Scots Begin Struggle For Independence:

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by janpor, Jan 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,824
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I have to admit, I missed this on my I Phone earlier and only just saw it now. Maybe I shouldn't have gone on and on about you forgetting that you had posted Cox, given this admission. But you don't explain why you were so abusive that I should address the themes that Cox raised. I suppose you see now why I was referring to Thatcher and Shinwell and Maxton, and the "past" because these were points and themes that Cox raised and not because I wanted to "post pointless crap" as you nicely suggested. I won't count on any sort of olive branch for your completely unprovoked abuse though. I am as indifferent to Cox's celebrity as you are. But I think if you post a speech for its passion then the words of the speech are also of some importance and you shouldn't berate me for mentioning them. Besides, passion for an actor is bread and butter. I think what he said was much more significant than how he said it and "who Cox is" is irrelevant to that. The real passion was in the measured and controlled way he developed his story - of history, signposts and historical destiny. That's why I was harping on about the past, because I was discussing his speech.

    I don't despise SNP supporters. I might vote nationalist (if I lived in Scotland who else would there be to vote for?) though probably not for someone who called me a burbling Unionist with a little brain. I see a major danger with nationalism and believe that whilst it may be justified in a limited way as a protest against injustice, (the reason for voting for it and supporting things like Irish independence and the heroism of the Easter Rising) it is ultimately a negative and reactionary ideology that seeks isolationism. This has been my consistent theme. There are good reasons to be nationalist in the short term as long as there is a strong will to transcend that nationalism after liberation. I don't see that from your posts. But that doesn't mean I despise you. To be honest I am very dismayed at the vicious personal attacks from you and others, which were quite unsolicited, and based on my decrying of my own "race" in Ireland for having never raised their sights to that internationalism. My view may be that nations and communities need to raise their sights to liberal internationalism instead of socialist internationalism, but other than that I still agree very strongly with James Connolly's warning of the sterility of nationalism.

    Replace liberalism for socialism and I very much sympathize with Connolly. His vision and ambition for his nation are what is striking. He won't settle for just independence. That's not any sort of worthwhile prize to him. You don't have to agree with his Marxism to see where he was coming from.

    Don't make the mistake now of forgeting who Connolly is: that's Connolly the Glaswegian Irish nationalist, executed by the British as the Commander in Chief of the IRA in the Easter Rising. Here was a man to whom nationalism was merely a first and temporary step. And yet this man was the leader of the movement that liberated ireland from British rule. A nationalist, but not a fascist and certainly not someone spouting "pointless crap".
     
  2. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oddquine is a woman, btw. You know well enough it doesn't matter how people speak to you, you require to respond civilly.

    Sigh...I'm the devil for being part of groupthink, but you are grouping everyone together and blanket judging/criticising all of us whilst you seem not to know anything about our politics or our real views.:dead:

    So... which one of the identities within your highly credible and respected Wiki link (/sarcasm) do you think SNP falls into? Ref: 3. Varieties. Take your time.

    Whichever one, it is of little interest as my entire interest in SNP is to support them until they achieve the aim of extricating Scotland from the UK.

    When that is done the SNP will come under close scrutiny. It has been elected by many of us on one criteria only, but will then revert to the same status as any other political party running for election, i.e. its policies will be examined and votes cast on the basis of policies, not independence.
     
  3. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why would I be? Are you embarrassed at the twaddle you post?

    It was a great speech. You don't have to agree with every word..or even every sentiment, to think a speech is great. Delivery, particularly in an emotional situation is just as important. I have no idea who was in the audience.but I'd guess a fair few socialists, or at least left of centre people, so of course he was going to do Socialist history in Scotland....and he'd likely have done that even if he wasn't politically inclined that way himself. I know I would have.......because a great speech tells those listening what they want to hear, doesn't it?

    You do rather have a problem when it comes to actually reading what was said in a post (is it a form of dyslexia?), and find it easier to respond to stuff which was only said by the wee voice in your own head. I get the impression that you Internationalists loathe everyone who doesn't think as you do..I know a couple of others who claim to be Internationalists..and they are just as arrogant in attitude. Is it learned as part of the indoctrination? And, btw, I didn't call you racist..I said you were extrapolating something from the opinion of one person (ie me, who isn't even a member of the SNP)...... just as another individual tarred a whole population based on the behaviour of one person in one situation.

    I didn't denounce anyone..but I did comment that Marx etc are no longer relevant in Scotland, and I rather think not in the UK either. I didn't say they never were, or that they never will be again....just that they are not now in Scotland, or the UK and haven't been since before Nulabour shrugged on its blue jacket with the token red lapels. Care to tell me how many MPs or MSPs there are in the UK and Scotland who espouse and practise Marxist philosophies, and how many people vote for them? When was the last time you voted for a REAL Socialist in a UK election. Nearest we ever got to Socialism was once having five SSP MSPs in Scotland, and funnily enough...the SSP are in favour of independence.

