that the question is not as "short, straightforward and clear" as it could really be, and El País (together with my reverse translation) makes that obvious.
DeleteI have pointed out the detail I criticise and I have offered an easy alternative, one that would better fit what the citizens deserve.
Let's do that backwards: the citizens are the sovereign. They have put political administration into the hands of a few of them, their representatives. From these representatives they can expect the best of services. One of those services is information. Where the confrontation of two ideas leads to an absolute distinction between two options, information has to reflect this. What is possibly a conditional form is not an absolute form. Other forms have to be preferred, and, as I show, English language does offer the possibility of an absolute form. This absolute is inherently clearer than any other, such as the one that allows to be interpreted as a conditional. Hence not choosing the better (clearer) form, the Scottish government as the representative of the citizens is not providing with the best service. Hence it is not complying with its inherent mandate. Hence the citizens are not treated as the sovereign, which is especially noteworthy in a case in which they have to exert their power of sovereignty.
What more can I do to accommodate you? Where have I not been honest and clear, or where is the flaw in my argumentation? Do I deserve to be insulted?
For a better understanding by the readers, I feel compelled to provide the following background. "el Primo" shares the nick with someone I have been debating on other sites before, he is probably the same person.
ReplyDelete"el Primo" has consistently taken the Catalan nationalist/secessionist angle in all our previous exchanges, and seems to be taking that angle by proxy on the present issue, likening, as Catalan nationalist attitude goes, Scotland to Catalonia.
If both "Primos" are identical, I'd advise you, Primo, to consider that as you are speaking on the background of a certain ideology you might be seen as representing it and whatever you say might reflect on this ideology. Others of the same ideology might not agree with some of your expressions.
Canadians got a similar problem with the ambiguous language being use by quebec's nationalism. That was solve with the "clarity law".
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, we need it here to. Basically it says the same about you are complaining: a question a that magnitud, can't be ambiguous.