A question for the unionists

[oddly familiar]

Quoting October from 12:16, 1st Dec 2006

Quoting Lid from 10:35, 1st Dec 2006
That's funny, because I've never heard any. Furthermore, it's not playground conversation to want to kill a Scot, something I only wish was not true the other way round.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could say they’ve not experienced anti-Scottish sentiment and/or abuse. Even if you don’t live at the border.
I’ve experienced enough of it here in St Andrews at the hands of brainless English fools.
So to say that there is no such thing, and that the English love the Scots with hugs and kisses, is just as retarded as it sounds.

I dont think that was quite the point. Whilst there might be a certain amount of anti-scottish sentiment in England, I imagine the majority of it is yes, either at the borders, or in places like St Andrews where there are lots of English and Scots mingling. As you get further away from Scotland, I would imagine that this fades. By the time that you get further down into England, Scotland and Scottish affairs are so distant to people's everyday lives that they simply dont think about it at all. I'm guessing thats the indifference that ascii was referring to.

I'm from the south of England, and my entire time at school I dont recall a single person saying they hated Scots (the French maybe... but its all a matter of proximity). In fact, I very much doubt that anyone mentioned Scotland very much at all, in any context. On the flip side there are many instances of Scottish kids talking to each other in a playground saying: "I'd love to kill me an Englishman", with no English people around to have triggered it. In an English school with English pupils talking to each other you won't get the reverse. When there is anti-Scottish sentiment its in the presence of a Scot.

Of course, whether latent racism is any better than overt I don't know, but due to geography and demography, it does mean that in England anti-Scot hostility is at a much lower level than anti-English hostility is in Scotland.

[hr]

saru mo ki kara ochiru

[ljrmorgan]

Its very difficult to actively support the "status quo" that people keep harping on about. The phrase itself has quite negative connotations for a start.

Is everything perfect in Scotland right now? No.

Does that mean we should spend billions of pounds (think of all the expenditure mentioned on this board, eg investment in research bodies, embassies, taking on a chunk of the national debt...) to simply break away from the rest of Britain. Not to make things better, as such, just to give us the chance, in the future, to make things better under our "own rule".

Is being tied to Westminster responsible for the poor diet and low life expectancy in Glasgow? No. Where the SNP got that argument I don't know.

Could we spend our time and money better by coming up with positive ways of improving Scotland, instead of saying "It's buggered, we need to be independent, then it'll be fine."? Yes we could. People accuse pro-Union parties of being negative, yet they seem to be a lot more optimistic about Scotland's future than the SNP.

The problem is if someone comes up with a "solution" to a problem that doesn't actually solve anything, and someone else criticises it, the critic is accused of "scare mongering". In this case its not scare mongering at all. As much as I hate to support Labour ministers, all they've done in the last week or two is raise incredibly valid concerns about independence, which, by and large, the SNP have dismissed as: a smear campaign; self-interest of potential candidates for prime minister; the Labour party trying to keep Scottish votes so they can run England on them... etc etc. and havent actually addressed the issues raised at all.

John Reid said the SNP were failing to address areas like the invironment, terrorism and imigration by simply focusing on independence; the Scottish secretary said the SNP were focusing on the past, and that the solution to concerns over Iraq etc. was not Scottish independence; Gordon Brown raised issues about the economic dependence of Scotland on England and the number of Scots living in England or with families in England; and Tony Blair said independence would be a "constitutional nightmare", one of the few things that everyone seems to have agreed on in this thread is indeed that it would bloody difficult to set Scotland up as an independent country. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something because its difficult (theres loads of other reasons !) It would just be nice for the SNP to respond to these legitimate concerns. How else can anyone take them seriously if they fail to answer to any of their critics?

Frankly I see criticising the status quo in this case as being much more like opportunism that I see criticising a radical and badly-thought out alternative as being "scare-mongering".

[Also, thanks to everyone who tried to debate this seriously without resorting to insults. Having said that, in response to a mini flame fight over a comment about "evil London masters" someone made, I would point out that Alex Salmond said in response to Gordon Brown's speech:

Quoting the BBC
SNP leader Alex Salmond said Labour in Scotland were "incapable of running their own campaign without remote control from their London masters".

