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 -> UK and Ireland Politics
Aventinian

The SNLA strike again...

... and we're all left positively quaking...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7175015.stm
Holebender

The article gives no indication of the accused Englishman's motives. I'm curious.

Of course, anyone who gives it more that a moment's thought will understand that the SNLA only exists in that big building on the south bank of the Thames. Adam Busby is an "intelligence" asset.
azzuri

Oh FFS, is this article supposed to be serious?!?!

It certainly does beg the question of this Englishman in England's motives...

SNLA my arse
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
The article gives no indication of the accused Englishman's motives. I'm curious.

Of course, anyone who gives it more that a moment's thought will understand that the SNLA only exists in that big building on the south bank of the Thames. Adam Busby is an "intelligence" asset.


Do you actually believe MI5 are behind this? Seriously?

Well, I shouldn't be surprised. Apparently 40% of the public believe Prince Diana's death is a conspiracy too.
Holebender

I don't know or care if they're behind this incident, but I do know they invented and maintain the SNLA purely for their own motives. There would not be nor would there ever have been an SNLA without the British "intelligence" services inventing it.

The SNLA and Adam Busby are creatures of MI5, but that does not mean that every nutter claiming to be doing something in the name of the SNLA is, in fact, connected to the SNLA in any way.
RadgeJougal

Bizarre. The only thing Busby is good for is setting people up.

Quote:
Do you actually believe MI5 are behind this?


The SNLA is so embarassingly amateur, apparently, that it would make perfect sense. They always pop up at the right times too. I mean, what kind of "liberation army" can't make bombs, let alone explode them, or fire guns? These things aren't quite as difficult as they're made out to be.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
There would not be nor would there ever have been an SNLA without the British "intelligence" services inventing it.


I find that absolutely incredible that any supposedly sensible person could honestly believe this.

RadgeJougal wrote:
The SNLA is so embarassingly amateur, apparently, that it would make perfect sense. They always pop up at the right times too. I mean, what kind of "liberation army" can't make bombs, let alone explode them, or fire guns? These things aren't quite as difficult as they're made out to be.


They're embarrassingly amateur because they are performed by raving lunatics and village idiots. That makes perfect sense.
RadgeJougal

"They're embarrassingly amateur because they are performed by raving lunatics and village idiots. That makes perfect sense."

Not really. Even raving lunatics and village idiots are able to construct devices and come up with plans. The SNLA just seems to come up with plans that achieve nothing, but end up with people being arrested, and the organisation still isn't shut down, which it could be at the drop of a hat.
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
"They're embarrassingly amateur because they are performed by raving lunatics and village idiots. That makes perfect sense."

Not really. Even raving lunatics and village idiots are able to construct devices and come up with plans. The SNLA just seems to come up with plans that achieve nothing, but end up with people being arrested, and the organisation still isn't shut down, which it could be at the drop of a hat.


It's in limbo, I'd imagine. The police have to pay attention to it, but the Security Services wouldn't bring themselves to care. So unless Dumfries and Galloway Polis decide to shut them down using their immense authority, it ain't going to happen.

As for bomb making: even the international terrorists attempting to attack Britain are embarrassingly amateur at that. The most notable terrorist attack in the West in the last decade was brought about not by bombs, but by a few Arabs with knives.
Celtic Indian

This is necessary to convince the British Government that we will lethally poison England's water supplies, if they do not withdraw totally from Scotland."


The British to withdraw from Scotland ???? WTF ??? We're not under occupation.Its up to the Scottish people if they want independance.Nothing to do with the rest of the UK.Up to the Scots and the Scots only.Who are these philistines ?
agentmancuso

Celtic Indian wrote:
The British to withdraw from Scotland ???? WTF ??? We're not under occupation.Its up to the Scottish people if they want independance.Nothing to do with the rest of the UK.Up to the Scots and the Scots only.Who are these philistines ?


Rumour has it they're based in a top secret chicken-shed deep in the Angus badlands.
Celtic Indian

Sheepshagers eh ? Thought so.
RadgeJougal

"As for bomb making: even the international terrorists attempting to attack Britain are embarrassingly amateur at that."

Some of the time... but a knowledge of high school chemistry is all you need (no I don't talk from experience, but from hearing several people who did.

"The most notable terrorist attack in the West in the last decade was brought about not by bombs, but by a few Arabs with knives."

Which is a case in point, you just need determination, more than equipment. The SNLA seem to lack that. They just cook up plots which are incredibly poor, and result in nothing, but their being arrested.
Aventinian

Celtic Indian wrote:
The British to withdraw from Scotland ???? WTF ??? We're not under occupation.


Some folk on this very forum would testify to the contrary.
RadgeJougal

Britishness is an identity cooked up in the 18th/19th century to assimilate that of Scotland.
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
Britishness is an identity cooked up in the 18th/19th century to assimilate that of Scotland.


And Scottishness is an identity cooked up God-knows-when to assimilate the groups under its control.
Celtic Indian

Aventinian wrote:
RadgeJougal wrote:
Britishness is an identity cooked up in the 18th/19th century to assimilate that of Scotland.


And Scottishness is an identity cooked up God-knows-when to assimilate the groups under its control.


And if Scotland wants to become a Soveriegn State,then it can.Its up to the Scottish people.F*ck all to do with the English.They have no say in it what so ever.
Aventinian

Celtic Indian wrote:
And if Scotland wants to become a Soveriegn State,then it can.Its up to the Scottish people.F*ck all to do with the English.They have no say in it what so ever.


