Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Joe Middleton

Her bile against Scotland doesn't become her

[Don't think this was printed]

10/12/2007

Sir,

If I was Melanie Reid's doctor I would be seriously concerned. Her article about St Andrew's day 'wake me up I'm trapped in a wee nightmare' suggests she is in imminent danger of choking on her own bile.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/...s/melanie_reid/article2988408.ece

What annoys me about unionists is that while they seem to hate Scottish nationalism they at the same time ignore all the flaws in British nationalism. Thus people like Billy Connolly can shower scorn on the SNP while being proud of his status as 'a Commander in the British Empire'. Isn't that a ridiculous imperialist ostentation? Isn't the SNP's civic form of nationalism more admirable than Gordon Brown's attempts to invent a British national day?

Melanie Reid thinks the height of Scottish culture is masquerading in a Russ Abbot style 'see you Jimmy' wig, that says nothing about Scotland but it says a lot about her contempt for her own country. Does Reid wince like a scalded cat when she sees a Saltire? Does her heart beat with horror when the Scotland football team play?

I believe that Reid is a victim of the British cringe. An inability to see the worth of her own nation because someone sold her on the idea of Britishness as a kid.

That big map with the pink bits showing Britain's imperial extent has left her jealous that anyone else might have some justifiable pride in Scotland on our national day.

Sad for her, not so sad for the rest of us.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton
Aventinian

Re: Her bile against Scotland doesn't become her

Joe Middleton wrote:
Thus people like Billy Connolly can shower scorn on the SNP while being proud of his status as 'a Commander in the British Empire'. Isn't that a ridiculous imperialist ostentation?


Commander of the (Most Excellent) Order of the British Empire, actually. And yes, it is imperial - although that need not imply imperialist in the context to which you place it.

The Scottish monarchy was an imperial one prior to the Act of Union too, you know.

Quote:
Isn't the SNP's civic form of nationalism more admirable than Gordon Brown's attempts to invent a British national day?


Not particularly. They're trying to invent a Scottish national day.

And to be fair, he isn't turning the British national day into some ludicrous festival of tat. Public tea-drinking contests, people poncing around in fake Crowns and bowler hats, free fish and chips or roast beef and Yorkshire pudding in the town square? Not a bit of it.

Quote:
Melanie Reid thinks the height of Scottish culture is masquerading in a Russ Abbot style 'see you Jimmy' wig, that says nothing about Scotland but it says a lot about her contempt for her own country.


Not particularly, just that there's not a lot of distinctive Scottish culture.

My idea of Scottishness, and the one to which I ascribe, seems very, very different from this sort of rubbish. Maybe Alex Salmond has realised the Scottish nation doesn't exist, and thinks he must invent it.

Quote:
Does Reid wince like a scalded cat when she sees a Saltire?


I'm tempted to these days.

Quote:
I believe that Reid is a victim of the British cringe. An inability to see the worth of her own nation because someone sold her on the idea of Britishness as a kid.


"There's a Mr Pot on the telephone..."

I think she makes a good point in trying to sell this rubbish to children. It's shameful and more importantly it's deeply sinister.
will live from Glasgow

If anything good can come out of this id like to hope we can get a national  consensus on banning those "see you jimmy" hats as soon as possible, as a ginger i hate seeing people trying to jump on the bandwagon, if you're that patriotic dye your hair Laughing
Corby Boy

Personally, I wince like a scalded cat whenever I see the Union Flag.

Tat is for the souvenir shops of course, I don't find that offensive, distasteful perhaps. What's wrong about having a bit of fun?

(Kilts I wouldn't decribe as tat, they are part of our legitimate identity, but wearing them with some dignity should be encouraged).

The worst thing about St Andrew's day, is that it is at the wrong time of the year. Should be in May when Scotland has the best weather. Then we can all revel in tat in the sunshine!

Usual desperate vitriolic crap from the uber unionist community trying to pin anything on the SNP or like minded folk.
RadgeJougal

"The Scottish monarchy was an imperial one prior to the Act of Union too, you know."

With one colony, if that.
William_Cleland

It wasn't really the monarchy that was the driving force behind the Darien Company either.
Holebender

Don't forget Nova Scotia!

Seriously, we last had a distinctive Scottish monarchy in 1603, more than 400 years ago. We did a lot of things differently then. Is that the best justification you can think of for retaining Orders of the "British Empire" in the 21st Century, even though the British Empire itself ceased to exist more than half a century ago?

Have you ever wondered why hardly a day goes by without the Second World War somehow featuring on the television? Or why there are so many "costume dramas" (i.e. plays set in the past)? The UK is moribund and stuck in the Summer of 1945 while the rest of the planet has moved on. I would like Scotland to join everyone else in the Twenty-First Century, which will have the added benefit of shaking the English Home Counties out of their torpor too. Scotland's independence will benefit England no end.
sgmillerton

nationalists in the main are fine, it's the mental ones that haunt the snp and tories and bnp and republican parties that are dimwits and should have their brain found and put back in.
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
"The Scottish monarchy was an imperial one prior to the Act of Union too, you know."

With one colony, if that.


Ah, but that's not the central or traditional meaning of imperial, as such - and Scotland's imperial pretensions stretch back centuries before Darien. Imperial, in its classic meaning, refers to the monarch's lack of owed fealty to anyone other than God, and was emphasised much during the reformation - Henry VIII for example declared, in separating from Rome that England was now an empire.

This is why, as someone once pointed out to me, King's College in Aberdeen is surmounted by an imperial crown.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Is that the best justification you can think of for retaining Orders of the "British Empire" in the 21st Century, even though the British Empire itself ceased to exist more than half a century ago?  


Did it? Our monarch still holds the dignity of an imperial crown, as has occurred for centuries longer than any concept of British colonialism. Moreover, we do still hold a number of external territories.

Quote:
Have you ever wondered why hardly a day goes by without the Second World War somehow featuring on the television?


Can't say I've noticed.

Quote:
Or why there are so many "costume dramas" (i.e. plays set in the past)? The UK is moribund and stuck in the Summer of 1945 while the rest of the planet has moved on.


The summer of 1945 was, by all accounts, pretty s**t.

I certainly don't think you can accuse modern Britain of being somehow backward-looking. We have a healthy respect for something which shaped our nation and almost destroyed us.

Meanwhile, isn't there an irony in this, being as you are a Scottish nationalist? After all, it seems the general perception of SNP types is of a mad bugger who's watched Braveheart a few too many times.
Holebender

That may be the general perception in your circles. You ought to try getting out more. The Scottish nationalists are the forward-looking people who actually have the imagination to think we can do better than our present rather sorry state.

It is perfectly possible, desirable even, to have a healthy respect for the past without being completely obsesses by it. The British Establishment's yearning for past glories is not healthy, it is positively necrophilic.

The British Monarchy dropped the "Emperor" title when India was decolonised, in case you hadn't heard the news.
mairead

Tatty souveneirs can be found in every souveneir shop in every country of the world. They are not designed for those who live in a particular country but as a wee memento for those who visit that country.
Anyone who lives ih Scotland knows well that there is more to the country than the 'Jimmy' gimicky hats.
What a piece of nauseating journalism. Melanie Reid should get a life.
inga

Re: Her bile against Scotland doesn't become her

Joe Middleton wrote:
[Don't think this was printed]

10/12/2007

Sir,

If I was Melanie Reid's doctor I would be seriously concerned. Her article about St Andrew's day 'wake me up I'm trapped in a wee nightmare' suggests she is in imminent danger of choking on her own bile.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/...s/melanie_reid/article2988408.ece

What annoys me about unionists is that while they seem to hate Scottish nationalism they at the same time ignore all the flaws in British nationalism. Thus people like Billy Connolly can shower scorn on the SNP while being proud of his status as 'a Commander in the British Empire'. Isn't that a ridiculous imperialist ostentation? Isn't the SNP's civic form of nationalism more admirable than Gordon Brown's attempts to invent a British national day?


