| 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. |
| Reluctant Hero |
I'll Save The Union - Brownhttp://scotlandonsunday.scotsman....ll-fight-to-save-Union.3628201.jp
What is a new Britain with the same old traditions and values?! And who shares this vision? Has he asked anyone? Oh no, that's right, he backed away from an early election. Also thought this was bizzare
As well as the SNP did in the elections in May, I just can't see this being the case at a Westminster election. |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Re: I'll Save The Union - Brown
One which is progressive, yet conservative. One which can adapt, yet not discard established practices arbitrarily and appreciates that tradition has value.
Presumably the British nation are generally in favour of such things. Of course, it's all political rhetoric with enormously broad meaning, so it doesn't take any particular political views to agree with.
The problem I have is in the complete unpredictability of the FPTP system. Without studying the exact situation in every remotely marginal constituency, one can predict very little. |
||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Maybe worth bearing in mind that if the Tories get their way Gordon Brown will no longer even be able to vote on a wide range of Westminster. Brown's mentality on that is probably that the best form of defence is attack. | ||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
As I understand it, the PM doesn't turn up to a huge number of parliamentary votes anyway. |
||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Re: I'll Save The Union - Brown
The latest superpoll suggested that the SNP would gain a larger share of the popular vote than Labour, but that this would translate to a small lead for Labour in terms of seats because of vote distribution patterns. |
||||||||||||||||
| inga |
Re: I'll Save The Union - BrownBrown'll save the union?Didn't he endanger it ITFP? ~Inga |
||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
I think it is Unionism (in general) - as an abhorrent ideology that it is - that has endangered the Union, not Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, the "English", the "Nats", "Braveheart" or all the other mythical bogeymen thrown around by those seeking to comprehend the untenable position we are currently in. |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Well that's quite funny, because it's simply a branch of the ideology that you support, viz: nationalism. Of course, cloud the matter over with some bigotry and prejudice and I'm sure you'll deny even the most obvious ideological relations. |
||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
I'll keep the emboldened bit on file, for the next time you and the other Unionists here rant and rave about the perils of "nationalism" (a frequent occurrance on these forums). If so, unionism and by that I specifically mean British Unionism, is an especially specious and base form of nationalism. And I repeat from before, that Unionism is the the reason why the Union is in the mess it is currently in - nothing to do with "prejudice and bigotry". |
||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Out of curiosity what do you mean by British unionism being abhorrent? If the people living in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland wish to share a sovereign state and parliament then the show stays on the road. If they don't it doesn't. For most people outside of Northern Ireland it is a pragmatic choice and there is no moral imperative to ending or preserving the Union of 1707. Hopefully it stays that way. | ||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Re: I'll Save The Union - Brown
Maybe it should be renamed middle aged/s Britain, as it is neither old nor new. |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
But of course, I have objected to the label in the past. While I am not too bothered about being labelled as such by observers, it is only part of wider belief.
No nationalism is more base than any other. Some are more extreme, however, and I'd say your nationalism is considerably more extreme than the average Unionist's.
Ah, but it's (at least prima facie) a load of rubbish that you've not gone to any effort to explain further after making a provocative and (I'd imagine) ill thought out statement. That's the problem. It all does a rather good job of illustrating why nationalism is vulgar: it automatically leads to conflicts of this kind. After all, Northern Ireland is simply a dispute between strands of nationalism in this type, escalated into armed combat. Luckily, nationalism has had its hey-day, and most people with a mind have rejected it as dangerous, bigoted nonsense. Particularly the extremist form which you represent. |
||||||||||||||||
| frank rizzo |
Nationalism has had its day? Aye, we're about to have a one world government any day where national boundries will be wiped from history.
You better tell Gordon Brown may I add as he's been desperately playing the (british) nationalist card since the day he picked up the keys to number 10. Not forgetting the tory vermin and their right wing press playing the parochial little englander in the south. Keep it up clown. |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Yet simultaneously 'forcing' us into reforms to create an ever closer European Union? How very nationalist of him. One day, this Scotland that you concern yourself so much with will be as abstract a concept as Christendom is today.