They're not exactly helping themselves.]

[AlenWatters]

Quoting ljrmorgan from 01:17, 2nd Dec 2006
Its very difficult to actively support the "status quo" that people keep harping on about. The phrase itself has quite negative connotations for a start.

Is everything perfect in Scotland right now? No.

Does that mean we should spend billions of pounds (think of all the expenditure mentioned on this board, eg investment in research bodies, embassies, taking on a chunk of the national debt...) to simply break away from the rest of Britain. Not to make things better, as such, just to give us the chance, in the future, to make things better under our "own rule".

Is being tied to Westminster responsible for the poor diet and low life expectancy in Glasgow? No. Where the SNP got that argument I don't know.

Could we spend our time and money better by coming up with positive ways of improving Scotland, instead of saying "It's buggered, we need to be independent, then it'll be fine."? Yes we could. People accuse pro-Union parties of being negative, yet they seem to be a lot more optimistic about Scotland's future than the SNP.

The problem is if someone comes up with a "solution" to a problem that doesn't actually solve anything, and someone else criticises it, the critic is accused of "scare mongering". In this case its not scare mongering at all. As much as I hate to support Labour ministers, all they've done in the last week or two is raise incredibly valid concerns about independence, which, by and large, the SNP have dismissed as: a smear campaign; self-interest of potential candidates for prime minister; the Labour party trying to keep Scottish votes so they can run England on them... etc etc. and havent actually addressed the issues raised at all.

John Reid said the SNP were failing to address areas like the invironment, terrorism and imigration by simply focusing on independence; the Scottish secretary said the SNP were focusing on the past, and that the solution to concerns over Iraq etc. was not Scottish independence; Gordon Brown raised issues about the economic dependence of Scotland on England and the number of Scots living in England or with families in England; and Tony Blair said independence would be a "constitutional nightmare", one of the few things that everyone seems to have agreed on in this thread is indeed that it would bloody difficult to set Scotland up as an independent country. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something because its difficult (theres loads of other reasons !) It would just be nice for the SNP to respond to these legitimate concerns. How else can anyone take them seriously if they fail to answer to any of their critics?

Frankly I see criticising the status quo in this case as being much more like opportunism that I see criticising a radical and badly-thought out alternative as being "scare-mongering".

[Also, thanks to everyone who tried to debate this seriously without resorting to insults. Having said that, in response to a mini flame fight over a comment about "evil London masters" someone made, I would point out that Alex Salmond said in response to Gordon Brown's speech:

Quoting the BBC
SNP leader Alex Salmond said Labour in Scotland were "incapable of running their own campaign without remote control from their London masters".

They're not exactly helping themselves.]

Look pal, none of use ever said English people were responsible for problems in Scotland - we said that there was a huge problem in Scotland, and that we needed positive answers - like independence.

You don't think independence will solve anything, because you are probably from Edinburgh, and most likely went to a private school, and thus will be a fully enfranchised member of the United Kingdom. Well done. The idea of independence encompasses the Enivironment, terrorism, in fact everything, beacause it intends to give Scotland and its people a voice. There are those who run away from that voice, but they choose to do that. You have fallen for the dependency politics of the Lib/Lab pact - again, well done. You are especially far sighted, and well read, evidently...what a sage...are you lookking for a job in the exec?

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc/

[Al]

Quoting ljrmorgan from 01:17, 2nd Dec 2006
Does that mean we should spend billions of pounds (think of all the expenditure mentioned on this board, eg investment in research bodies, embassies, taking on a chunk of the national debt...) to simply break away from the rest of Britain. Not to make things better, as such, just to give us the chance, in the future, to make things better under our "own rule".

Why do you assume that Scotland would be the one left with no embassies? If Scotland must take on a share of the national debt then there is no reason why it couldn't take over some of the embassies. The rest could be replaced in time. And I wish people would stop talking about breaking up Britain as if the SNP - and other pro-independence parties - are planning to hack away at the Whin Sill until Scotland floats serenely away.