While I don't see what this has to do with anything, this is factually inaccurate. Only the UK Parliament can make Scotland a sovereign state. So yes, it does have a great deal to do with 'the English'.
RadgeJougal

Aventinian wrote:
RadgeJougal wrote:
Britishness is an identity cooked up in the 18th/19th century to assimilate that of Scotland.


And Scottishness is an identity cooked up God-knows-when to assimilate the groups under its control.


Probably, but it's currently a healthier one than the British one, since it isn't based around expansionism and monarchy.

Quote:
Only the UK Parliament can make Scotland a sovereign state.


No, that's up to the people who live here. It will happen with, or without Westminster. We don't have to ask their permission, in fact, they'll only acknowledge it, probably when it's too late.
azzuri

Aventinian wrote:
Holebender wrote:
There would not be nor would there ever have been an SNLA without the British "intelligence" services inventing it.


I find that absolutely incredible that any supposedly sensible person could honestly believe this.

RadgeJougal wrote:
The SNLA is so embarassingly amateur, apparently, that it would make perfect sense. They always pop up at the right times too. I mean, what kind of "liberation army" can't make bombs, let alone explode them, or fire guns? These things aren't quite as difficult as they're made out to be.


They're embarrassingly amateur because they are performed by raving lunatics and village idiots. That makes perfect sense.


No different then than the thousands of lunatics who marched upon Edinburgh on the 24th March 2007 threatening violence and the taking up of arms should Scotland become Independent.
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
Probably, but it's currently a healthier one than the British one, since it isn't based around expansionism and monarchy.


Haha. Personally, I think expansionism is a very noble objective, as for monarchy - when exactly was there ever a Scottish Republic?

Quote:
No, that's up to the people who live here. It will happen with, or without Westminster. We don't have to ask their permission, in fact, they'll only acknowledge it, probably when it's too late.


That is not the case, and has never been the case even in respect to territories external to the UK.

azzuri wrote:
No different then than the thousands of lunatics who marched upon Edinburgh on the 24th March 2007 threatening violence and the taking up of arms should Scotland become Independent.


Again, very funny. If you're referring to the Orange Order, they've always been an peaceful organisation and have gone to great lengths to ensure peaceful and responsible conduct on their marches.

I certainly wasn't aware it was part of the organisation's principles to take up arms against Nationalists. If that's the case, I wonder why they haven't started yet, or indeed have never been convicted of any criminal offences related to it.
azzuri

So senior members of the organisation threatening to do so isn't the behaviour of a lunatic?

I consider all religious fundamentalists lunatics, the OO included...
RadgeJougal

"when exactly was there ever a Scottish Republic?"

Never. Not yet. But it looks like there will be one in my lifetime. I just hope it's a better set up than this one.

"That is not the case, and has never been the case even in respect to territories external to the UK."

You're confusing Westminster's official recognition with the facts on the ground. We'll declare independence, not Westminster. Westminster will come round to it when it realises it's pretty much happened, like the 13 Colonies, Rhodesia or the Republic of Ireland.
Corby Boy

Azzuri

It doesn't surprise me to hear about the threats of violence from the unionist marchers at the Act of Union thing.

This sums up the siege mentality that these folk seem to display to a man (and woman).

The OO maybe peaceable as an organisation but there are far too many of their followers who are not. Many fights/stabbings etc.. in Corby over the years have been attributed to sectarianism, much of which has been originated from drink and drug fuelled OO hangers on.
Aventinian

Corby Boy wrote:
It doesn't surprise me to hear about the threats of violence from the unionist marchers at the Act of Union thing.

This sums up the siege mentality that these folk seem to display to a man (and woman).


No-one made any such comments at any Act of Union thing. He's referring to an offhand comment made without threat or malice by an Orangeman some seven years ago, who later apologised.

azzuri wrote:
So senior members of the organisation threatening to do so isn't the behaviour of a lunatic?


If we are talking about the same thing, no threat was made. I suggest you might want to refresh your memory if you choose to delve many years into the past.

Quote:
I consider all religious fundamentalists lunatics, the OO included...


The OO are not remotely fundamentalist in their religious beliefs.
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
"That is not the case, and has never been the case even in respect to territories external to the UK."

You're confusing Westminster's official recognition with the facts on the ground. We'll declare independence, not Westminster. Westminster will come round to it when it realises it's pretty much happened, like the 13 Colonies, Rhodesia or the Republic of Ireland.


The United States did declare independence, yes. As far as they go, I think there have only been two British colonies to ever do that. The UK did not come round to that - it fought a war over it.

As for Ireland, unless you're a bit deranged and actually believe the Easter Rising was somehow a declaration of independence even worth the paper it was written on, it only became independent by virtue of the UK Parliament.

Maybe Scotland should learn from Ireland though - yes, I can see it now: Alex Salmond and co seize the Edinburgh Post Office from, well, nobody in particular since it's empty. They'd have hoisted their flag, but there's already a saltire there... and probably decide it's a bit too dangerous to go up on the roof to haul down the Union Jack. Meantime, they read their proclamation on the front steps, while passers either look at them like they're a bit mad or hurl insults. The Glorious Scottish Republic is born!

