Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Pip

Within a movement whose members share a very broad single goal (to take the obvious example, Scottish Independence), where do you draw the line between productive discussion and fractious argument?

Before anyone thinks that I'm having a dig at them, I've been prompted by a few threads on COSG, and I'm hoping to pick a few brains. The thing that I admire and envy about the Scottish Independence/Nationalist movement is the co-operation of so many differing groups and traditions.

My view is that strongly differing views can be quite valuable, if only to cause you to re-assess and strengthen your own conflicting opinions. They should be aired and debated. The problems come in when people lose sight of the original objective and when they make the disagreements personal. Quite how far you are willing to compromise yourself, just who you will march alongside, comes down to individual conscience, and just how highly you value the end goal. My instinct is always to postpone the other arguments until the first battle is won, but perhaps it's those very issues that prevent success in the first place.

_________________
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget,
For we are the people of England, that never has spoken yet.

from The Secret People by G K Chesterton.

Babygael · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject:

PIP babes, I love yer views but why the F...erm France can't yew, a Ban-sasnnach onderstan' this wan FACT?

Scots have their Nation, and The Saxons have theirs??? Shocked

_________________
Ath-bheothachadh

Drink beer,don't drive...its cheeper!

Reluctant Hero · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject:

Babygael · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject:

Weel whit ever yew said RH, ah hauvnae lost ma objective or vision fur that matter.

SCOTLAND IS NOT ENGLAND!! Shocked

This is just a sasannach supposition! Cool

_________________
Ath-bheothachadh

Drink beer,don't drive...its cheeper!

Pip · Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject:

SLG · Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject:

Holebender · Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:52 pm Post subject:

A small group with an extremely inflated view of its own importance tried to take over Independence First and force it to become what the group already was. When heavy-handed attempts were made to stifle debate or dissent the activist core of Independence First left. Those who remain have turned Independence First into an empty talking shop. I predicted months ago that the wasters who remain in Independence First will fritter away its hard-earned funds on their pet schemes (probably "subsidising" their own travel expenses) and then leave it for dead.

I used to be Convenor of Independence First and was one of the people who conceived of the idea, and was one of the people who left to form a new campaign called Determination.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Rinty · Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject:

"But if you look at the left movement, particularly in Scotland, you will see examples of people losing sight if the objective."

No, they have a different central objective. It would be silly to expect the left in Scotland, mostly part of international orgainsations, to change their objective from socialism to a prime objective of independence.

We all know what Connolly said about flags over Dublin Castle.

In Scotland, what we have is a "left" that supports independence. Some parts of the left disagree on the importance of independence or the nature of it, but the majority support independence meaning that the two main left parties campaign for independence, even the members who dont see it as a priority.

The left parties now, unlike in the past, campaign on a pro-independence ticket. If anything, their sights are more on independence than before, not "losing sight" as you suggest.

The trick is not to waste time trying to make the left think of independence as a priority, or to make the independence movement more socialist. It is to unite around what unites us, Independence, a referendum.

That the way the independence movement can incorporate the SEP and Solidarity and the SSP. There is no point in trying to get socialist and free marketeers agreeing a whole manifesto, better to get everyone around simple ideas like Independence First etc.

I wont go into the whole debate again as I have said it many times before, but I believe that, in the long run, the concept of the SNP holds us back from the final leap. I think the idea of one "catch all" independence party limits the amount of people who will vote for independence and that we need a few strong parties right across the political spectrum.

The objective should not be SNP election victories, it should be independence.

"Now i firmly believe this is as a consequence of people losing sight of the objective. They would rather settle personal scores. "This is just not good enough and the voting public saw right through it and voted accordingly."

You are right to an extent but the salmond factor shouldnt be underestimated. The combined SSP/Solidarityu vote amounts to almost the same as they polled in 1999. The Greens have the same, their 1999 list votes total is the same as 2007.

The 2003 election was when Swinney was in charge and people lost confidence in the SSP. In 2007 every list vote gaimed by both the Greens and SSP returned to the SNP.

If it was to do with splits in the SSP then the Greens wouldnt have had the same result.

PS the combined SSP?solidarity vote in Glasgow would have been enough to elect Tommy Sheridan, so the split cost his seat. But, if he had been elected it would have been at the cost of Patrick Harvie eaning that, as in 1999, there would have been one green and one Socialist, spookily the same people Harper and Sheridan!

Reluctant Hero · Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:42 am Post subject:

Rinty · Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject:

"Although I am nowhere near as involved as a lot of people are, it is my opinion that the disintegration is because people failed to see the bigger picture, a Socialist country or state, and would rather settle personal scores. Now, we will never know if the SSP had stayed together would the Left have been able to resist the SNP tidal wave, but I think they would have been in a lot better position to."

I agree with that. Some us left to start the whole concept of a united broad left Scottish party all over again. If the votes were combined, as I said, it wouldnt have been a wipe out as Sheridan would have been elected, the same as in 1999.

I consider the high vote for the SSP and Greens in 2003 to have been a blip and that factors such as the invasion of Iraq and the perceived weakness of the SNP at the time were the cause.

As I said, the Greens had the same result as the SSP/Solidarity in May - i.e. their total list vote returned to an almost identical level as 1999. The Greens didnt have a split or a court case.