Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< September 14 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 16 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


September 15[edit]

What will happen if Scotland becomes independent again?[edit]

What will happen if Scotland becomes independent again? If they stay as a monarchy, do they have to get a new monarch from somewhere or will Elizabeth II continue ruling over Scotland, the same way she does over Canada, Australia and New Zealand? On the other hand, if they decide to become a republic instead, they will probably just hold a normal presidential election. I assume Scotland can then take their own flag (the white diagonal cross over the blue background) into use as an official independent nation flag, but what will happen to the flag of the rest of the United Kingdom? Can it stay the same or will it have to have the blue parts taken away? JIP | Talk 11:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has been decided. It will all get thrashed out over the next few months if the "Yes" camp wins on Thursday. Rojomoke (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, some of these question already have answers: see the BBC's Q&A and our very own Scottish independence referendum, 2014. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... although most of the answer sections on the BBC page start by giivng the SNP's response followed by more nuanced viewpoints or in some cases plain contradictions from other sources. In other words, there are more answers than questions ;) Gandalf61 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Until the Scots reclaim Berwick-upon-Tweed, the blue bit of the Union Flag could represent that Scottish bit of England. Dbfirs 12:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JIP -- people have already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons images of the Union Jack without blue background and white saltire (the result not being very attractive in my opinion), but according to Union Jack#Flag speculation regarding proposed Scottish independence that would by no means be an automatic or immediate consequence of Scottish secession. If there is some eventual flag change, then the England-Wales-and-Northern-Ireland flag would be likely to include some component for Wales. AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

