The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so now you're blaming Khan for how papers reported him?

Not necessarily. If you read my posts on the subject you would know what I had said.

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

(That's funny too, cos you used to blame the press for how Corbyn is reported, and not Corbyn.)

It's fuck all to do with how the papers have reported him.

It's everything to do with how people like you are talking up what he never said, while refusing to address the real and solid point he made about divisive politics - as you've demonstrated here by refusing to answer the question I've asked you endlessly.

So why did then press virtually unanimously report it as they did? 

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

The truth is that people support Scottish independence for a variety of reasons and because Scotland's claim to independence is not (as some mischievously claim) the sanctity of Scottish soil and the purity of Scottish blood, the case for independence requires to be constantly remade in the light of current circumstances  

and nothing of those variety of reasons can be anything of blood and soil in any Scot.

Not even when Sturgeon says "Scotland is a country" to claim a greater right of civic self-determination, and very definitely not when she bangs on about "English tories" and pretends there's no tories in Scotland (and very definitely not in the SNP, of course :lol:)

 

Just now, LJS said:

Take oil for example, arguing that oil wealth provided the foundation for a strong independent Scotland was a perfect valid argument for 25-30 years. It's not now.

A perfectly valid argument, yep. So perfectly valid it was used as the whole basis for Scottish indy in 2014, and was going to account for 16% of Scottish govt spending.

(but not so valid as the claims made for it by snippers, as its quick disappearance got to prove beyond all doubt).

That would be an argument about the money, which you say there's nothing of within the want for indy.

 

Just now, LJS said:

Personally, it was never am argument I supported as at that time I still believed fairness and justice could be delivered via Westminster. I no longer believe that. 

But you did support in 2014, where you rejected all suggestion that supporting 16% of SG spending via the oil money was an impossible lie.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

No, it's something you made up.

That's right & it's still right.

then the only reasonable conclusion is that you're an economic moron who understands nothing about what you say about the deficit.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm not hearing this, Neil & I happen to live here.

You don't even listen to yourself? :wacko:

Cos it's from you I'm hearing how different Scotland is.

When by every measure there's no meaningful difference. If there was and Scots really wanted to pay higher taxes to benefit themselves, they'd have voted for higher taxes to benefit themselves - and not for no tax rises.

 

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

Maybe they were. Quite why that would matter in the Indy debate, I have no idea.

It only matters when people such as you claim Scots as so distinctly different that it's imperative they govern themselves.

 

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

I can't tell you again what I have never told you before.

What? PMSL

The whole basis of indy is that Scotland will be a better Scotland when run by Scots from Scotland.

If Scotland won't be better run by Scots from Scotland, care to tell me why it's so important that Scotland is run by Scots from Scotland?

So important that you're wanting to impoverish Scots in Scotland to achieve it, to damage people's material lives by far more than brexit will do?

 

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

I believe in our parliamentary democracy elevate not ruled by the prime minister or even the chancellor which makes your point , wrong, irrelevant & potentially racist.

I see. Stating the facts of history about Scotland is fake news.

Well, Trump is Scottish after all.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

So why did then press virtually unanimously report it as they did? 

The press reported the pre-release of his speech, as the pre-release of his speech.

And then the press reported about people like you saying Khan had called you racists.

Spot the difference? Or are you too thick to?

[LJS]

Posted 1 hour ago · 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I can affirm that the article is spot on.

yep. Khan nailed it when he said that divisive politics you espouse are divisive. I know, I've been telling you that.

 

Is this supposed to be clever?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Posted 1 hour ago · 

yep. Khan nailed it when he said that divisive politics you espouse are divisive. I know, I've been telling you that.

 

Is this supposed to be clever?

Nope, just a statement of fact.

One of those things you reject just like Trump for the politics of division, which is part of what Khan was referencing.

[LJS]

Meanwhile, here is the latest "maybe Nat's aren't racist but here's a picture of Hitler anyway" article in the new campaign.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/jenny-hjul/378731/scottish-nationalism-racist/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, just a statement of fact.

One of those things you reject just like Trump for the politics of division, which is part of what Khan was referencing.

Except you quoted me saying something that someone else said about a different article from the one you were referring to. 

Tut, tut.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

Except you quoted me saying something that someone else said about a different article from the one you were referring to. 

Tut, tut.

it was a response back at what you'd posted.

Because it was impossible to be the following post to yours, what I was addressing needed referencing

Meanwhile, what Khan said *IS* spot on. I've asked you many time to tell me how he was wrong to call divisive politics divisive, and every time you decline to answer, and so prove that you know Khan was spot on.

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

Meanwhile, here is the latest "maybe Nat's aren't racist but here's a picture of Hitler anyway" article in the new campaign.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/jenny-hjul/378731/scottish-nationalism-racist/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

 

So when the London mayor and Labour politician Sadiq Khan wrote a speech saying there was ‘no difference’ between ‘those who try to divide us on the basis of whether we’re English or Scottish, and those who try to divide us on the basis of our background, race or religion’, condemnation from the SNP came quickly.

 

so go on then, this is from that very article, which says what Khan said .... and only the brain dead could believe he was calling Nats racists ... but you say he called you a racist, so you need to explain how.

You never do, and there's a reason why.