    I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, because I have responded to it, or something very like it in varying ways in every post of yours to which I have responded on any thread to do with Scottish Independence..and, frankly, I can't be bothered any more. I'm not particularly interested in discussing your opinions on internationalism and socialism socialism. And as for blaming the state of politics in the UK on Scottish Labour. You are, I assume aware no such animal as Scottish Labour actually exists...there is certainly UK Labour, Scottish Branch...so if the 13000 + Labour Party members in Scotland can outvote the Labour Party membership of the rest of the UK to destroy the Labour Party, then isn't that just as much the fault of the non-Scottish members (or lack of members)? Just think, if we had had Independence before Blair, the Labour Party might still have been left wing-ish...and never have been in Government to spend all that money the UK didn't have.
     
  4. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,296
    Likes Received:
    3,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I found this article yesterday. I think it roughly presents my position. People who link Independence with Nationalism are really missing the point. It has nothing to do with Irish Nationalism so linking it there is off the mark. People who link it with the SNP also miss the point. Independence is not a vote for the SNP. It is a vote for Independence. The SNP is just a collection of people who believe Scotland can do better governing herself. After any independence the SNP probably sooner rather than later will gently disappear as people join other parties and form new ones suited to their own viewpoint and the new Political arena which will be created. If people can start to understand these things then it would be more possible to begin to understand what Independence is really about.

     
  5. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Given how abusive I can be, I didn't think I was that bad, tbh, kinda think you are a wee shade thin-skinned if you can categorise anything I said as vicious.....but maybe I lost it a bit because you missed the point of the whole speech.

    The history of the labour movement was background as to how he came to be in favour of Independence, it was not the whole of the speech, although to read your subsequent responses, anyone would be forgiven for thinking the video was a eulogy to Socialism under its various guises. The video was not meant to give you yet another platform to propound your rather old-style nostalgia for what existed once, relatively briefly in the UK, and is now no more. The video was posted because I thought it said what most Scots, even many of those who will vote to pull the Unionist Security blanket over their head, really think.

    Nowhere in the title of this thread do I see the words nationalism or internationalism, or if it comes to that, Socialism...but you talk about little else.

    Connolly was a man of his time for his time, and is justly remembered for being just that...but with the best will in the world, there is Buckley's chance of international socialism..or just internationalism in this world....and not because we have a plethora of nation states and nationalist movements but because governments are run by politicians who do what is best for them first...and the people are led by people who do what is best for themselves first...and are so divided that they are never going to form a united whole.

    The whole concept of internationalism, whatever your definition of it, is a theory on the same lines as those which claim the media will regulate themselves, the banks will regulate themselves, the application of Freidman economic theory will trickle resources down from the obscenely rich to the poor and disadvantaged and that a few nations with nuclear weapons protect world peace etc....and we have seen how well those theories have succeeded.

    We can't even make the UN and International Courts work, because of the politicians.....so why would we think that anything is going to change as long as people with ambitions exist?
     
  6. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,824
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not really thin skinnned. I just remark upon how the nationalists (ie the ones supporting the Scottish Nationalist party's campaign for independence) on here have resorted very quickly indeed to abuse instead of debate. It's not the abuse - being called a racist, a burbling small brained Unionist, or just English - that I really object to. It's the lack of ideas in the posts. The responses have been so dumb and so devoid of any argument or insight. Just abuse. How sad. But this is where we are.

    Your posts are the exception because you put me right on a few things, not least that the Left's opposition to nationalism was only the Marxist Left. I learned from you there. But apart from that you, along with the rest of your fellow country(wo)men, chose to misrepresent what I was saying, rather than argue with it. You even misrepresent Cox, whose whole theme was how Scottish history had led to this moment (signposts), with the struggles of the Left being most of that. He was clear how the oppression of the Scottish working class had led him directly to seek a voice for his country. He was very clear that he was not voting for separation from England, but separation from Westminster and that England could also benefit from the same thing. This is very different from the shrill anti-English sentiment you have posted with others (even if it is only indifference, that cold inhumanity is anti-English to me). You are right that this could be the winning argument because the majority of Scots are anti-nationalist (according to opinion polls they have no desire to be seoparate from England). The most powerful argumenmt for "Yes" is that Mercia, Northumberland, Wessex etc. need independence too.

    But this thread is so peppered with anti-English statements that its wearing a bit thin for people to state that they are not nationalist. Over and over again people say that they don't want to be governed by the English. This is nationalism. It doesn't per se make it wrong, but it defines one's struggle in terms of nation. When someone like me argues for internationalism we are accused of being English Unionists, when we are just as (or even moreso) opposed to the isolationists within England who want to tow Britain into the middle of the Atlantic, as we are to Scottish separatists. If I am against nationalism my nationality is irrelevant. I'm against nationalism everywhere and as a citizen of the world regard it as my duty to not be cowed by people berating me because I do not come from their nation. So when I criticize the Chinese nationalists who and they accuse me of being a running dog of British imperialism, it feels much the same as when I am accused of ignoring English parochialism by the Scottish. Nationality is a very loose thing. It only very partially defines me. I certainly don't stand behind the excesses of my nation and those excesses do not debar me from having an opinion. Except to a nationalist. It certainly does not take away my right to defend the students of Tian an Men (on today the 23rd anniversary) or in anyway give credence to the whining nationalist defence that I am interfering in some "nation's" affairs and should worry about what the British did in the Sudan or India rather than what nationalists are up to.