No, the two are equally uncouth.

Just because you believe in a British nation, doesn't mean you partake in Gordon Brown's rhetoric or vision, nor in any existing example of British nationalism. Heck, it doesn't even mean you like the British nation.

~Inga
inga

RadgeJougal wrote:
"The Scottish monarchy was an imperial one prior to the Act of Union too, you know."

With one colony, if that.


It would that it were fifty.

But anyway, there's nothing wrong with empires -- if it's by consent, although maybe that's an oxymoron.

I think it's pretty hard to criticise empires that belong to a time in which neither the ruling country nor the colonies would be democratic anyway.

~Inga
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
That may be the general perception in your circles. You ought to try getting out more. The Scottish nationalists are the forward-looking people who actually have the imagination to think we can do better than our present rather sorry state.


You do not have the monopoly on vision, I'm afraid. We all have our political ambitions - and mine are more far-reaching than yours.

Quote:
It is perfectly possible, desirable even, to have a healthy respect for the past without being completely obsesses by it. The British Establishment's yearning for past glories is not healthy, it is positively necrophilic.


Yes, because the 'British Establishment' is intensely patriotic and cares a great deal about the British Empire etc. What absolute rot.

Meanwhile your "movement" relies on the petty bigotries of idiots who still thing that Bannockburn and William Wallace are somehow politically relevant today. I don't recall seeing Labour or Tory party banners at any battle commemorations.

Quote:
The British Monarchy dropped the "Emperor" title when India was decolonised, in case you hadn't heard the news.


Emperor of India, yes; but imperial status, no. Have you read anything I've said? The Crowns in the UK were imperial for centuries prior to Union.
SLG

Aventinian wrote:
Meanwhile your "movement" relies on the petty bigotries of idiots who still thing that Bannockburn and William Wallace are somehow politically relevant today. I don't recall seeing Labour or Tory party banners at any battle commemorations.

What "movement" are you referring to here?
Holebender

I think he's been studying my lavvie pan.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
I think he's been studying my lavvie pan.


Ah, the standard of response only increases...
SLG

Well, why don't you help me out here Av.  I'm interested in knowing what "movement" you think "relies on the petty bigotries of idiots etc".
RFM

Go get him SLG;

The strange thing about people like Melanie Reid and the others who have nothing but ridicule for Scotland's independence movement is their failure to think it through. A dynamic, commercially successful country on England's border would not only contribute to the overall wealth and prosperity of both nations, but would alleviate this stigma that Scotland is some sort of poor backwater that depends on handouts from the English to survive. Dependence does nothing for the dependent but obliterate their own self respect, and fosters nothing but anger and contempt for the one on whom they depend. As the saying goes nothing is colder than charity.
One would think that the English and people like Ms. Reid would be at the forefront of support for Scottish independence; instead it strikes one that fear of success is what fuels the acrimony.
inga

RFM wrote:
Go get him SLG;

would alleviate this stigma that Scotland is some sort of poor backwater that depends on handouts from the English to survive.



Full awareness of the facts would also alleviate this stigma.

~Inga
RFM

Hi inga,

Awareness of the facts presumes a number of things such as intellectual curiosity. On the other hand, almost everybody understands better jobs, increased prosperity, and higher living standards.
Aventinian

inga wrote:
Full awareness of the facts would also alleviate this stigma.


Yes, I'd rather dispel myths and crush bigotry and prejudice rather than pander to it.

RFM wrote:
Awareness of the facts presumes a number of things such as intellectual curiosity. On the other hand, almost everybody understands better jobs, increased prosperity, and higher living standards.


Rolling Eyes

Quote:
The strange thing about people like Melanie Reid and the others who have nothing but ridicule for Scotland's independence movement is their failure to think it through.


I think the Scots independence movement is ridiculous; and I've thought a great deal about it.

Quote:
Dependence does nothing for the dependent but obliterate their own self respect


So, presumably, you believe in fiscal autonomy for every local authority, community council and government department?

Quote:
instead it strikes one that fear of success is what fuels the acrimony.


Nope, I think it's a fear of everything which has been crafted in this country over hundreds of years being destroyed and replaced by incompetents in the name of Braveheart nationalism and Seeyoujimmy hats, while being draped in that blue and white cross in order to appeal to the most base presumptions of idiots.

Luckily, I think the SNP is shooting itself in the foot here. Force this enormously cringe-worthy vision of Scottishness on the public, and it will very quickly lose any credibility it had.
RFM

You are being far too cynical Adventinian.

Independence for Scotland is very much like Descarte's Wager. If the independence movement succeeds in energizing the populace of Scotland to the pathway of commercial and financial success, the clear winners will be both England and Scotland. England because they will have a trading partner that is local, convenient and the necessary commercial and financial links have been in place for a long time. Both countries speak a common language and have a highly educated pool of workers with sophisticated trade skills. The problem that bedevils Scotland is lack of opportunity for the younger people coming into the job market and the deep rooted pessimism of the older citizens. Independence would mean that Scotland takes the responsibility for correcting and alleviating those problems, as well as the credit and blame. So if the venture should fail for any number of reasons, Scotland will be no worse off than it is today; but if it should succeed, the rewards to every man, woman and child, as well as the children of generations yet unborn, will be immense. A man who can pay and earn his own way is a free man; a man who depends on others for his pay and keep is a slave.

It is interesting to me that the cynics, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, have only gloom, doom and poisonous seas to offer.
SLG

Quote:
Nope, I think it's a fear of everything which has been crafted in this country over hundreds of years being destroyed and replaced by incompetents in the name of Braveheart nationalism and Seeyoujimmy hats, while being draped in that blue and white cross in order to appeal to the most base presumptions of idiots.

Fear or paranoia?  

Actually, I think in your case it's neither.  I think you're a simple conservative who is worried that the progressive forces bringing on independence will mean the destruction of some of the institutions and culture you hold dear.  Which is fair enough IMO.  But I don't think you like to think of yourself along these lines though, so it serves your purpose to think of an independent Scotland as a land of "Braveheart nationalism and Seeyoujimmy hats".  Gives you something you can justifiably argue against.
SLG

Aventinian wrote:
Yes, I'd rather dispel myths

Aventinian wrote:
...everything which has been crafted in this country over hundreds of years being destroyed and replaced by incompetents in the name of Braveheart nationalism and Seeyoujimmy hats, while being draped in that blue and white cross in order to appeal to the most base presumptions of idiots

Hmmmm

Aventinian wrote:
So, presumably, you believe in fiscal autonomy for every local authority, community council and government department?

I've no idea about RFM, but I belive that as much fiscal autonomy as possible should be in the hands of local authorities.  I believe that more fiscal control should be handed down to communities at a level below the present local authority.  I'm not sure it's feasible (at the moment anyway) for this to be full fiscal autonomy.  I think the most local level above this that forms some sort of natural boundary would be the national level.