As for Rhodesia, it effectively had a coup d'etat, which was short lived and never really recognised. This did not lead to recognition of Rhodesia as an independent state, and indeed it never became one. It should also of course be noted that the UDI was only ever given because Britain was wanting to separate from the country, yet imposing conditions upon it.
azzuri

7 full years? I'll bet they've been catapulted into the 21st century since then. Laughing  Rolling Eyes

Why the blinkers Av?...

I was born and brought up in Ayrshire, I see these nutters surface every July and any time there's an old firm game on.

I have in person witnessed people of this very organisation in a local bar openly talk about the taking up of arms should Scottish Independence happen.
RadgeJougal

" it only became independent by virtue of the UK Parliament."

No, it only became recognised by the UK parliament when they realised that they didn't have a chance in hell of holding onto it, except at massive cost.

When the UK parliament realises that Scotland is a goner, or was independent de facto for a long while, then it will rubber stamp the process.

"Scotland should learn from Ireland though "

It already has. And you should do too. Expect dirty tricks, as happened in Ireland... or some form of divide and conquer, or some stirring up of sectarian elements. Britain will fight dirty to hold onto Scotland, even if Scotland won't.
Celtic Indian

Aventinian wrote:
Celtic Indian wrote:
And if Scotland wants to become a Soveriegn State,then it can.Its up to the Scottish people.F*ck all to do with the English.They have no say in it what so ever.


While I don't see what this has to do with anything, this is factually inaccurate. Only the UK Parliament can make Scotland a sovereign state. So yes, it does have a great deal to do with 'the English'.


I think your misinterpreting what I am saying.When I mean the 'English' I mean Joe Bloggs in the street.The English voter,not the UK parliment.And I think my comment is keeping within the context of the subject.The SNLA have a campaign against 'the English' for Scottish Independence.
agentmancuso

Celtic Indian wrote:
The SNLA have a campaign against 'the English' for Scottish Independence.


Perhaps they would be better directing their campaign against 'the Scots', as at present they seem the less convinced of the two parties that separation would be a good idea.
RadgeJougal

Actually the main body of the SNLA at the moment seems to be English. (The other member)
Corby Boy

Nice to know that many supporters of the OO are democratically minded. Wishing to take up arms if Scotland were to vote for independence by a majority. Feintly ridiculous when you consider that the SNP position is to keep the current Monarch as head of state and no doubt Presbyterianism will still hold sway as the national faith so to speak. Two of the biggest proponents of the OO ideaology.
agentmancuso

Corby Boy wrote:
Nice to know that many supporters of the OO are democratically minded. Wishing to take up arms if Scotland were to vote for independence by a majority. Feintly ridiculous when you consider that the SNP position is to keep the current Monarch as head of state and no doubt Presbyterianism will still hold sway as the national faith so to speak. Two of the biggest proponents of the OO ideaology.


I think ascribing ideology to the OO is giving them a bit too much credence.
Corby Boy

In my experience, giving them any time of day at all, gives them too much credence.
frank rizzo

The Orange Order are a peaceful organisation? Aye and the BNP are not nazi's.

Is this plank for real?
agentmancuso

The BNP are not 'Nazis' in any meaningful sense of the word. They might be racist bampots, but that's another matter.
Aventinian

frank rizzo wrote:
The Orange Order are a peaceful organisation? Aye and the BNP are not nazi's.

Is this plank for real?


It must be wonderful in that child's world of black and white, where judgements can be passed simply by half-baked assessments.
RadgeJougal

agentmancuso wrote:
The BNP are not 'Nazis' in any meaningful sense of the word. They might be racist bampots, but that's another matter.


Disagree AM, some of them certainly are. They like NSDAP insigniae. That guy who died a year or two ago, who was one of their founders, certainly was.
Red Justice

RadgeJougal wrote:
"when exactly was there ever a Scottish Republic?"

Never. Not yet. But it looks like there will be one in my lifetime. I just hope it's a better set up than this one.

"That is not the case, and has never been the case even in respect to territories external to the UK."

You're confusing Westminster's official recognition with the facts on the ground. We'll declare independence, not Westminster. Westminster will come round to it when it realises it's pretty much happened, like the 13 Colonies, Rhodesia or the Republic of Ireland.


To obtain a Scottish Republic it is necessary to secure complete independence and the wishes of the Scottish people should be met. That would be to recognise the sovereignty of the Scottish people not Westminster. To get complete independence we must have control over our own resources, no ties with the British monarchy and no social union with England. Economic investment from Britain would have to be curtailed also.  

If Westminster fails to recognise the sovereignty of the Scottish people then we should present a Proclamation for a Republic. London does not easily let go of it's colonies and always expects to limit independence and freedom for former colonies.

Whether by mere constitutional and not revolutionary means, Westminster would accept Scottish sovereignty for complete independence and a bona fide Republic surely is open for debate.
azzuri

...welcome to the forums Red Justice. Very Happy
Cymro

Personally I don't see a Republic, be it a British one or a Scottish one come into existence in my life time and I'm only 25 and not planning on dying anytime soon.
Red Justice

Without revolutionary change a Scottish Republic would have to come about after Scottish Independence. Ireland in the south is known by republicans there as the Irish Free State. Ireland has gone backwards since independence becoming more under the thumb of Europe and increased investment from Britain.

This has gone off the subject of the thread discussing the SNLA trial and could justify discussion separately.

