Being pro-independence

358 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 13:49
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

I suppose on that basis all socialists must be regarded as nazis, as the NSDAP had the word 'socialist' in its name?

well, seeing that Stalin killed a fair few million, and mao did the same, I'm beginning to think you could be on to something

Quote:
What a simplistic fuckwit you are.

The answers are simple, it's just Nationalism makes them hideously complicated

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 13:58
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
What the English people's views on 'democracy' etc is is up to them, I'd have thought. I don't live there and haven;t for many years, up to them to decide for themselves.

So there's nothing in common between Scots and English, we're separated forever by a boundary drawn 800 years ago?

Quote:
Anyway. I really can;t be bothered with your Spartist ramblings any more.

Spartist? Quoi?

Quote:
I'll wait to see if Volin's back later.

You love Volin more than me? Oh the treachery! The betrayal! grin

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 14:24
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
What the English people's views on 'democracy' etc is is up to them, I'd have thought. I don't live there and haven;t for many years, up to them to decide for themselves.

So there's nothing in common between Scots and English, we're separated forever by a boundary drawn 800 years ago?

Quote:
Anyway. I really can;t be bothered with your Spartist ramblings any more.

Spartist? Quoi?

I didn't say there was nothing in common between the Scots and the English. You will insist on reducing others arguments to caricature like some adolescent Trot. It seems logical to me, however, that English folk make decisions which affect them and not me. i.e, how they would want to govern themselves if Scotland became independent. I thought anarchism was supposed to be all about letting communites make decisions for themselves?

You obviously don't read Private Eye If you did, you'd recognise a kindred spirit in 'Dave Spart', judging by your 'arguments' on here.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 14:41
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

I didn't say there was nothing in common between the Scots and the English. You will insist on reducing others arguments to caricature like some adolescent Trot. It seems logical to me, however, that English folk make decisions which affect them and not me. i.e, how they would want to govern themselves if Scotland became independent. I thought anarchism was supposed to be all about letting communites make decisions for themselves?

Yes but then why lump all these communities together into an artificial nation state?

Quote:
You obviously don't read Private Eye If you did, you'd recognise a kindred spirit in 'Dave Spart', judging by your 'arguments' on here.

No, don't plan to either

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 15:06
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:

Yes but then why lump all these communities together into an artificial nation state?

you're the one arguing for the maintenance of the UK status quo. You tell me.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 15:22
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:

Yes but then why lump all these communities together into an artificial nation state?

you're the one arguing for the maintenance of the UK status quo. You tell me.

Oh no, why don't you argue for a revolutionary solution for the whole of the U.K. rather than being all parochial about it? Why not extend the revolution to the whole of the U.K? You said that the English can make these decisions for themselves, so basically what you're arguing for is a localist approach throughout the whole world, each little unit deciding it's own policy. But what if this doesn't happen? Surely those people in those tiny little units will need to argue for a spread of the revolution so they can avoid the predations of multi-national corporations? And if they're all safe and secure in their little units, won't there still be bureaucracy, and tyranny? You can't get rid of the state without getting rid of Nationalism. As Nationalism is in essence jingoism, chauvinism, and for philistines.

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 15:27
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:

Yes but then why lump all these communities together into an artificial nation state?

you're the one arguing for the maintenance of the UK status quo. You tell me.

Oh no, why don't you argue for a revolutionary solution for the whole of the U.K. rather than being all parochial about it? Why not extend the revolution to the whole of the U.K? You said that the English can make these decisions for themselves, so basically what you're arguing for is a localist approach throughout the whole world, each little unit deciding it's own policy. But what if this doesn't happen? Surely those people in those tiny little units will need to argue for a spread of the revolution so they can avoid the predations of multi-national corporations? And if they're all safe and secure in their little units, won't there still be bureaucracy, and tyranny? You can't get rid of the state without getting rid of Nationalism. As Nationalism is in essence jingoism, chauvinism, and for philistines.

I don't argue for a revolutionary solution because I'm not a revolutionary. It's very simple.

'Jingoism, Chauvinism and for philistines'- wrong yet again. If you can point to me the jingoistic and chauvinist elements of the SNPs current political programme I'll be very interested to read it.

Your continuing inability to discuss this subject without the red mist descending, and consequent tedious lapse into predictable cliche, amazes me.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 15:36
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

I don't argue for a revolutionary solution because I'm not a revolutionary. It's very simple.

So you think voting is the way forward?