    But you find this attitude to be opinionated and authoritarian. I suggest that this is because you see every challenge to your opinion as being so. There is no culture now of debate in the West. It was one of Stalinism's legacies to the West that it was destroyed. Otherwise you would see that my position was highly nuanced, conceded a great deal to the Scottish nationalists and people like Cox, was insightful into the long history of nationalism, from Garibaldi, Emmet et al through to James Connolly and now the actor Brian Cox. Nationalism has been a liberator and an oppressor. But your response is now to accuse those who have a principled disgareement with nationalism (even though they seek out nationalists as ideological allies in many ways) of being authoritarian. And your disassociation of the main plank of the Scottish Nationalist Party's program - independence - from the concept of "nationalism" is just preposterous sophistry.

    I suggest that when you look for authoritarianism and dogmatism, you look for the plank in your own eye, before looking for the splinter in the eye of your neighbour.
     
  7. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This pro-Independence poster stands by her perception that you missed the point of the whole speech. You missed the point that what Brian Cox was doing was describing his gradual journey towards supporting Independence despite a Socialist background which had him for years a high profile Labour Party member in a UK Unionist Labour Party. I heard his mentioning of Keir Hardie et al as him saying that the Labour Party, as it was in the past when Scots were at the forefront of it, is not the Labour Party as it is now in the UK, and not the Labour Party we'd like to see in Scotland, but the one we have nevertheless. It is no longer Socialist to any great degree and the members of the SLP and ILP would be birling in their graves to see what Socialism has become in the later 20th and 21st century.

    He said...."But this is not about England, it's about Westminster and the fact the politicians in London don't think further than Westminster Bridge.

    "They have done nothing for the Scottish people over the decades, and that is why I am supporting independence."

    I posted that one rather than one of the others or the composite one used at the launch, because he describes eloquently how many Scots, who were not, as I was, nationalists on principle from a young age, have moved in the independence direction over the years, particularly since 1979, because the Union is not working. Since 1707. it has certainly worked for some, there is no doubt about that..but not for the majority.

    I could write reams about the history of Scotland under the Union as seen through Scottish eyes, starting with the almost immediate and regular breaking of the Union Treaty, use of Scottish lands and people to satisfy the English need for food for their increasing population and soldiers for their eternal wars, and the effort to subsume Scottish culture and sense of identity to replace it with a British one, which heralded the Scottish Enlightenment, and to an extent, our political attitudes etc..but I won't, because it will simply be judged as parochial as I perceive British history as seen through English eyes and taught in UK schools to be.

    But I will say that, at the time of Keir Hardie, his Scotland, apart from mainly Conservative Glasgow, was mostly Liberal (which was as near centre-left as existed then), as was my home constituency in the North, so on entering politics, he tried to stand as a Liberal MP, with the encouragement of the miners of Mid-Lanark but was turned down as a candidate. It makes one wonder if he had not been, if there would ever have been a Scottish Labour Party at all....or an ILP.

    The pity is that the Lib-Dems have left Liberal philosophy behind in their eagerness to taste power, so that rather reduces my preferences for my first vote in an Independent Scotland.

    Forgive me if I look at figures and compare 650 MPS in the House of Commons, split into 533 MPs representing English Constituencies, and a total of 117 MPs representing all the rest of the UK (59 from Scotland, 18 from Northern Ireland and 40 from Wales) as a Parliament in which England can dictate the UK economic policies, benefits and social security, defence, foreign policy, employment, trade and industry, immigration etc, to their benefit, despite the fact that they effect the other countries as well.....and if I then call that control of the UK by England..and occasionally use the shorthand English, believe me I am talking about the UK Government, as the vast majority of us are. It doesn't become you to copy so many Americans on here, and take the name of the country, or the nationality to equate to the people, and not the Government, when the context does not support that interpretation.

    There is no democracy, fairness and equity in the UK for any country but England within it...that is the consequence of absorption of smaller countries by a bigger one and no amount of calling it a Union changes the facts. A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig.

    I don't really have much quarrel with the concept of internationalism, tbh, just with the fact that you talk, in a thread about Scottish independence, about practically nothing else. Internationalism is a laudable ambition, but not one I can ever see being attained, as I have already said in another post...but I do quarrel with your definition of nationalism. It seems to me without a distinct voice and identity chosen by the people themselves, there is no basis from which to reach out to like minded people in order to form alliances and come together. Perhaps that why the UK is still working solely for its national interests and not for internationalism and world peace......because there is no distinct British voice and identity, as you can't impose an identity on different nations and make it stickable...it has to grow naturally.

    If you care to start a thread about internationalism, nationalism and how you see how the world could successfully come together to work for each other and world peace, I'd be happy to take part....but with the best will in the world, a debate on internationalism versus nationalism is not a debate on the struggle for Scottish independence, though it does rather epitomise the struggle we are facing...the fact that polarised attitudes on both sides stifle debate...and can attract intemperate and abusive remarks and more polarisation from those irritated by the inability/reluctance to address points made.
     
