Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 7
Discussion
Strocky said:
r11co said:
It really is the huge elephant in the room regarding the SNP. Much as they and their supporters go out of their way to code the language they use to disguise it, they are motivated by xenophobia, and behave towards the English in a way that is perceived as akin to racism.
Regardless of the politics, to support them is to condone this behaviour, and ultimately it is a vile reason to seek and hold on to power.
This is one of the reasons why I've hardly posted on here over the past few months, the same old broadstroke applying to 1.5m Scots that at worst they're basically all racists and hate the English which is bRegardless of the politics, to support them is to condone this behaviour, and ultimately it is a vile reason to seek and hold on to power.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 25th August 07:39
ks, (it's anti-establishment / civic nationalism) or at worse they're deluded fools who should know better If you want to see contempt between the Scots/English, just trawl through the comments pages on the daily anti-SNP pieces in the Daily Mail / Telegraph
And what is that exactly? I can tell you how its perceived - closet racism, that's what.
"No, no, our nationalism - where we hate the english and blame them for everything is "civic", so its OK".
Its like saying "we're not nazis, we're fluffy cuddly nazis, which is fine. Look up fluffy & cuddly in the dictionary - see, its no problem".
If you look at the BBC thread on this forum, you will see many who agree that the BBC is biassed. What you will not have read is that thousands of the Beeb's critics should demonstrate outside their offices in order to intimidate them. That you seem unable to see the difference along with many of your fellow SNP supporters, illustrates how blinkered you appear.
Borghetto said:
If you look at the BBC thread on this forum, you will see many who agree that the BBC is biassed. What you will not have read is that thousands of the Beeb's critics should demonstrate outside their offices in order to intimidate them. That you seem unable to see the difference along with many of your fellow SNP supporters, illustrates how blinkered you appear.
Was the protest peaceful?Was the protest lawful?
Or are you against the public being allowed to peacefully demonstrate as the current Westminster Government seem to be?
Seems a tad Orwellian
///ajd said:
Strocky - "It's civic nationalism".
And what is that exactly? I can tell you how its perceived - closet racism, that's what.
"No, no, our nationalism - where we hate the english and blame them for everything is "civic", so its OK".
Its like saying "we're not nazis, we're fluffy cuddly nazis, which is fine. Look up fluffy & cuddly in the dictionary - see, its no problem".
Ssshhh the grownups are talkingAnd what is that exactly? I can tell you how its perceived - closet racism, that's what.
"No, no, our nationalism - where we hate the english and blame them for everything is "civic", so its OK".
Its like saying "we're not nazis, we're fluffy cuddly nazis, which is fine. Look up fluffy & cuddly in the dictionary - see, its no problem".
ianrb said:
Strocky said:
AstonZagato said:
X
I realise there is a smiley at the end but that is a worrying statement none the less.
That combined with your "means to an end" comment are telling.
It is that type of attitude which results in the type of poor governance that would apall any thinking person.
Have a word with yourself, chap. Getting independence through stifling debate, obscuring uncomfortable facts, distorting the truth, eliminating freedom of speech (especially by the press) and electing those who couldn't organise a panic in a doomed submarine is neither a price worth paying nor a recipe for success.
I think you know I was taking the proverbial with that comment, both sides during the Indy Ref where prone to spin, you can't condemn one side and condone the otherStrocky said:
AstonZagato said:
Silencing the free press is all part of the Nationalist agenda.
Not very "progressive" but Nationalism rarely is.
The BBC is state funded so they're fair game Not very "progressive" but Nationalism rarely is.
That combined with your "means to an end" comment are telling.
It is that type of attitude which results in the type of poor governance that would apall any thinking person.
Have a word with yourself, chap. Getting independence through stifling debate, obscuring uncomfortable facts, distorting the truth, eliminating freedom of speech (especially by the press) and electing those who couldn't organise a panic in a doomed submarine is neither a price worth paying nor a recipe for success.
The BBC have been called up for lack of impartiality on Iraq, Israel, Indy Ref & the UK GE as supporting the status Quo, I don't think Salmond calling out Robinson of being ironic by insinuating Putin like tactics by one protest is a threat to free speech
Or are the BBC some sacred cow that can't be criticised by a politician?
You are aware of Nick Robinson's political background?
Borghetto said:
If you look at the BBC thread on this forum, you will see many who agree that the BBC is biassed. What you will not have read is that thousands of the Beeb's critics should demonstrate outside their offices in order to intimidate them. That you seem unable to see the difference along with many of your fellow SNP supporters, illustrates how blinkered you appear.