Quote:
'Jingoism, Chauvinism and for philistines'- wrong yet again. If you can point to me the jingoistic and chauvinist elements of the SNPs current political programme I'll be very interested to read it.

Independence for Scotland?

Quote:
Your continuing inability to discuss this subject without the red mist descending, and consequent tedious lapse into predictable cliche, amazes me.

Sorry Buddha

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 15:44
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

I don't argue for a revolutionary solution because I'm not a revolutionary. It's very simple.

So you think voting is the way forward?

Quote:
'Jingoism, Chauvinism and for philistines'- wrong yet again. If you can point to me the jingoistic and chauvinist elements of the SNPs current political programme I'll be very interested to read it.

Independence for Scotland?

Quote:
Your continuing inability to discuss this subject without the red mist descending, and consequent tedious lapse into predictable cliche, amazes me.

Sorry Buddha

I don't claim to have a monopoly of knowledge on the way forward. Both voting and a 1917 style 'revolution' seem pretty sterile and unappelaing alternatives at the moment, tbh. Voting changes not much and a 'revolution' is about as likely as me signing a five year deal with Arsenal on 100k. a week tomorrow.

You've yet to establish what's jingoistic or chauvinistic about arguing for indepndence for Scotland and we're on page fucking ten. A clear explanation would be nice.

afraser
Offline
Joined: 16-07-05
Aug 15 2005 16:03

The Irish WSM have, as you would hope, some serious articles on this issue.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/ws50_nation.html:

Quote:
Anarchists are not nationalists, in fact we are completely against nationalism. But this doesn't mean we can ignore nations. They do exist; and some nationalities are picked on, discriminated against because of their nationality. Irish history bears a lot of witness to this. National oppression is wrong. It divides working class people, causes terrible suffering and strengthens the hand of the ruling class. Our opposition to this makes us anti-imperialists

.

My only criticism of that is that it's a fine line between 'anti-imperialism' and 'nationalism' - but in fairness the word "nationalist" has some extra connotations in Irish English so maybe that makes more sense to the intended audience.

http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr8/connolly.html:

Quote:
Libertarian socialists are, in all circumstances, opposed to oppression. Libertarian socialists, therefore, defend all liberation movements, whatever their form. As such, libertarian socialists should (although they often don't) defend national liberation movements. Where people are being oppressed due to their nationality, all socialists and all progressive people in the world should defend their right to fight this oppression. But [that] does not mean we seem them as a solution. Although racial liberation movements are rarely racist and sexual liberation movements are rarely sexist, unfortunately, most national liberation movements are nationalist, and as they campaign against oppression of one kind they advocate that of another, namely the oppression of the nation-state. Libertarian socialists must be at all times conscious of this complexity.

Where does that take us?:

1) Anarchists should be anti-imperialists;

2) Anarchists should defend national liberation movements;

3) But anarchists should do those while as far as possible avoiding providing support for nation-states.

That is a complex position - so anyone that wants a simple "anarchism good, nationalism bad" split won't be happy.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 16:21
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

I don't claim to have a monopoly of knowledge on the way forward. Both voting and a 1917 style 'revolution' seem pretty sterile and unappelaing alternatives at the moment, tbh. Voting changes not much and a 'revolution' is about as likely as me signing a five year deal with Arsenal on 100k. a week tomorrow.

Cool, you've given up.

Quote:
You've yet to establish what's jingoistic or chauvinistic about arguing for indepndence for Scotland and we're on page fucking ten. A clear explanation would be nice.

It divides the British and Scottish working class, and divides everyone else as well. I'm sure English people staying up here who've experienced anti-English racism would be grateful for the nationalist hysteria that would inevitably follow any SNP election victory. Just call it the Braveheart factor.

Although it is a tad tiring having to make the same points over and over again.

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 16:38

This is pure conjecture, what-if, just wait and see, piffle.

According to you 'anti-English racism' and any putative Scottish independece go hand in hand. Another causally made assertion with zero evidence provided to back it up. It's becoming very hard to take you seriously at all. It's one thing to argue against a clearly articulated position, quite another to constantly re-visit your own personal prejudices which mystifyingly you assume everyone else shares.

You seem to cherish some quaint notion that the working class will 'rise up' if only they remain united. Scant evidence of that since the mid 1970s, frankly. Taking-charitably- this assertion at face value, how is the division of the 'working class' jingoistic or chauvinistic? Charges you;ve yet to come close to proving despite repeatedly being given the opportunity.

roll eyes

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 16:54
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
This is pure conjecture, what-if, just wait and see, piffle.