  8. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,824
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Oddquine we might be getting somewhere although we are still a long way apart.

    I don't really understand your characterization of Cox's contribution being about the Labour Party. It was more about the Left. As to Scots not being at the forefront of the Labour Party I think you are forgetting about the last Labour government. I think its OK for Jewish Londoners to have a turn isn't it. Prior to Milliband the last three Labour Leaders have had strong Celtic backgrounds. Are you arguing that Cox would have been "Unionist" if the Labour Party were still "left" but since it has abondoned its socialism (under Scottish and Welsh stewardship) it is a better bet for leftists to seek power in devolved political jurisdictions? That is a credible argument. It is not a nationalist one.

    I don't argue that every argument for independence has to be a nationalist one. I just argue that most arguments on this thread, and most arguments that come from the SNP ARE nationalist arguments. Inlcuding many of yours. Avoiding the word nationalist is an intellectual copout for many and surrendering it to the fascists is a disgrace. I may disagree with nationalism but I do acknowledge and respect its long and progressive pedigree. I think writing off Emmet, Connolly, Garibaldi ad Cavour as fellow travellers of Marina LePen, is quite frankly disgusting and Scottish nationlaists trying to spin something soft and cuddly from their ideological beliefs should stop doing this.

    Exactly. As I said. Not a nationalist argument from Cox. An anti-Westmister argument that would be supported by many English people sick of being governed by an elite whose only experience is London (particularly a New Labour elite). But this has not been your argument. When invited to consider this perspective you dismissed the appropriateness of any solidarity with the English on this one as "people who have done very little for Scotland". This is a nationalist argument ipso facto. You argued that nationality was of supreme importance in determining the governance of your nation. That is a nationalist argument. You argued for isolation from England and defined the English politically, not as people with certain economic interests or ideology or class background, but just as English. The most important defining characteristic to determine the governance of your country was nationality. This is a nationalist argument, whether you agree with it or not.

    I reject this as do many Scots, as regarding myself as someone who has far more in common with a Scots Irish Glaswegian than a Surrey socialite. I remember being in Scotland (Oban...what a great night that was!) with some Liverpudlian friends of mine and we met some Glaswegians of our age group. Just by our names we identified a common cultural identity that would have eluded many of our own countrymen (Irish Catholics living in sectarian cities in this case). Nationality is just about the most bourgeois, philistine and reactionary quality that people have in common. It is the most superficial trait. And this was the timeless point that Connolly was making. Of course Connolly was a man of his times, as an ex-socialist liberal I am the first to admit that. But his characterization of nationalism as epehemeral, inadequate and illusory was timeless. Whoop it up for liberty!

    Of course it is not ridiculous to talk about Scottish history. What is ridiculous is to define the oppression as something driven by nationality. This is the same for Ireland. The oppressors are always defined as English, even when they were actually Irish. There is still a lot to be said for a class analysis when analyzing history. Remember at Culloden the Scottish fought on both sides. Scots and English have both gained and lost in history. In Hong Kong where I live, the greatest "Hong" was founded by a Scot and a Yorkshireman. The streets still abound with Scottish names. Scots were at the foreront of British imperialism and the country piles built in Scotland in the nineteenth century testify to such wealth being extracted from the Empire and redeployed in Scotland.

    All this whining (sorry but that is what it is) about the English using the Scottish as cannon fodder is just a cherry picking version of history. Scottish troops enriched Scottish imperialists as well as English ones. These are the facts. Scottish people also transplanted the population of Ireland in the seventeenth century, confining the Irish catholic population "to Hell or Connaught" and enriching themselves at the same time (as well as being the leading players in a crime against humanity that still kills people today!). Is this abominable crime to be crudely laid at the door of the Scottish nation, Celtic collaborators taking the English penny to ethnically cleanse their Irish cousins? Of course not! This would be an illitrate and vulgar reading of history. It is of course far more complicated than that and nationality is only a small detail of what was happening here, which was in fact the early development of the English and Scottish Enlightenment on the back of protestant reformation and repudiation of Catholicism. History does not move in simple good versus evil, Scots versus English paradeigms. Nationalism may be a cry against oppression, and for a time may be a medicine that can fight a major force of evil, but it loses its potency very quickly by its over reliance on nation and nationality as critical political drivers.
     
  9. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,824
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    There is nothing Scottish about this. It is exactly the same in England, including the emergence of the Labour Represntation Committee from the Liberal Party (led by Kier Hardie).

    But this is nonsense. It paints a picture of an English bloc against a Scottish bloc. This is just a fantasy. It is not how it works in reality. One of the reasons that Labour is Unionist is because it needs Scottish votes to withstand their bitter enemies the English Tories. Whether this is right or not, it is hardly an English bloc plotting to deny Scotland is due. You define political ideology again mainly by nationality - differently from Cox - and this is a classic nationalist approach. But it's not difficult to see that leftist (or liberal) English people see Scottish people as their political kin and English Tories as their bitterest enemies. This is the reality, not your "poor wee Scotland oppressed by those nasty English". The West Lothian question, posed by a Scottish Labour MP, was at the heart of this. Millions of English make common cause with far less Scots and Welsh in order to defeat the millions of other English whose ideology they hate with a vengeance.