Thanks for the welcome azzuri!
Cymro

It's a mater of opinion that Ireland has gone backwards. Some, myself included would argue that it's moved forward. It's laughable to look at the situation of Ireland pre independence and look at it now and say it's gone backwards. The Republic of Ireland is a proud nation, eclipsing many other if not most other European countries, both in the EU and out of it. It has a thriving economy, you can argue it's overly dependent on the EU, but to claim that is a step backwards since independence is laughable beyond mesure.
Red Justice

Cymro wrote:
It's a mater of opinion that Ireland has gone backwards. Some, myself included would argue that it's moved forward. It's laughable to look at the situation of Ireland pre independence and look at it now and say it's gone backwards. The Republic of Ireland is a proud nation, eclipsing many other if not most other European countries, both in the EU and out of it. It has a thriving economy, you can argue it's overly dependent on the EU, but to claim that is a step backwards since independence is laughable beyond mesure.


It would be better if Ireland was a 32 County Republic and also not so tied up with the EU. This year will see a vote on the EU costitution and if the Irish in the 26 Counties don't reject it then Ireland will enter a European capitalist super-state merely replacing London imperialism with Brussels imperialism.  

The Celtic Tiger did better in the 1990s than today but I still saw poverty exist in Dublin at that time. While in Scotland we were like an old third world country without any political clout from a Scottish Office no wonder a few resorted to desperate measures and tried to launch the SNLA.
Cymro

Red Justice wrote:
Cymro wrote:
It's a mater of opinion that Ireland has gone backwards. Some, myself included would argue that it's moved forward. It's laughable to look at the situation of Ireland pre independence and look at it now and say it's gone backwards. The Republic of Ireland is a proud nation, eclipsing many other if not most other European countries, both in the EU and out of it. It has a thriving economy, you can argue it's overly dependent on the EU, but to claim that is a step backwards since independence is laughable beyond mesure.


It would be better if Ireland was a 32 County Republic and also not so tied up with the EU. This year will see a vote on the EU costitution and if the Irish in the 26 Counties don't reject it then Ireland will enter a European capitalist super-state merely replacing London imperialism with Brussels imperialism.  

The Celtic Tiger did better in the 1990s than today but I still saw poverty exist in Dublin at that time. While in Scotland we were like an old third world country without any political clout from a Scottish Office no wonder a few resorted to desperate measures and tried to launch the SNLA.


Now you're talking some sense, though I don't necesserily agree with you. I support the idea of an United Ireland, whether that needs to be Socialist to be a success I'm not sure or particularly bothered about though to be honest.

Should it be in the EU? Well there are positivies and negatives to such decisions. I'm not 100% pro EU, neithier am I 100% against it. Certainly some aspects of it are to be praised and some are to criticise.

Of course poverty existed in Dublin (and the rest of Ireland) in the 1990s when the Celtic Tiger was at it's stongest thanks to EU money, and that same poverty, chronic at times still exists now. I see more children begging on the streets of Dublin now that I've seen in any other city in the British isles. However, that is different to your original claim that Ireland is  now that it was before independece.  Compare Dublin or the rest of what is now the RoI in 1990 or 2008 to Dublin or what we now know as the RoI in 1920 before the Free State or even in 1946 before the creation of the Republic and you'll see another entire level of deprivation and poverty. Something which you or I can't even begin to comprehend. To claim otherwise is scaremongering at its worse.
Red Justice

Cymro wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
Cymro wrote:
It's a mater of opinion that Ireland has gone backwards. Some, myself included would argue that it's moved forward. It's laughable to look at the situation of Ireland pre independence and look at it now and say it's gone backwards. The Republic of Ireland is a proud nation, eclipsing many other if not most other European countries, both in the EU and out of it. It has a thriving economy, you can argue it's overly dependent on the EU, but to claim that is a step backwards since independence is laughable beyond mesure.


It would be better if Ireland was a 32 County Republic and also not so tied up with the EU. This year will see a vote on the EU costitution and if the Irish in the 26 Counties don't reject it then Ireland will enter a European capitalist super-state merely replacing London imperialism with Brussels imperialism.  

The Celtic Tiger did better in the 1990s than today but I still saw poverty exist in Dublin at that time. While in Scotland we were like an old third world country without any political clout from a Scottish Office no wonder a few resorted to desperate measures and tried to launch the SNLA.


Now you're talking some sense, though I don't necesserily agree with you. I support the idea of an United Ireland, whether that needs to be Socialist to be a success I'm not sure or particularly bothered about though to be honest.

Should it be in the EU? Well there are positivies and negatives to such decisions. I'm not 100% pro EU, neithier am I 100% against it. Certainly some aspects of it are to be praised and some are to criticise.

Of course poverty existed in Dublin (and the rest of Ireland) in the 1990s when the Celtic Tiger was at it's stongest thanks to EU money, and that same poverty, chronic at times still exists now. I see more children begging on the streets of Dublin now that I've seen in any other city in the British isles. However, that is different to your original claim that Ireland is  now that it was before independece.  Compare Dublin or the rest of what is now the RoI in 1990 or 2008 to Dublin or what we now know as the RoI in 1920 before the Free State or even in 1946 before the creation of the Republic and you'll see another entire level of deprivation and poverty. Something which you or I can't even begin to comprehend. To claim otherwise is scaremongering at its worse.


