| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are the CyberNats |
| a help to the SNP? |
|
81% |
[ 9 ] |
| a hindrance for the SNP? |
|
18% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 11 |
|
| Author |
Message |
William_Cleland
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 760
|
 Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Utter fantasy indeed, and agentmancuso is the fantasist. |
He listens to this:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeOR_sNSPbg
but he hears this:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQBhxOFjCn0
basically. 
Maybe the problem is that he has no actual experience of politics gone completely mental. The reality is that it isn't something that is confined to nationalism. Pol Pot would be Labour politics gone totally berserk, Adolf would be Maggie taking the "enemy within" a wee bit further than the Miners Strike and Robespierre would be Liberalism taken a tad too far. Somehow though only one particular brand of politics gets the guilt by association treatment as far as agentmancuso is concerned.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alasdair
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 433
Location: Clydesdale
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Alasdair wrote: | | These being? |
All nationalism is predicated on the following:
1) the existence of an essential political entity
2) the existence of an external threat to the cohesion of this entity
3) the existence of a debt of allegiance to this political entity necessitating the taking of urgent steps to defend the cohesion of this entity. |
1. It is a fact of life that we live in boundaries which have been established over (in most cases) long periods of time and which are considered to be political for the most part. Many of those who live within those boundaries share common values and beliefs. This is not only seen at a national level, but may also manifest in a local context where there is no specific or essential political entity.
2. An external threat need not exist for those within your mislabelled 'political entity' to behave in a manner to ensure cohesion. It is more likely that internal needs will drive cohesion, this can be seen in the context of base motivational factors. I can seen no reason whereby a number of nationalist entities should co-exist side-by-side without recourse to threats from their neighbours ...
3. That is to say that we are safer as a group and groups will often act in order to defend itself. This is not negative, this is a fact of everyday family life. A social creatures we are depedent on those around us to ensure our continuation, no urgent steps need be taken to defend the cohesion of a group where there is no imminent threat of physical violence.
Actually point 3 doesn't make any sense. Why does a debt of allegiance necessitate urgent steps to defend anything?
_________________
"We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1261
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Scottish nationalism is not predicated on points 2 and 3. |
2. So you accept that absolutely no threat to Scotland's economic, financial, cultural, linguistic, social or political welfare is presented by continued participation in the Union?
3. So you have lost your urgent enthusiasm for anti-democratic populist gimmicks like referendums on 'independence'? |
Now you're moving the goalposts, and not very subtly either.
Your points 2 and 3 were | Quote: | All nationalism is predicated on the following:
2) the existence of an external threat to the cohesion of this entity
3) the existence of a debt of allegiance to this political entity necessitating the taking of urgent steps to defend the cohesion of this entity. |
Scottish nationalism is not predicated on either of these things and these things need not exist for Scottish nationalism to exist. Furthermore, your response to the point three item above bears hardly any discernible resemblance to your original point three.
What on earth do you consider anti-democratic about asking people to vote on the constitutional future of their country? Refusing a referendum is far more anti-democratic as far as I can see.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | I have to question your intelligence after that. If there are no political parties that bridge the linguistic divide and if it takes half a year to form a government, it's probably time to call it a day. The state clearly isn't working so the logical perspective from the outside would be that it is time to try another arrangement. Nowhere in that analysis is there a suggestion that Switzerland should split four ways because unlike the Belgians the Swiss have been able to make it work. Trivialising the legacy of Nazism to make petty playground level jibes like that is pathetic. |
Is there, or is there not, a 'logical' connection between administrative boundaries and linguistic boundaries?
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4256
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice to see the response to this. I'm glad you all see yourselves as noble warriors engaged in some great battle on behalf of King Alex.
Freeeeedom.
_________________
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.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 760
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | William_Cleland wrote: | | I have to question your intelligence after that. If there are no political parties that bridge the linguistic divide and if it takes half a year to form a government, it's probably time to call it a day. The state clearly isn't working so the logical perspective from the outside would be that it is time to try another arrangement. Nowhere in that analysis is there a suggestion that Switzerland should split four ways because unlike the Belgians the Swiss have been able to make it work. Trivialising the legacy of Nazism to make petty playground level jibes like that is pathetic. |
Is there, or is there not, a 'logical' connection between administrative boundaries and linguistic boundaries? |
Try reading what I wrote again in the quoted text and you will find the answer. Did you even bother to read it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 760
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aventinian wrote: | Nice to see the response to this. I'm glad you all see yourselves as noble warriors engaged in some great battle on behalf of King Alex.