    My point is that however much you try to wiggle out of it, your arguments are nationalist. Internationalism is the clear alternative to nationalist arguments. Internationalism and independence can accommodate each other but they should do so explicitly. You have called for Scotland to be independent even of the EU. That puts you with the English Tories to me (not that I don't think the EU shouldn't be reformed). An independent Scotland within a federal Europe is something I would strongly support. Decentralization of power within an international federation is the classic internationalist panacea. The thing is, I wonder if you are starting to see this, is that I don't disagree with independence. But I disagree with nationalist arguments for independence, and this with your references to how England has done terrible things to Scotland etc., is the basis for your arguments and those of others here. Where I came in was that if the only basis for independence was nationalism - the whole core of your argument here which is consistently framed in terms of nationality as a political bloc and constantly ignores issues of economic status, ideology or class - then you could end up like Ireland.

    And Ireland is a dismal failure. the experience of Irish people is much worse since 1922 than the experience of Scots. Connolly's nightmare has come true. Ireland became a failed theocratic state, dominated by a reactionary Church (my church, to which I still belong), highly conservative and anti-modernist, with "freedom fighters" whose idea of liberation was to blow up people in pubs or murder children and pregannt women in shopping centres. Ireland is still though superbly nationalist, still excellent at whining about how the English had done for them for so long, and still wallowing in political and economic relevance...as its exiles rule the world. Scotland should avoid Ireland's fate, and it will do so by listening to Welsh's Renton. Scotland was not exploited by "England". Scottish people were exploited and enriched, as were English people, by the British Empire. Scottish people were perpetrators and victims of Scottish and English oppression, as were English people.

    Nations are illusory constructs that arose to consolidate the power of a feudal lord. Look at how nationalists (even I wallow in this sometimes) eulogize feudal relics. Take the great Gaelic folk song: Óró Sé do Bheatha 'Bhaile. In Ireland the heroine is Gráinne O'Malley, a tyrant from the West Coast up to her neck in blood. In Scotland it is Cherlie, rallying the clans against the English. In fact these two were nothing more than feudal warlords, enemies of progress. But to nationalists they are great heros and they still sing rousing and moving songs in their memory.
     
  10. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is likely to be a succession of replies to individual points...and likely won't be in consecutive posts..though maybe they will, as it looks like there's only me and you talking just now.

    I don't think there will ever be a meeting of minds......but we may be able to agree to disagree...perhaps.

    You are the one who is characterising Cox's contribution as being about Labour/left politics at all......I heard it as about Independence and why he had moved to a position of being for Independence from being a Unionist. I actually thought that Why I support Scottish Independence at the head of the video was pretty self-explanatory.

    I'm not saying that Cox would still have been Unionist if the Labour Party were still left of centre....I got the impression that it was the complete lack of fairness and equity in UK Government policies towards Scotland, particularly since the 1970s, which moved him in the Independence direction. I certainly heard it as him being disappointed at the Torying of Nulabor, but I think it unlikely that the ethos of a UK Parliament would change even with a real left-wing Labour Government...but if he thought it would, and one had been elected instead of the Coalition, he may have taken longer to realise that it has little to do with which colour of Government is in charge, but the fact that it is a Unionist Government in charge.

    Scots Unionists may have strong representation in the UK Labour Party, but that does not mean Scots are at the forefront of it....because if they were, they would not have been ignoring Scotland..both within the Union and within Scotland. Certainly Scottish Unionists were PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer...which could be termed as at the forefront, and certainly Scottish Unionist MPs were over-represented in the Cabinet.....but what benefit was that to Scotland in a Union Parliament? I don't give a toss who runs Labour, or any party, tbh, it could be a sky-blue pink spotted oompah loompah from Planet Mog, for me.....all I worry about is the effect whichever UK Government in charge has on Scotland and the Scots. The Scottish influence in the UK Labour Party is reducing significantly year on year anyway..which is likely down to the level of numptyism currently on show nowadays.

    Nationalism,(with a small n) is about wanting your country and your people to be the best that they can be through their own efforts...taking responsibility for themselves, and reaping the rewards which result..or accept the failures and try another direction. The Union negates that choice, independence would give us that chance..devolution, at any level would just be the Union with the thumb raised slightly, but still ready to be firmly planted again if the Union wanted....and the level of devolution imposed on us to be applied after the vote, gives us nothing at all more than we already had, bar we are now obliged to use the powers, and pay for the privilege.

    Whatever the politics of an Independent Scotland may be, it will be our choice, and we will decide. If left, right or centre voters want to vote for Independence solely on the strength of making Scotland into their particular vision of what Scotland could be, that's fine..all that matters is that the choice is ours, not the choice of 55 million people who don't live here and are voting for their own particular political visions, which are not necessarily ours.

    OK......so given you know so much about everything...you tell me what my ideological beliefs are.
     
  11. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,296
    Likes Received:
    3,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
  12. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There's a 2 by 4 in your eye, Hero, but Carry on Evading. Nobody in Scotland is ruled by the English. That is a myth put about by the English. :p

    It's not about that. And some of us are internationalist to trade, we would prefer to be an independent country within internationalism.

