I actually asked a tourist family whether they were from the UK, because they were speaking english, with a british-sounding accent. The man very angrily responded that, no, they were not from the UK, they were from Scottland.
Would that also equate when on is of the opinion that Jews are beyond reproach? I don't think anyone hates Americans or Jews...but those of the Zionist or Talmud persuasion are an athama to basic human condition! They consider you and any normal person an animal which has no rights... an animal is a beast of burden to be used as food and as they will! That may be good enough for those idiots that wish to support that arberation of humanity...I consder you and everyone else equal and allowed the basic human right one would expect! They don't! So anti semite...no....a human being...with the same rights as any law abiding citizen....yes! Take off the blind fold...see for your self the dogma and the degenerate behaviour of a few against many of those owned and bought senators and politicans belonging to this detestable creed! Stealing the body part of those they murder in their jails! The genocide they commit and hidden by those in the political arena who take there pieces of silver! All thanks to the American UN veto! Armed by those same senators with American tax dollars! Assassination squads....now coming to Americans everywhere thanks to those same degenerate senators! Mmmm....well its not me that has rose tinted glasses...waken up and smell the dead! Regards Highlander
Who mentioned jews, anti-semitism and anti-Americanism?....Ah, that's right, YOU did. What's your problem?
Well I'm not against Jews, I'm against Zionism, a system that puts 3,000 year old myths before people. I'm not against Americans, I'm against Corporatism, a system that puts share dividends before people. I'm not against Scots, I'm against Nationalism, a system that puts ancient tribal instincts before people.
'Nationalism' and 'Secessionism' are not necessarily the same thing, although the terms are often used in a confusing way (especially by the media, who rarely, if ever, refer to 'secessionism' at all). The desire for self-determination for an area where people share a broad cultural identity of 'nationahood' (and consequent broad political views and priorities which may be different in some ways from those of their neighbours) to be run independantly and according to the will of those people should not ever be confused with the kind of narrow, xenophobic 'nationalism' of those who seek to place themselves and those they regard as 'their own' above the rest of mankind. Although clearly the cause of secessionism can sometimes attract some of those xenophobic morons, that does not mean their opinions are shared with the majority of those who believe that secessionism is a course of action that would be beneficial to a country and its people. It's a great shame that the media almost exclusively to Plaid and the SNP as 'nationalists', using the same term as that which they regularly use to describe the likes of the BNP. Those parties and their politics have nothing in common, and are based in entirely different ideas and ideals. They really should not be confused at all, but it seems that they are all too often. Secessionism is about localisation of government authority, and not anything to do with cultural supremecy - they are fundementally different concepts. As a Liberal, I believe both in 'Internationalism' and in 'Localism'. In other words, I believe that government should be as close as is practically possible to the people, and that the people should participate actively in how their society is run on a local level, and according to how the local people want things to function. At the same time, I believe that the international community should work closely together with one another on things of mutual benefit, and that no nation, country, state or people should see themselves as being in any way 'above' anyone else. I am utterly and fundementally opposed to the 'nationalist' ideas and agenda of the likes of the BNP, but I have no issue with the concept of 'secessionism' - while it wouldn't necessarily be my own preferred option for the UK, I recognise that it should always be a matter for the people of Scotland (note the deliberate use of 'the people of Scotland', not 'Scots' - the local decision is for the local population as it is now, not for those who claim some historic link) to decide how Scotland is run. If that means union, or independance, or something in between (proper federalism, perhaps), then so be it - it's their decision.
Nationalism and internationalism are not necessarily opposites but often are. It is called the Scottish National Party isn't it? The Scots are not culturally different to the rest of the UK, exaggerating a few minor differences does not make them any more different than the people in different regions of every other nation in the world. Scotland already has self determination, they already have their say at Westminster as well as a government in Scotland and they have local councils to administer things at local level.
That's the problem, though - the say that they have in the overall running of their own country is such a minority one compared with the say of others. I don't see anything wrong with them deciding that they should have more, or even total, control of their own destiny. How 'different' they are is a subjective matter - what is important in this context is how different they themselves feel their aims for their country are compared with the way that their country is being run (because they don't have the majority say in how their country is run).
