Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: CyberNats

An interesting article about the funny little world of nationalism here:

Lewis · No Longer a Wean Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 81

I don't think it affects it in any way, most people on Political fora don't change their opinion and use it to flaunt their beliefs. I like to try and learn from what people say, but I've mostly met lots of ignorant UKIP members, this is one of the places I haven't met so many and so I like it here Very Happy

But I don't think it sways the voters at all, most voters would go by TV and politicians, not so much Blogs. There is a common misconception amongst Bloggers that people actually care about their opinions.
_________________
Hammish Independence

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject:

William_Cleland · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 753

agentmancuso · Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:03 am Post subject:

There is a significant distinction between taking the internet seriously as a medium for political discourse and taking this site seriously as a medium for political discourse.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 960

Regarding the poll at the top of this page, I consider on-line polls to be totally meaningless and pointless, so I never participate in them.

However, I recognise that a majority of posters on the "National Conversation" are probably nationalists. Yes, a minority of these nationalist participants can be quite rabidly so. But their rabidity is often matched by the rabidity of the unionists.

The nat-dominance of the National Conversation is partly because of a self-fulfilling prophecy by the Liberal democrats, Tories, and Labour. They said the national conversation would be nat-dominated and that their supporters would not participate, and, by and large, that is what has happened. However, not entirely. Some folk of unionist views do take part in the "converation", while at the same time dismissing it. One unionist wrote on the National Conversation website “this forum is a separatists' haven and, therefore, completely unrepresentative of the views of the Scots public”.

I responded to that comment "Maybe so, but at least it is OPEN to anybody, of any views, to make contributions to the discussion, and that open-ness makes it rather more representative than the Calman Commission set up by the Labour Party and co, which has quite specifically stated that it does not want to hear the views of a very large percentage of the population of Scotland.

The disgraceful reality is that the members of the Calman Commission have all pre-judged against independence by agreeing to serve on a commission which has already ruled this option out. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The people we need to hear from are the people of Scotland. In the end there is really only one way of doing that, and it is neither through a Conversation, nor a Commission, nor through a party political election.

In a party political election, folk vote on all sorts of issues. Like do they want the North East of Scotland turned into a giant golf park (I don't). Like do they think a local income tax is the best thing since sliced bread (I don't). Like do they fancy Nicola more than they fancy Wendy (I'm not too keen on either). In the end, the ONLY way to hear from the people of Scotland about our country's constitutional future is through a referendum. Nothing less will do. "

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3776

Shouldn't there be a third option, "don't think it affects the SNP"?
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

William_Cleland · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 753

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3776

Alasdair · Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject:

In terms of political scrutiny any sort of political activity/discussion wherever it may occur and by those interested is going to be important. If nothing else it tells the politicians where to look.

When it comes to online discussion the power of that is enhanced as a conversation that might have taken place in a pub, for instance, and which would only have had a limited audience can now take place on line and be potentially accessed by millions.

I'd certainly say that the blogging community has provided me with a far greater information base than I would have without them. There is a lot of information out there, but the main stream media simply isn't about to point it out to you.

Anyone who is engaging in 'angry' rhetoric will only do their cause harm in the eyes of the moderate majority and so in that regard Wendy Alexander's 'flag-burning english hating' bloggers are doing a harm to the SNP cause.

On the other hand those who can argue their corner in more moderate and sensible tones are likely to do the cause no harm at all or may indeed benefit it. There are ineteresting parallels to be drawn with the fledgling move for English Nationalism and the campaign for an English parliament where certain sections argue that the problem with English Democracy is 'the scottish raj' or the fact that the Scottish electorate get this or that that they do not.
_________________
"We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." - Voltaire

George · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 02 May 2006 Posts: 604

It is interesting that the elected Unionist MP's and MSP's have begun to mirror the intolerant and provocative rhetoric of their internet counterparts. Take a look at the opening paragraph from 'agent' to see the insidious comment that passes for debate.

Indeed the article he has lovingly reproduced for us is a case in point. Note how it focusses on the negative aspects of comments from independence supporters whilst ignoring the proportionally greater number of such comments from the Unionists.

The Herald and The Scotsman are also chalk and cheese, anyone with a modicum of reason can see that The Scotsman is a unionist troll fest, as lacking in online debate as the paper is in balance. Herald comments are far more constructive, although there are the occassional trolls that try to ruin it.

The web has provided a rich source of information that otherwise wouldn't be freely available. Some people are perhaps unaware of the role that the internet has played in destroying many of the old Unionist myths regarding Scotlands fiscal potential/reality. I myself have learned a great deal from such forums and that has allowed me to pass this information on.

The fact that those Unionists in authority have begun to attack internet posters is proof of the effect it is having. Even Herald journalist Douglas Fraser was reduced to describing his online critics as 'vermin' and 'sewer dwellers'.

The strength of the independence movements argument is immense, take away the name calling from Unionists and there is little else remaining. The internet cannot provide an exact counterbalance to the Unionist press but it offers some.

Here's a question for you all;
How many believe that the contributions from the likes of 'Aventinian', 'AM2' and the like have furthered the cause of Unionism?

Lewis · No Longer a Wean Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 81

Not me, I tend to just think that they merely destroy nationalism and give no other choice thus give nothing to reconsider with.