[eFestivals]

ooooo, from that article too...

The SNP has always said it supports a civic nationalism, based on making an economic case for breaking up the UK. 

but it's not about the money, right....?

[eFestivals]

Quote

But the campaign for Scottish independence has long since been hijacked by purer nationalists, who have narrowed the focus of the debate, as nationalists tend to do, to a them versus us contest. [

Alex Salmond, Sturgeon’s predecessor, was not necessarily the instigator of this more traditional form of nationalism but he certainly gave it a booming voice.

And Sturgeon has been as effective, if not more so, in fighting nationalism’s cause by sewing division. The ‘them’ is England, and more specifically, London, and she cannot deliver a speech or defend a policy without reference to this apparent foe.

Quote

But by unleashing their attacks on the rest of the UK, they have legitimised the kind of nationalism they profess to deplore.

even the Scots with brains have it sussed.

And the stupid scots only read the headline and first para and then present it as showing their righteousness.

Edited March 2, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Salmond and Sturgeon possibly didn’t mean to inspire the uglier elements of xenophobia that nationalist groups breed, but they cannot deny that within their grassroots there are plenty of nationalists (a minority hopefully) who have signed up on the basis of hatred of the English.

 

[eFestivals]

The Scottish Labour MP Jackie Baillie, who was born in England, said, in defence of Khan: ‘If nationalism is not about racism why then do your supporters tell me to go home because of my accent?’

[eFestivals]

While it is unfair to lump the loose cannons of the rank and file with a more principled leadership, nationalism by its very nature is about exclusion not inclusion.

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

 

 

 

 

so go on then, this is from that very article, which says what Khan said .... and only the brain dead could believe he was calling Nats racists ... but you say he called you a racist, so you need to explain how.

You never do, and there's a reason why.

 

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

even the Scots with brains have it sussed.

And the stupid scots only read the headline and first para and then present it as showing their righteousness.

"Stupid Scots?"

Racist Neil?

[eFestivals]

If the SNP object to being linked with the unsavoury aspects of nationalism they could change their name or change their tactics. The problem is that their current popularity is built on an anti-England platform – take that away and what’s left?

Nailed.

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

 

"Stupid Scots?"

Racist Neil?

I'm referring to you, the stupid Scot who presented that article as a supposed demolition of Khan, when it's the exact opposite.

Don't you like reference to your nationality, or something? And there was me thinking that it was important to you to be recognised as Scottish.

I can call you a stupid UK-er if you like?

[LJS]

32 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The press reported the pre-release of his speech, as the pre-release of his speech.

And then the press reported about people like you saying Khan had called you racists.

Spot the difference? Or are you too thick to?

Wrong. This is what the press reported...

Sadiq Khan sparks row with Nicola Sturgeon by likening Scottish nationalism to racism

Sadiq Khan racism row overshadows Scottish Labour conference

Sadiq Khan: nationalism can be as divisive as bigotry and racism

London Mayor Sadiq Khan 'not accusing SNP of being racists'

 

Sadiq Khan sparks row with SNP after claiming there is ‘no difference’ between Scottish nationalism and racism

 

Sadiq Khan sparks huge row by likening Scottish nationalism to racism in 'spectacularly ill-judged' comments

London's Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan says Scottish nationalism is the same as racism

[LJS]

Just now, eFestivals said:

I'm referring to you, the stupid Scot who presented that article as a supposed demolition of Khan, when it's the exact opposite.

Don't you like reference to your nationality, or something? And there was me thinking that it was important to you to be recognised as Scottish.

I can call you a stupid UK-er if you like?

I didn't post it a demolition, I posted it as an other example of the campaign to link the SNP with racism. 

Only the stupid English would think otherwise.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

"Stupid Scots?"

Racist Neil?

PS: I also mentioned "Scots with brains" as well as "stupid Scots".

With such an even hand towards Scotland, my words can only ever be racist if no one in Scotland can ever be stupid - which would be a claim of Scottish exceptionalism.

Never mind, eh?

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

I didn't post it a demolition, I posted it as an other example of the campaign to link the SNP with racism. 

Only the stupid English would think otherwise.

There's racism within it. 

Only the stupid Scots would think otherwise.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

Wrong. This is what the press reported...

 

Sadiq Khan sparks row with Nicola Sturgeon....

and there's a row with Sturgeon before Sturgeon has responded to create that row, is there....? 

PMSL

It's *EXACTLY* what i said. Khan said words that were spot on, and everything else has been triggered by Nats who wish to divert away from the fact of the divisive politics which is at the heart of the indy movement.

Edited March 2, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and there's a row with Sturgeon before Sturgeon has responded to create that row, is there....? 

PMSL

It's *EXACTLY* what i said. Khan said words that were spot on, and everything else has been triggered by Nats who wish to divert away from the fact of the divisive politics which is at the heart of the indy movement.

 

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and there's a row with Sturgeon before Sturgeon has responded to create that row, is there....? 

PMSL

It's *EXACTLY* what i said. Khan said words that were spot on, and everything else has been triggered by Nats who wish to divert away from the fact of the divisive politics which is at the heart of the indy movement.

I posted 7 headlines. You quoted half of one in your reply. Care to comment on the other 6.5?