I'd like to say that you're the only clown here, but it'd be a lie. |
||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
All forms of nationalism are specious and base. Why single this one out for special consideration? |
||||||||||||||||
| Avatar |
The SNP (at least the mainstream of the party) seem to be more pro-EU than Brown or many in Labour or the Conservatives, of course I suppose you could argue that they are European Nationalists. |
||||||||||||||||
| frank rizzo |
Oh aye because the SNP, unlike the unionists, are so rabid in their anti EU stance
Well, you seem quite concerned about our nation's independence, considering the amount of time you spend on here replying to your lessers. One day you'll wake up and get a blow job. |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Only insofar as it earns them some level of admission into the human race. I've certainly never heard an SNP member make any comment about anything in the EU that is not for their own political good or the good of this 'Scotland' of theirs. Either way, if anything that does prove my original assertion: nationalism is dying, and even the most nationalist people in Great Britain have to admit that for anyone to even consider associating with them.
Indeed, I think Scottish independence would be unequivocally wrong.
How very clever. Wasn't I "gay" a few months ago? |
||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Re: I'll Save The Union - Brown
Well, not him specifically. But I think the Union needs him like the hole in the head. |
||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Abhorrent is probably too strong a word to describe it, as evidenced by the tears, wailing and gnashing of teeth, from the usual suspects that follows your post. I do, however, find many (not all) of the arguments that underpin mainstream unionism abhorrent, it is more that part I find abhorrent than the concept.
Not at all. There are plenty of forms of nationalism some more specious than others. There are plenty of "forms" of capitalism that are specious - it doesn't mean that the whole idea is. Nationalism lite, is what underpins the geopolitics of the world. Whether people like it or not, we are all nationalists in some form or another. I'd certainly prefer liberal nationalism over political tribalism. 
It doesn't matter whether you object to label or not, especially when it follows your own logic, that you introduced. However I would argue that Unionism combines much more than just a form of nationalism.
There is nothing extreme about my position or my nationalism - which isn't considerable. I've laboured that point plenty of times before, here, but it doesn't seem to sink in.
I happen to think this United Kingdom you concern yourself with, will reach that position light years before Scotland ever will.
This is not a conflict, Aventinian, it is political discourse and debate from opposite sides of the spectrum. All variances of political ideology or thought automatically lead to "conflicts of this kind". I'm not entirely sure what your Northern Ireland reference really adds to all of this - I would certainly like to hope it was a throwaway remark, as resorting to such parallels, once again, doesn't assist your argument in any way.
I've done that plenty of times here, but if you still have difficulty comprehending what I meant by that statement, I'm more than happy to go into depth.
It is just so convenient to label individuals isn't it? You don't like it when people do it to you, so why do it to me? Especially when given the quality of responses here you don't seem to understand the point I made (which I admit was perhaps stronger than necessary, but in the right area.) If you think that is representative of an extremist position then you either don't understand it, or you are resulting to throwing cheap smears about, which does nothing to enhance the argument you are trying to make. There is nothing bigoted or prejudiced about seeking sovereignty or independence - which is the whole underlying essence of this discourse.
I don't like Unionism, and view it in the same way as I do communism or probably socialism - I think all 3 are failed ideologies . That is a point of disagreement, not conflict, and it certainly isn't the view of an "extremist" or a "bigot". Indeed there is nothing overtly "nationalistic" about seeking the independence of Scotland - not any more than seeking to preserve the integrity of the United Kingdom or seeking to maintain the independence of Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Switzerland, Cambodia or Botswana. |
||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Without commenting one way or the other, I believe fellatio is a common practice among homosexuals. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lochaber |
I quite believe that is the case, Aventinian - but why would you wish to display your lack of knowledge of the Scottish political scene in public? Even a casual observer of politics might be expected to be aware of SNP public figures such as Prof. Sir Neil MacCormick who notably served on the Convention on the Future of Europe and was named Scottish European Politician of the year in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Alternatively, one might cite the case of the Right. Hon. George Reid, the former President of the Scottish Parliament and Director of the International Red Cross. (His speech at the opening of the School of Conflict Resolution at Chisenu can be found at http://www.johnsmithmemorialtrust...;News/ArrivingatYesGeorgeReid.asp ) |
||||||||||||||||
| carol |
I can't quite comprehend why 'nationalists' can take a title from the Queen or even bow down to her.
