The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, micawber said:

Gosh. I started reading the comments ... and here was I thinking that this thread was tortuous. There seem to be an awful lot of loonies and nutters on both sides. I was especially amused at the "English wont accept the Scottish fiver" discussion, although the joke about the Scotsman and his three whiskies was funny!

Baby steps. At least they now realize that the shared currency option was idiotic. As you say, it's a shame that they are now considering an equally idiotic sterling peg for their new currency which, of course, becomes irrelevant anyway when they move to the Euro.

They really need to develop improved credibility in order to swing the No voters.

Yep, baby steps, but it is progress.

Sadly for the SNP they still require their supporters to take a leap of faith, while if they had access to a few brain cells they could be ahead of the game. Never mind, their fuck-up, their costs.

It's a baby step toward the nittygritty of an economic plan, where the whole thing will fall apart again.  There's no getting around the missing £10Bn, and when we get to not-guaranteed-pensions and no chance of trading in mickey-mouse citizenship for a decent one it'll all come to a grinding halt.

Oh, except that is if you're LJS, who's smarter than all of the SNP - cos it was stupid of the SNP to provide a plan last time that tried to cover that lost money where there's no need to.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Why did you quote the post of mine discussing the rights and wrongs of nukes ?

I disagree with Mark`s view on Sturgeons beliefs and motivations on Trident. Do you ? Please be specific 

 

why are you too daft to realise that it's a comment on what you posted...?

Sturgeons beliefs and motivations are the same as yours - me me me.

I'm pointing out that the principled you're claiming is absent by Sturgeon's own actions.

 

[eFestivals]

Anyone see luvvly Nicola on TV yesterday?

She mentioned "Scotland is a nation".

And I just loved how she made clear that the much proclaimed 'civic nationalism' has ethnic nationalism as its basis.

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You are entitled to your views KM2 on how genuine Sturgeon and Salmond are about Nukes, war etc.

I can only hope you haven`t been suckered by everything SNP Bad that Neil likes to spout.

In my opinion, Sturgeon and Salmond are standing for what I believe in and what they believe in. Not sure why you are not happy about this............

If you google salmond, nukes, trident, Iraq you may be quite surprised. Same for Sturgeon. I`ve attached one example relevant to what you claim above. I accept that this won`t change your view though.

The reason for my scepticism is the fact that the factor they reference repeatedly is "Britain puts unwanted nukes in OUR waters", and try and hype up the idea that this is risky, or harmful to Scots. However sincere they are in their anti-trident stance, they repeatedly raise an invalid criticism as a nationalist issue for the sake of political point-scoring and inflaming nationalist tendencies. 

That, and that alone, is my issue with how the powers of the SNP talk about trident.

And for the record, I held this view from the first time I heard Salmond talking about nukes, before this thread existed.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The reason for my scepticism is the fact that the factor they reference repeatedly is "Britain puts unwanted nukes in OUR waters", and try and hype up the idea that this is risky, or harmful to Scots. However sincere they are in their anti-trident stance, they repeatedly raise an invalid criticism as a nationalist issue for the sake of political point-scoring and inflaming nationalist tendencies. 

That, and that alone, is my issue with how the powers of the SNP talk about trident.

And for the record, I held this view from the first time I heard Salmond talking about nukes, before this thread existed.

and of course, where is the moral high ground for a party which rejects nukes on its territory but is determined to live under the nuclear umbrella hosted by other countries?

Which makes it nothing moral, and just something based in the parochial and selfish, & where the propaganda of false grievance gets deployed.

Get back to us when Scotland rejects the protection of nuclear weapons.

 

[LJS]

Kaos: hey Neil! What's up? You look worried.

Efest: well spotted Kaos, mate, I am worried.

Kaos: what's the problem?

Efest: it's the bloody SNP & bloody trident. You & I know trident is a useless waste of money. So I should agree with anyone voting against its renewal. But I can't agree with the dirty snippers.

Kaos: I see your problem. Your credibility would be shot to pieces.

Efest: I just don't know what to do.

Kaos: hmmm, wait a minute, I think I have the answer. The SNP may be opposed to trident but for the wrong reasons.

Efest: I don't understand.

Kaos: yeah! Their reasons are Nationalist reasons.

Efest: (thinks) of course ....nationalist AND selfish

Kaos: nationalist, selfish AND bad.