Aventinian wrote:
Force this enormously cringe-worthy vision of Scottishness on the public, and it will very quickly lose any credibility it had.

Come on... what have they actually done.  Sent out a few Saltires for St Andrew's Day.  What else?
inga

RFM wrote:
Hi inga,

Awareness of the facts presumes a number of things such as intellectual curiosity.


Either curiosity, or people going about telling it like it is for once.

~Inga
inga

Aventinian wrote:
inga wrote:
Full awareness of the facts would also alleviate this stigma.


Luckily, I think the SNP is shooting itself in the foot here. Force this enormously cringe-worthy vision of Scottishness on the public, and it will very quickly lose any credibility it had.



But the thing is, the SNP's nationalism is not straightforward Braveheart nationalism.

It draws much(but not all) of its support from such sentiments, but the public face of the SNP resembles more the other kind of genteel, supercillious nationalism, mixed in with a mishmash of left-wing ideological baggage(partly to do with Scots being a minority). It's still a bit bravehearty, but it's more like [Orwell again] the "The Cult of Northern Snobbishness" and Cool Britannia. Salts of the Earth versus Lounge Lizards, but with more genteel Salts than usual.

~Inga
Aventinian

RFM wrote:
You are being far too cynical Adventinian.


I think I've good reason to be cynical where the SNP are concerned. More importantly, the reverse is far truer: as an anti-Nationalist, I've basically been as good as told that I'm some sort of self-interested pro-Establishmentist, an inadequate Englishman or whatever other rubbish pops into certain heads. Nationalists, in the main, seem rather unwilling to accept that Unionism can justify itself not only using their own Nationalist arguments, but also has an extra dimension (in which my own opinions fall) to justify itself.

Quote:
Independence for Scotland is very much like Descarte's Wager. If the independence movement succeeds in energizing the populace of Scotland to the pathway of commercial and financial success, the clear winners will be both England and Scotland.


I don't think their prize would be any greater for doing this outside the Union. In fact, economically, it would be rather akin to putting our eggs in one basket: I imagine the Scottish economy has at times supported the English, and vice versa - a diverse economy is a far more solid basis for continued economic performance.

The problem that bedevils Scotland is lack of opportunity for the younger people coming into the job market and the deep rooted pessimism of the older citizens.

Quote:
Independence would mean that Scotland takes the responsibility for correcting and alleviating those problems, as well as the credit and blame.


I don't see why the culture of accountability should change. After all, we already live in a democracy with accountable politicians directing our economy.

Quote:
So if the venture should fail for any number of reasons, Scotland will be no worse off than it is today


Hmm... the idea that the Scottish economy can only get better seems a rather dangerous assumption to make.

Quote:
but if it should succeed, the rewards to every man, woman and child, as well as the children of generations yet unborn, will be immense. A man who can pay and earn his own way is a free man; a man who depends on others for his pay and keep is a slave.


Milk and honeyism, I say! Very Happy

Seriously though, why should it be any different? What, in terms of economics, can an independent Scotland do that a sovereign UK cannot?

Quote:
It is interesting to me that the cynics, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing


Insofar as we should doubtless appreciate some sort of sense of freedom or whatever you're calling it these days?

I'm afraid I already have that as a freeborn British citizen. I do not need a thistle strapped to the matter to reassure me of this.

I am no cynic, I'm actually quite Utopianist in my thinking: however I see benefit only in achiving the ends of liberty, not in simply distracting the public by crafting the state in whatever image is fashionable at the time.
Aventinian

SLG wrote:
I've no idea about RFM, but I belive that as much fiscal autonomy as possible should be in the hands of local authorities.  I believe that more fiscal control should be handed down to communities at a level below the present local authority.  I'm not sure it's feasible (at the moment anyway) for this to be full fiscal autonomy.  I think the most local level above this that forms some sort of natural boundary would be the national level.


I disagree that it's remotely infeasible, if you'll excuse the double negative. In fact, I imagine it would be very possible to craft city-states in Scotland, if we so took the fancy. That is possible, and is the logical next step of localism.

It seems odd that a body sitting in Edinburgh can be justified, but one in London cannot, under this slightly more practical version of localism which you espouse. What's your position on Brussels-Strasbourg incidentally?

To what end this localism too? I believe in subsidiarity, government at its most effective level; yet your opinion appears to present localised government for its own sake. I believe in reform of local government - but at the moment, it seems the trend of "devolution" and the creation of Scotland-wide bodies has been to the detriment of local powers.

Quote:
Come on... what have they actually done.  Sent out a few Saltires for St Andrew's Day.  What else?


Fair point, but as was observed to me earlier today on this board: they've got a whole four years to implement their policies.  Wink
SLG

Aventinian wrote:
I disagree that it's remotely infeasible, if you'll excuse the double negative. In fact, I imagine it would be very possible to craft city-states in Scotland, if we so took the fancy. That is possible, and is the logical next step of localism.

Yes, I think it is the next logical step (for most powers).  I think one step at a time though.

Aventinian wrote:
It seems odd that a body sitting in Edinburgh can be justified, but one in London cannot, under this slightly more practical version of localism which you espouse. What's your position on Brussels-Strasbourg incidentally?

For me, it's about the least worse option and it's about nationalism.  Firstly, London is more remote to most of Scotland than Edinburgh.  Scotland is a much smaller country than the UK and therefore, IMO, more amenable to the good governance of a country.  I do think that the nationalism that affects the members of the UK Parliament has a greater effect than the regionalism that exists within Scotland.

As I say above, I very much hope that independence will also lead to a much greater emphasis on localism within Scotland.  Something I think is less likely to occur within the UK.

As for Brussels/Strasburg, I am in favour of the EU as a trading block and as a mechanism for European wide cooperation not as a centralising political institution.  As it stands, I do think it would be better to be in it than out of it, but that will probably change.

Aventinian wrote:
To what end this localism too? I believe in subsidiarity, government at its most effective level; yet your opinion appears to present localised government for its own sake.

I think the decisions of government should be made as close to those who are most affected by those decisions.  I think that should be the default position.  I would need to be persuaded that any powers should be retained above that level.

Aventinian wrote:
I believe in reform of local government - but at the moment, it seems the trend of "devolution" and the creation of Scotland-wide bodies has been to the detriment of local powers.

Sure.  I think that's part of the problem with devolution.  Part of the reason for this might be that from a UK perspective, Scotland is a region and devolution forms regional government and therefore it's sensible rationalisation.  I don't think this trend will change until Scotland is independent.
parkhead_rfb

[quote="SLG"]
Quote:
.  I think you're a simple conservative who is worried that the progressive forces bringing on independence will mean the destruction of some of the institutions and culture you hold dear.  .


i.e. i want to keep all the benefits i have enjoyed through my faimilies wealth.  more equality might mean that people from better off backgrounds might actually have to rely on their own talents to get them by.  that will simply never do.
parkhead_rfb

Aventinian wrote:
RFM wrote:
You are being far too cynical Adventinian.


I think I've good reason to be cynical where the SNP are concerned. More importantly, the reverse is far truer: as an anti-Nationalist, I've basically been as good as told that I'm some sort of self-interested pro-Establishmentist, an inadequate Englishman or whatever other rubbish pops into certain heads. .


someone like yourself is the same whatever your nationality.  you want just enough government intervention to allow you to maintain your wealth and power but for that to stop at the point of the state actually helping others.
agentmancuso

parkhead_rfb wrote:
 more equality might mean that people from better off backgrounds might actually have to rely on their own talents to get them by.


