Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR...scBA&mode=related&search=

not really sure where this should go on the board so al just stick it here.

enjoy

_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP

"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP

Abieuan · Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject:

You would have to be gie brave or daft to get into a public arguement with Mr Galloway - even if you'r right!

FreedomNow · Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:50 am Post subject:

That's quite good, he just makes the world hear how much of a moron the caller is lol.
_________________
I will never apoligise for my Scottish blood, my Scottish mind or my love for my nation. You will never kill our will to be free.

ALBA GU BRATH - SCOTLAND FOREVER
FOR A SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ALBA

MAKE MONARCHY HISTORY

Aventinian · Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:05 pm Post subject:

To try and make a football supporting point about that is ludicrous. Again, Galloway sounds good, but talks complete rubbish.
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.'

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 996

Abieuan wrote "You would have to be gie brave or daft to get into a public arguement with Mr Galloway - even if you'r right!"

In 1992, when George Galloway said that John Major's Tories had NOT won the election in Scotland, and called for a campaign for a Scottish parliament, I was one of the first to join the "Scotland United" organisation he set up, and I urged people to join with me on the demonstrations that they called. Personally I wouldn't trust Galloway as far as I could throw him, but he was great when he took on the members of the United States Congress in Washington DC and ran rings around them. However, this was NOT one of his better performances.

Aventinian wrote "To try and make a football supporting point about that is ludicrous" - for the very first time, I find myself agreeing with Aventinian.

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

he was making the football points in relation to the wider discussion that was taking place on his show that night.

still though bombralottarum you cant beat that.
_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP

"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 996

Parkhead quotes "bobby sands MP" as saying "our revenge will be the laughter of our children".

Bobby Sands was a provisional IRA commander who was imprisoned, led a hunger strike in prison, was elected to Westminster while in prison, then died on hunger strike in prison. While his hunger strike was undoubtedly a brave act, and of course a non-violent act, there can really be little doubt about Bobby Sands's involvement in violence. Maybe he wasn't quite in favour of "bombralotterum" , but there can't really be much doubt that he was in favour of SOME bombing.

I suppose if the only "revenge" that supporters of Bobby Sands take is "the laughter of our children", that is something to be thankfull for.

Nevertheless, anybody who calls himself "Parkhead" and quotes Bobby Sands in his signature line is clearly approaching things from a highly sectarian angle.

"Parkhead" says

> he was making the football points in relation to the wider discussion that was taking place on his show that night.

No, he was making the football points in relation to the NARROWER discussion that was taking place on his show that night. No matter how bigoted and narrow minded this particular Rangers-supporting caller might have been, the plain fact was that he definitely did NOT speak for all Rangers supporters on questions of war or peace. For instance, there are Rangers supporters who have marched against the war in Iraq, just as there are Celtic supporters (some of them quite high up in the Labour Party!) who have supported Tony Blair's war. Although George Galloway was good when he confronted the members of the United States Congress in Washington DC, on this particular occasion, by allowing himself to be dragged into an "Old Firm" response along sectarian lines, he _narrowed_ the discussion, instead of helping the anti-war cause.

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

gordon899 · Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject:

i have to say anyone who tries to score cheap points (and dated at that!) by using the absurd rambling of george galloway is either somewhat obsssesd or downright desperate. i have to agree with the above poster who points out the irony of parkhead mocking 'bombralotofem' when he/she praises the virtues of someone who was a hero to those who DID in fact 'bombralotofem'.

secondly, george galloway, a clever and brilliant politician who could have led this country before he became sorry parody of himself who is now no-more than very public joke.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 996

I wrote

> anybody who calls himself "Parkhead" and quotes Bobby Sands in his
> signature line is clearly approaching things from a highly sectarian angle.

and, indeed, the gleeful reaction of "Parkhead" to George Galloway's foolish remarks tends to prove my point.

Parkhead now says

> Maybe you should actually do some reading on irish republicanism

I have.

You should not assume that everybody who can read will come to the same conclusions as yourself.

> Maybe you have been reading the (totally fals and british created version of the green book)
> which was handed out to british soldiers when they first came to the six counties?

No, I have never read that.

In fact, until you mentioned it, I wasn't even aware of its existence.

> the founding father of irish republicanism is wolfetone, a protestant.

I am well aware of that. I am also well aware that, in the North at least, the United Irishmen's revolt was largely a protestant affair. I am also well aware that some catholic "rebels" committed atrocities against protestants, and the reaction to THAT was what killed off protestant republicanism and led to the rise of the Orange lodges.

> There have also been several protestants who have been members of republican groups throught the ages.

Acts of catholic sectarianism, which drove many protestants into supporting Orangeism, ensured that, apart from that original United Irishmen's revolt, Irish Republicanism has been something like ninety nine percent catholic. The occasional token protestant cannot disguise that fact.

But I am really not very interested in discussing Irish matters. I am more concerned with Scotland. I placed a bet, back in 2001, that Scotland would be independent within ten years, AND that this would happen before Ireland became united. I still think I'm on course to win that bet. As far as I'm concerned, we here in Scotland have absolutely nothing at all to learn from Ireland, except how NOT to go about becoming an independent and united country.