The problem is if someone comes up with a "solution" to a problem that doesn't actually solve anything, and someone else criticises it, the critic is accused of "scare mongering". In this case its not scare mongering at all. As much as I hate to support Labour ministers, all they've done in the last week or two is raise incredibly valid concerns about independence, which, by and large, the SNP have dismissed as: a smear campaign; self-interest of potential candidates for prime minister; the Labour party trying to keep Scottish votes so they can run England on them... etc etc. and havent actually addressed the issues raised at all.

1. Much of what the "heavy hitters" of the Labour government say is a "smear campaign". However, it's not so much a smear on the SNP and other pro-independence parties as on the ability of the Scottish people themselves.

2. Much of what John Reid and Gordon Brown say is motivated by self-interest. Neither would want to be the Prime Minister that saw the dismantling of the UK.

3. The Labour Government at Westminster often do require the votes of Scottish constituency MPs to get their England only legislation passed.

John Reid said the SNP were failing to address areas like the invironment, terrorism and imigration by simply focusing on independence

Would this be the same John Reid who singularly fails to recognise that Scotland needs immigrants? He's not addressing the fact that the interests of Scotland may not be the same as the interests of England. And independence probably wouldn't guarantee safety from terrorism. Nothing does or will. I can hardly see how the Union is a source of safety though.

the Scottish secretary said the SNP were focusing on the past, and that the solution to concerns over Iraq etc. was not Scottish independence

Why is it when the SNP mention the past they are obsessed with it but the Unionists can bang on about how wonderful the Union has been until they are blue in the face?

Gordon Brown raised issues about the economic dependence of Scotland on England and the number of Scots living in England or with families in England; and Tony Blair said independence would be a "constitutional nightmare", one of the few things that everyone seems to have agreed on in this thread is indeed that it would bloody difficult to set Scotland up as an independent country.

The UK is economically dependent on lots of other countries. No one suggests that as a reason for surrendering UK sovereignty. The fact that Scotland is economically tied to England is not a very good reason against independence. A lot of Scots may live in England and a lot of English may live in Scotland. So? A lot of British people live in Spain. A lot of British people have emigrated farther afield. I cannot see how the fact that Scots live in England and English people live in Scotland is a barrier to Scottish independence. And independence would only be a "constitutional nightmare" if the Westminster government chose to make it so.

[Quirinalis]

Personally I'm an Internationalist - all this nationalist nonsense from either side, be it British or Scots, is completely ridiculous to me. In terms of my own identity, I consider British, not Scottish. I don't, however, care whether the state reflects this personal preference so long as it is just and governs properly: something which I think is best done at multiple levels in a broadly federalist system. I actually see the idea of having an orthodox culture of a state, or people 'identifying' with the state as a dangerous threat to individual liberty.

What annoys me most is that SNP types try to degrade my own nationality in favour of theirs - their arguments seem to suggest that being British is somehow more artificial or nonsensical than being Scottish: what a load of crap. I certainly don't think our statehood should be determined by some sort of nationalitic head-count, we should instead find ways to rise above this.

I find the idea of nationalism generally a completely morally and intellectually void theory which has caused a lot of damage to the world from the Peace of Westphalia to the present day. It's something I hope humanity will grow out of, just as we have apparently grown out of racism (in the form of apartheid) and sectarianism (in the form of Christendom v. Islam wars etc).

[McK]

Quoting AlenWatters from 06:02, 2nd Dec 2006

Quoting ljrmorgan from 01:17, 2nd Dec 2006
Its very difficult to actively support the "status quo" that people keep harping on about. The phrase itself has quite negative connotations for a start.

Is everything perfect in Scotland right now? No.

Does that mean we should spend billions of pounds (think of all the expenditure mentioned on this board, eg investment in research bodies, embassies, taking on a chunk of the national debt...) to simply break away from the rest of Britain. Not to make things better, as such, just to give us the chance, in the future, to make things better under our "own rule".