How?
parkhead_rfb

agentmancuso wrote:
parkhead_rfb wrote:
 more equality might mean that people from better off backgrounds might actually have to rely on their own talents to get them by.


How?


as it is people from poorer backgrounds find it extremely difficult to get a decent level of education if their parents cant afford to help them whilst they study.  people from poorer backgrounds also suffer far, far more from social problems in society.

if more was invested in actually helping people then maybe the playing field could be levelled far more than it is just now.
RFM

To Adventinian,

In simple terms, life is not a spectator sport, to get ahead or to accomplish requires effort, taking the risk of loss, striving to do better. If the people of Scotland are willing to try, then give them the chance. What is the alternative, do nothing and follow the English? Hope that they will continue to look at us as some sort of a quaint northern relative? As long as distribution of economic, material and political resources remains in England, they will look after their own needs first. That is not a condemnation of the English that is simply human nature. That is the difference between London and Edinburgh.

Parkhead is quite right that there is an inertia in all societies of people who have managed to survive, or have managed to accumulate wealth through luck and good ancestry, who see any sort of economic or political change as a threat to their own well being and privileges. If we listen to the voices that tell us it is all foolish nationalist sentiment and propaganda, that it is too difficult, that England will take care us, you can be certain of only failure.
RFM

To agentmancuso.

Mon deiu, et mon droit!
agentmancuso

parkhead_rfb wrote:
as it is people from poorer backgrounds find it extremely difficult to get a decent level of education if their parents cant afford to help them whilst they study.


What's to stop them getting a part time job while they study? There are more people from poor backgrounds in the further/higher education system now than at any time in the past.

Quote:
people from poorer backgrounds also suffer far, far more from social problems in society.


Why?

Quote:
if more was invested in actually helping people then maybe the playing field could be levelled far more than it is just now.


There is no playing field.
agentmancuso

RFM wrote:
To agentmancuso.

Mon deiu, et mon droit!


Laughing Joyeaux noel, mon cher ami staliniste, mais je préfère la devise traditionnelle liberté égalité fraternité
RFM

To agent mancuso

I am afraid French has never been one of my fields of study.
but a Merry Chrisitmas to You and to Yours as well.
parkhead_rfb

agentmancuso wrote:
parkhead_rfb wrote:
as it is people from poorer backgrounds find it extremely difficult to get a decent level of education if their parents cant afford to help them whilst they study.


What's to stop them getting a part time job while they study? There are more people from poor backgrounds in the further/higher education system now than at any time in the past.

Quote:
people from poorer backgrounds also suffer far, far more from social problems in society.


Why?

Quote:
if more was invested in actually helping people then maybe the playing field could be levelled far more than it is just now.


There is no playing field.


i had a part time job/jobs all through uni.  even working if i had to move away and pay for a private let and all the other expense with it theres no way i would have been able to afford to go through uni.  i was ucky in the fact that i was from scotlands biggest city and so had a few uni's close by to go to whilst i stayed at home.

the very fact that you need to ask why more people suffer from societies problems than others shows you dont actually live in the real world.  do you actually think someone growing up in the east end isnt at a significant disadvantage from someone growing up in areas like bearsden etc?

the poverty congregated in these areas means theres a far higher ratio of drug addiction, crime etc etc.  the schools in these areas also have to deal with far more children with problems related to growing up in that enviroment.

you may not feel theres a playing field but then mummy and daddy probably provided for you so you didnt have to feel that way.
agentmancuso

parkhead_rfb wrote:
i had a part time job/jobs all through uni.  even working if i had to move away and pay for a private let and all the other expense with it theres no way i would have been able to afford to go through uni.  i was ucky in the fact that i was from scotlands biggest city and so had a few uni's close by to go to whilst i stayed at home.


Like I say: more people from poor backgrounds are at university today than at any time in the past.

Quote:
the very fact that you need to ask why more people suffer from societies problems than others shows you dont actually live in the real world.


No it doesn't. It merely reflects an ability on my part to consider problems from a theoretical angle, rather than from personal grievance. If you could do that, you'd feel less like killing people because they didn't share your grievance.

Quote:
do you actually think someone growing up in the east end isnt at a significant disadvantage from someone growing up in areas like bearsden etc?


What sort of disadvantage?
Quote:

the poverty congregated in these areas means theres a far higher ratio of drug addiction, crime etc etc.  


Are drug addiction or crime a direct result of poverty?

Quote:
you may not feel theres a playing field but then mummy and daddy probably provided for you so you didnt have to feel that way.


My background is of no relevance; there is no playing field.
Maol.Chaluim

agentmancuso wrote:
Quote:

the poverty congregated in these areas means theres a far higher ratio of drug addiction, crime etc etc.  


Are drug addiction or crime a direct result of poverty?


Is it a coincidence that drug addiction and crime are more prevalent in poorer areas?
Niall

Maol.Chaluim wrote:
agentmancuso wrote:
Quote:

the poverty congregated in these areas means theres a far higher ratio of drug addiction, crime etc etc.  


Are drug addiction or crime a direct result of poverty?


Is it a coincidence that drug addiction and crime are more prevalent in poorer areas?


Perhaps the aspirations of the people living in these areas need lifting up. I was brought up in dire poverty in a crofting township. I know what it is to walk four miles to school every day in bare feet only wearing my precious boots in the winter.  We were all in the same boat yet very few turned to achohol or drugs. Why?  Because that was seen as an escape from reality and the only way to improve our lot was through hard work and education.

This is probably why most of my generation have succeeded in life and I cannot see why people in these deprived areas cannot seize the many opportunities for education and training and pull themselves up by their bootstraps to actually achieve something.  I can conceive of nothing worse than the present 'dependency culture' which enfeebles and emasculates peoples will to succeed.

'S mise
Niall.
parkhead_rfb

Maol.Chaluim wrote:
agentmancuso wrote:
Quote:

the poverty congregated in these areas means theres a far higher ratio of drug addiction, crime etc etc.  


Are drug addiction or crime a direct result of poverty?


Is it a coincidence that drug addiction and crime are more prevalent in poorer areas?


no its all because there lazy and lack ambition dont you know.
parkhead_rfb

Niall wrote:
Maol.Chaluim wrote:
agentmancuso wrote:
Quote:

the poverty congregated in these areas means theres a far higher ratio of drug addiction, crime etc etc.  


Are drug addiction or crime a direct result of poverty?


Is it a coincidence that drug addiction and crime are more prevalent in poorer areas?


Perhaps the aspirations of the people living in these areas need lifting up. I was brought up in dire poverty in a crofting township. I know what it is to walk four miles to school every day in bare feet only wearing my precious boots in the winter.  We were all in the same boat yet very few turned to achohol or drugs. Why?  Because that was seen as an escape from reality and the only way to improve our lot was through hard work and education.

you also have a severel misty eyed version of the past going on there if you dont think addiction and social problems existed in poorer areas in the past.

I could be here all day giving you the various and numerous barriers to people coming off benefits and i could be here all day giving you various examples as well.

one great example though is the working for families project which was to help single parents and others with young families into employment/educaton.....the scottish exec is about to cut its funding.
This is probably why most of my generation have succeeded in life and I cannot see why people in these deprived areas cannot seize the many opportunities for education and training and pull themselves up by their bootstraps to actually achieve something.  I can conceive of nothing worse than the present 'dependency culture' which enfeebles and emasculates peoples will to succeed.