> Irish republicans recognise that the trouble in ireland is the British presence, the british
> systematically propped up one section of the irish population so they could use them
> as their proxy rulers in the six counties, this is a well known british government strategy
> and has been practiced all over the world.

So, tell me, "Parkhead", if this is British government strategy (and I agree that there is a pattern) what do you think the British government will do in Scotland ? Surely the really ironic thing here in Scotland is that it is the Labour Party which is the most UNIONIST party, and it is Celtic-supporting "irish rebels" who are the backbone of that unionist party ?

Coming back to the original topic, although George Galloway has done some good things, such as his confrontation with the United States congress in Washington DC for instance, the only people who benefitted from his sectarian performance in this "bombralotterum" episode were the British government.

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

and why is me posting that and laughing at it SECTARIAN? what exactly qualifies it to fit that term?

now thats the proper definiton of sectarianism mind, not the daily record and others version.

I would also like you to explain to me why exactly republicanism is sectarian. Is it because most republicans are catholics it is sectarian? Have republicans set out on a campaign against another religious group that i am not aware of?

The labour party have also used sectarianism to their advantage in scotland for years, telling people that the SNP was anti catholic and others that the SNP were out to wreck the union so they should vote labour.

You will also find that in fact no studies have been taken to actually give figures on how celtic fans these days vote so I dont see how you can state they support new labour. Obviously I am a part of the republican movement in scotland and i dont know one single person who does vote for labour or the conservatives, all seem to be a variance of SSP, SNP, solidarity etc but again no studies have been taken on this.

A poll was done though on celtic fan site the huddleboard and the results were overwhelmingly in favour of pro independence, left of centre parties.

Comparing scotland and ireland though as if its a race to independence is also a bit immature. Scotland has a clear advantage in the fact that its situation is no where near as complex and views are not as deeply held by so many than in ireland.

In any case I dont really care which becomes independent first as long as both do. Independence for scotland can also only be a good thing for irish independence.
_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP

"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 996

Parkhead wrote "explain to me why exactly republicanism is sectarian".

The word "republic". from the Greek words res publica, the public thing, is usually taken to mean
a system of society without a momarchy. Guess what, I am in favour of a system of society
without a monarchy. So by that definition you might say I'm a republican. But the problem is
that in the peculiar Irish context this word has come to have a totally different meaning. For one
thing, ALL those who describe themselves as "Irish Republicans" are in favour of a united Ireland.
People take that for granted, yet it is strange. There is nothing particularly "republican" about
wanting a united ireland. You could be in favour of a united Ireland which has a monarchy.
You could be in favour of diffferent parts of Ireland being different, independent republics.
But in practice the meaning of the words "Irish Republican" is always a lot narrower than
"somebody who happens to be Irish and who is in favour of a society without a monarchy".

It is what Irish Republicanism often is _in practice_ that is sectarian.

> You will also find that in fact no studies have been taken to actually give figures
> on how celtic fans these days vote so I dont see how you can state they support
> new labour.

I know for a fact that there are members of the Labour Party who support the present
government with its UNIONIST policies and who are also supporters of Celtic FC.
I made no comment on how many of them there are, or what percentage of them
there are. Only that they exist. The fact that they exist at all is quite enough.

There is no connection between being a supporter of Celtic FC and being
a supporter of independence for Scotland. There is no connection between
being a Rangers supporter and being _against_ independence for Scotland.
There is no connection between being a supporter of Celtic FC and being
anti-war. There is no connection between being a supporter of Rangers
FC and being pro-war. I know Rangers supporters who have taken
part in several demonstrations against the Iraq war. Okay, so
some idiot of a Rangers supporter phoned George Galloway's
radio programme making stupid remarks. That is no excuse for
Galloway (who really ought to know better) responding by making
comments which do not help either Scotland or the anti-war cause.
Galloway's stupid behaviour only benefits the British government.
The reason you cannot see that is because of your own prejudices.

gordon899 · Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:46 am Post subject:

ask not if republicanism is secterian but if individual republicans are secterian.

gordon899 · Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:15 am Post subject:

i would also add, ask not if orangeism is secterian but if individual orangemen are secterian.

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

so what republican actions are sectarian then? you didnt answer the question. you labelled irish republicanism sectarian, where a are your examples?
_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP

"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 996

Parkhead wrote

> what republican actions are sectarian then?

Note that, right away, Parkhead assumes that "republican" means "Irish Republican". He is so caught up in his own narrow world, he cannot see beyond it. Note also that while I talked about "prejudices", Parkhead talks about "actions". Apparently it is okay to hold prejudices, as long as it cannot actually be proven beyond all doubt that these prejudices have led to "actions".

The word "republic", from the Greek words res publica, the public thing, is usually taken to mean a system of society without a momarchy. As it happens, I am in favour of a system of society without a monarchy. So by that definition you might say I'm a republican. But the problem is that in the peculiar Irish context this word has come to have a totally different meaning. For one thing, ALL those who describe themselves as "Irish Republicans" are in favour of a united Ireland. People take that for granted, yet it is strange. There is nothing particularly "republican" about wanting a united ireland. You could be in favour of a united Ireland which has a monarchy. You could be in favour of diffferent parts of Ireland being different, independent republics. But in practice the meaning of the words "Irish Republican" is always a lot narrower than "somebody who happens to be Irish and who is in favour of a society without a monarchy".