Is being tied to Westminster responsible for the poor diet and low life expectancy in Glasgow? No. Where the SNP got that argument I don't know.

Could we spend our time and money better by coming up with positive ways of improving Scotland, instead of saying "It's buggered, we need to be independent, then it'll be fine."? Yes we could. People accuse pro-Union parties of being negative, yet they seem to be a lot more optimistic about Scotland's future than the SNP.

The problem is if someone comes up with a "solution" to a problem that doesn't actually solve anything, and someone else criticises it, the critic is accused of "scare mongering". In this case its not scare mongering at all. As much as I hate to support Labour ministers, all they've done in the last week or two is raise incredibly valid concerns about independence, which, by and large, the SNP have dismissed as: a smear campaign; self-interest of potential candidates for prime minister; the Labour party trying to keep Scottish votes so they can run England on them... etc etc. and havent actually addressed the issues raised at all.

John Reid said the SNP were failing to address areas like the invironment, terrorism and imigration by simply focusing on independence; the Scottish secretary said the SNP were focusing on the past, and that the solution to concerns over Iraq etc. was not Scottish independence; Gordon Brown raised issues about the economic dependence of Scotland on England and the number of Scots living in England or with families in England; and Tony Blair said independence would be a "constitutional nightmare", one of the few things that everyone seems to have agreed on in this thread is indeed that it would bloody difficult to set Scotland up as an independent country. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something because its difficult (theres loads of other reasons !) It would just be nice for the SNP to respond to these legitimate concerns. How else can anyone take them seriously if they fail to answer to any of their critics?

Frankly I see criticising the status quo in this case as being much more like opportunism that I see criticising a radical and badly-thought out alternative as being "scare-mongering".

[Also, thanks to everyone who tried to debate this seriously without resorting to insults. Having said that, in response to a mini flame fight over a comment about "evil London masters" someone made, I would point out that Alex Salmond said in response to Gordon Brown's speech:

Quoting the BBC
SNP leader Alex Salmond said Labour in Scotland were "incapable of running their own campaign without remote control from their London masters".

They're not exactly helping themselves.]

Look pal, none of use ever said English people were responsible for problems in Scotland - we said that there was a huge problem in Scotland, and that we needed positive answers - like independence.

You don't think independence will solve anything, because you are probably from Edinburgh, and most likely went to a private school, and thus will be a fully enfranchised member of the United Kingdom. Well done. The idea of independence encompasses the Enivironment, terrorism, in fact everything, beacause it intends to give Scotland and its people a voice. There are those who run away from that voice, but they choose to do that. You have fallen for the dependency politics of the Lib/Lab pact - again, well done. You are especially far sighted, and well read, evidently...what a sage...are you lookking for a job in the exec?

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc/

What a shame. You were doing so well and now you have revealed your inverse snobbery.

This 'working class hero' tripe will not wash. How on earth can you make such sweeping generalisations?

Independence is not some exclusive cause cherished only by the great unwashed, obviously, but nor is unionism a private school, Edinburgh-only clique. God, your argument is so hilariously dated it should be wearing duffel coats and marching somewhere to 'Ban the Bomb' with Michael Foot.

[TCT]

Quoting AlenWatters from 06:02, 2nd Dec 2006
Look pal, none of use ever said English people were responsible for problems in Scotland - we said that there was a huge problem in Scotland, and that we needed positive answers - like independence.

You don't think independence will solve anything, because you are probably from Edinburgh, and most likely went to a private school, and thus will be a fully enfranchised member of the United Kingdom. Well done. The idea of independence encompasses the Enivironment, terrorism, in fact everything, beacause it intends to give Scotland and its people a voice. There are those who run away from that voice, but they choose to do that. You have fallen for the dependency politics of the Lib/Lab pact - again, well done. You are especially far sighted, and well read, evidently...what a sage...are you lookking for a job in the exec?

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc/

THIS is the problem I have with a Nationalist argument, or anyone who seems to have ever talked to me about independence. They seem to imply I am somehow not Scottish just because I am a unionist, that I must be somehow Anglicised or affected by Edinburgh sensibilities. "Yeah, probably a private schoolboy" -- what thuggish, illiberal nonsense.