According to you 'anti-English racism' and any putative Scottish independece go hand in hand. Another causally made assertion with zero evidence provided to back it up. It's becoming very hard to take you seriously at all. It's one thing to argue against a clearly articulated position, quite another to constantly re-visit your own personal prejudices which mystifyingly you assume everyone else shares.

Jesus, do you live in Scotland? Or in some bourgeois paradise where everyone likes each other yet still sees the need to seperate? Why do you insist in ignoring everything I've said? Is it because, underneath it all, you're really a fud?

Quote:
You seem to cherish some quaint notion that the working class will 'rise up' if only they remain united. Scant evidence of that since the mid 1970s, frankly. Taking-charitably- this assertion at face value, how is the division of the 'working class' jingoistic or chauvinistic? Charges you;ve yet to come close to proving despite repeatedly being given the opportunity.

It's more likely than if they get stirred up into some Nationalist hysteria, which is how politicians operate. Division of the working class isn't just division, it's based on hatred for other races, and leads to hatred for other races as a result. I'd like to see you prove how Independence will benefit working people in Scotland.

Quote:
roll eyes

Is that the red mist descending, or are you just being a wanker?

Anarchoneilist
Offline
Joined: 10-12-04
Aug 15 2005 17:00
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
This is pure conjecture, what-if, just wait and see, piffle.

According to you 'anti-English racism' and any putative Scottish independece go hand in hand. Another causally made assertion with zero evidence provided to back it up. It's becoming very hard to take you seriously at all. It's one thing to argue against a clearly articulated position, quite another to constantly re-visit your own personal prejudices which mystifyingly you assume everyone else shares.

You seem to cherish some quaint notion that the working class will 'rise up' if only they remain united. Scant evidence of that since the mid 1970s, frankly. Taking-charitably- this assertion at face value, how is the division of the 'working class' jingoistic or chauvinistic? Charges you;ve yet to come close to proving despite repeatedly being given the opportunity.

roll eyes

Look, obviously some nationalist movements are less

insane than others, but their ultimate aim is simply to establish their

own state, as if that's the solution for everything.

When the shit hits the fan, the workers do occupy factories etc, i.e Argentina 2001. red n black star

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 17:00
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
This is pure conjecture, what-if, just wait and see, piffle.

According to you 'anti-English racism' and any putative Scottish independece go hand in hand. Another causally made assertion with zero evidence provided to back it up. It's becoming very hard to take you seriously at all. It's one thing to argue against a clearly articulated position, quite another to constantly re-visit your own personal prejudices which mystifyingly you assume everyone else shares.

Jesus, do you live in Scotland? Or in some bourgeois paradise where everyone likes each other yet still sees the need to seperate? Why do you insist in ignoring everything I've said? Is it because, underneath it all, you're really a fud?

Quote:
You seem to cherish some quaint notion that the working class will 'rise up' if only they remain united. Scant evidence of that since the mid 1970s, frankly. Taking-charitably- this assertion at face value, how is the division of the 'working class' jingoistic or chauvinistic? Charges you;ve yet to come close to proving despite repeatedly being given the opportunity.

It's more likely than if they get stirred up into some Nationalist hysteria, which is how politicians operate. Division of the working class isn't just division, it's based on hatred for other races, and leads to hatred for other races as a result. I'd like to see you prove how Independence will benefit working people in Scotland.

Quote:
roll eyes

Is that the red mist descending, or are you just being a wanker?

No. I'm getting annoyed at myself for wasting a goodly proprotion of the day in 'discussion' with an obvious blockhead such as your good self.

I'll take what you have to say seriously when you provide some evidence for your bullshit assertions re: jingoism and chauvinism. The fair minded observer might be starting to believe that you can't.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 17:00
afraser wrote:

Where does that take us?:

2) Anarchists should defend national liberation movements;

Only according to the WSM, surely there are other oppressions that run simultaneously through all ethnic communities. Such as class. People in one nationality are just as oppressed as those in the other. Usually through the same system. So, either you stir up race hatred to get rid of the Imperialist bosses, provoking the Imperialists ethnic relatives to defend them, or you work on the basis of class, thereby getting rid of all bosses, both in the colony and the home country.