> you didnt answer the question.

Your question really didn't seem worth bothering with to me.

The fact that there are SOME people, who see themselves as being supporters of "Irish Republicanism", who are sectarian, will be a matter of personal experience for a great many people, as it is for me. I happened to notice on the front page of one of today's Sunday papers a story about some Celtic-supporting Big Brother contestant who had been warned about his sectarian language and behaviour. Now, I didn't actually _buy_ that particular paper, and I don't know how bad his sectarian language or behaviour actually was, but that is just one particular example that happened to come to my notice today. There have been other cases where I know for certain that folk wearing Celtic tops and singing "Irish Republican" songs were definitely sectarian in their behaviour. I have had the honour of having been physically attacked by gangs of both kinds of bigots: attacked by "Republicans" for being an "Orangeman", and attacked by Orangemen for being a "Fenian". But, you might object, okay so some folk wearing Celtic tops and singing Republican songs might misbehave, but these were just individuals, they weren't actual Irish Republican organisations. Which is EXACTLY the same distinction that the Orange Lodge makes. If there is any trouble at an Orange Walk, they say it wasn't their own members, just "hangers on".
Your kind of sectarianism is the mirror image of the other kind.

gordon899 · Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject:

as i said there is nothing wrong with republicanism in itself, it is to be lauded. there is nothing wrong with orangeism in itself a long history of charitable work etc. there is also nothing wrong with unionism either.

HOWEVER, there are a great many individuals who have sympathies with these organistaions who are just numbskull secterian bigots.

mr parkhead rfb, i STRESS there is nothing secterian about republicanism however i myself have witnessed individual republicans behave in a secterian and bigotted manner. dress it up how you want but FTQ, f**k the brits, IRA, DOB's and singing songs and shouting about terrorist atrocities carried out in this country is secterian, bigotted and downright offensive to the vast majority of the UK population.

i also say that orangeism in itself is not offensive but i have witnessed orange numbskulls singing and shouting about FTP, fenians, papes, UVF and all that crap. they are just as offennsive to the vast majority of the UK population.

i hope that clears things up for you as you seem a little narrowminded on such matters.

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

so irish republicanism is sectarian but you cant actually point to any sectarian actions is that it?

surely if i were a racists the only likely way my prejucide could physically manifest its self would be by racist actions.

and obviously i am talking about republicanism as thats whats being discussed. I cant very fell answer statements about irish republicans being sectarian by talking about something that happened in greece. Thats like expecting someone to define scottish nationalism by reference to every type of nationalism out there, its not really relevant to the point being discussed.

What you have done is attempt to label a movement sectarian without any evidence other than a prejudice which you have assumed is there. Quite astounding in the face of evidence that i have given you that the founding father of irish republicanism was in fact a protestant. I myself have taken part in a march to his graveside and it is one of the biggest attended republican events in ireland.

the republican movement is over 800 years old, surely if it was a sectarian one you could at least come up with some decent references to prove how sectarian they are.

By the way my band also has had several protestant members throught its existence.
_________________
"our revenge will be the laughter of our children" bobby sands MP

"there is no equality in a society that stands upon the political and economic bog, if only the strongest make it good or survive" bobby sands MP

parkhead_rfb · Getting on a bit! Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 1974

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 996

"Parkhead" is becoming increasingly incoherent. Without saying which person he is responding to - so I'm not sure whether he is talking to me or to Gordon or to somebody else - Parkhead says "so irish republicanism is sectarian but you cant actually point to any sectarian actions is that it?"

"Parkhead", if you are in fact talking to me, I have in fact given at least one very clear example of sectarianism connected with Irish Republicanism.

I said:

" I have had the honour of having been physically attacked by gangs of both kinds of bigots: attacked by 'Republicans' for being an 'Orangeman', and attacked by Orangemen for being a 'Fenian'."

I would say that me being physically attacked by a group of Celtic-supporting-"Republicans" who wrongly jumped to the conclusion that I must be an Orangeman, just because I'm a protestant, is a pretty clear example of sectarianism. The fact that I have also, on another occasion, several years apart, been physically attacked by an "Orange" group who thought me a sympathiser with Irish Republicanism shows just how difficult it is to talk sense to sectarians of either kind.

> the republican movement is over 800 years old

Complete nonsense.

True, the idea of a society without a king goes back to ancient times. There were societies without a king in ancient Greece. Ancient Rome was officially a republic before Augustus Ceasar proclaimed himself Emperor. But so far as Ireland is concerned, the idea of a republic did not exist before the 17th Century. The first republican force in Ireland was Cromwell's army. When they beseiged Drogheda, the republicans were Cromwell's troops, and the monarchists were the defenders of the town. But of course Cromwell's troops were English Republicans. The first _Irish_ Republicans did not appear until a century later, and as you yourself said, "Parkhead", Wolfe Tone was one of their founders. In the 18th Century. NOT "800 years" ago.