This.Perceived bias will always begin from your own biased viewpoint: Telegraph readers will think the BBC has a left-wing institutional bias; Tribune readers will think it is right wing; Guardian readers will probably think it has no particular bias. Likewise on the independence debate: the BBC often failed to ask many very difficult questions of Salmond in the campaign - he was allowed to blather on unchallenged with the same lies about using the pound and having EU membership - enough to enrage pro-Unionists; he was once subjected to some tough questioning from Robinson (and Marr saying it would be "quite hard" for Scotland to remain in the EU) and the BBC became perceived as biased for the Union by Nationalists. In reality, it was probably about as neutral as it could have been.
Only one group organised a mob to try to influence the coverage in their favour. Only one side threatened "consequences".
Frankly, I thought the approach of the Yes campaign was terrifying for anyone with a social conscience. Shouting down opponents on the street, hounding them with mobs, intimidating journalists, perverting committee debate in parliament - none of these are the actions of democrats or people that can be trusted with anything more than being a milk monitor, not governing a country. That one would want to associate with people who act in such a manner is beyond me. Sometimes, the end does not justify the means and sometimes, the "means" tells you a lot about the people trying to achieve it (and therefore the rather-more-unpleasant-than-expected "end" that you would finally, in reality, realise).
Edited by AstonZagato on Tuesday 25th August 12:46
Strocky said:
This is one of the reasons why I've hardly posted on here over the past few months, the same old broadstroke applying to 1.5m Scots that at worst they're basically all racists and hate the English which is bks, (it's anti-establishment / civic nationalism) or at worse they're deluded fools who should know better.
Some of those 1.5m are members of my own family, and in the run-up to the referendum it got to the stage I was hiding updates from them on my Facebook Homepage because I was embarassed and depressed at some of the things they were saying/sharing. They were clearly lost in the hysteria, and I wanted to tell them to take a hard look at themselves because they were not the people I thought they were.ks, (it's anti-establishment / civic nationalism) or at worse they're deluded fools who should know better.So don't kid yourself Strocky that the emotion can be played down as some sort of noble cause. My father lived through the rise of fascism in Italy - he said the similarity in the behavioural change of people rallied to the 'Yes' cause was uncannilly and worryingly similar to how the rise of fascism polarised friends and families back then (needless to say he voted No, motivated by the concern of validating the behaviour of the Yes campaign and its supporters).
PS. Even more ironic when one of my fervent newly converted SNP supporting Anti-English Nationalist family members, who would preach to me about "anti-Toryism " and his belief in the redistribution of wealth, and who when he decided to stop working went 'on the panel' so he could claim two years of SSP, came to me cap-in-hand looking for a sub to meet his mortgage payments.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 25th August 13:06
Axionknight said:
"On the panel"?
Here ya go.PS. Said relative claimed he had a bad back, but still went fishing regularly during his 2 years 'on the panel'.
Strocky said:
r11co said:
You're going for a straw-man argument there. I'm talking about protest politics, like Syriza, Cinque Stelle in Italy and (yes) National Socialism.
Voting for a party that wants independence because so do you, in the belief that that is all they want to deliver and they will just head off into the sunset once it is achieved, or have no intention to pulll the levers of power in other ways you will not like but are willing to overlook is dangerous.
The SNP love to criticise the House of Lords (it has plenty wrong with it) but it is a traditional mechanism of checks and balances. Most true democracies have two houses of legislature (US Senate and HoR for example), and the UK also has a strong select committee system to achieve balance.
The Scottish Government has none of those, and the SNP put nothing in the White Paper about setting something like that up post-independence.
The HOL is one of the worst examples you could cite, in it's current form is an affront to democracy never mind decencyVoting for a party that wants independence because so do you, in the belief that that is all they want to deliver and they will just head off into the sunset once it is achieved, or have no intention to pulll the levers of power in other ways you will not like but are willing to overlook is dangerous.
The SNP love to criticise the House of Lords (it has plenty wrong with it) but it is a traditional mechanism of checks and balances. Most true democracies have two houses of legislature (US Senate and HoR for example), and the UK also has a strong select committee system to achieve balance.
The Scottish Government has none of those, and the SNP put nothing in the White Paper about setting something like that up post-independence.
Edited by r11co on Monday 24th August 12:33
No point having checks and balances when the members may offer their services to the highest bidder and are unelected
We have to houses, one elected, one appointed / hereditary, those in the second house don't vote for thoes in the first house (they give that up). The second house can reject a law but only once for a given reason. Because they are unelected they can stick by there views which are balanced by the fact that they come from different political view points across the house. They do not need to be everyday joes they need to understand the finer points of the un written British constitution and to an extent prevent the passing of laws that undermine that (bit not necessarily evolyou ve it).
Because they are un elected they cant be influenced by the outside views etc an can stick to there guns of course this means they are labbled out of touch but they cant reject a bill for the same reason twice.