    It's not rocket science.
     
  13. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Care to link me to the post where I said "people who have done very little for Scotland" re the English?

    Care to link me to the post in which I argue "nationality was[is] of supreme importance in determining the governance of your[my] nation."

    Care to link me to the post where I argue "for isolation from England and defined the English politically, not as people with certain economic interests or ideology or class background, but just as English."

    I have just trawled through every post I have made on the 49 pages of this thread, and I see nothing which could be reasonably interpreted as saying any of the above...but then I just read what I have written without processing it through bias.

    Until you do, and also respond to my request as to so given you know so much about everything...you tell me what my ideological beliefs are...you are on my ignore list, because I have better things to do than respond to people who appear unable to read the English written in posts without first subjecting it to some convoluted travel through their "brains" to emerge as biased self-serving interpretation allowing even more pointless and off-topic remarks.
     
  14. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,824
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Viv, you were right that I was too dismissive to Oddquine, which you strangely expressed through a Rep, although we are still missing the point of each others argument to some degree. But what is this drivel from you? Your replies to me are nothing but trolling ranging from this kind of superficial tat to "whatever you say I don't care...".

    Of course Scotland IS ruled by the English and it is not, at the same time. The reality is more nuanced than your silly post here. And of course I have no issue with those who want delf determination within an internationalist conetx, as I have extensively argued. I started off by arguing that nationalism frequently ended up establishing a society in a nationalist context, anmd preferred isolationism to internationalism. I took issue with those who sought independence for nationalist reasons. I pointed out that Ireland was the result of such thinking - a failed state by any historical measure. I was called a racist for my trouble and you joined the lynch mob. Forgive me then if I don't take your little pieces of flamebait too seriously Viv.
     
  15. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,824
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I have explained in detail why I think your posts are nationalist, mainly by referring directly to the text you posted and then directly below such text making such an argument. Reading your request for clarification I started to painstakingly start to explain in even more detail why I considered your posts to be nationalist, including clarifying some of my more sweeping statements that on checking, referred to what other posters had posted or inferred:

    The first sentence you quote was regarding you remarking on a lack of solidarity between the people of Northern England and Scotland. This is what youb posted. I accept that I may have overinterpreted this but I didn't invent it.

    The second sentence you quote is my evaluation of your argument, the same argument which I quoted above the said evaluation; again I didn't invent it but you may argue that I have misinterpreted it (but you can't be botherd so...).

    The third again refers to the weight of your arguments with me on this thread and is my interpretation of your argument that frames an argument about good government primarily in terms of nationality - as of course every argument for independence must, in one way or another. Again I invented nothing and my interpretation of your argument, and every pro-independence argument, was reasonable and honestly made.

    Interpreting the other persons argument, and then answering that, is how argument actually works, right back to the days of Socrates. If debate is not conducted like this, it is only likeminded people agreeing or people from different camps throwing abuse at each other. It does require effort and application and is not easy. People do not alwatys understand each other first, or even second time round. Good debate takes a lot of re-statement or clarification. That can be a little tedious I know when a good slanging match is such an easy alternative. You don't choose to apply such effort regarding my arguments which is of course your choice. I am following a method of debate where you take a position and examine it for its weaknesses and strengths and then by restating the argument highlight its weaknesses. It seems that this is not your cup of tea. Instead of getting really deeply into it and suggesting where I have got it wrong, or where perhaps your argument did not wholly do justice to your position - something I am trying to do - you prefer to accuse me of some sort of deceit or boorishness. I am afraid that reflects more on you than me. I may not have got my argument as finely honed as it could be, but at least I'm not indulging in cries of "foul" and taking my ball home.

    Your last sentence though about putting me on ignore is really quite pathetic. I have made a perfectly respectable argument against nationalism, nuanced and balanced if strongly worded in some parts. You are the only one who has mustered any arguments against me, and so I thank you for that in the midst of the shrill abuse from others. But it seems that when you were calling me thin skinned you were perhaps reflecting an insecurity of your own. If you mistake rigour in argument for arrogance and can only respond with feigned outrage to reasonable arguments, then I can't help you, and to pursue this any further is indeed a waste of time. When I see such hysterical responses from a mob, as I have seen on here, then it is pretty much an indication that I've touched a raw nerve, that those who react with so much anger know their argument to be built on flaws, and that there is a universal truth in the arguments I am putting forward, even if I haven't quite nailed those arguments to the mast yet. I'm obviously getting too close for comfort.
     
  16. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,824
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The following quote does this:

    In fact you ignored all my argument as to why arguments like this one above - looking at history through English, Scottish or even British eyes - were a load of bollocks.

    When I say that there were no "Scottish troops fighting in English wars" and that the two adjectives describing nationality in this sentence are completely misplaced, you accuse me of going off at a tangent. These wars were not about nationality, but about money and power, and both Scots and English benefited from and suffered from such wars. You accuse me of a diversion, and yet, this is clearly what you have said (see quote I cite here to be clear), that Scottish soldiers were dragged off to fight English wars (your words "satisfy the English need for...soldiers for their eternal wars"). This is nationalist drivel and a myth couched in terms of nationality and it is absolutely appropriate for me to challenge you on this.