I think personally if the Irish vote to accept the EU constitution then that would be signing up to a miltaristic super-state.  As a socialist I believe only a socialistl system can begin the process of closing any gap between rich and poor. Also the EU has more down sides than ups.

The point I failed to explain in the earlier post which I meant to say was I thought (in recent years) Ireland was on a backward trend NOT compared to what it was pre-independence , for the Free State had improved a greatly in everyway when it threw of the yolk of English imperialism.
agentmancuso

RadgeJougal wrote:
Disagree AM, some of them certainly are. They like NSDAP insigniae. That guy who died a year or two ago, who was one of their founders, certainly was.


It's quite possible that some individual BNP members regard themselves as Nazis. They might even like wearing fancy badges. Neither of those things mean they actually are Nazis. And even if some individual BNP members could be described as Nazis, that by no means justifies the randomly sweeping statement that 'the BNP are Nazi's.
agentmancuso

Red Justice wrote:
Ireland has gone backwards since independence


And yet has one of the lowest levels of unemployment, and one of the highest rates GDP in Europe? It must really have been an economic utopia before independence.
agentmancuso

Red Justice wrote:
It would be better if Ireland was a 32 County Republic


Better for exactly?

It might be better in the eyes of cartoon revolutionaries, but the people who live there seem to disagree.
agentmancuso

Red Justice wrote:
only a socialistl system can begin the process of closing any gap between rich and poor.


And why would you want to do that?
Red Justice

agentmancuso wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
It would be better if Ireland was a 32 County Republic


Better for exactly?

It might be better in the eyes of cartoon revolutionaries, but the people who live there seem to disagree.


For a cartoon revolutionary at least I support an All Ireland referendum to allow the people of the 32 counties to decide full Irish independence as a unit and not within two separate states.
Red Justice

agentmancuso wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
only a socialistl system can begin the process of closing any gap between rich and poor.


And why would you want to do that?


Because with the union and British capitalism the gap between rich and poor has got wider under both the Tories and New Labour Unionists.
agentmancuso

Red Justice wrote:
Because with the union and British capitalism the gap between rich and poor has got wider under both the Tories and New Labour Unionists.


Is that necessarily a bad thing?
agentmancuso

Red Justice wrote:
For a cartoon revolutionary at least I support an All Ireland referendum to allow the people of the 32 counties to decide full Irish independence as a unit and not within two separate states.


You'll be in good company here then: this forum is littered with people desperate to hold referendums on their pet subjects.
Red Justice

agentmancuso wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
For a cartoon revolutionary at least I support an All Ireland referendum to allow the people of the 32 counties to decide full Irish independence as a unit and not within two separate states.


You'll be in good company here then: this forum is littered with people desperate to hold referendums on their pet subjects.


That's good then if they lived in Cuba the government would allow us to call for a referendum on the presentation of 10,000 signatues.

Here if we are lucky the British will hold a referendum on the EU constitution when it is about time the Scots were allowed a referendum on independence
Cymro

Red Justice wrote:
agentmancuso wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
For a cartoon revolutionary at least I support an All Ireland referendum to allow the people of the 32 counties to decide full Irish independence as a unit and not within two separate states.


You'll be in good company here then: this forum is littered with people desperate to hold referendums on their pet subjects.


That's good then if they lived in Cuba the government would allow us to call for a referendum on the presentation of 10,000 signatues.

Here if we are lucky the British will hold a referendum on the EU constitution when it is about time the Scots were allowed a referendum on independence


No point in Scotland having a referendum on independence now if you want to see it succeed as it's still widely accepted that most would vote for a maintaining of the union. Regarding Cuba and referendums, Switzerland also do this, not a socialist country either.

Ireland has certainly not gone backwards in terms of politics or economy since independence. Come on, lets deal with facts here not outlandish comments with no resemblence to reality.
Red Justice

Cymro wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
agentmancuso wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
For a cartoon revolutionary at least I support an All Ireland referendum to allow the people of the 32 counties to decide full Irish independence as a unit and not within two separate states.


You'll be in good company here then: this forum is littered with people desperate to hold referendums on their pet subjects.


That's good then if they lived in Cuba the government would allow us to call for a referendum on the presentation of 10,000 signatues.

Here if we are lucky the British will hold a referendum on the EU constitution when it is about time the Scots were allowed a referendum on independence


No point in Scotland having a referendum on independence now if you want to see it succeed as it's still widely accepted that most would vote for a maintaining of the union. Regarding Cuba and referendums, Switzerland also do this, not a socialist country either.

Ireland has certainly not gone backwards in terms of politics or economy since independence. Come on, lets deal with facts here not outlandish comments with no resemblence to reality.


If a referendum for Scottish independence was debated in Holyrood then arguments from the Scottish government side would be put in favour of Scottish independence and this would feed through the biased unionist media also allowing the Scottish people to think about the issue and build support for a vote on Scotland's constitutional future if we must wait for a vote.

As someone that does not see the road to Scottish freedom being simply about parliamentary politics but also people power I would still accept that a debate in holyrood should happen on a referendum for Scottish independence.

I say that as a Scottish citizen who does not see a British road to socialism but see the potential for a Scottish socialist society if we can end the misery and break up the UK
agentmancuso

Red Justice wrote:
That's good then if they lived in Cuba the government would allow us to call for a referendum on the presentation of 10,000 signatues.


Would they allow a referendum on changing the government?
agentmancuso

Cymro wrote:
Ireland has certainly not gone backwards in terms of politics or economy since independence.