Anarchoneilist
Offline
Joined: 10-12-04
Aug 15 2005 17:01

Regards a Palestinian state, I am in favour of it, but only

basically as long as there is a racist Jewish state named

Israel. (not meaning to be anti-Semitic)

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 17:11
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

No. I'm getting annoyed at myself for wasting a goodly proprotion of the day in 'discussion' with an obvious blockhead such as your good self.

Good, then fuck off

Quote:
I'll take what you have to say seriously when you provide some evidence for your bullshit assertions re: jingoism and chauvinism. The fair minded observer might be starting to believe that you can't.

Take the entire history of the world, then maybe the 20th century, think of all the wars that have been needlessly fought over property, land and resources, then think of the fact that all those wars required Nationalism to progress. They required Nationalism for all those workers and peasants to follow their power-hungry racist leaders to war. Now think of those who died, mostly workers/peasants. Now look at Scottish History, look at Scottish kings, would you invite any of them to dinner? Let them look after the kids? I may be going out on a limb here, but weren't they all ruthless dictators? I am talking about the fairly distant past, but look at modern kings in all countries, are they not characterised by a desire for power and wealth? Would not the situation be the same in an independent Scotland? With dictators or sleazy politicians instead of kings. Or would it, in your Scotto-Utopia, be a hippy paradise where local swains treat everyone with good grace while tugging their forelocks to their local generalissimo?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Aug 15 2005 17:13
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

No. I'm getting annoyed at myself for wasting a goodly proprotion of the day in 'discussion' with an obvious blockhead such as your good self.

Good, then fuck off

Can we keep this polite, please?

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 17:14
John. wrote:

Can we keep this polite, please?

sorry

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 17:19
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

No. I'm getting annoyed at myself for wasting a goodly proprotion of the day in 'discussion' with an obvious blockhead such as your good self.

Good, then fuck off

Quote:
I'll take what you have to say seriously when you provide some evidence for your bullshit assertions re: jingoism and chauvinism. The fair minded observer might be starting to believe that you can't.

Take the entire history of the world, then maybe the 20th century, think of all the wars that have been needlessly fought over property, land and resources, then think of the fact that all those wars required Nationalism to progress. They required Nationalism for all those workers and peasants to follow their power-hungry racist leaders to war. Now think of those who died, mostly workers/peasants. Now look at Scottish History, look at Scottish kings, would you invite any of them to dinner? Let them look after the kids? I may be going out on a limb here, but weren't they all ruthless dictators? I am talking about the fairly distant past, but look at modern kings in all countries, are they not characterised by a desire for power and wealth? Would not the situation be the same in an independent Scotland? With dictators or sleazy politicians instead of kings. Or would it, in your Scotto-Utopia, be a hippy paradise where local swains treat everyone with good grace while tugging their forelocks to their local generalissimo?

This is yet more conjecture and a deeply one eyed reading of history.

I'm sure Scottish Kings were horrors, each in their own way- you'll note I haven't defended them, anywhere. I want a Scottish Republic.

That nationalism has been used as an excuse for many C20th wars does not make it a necessary precondition for those wars. After all, to use a recent example, the SNP has always been explivitly pacifist. many of its members were jailed in WW2 for refusing to fight in the British Armed Forces; Salmond was slaughtered for criticisng NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia; Swinney was equally slaughtered for opposing the war in Iraq.

I've already explained that I'd like to see an independent Scotland empower local communities as much as possible. Something you choose to ignore and belittle. Sorry for not living up to your well worn stereotype of a pro-independence activist.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 17:28
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

This is yet more conjecture and a deeply one eyed reading of history.

Conjecture? Hardly, more like the truth you're in denial of.

Quote:
I'm sure Scottish Kings were horrors, each in their own way- you'll note I haven't defended them, anywhere. I want a Scottish Republic.

How many wars in the 20th century have been between republics?

Quote:

That nationalism has been used as an excuse for many C20th wars does not make it a necessary precondition for those wars. After all, to use a recent example, the SNP has always been explivitly pacifist. many of its members were jailed in WW2 for refusing to fight in the British Armed Forces; Salmond was slaughtered for criticisng NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia; Swinney was equally slaughtered for opposing the war in Iraq.

But wouldn't they fight in a Scottish army?

Quote:
I've already explained that I'd like to see an independent Scotland empower local communities as much as possible. Something you choose to ignore and belittle. Sorry for not living up to your well worn stereotype of a pro-independence activist.

Haud on, I replied to that earlier, by saying surely it's better to spread this empowerment over the whole UK, rather than seeking to divide people arbitrarily, and only promote empowerment in one area.