Allenwatters: how can you say those things about that other user, making assumptions and just being plain ignorant? I find it sad that someone who claims to want an independent, 'better' Scotland would be so devisive.

Stop pointing the bloody finger at people and stop perpetuating a pathetic, limp class war which belongs to another age.

[Peeved-off St-Andrean]

I decided to read through this thread against my better judgement. I wish I hadn't!

All I can say is thank fucking god that, despite popular misconception, this board does not represent St. Andrews as a whole!

As for independence; if this is the highest level of dialogue that intellectuals north of the boarder are capable of putting across, God save bloody scotland!

[munchingfoo]

Quoting Peeved-off St-Andrean from 17:41, 2nd Dec 2006

As for independence; if this is the highest level of dialogue that intellectuals north of the boarder[sic] are capable of putting across, God save bloody scotland!

HA HA HA HA HA

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[rob 'f*ck off' wine boy]

Quoting Peeved-off St-Andrean from 17:41, 2nd Dec 2006
All I can say is thank fucking god that, despite popular misconception, this board does not represent St. Andrews as a whole!

Yes, what a popular misconception it is. Hardly anyone I know is even aware of the sinner's existence, let alone regards it as representational of St Andrews 'as a whole'.

As for independence; if this is the highest level of dialogue that intellectuals north of the boarder are capable of putting across, God save bloody scotland!

Okay, now pay attention. We just agreed that this board is not representational of St Andrews. And I do believe there is more than one university in Scotland. Stop trying to be clever; you trip over your own feet.

Furthermore, if you feel that you know better (which you have quite impressively managed to make apparant and prove is also not true in one post) why not enlighten us with your wisdom?

[TCT]

Quoting rob 'f*ck off' wine boy from 20:49, 2nd Dec 2006

Quoting Peeved-off St-Andrean from 17:41, 2nd Dec 2006
All I can say is thank fucking god that, despite popular misconception, this board does not represent St. Andrews as a whole!

Yes, what a popular misconception it is. Hardly anyone I know is even aware of the sinner's existence, let alone regards it as representational of St Andrews 'as a whole'.

As for independence; if this is the highest level of dialogue that intellectuals north of the boarder are capable of putting across, God save bloody scotland!

Okay, now pay attention. We just agreed that this board is not representational of St Andrews. And I do believe there is more than one university in Scotland. Stop trying to be clever; you trip over your own feet.

Furthermore, if you feel that you know better (which you have quite impressively managed to make apparant and prove is also not true in one post) why not enlighten us with your wisdom?

Wisdom, but not spelling prowess, apparently. 'Boarder' indeed? Dear oh dear.

[flarewearer]

Quoting AlenWatters from 17:50, 1st Dec 2006
It makes my blood boil every time I see a report from some government department, or the UN, saying that Scotland, and usually Glasgow, is the unhealthiest, most murderous

Oddly enough, Calton in Glasgow has the lowest average age of any Western European country (54). It's also lower than those for Iran (74) North Korea (71) and irag (68). Vive la Scotland!

Quoting AlenWatters from 17:50, 1st Dec 2006 There was a time, when an colonies, trade barriers, and being part of the pre-eminent global economic and military power, allowed Scotland to prosper. This time has now finished. We now have a radically different situation, one for which we are not sufficiently prepared.

[/s][b]

There was also a time when people were able to construct coherent sentences. never mind, it obviously passed you by.

[hr]

[flarewearer]

Quoting Iain from 09:22, 1st Dec 2006
Flarewearer. You've made a personal accusation against me regarding my motivation and it's a piece of rubbish. I'm not here to be told I'm something I'm not without justification.

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc

Here's another then...

YER MAW!

stick that in your nationalist pipe and smoke it. And congratulations for supporting Europe's latest homophobic troupe of tartan waving bigots. And if you want me to retract that once you can get your own roseanna cunningham to reconsider her latests objection to the adoption bill.

[hr]

[flarewearer]

Quoting Odysseus from 12:29, 1st Dec 2006

Quoting flarewearer from 01:28, 1st Dec 2006

Quoting Odysseus from 12:56, 30th Nov 2006

Given that 58% of your colonial masters want to ditch us anyway, I'd suggest your whinging is irrelevant. It seems the Unionists are scared of a referendum - funny that.

Colonial Masters? you see, that is exactly your problem, you see it as a case of "them" and "us". I see it more as "us" and "us. Of course, that's because I'm not a xenophobe like yourself.

Also, I would welcome a referendum actually, it might shut your whingeing up, given that you support a party that has never returned more than 7 Westminster seats, has never taken more than 29% of the Scottish national vote at a major election, and whose share of the Scottish Parliament vote has gone DOWN since devolution. Eh?

[hr]

Ho retard, why don't you try reading my next post - I WAS TAKING THE PISS. Hopefully that'll be clear enough for your stunted mind to understand.

[hr]

Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...

Retard yerself pal. your party is about as popular in Scotland as the BNP is in Bradford. now GTFO or STFU.

[hr]

[Odysseus]

Quoting flarewearer from 04:51, 3rd Dec 2006
Retard yerself pal. your party is about as popular in Scotland as the BNP is in Bradford. now GTFO or STFU.

Do you read the newspapers? Several polls have put the SNP ahead of New Labour by anything from 5 to 8 points. Are you saying the BNP are now bigger than New Labour too? Cretin.

[hr]

Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...

[Dom]

Quoting flarewearer from 04:51, 3rd Dec 2006

Retard yerself pal. your party is about as popular in Scotland as the BNP is in Bradford. now GTFO or STFU.

*Laughs*

The BNP is popular in Bradford. It has won seats there. It's far more popular in Bradford than in most other parts of the UK.

[exnihilo]

Yes, popular enough to win a handful of seats. Not as overwhlemingly popular, nor as representative of Bradford opinion, as they would like to loudly claim. See the parallel?

[Iain]

Quoting flarewearer from 04:49, 3rd Dec 2006

Quoting Iain from 09:22, 1st Dec 2006
Flarewearer. You've made a personal accusation against me regarding my motivation and it's a piece of rubbish. I'm not here to be told I'm something I'm not without justification.

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc

Here's another then...

YER MAW!

stick that in your nationalist pipe and smoke it. And congratulations for supporting Europe's latest homophobic troupe of tartan waving bigots. And if you want me to retract that once you can get your own roseanna cunningham to reconsider her latests objection to the adoption bill.

[hr]

Personal attacks. There's plenty people out there who don't support homosexual couples adopting. Just because one person here in the SNP doesn't either, you come out with a ridiculous statement of vile proportions. I'm not going to make a personal attack on you, Sir, because I'm not digging down to that level.

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc

[McK]

Quoting Iain from 12:13, 3rd Dec 2006

Quoting flarewearer from 04:49, 3rd Dec 2006

Quoting Iain from 09:22, 1st Dec 2006
Flarewearer. You've made a personal accusation against me regarding my motivation and it's a piece of rubbish. I'm not here to be told I'm something I'm not without justification.

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc

Here's another then...

YER MAW!

stick that in your nationalist pipe and smoke it. And congratulations for supporting Europe's latest homophobic troupe of tartan waving bigots. And if you want me to retract that once you can get your own roseanna cunningham to reconsider her latests objection to the adoption bill.

[hr]

Personal attacks. There's plenty people out there who don't support homosexual couples adopting. Just because one person here in the SNP doesn't either, you come out with a ridiculous statement of vile proportions. I'm not going to make a personal attack on you, Sir, because I'm not digging down to that level.

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc

You don't need to. That AllenWatters guy made plenty of 'ridiculous statements of vile proportions' -- have you been reading Jane Austen?. Go SNP Soc!

[Gubbins]

Good to see good, solid, academic debate going on! Makes me proud to think that some Sinners may have some significant influence in the world in a few years' time.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.