    The oppression of Scottish people in history was nothing to do with the Englishness of their oppressors. Nothing whatsoever. Just as the crime against humanity that was committed by Scottish people in Ireland in the seventeenth centrury had nothing to do with their Scottishness. Much of these historical phenomena you refer to were driven by religion and pan European political convulsions caused by the Reformation and the Enlightenment. National identity is a myth - another point that you would prefer to dismiss as irrelevant in an argument about national independence!

    Yes...you don't want to go there...apparently when I argue these things, this is just irrelevant and abusive to you...and the fact I know some history, to counter sentimental nationalist drivel about Scottish people being oppressed by the English (see your quote above!), makes this is even more annoying...just more evidence of my overbearing arrogance that you cannot be bothered with eh?
     
  17. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I see the Unionists have decided that negativity doesn't work. They appear to be be going for a Yes to Scottish Dependency theme in a week or so, rather than a No to Scottish Independence one.

    Wonder if they'll pass that message on to their supporters and the media and we will see less of the scaremongering and abuse and some real facts as to why we should choose to remain dependent and voiceless to make for some discussion? ;)

    Roll on the struggle!
     
  18. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,824
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    If only you would! But you keep replying.

    Drivelly ad hominem. Do I smell as well?

    Yabba yabba yes, here it is again, no argument but to call me racist for observing the parochial failure of Irish nationalism. Yawn. Apparently I am "racist" against the Scots as well (although you haven't pointed out where, you've just brought this one up now). These "arguments" are lazy, infantile and boring.

    I admit to mistakes but then I don't admit to my mistakes? Did you read the drivel above?

    The bullying tone is quite remarkable, seeking refuge in gang abuse and explicit ad hominem attacks. No arguments though. I'm an "arrogant, ignorant abusive fool" as well as a racist of course. Do you think this is an idea?

    The absence of argument and ideas just demonstrates the weakness of your position. It has been instructive to see the shallowness of the separatist position.

    Oddquine can make arguments by herself, but if you want to line up behind her, carry on. Still no arguments.

    Yes. You keep promising this. It's a threat that has me withering away. On the one hand I am arrogant and overbearing and then on the other I admit my weaknesses. It's pretty clear that whether I am right or wrong in my arguments here, actually having the temerity to disagree with Scottish separatism has worked up some people into quite a lather! Abuse, nasty personal attacks and "I'm putting you on ignore" is all they have. And calling me silly names of course.
     
  19. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's entirely subjective as well, but they can't see it. Most of the people who "just don't like" the idea of this, would support any other country in a struggle for independence.

    For example, solicit an opinion on Israel/Palestine from a person who accuses Scottish people of heinous bigoted nationalism (for wanting to return to governing our own country after a temporary political union with 3 other countries) and you may well find they have strong opinions on the ME situation which may involve supporting Palestinians or Israel in what could be viewed as a struggle for independence.

    I'm sure they would support anyone who felt effectively press-ganged into a union without their consent but in order to gain peace. Now we have a pretty secure peace and don't feel the need to remain in the press-gang created union as we are no longer risking continued bombardment and attack by an overbearing neighbour.

    But regarding Scotland, they see it as all different, a special case. It's like a red rag to a bull and immediately descends to abuse and trolling at what they perceive as silliness and destroying a thing that is good (for them) for no reason. According to them, we should remain where we are and not cause any disturbance in the world of those who are not Scots.
     
  20. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am so much better informed on the debate after reading this post.
     
  21. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,824
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Most people in England don't give a toss.

    You are of course just making this up aren't you?

    Pure nationalism. And an invention as over and over again Scottish people tell pollsters that they want to maintain the Union. Don't you think the deceit works against the separatist case. The lies that Scotland was press ganged into anything? Listen to your own national poet. He knew.

    The vast overwhelming majoruity of British people think it is up to the Scottish people whether they stay ion the Union or not. You just make this stuff up. Your problem is that the majority of the Scottish people in the twentieth century have chosen, either through their democratically elected representatives or a referendum, to remain in the Union and they confrim this choice every time they are asked in an opinion poll. Try as you might to induce anti-English xenophobia by portraying us as "knowing what's best for Scotland" - that old nationalist disreputable low down dirty trick - the truth is that nationalists are a minority in Scotland who just cannot accept the democratically expressed views of their compatriots. It's clear who has been calling abuse on this thread and who has been presenting arguments. The nationalist arguments have been empty waffle when they haven't been full of personal attacks. I wonder if this is typical or whether the separatists have something betteer to offer. As someone who would support more devolution across the whole of Europe, I would hope so.
     
  22. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Based on what? The surge in support for independence south of the border :rip:

    I don't lie and you may apologise when you're ready.

    Hero, it's a matter of history that the politician responsible sneaked this through when everyone else had gone home. Listen to objectivity. It was a case of the rich looking after themselves as usual. And we know they did not look after the people throughout our history.


    It is going to be up to the Scottish people. That is rather the point.

    Prove that.

    What is your opinion of Israel/Palestine?