Both politics and economy remained in the doldrums till the Irish realised that there was more to politics than arguing about just how much they hated the British.

Quote:
Come on, lets deal with facts here not outlandish comments with no resemblence to reality.


Reality? From someone calling himself 'Red Justice'? Barking up the wrong tree there aren't you?
Aventinian

Red Justice wrote:
That's good then if they lived in Cuba the government would allow us to call for a referendum on the presentation of 10,000 signatues.

Here if we are lucky the British will hold a referendum on the EU constitution when it is about time the Scots were allowed a referendum on independence


Mmm... mob rule over things they don't even half-understand.

Red Justice wrote:
I say that as a Scottish citizen who does not see a British road to socialism but see the potential for a Scottish socialist society if we can end the misery and break up the UK


1. There's so such thing as a Scottish citizen.

2. The reason you don't see a British road to socialism is quite simply because you're a nationalist. There's nothing remotely socialist about that.

Red Justice wrote:
To get complete independence we must have control over our own resources, no ties with the British monarchy and no social union with England. Economic investment from Britain would have to be curtailed also.  

If Westminster fails to recognise the sovereignty of the Scottish people then we should present a Proclamation for a Republic. London does not easily let go of it's colonies and always expects to limit independence and freedom for former colonies.

Whether by mere constitutional and not revolutionary means, Westminster would accept Scottish sovereignty for complete independence and a bona fide Republic surely is open for debate.


Never mind, you're quite clearly bonkers.
Holebender

Red Justice wrote:
I support an All Ireland referendum to allow the people of the 32 counties to decide full Irish independence as a unit and not within two separate states.


Do you also support an all-UK referendum on Scotland's independence? Isn't that the equivalent of an all-Ireland referendum?
Cymro

Red Justice wrote:
Cymro wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
agentmancuso wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
For a cartoon revolutionary at least I support an All Ireland referendum to allow the people of the 32 counties to decide full Irish independence as a unit and not within two separate states.


You'll be in good company here then: this forum is littered with people desperate to hold referendums on their pet subjects.


That's good then if they lived in Cuba the government would allow us to call for a referendum on the presentation of 10,000 signatues.

Here if we are lucky the British will hold a referendum on the EU constitution when it is about time the Scots were allowed a referendum on independence


No point in Scotland having a referendum on independence now if you want to see it succeed as it's still widely accepted that most would vote for a maintaining of the union. Regarding Cuba and referendums, Switzerland also do this, not a socialist country either.

Ireland has certainly not gone backwards in terms of politics or economy since independence. Come on, lets deal with facts here not outlandish comments with no resemblence to reality.


If a referendum for Scottish independence was debated in Holyrood then arguments from the Scottish government side would be put in favour of Scottish independence and this would feed through the biased unionist media also allowing the Scottish people to think about the issue and build support for a vote on Scotland's constitutional future if we must wait for a vote.

As someone that does not see the road to Scottish freedom being simply about parliamentary politics but also people power I would still accept that a debate in holyrood should happen on a referendum for Scottish independence.

I say that as a Scottish citizen who does not see a British road to socialism but see the potential for a Scottish socialist society if we can end the misery and break up the UK


I accept that it should be a Scottish Parliament that leads on the debate for Scottish independece but it's still generally accepted that a referendum now on Independence will not bring about the desired result for Nationalists. In time I daren't say it will be different but just not yet.

I'd also argue that talk of independence 'to create a socialist Scotland' would lead to a greater risk of the independence campaign failing given that not everyone is a socialist. The 'working' of socialism within aspects of an Independent Scotland could take place if the will was there after the decision was taken to end the Union not before.

Agree with what Holebender said regarding an all Ireland referendum on an United Ireland. No point. At the end of the day, like it or not Northern Ireland is now recognised as a seperate country to the Republic of Ireland. If you are wanting Northern Ireland to join with the rest of the island of Ireland then that should be an issue for the people of Northern Ireland and for them alone. You could ofcourse hold a simultaneous referendum in the Republic on whether they would like the North to join them but not the actual same referendum.
RadgeJougal

Holebender wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
I support an All Ireland referendum to allow the people of the 32 counties to decide full Irish independence as a unit and not within two separate states.


Do you also support an all-UK referendum on Scotland's independence? Isn't that the equivalent of an all-Ireland referendum?


Not really, since one is to join all of Ireland together, the other is to allow part of the UK to leave.
Cymro

RadgeJougal wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
I support an All Ireland referendum to allow the people of the 32 counties to decide full Irish independence as a unit and not within two separate states.


Do you also support an all-UK referendum on Scotland's independence? Isn't that the equivalent of an all-Ireland referendum?


Not really, since one is to join all of Ireland together, the other is to allow part of the UK to leave.


Don't think it should be an all Ireland referendum on the issue though. Before Northern Ireland was bought into existence you could argue that it's wrong to allow a corner to break away, after all I don't suppose the British Government would have allowed it if say Country Cork had called to leave the Union and the rest of Ireland wanted to remain. It was synical use of geographical politics to keep a foot on the island. However now it's bought into existence the issue on should Northern Ireland join the Irish Republic is an issue them and only them can descide on at the end of the day.
iainmhor

The Occupied six counties are an illegal, artificial, sectarian statelet and has no legitimacy. An all Ireland referendum is preferable, of course if the result was reunification [which it soon will be] within the 6 counties of Ulster then who wouldnt accept it? Very Happy
agentmancuso

iainmhor wrote:
The Occupied six counties are an illegal


According to what system of law?