They have more say than most other groups of 5 million people. How different they are isn't all that subjective, the Lowland Scots are practically English anyway and at various times in history a lot of them actually have been and Northern English Scots. The Norse culture of the North East is no different to the Norse culture of Dane Law England and the Westeners are just descendants of the Irish people who could swim. Your s**t stinks just like everybody else's mate.
Yes, it is, and the important factor is not how different they might have been at some point in history, nor whether they are different in some ways from each other, but whether they feel themselves to be a distinct 'nation', with an identity of their own, now. Clearly they do.
It's a matter of terminology. For centuries the English Government, for instance, imposed a foreign language that no-one spoke on us. What do you call people who object to that? 'Normal people' is not acceptable as a name for a political party, and 'nationalist' is what the bully-boys call objectors. The Westminster Parliament is dominated by the English home counties, and has imposed its tory filth on us again and again, even when scarcely any of us voted for them: what is suitable for rich forelock-tuggers is not suitable for us, see. You are being totally naive.
While one might , going by todays standards , sympathize if you some feel a foreign language was "imposed " on them , however , imagine what you life would be like if you were capable of ccommunicate with a much wide world - in the English Language , rather than restricted to a single language - spoken only within a very small country ? With respect to yr language , ( I dont wish to devalue it ) but would Welsh ever have spread around the world as English have . ? Afteral language is just a means of communication . innit ? - (wink)
Well yes, they have ancient tribal instincts like I said. About time they moved on and saw them for what they are, a part of human nature no longer a survival factor.
The instinct to belong to a community is a part of human nature, and there's nothing wrong with that. Although it can develop into something more unpleasant when taken to extremes, in itself it doesn't have to mean a resistance to 'outsiders' of any sort. That's the part where the 'survival factor' come in - nothing wrong with feeling a part of a 'nation', with some shared common identity and characteristics (and possibly some consequent general political views), but it doesn't any longer need to mean that you have to regard anyone else as 'enemies' or even 'inferior' in any way. Believing one's own culture to be somehow more 'special' than another is wrong, but that's not the same as enjoying it as being 'special personally to oneself'. To me that is the essence of 'internationalism' - to enjoy, embrace and celebrate all cultures and 'nations' equally for what they are, including one's own, but not to seek to wipe out all of those unique cultures and nations in favour of a 'one world' collective universal identity - to me that latter idea is every bit as offensive as any other form of 'cultural supremacy'.
No, there is nothing wrong with feeling Scottish but there is no need for political independence for that, the Scots have managed to feel Scottish without it for long enough to see that. The only reason for political independence is to control the oil revenue.
I agree that they don't need independance to feel 'Scottish', but the only reason for political independance is that they think they can run their country 'better', from their point of view, than the way it is being run as part of a union in which they only have a minority democratic stake. Nothing wrong with that - as the people of a country, that's their decision to make.
Fredc seems to be obsessed with the oil revenue. He's made so far 14 posts in various threads mentioning oil revenue and all but one is in threads about Scottish Independence. What he doesn't seem to realise is that the oil revenue will be a bonus on which the Scottish Government does not intend to depend for day to day maintenance. He talks as if that is all Scotland has going for it. We won't need it if we can organise our economy to suit our own needs and meet our own problems. After all, without oil, Scotland, at the beginning of 2012 was second only to London and the South East regarding economic output per head of population. And it seems to me that if a Scottish government can do that on the pocket money they are allowed......what might they be able to do with a full income with no powers "reserved" to Westminster? At the very least, we'd probably spend a lot less on fighting wars at the behest of America...and not have a proportionate share of that white elephant, Trident, which serves only for the prestige value it gives Westminster governments among the International bodies they are as desperate to be a part of as the social climber who wants to join the posh golf club.
They already do run their country, they elect a Parliament to run things Scottish and things British, like the economy would still be run by Westminster after Independence. Which leaves their pretence to be against war while backing the war in Libya.
When I start raking through people's past posts to find how many times they use a word you can start calling me obsessed. I didn't see many SNP MPs about before they found the oil.