    What was your opinion of apartheid and oppression of the South African non-white population?

    What is your opinion now of the African situation, is it good that all of the people are represented, the majority ethnicities of people living in that area are represented in government and a government exists which has an understanding and focus on their needs, i.e. they are not treated like an optional add on, parochial eejits who don't have to be catered for, particularly now their vote will not win Tories an election?

    I expect you think that has been an improvement for SA. Why would it not be an improvement for us to have a government which cares about Scottish issues and doesn't prioritise London over everything?

    Tell me this. When I was a kid, there were no drugs here. A Tory came along and decimated the service which prevented drug importation. That continues and is worsening and Scotland is now heaving with drugs as a result, because the Tory plan is completely inept. That is a social problem here. I don't think it would continue to this extent under a Scottish government, because I don't think a Scottish government would continue the deliberately triggered managed decline the Tories inflicted and I don't think a Scottish government would accept large swathes of the population living in a thriving drug culture. I think they would care about that and take steps to prevent it.

    The existing Scottish government has already initiated minimum pricing and laws to change the culture regarding religious bigotry. I just don't think it is going to lie down when it turns its attention to the drug culture.

    England-centric government doesn't give a flying eff about drug culture here and it never has. It is happy to allow Scottish people to languish in deprivation.

    I DON'T LIKE THAT.

    So I am voting for independence, because for one thing it is likely to improve social conditions in my country and will be more accessible to people like me. It will be run by people directly affected by what goes on in Scotland. Who know what goes on in Scotland because they are living here. If you don't like that...right back at you, Scottish people don't care. You would do what is best for you and I will be doing what my educated guess suggests is going to be best for me and my family.

    That is inaccurate. And it was inaccurate of the people who voted in the last referendum on this. What are your views of how Thatcher changed the goalposts on that occasion?

    Listen you. I am expressing my own genuinely held view of what is going on in my country. I have repeatedly told you I don't care about England and it's not about England. It's about what is good for my own country. Scotland.

    As you are slow to receive information, I will tell you again. I don't hate English people. I don't want anybody else to hate English people.

    Now be careful what slander you post regarding my views, because incitement to racial hatred is a criminal act here and I am not going to be inaccurately accused of it. Meanwhile noting your own comments may incite an English person to become irrationally angry toward Scots...:rage:

    Said the man who apparently has just posted inaccurate slander...

    Indeed, that is why we're having a referendum. Because we can't accept democratically expressed views, we have politicians in Parliament working on and discussing them all day and....:smile:

    If Scottish nationalists were like any other intolerant race across the world, it would be trying to instigate more than debate. Look to the Arab Spring for examples of what I mean. We are a democratic people who are working our own issues through in a democratic and non-violent way.

    I think it is clear who is calling abuse on this thread. :smile:

    The nationalist arguments differ from yours, which is actually fine and here we are required to respect the views of others and debate them.
     
  23. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,296
    Likes Received:
    3,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Have you seen Ed Milibands speech http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...speech-in-full-defending-the-union.2012061196

    I think this is where Westminster and the English press it would seem has got it all wrong. Scotland will not get Independence based on Nationalism. I would not vote for it on that and yet, unless I have got him wrong that seems to be what Miliband thinks or is pretending he thinks it is all about..and the solution, get all the English nationalists going around waving their George Cross and saying how proud they are to be English while also having a Union flag and saying how proud they are to also be British. He seems to be relying in that speech on a UK widespread Nationalist feeling which he can encourage and thereby unite the UK and so stop Independence.

    I also had a look the other day again at Jeremy Paxman's newsnight with Salmond including the introduction and I guess to some extent there is an understanding why some English people who rely on such tabloid sources do not have a clue what is going on.

    One interesting point that Miliband made in a later interview was that England would be economically less well off without Scotland - though I think I saw a post where someone had worked it out and it was about £45 a year, so nothing to lose sleep over.

    All the propaganda makes it difficult to look at real issues which are pertinent to Independence. Gregor Gall made a good point that the SNP are neo liberals. He pointed out that just going for Independence would not change that and we could end up very similarly to how we are now, just not a member of the Union. He felt that we should decide which areas of life were going go be part of the market and which social - working for the good of all. I think things like this are worth spending time on thinking and could be ascribed in our constitution. He also felt that in order to catch people's imagination just things like not having to go off on illegal wars and having nukes, all though it would interest some, would not be sufficient for many to see the benefits that independence could bring.

    Here's a link to him again http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2012/06/02/the-socialist-case-for-yes/

    I think the Independence Movement needs to get it together to start showing people what is on offer and not just get lost behind the SNP image and the anti Scottish Independence propaganda. The left are beginning to address this. Independence could miss out on getting it's message out if it wastes too much energy answering endless ad hominem attacks.
     
  24. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I rest my case. It's like trying to debate gun law with the US people. It can't be done without total loss of rationality and they can't see it at all.
     
  25. Falena

    Falena Cherry Bomb Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,747
    Likes Received:
    5,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread exceeded the thread posting limit.

    Feel free to create another thread.

    Falena
    Site Moderator
     
    Viv and (deleted member) like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page