Quote:
artificial


All national boundaries are artificial.
Quote:

sectarian statelet


No more sectarian than the other Irish state was until very recently.
Quote:

and has no legitimacy.

In whose eyes?

Quote:
An all Ireland referendum is preferable,

Preferable to whom?

Quote:
of course if the result was reunification [which it soon will be] within the 6 counties of Ulster then who wouldnt accept it?


It probably will be before too long. All the more reason to despise those bigoted scumbags who took such pleasure in murdering civilians in pursuit of an end which was almost universally accepted to be a certainty in the long run.
RadgeJougal

The "bigoted scumbags" are the result of British misrule.
agentmancuso

RadgeJougal wrote:
The "bigoted scumbags" are the result of British misrule.


No they aren't. Their actions are the result of the belief that killing people is a suitable way to achieve political ends. No government could ever make you believe that.
Cymro

iainmhor wrote:
The Occupied six counties are an illegal, artificial, sectarian statelet and has no legitimacy. An all Ireland referendum is preferable, of course if the result was reunification [which it soon will be] within the 6 counties of Ulster then who wouldnt accept it? Very Happy


Oh come on now. Look at the facts, Northern Ireland is accepted under international law dictating the recognition of countries (unlike places like Turkish run Cyprus). Republic of Ireland since 1997 has removed any claims in its constitution to the North.

It has real legitimacy. Clearly it's establishment was cynical but in 2008 it has every right to exist as long as the majority want it that way.
Red Justice

agentmancuso wrote:
RadgeJougal wrote:
The "bigoted scumbags" are the result of British misrule.


No they aren't. Their actions are the result of the belief that killing people is a suitable way to achieve political ends. No government could ever make you believe that.


Noboby should want killing anywhere. Wars start when people occupy lands or divide them. The British should of thought in history about the consequences of dividing the tradional nine counties of Ulster into a gerrymandered wee six that suited the minority Unionists.
Aventinian

Red Justice wrote:
Noboby should want killing anywhere. Wars start when people occupy lands or divide them.


I wonder if you shall then be reconsidering your commitment to nationalist separatism then...?

Quote:
The British should of thought in history about the consequences of dividing the tradional nine counties of Ulster into a gerrymandered wee six that suited the minority Unionists.


Except that the division of Ireland probably resulted massively in the reverse. While I do not seek to downplay the Troubles, had the Southerners tried to take Northern Ireland into their Republic, the calamity would've been enormous.

So all in all, it seems you're quite wrong. The UK Gov't did rather well in this occasion.

Cymro wrote:
Oh come on now. Look at the facts, Northern Ireland is accepted under international law dictating the recognition of countries (unlike places like Turkish run Cyprus). Republic of Ireland since 1997 has removed any claims in its constitution to the North.

It has real legitimacy. Clearly it's establishment was cynical but in 2008 it has every right to exist as long as the majority want it that way.


You forget that these people believe the legitimate government of Ireland was formed by a pantomime performance on the steps of Dublin Post Office, and that the IRA are the legitimate army of that state.
Holebender

RadgeJougal wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
I support an All Ireland referendum to allow the people of the 32 counties to decide full Irish independence as a unit and not within two separate states.


Do you also support an all-UK referendum on Scotland's independence? Isn't that the equivalent of an all-Ireland referendum?


Not really, since one is to join all of Ireland together, the other is to allow part of the UK to leave.


Let's see... an all-Ireland referendum to decide the fate of Ireland. An all-UK referendum to decide the fate of the UK. Sorry, I must have missed the difference; you'd better run it by me again.

I support a Scotland-only referendum to decide Scotland's status. I don't see it as anybody else's business and I don't see that anyone else should have a say in it. I also support the notion of a united Ireland but there is no way I could condone everyone in Ireland having a say on Northern Ireland's future without being a total hypocrite about Scotland.

Self determination for the goose is self determination for the gander, if you follow me.
RadgeJougal

agentmancuso wrote:
RadgeJougal wrote:
The "bigoted scumbags" are the result of British misrule.


No they aren't. Their actions are the result of the belief that killing people is a suitable way to achieve political ends. No government could ever make you believe that.


Actually, yes they are. Amongst other things, they're the result of the British government allowing bigots to run the place for decades.
Holebender

I believe the government of Rwanda did a pretty good job of making its people believe that killing their fellow citizens was a suitable way of achieving its political ends.

Zimbabwe's government seems to have at least some of the population convinced.

Kenya?

Oh, and how about Bush's government in the United States? They seem to have persuaded a majority of their citizens that killing Iraqis was the way to go not so long ago.

You really ought to have learned to curb your tendency for sweeping generalisations by now.
agentmancuso

Holebender wrote:
Oh, and how about Bush's government in the United States? They seem to have persuaded a majority of their citizens that killing Iraqis was the way to go not so long ago.


It would appear that you confuse persuading someone to act in a certain way with making them do it. The two are quite distinct. In the first case, someone decides for himself on the evidence available, and chooses to act accordingly. In the second, there is no choice, and hence no responsibility.