Efest: brilliant Kaos, SNP baaad!

In unison: SNP BAAAAD, SNP BAAAD, ME, ME, ME , SNP BAAAD

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, LJS said:

Kaos: hey Neil! What's up? You look worried.

Efest: well spotted Kaos, mate, I am worried.

Kaos: what's the problem?

Efest: it's the bloody SNP & bloody trident. You & I know trident is a useless waste of money. So I should agree with anyone voting against its renewal. But I can't agree with the dirty snippers.

Kaos: I see your problem. Your credibility would be shot to pieces.

Efest: I just don't know what to do.

Kaos: hmmm, wait a minute, I think I have the answer. The SNP may be opposed to trident but for the wrong reasons.

Efest: I don't understand.

Kaos: yeah! Their reasons are Nationalist reasons.

Efest: (thinks) of course ....nationalist AND selfish

Kaos: nationalist, selfish AND bad.

Efest: brilliant Kaos, SNP baaad!

In unison: SNP BAAAAD, SNP BAAAD, ME, ME, ME , SNP BAAAD

Comfy was trying to claim a moral superiority in the SNP's position.

Now, I know it's not unusual for comfy to claim exceptional things of people in Scotland (is it the deep fried mars bars that cause it? ), but same as it ever was, he's wrong. So I've chosen to point that out to him.

If this were a discussion about how i might vote I might get involved in saying how i'd vote, but even then I wouldn't be dumb enough to believe I stood on the higher moral ground and that's because I'm not working from myths as my research material.

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, LJS said:

Kaos: hey Neil! What's up? You look worried.

Efest: well spotted Kaos, mate, I am worried.

Kaos: what's the problem?

Efest: it's the bloody SNP & bloody trident. You & I know trident is a useless waste of money. So I should agree with anyone voting against its renewal. But I can't agree with the dirty snippers.

Kaos: I see your problem. Your credibility would be shot to pieces.

Efest: I just don't know what to do.

Kaos: hmmm, wait a minute, I think I have the answer. The SNP may be opposed to trident but for the wrong reasons.

Efest: I don't understand.

Kaos: yeah! Their reasons are Nationalist reasons.

Efest: (thinks) of course ....nationalist AND selfish

Kaos: nationalist, selfish AND bad.

Efest: brilliant Kaos, SNP baaad!

In unison: SNP BAAAAD, SNP BAAAD, ME, ME, ME , SNP BAAAD

Even though I (clearly) disagree, this amused me.

That said, it is:

Edited July 18, 2016 by kaosmark2
Nicer picture

[LJS]

Bloody SNP making their selfish nationalist argument again...

Meanwhile, SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson said Trident "was an immoral, obscene and redundant weapons system".

"The vote on Trident is one of the most important this parliament will ever take," he said. "For the Tories to commit to spend hundreds of billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction - particularly at a time when they are making significant cuts to public services - would be both morally and economically indefensible."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36820416

And as for accusing comfy of taking the moral high ground, that's certainly not something you could accused our new PM of...

Mrs May accused critics of being "the first to defend the country's enemies".

[LJS]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Anyone see luvvly Nicola on TV yesterday?

She mentioned "Scotland is a nation".

And I just loved how she made clear that the much proclaimed 'civic nationalism' has ethnic nationalism as its basis.

No I didn't have the pleasure. But I was intrigued at your somewhat startling claim so I went back & watched her ( I assume you are talking about her cameo appearance on the Andy Marr show) And I heard absolutely & precisely nothing to support your claim. 

You are correct to state that she said "Scotland is a Nation." Well knock me down with a battered bounty! That was a real shocker wasn't it? - leader of SNP believes Scotland is a Nation. I mean no one could have imagined she would believe such a thing.

Seriously Neil, this is your evidence for Ethnic Nationalism? Is that really you best shot? To be indicative of "Ethnic Nationalism" she would have to define Scotland in some way that excludes people who are not Scottish. She didn't. Indeed the SNp have stressed time and again that the Scotland they seek independence for is defined by the people that live here whatever their nationality. That's why when we had our referendum the franchise was based around residency not nationality. Christ, we even let the English vote !!!

And disenfranchised the Scottish diaspora. 

This is now in a shortlist of two (with Comfy's alleged racism) as your most unsubstantiated claim in this thread.

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

Bloody SNP making their selfish nationalist argument again...