Freeeeedom. |
The study of psychology has provided strong evidence that the human mind can only cope with about 150 people as individuals. The concept is referred to as the monkeysphere based on Dunbar's number:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeysphere
http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
Once you move beyond that number the human mind simply can't cope any more and starts to stereotype large groups so they can all be treated as if they were one person:-
http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_p2.html
Nothing unusual about that then because it is just part of the human condition. The truly deluded are the people who believe that they are above "them and us" stuff, however, and are not aware that they have an innate capacity for it.
As stated earlier in the thread, I am not an SNP supporter and just so you know I absolutely detest Braveheart, Arventinian, but keep having fun with your overly simplistic stereotyping if it keeps you amused. I'm sure that posting this won't stop you from doing it again in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | Try reading what I wrote again in the quoted text and you will find the answer. Did you even bother to read it? |
I did read it, and found it to be a lumbering attempt to side-step the main question which is whether state boundaries have any logical connection with state boundaries, as you previously claimed. Have another try:
Is there, or is there not, a 'logical' connection between administrative boundaries and linguistic boundaries?
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | Your points 2 and 3 were | Quote: | All nationalism is predicated on the following:
2) the existence of an external threat to the cohesion of this entity
3) the existence of a debt of allegiance to this political entity necessitating the taking of urgent steps to defend the cohesion of this entity. |
Scottish nationalism is not predicated on either of these things and these things need not exist for Scottish nationalism to exist. |
Even a fundamentalist like yourself can't really believe that Scottish nationalism would exist without the UK/England to complain about?
| Quote: |
your response to the point three item above bears hardly any discernible resemblance to your original point three. |
On the contrary, the obsession with holding rigged referendums is a perfect example of the 'urgent steps' to which I referred.
| Quote: | | What on earth do you consider anti-democratic about asking people to vote on the constitutional future of their country? |
Democracy works through the stable and predictable operation of institutions, not by asking which of two minority groups can howl the loudest.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alasdair wrote: | | 1. It is a fact of life that we live in boundaries which have been established over (in most cases) long periods of time and which are considered to be political for the most part. Many of those who live within those boundaries share common values and beliefs. This is not only seen at a national level, but may also manifest in a local context where there is no specific or essential political entity. |
Largely true. For example, I live in South Lanarkshire, which was created in 1996. But there is no necessary link between living in an administrative area and and the urge to defend it against external threats. This dangerous connection is made by nationalism.
| Quote: |
2. An external threat need not exist for those within your mislabelled 'political entity' to behave in a manner to ensure cohesion. It is more likely that internal needs will drive cohesion, this can be seen in the context of base motivational factors. I can seen no reason whereby a number of nationalist entities should co-exist side-by-side without recourse to threats from their neighbours |
There is no reason why a number of nations can't do so. But nationalism is precisely the identification of external threats and the assertion of collective identity as a response.
| Quote: | | 3. That is to say that we are safer as a group and groups will often act in order to defend itself. This is not negative, this is a fact of everyday family life. A social creatures we are depedent on those around us to ensure our continuation, no urgent steps need be taken to defend the cohesion of a group where there is no imminent threat of physical violence. |
You would think that to be the case, yes. But nationalism consists of the invention of external threats as a means of enforcing cultural/linguistic/social cohesion.
| Quote: | | Actually point 3 doesn't make any sense. Why does a debt of allegiance necessitate urgent steps to defend anything? |
Non of it makes any sense. That's why I argue against it.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 760
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | William_Cleland wrote: | | Try reading what I wrote again in the quoted text and you will find the answer. Did you even bother to read it? |
I did read it, and found it to be a lumbering attempt to side-step the main question which is whether state boundaries have any logical connection with state boundaries, as you previously claimed. Have another try:
Is there, or is there not, a 'logical' connection between administrative boundaries and linguistic boundaries? |
So in other words no you didn't read my comment about Switzerland not necessarily having to split four ways before replying last time around but are not willing to back down and admit you made a mistake.
Last edited by William_Cleland on Tue May 06, 2008 7:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alasdair
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 433
Location: Clydesdale
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Quote: | | 3. That is to say that we are safer as a group and groups will often act in order to defend itself. This is not negative, this is a fact of everyday family life. A social creatures we are depedent on those around us to ensure our continuation, no urgent steps need be taken to defend the cohesion of a group where there is no imminent threat of physical violence. |
You would think that to be the case, yes. But nationalism consists of the invention of external threats as a means of enforcing cultural/linguistic/social cohesion. |
I tend to disagree, nationalism exists in the interests of the people, yes this may be as a result of external threats, but may also arise as a result internal problems an d the pooling of resources in order to overcome those problems, e.g. a food crisis.