Blaming the stupid murderous actions of a small group of drug-peddling thugs on anyone but themselves is fellow-travelling of the most pathetic kind.
iainmhor

Who are these "drug-peddling thugs" of which you speak , Agentmancuso?
agentmancuso

At a guess, the same child-murderers that appear in your avatar.
Holebender

Excuse me, you were talking about making people believe something earlier, now you've switched to compelling them to act.

The Rwandan government persuaded their Hutu population that their Tutsi neighbours were their sworn enemies and deserved death. The Bush administration persuaded the US population that Iraq was plotting mayhem and fostered the belief that they were involved in the World Trade Center atrocity. That belief then allowed the government to go to war without their citizens objecting.

As your drug peddling thugs remark was part fo a reply to me, you'd better clarify as I have never stated anything remotely close to what you seem to be implying.
iainmhor

agentmancuso wrote:
At a guess, the same child-murderers that appear in your avatar.





Ah i see.
So you are retracting the fallicy of them being drug dealers? Quite right Agentmancuso, because in the annals of the convictions of Republicans youll be very hard pushed to find an example of a Republican Volunteer convicted of such a thing. In fact you wont be able to find one case.

I was at a meeting the other day of the families of the Ballymurphy 11.All of them unarmed civilians killed by British paratroopers in  the space of just a  few days during internment, some of them not much more than children.

As you know the IRA never intenionally targeted children, but then again you do like to indulge your anti-republican hysteria. Wonder if you have equal disgust for your British Army when it murders children in Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan, or in the past, elsewhere?
Holebender

What do you call targeting shopping centres and other public buildings if not intentionally targeting children? There is no denying the IRA planted bombs which, by their very indiscriminate nature, predictably killed and maimed children among others.
Red Justice

The worst bombings on the island of Ireland was carried out by the UVF and their friends in British intelligence. The worst atrocity was carried out by gangsters of UVF and MI5 by means of car bombs in Dublin and Monaghon May 17, 1974. The British colonial police also diverted innocent civillians to the alleged Real IRA bomb in Omagh. Then the British locked up innocent men such as Sean Hoey (recently relased) and others because of Omagh..

British occupiers have shot women and children on the streets of N Ireland and MI5 colluded with loyalist crimnials (who peddle drugs) to kill young men over many years.  

The record of killing by the despicable Brits in Ireland is enormous.

The facts are governments kill more people through state sponsered terrorism on this planet than those who are alleged to be terrorist.  The British don't come out too well if we consider killing in occupied Ireland and the blatant disregard they have for human and civil rights.
Holebender

Let's not get into a pishing contest about whose baddies were the worst, but let's also dispel this notion that the IRA never deliberately targeted children. If you blow up a public building you make the calculation that any member of the public could be within the blast radius. If you target shops and similar places, the chances of children being present increases dramatically.
agentmancuso

Holebender wrote:
Excuse me, you were talking about making people believe something earlier, now you've switched to compelling them to act.


No, not really. Trying (and even succeeding) to persuade someone to do something is quite distinct morally from making them do it. (In this context, 'to believe' is a subset of 'to do').

Quote:
As your drug peddling thugs remark was part fo a reply to me, you'd better clarify as I have never stated anything remotely close to what you seem to be implying.


Sorry, that was unclear. It refers back to a prior post, where RadgeJougal claimed that the British government had 'made' some Irish thugs commit certain acts.

To claim that someone has 'made' you do something when you have actively chosen to do it is the behaviour of a 5 year old. For a grown man to pretend he was 'made to' kill random civilians because of some idiotic tribal squabble about lines on a map is utterly pathetic.

We seem to agree on that, more or less, which is something.
Aventinian

Red Justice wrote:
The worst bombings on the island of Ireland was carried out by the UVF and their friends in British intelligence. The worst atrocity was carried out by gangsters of UVF and MI5 by means of car bombs in Dublin and Monaghon May 17, 1974.


I know fine well you can't prove that. Moreover, it's an irrelevant pissing contest which you've brought up to deflect away your support for the IRA.

Quote:
The British colonial police also diverted innocent civillians to the alleged Real IRA bomb in Omagh.


You might first want to try understanding what a colony is before labelling something as 'colonial'.

Moreover, that's a load of s**t and you know it.

Quote:
Then the British locked up innocent men such as Sean Hoey (recently relased) and others because of Omagh..


Um, yes, that's what policemen do, lock up suspects for crimes and bring them to trial. The fact a Googling tells me his trial lasted fifty-six days would seem to suggest there was at least some semblance of a case against him.

Quote:
the despicable Brits


When all else fails, just fall back on good old fashioned racism, eh?

Quote:
The British don't come out too well if we consider killing in occupied Ireland and the blatant disregard they have for human and civil rights.


The present government, for their faults, have a great regard for human rights. As little as I think of the Labour Party, the Human Rights Act was long overdue and the sort of thing governments should be doing more of.
Aventinian

SNLA members jailed for six years apiece.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7209203.stm
RadgeJougal

Members? Maybe, but the most bizarre and pathetic terrorist outfit I've ever heard of. As September the 11th proved, you only need the most basic of tools to be a good terrorist. Toileteries and vodka? Give me a break
agentmancuso

RadgeJougal wrote:
Members? Maybe, but the most bizarre and pathetic terrorist outfit I've ever heard of. As September the 11th proved, you only need the most basic of tools to be a good terrorist. Toileteries and vodka? Give me a break


Didn't the British state make them do it?  Shocked

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum