Semantics Or Valid Observation?

[DangerUXD]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21245701

[FredPuli43]

"Do you agree..." tends to being a leading question, one which is so phrased as to suggest the desired answer.

[Zeuhl]

It's not just semantics; umpteen tests over the past 60 years have shown that the phrasing of the question influences the answers.

'do you agree' presupposes that other people have that particular view, when in theory, no one might think that.

Of course, at the extremes of the personality spectrum there are as many people who will be inclined to go against an established view as there are those inclined to fit in, but in the middle majority that framing for the question will have a slight but statistically significant effect.

The proposed replacement is better, though there is an argument that a Yes answer has an advantage as it has associations with being positive/constructive/forward moving etc versus No and associations with being obstructive/negative.

To be truly 'neutral' a better question would be:

Should Scotland be:
independent?
joined with UK?

I suspect the wording of the second option might be a sticking point

[AB Editor]

"Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"

I think you can agree to something without thinking it is definitely going to happen:

"Should Scotland be an independent country?"

Is asking the real question.

[AB Editor]

Maybe:

Should Scotland...

a) become an independent country
b) remain part of the United Kingdom

[Zeuhl]

^Ed

That would seem accurate and 'neutral'

[ludwig]

How about - Do you disagree that Scotland should not be a non-independent country? Yes or no?

[Zeuhl]

lol ludwig

should the options be:

a) och aye
b) awayee wi'ye

[LazyGun]

lol at ludwig and zeuhl.

The language in which such questions are expressed is important, so no, not just a question of semantics.

[youngmafbog]

But anything that assists the Sweaties to vote yes so we can get the whining g*ts out the UK is the better.

[Quizmonster]

Youngmafbog, King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England in 1603. England and Scotland were, clearly, the two kingdoms involved in the Union.
If Scotland did decide to leave the union, what justification would there be for still calling England - with just Wales and NI attached - the UK? Wouldn't it have to be renamed the United Kingdom, Principality and Six Counties or UKPSC for short?

[FredPuli43]

QM as a matter of law, Wales has been deemed to be included in England since the C14 and a reference to England includes Wales.So that's one element disposed of. Don't remember whether Ireland before independence was regarded as separate, but I suspect not. If it wasn't, then including the northern province in the title is, and was, strictly superfluous but may have been done consequent upon the rest of the island becoming independent, to remind everyone that we kept this one bit, if only as a province.

So the answer is to call the whole country 'England', as was common practice until about 1930 here and still is in the USA; I have an American book of great golf courses of 'England' which includes Muirfield, St Andrews and the main course at Troon. Or we could call it Britain, allowing for the fact that North Britain or, as some call it, 'Scotland', was no longer a part.

[Wharton]

Do you want effete foreigners making decisions for you?
Yes or No.

[sandyRoe]

Do you agree that Scotland should break out from under the heel of the Sassanach?"
That seems a reasonably well balanced question.

[LazyGun]

Yup - nothing unbalanced or partisan there Sandy. Excellent example of neutral language :)

[Quizmonster]

I can but repeat my question, Fred...if there is deemed still to be a "united kingdom" post any Scottish vote for independence, precisely which two (or more) kingdoms are involved in the union?

If a man and woman marry, their condition is called a 'marriage' and they are described as a 'married couple'. If they subsequently divorce, the marriage no longer exists and they would - if they subsequently appeared together, say at one of their children's wedding - be described as a 'divorced couple'. That is, the nomenclature and descriptors no longer apply.

Of course, I have no doubt but that ‘England’ will still be used by the uneducated as a general name for whatever remains of the current United Kingdom after 2014. Nelson exhorted his fleet to be dutiful with a signal reading, “England expects…” despite the fact that his sailors belonged to the (British) Royal Navy and came from a mish-mash of nationalities, including French! Try telling the home crowd at the Millennium Stadium on Saturday afternoon that they're "part of England"!

[woofgang]

semantics is almost never "just" semantics.