'S mise
Niall.


i come from scotlands poorest electoral ward and work in welfare rights (i help people with benefits and debt) so i think i am fairly well qualified to say your talking s***e about it being a dependency culture and it simply being about people not pulling themselves up.
Maol.Chaluim

Don't you think Niall is also fairly well qualified to discuss this, considering his background?  

You can't deny the existence of the dependency culture.  Surely, as you have experience of working in welfare rights, you'll have noticed that some people try their hardest to get by on what they've got and do try to better themselves using whatever resources are at their disposal, while others complain, expect handouts, begrudge what they're given, and are basically jealous on anyone better off than them.
parkhead_rfb

Maol.Chaluim wrote:
Don't you think Niall is also fairly well qualified to discuss this, considering his background?  

You can't deny the existence of the dependency culture.  Surely, as you have experience of working in welfare rights, you'll have noticed that some people try their hardest to get by on what they've got and do try to better themselves using whatever resources are at their disposal, while others complain, expect handouts, begrudge what they're given, and are basically jealous on anyone better off than them.


there will always be a small proportion of lazy people.

that doesnt stop the massive barriers of those who do want to get into work and better themselves.

unless niall has an indepth knowledge of social security law then i dont think he will understand those barriers.  rather he is probably spouting off with the widespread nonsense many people believe about the benefit system.

I seen it widely reported not so long back that people are on incapacity benefit for having acne....utter, utter drivel.

as i say i could give you thousands of examples of people who have been placed in situations where its impossibe for them to get out of the trap but i would be here all day listing them all.
Niall

parkhead_rfb wrote:
Maol.Chaluim wrote:
Don't you think Niall is also fairly well qualified to discuss this, considering his background?  

You can't deny the existence of the dependency culture.  Surely, as you have experience of working in welfare rights, you'll have noticed that some people try their hardest to get by on what they've got and do try to better themselves using whatever resources are at their disposal, while others complain, expect handouts, begrudge what they're given, and are basically jealous on anyone better off than them.


there will always be a small proportion of lazy people.

that doesnt stop the massive barriers of those who do want to get into work and better themselves.

unless niall has an indepth knowledge of social security law then i dont think he will understand those barriers.  rather he is probably spouting off with the widespread nonsense many people believe about the benefit system.

I seen it widely reported not so long back that people are on incapacity benefit for having acne....utter, utter drivel.

as i say i could give you thousands of examples of people who have been placed in situations where its impossibe for them to get out of the trap but i would be here all day listing them all.


To put you into the picture, I am on Disability working allowance and am classed as severely disabled (Heart attack, 2 cancers, and complete kidney failure due to chemotherapy).  I have to undergo renal dialysis three times a week which limits my work time as a self employed accountant.  Yet I can manage to work, keep my pride intact and support my family and the taxman so why can't the workshy unemployed do the same?

Where I was brought up, there was no social security system to speak of. People had to continue working and it generated an instinct for self reliance.  My Grandfather lost a lung to gas in WWI, yet he kept his croft going until he died of pneumonia in 1952 aged 53.  There were many doing a full days hard physical labour with artificial limbs on a pittance of a war disability pemsion.  If they could do it why not others in the towns and cities?  

There is still dire poverty in the crofting communities where the average annual income is around £4,000 pa but you do not hear the crofters bleating about it!  My Great Uncle Iain is reckoned to be a rich man because he gets the old age pension and I have never heard him complain except about the cruel insensitivity of Government and the EU.

Poverty was commonplace, it affected us all and we did not girn about it, we just knuckled down and made the best of our circumstances. Hard work and education being the keys to a better standard of life.  As I said earlier which you appear to ignore, People need to raise their aspirations and get some bottle in their lives to make that important step into the world of work and NOT depend on the rest of us to keep them. Social security is a temporary measure to tide people over while they are out of work. Its not a permanent way of life.  I am 63 and will continue working as long as I am able possibly until I am 70.

Like it or not, there is a dependency culture, fostered mainly by the Labour party who see the sink estates as their exclusive voters preserve. Rather than encourage investment in these areas they are content to write people off because the politicians are too gutless to make the social security rules tighter.  In my younger days if you did not work you did not eat! That is a good philosphy that should be applied to those who are capable of work yet like leeches prefer to live off our hard work and taxes without contributing anything to the common pot.

Up here in Fraserburgh we have a lot of unemployment yet local firms are forced to advertise in Poland and Lithuania for workers to come over here to take up jobs the local unemployed are not prepared to consider. Fish workers jobs at £6.50 per hour are going begging while perfectly fit and able local Scots people draw their benefits and then pi$$ the money down in the pub, on drugs and the bookies.  Not fair or right is it?  Oh and before you accuse me of being a right wing Toraidh, I am not. I support social democracy and Independence. I just don't like leeches and scroungers.

'S Mise le meas
Niall.
Anthropos

parkhead_rfb wrote:
i had a part time job/jobs all through uni.  even working if i had to move away and pay for a private let and all the other expense with it theres no way i would have been able to afford to go through uni.  i was ucky in the fact that i was from scotlands biggest city and so had a few uni's close by to go to whilst i stayed at home.


I think it is a good thing to work while an undergraduate, the experience you get is beneficial not just financially but personally too.  In America pretty much everyone works while at college regardless of whether their parents are as well of as agentmancuso's are because economic self sufficiency is seen as a social good in its own right.  Nobody would think it strange that a student had a part time job, it would be expected.

Although it is usually people on the left who think grants should be brought back, in Britain the system of grants was based on the snobbish premise that students were destined for the professional classes and therefore not the sort of people who should be waiting tables, showing people to their seats or flipping burgers; so it was designed to give them the sort of freedom from responsibility that idle aristocrats enjoyed.  The end of such a system was no bad thing.
Anthropos

Niall wrote:
Perhaps the aspirations of the people living in these areas need lifting up.  


Well yes!  The problem is how do you do this?  Aspiration by definition needs to come from within, it is not something the government can legislate for.

Niall wrote:
I was brought up in dire poverty in a crofting township. I know what it is to walk four miles to school every day in bare feet only wearing my precious boots in the winter.  We were all in the same boat yet very few turned to achohol or drugs. Why?  Because that was seen as an escape from reality and the only way to improve our lot was through hard work and education.


There probably were some people like that in urban areas too, but the thing is growing up in a rural area is not like growing up in an urban area, people in rural areas do generally tend to be more self sufficient, it is a different kind of society.

Niall wrote:
Like it or not, there is a dependency culture, fostered mainly by the Labour party who see the sink estates as their exclusive voters preserve.


I think that is a fair point, though it is arguable.  Would eradication of poverty really be in their interest?  They do tend to think of such people as being their property (even referring to them as "our people"), but they are also democratically elected by those same people so the question must remain, what can you do about it?
parkhead_rfb

Anthropos wrote:
parkhead_rfb wrote:
i had a part time job/jobs all through uni.  even working if i had to move away and pay for a private let and all the other expense with it theres no way i would have been able to afford to go through uni.  i was ucky in the fact that i was from scotlands biggest city and so had a few uni's close by to go to whilst i stayed at home.


I think it is a good thing to work while an undergraduate, the experience you get is beneficial not just financially but personally too.  In America pretty much everyone works while at college regardless of whether their parents are as well of as agentmancuso's are because economic self sufficiency is seen as a social good in its own right.  Nobody would think it strange that a student had a part time job, it would be expected.