Most of us would stick to our guns though anyway.
_________________
Hammish Independence

William_Cleland · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 753

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 6:46 am Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 960

William Cleland wrote "the Solway and the Tweed is nothing like as marked a cultural boundary as the Dutch-French linguistic interface in Belgium" - no, but it is a marked legal boundary of long standing. On one side of that boundary, Scots law has applied for many centuries, while, on the other side of that boundary, English law has applied for many centuries. When a referendum was held on setting up a Scottish Parliament, there was absolutely no problem at all with defining who could vote on this: people on the electoral register in places where Scottish law applied. In Belgium, there is a linguistic divide, but in practice it is hard to say exactly which street in the suburbs of Brussels forms the cultural boundary. They simply don't have that centuries old legal boundary.

"Belgium still seems to find a way to stagger on through force of habit because most people don't see all the hassle that would be associated with finally pulling the plug as being worth the effort" - Belgium staggers on because it is impossible to say exactly which street in the suburbs of the the capital city of the kingdom should form the boundary. We have no such problem.

William also says "Flemings and Walloons are still Flemings and Walloons and daily life goes on regardless of what flag gets run up the flagpole in the morning", to which Agentmancuso comments "If only the good people of Angus could be so phlegmatic".

When a gale of wind blew down one of the two flagpoles on the council buildings in Brechin (the newer, and cheaper, one), Angus County Council decided they had no option but to spend more public money on a stronger flagpole. However, when, a couple of months earlier than that, a gale of wind blew down the improvised flagpole (which hadn't cost a penny) on my own garage, I just shrugged my shoulders and decided not to bother putting the flag back up. Of course daily life goes on in Angus regardless.

Holebender · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:51 am Post subject:

I'm not sure that Belgium is such a good example of stability and harmony when you consider it took them 192 days to agree on a government after their most recent general election.

As for the statement than many people feel British first, you will have to define many, as all reputable polls give Scottish identity a massive lead over any feelings of Britishness in Scotland.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

William_Cleland · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 753

I wasn't really using Belgium as an example of stability and harmony and tried to imply quite the opposite with "stagger on". Smile

What's interesting (at least to me anyway) is that despite Belgium being essentially dead as a nation in that there are now very few shared institutions that meaningfully bridge the linguistic divide they still carried on with their shared decentralized state despite a crisis that reached almost farcical proportions. Sometimes there needs to be a very strong push factor to get people to summon up the energy to carry out a radical change, which from the outside would appear the logical outcome. Most people see Scotland as being the national entity that they primarily identify with (although a significant minority do not) but they don't necessarily feel motivated to create an independent state on that basis.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 960

William wrote "I wasn't really using Belgium as an example of stability and harmony" - but you did draw a parallel, and that parallel isn't valid.

Despite the linguistic divide, Belgium would be a total nightmare for anybody to attempt to disentangle. The capital city, Brussels, is mainly French-speaking, but it is completely surrounded by Dutch-speaking suburbs. In contrast, the capital of the UK, London, is unquestionably in England, while Edinburgh is unquestionably in Scotland.

Belgium is very different from the UK, very different from Scotland. The low countries to the north of France have always been a bit of a mishmash. At one time they were ruled by Spain, but the protestants of the northern provinces rebelled against the Spanish Inquisition. The boundary between the Dutch-speakers of the Netherlands and the Dutch-speakers of Belgium is essentially just the line that the Spanish rulers managed to hold, that's all. The modern state of Belgium was cobbled together in the early Nineteenth Century, on the initiative of the then British government, out of the remains of the Spanish Netherlands plus French-speaking Wallonia, as a means of keeping France in its place.

In total contrast, both Scotland and England were long-established kingdoms when the UK was formed. Although the Scots who agreed that Union are condemned by Scottish Nationalists, they did manage to ensure, as a condition of that Union, that Scotland retained its own separate Legal System, Church, and Education. As a result, the boundary between Scotland and England has always remained a genuine boundary.

William_Cleland · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 753

The problem with your analysis is that the current convention on this is that the internal boundaries of a federal system are respected when a federation comes apart at the seams even in the case of relatively modern sets of boundaries like those of Yugoslavia, which were drawn on a whim by Tito and co during WWII. Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels are all well delineated from that standpoint:-

and given Brussels is majority francophone there is not much doubt where it would wind up. The Flemish are already well used to the concept of enclaves and exclaves:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Hertog

and in the context of the Schengen zone they are no big deal. You want to see a "total contrast" but you are about 40 years out of date as Belgium ceased to be a unitary state in 1970.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 960

William wrote "The problem with your analysis is that the current convention on this is that the internal boundaries of a federal system are respected when a federation comes apart at the seams even in the case of relatively modern sets of boundaries like those of Yugoslavia, which were drawn on a whim by Tito and co during WWII."

The Yugoslav precedent is hardly one to inspire much confidence! And no, it is not always true that "the internal boundaries of a federal system are respected when a federation comes apart at the seams even in the case of relatively modern sets of boundaries like those of Yugoslavia". Those boundaries were only respected when doing so was to Serbia's disadvantage. Under the Yugoslav Federation, Kosovo was part of Serbia.

In any case, there are plenty of folk in Belgium who dispute that convention. The map you provided shows the reason why. On your map, Brussels is completely surrounded by Flemish territory - but only just. In the southern suburbs of the capital, there's just a narrow strip of Flemish territory between French-speaking Brussels and French-speaking Wallonia. Those southern suburbs are a source of friction. There are quite a lot of French speakers there already, and the natural tendency of folk to move to the suburbs means that the number of French speakers there is tending to increase. But the Flemish Nationalists in charge of the local councils there are doing everything they can to prevent folk from selling or renting their houses to French speakers, because they figure (probably correctly) that, sooner or later, this could lead to a re-drawing of boundaries with Brussels being linked politically to Wallonia.

Yes, a situation where there is a heated dispute about the southern suburbs of the capital city certainly IS a total contrast with our own situation.