England and Scotland already use their individual flags from time to time. Is there any law requiring a change to the Union Flag if one of its three symbolized members secedes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current policy of the ruling Scottish National Party (or SNP) is to retain the queen (Elizabeth II) or her successor or representative as the head of state. There is virtually no interest in Scotland in acquiring a monarch from a different dynasty. However, there is considerable interest in the SNP and in Scotland in ending the monarchy and becoming a republic, and they have committed to holding a referendum on taking that step shortly after achieving independence, if they do achieve independence.[1] Marco polo (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth II will be Queen of Scots (likely as Elizabeth I, or just plain Elizabeth) if Scotland achieves independence. Although her seat on the throne in both potential realms is secure legally, some believe she has a greater moral right to the throne of Scotland than to that of England. The Third Succession Act provided that in the event of failure of the line of Henry VIII, the senior lawful descendant of his younger sister Mary would succeed. In 1603 this Act was ignored and James VI of Scotland, the senior lawful descendant of Henry's elder sister Margaret, succeeded. --NellieBly (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor remark: The Queen does not rule. She reigns. At least in nearly all matters that matter. Arguably, English monarchs have stopped ruling approximately when Charles I gave his head to promote the common wealth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To rule and to reign are cognates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Etymologically related, but they mean very different things. In many ways, the Queen has less personal freedom than you or me I do. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, rulers don't have much personal freedom either (they have, well, to rule, and they are slaves to history more than anyone), so that's not an argument. - 89.110.0.146 (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's by her choice. And when various traditional hymns talk about God "reigning", are they implying that He would have only "symbolic" power? I think not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duty, not choice. And reign does not mean rule in British English. The Queen reigns, but does not rule. DuncanHill (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The queen chooses to be a "slave to duty". Tomorrow she could choose to say, "I'm done being queen. I'm going to spend the rest of my life lounging around the pub, quaffing pints of ale and watching football, cricket and reality shows on the telly."
So, when Handel wrote "And He shall reign forever and ever", which brand of English was he writing in? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt very much she considers herself to have that choice. That's the thing about duty - if you know what your duty is, you get on and do it. As to what Charles Jennens meant (Handel wrote the tune, not the words) - I don't know, but you can't use a religious usage from over 250 years ago to pontificate about what a word means in a political sense today. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further question: If Scotland votes "Yes" on Thursday, will it automatically mean that they can become independent again, or will they have to negotiate with the rest of the UK? And if it happens that they're all set for independence, how long will it take to actually happen? JIP | Talk 17:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Scotland votes yes, it does automatically mean that Scotland can be independent, but the Scottish government does not intend for independence to be finalized until March 2016.[2] Between the date of the vote and the date of actual independence, negotiations over a number of issues would have to be concluded with the rest of the UK. Some experts believe that the negotiations could not be concluded by March 2016, such that the actual date of independence would be later.[3] Negotiations would not be over the issue of independence itself, since both parties agree that the vote constitutes an irrevocable decision. Marco polo (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This confirms what I already figured. Even further question: If Scotland votes "No" on Thursday, is there any restriction on whether and when they can hold a new election for independence? JIP | Talk 18:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Scottish government would be free to hold another referendum, or any number of referenda, in the future. The only foreseeable constraint would be waning enthusiasm or fatigue on the part of the Scottish public. Marco polo (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? My understanding is that it was never settled whether the Scottish government could hold a referendum on independence by themselves. The Scottish government claimed they could, but not everyone agreed. It became a moot point when the UK government agreed to and legislated to allow the Scottish government to hold one, but this was a one time thing not a general allowance for such referendum. See for example Scottish independence referendum, 2014#Legality.
Of course, even if they could at the moment, Parliamentary sovereignty probably means the UK government could stop one if they really wanted to (technically they probablly could still here but the the history means they're obviously not).
More likely and still IMO relevant albeit not directly touched on by the OP's question, even if the Scottish government holds another referendum there's no guarantee anything will come from it no matter how people vote. Even the Scottish government seemed to acknowledge before, that the best they could o without the UK government's agreement or legislation, they could only hold an advisory referendum. Of course if such a referendum is held and voted for independence there will be pressure on the UK but they may attempt to resist, particularly if they can argue the referendum wasn't valid for some reason (e.g. they claimed beforehand that a minimum turnout or a minimum percentage of eligible voters was necessary before they would even consider it or they say there was no real counter independence movement because they'd made it clear beforehand they didn't consider the referendum results relevant). At the very least, there may argue there needs to be a second referendum after some negotiation. As you mentioned none of this applies here because of the legislation and clear agreement from the UK government to respect the results of this referendum come what may. They could also make holding the referendum more difficult without outright trying to prevent it, e.g. by forbidding the Electoral Commission from assisting.
Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the legal issues, but my response was informed by arguments like this one, of which there have been several in the British media. It is somewhat hard to imagine the British government attempting to forcibly block Scottish independence if it passed in an election regarded by Scots as valid, whether or not Westminster had given permission for such an election to be held. Will Whitehall really order troops to shoot at Scottish police when they come to claim military facilities in Scotland after such a vote, followed by a good-faith attempt to negotiate a peaceful separation? Will troops shoot at Scottish officials or construction workers when the Scottish government tries to set up border controls? I think that the English learned painfully, between the American War for Independence and the efforts to suppress the Indian independence movement, that violence is not an effective method for keeping control of a people seeking independence and only tends to increase support for independence among the subject population. Marco polo (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no reason to think it will come to that if even the current government (as mentioned) acknowledges all they can do is hold advisory referenda. For that matter, there's no particular reason to think the government or civil service will ignore the courts (which may even include the ECHR). Even in the Catalan self-determination referendum, I'm not entirely sure the Catalan government claims the referendum will be binding more that there will be strong pressure on the Spanish government. BTW the Scottish devolution referendum, 1979 is perhaps also indicative here. It had a threshold which was not met despite a majority. As I mentioned before, it seems easily possible that a future UK goverment would argue for a similar requirement and if the future Scottish government doesn't agree and goes ahead with only a simple majority, it's easy to imagine the UK government ignoring the referendum if their requirements aren't met. (More likely the Scottish goverment will agree to such a requirement.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If, by 2016, the details either can't be worked out or would be extremely unpalatable to the Scots, could they hold another referendum to either rescind this one, or to postpone the independence date indefinitely? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still a question: How long will it take for us to know the results of the Scottish election? Not being a Scottish citizen, or a British one at all, I of course have no say in the matter, but all this keeps intriguing me. After all, the last time Scotland was an independent country was back in the early 18th century, when Finland was still nothing more than a Swedish province and the USA was nothing more than a British overseas colony, and France was still a kingdom. This is not based on any real political ideology, but I find it fascinating whenever something changes in the political scheme of independent countries. Had I been alive in the early 20th century, I would certainly have campaigned for Finnish independence. JIP | Talk 18:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To editor JIP: Polls close at 10pm on Thursday, results are expected 6.30 to 7.30 am on Friday morning, much as with a general election. The BBC have an article Scottish independence: Guide to Scotland referendum night. DuncanHill (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Independence rejected approximately 54 to 46 percent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