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 17:38
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:

Conjecture? Hardly, more like the truth you're in denial of.

Naturally there is only one truth and one alone from the infintie readings of past history. catch yourself on for fuck's sake.

How many wars in the 20th century have been between republics?

WW2 was started by a dictatorial republic (Nazi Germany). The USSR invaded Afghanistan. The French republic was involved in a protracted Algerian war. The USA invaded Iraq, twice. Need I go on?

But wouldn't they fight in a Scottish army?

Some would, some wouldn't, just as with any citizens relationship to an army. What's your point?

Quote:
I've already explained that I'd like to see an independent Scotland empower local communities as much as possible. Something you choose to ignore and belittle. Sorry for not living up to your well worn stereotype of a pro-independence activist.

Haud on, I replied to that earlier, by saying surely it's better to spread this empowerment over the whole UK, rather than seeking to divide people arbitrarily, and only promote empowerment in one area.

If other parts of the UK want it. Not much sign that any part of the UK wants it, yet. Rude not to ask them whether your system of government suits them, too. I'd like to see a federal English republic and a much smaller Whitehall, but then it's not up to me.

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 17:54
revol68 wrote:
oh fucking wise up you daft Rob Roy wannabe fuckwit! Can't you see that this new trendy independent scotland shite is no threat to the ruling class at all? That it's about remarketing scotland from being a miserbale post industrial apocalypse with some scenary into a full blown trendy brand. Any Scottish independence would be meaningless as NATO is EU wide not British, there would in all probability be a continued British Military presence, if not then a scottish army with fewer numbers, with the rest of working class kids wanting to escape the drudgery and relative pointlessness of civvy life going off to join the British army anyway. Unless of course Tommy Sheridan gets in and they can all get £7 an hour in fucking call centres or perhaps if things go really radical they can live in an economic anomalie and remain proud ginger wankers living off haggis cos theres a fucking embargo on Battered Mars Bars.

Seriously get a life, the only people who seriously care about Scottish Independence are either daft ole fucks who watched too much Braveheart or trendy middle class tossers tryng to give themselves an "edge" by being an "oppressed people". People might tick an X in the bx of the SNP or SSP but they aren't gonna rise up in a hurry and push independence beyond the comfortable limits, and the only way they would do so would be with a huge upsurge in reactionary nationalist sentiment that would almost certainly be reciprocated by the English, not to mention the sort of balls it would inspire in Northern Ireland.

Aye and Franz Ferdinand may be very cool but Glasgow is still a shite run down British industrial city, as my granny would say "fur coat and no knickers".

I'm sure there's a point to all this somewhere.....

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 17:56
revol68 wrote:
oh fucking wise up you daft Rob Roy wannabe fuckwit! Can't you see that this new trendy independent scotland shite is no threat to the ruling class at all?

...and two dozen anarchists are?

Just a thought.

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 17:59

Nice deliberate misreading. Har de har.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 18:02
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:

Conjecture? Hardly, more like the truth you're in denial of.

Naturally there is only one truth and one alone from the infintie readings of past history. catch yourself on for fuck's sake.

Well there's objective truth, and then there's nonsense

Quote:

How many wars in the 20th century have been between republics?

WW2 was started by a dictatorial republic (Nazi Germany). The USSR invaded Afghanistan. The French republic was involved in a protracted Algerian war. The USA invaded Iraq, twice. Need I go on?

So quite a few then?

Quote:
But wouldn't they fight in a Scottish army?

Some would, some wouldn't, just as with any citizens relationship to an army. What's your point?

So they're not against war per say, just one that doesn't involve the Scottish motherland. So they'll maintain a Scottish army to repress their own civilians. And it's a bit dubious to support those not fighting against Fascism.

Quote:
I've already explained that I'd like to see an independent Scotland empower local communities as much as possible. Something you choose to ignore and belittle. Sorry for not living up to your well worn stereotype of a pro-independence activist.
Quote:
Haud on, I replied to that earlier, by saying surely it's better to spread this empowerment over the whole UK, rather than seeking to divide people arbitrarily, and only promote empowerment in one area.

If other parts of the UK want it. Not much sign that any part of the UK wants it, yet.

How do you know? Have you asked them?

Quote:
Rude not to ask them whether your system of government suits them, too. I'd like to see a federal English republic and a much smaller Whitehall, but then it's not up to me.

Why is it not up to you?