Although it is usually people on the left who think grants should be brought back, in Britain the system of grants was based on the snobbish premise that students were destined for the professional classes and therefore not the sort of people who should be waiting tables, showing people to their seats or flipping burgers; so it was designed to give them the sort of freedom from responsibility that idle aristocrats enjoyed.  The end of such a system was no bad thing.


i am not saying they shouldnt work part time just that for many if they are in private lets etc the hours they need to work to pay to survive makes it extremely difficult for them to be able to get an education.
parkhead_rfb

Niall wrote:
parkhead_rfb wrote:
Maol.Chaluim wrote:
Don't you think Niall is also fairly well qualified to discuss this, considering his background?  

You can't deny the existence of the dependency culture.  Surely, as you have experience of working in welfare rights, you'll have noticed that some people try their hardest to get by on what they've got and do try to better themselves using whatever resources are at their disposal, while others complain, expect handouts, begrudge what they're given, and are basically jealous on anyone better off than them.


there will always be a small proportion of lazy people.

that doesnt stop the massive barriers of those who do want to get into work and better themselves.

unless niall has an indepth knowledge of social security law then i dont think he will understand those barriers.  rather he is probably spouting off with the widespread nonsense many people believe about the benefit system.

I seen it widely reported not so long back that people are on incapacity benefit for having acne....utter, utter drivel.

as i say i could give you thousands of examples of people who have been placed in situations where its impossibe for them to get out of the trap but i would be here all day listing them all.


To put you into the picture, I am on Disability working allowance and am classed as severely disabled (Heart attack, 2 cancers, and complete kidney failure due to chemotherapy).  I have to undergo renal dialysis three times a week which limits my work time as a self employed accountant.  Yet I can manage to work, keep my pride intact and support my family and the taxman so why can't the workshy unemployed do the same?

Where I was brought up, there was no social security system to speak of. People had to continue working and it generated an instinct for self reliance.  My Grandfather lost a lung to gas in WWI, yet he kept his croft going until he died of pneumonia in 1952 aged 53.  There were many doing a full days hard physical labour with artificial limbs on a pittance of a war disability pemsion.  If they could do it why not others in the towns and cities?  

There is still dire poverty in the crofting communities where the average annual income is around £4,000 pa but you do not hear the crofters bleating about it!  My Great Uncle Iain is reckoned to be a rich man because he gets the old age pension and I have never heard him complain except about the cruel insensitivity of Government and the EU.

Poverty was commonplace, it affected us all and we did not girn about it, we just knuckled down and made the best of our circumstances. Hard work and education being the keys to a better standard of life.  As I said earlier which you appear to ignore, People need to raise their aspirations and get some bottle in their lives to make that important step into the world of work and NOT depend on the rest of us to keep them. Social security is a temporary measure to tide people over while they are out of work. Its not a permanent way of life.  I am 63 and will continue working as long as I am able possibly until I am 70.

Like it or not, there is a dependency culture, fostered mainly by the Labour party who see the sink estates as their exclusive voters preserve. Rather than encourage investment in these areas they are content to write people off because the politicians are too gutless to make the social security rules tighter.  In my younger days if you did not work you did not eat! That is a good philosphy that should be applied to those who are capable of work yet like leeches prefer to live off our hard work and taxes without contributing anything to the common pot.

Up here in Fraserburgh we have a lot of unemployment yet local firms are forced to advertise in Poland and Lithuania for workers to come over here to take up jobs the local unemployed are not prepared to consider. Fish workers jobs at £6.50 per hour are going begging while perfectly fit and able local Scots people draw their benefits and then pi$$ the money down in the pub, on drugs and the bookies.  Not fair or right is it?  Oh and before you accuse me of being a right wing Toraidh, I am not. I support social democracy and Independence. I just don't like leeches and scroungers.

'S Mise le meas
Niall.


maybe theres a clue in your job title.  it might just surprise you to learn that some people on benefits dont quite get paid the same rate as yourself.

compare what you get a day with a cleaner.

as for your nonsense about tightening the laws up i can assure you the are tight enough as it is.  I have seen many severely mentally ill and physically ill people cut off benefits.  its always the least capable that will suffer as the small number of people who are at it will make sure they play the game and do whats needed to stay on the benefit.

by the way am assuming its a reduced earnings allowance you have or disability living allowance as the thing you named doesnt exist.
Niall

parkhead_rfb wrote:
maybe theres a clue in your job title.  it might just surprise you to learn that some people on benefits dont quite get paid the same rate as yourself.

compare what you get a day with a cleaner.

as for your nonsense about tightening the laws up i can assure you the are tight enough as it is.  I have seen many severely mentally ill and physically ill people cut off benefits.  its always the least capable that will suffer as the small number of people who are at it will make sure they play the game and do whats needed to stay on the benefit.

by the way am assuming its a reduced earnings allowance you have or disability living allowance as the thing you named doesnt exist.


Laddie its time you read my posts properly.  What rate? I am SELF EMPLOYED! If I am too ill to work then I don't earn anything. If I don't earn anything then I cannot put food on the table.  There are probably a few weeks when the cleaner makes more than I do.  Your whole post betrays your politics of envy. So what, if I am an accountant? I was not given this on a silver platter. I had to work damned hard to get where I am now.  

I started life as a Dairy hand on a farm on a pittance. Joined the RAF and took all the training opportunities on offer. Even managed to climb the greasy pole to commissioned rank. I was discharged because of a severe wound sustained in the far east in 1965 when I nearly lost my lower right leg in a firefight.  Because of this a receive a small war disability pension which in no way compensates for the constant pain. Being medically downgraded meant I could not climb the promotion ladder so I started afresh and put myself through college at my own expense to learn accountancy and have built up a reasonably successful practice. Its all through hard work alone, nothing else.

I disagree that the rules are too tight, far too many peole suffer from 'oscillatory plumbitis' and have exploited the benefits system as an easy means of living. Some even manage to make a tidy sum on the side as well. This is called fraud.  I admit that there are many people on benefits who are so disabled they need extra help like your examples of the mentally and physically ill examples you have mentioned, who have my sympathy and also my very real anger at the bureaucrats who treat them in such a cavilier manner.

Finally you claim never to have heard of Disability living allowance?

May I introduce you to the legislation:

Introduction of disability working allowance

(1) Section 20 (income-related benefits) of the [1986 c. 50.] Social Security Act 1986 (“the 1986 Act”) shall be amended as follows.

(2) The following paragraph shall be inserted after subsection (1)(b)—

“(bb) disability working allowance;”.

(3) In subsection (2) for the words “or (b)” there shall be substituted the words “, (b) or (bb)”.

(4) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (6)—

“(6A) A person in Great Britain who has attained the age of 16 and qualifies under subsection (6B) below is entitled to a disability working allowance if, when the claim for it is made or is treated as made—

(a) he is engaged and normally engaged in remunerative work;

(b) he has a physical or mental disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting a job;

(c) his income—

(i) does not exceed the applicable amount; or

(ii) exceeds it, but only by such an amount that there is an amount remaining if the deduction for which section 21(3B) below provides is made; and

(d) except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, neither he nor, if he has a family, any member of it, is entitled to family credit.