And now George's latest role http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7191288.stm Carol |
||||||||||||||||
| carol |
'Again, if there is further constitutional change, that will only be through the democratic will of the people expressed in a referendum.'
the above a quote from George's speech at the opening of SCR - it would be interesting to see if George would support a referendum now. Or even if John Smith was alive would he support one. And Lochaber would you support a referendum on independence? |
||||||||||||||||
| azzuri |
Why not? You can be a nationalist without being a republican... |
||||||||||||||||
| carol |
yes but not so many about azzuri .......
Now the British Council who obviously promote/support the John Smith Memorial and advocate democracy, I wonder if they would support the holding of a referendum |
||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Quite right. And you can also, more sensibly, be a republican without being a nationalist. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lochaber |
Rather than a personal 'title', the prefix 'Right Hon.' merely signifies that George Reid was made a member of the Privy Council (in order to fulfill the constitutional requirement of the Presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament to be an adviser to the United Kingdom head of state). There is similar constitutional usage in the other realms of the Commonwealth. As for Sir Neil MacCormick, his knighthood is exactly what one would expect to be offered to such a distinguished academic - a recipient of the Royal Society of Edinburgh's Gold Medal for Outstanding Achievement and the Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations at Edinburgh University. |
||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Yes, but a monarchist for your own monarchy. Not that of the country which rules you. Aye aye, Betty's the Queen of Scotchland. (By at least fifty removes) |
||||||||||||||||
| Lochaber |
Why would you even question the commitment of a man like George Reid, one of the architects of the SNPs post devolution policies, and who has given a lifetime's commitment to the cause of Scotland's independence? As for John Smith, despite his notable support for devolution, why would you think he might support a referendum on independence? In the 1979 referendum, despite a majority supporting Scots devolution, John Smith's party failed to carry it through. This lack of acceptance of the normal standards of democracy left the Labour Party with a tremendous political dilemma in Scotland which John Smith subsequently sought to resolve by saying that devolution was "the settled will of the Scottish people". But this was not the same thing as supporting a referendum on independence (You should remember that the Scottish Constitutional Convention was actively opposed to asking the Scottish people what was their will on the subject of their country's national status). As for myself - I am a democrat and will always accept the properly expressed will of the Scottish people. It is obvious that a referendum on the subject of Scotland's future national status is now required - to refuse it is an affront to democracy. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lochaber |
Since the Balfour Declaration of 1926, further elaborated in the Statute of Westminster, 1931, the monarchy ceased to be an exclusively United Kingdom institution. It is now applied equally to all Commonwealth realms with each realm agreeing not to change its rules of succession without the unanimous consent of the others (unless explicitly leaving the shared monarchy). This situation applies symmetrically in all the other realms, including the United Kingdom. |
||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"the monarchy ceased to be an exclusively United Kingdom institution"
Not that it ever was
|
||||||||||||||||
| carol |
Lochaber thanks for your frank response.
I've never seen George Reid stand up and speak vocally in favour of independence since before he was elected as an MSP and then depute/presiding officer. Myself and other SNP activists in Ochil were disillusioned on how that campaign was conducted, and with the outcome. (He got elected at the same time the SNP lost the council) regardless it's in the past. So what's stopping him now from taking a stand for independence? best regards Carol |
||||||||||||||||
| Lochaber |
Carol, you need to recognise that members of the Scottish Parliament who hold the post of Presiding Officer (and deputies) necessarily must resign their party whip. This places a considerable constraint on their ability to advocate party-political views. However, prior to his serving in an official capacity in the Scottish Parliament, George Reid expressed his support for Scotland's independence in a much-quoted Donaldson lecture: The last decade has seen a renaissance of political nationalism around the world. I believe that Scotland is part of that renaissance and, in consequence, that only Independence in Europe will meet the legitimate aspirations of the Scottish people. See http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/hamish/donald95.html Incidentally you should not underestimate the importance to the SNP's cause of its leaders demonstrating professionalism when holding office. In the Scotsman, of July last year, Peter Jones wrote:
Since George Reid was twice named Scottish Politician of the Year, while holding the post of Presiding Officer, the answer to Peter Jones question must be a resounding "Yes". Best regards Carol[/quote] |
||||||||||||||||
| carol |
the George Reid's of this world (and no I'm not directly targeting him) need to take a step back and think who put them there