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 18:08
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:

Conjecture? Hardly, more like the truth you're in denial of.

Naturally there is only one truth and one alone from the infintie readings of past history. catch yourself on for fuck's sake.

Well there's objective truth, and then there's nonsense

Hmmn. Which you err closer to I'll leave to to others to decide.

Quote:

How many wars in the 20th century have been between republics?

WW2 was started by a dictatorial republic (Nazi Germany). The USSR invaded Afghanistan. The French republic was involved in a protracted Algerian war. The USA invaded Iraq, twice. Need I go on?

So quite a few then?

uh-huh. and?

Quote:
But wouldn't they fight in a Scottish army?

Some would, some wouldn't, just as with any citizens relationship to an army. What's your point?

So they're not against war per say, just one that doesn't involve the Scottish motherland. So they'll maintain a Scottish army to repress their own civilians. And it's a bit dubious to support those not fighting against Fascism.

Actually their defence policies are rather nebulous so again this is conjecture invented to suit your point of view. IIRC their opposition to war in Yugo & Iraq wasn't anything to do with the 'Scottish motherland' not being involved, either, but nice try...

Quote:
I've already explained that I'd like to see an independent Scotland empower local communities as much as possible. Something you choose to ignore and belittle. Sorry for not living up to your well worn stereotype of a pro-independence activist.
Quote:
Haud on, I replied to that earlier, by saying surely it's better to spread this empowerment over the whole UK, rather than seeking to divide people arbitrarily, and only promote empowerment in one area.

If other parts of the UK want it. Not much sign that any part of the UK wants it, yet.

How do you know? Have you asked them?

[b]no. Have you? Personally I haven't noticed a massive groundswell of parliamentary or extra-parliamentary support for federalism and a republic in a separate England

Quote:
Rude not to ask them whether your system of government suits them, too. I'd like to see a federal English republic and a much smaller Whitehall, but then it's not up to me.[/b]

Why is it not up to you?

I don't live in England and any decision made will not affect me. Do you demand the right to consultation over political decisions made in Sweden & Belarus, too?

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 18:26
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:

So quite a few then?

uh-huh. and?

Well being a republic is no cast-iron certainty that they won't embark on ridiculous wars

Quote:
Actually their defence policies are rather nebulous so again this is conjecture invented to suit your point of view. IIRC their opposition to war in Yugo & Iraq wasn't anything to do with the 'Scottish motherland' not being involved, either, but nice try...

So they're opposed to wars that don't suit their immediate interests

Quote:
no. Have you? Personally I haven't noticed a massive groundswell of parliamentary or extra-parliamentary support for federalism and a republic in a separate England

So, is it happening in Scotland?

Quote:
I don't live in England and any decision made will not affect me. Do you demand the right to consultation over political decisions made in Sweden & Belarus, too?

Yeah, if they set up a dictatorship in Sweden I'd probably protest. And how would an English federalism not affect you? Or an English dictatorship for that matter?

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 18:35
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:

Well being a republic is no cast-iron certainty that they won't embark on ridiculous wars

If you can point me to where I said that this was the case I shall retract the statement.

Quote:
Actually their defence policies are rather nebulous so again this is conjecture invented to suit your point of view. IIRC their opposition to war in Yugo & Iraq wasn't anything to do with the 'Scottish motherland' not being involved, either, but nice try...

So they're opposed to wars that don't suit their immediate interests

or, just maybe, they're opposed to wars on principle?

Quote:
no. Have you? Personally I haven't noticed a massive groundswell of parliamentary or extra-parliamentary support for federalism and a republic in a separate England

So, is it happening in Scotland?

not to any great extent yet, no.

Quote:
I don't live in England and any decision made will not affect me. Do you demand the right to consultation over political decisions made in Sweden & Belarus, too?

Yeah, if they set up a dictatorship in Sweden I'd probably protest. And how would an English federalism not affect you? Or an English dictatorship for that matter?

How would English federalism affect me?I'd be interested to see how it worked out and if any lessons could be learned, but otherwise it wouldn't affect me one whit (if we are still persisting with a hypothetical independent Scotland scenario)

I'd support any resistance movement opposing dictatorship or colonialism.Could you say the same? After all, the Iraqi resistance, the Kurdish peshmerga, the Chechen question, the guys courageously speaking out against Lukashenko in Belarus, may all be tainted with nationalism. Could a 'revolutionary' as pure as you risk contamination by lending your support?

confused