(6B) Subject to subsection (6E) below, a person qualifies under this subsection if—

(a) for one or more of the 56 days immediately preceding the date when the claim for a disability working allowance is made or is treated as made there was payable to him one or more of the following—

(i) an invalidity pension under section 15 of the [1975 c. 14.] Social Security Act 1975;

(ii) an invalidity pension under section 15 or 16 of the [1975 c. 60.] Social Security Pensions Act 1975;

(iii) a severe disablement allowance under section 36 of the Social Security Act 1975;

(iv) income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit,

or a corresponding benefit under any enactment having effect in Northern Ireland;

(b) when the claim for a disability working allowance is made or is treated as made, there is payable to him one or more of the following—

(i) an attendance allowance under section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975;

(ii) a disability living allowance under section 37ZA of that Act;

(iii) an increase of disablement pension under section 61 of that Act (constant attendance allowance);

(iv) an analogous pension increase under a war pension scheme or an industrial injuries scheme,

or a corresponding benefit under any enactment having effect in Northern Ireland; or

(c) when the claim for a disability working allowance is made or is treated as made, he has an invalid carriage or other vehicle provided by the Secretary of State under section 5(2)(a) of the [1977 c. 49.] National Health Service Act 1977 and Schedule 2 to that Act or under section 46 of the [1978 c. 29.] National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or provided under Article 30(1) of the [S.I.1972/1265 (N.I. 14).] Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.

(6C) For the purposes of subsection (6A) above a person has a disability which puts him at a disadvantage in getting a job only if he satisfies prescribed conditions or prescribed circumstances exist in relation to him.

(6D) In subsection (6A)(c) above “the applicable amount” means the applicable amount at such date as may be prescribed.

(6E) If the only benefit mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (6B) above which is payable to a person as there mentioned is—

(a) a benefit mentioned in sub-paragraph (iv) of that paragraph; or

(b) a corresponding benefit under any enactment having effect in Northern Ireland,

he only qualifies under that subsection in prescribed circumstances.

*********************************
Finally Poverty does not stop anyone from making a success of their lives. Rather its a spur, a challenge to be overcome.  Of the eleven children in my Class at Harrapol primary, seven of us have gone on to make a success of our lives. One as a doctor who has just retired as a cancer consultant in NSW Australia.  Another is a captain of a supertanker. One is a writer to the Signet in Edinburgh.  Another owns his own motor coach business, another retired three years ago as a rector of an academy in the highlands and my former best pal Coinneach owns a agricultural machinery manufacturing plant in the USA where he emigrated to twenty years ago. My accomplishments by comparison are much smaller but if people can be raised in dire poverty, then that should not be an excuse to give up and do nothing.

All my school friends achieved what they did by diligent hard work and study and that is true for everyone in Scotland and if they could do it then so can everyone else if the will is there and they aspire to succeed.

Happy Christmas (Yes I am still working today, needs must.)

'S mise le meas
Niall.
agentmancuso

Maol.Chaluim wrote:
Is it a coincidence that drug addiction and crime are more prevalent in poorer areas?


I don't think it can be. Good point though.
parkhead_rfb

disability working allowance was stopped in the 90's.  its the disability element of working tac credit that replaced it.  as far as i am aware everyone has been switched over to tax credits.  so you actually wasted your time finding and quoting outdated legislation.

I also dont envy anyone i have a good job myself i just dont use the fact i got one as a way of decrying everyone else from poorer backgrounds as lazy etc

by the way another top tip is not to go around the world in a british army uniform.  that way people wont actually want to injure you. would have saved you a lot of hard work if someone had told you that sooner eh.
Niall

parkhead_rfb wrote:
by the way another top tip is not to go around the world in a british army uniform.  that way people wont actually want to injure you. would have saved you a lot of hard work if someone had told you that sooner eh.


That is the risk that goes with the job.  I joined up to escape a lifetime of low paid drudgery on a hill farm.  I knew the risks as does anyone who joins up like Gordon Gentle.  To me the RAF was the gateway to a better life and career and I won't knock it because serving in the RAF allowed me to get better educated and skilled in life skills.  It is unfortunate that many people have to escape poverty and deprivation by joining up but hey! That Neu Liebour for you, 'Vote for us and we'll keep you poor!'

'S mise le meas
Niall.
parkhead_rfb

Niall wrote:
parkhead_rfb wrote:
by the way another top tip is not to go around the world in a british army uniform.  that way people wont actually want to injure you. would have saved you a lot of hard work if someone had told you that sooner eh.


That is the risk that goes with the job.  I joined up to escape a lifetime of low paid drudgery on a hill farm.  I knew the risks as does anyone who joins up like Gordon Gentle.  To me the RAF was the gateway to a better life and career and I won't knock it because serving in the RAF allowed me to get better educated and skilled in life skills.  It is unfortunate that many people have to escape poverty and deprivation by joining up but hey! That Neu Liebour for you, 'Vote for us and we'll keep you poor!'

'S mise le meas
Niall.


I am sure the many millions the british army have slaughtered are happy you have had such a great career.

lying to the social isnt on but joining the british imperial war machine to trapse across the world plundering it is.  funny old world eh.
Niall

parkhead_rfb wrote:
I am sure the many millions the british army have slaughtered are happy you have had such a great career.

lying to the social isnt on but joining the british imperial war machine to trapse across the world plundering it is.  funny old world eh.


Not having had the luxury of your grand outlook on life and philosphy that you have emjoyed, your holiness, I did what any young man trapped in poverty would do and in my circumstances you would have done the same. As for the slaughtering of millions and plundering, I think that title should go to the Soviet Red Army under Lenin and Stalin. Or the six millions killed by Mao tse Tung, or maybe the two millions murdered by Pol Pot.  The atrocities of the British Army pale into insignificance by comparison.

In the far East I was part of a 14,000 strong force preventing the Indonesian armed forces over-running the newly independent Malaysia.  The Leader of the Indonesians was a fellow called Soekarno who was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of 5 million chinese of whom 2 million were murdered by mobs because he had this idea that Chinese = Communism therefore kill the chinese.  He also had the grandiose scheme of taking over the philipines as well and calling his new empire 'Malphilindo'  Part of that plan was the expulsion or murder of the 4,million chinese inhabitants of Singapore.

I am rather pleased that I helped prevent this mass murderer from realizing his ambitions to murder more people, so my service in the RAF was not entirely wasted unless of course you know better?

Blaidna mhath ur!

Niall.
RFM

Actually parkhead, the medieval Japanese used the same methods to deal with overpopulation; they developed highly trained soldiers and engaged in clan wars. The result was to thin out the male population. In Scotland in the 18th through the 20th centuries, military training and warfare served the same purpose.

Niall is one of the fortunate few who has the intellectual and personal resources to join the professions and provide for himself, despite severe handicap. I suspect, reading between the lines, it has not been an easy or effortless accomplishment. However, many people are not blessed with the same resources and abilities. Most people are used to going to a work place at a specified hour, being told what to do and how to do it, and leaving it behind at 5 o'clock. For most of their lives that has provided a living for them; how are they to learn new skills and abilities now? Worse still having acquired a standard of living by relatively comfortable means, they are not going to do the hard dirty work required by for instance in the Fish Hooses. Yet as Anthropos points out, what is the alternative? Let them starve? Not in a democratic State.