Grassroot activists are so easily forgotten about You obviously know George from a differently level than i do and will not see the same picture best regards Carol |
||||||||||||||||
| carol |
as for the Donaldson lecture Lochaber it was before he was elected as an MSP, I remember the days when George would take a stand for independence, what's stopping him now? | ||||||||||||||||
| Lochaber |
I find it interesting that, while claiming to be a supporter of independence Carol, you are advocating a vision of the SNP which is essentially similar to that of Aventinian. You both seem to mistake the SNP for a one-issue pressure group and fail to take account of the SNP's status as a social-democratic party - what Will Hutton (Observer editor-in-chief) called the "modern professionalism of the SNP" The views of SNP Grassroots are expressed via democratic ballots held at party conferences and candidate selection-meetings and, it is a result of many such votes and discussions, that SNP candidates are chosen and it is also why membership cards state the party's commitment to both independence and to the furthering of all of Scotland's interests. Lack of understanding of the SNP was the mistake made by the Westminster-oriented parties when they allowed the SNP into power in the Scottish parliament. Having swallowed their own propaganda, they thought that the SNP would make a poor show of government. The most recent opinion poll - a YouGov survey for the Scottish Daily Express on 15th January - had the following results: 1. Scottish Constituency Vote SNP 38 Labour 29 Conservative 14 Lib Dem 14 Other 6 2. Scottish Regional Vote SNP 30 Labour 27 Conservative 13 Lib Dem 12 Other 18 Best regards |
||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
I don't know the guy but Lochaber has already explained what's stopping him - the fact that he's presiding officer. He isn't actually allowed to be overtly political while doing that job. However if he is of the pro Independence brigade then it's fairly safe to assume that he would be behaving in a not dis-similar way to our own presiding officer here in Wales, Dafydd Ellis Thomas, a Plaid Cymru AM who's done more work behind the scene in clearing the way ready for a greater parliament in Wales than any other politician in the Welsh Assembly. |
||||||||||||||||
| carol |
come down to grass roots level Lochaber you then may see things differently
Cymro he is no longer presiding officer |
||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
fair enough, then I can assume when he WAS Presiding Officer then this was the case.
As an ordinary member of Plaid Cymru Carol I associate myself more with what Lochaber says than anything else (unless I've messed something). Members have a right to vote on issues in Conference or National Councils they can also through branches raise issues to be discussed nationaly. If some people can't be bothered taking these steps then that is their own problem. |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I don't think there is any requirement, expressed or implied, upon the Presiding Officer to be a PC. The Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly is not, the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly is, and the Chair of the London Assembly is not. It does, of course, also mean that he swore a rather antiquated oath to "uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates."
I wasn't aware that was my position. Indeed, I recognise the SNP as a social democratic party, which is why they manage to increase their share of the vote while support for Scottish nationalism decreases. However, ideologically in that vein they are no different from Labour. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lochaber |
It is entirely a matter for the Prime Minister who does or does not become a member of the Privy Council. However, there are constitutional conventions - all Cabinet ministers are appointed to the Privy Council as are the Speaker of the House of Commons and leaders of opposition parties. It is rather early in the life of the Scottish Parliament to know for sure whether it is intended that the Presiding Officer - the equivalent of the Speaker - is normally to be a PC. I think there would be very many, all-party objections if this wasn't the case and I seriously doubt that a Labour Prime Minister's appointment of George Reid would be personal. (It was Reid who famously ridiculed George Robertson's statement that devolution would "kill the SNP stone dead" by saying "Ho, ho ho").
Ho, ho ho! |
||||||||||||||||
| Lochaber |
On the narrow constitutional point, you should note that the Presiding Officer has to be satisfied that legislation, whether brought forward by the Executive or by others, is intra vires before giving approval to its introduction and it is the Presiding Officer who passes Scottish Bills forward to receive Royal Assent. There is also a need to ensure that the UK Government is content as to vires (In the event of a dispute between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government matters are referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council). These functions would seem, to me, to require and imply the desirability of the Presiding Officer being a member of the Privy Council. |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Not really. He's not going to recommend to the Queen that someone become a PC against his or her own will.
Well, as far as I'm aware, the present Presiding Officer hasn't been invited along to the party yet.
Well, what can I say - it's what most political commentators believe.