Meanwhile, SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson said Trident "was an immoral, obscene and redundant weapons system".

"The vote on Trident is one of the most important this parliament will ever take," he said. "For the Tories to commit to spend hundreds of billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction - particularly at a time when they are making significant cuts to public services - would be both morally and economically indefensible."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36820416

And as for accusing comfy of taking the moral high ground, that's certainly not something you could accused our new PM of...

Mrs May accused critics of being "the first to defend the country's enemies".

while I get - and agree with - much of that argument, it really is blinkered to think that all other views to my own must be immoral.

Why is it less moral to take measures designed to ensure no one is killed than it is to patch up the injured/unwell? Should we abandon road safety measures to spend the money on healthcare instead?

Jezza gave a 'moral' argument yesterday that nukes won't defend us from terrorists, but the logic of that argument is no different to saying standard issue army rifles are no defence from having bombs dropped on us from planes - and no one would say we shouldn't give the army rifles because they're no good for an air raid.

There's endless bollocks talked around nukes. At the end of the day we all take a view, and not a single one of us knows if its the better and more-moral choice.

[LJS]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

while I get - and agree with - much of that argument, it really is blinkered to think that all other views to my own must be immoral.

Why is it less moral to take measures designed to ensure no one is killed than it is to patch up the injured/unwell? Should we abandon road safety measures to spend the money on healthcare instead?

Jezza gave a 'moral' argument yesterday that nukes won't defend us from terrorists, but the logic of that argument is no different to saying standard issue army rifles are no defence from having bombs dropped on us from planes - and no one would say we shouldn't give the army rifles because they're no good for an air raid.

There's endless bollocks talked around nukes. At the end of the day we all take a view, and not a single one of us knows if its the better and more-moral choice.

Ah, Neil. You're always keen to understand & explain the position of others who may hold a different view to yoursel, when these others are Tories.

When people on here hold different views to you, we are morons.

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

No I didn't have the pleasure. But I was intrigued at your somewhat startling claim so I went back & watched her ( I assume you are talking about her cameo appearance on the Andy Marr show) And I heard absolutely & precisely nothing to support your claim.

Then you're stupid.

Sturgeon claimed a greater right for Scotland's future independence based on how Scotland voted the EU ref result than she would credit to other areas of the UK that also voted remain.

She claimed this greater right for Scotland on the basis of Scotland's ethnic past.

If the much lauded civic nationalism idea is a valid one then the ONLY valid criteria of 'civic nationalism' is based within the desire of that area to be a nation.

If an ethnic past or the facts of history gives a greater right, that's fuck all to do with anything 'civic' and everything to do with the basis of that historical nation state.

 

Quote

You are correct to state that she said "Scotland is a Nation." Well knock me down with a battered bounty! That was a real shocker wasn't it? - leader of SNP believes Scotland is a Nation. I mean no one could have imagined she would believe such a thing.

Scotland may or may not be regarded as a nation.

But that's got fuck all to do with whether any civic society wishes to be a nation in the future. Past-history gives no greater right to the choice any civic society might make for the nation it might form.

What don't you understand?

 

Quote

Seriously Neil, this is your evidence for Ethnic Nationalism? Is that really you best shot? To be indicative of "Ethnic Nationalism" she would have to define Scotland in some way that excludes people who are not Scottish.

Nope, not just that.

Defining Scotland as having a greater right to future independence based on past history excludes that same right from those not in Scotland, and certainly isn't based on anything of a civic choice.

The civic is where civic society makes it's choice. It's based *ONLY* in their right to make that choice if they wish to.

Imaginary lines that someone once drew is no part of the civic. The civic is bound together by its own choice and not historical imaginary lines.

What don't you understand?

 

Quote

She didn't. Indeed the SNp have stressed time and again that the Scotland they seek independence for is defined by the people that live here whatever their nationality.

Then the same would apply to (say) London - yet Sturgeon made clear that she believes that London does not share an equal right to future civic nationalism as Scotland.

She made clear her belief in Scotland's greater right because of its ethnic past.

That's nothing civic and its everything ethnic.

 

Quote

That's why when we had our referendum the franchise was based around residency not nationality. Christ, we even let the English vote !!!

But the referendum you had in your area is in Sturgeon's own words less justifiable/acceptable than a referendum which might be held in another area.