Now tell me how does the Scottish Executive work.....I think we saw that in the indy ref where SNP members moved meetings on or avoided debates where they did not follow the party line. Just bneing elected does not make you democratic. The SNP is one of the least democratic groups I have seen in this country. Hiding of information pertinent to making an informed choice (the £ the EU membership etc all lies by the SNP....Lies not mistakes lies to get you to vote). They publish a white paper with Oil predictions way in advance of any other reliable source.....with your money they made these bare faced lies. An yet you want to bash a system that has worked for 100's of years.
Counteries do not become great over night there is no magic wand but to date the SNP have not made in the last 8 years scotland a better place even though they have many taxation and spending tools at there disposal.
They would rather have a go at the system, a person etc than have a go at making scotland great.
AstonZagato said:
Frankly, I thought the approach of the Yes campaign was terrifying for anyone with a social conscience. Shouting down opponents on the street, hounding them with mobs, intimidating journalists, perverting committee debate in parliament - none of these are the actions of democrats or people that can be trusted with anything more than being a milk monitor, not governing a country. That one would want to associate with people who act in such a manner is beyond me. Sometimes, the end does not justify the means and sometimes, the "means" tells you a lot about the people trying to achieve it (and therefore the rather-more-unpleasant-than-expected "end" that you would finally, in reality, realise).
Ssssh, the ignorant selfish nationalist morons are talking! They don't want you to say anything! The irony Strocky said:
The HOL is one of the worst examples you could cite, in it's current form is an affront to democracy never mind decency
No point having checks and balances......
And therein lies the logical fallacy. Because one system is less than ideal that is good reason not to have a system at all? This is the underlying message that constant calls for disbandment of the HoL by the SNP (rather than the reform sought and implemented by the other parties) sends out.No point having checks and balances......
The SNP's politicking on civil rights and governance can be seen as either incompetent or sinister (the latest moves to put SNP lackies in charge of Scottish Universities being another move towards statism). I'm still not sure which, but the laws of unintended consequences is leaving the door wide open for Scotland to become a one-party police state under the current set-up.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 25th August 14:00
AstonZagato said:
This.
he was allowed to blather on unchallenged with the same lies about using the pound and having EU membership - enough to enrage pro-Unionists;
You've just shown your own bias with that linehe was allowed to blather on unchallenged with the same lies about using the pound and having EU membership - enough to enrage pro-Unionists;
AstonZagato said:
Frankly, I thought the approach of the Yes campaign was terrifying for anyone with a social conscience. Shouting down opponents on the street, hounding them with mobs, intimidating journalists, perverting committee debate in parliament - none of these are the actions of democrats or people that can be trusted with anything more than being a milk monitor, not governing a country. That one would want to associate with people who act in such a manner is beyond me. Sometimes, the end does not justify the means and sometimes, the "means" tells you a lot about the people trying to achieve it (and therefore the rather-more-unpleasant-than-expected "end" that you would finally, in reality, realise).
Iv'e no problem with accepting there where idiots on the YES side who took it too far, but the narrative being painted that the YES side en masse where some lumpen mass that went round terrorising the natives whilst the BT supporters cowered behind closed doors is a patent nonsenseIt wasn't YES campaigners telling Scottish pensioners that there wouldn't get their pension in an IS, it wasn't YES campaigners telling EU workers that they'd be deported out the country within a week of a YES vote, it wasn't YES campaigners who tried to run David Cameron off the road and it wasn't YES campaigners attacking YES campaigners in George Square or using homophobic abuse while the police looked on and did nothing
r11co said:
Some of those 1.5m are members of my own family, and in the run-up to the referendum it got to the stage I was hiding updates from them on my Facebook Homepage because I was embarassed and depressed at some of the things they were saying/sharing. They were clearly lost in the hysteria, and I wanted to tell them to take a hard look at themselves because they were not the people I thought they were.
So don't kid yourself Strocky that the emotion can be played down as some sort of noble cause. My father lived through the rise of fascism in Italy - he said the similarity in the behavioural change of people rallied to the 'Yes' cause was uncannilly and worryingly similar to how the rise of fascism polarised friends and families back then (needless to say he voted No, motivated by the concern of validating the behaviour of the Yes campaign and its supporters).
PS. Even more ironic when one of my fervent newly converted SNP supporting Anti-English Nationalist family members, who would preach to me about "anti-Toryism " and his belief in the redistribution of wealth, and who when he decided to stop working went 'on the panel' so he could claim two years of SSP, came to me cap-in-hand looking for a sub to meet his mortgage payments.
Are you sure you just weren't slighted because they didn't share your politics or view?So don't kid yourself Strocky that the emotion can be played down as some sort of noble cause. My father lived through the rise of fascism in Italy - he said the similarity in the behavioural change of people rallied to the 'Yes' cause was uncannilly and worryingly similar to how the rise of fascism polarised friends and families back then (needless to say he voted No, motivated by the concern of validating the behaviour of the Yes campaign and its supporters).