The Judicial Committee is a very specialised part of the Privy Council made up of judges. It would have nothing to do with the Privy Council that a Scottish Parliament presiding officer would be involved in. The PC is also not an organ of the UK government, nor does it hold any collectively loyalty to anyone other than the Sovereign. As for decisions of ultra vires, it would be the Secretary of State for Scotland who would pause legislation going for Royal Assent and refer it to the JCPC. |
||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
It's what most political commentators want us to believe, which is rather different from your statement. Can you honestly believe that support for the SNP would grow to such an extent while support for their principal policy would fall so significantly? It just defies reason and is therefore to be treated with a huge bag of salt. At the very least, support for independence would be static as former supporters of Unionist parties shift to the SNP. Why would support for independence fall when supporters of independence are doing so well? |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
So that's the media that's out to get you too then?
In a word, yes - and plenty of polls have shown that to be the case. It's quite credible really. They don't have the faintest possibility of bringing about Scottish independence, yet are a convenient alternative to Labour - just as New Labour made itself a convenient alternative to the Tories in 1997. |
||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Alternatively it could be a question of timescale. People would like to see independence eventually but see a gradual incremental approach as the way to get there. That would explain why answers to different question phrasings can vary from the low 20s to the low 50s in percentage terms. | ||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Something very similar has happened in many other devolved regions, such as Catalonia and Quebec.
Reason is not the sum of things you wish to believe.
For the - blatantly obvious - reason that people may quite understandably have no interest in 'independence' yet feel the SNP are in a better position to wrestle further subsidies from Westminster than any other party. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lochaber |
A very large number of opinion polls have been conducted on the issue of Scottish Independence. Often these have widely varying results. For example, an opinion poll published by the Scotsman in November 2006 revealed that a "Majority of Scots now favour independence". However, a poll conducted only a few weeks later (January 2007) by Channel 4 reported that "The figure in support of Scottish independence had seemingly dropped". A poll conducted by the Daily Telegraph in November 2006 claimed that a significant proportion of Britons would accept the breakup of the United Kingdom and research from the Economic & Social Research Council, in early 2007, showed that Scottish independence was increasingly appealing to younger Scots. However, in a Scotsman poll in 2007 it was reported that Scottish independence was at a 10 year low with only 21% of people in support for it. It's all rather inconclusive - perhaps we should just ask the people? (Polls show a consistent support for a referendum at around 70–75%). |
||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Neither agentmancuso nor Aventinian seem capable of reading. If support for the SNP were increasing simply because more people see them as an alternative to Labour or see them as a vehicle for gaining more concessions, why would support for independence fall? I can understand a situation in which support for independence is static while SNP support increases, but why should support for independence fall during a time when the main pro-independence party is doing so well? It's not logical and therefore highly suspect.
If you have any doubts about the solidly Unionist nature of our media, I'd like to know where I can get some of what you're consuming. |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I'm inclined to agree on that point. Particularly with the press spin surrounding it all.
Because people are becoming satisfied with the idea of more powers, have more confidence in the devolved Scottish Parliament, don't think the SNP can bring it about or have simply changed their minds and realised that support for the SNP does not have to equate to support for independence.
The coverage of Scottish independence issues before the election was absolutely ridiculous, and in many cases fairly positive. Moreover, most of the tabloids have been playing up Anglo-Scottish differences and the idea of subsidy for a long time. |
||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
And whose agenda is Anglo-Scottish differences and the idea of subsidy? Have you ever heard an independence supporter claim Scotland is subsidised? Who is it who really brings up "the English" all the time? Independence supporters damn the Union, the UK, not just a part of it. And please don't insult us by bringing an inhabitant of Fantasy Island into this.
Again, those who do not believe the SNP can achieve independence or who realise that support for the SNP does not equate to support for independence may well account for the increase in support for the SNP without any increase in support for independence, but they do not account for a drop in support for independence. There is absolutely no reason for support for independence to drop during a time when the SNP is doing well. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lochaber |
Then, if you are genuinely concerned with popular opinion - as expressed in opinion polls - why do you ignore the point I made that the opinion polls consistently show that the people of Scotland (in overwhelming numbers) wish to be consulted in a referendum on the issue? The current political debate in Scotland is about obtaining a referendum. Arguing the toss about pre-referendum opinion polls on independence seem to me to be more a tactic of obfuscation than anything else. But those who follow this approach should beware, for their patriotism will, in the end, be questioned. On the issue of Scotland's future national status, party considerations must be put aside and the people allowed to debate the questions involved fairly in a referendum. It is the right of a free people. |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
English nationalism - your greatest ally these days. Moreover, it is fundamentally anti-Unionist to be drumming up this sort of nonsense. Not that I think it's an agenda, it's an easy, cheap and tacky way to sell newspapers.
