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".