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Quote: | | Actually point 3 doesn't make any sense. Why does a debt of allegiance necessitate urgent steps to defend anything? |
Non of it makes any sense. That's why I argue against it. |
I think that the more you look at it the more it seems like that. I think you and I shall have to agree to disagree  
_________________
"We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 760
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alasdair wrote: | | I tend to disagree, nationalism exists in the interests of the people, yes this may be as a result of external threats, but may also arise as a result internal problems an d the pooling of resources in order to overcome those problems, e.g. a food crisis. |
You won't make much headway. He wouldn't be able to demonise his political opponents if he concedes that. A few months back Holebender and I tried to explain to him on here that it takes a sense of loyalty to a larger national entity (i.e. civic nationalism) to make liberalism possible as rights and freedoms flow from being a member of a larger group or society. Without that there is anarchy. Should be common sense but it doesn't fit comfortably into his sectarian mindset where his political opponents are evil and dangerous and only people like him are holders of the one true political doctrine. He would have fitted in well back in the 17th century basically. Some of the key values of the Enlightenment appear to have passed him by. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alasdair
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 433
Location: Clydesdale
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | Some of the key values of the Enlightenment appear to have passed him by. |
I've always been of the opinion that beliefs (political or otherwise) are contextual. It may well be that his opions hold true within the context of his life, doesn't make them any less valid than anyone else's.
It's a sad fact that there are those unable to articulate their nationalism in a more constructive manner and who would probably fit into the paradigm. I like to think of nationalism as a continuum between progressive and regressive, I think the terms used elsewhere on the forum constructive and destructive work equally well ... I think those were the terms anyway!
_________________
"We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: |
So in other words no you didn't read my comment about Switzerland not necessarily having to split four ways before replying last time around but are not willing to back down and admit you made a mistake. |
I'll take that as agreement that there is absolutely no logical connection between linguistic boundaries and administrative boundaries.
It's nice to agree on something.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentmancuso
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1812
Location: Darkest Lanarkshire
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alasdair wrote: | | nationalism exists in the interests of the people, |
Nationalism certainly claims to exist in the interests of the people. But in reality it acts in the interest of only some people. By definition, it necessitates the singling out of some other people as not us.
| Quote: |
but may also arise as a result internal problems an d the pooling of resources in order to overcome those problems, e.g. a food crisis. |
That's a reasonable point. But whereas a food crisis is a genuine threat, in response to which communal action may be of benefit, most of the threats drummed up by nationalisms are imaginary or exaggerated.
| Quote: | | I think that the more you look at it the more it seems like that. I think you and I shall have to agree to disagree |
Such civility is unusual on this forum, but very welcome!
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1261
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you really want to predicate Scottish nationalism on three conditions, they are as follows;
1. That Scotland exists as a well defined geographical area.
2. That Scotland is not autonomous or wholly self-governing.
3. That there are people who believe Scotland should be autonomous or wholly self-governing.
As long as these three conditions are true Scottish nationalism will exist. There is no need for any external factor (threat or otherwise) except an external government. It has absolutely nothing to do with "us" against "them" or wishing any lessening of anyone's wellbeing or status, it is entirely about improving how Scotland is governed, in the eyes of those who do not believe the present arrangement is the best possible.
Anything else is the product of a fevered imagination.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 760
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Nationalism certainly claims to exist in the interests of the people. But in reality it acts in the interest of only some people. By definition, it necessitates the singling out of some other people as not us. |
Does this mean that you believe in one world government? If as I strongly suspect you see a future for the UK as a national state with a sovereign right to control its immigration policy etc then you my friend are a nationalist as well by that definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
will live from Glasgow
On A Journey (500 Miles)
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nationalists who can articulate their arguement well are of course a benefit to the SNP,but i think a lot of the time most cybernats on messageboards settle for: FRDM 4EVA as the be all and end all of their position. This convinces no one who is not already a nationalist and may well annoy those who otherwise might be inclined to support indenpendence |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kendomacaroonbar
On A Journey (500 Miles)
Joined: 15 Oct 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| will live from Glasgow wrote: | | Nationalists who can articulate their arguement well are of course a benefit to the SNP,but i think a lot of the time most cybernats on messageboards settle for: FRDM 4EVA as the be all and end all of their position. This convinces no one who is not already a nationalist and may well annoy those who otherwise might be inclined to support indenpendence |
I agree WLFG, unfortunately as hard as they try, the Labour Party cannot claim a monopoly on dunderheids ? Good effort from them though !  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