I think I outlined a few. |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I'm not really bothered about the numbers at all, it's a piece of passing fancy to me. As for referendums - ask 'the people' if they want a referendum on x, y or z and chances are they'll say yes.
Will zer names go on ze list?
Obviously they can debate it until the cows come home, but nobody here has any right to any referendum of any sort. Moreover, I believe nationalist states are actually less 'free' than more diverse ones. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lochaber |
Don't be silly! Where have you been throughout the decline of the Conservative party if you don't think that perceptions of patriotism is an issue in Scottish politics? The point I am making is that the other unionist parties - who exploited this sentiment when Thatcher was in power - should beware that, in arrogantly refusing a referendum, they too don't go the way of the tories in the popular estimation. If I understand your arguments correctly, Aventinian, you believe that the SNP has advanced because of its social-democratic nature. I see it differently. I think the SNP has been popularly perceived as bringing a new confidence which runs against the Scottish cringe (of political deference to Westminster). I think that is your challenge. |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Hmm... to be frank, I think there's more to it than that - after all, they declined massively across the UK at the same time, and have still to make any significant restoration in Wales or Northern England as well as Scotland.
I wouldn't even go into that much ideological depth. It did well because it was remotely centrist and possible alternative to the Labour-Lib Dem coalition. Yes, the name of the Scottish Conservatives is mud to some; they could never be expected to unseat Labour. The SNP is a compromise for all. This is also, incidentally, why I believe the Nats did so poorly in the 2005 General Election (third place behind the Liberals) - there was no credible chance to boot out the government. |
||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Isn't it at least conceivable that people will feel satisfied that they have an alternative to Labour, and a way of gaining more concessions, and so loose interest in the idle threat of separatism?
The two things aren't necessarily related. |
||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Pavlov's dogs are out again. | ||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Someone's got to keep an eye on you lot. Otherwise all this building of Tartan Utopias would risk getting out of hand. | ||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
Out of hand? I don't think things are spiralling out of control just yet. | ||||||||||||||||
| inga |
What utter overblown rot. The people commonly called "unionists" don't think much of the act of union itself. In fact, I think many, like me, find "the union" to be an odd, archaic way of describing Britain. Unionism, for the most part, consists of contentment with the status quo, or at least, contentment with the pre-devolution status quo, or an adjusted version of the current one.
I would say that the current post-devolution status quo has endangered the union. The threat to the union was paltry ere devolution. ~Inga |
||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
"The threat to the union was paltry ere devolution."
Inga, sorry to break this to you, but devolution was going on long before 1997. The Scotland Office is the result of devolution for example. |
||||||||||||||||
| inga |
Well there is no British version of Scottish nationalism -- except maybe Cool Britannia. ~Inga |
||||||||||||||||
| inga |
And??? Quid ergo? ~Inga |
||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
You're aving a larf, right? |
||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Agreed. |
||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
I think you've misunderstood my point. Contentment with something, and the reasons or ideologies for that very same thing are two separate animals. It is rather simple. If one is content with something, one must have a rationale for it. Otherwise one has a baseless, weak and rather incoherent position. I am content with supporting independence, but I have a rationale for that and reasons for it as well. In terms of Unionism it is many of the mainstream arguments and rationale I detest. The concept itself, I have little sympathy or identification with.
You know, on the first part, you might actually have something there. I'd never have really thought it myself, after all this time thinking about independence, devolution and Scottish politics in general.
However I would argue the threat was there prior to devolution - especially with the previously unresolved Scottish Question - devolution has just made the end of the union much more likely. It's good to see that we have a coherent position here. Unionism is a form of nationalism, but those who are Unionists aren't nationalists and even more extraordinarily there is no form of British nationalism akin to "Scottish nationalism". Wonderful.
|
||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
You obviously didn't realise that. Devolution has been on the go, all of your life p.s. Latin phrases make you look like an obfuscating autodidact. |
||||||||||||||||
| inga |
I did.
And? þærfore hwæt? ~Inkstersco |
||||||||||||||||