What gives Scotland that great 'right' in Sturgeon's own clearly stated words? Its ethnic past.

 

Edited July 19, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

Ah, Neil. You're always keen to understand & explain the position of others who may hold a different view to yoursel, when these others are Tories.

When people on here hold different views to you, we are morons.

Oh dear.

It's not the different views I rail against, it's the fake moral superiority that comes with it.

Are you really so dim you've not realised?

But anyway, a counter-argument would show you have a point to make. Shooting the messenger as you always do proves my point stands high.

Edited July 19, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Then you're stupid.

Sturgeon claimed a greater right for Scotland's future independence based on how Scotland voted the EU ref result than she would credit to other areas of the UK that also voted remain.

She claimed this greater right for Scotland on the basis of Scotland's ethnic past.

If the much lauded civic nationalism idea is a valid one then the ONLY valid criteria of 'civic nationalism' is based within the desire of that area to be a nation.

If an ethnic past or the facts of history gives a greater right, that's fuck all to do with anything 'civic' and everything to do with the basis of that historical nation state.

 

Scotland may or may not be regarded as a nation.

But that's got fuck all to do with whether any civic society wishes to be a nation in the future. Past-history gives no greater right to the choice any civic society might make for the nation it might form.

What don't you understand?

 

Nope, not just that.

Defining Scotland as having a greater right to future independence based on past history excludes that same right from those not in Scotland, and certainly isn't based on anything of a civic choice.

The civic is where civic society makes it's choice. It's based *ONLY* in their right to make that choice if they wish to.

Imaginary lines that someone once drew is no part of the civic. The civic is bound together by its own choice and not historical imaginary lines.

What don't you understand?

 

Then the same would apply to (say) London - yet Sturgeon made clear that she believes that London does not share an equal right to future civic nationalism as Scotland.

She made clear her belief in Scotland's greater right because of its ethnic past.

That's nothing civic and its everything ethnic.

 

But the referendum you had in your area is in Sturgeon's own words less justifiable/acceptable than a referendum which might be held in another area.

What gives Scotland that great 'right' in Sturgeon's own clearly stated words? Its ethnic past.

 

Neil, you clearly watched a different interview from me. 

Or else your mind is now so twisted that you are hearing SNP bad voices in your head.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

Neil, you clearly watched a different interview from me. 

Or else your mind is now so twisted that you are hearing SNP bad voices in your head.

There's only one Sturgeon interview on Marr from 17th July.

It's an interview where she claims a greater right of indy for Scotland than other civic areas, which is a clear rejection of the idea of civic nationalism.

And where she makes clear she believes the greater right she claims is derived from the ethnic.

FFS.

Sturgeon makes clear what she's about, and your answer is to claim the interview doesn't exist.

[LJS]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

There's only one Sturgeon interview on Marr from 17th July.

It's an interview where she claims a greater right of indy for Scotland than other civic areas, which is a clear rejection of the idea of civic nationalism.

And where she makes clear she believes the greater right she claims is derived from the ethnic.

FFS.

Sturgeon makes clear what she's about, and your answer is to claim the interview doesn't exist.

She differentiates between cities and nations. She said nothing about ethnicity. It's all between your ears Neil.

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, LJS said:

She differentiates between cities and nations. She said nothing about ethnicity. It's all between your ears Neil.

and the difference that applying the word 'nation' to Scotland today differentiates it from London how exactly?

Both are regions of the UK. Scotland only exists as a region.

History gives no justification for anything future. A nation becomes a nation when that new nation is formed.

The historical existence of a previous independent Scotland gives no future justification.

But that previous historical Scotland which she references as justification? It's ethnic based.

You can only have your civic nationalism after the creation of the new nation it applies to.

She gave an ethnic-historic justification for why Scotland has a greater right to independence than (say) London.

It's one for the idjuts.

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and the difference that applying the word 'nation' to Scotland today differentiates it from London how exactly?

Both are regions of the UK. Scotland only exists as a region.

History gives no justification for anything future. A nation becomes a nation when that new nation is formed.

The historical existence of a previous independent Scotland gives no future justification.

But that previous historical Scotland which she references as justification? It's ethnic based.

You can only have your civic nationalism after the creation of the new nation it applies to.

She gave an ethnic-historic justification for why Scotland has a greater right to independence than (say) London.

It's one for the idjuts.