Like it or not, independence or not, Scotland depends upon its small entrepreneurial business community to come up with the jobs, the employment, and the opportunities which can change its future. Fighting amongst ourselves will not do that.
Avatar

I'm going to have to take a bit of an Aventnian line here and say that armies kill people its what they do, its what they are trained for, there is no such thing as an ethical army, that includes the British army, the US army, the IRA the UDA, taleban  whatever.. they are all the same - its the governments/management that direct these armies that are in the right or wrong.
parkhead_rfb

quote]

Not having had the luxury of your grand outlook on life and philosphy that you have emjoyed, your holiness, I did what any young man trapped in poverty would do and in my circumstances you would have done the same. .[/quote]

I would rather starve than join the british army thanks.  its funny how poor wee you was trapped in poverty and had to do something yet you are wiling to pour scorn on those who are also trapped by poverty but rather than murder a few people for the british army shilling they dont tell the dwp the full story for a few quid extra.

your excuse for joining the british army is no better than a drug dealer who does the same thing to escape his.  you werent some hero over there liberating anyone you were a british army mercenary dancing to their tune for the sake of a few quid so am not impressed by that wee tale of woe you have built up.

I do though have sympathy for anyone growing up in a crofting community as generaly i find those type of places to be full of absolute weirdos and not a kick in the arse off a scene from the wicker man.  a stranger in the local pub is enough to have maw, paw and the bairns exited for the full day.
iainmhor

I agree with Parkheads view of Scots joining the British Army. I expect it from daft loyalist bigots, but not those who are for Scottish independence.

Dont agree with Parkhead about Scottish crofting communities, although many are now populated by Flighties getting away from the rat race and pracising all sorts of weird things.

Thankfully my experience of living in crofting communities in Bara, South Uist and Tiree as a wean on school holidays was enriching of the Gaelic Scottish culture that i love.
Aventinian

iainmhor wrote:
I agree with Parkheads view of Scots joining the British Army. I expect it from daft loyalist bigots, but not those who are for Scottish independence.


You know, it's funny in the modern day how even the most bigoted seem to utilise accusations of bigotry as part of their regular political arsenal.

It's quite a clever idea, I suppose; pre-empt and devalue. However it's not surprising that most people are becoming very cynical as a consequence and that true problems in this world go unnoticed, falling into the great chasm of rhetoric.

In this vein, it seems to me rather more likely that you are a bigot than the vast majority of soldiers in the British Army.
iainmhor

To volunteer to fight in the army of a foreign power against other stateless and oppressed peoples and to blindly do killing and dying for their cause seems not necessarily bigoted to me but really stupid and traitorous.

BTW Aventinian why do you think im bigoted? Sure i freely admit hating imperialism and imperialists but that is irrespective of their nationality and religion etc
Aventinian

iainmhor wrote:
To volunteer to fight in the army of a foreign power against other stateless and oppressed peoples and to blindly do killing and dying for their cause seems not necessarily bigoted to me but really stupid and traitorous.


The illogic is startling. I expect even those driven by their emotions and prejudices to have at least a slight bit of consideration of the position of others.

Quote:
BTW Aventinian why do you think im bigoted? Sure i freely admit hating imperialism and imperialists but that is irrespective of their nationality and religion etc


I think you're a bigot because you categorise people who simply share a different emotive bond than you as 'daft... bigots'. Is that a good enough answer?
iainmhor

So my politics are merely the flipside of the coin of loyalism to you Aventian?

Whats your opinion of imperialism? Favourable to it?
William_Cleland

iainmhor wrote:
To volunteer to fight in the army of a foreign power against other stateless and oppressed peoples and to blindly do killing and dying for their cause seems not necessarily bigoted to me but really stupid and traitorous.


Scots played a massive role in building and maintaining the Empire. To describe it as a foreign power is delusional. The way it was described to me by older people in my family who had working down a coal pit or being a soldier as their viable future career options when they left school at 14 after growing up in a mining village was that they knew there were major problems with the British imperial system that they were putting on a uniform and carrying a gun for but they also knew that the possible alternatives as the major global power could be a whole lot worse. You have to deal with the world as it is warts and all.
Niall

parkhead_rfb wrote:
I would rather starve than join the british army thanks.  its funny how poor wee you was trapped in poverty and had to do something yet you are wiling to pour scorn on those who are also trapped by poverty but rather than murder a few people for the british army shilling they dont tell the dwp the full story for a few quid extra.

your excuse for joining the british army is no better than a drug dealer who does the same thing to escape his.  you werent some hero over there liberating anyone you were a british army mercenary dancing to their tune for the sake of a few quid so am not impressed by that wee tale of woe you have built up.

I do though have sympathy for anyone growing up in a crofting community as generaly i find those type of places to be full of absolute weirdos and not a kick in the arse off a scene from the wicker man.  a stranger in the local pub is enough to have maw, paw and the bairns exited for the full day.


I can truthfully say, I done nothing to be ashamed of in my service with the RAF Regiment.  Most of the time was spent trying to stop the locals from killing each other off.  I did two tours in the six counties and if we had not been there, both sides would have wiped each other out in a genocidal bloodbath.  

There was no difference between the criminals and thugs from the UDA, UFF, Ira, Provo and INLA alike.  The first british soldier to be shot dead was killed by a UDA gunman when troops were trying to stop Ulster loyalists (Unionists) from attacking the civil rights marchers.  I believe I know where you are coming from, the republic politics of the Six counties? If so many of your so called heroes were murdering bastards who thought nothing of blowing innocent women and children apart with a bomb just because the restaurant/Pub/shop owner etc had not paid the 'protection money.'  At least Al Capone was respectable he did not claim political motives for his criminality.

I really feel pity for you with your warped cringing outlook. I want a Scotland of self confident, self reliant, self assured people able to stand on their own two feet and not be part of a "give me a handout" dependency culture.  Part of the problem is the 'Do gooder' people who encourage this dependency culture instead of a bit of rough love that hauls them to their feet and gives them back their self respect.

I don't know which crofting communities you have visited but your description is more like that of a 'new age' white flighty community than any true crofting community I have ever known.  As for the local pub, my township did not have one. For a start no-one could afford to drink and the usual beverage was the home distilled 'Poit Dubh' and for entertainment we had 'Hide the still' from the Glasgow gaugers.  Laughing

Bliadna mhath ur!

Niall.
Aventinian

iainmhor wrote:
So my politics are merely the flipside of the coin of loyalism to you Aventian?


More or less. Loyalism is simple British nationalism. It's a rather entertaining flaw of nationalism that its advocates, while preaching the same ideology, tend to be bitterly opposed to one another.

Quote:
Whats your opinion of imperialism? Favourable to it?


I don't believe in the idea of a state ruling a state. However if Britain had allowed for equal representation for all peoples across its empire, then I wouldn't have seen any problem with it.

So long as equality before the law is upheld, the expanse of a state doesn't particularly bother me. It seems this is the direction in which the world is moving too, with the empowerment of organisations like the EU.
agentmancuso

iainmhor wrote:
So my politics are merely the flipside of the coin of loyalism ?


I can practically hear the tiny wheels turning..grind, grind, grind, the faintest inkling of an idea is born.
agentmancuso

Niall wrote:

I can truthfully say, I done nothing to be ashamed of in my service with the RAF Regiment.  Most of the time was spent trying to stop the locals from killing each other off.  I did two tours in the six counties and if we had not been there, both sides would have wiped each other out in a genocidal bloodbath.  

There was no difference between the criminals and thugs from the UDA, UFF, Ira, Provo and INLA alike.  The first british soldier to be shot dead was killed by a UDA gunman when