$100K (1987) vs today's dollars[edit]

What would $100K of 1987 dollars be worth today as a rough ball park figure?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a rough ballpark, a bit over $200k (going by CPI). If you do Fermi estimation, it's unchanged. But it depends on what you want to know. This site has a number of different estimators, giving results from $178000 to $344,000.00. Of course, if you do Fermi estimation, it's unchanged ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before reading Stephan's answer, I estimated about 100% inflation, much of it recent. A gallon of milk has gone from $2 to $4, gasoline from $1.75 to $3.50, a comparable new car from $15,000 to $30,000, a pack of Nathan's Beef Franks from $1.99 to $4.00, a big bag off chips from $1.00 to $2.00. Beef and fresh produce has doubled in price on average. 1987 was when I moved off campus, and cancelled my food plan, so I became highly aware of food prices at that time. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding to my question.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 1634–1699: McCusker, J. J. (1997). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1700–1799: McCusker, J. J. (1992). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved February 29, 2024.
In real ballpark figures, about 0.0004 Alex Rodriguezes. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the first human to be settled in mainland China?[edit]

I want to know about what is the first human to be settled in mainland China. --Kiel457 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See early human migrations. The first human migrations out of Africa were by Homo erectus, and this species reached China around 1.7 million years ago. Homo sapiens reached China somewhere between 60,000 and 40,000 years ago, although some scholars claim dates as early as 100,000 years ago. Unfortunately, the fossil evidence of early Homo sapiens in China is extremely poor [4]. --Bowlhover (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 1.7 million years is attributed in the Chinese synopsis to the Yuanmou Man, whose age is estimated at a mere 0.6 million years in the German synopsis. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Famous quote[edit]

What is the origin of the famous quote "you are the dreamer and we are the dream" or "you are the dreamer and the dream". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.105.196 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're thinking of what I think you're thinking of, then it's Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. Itself quoting this poem. Jared (t)  20:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsory release of works in the public domain?[edit]

I know this is far-fetched situation, but I'm certain something similar has happened on more than one occasion in the history of the US. Let's say someone creates a piece of intellectual property (for the sake of simplicity, let's say it's a book) and only one copy was published. Let's say that it was public knowledge that the author had written this book (because he/she announced its existence publicly), but the book was never released to the public, and it remained very much a part of the public interest to read this book (because the author was famous for writing other books, perhaps). Without release, the book stayed within the estate of the author until the copyright ran out under US law, and now the book is legally within the public domain.

My question is: because of the "public domain" status of the work, does the author's estate have an obligation to make this book available to the public (perhaps analogous to a FOIA request), or can the estate maintain possession of the book indefinitely without revealing its contents?

Any relevant historical examples or case law in your responses would be a plus, but I'm just looking to gauge opinion. Jared (t)  20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REgistered copyright of a book in the US required, when I was young, that a copy be placed on file with the Library of Congress. I know, because I had a book dedicated to me in the 1970's. The law on copyright has changed a lot since then, so I don't know if it is still the same. There's also fair use which may apply especially to, say, specific theories. But you may also be thinking of patent law, which is quite different. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is self-contradictory. First you say that "only one copy was published" but then you say "the book was never released to the public". To publish means to make available to the general public. If it was never published it was never copyrighted (because there would be no proof that the author wrote it themselves or at the time they claimed they did).--Shantavira|feed me 07:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He means printed. --Viennese Waltz 08:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that unpublished works are protected by copyright. See section 104(a) of the US copyright code for example. -- BenRG (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current law offers much greater protections to the artist, and no longer requires registry, although not registering a work can make winning a civil suit to protect it harder. These changes coincided with the fact that much of Disney's early work was about to go into the public domain under the older US law. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Shantavira said, if it was published then it was released to the public. Probably you meant to say that only one copy was ever created. Regardless, there's no law obliging anyone to release a work to the public (i.e., publish it) either before or after the copyright expires. -- BenRG (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. I did mean "printed." As in, only one printed copy exists, and it has been perpetually in the hands of the author. Interesting note about having to print a copy for the LoC, @Medeis. And @BenRG, my assumption all along was that there's no obligation to release the book, but it was interesting to think about nonetheless. Jared (t)  13:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2014_September_15&oldid=1136443951"