Eejits is the ethnically correct spelling.

 

Anyway the independence I want is for the Scotland I live in & the people who live in it irrespective of ethnicity. I feel all of us are I'll served by the current constitutional arrangements. 

Nicola said nothing of history or ethnicity. It is all your interpretation. 

You are entitled to interpret her words any way you want.

I am entitled to tell you that you are talking pish.

[Comfy Bean]

Should Scotland be an independent Country? 

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

Anyway the independence I want is for the Scotland I live in & the people who live in it irrespective of ethnicity.

I'm sure you do. It wasn't you who was giving an ethnic justification.

Just remember to laugh next time you hear Sturgeon say anything about civic nationalism, because she's made clear it's solidly based in the ethnic.

 

13 hours ago, LJS said:

I feel all of us are I'll served by the current constitutional arrangements. 

Funnily enough, Scotland has felt more-badly served by the constitutional arrangements since devolution than it did prior to that. Think about it.

But mostly it's not about the constitutional arrangements, it's about the money for public services - an issue that your preferred 'solution' will make a far bigger issue.

 

13 hours ago, LJS said:

Nicola said nothing of history or ethnicity. It is all your interpretation. 

She very clearly said that history gave Scotland a greater right to independence.

It would be fair enough if she's said that the facts of history have caused today's Scotland to be better placed to become indepenedent than other places, but that's nothing of what she said.

She claimed an ethnic-historic greater right. That's nothing 'civic'.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Should Scotland be an independent Country? 

Not according to the civic population of Scotland.

I have seen that it would be already if you'd chosen an ethnic vote, so perhaps that's the way to get your dream next time? Just a thought.

Alternatively, you could decide that Nicola's right after all, and it's wrong for anywhere to have its constitutional status changed by outsiders and so give England a vote on it too? I reckon that gives you a greater chance of your dream.

[LJS]

25 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm sure you do. It wasn't you who was giving an ethnic justification.

Just remember to laugh next time you hear Sturgeon say anything about civic nationalism, because she's made clear it's solidly based in the ethnic.

 

Funnily enough, Scotland has felt more-badly served by the constitutional arrangements since devolution than it did prior to that. Think about it.

But mostly it's not about the constitutional arrangements, it's about the money for public services - an issue that your preferred 'solution' will make a far bigger issue.

 

She very clearly said that history gave Scotland a greater right to independence.

It would be fair enough if she's said that the facts of history have caused today's Scotland to be better placed to become indepenedent than other places, but that's nothing of what she said.

She claimed an ethnic-historic greater right. That's nothing 'civic'.

Complete bollocks. There is no point in continuing this as your entire argument relies entirely on sturgeon saying something she quite clearly didn't say. I can't argue with your delusions.

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, LJS said:

Complete bollocks. There is no point in continuing this as your entire argument relies entirely on sturgeon saying something she quite clearly didn't say. I can't argue with your delusions.

Do I have to go off and find her words, to type them into your face here?

Or are you able to recognise the fact that she claimed a greater right to indy by Scotland based on history?

 

[eFestivals]

(not 100% verbatim cos I'm not that anal, but nothing of what she's saying has been altered. Only superfluous words have been removed - words like "angela eagle", of no relevance to the point Sturgeon is making)

"I heard Angle Eagle say that Scotland has to accept the vote in the same way as London or Liverpool, well can I point out there is a difference between Scotland and Liverpool and London. Scotland is not a region of the UK, Scotland is a nation. and if we cannot protect our interests within a UK that's going to be changing fundamentally then that right of Scotland to consider the option of independence <blah blah blah>...."

Sturgeon is claiming a 'right' on the historic fact of Scotland's past-status as a sovereign nation, an ethnically-based sovereign nation.

There is no different right of any civic society to independence. It is either granted by the sovereign body or it isn't.

(don't give me the guff of the UN's "right to self determination", because if you've ever read it you'll know that the wording makes 100% clear that it cannot be applicable to Scotland).

Scotland has no "right" to independence. It's clear in law. Westminster has the power to allow or deny. That's 100% identical to London or anywhere else.

Someone might claim a moral 'right' to independence, but (if 'civic') that can only be based within the choice of that civic society to be independent, their democratic choice. Past history gives no greater moral right.

She is claiming that 'right' based solidly in ethnicity.

Edited July 20, 2016 by eFestivals