PS. Even more ironic when one of my fervent newly converted SNP supporting Anti-English Nationalist family members, who would preach to me about "anti-Toryism " and his belief in the redistribution of wealth, and who when he decided to stop working went 'on the panel' so he could claim two years of SSP, came to me cap-in-hand looking for a sub to meet his mortgage payments.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 25th August 13:06
Re your SSP claiming family member, would a right wing no voter knock back something they could claim for on a point of principle?
Principles doesn't feed the family
r11co said:
Strocky said:
The HOL is one of the worst examples you could cite, in it's current form is an affront to democracy never mind decency
No point having checks and balances......
And therein lies the logical fallacy. Because one system is less than ideal that is good reason not to have a system at all? This is the underlying message that constant calls for disbandment of the HoL by the SNP (rather than the reform sought and implemented by the other parties) sends out.No point having checks and balances......
The SNP's politicking on civil rights and governance can be seen as either incompetent or sinister (the latest moves to put SNP lackies in charge of Scottish Universities being another move towards statism). I'm still not sure which, but the laws of unintended consequences is leaving the door wide open for Scotland to become a one-party police state under the current set-up.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 25th August 14:00
Strocky said:
Are you sure you just weren't slighted because they didn't share your politics or view?
You really are the master of the logical fallacy Strocky. Another straw-man argument. If I answered that question yes or no it wouldn't change the anti-English comments they were posting on Facebook.Strocky said:
Re your SSP claiming family member, would a right wing no voter knock back something they could claim for on a point of principle?
Principles doesn't feed the family
Another straw-man and an appeal to emotion. Two in one!Principles doesn't feed the family
Again, any answer to your hypothetical question doesn't change the fact that instead of fishing (and then mysteriously requiring a walking stick on the days he was being medically assessed) he could have perhaps been doing the job his employers and the taxpayer were jointly still paying him not to do.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 25th August 15:05
Strocky said:
.....it wasn't YES campaigners attacking YES campaigners in George Square or using homophobic abuse while the police looked on and did nothing
lol, strocky still thinks the totalitarian nazi type behaviour wasn't stacked hugely on the YES side. Deluded. Even tries to imply the police were complicit. That would be the single unified Police Scotland state forces? Strocky said:
AstonZagato said:
This.
he was allowed to blather on unchallenged with the same lies about using the pound and having EU membership - enough to enrage pro-Unionists;
You've just shown your own bias with that linehe was allowed to blather on unchallenged with the same lies about using the pound and having EU membership - enough to enrage pro-Unionists;
AstonZagato said:
Frankly, I thought the approach of the Yes campaign was terrifying for anyone with a social conscience. Shouting down opponents on the street, hounding them with mobs, intimidating journalists, perverting committee debate in parliament - none of these are the actions of democrats or people that can be trusted with anything more than being a milk monitor, not governing a country. That one would want to associate with people who act in such a manner is beyond me. Sometimes, the end does not justify the means and sometimes, the "means" tells you a lot about the people trying to achieve it (and therefore the rather-more-unpleasant-than-expected "end" that you would finally, in reality, realise).
Iv'e no problem with accepting there where idiots on the YES side who took it too far, but the narrative being painted that the YES side en masse where some lumpen mass that went round terrorising the natives whilst the BT supporters cowered behind closed doors is a patent nonsenseIt wasn't YES campaigners telling Scottish pensioners that there wouldn't get their pension in an IS, it wasn't YES campaigners telling EU workers that they'd be deported out the country within a week of a YES vote, it wasn't YES campaigners who tried to run David Cameron off the road and it wasn't YES campaigners attacking YES campaigners in George Square or using homophobic abuse while the police looked on and did nothing
So not sure what the point of your first remark is therefore. Everyone has bias. You clearly do. It is how you manifest that bias that counts. The YES camp chose to manifest it in ugly scenes on the street to a far greater extent than the NO campaign.
From my relatives in Scotland, there was as near nothing in the way of NO intimidation. Nor were the lies institutionalised in the NO campaign as it was in the YES (the White Paper was full of them). They would not debate the campaign as the YES side were so unpleasant.
I personally think the whole exercise in trying to dominate social and traditional media backfired. The shouting down of NO campaigners left the undecided decidedly cold to the types of people that were asking for the YES vote. The refusal of Salmond to condemn the cybernats and demonstrators spoke volumes. He ended up preaching only to the converted. In the meantime, the silent majority of Scots soundly and roundly rejected his half-baked vision. The fact that so many Nats cannot accept the "settled will of the Scottish people" only serves to unline how right their decision to reject independence was.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff