Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Planigale]

They have all manner of prejudices and some individuals are prepared to exhibit thuggish behaviour to enforce them. Here's another cultural similarity between Scotland and N Ireland. One we could well do without.

Love this description from your reference;
"Buchanan Street, one of Glasgow’s upmarket shopping districts"

 

[baron]

The point wasn't difficult and I shudder to think that you genuinely don't understand it.

When it was suggested that there was no difference between wanting to leave the eu and wanting to leave the uk it was pointed out that the motivations and policies favoured by the two movements are fundamentally and drastically different.

No claim was made that Scotland was populated by Angels or saints. I'm well aware of the shortcomings of Scottish people individually and in groups as with any population of that size.

Anyone trying to equate the SNP to UKIP is wilfully ignorant or simply a bigot. Racist moronic little englander might be a term suited to such an individual in fact.

Don't worry, you already made your point clearly. As to equating UKIP and the SNP, I don't know why you thought I did, although people who are not 'racist morons' have been known to.

 

[Craig B]

Love this description from your reference;
"Buchanan Street, one of Glasgow’s upmarket shopping districts"

Pardon me if it hadn't previously occurred to me to enumerate and compare upmarket shopping districts, when a triumphalist fascist riot took place in one - perhaps the only one? - of these areas in the city. But I will now give thought to that aspect of the event.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Don't worry, you already made your point clearly.

And yet you appear to remain as confused as ever.

As to equating UKIP and the SNP, I don't know why you thought I did,

You may recall that you entered with your strawmen in response to another exchange?

although people who are not 'racist morons' have been known to.

I have no idea who this David Knowles is so I can't speak to his racism but on the basis of that article at least 'moron' seems fairly apt.

 

[baron]

And yet you appear to remain as confused as ever.

You may recall that you entered with your strawmen in response to another exchange?

I have no idea who this David Knowles is so I can't speak to his racism but on the basis of that article at least 'moron' seems fairly apt.

If he disagrees with you then he must be a moron, clearly. And a bigot too.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If he disagrees with you then he must be a moron, clearly. And a bigot too.

What a fine example of disengaging your faculties before responding.

 

[Aepervius]

Charming.

And yet spot on. Which is why rather than argue the argument of the article, you simply had a one word meaningless interjection.

 

[Aepervius]

I read his views regularly in the Nationalist. They are as well argued here as ever (Sarcastic tone).

He says that the role of Scotland in the EU is different because it is subject to a treaty. Yet the relationship between Scotland and England is defined by a treaty. The terms of the treaty may differ, but it is not qualitative different. A good example is the continuation of a separate scottish legal system. The EU is committed to an ever closer union (something with which I agree), Scotland will not have a veto over every EU policy as the author of this article implies (if Scotland was independent and an EUmember, its economic policies, immigration policies, laws, etc. will be subject to the EU, Scotland will need to commit to joining the Euro, the exact terms of membership of an independent Scotland within the EU are of course unknown, the direction of travel of the EU is known). Scotland may well find itself with less independence and less influence in the EU than in the UK with current opt outs. There is no doubt the final intent of the EU is that Scotland will NOT be independent.

And yet they will have more independence than what they get from UK, in spite of what you say. Case in point : Scotland cannot refuse having nuke in their own territory.

There is a trade off, certainly, but the EU is far. Whereas Westminster is near and an heavy weight.

 

[ceptimus]

And yet spot on. Which is why rather than argue the argument of the article, you simply had a one word meaningless interjection.

I thought my one word comment expressed my opinion of the article nicely, but for those readers who can't think for themselves I'll say a little more.

The article showed the writer's clear contempt for the UK outside Scotland - a contempt verging on hatred. It gave an example of exactly what I was accusing the SNP of, that is, an irrational hatred of the English.

 

[abaddon]

Pardon me if it hadn't previously occurred to me to enumerate and compare upmarket shopping districts, when a triumphalist fascist riot took place in one - perhaps the only one? - of these areas in the city. But I will now give thought to that aspect of the event.

Well, I am not a scot and have never been to Glasgow. But that was close to the edge of the MA. I also found that comment to be borderline offensive and elitist. FFS, the implication is that Glasgow has but a single besieged upper class shopping district. That is flat out daft.

 

[Planigale]

Well, I am not a scot and have never been to Glasgow. But that was close to the edge of the MA. I also found that comment to be borderline offensive and elitist. FFS, the implication is that Glasgow has but a single besieged upper class shopping district. That is flat out daft.

Well I was in Buchanan galleries today, so just may be I do know! I think your comment is also close to the edge of the MA as you seem close to making comments about the poster and not about the post. Since you admit to ignorance of the subject you clearly cannot be addressing the argument. Buchanan street is really the 'high street' of Glasgow, there is nothing upper class about it. It is a big busy thriving street, but not elitist.

So just which bit of the MA are you accusing me of breaching? Put up or shut up!

 

[abaddon]

I thought my one word comment expressed my opinion of the article nicely, but for those readers who can't think for themselves I'll say a little more.

The article showed the writer's clear contempt for the UK outside Scotland - a contempt verging on hatred. It gave an example of exactly what I was accusing the SNP of, that is, an irrational hatred of the English.

The English earned that reputation all on their lonesome. Consider the English treatment of the Irish, the Indians/Pakistanis, the Greeks/turks, the Israelis/Palestinians. Face it. English rule has borked everything it ever laid hand to. Were the english a superpower, they could impose their will. Not any more. They couldn't rule an empire consisting of a wet paper bag.

If Argentina seized the Falklands tomorrow, it wouldn't matter if it were right or wrong, England could do sweet fanny adams about it. Britania rules the waves? Good luck with that. It is no longer even vaguely true.

Do not get me wrong. I have the greatest respect for the various English military branches. Indeed, the SAS defined how special operations should work. Nevertheless, all of the branches must perforce operate within their assigned budget. And successive budgets on both sides over decades have resulted in the scenario one now discovers. England could have led, England chose to decline. Not much anyone can do about that. Except England. And they don't wanna.

 

[Craig B]

Well I was in Buchanan galleries today, so just may be I do know! I think your comment is also close to the edge of the MA as you seem close to making comments about the poster and not about the post. Since you admit to ignorance of the subject you clearly cannot be addressing the argument. Buchanan street is really the 'high street' of Glasgow, there is nothing upper class about it. It is a big busy thriving street, but not elitist.

So just which bit of the MA are you accusing me of breaching? Put up or shut up!

It is remarkable that you can ignore an account of a triumphalist Orange riot in that street, but get exercised about this absurd issue. Why is that, please? Can we discuss the Orange Order unionist brutality? In the context of this thread, that seems more relevant. That is surely something to "put up" about. To help you do that, here is another report of the incident.

 

[Strawberry]

It is remarkable that you can ignore an account of a triumphalist Orange riot in that street, but get exercised about this absurd issue. Why is that, please? Can we discuss the Orange Order unionist brutality? In the context of this thread, that seems more relevant. That is surely something to "put up" about. To help you do that, here is another report of the incident.

You shouldn't be surprised - this is the poster who sympathises with the reluctance of unionists to join Ireland because, Catholics. The idea that there might be something wrong with antipathy towards Catholics is obviously alien to him.

 

[Planigale]

You shouldn't be surprised - this is the poster who sympathises with the reluctance of unionists to join Ireland because, Catholics. The idea that there might be something wrong with antipathy towards Catholics is obviously alien to him.

This is what I wrote;
"To be clear, I can see a good argument for a the Island of Ireland to be a logical level of government just as I can see for the island of Great Britain. Historically given the relative differences between the UK and Ireland (the dominance of the catholic church the lack of an NHS, anti protestant prejudice), I can understand the reluctance of those in NI to be stop being part of the UK. I think as the social / political structure of Ireland has advanced the reluctance will reduce. I would not force the people of Ireland to unite against their will, but I think it is the sensible thing. I also broadly support the EU and ever closer union."

I did not say I sympathised, do not lie about what I write. I said I understood a completely different thing. If you are going to overcome peoples prejudices you at least need to understand where they are coming from. Understanding other people does not mean you have to agree with them.

In fact I said in relation to this in a subsequent post;
"Yes people are really stupid, on a skeptic site one thing we should be able to agree on is that people are hugely misled by their irrational prejudices and people find it really hard to think logically."
Does that sound sympathetic towards religious prejudice?

Again this post is addressing the poster not the argument. if you want to discuss the subject do so, do not discuss me.

PS him is her

 

[Planigale]

It is remarkable that you can ignore an account of a triumphalist Orange riot in that street, but get exercised about this absurd issue. Why is that, please? Can we discuss the Orange Order unionist brutality? In the context of this thread, that seems more relevant. That is surely something to "put up" about. To help you do that, here is another report of the incident.

So what is it you want me to say about it? bad behaviour is a bad thing. I have already been critical of sectarianism in the west of Scotland, of Orange marches. Does bad behaviour by Scots people mean that they are not able to run their own country? No of course not. Are you trying to say that Scots have idiots just as they do in the rest of the UK then Yes.

I do not really understand the argument you are making? Or are you just trying to gang up on me because I question your arguments.

 

[Strawberry]

This is what I wrote;
"To be clear, I can see a good argument for a the Island of Ireland to be a logical level of government just as I can see for the island of Great Britain. Historically given the relative differences between the UK and Ireland (the dominance of the catholic church the lack of an NHS, anti protestant prejudice), I can understand the reluctance of those in NI to be stop being part of the UK. I think as the social / political structure of Ireland has advanced the reluctance will reduce. I would not force the people of Ireland to unite against their will, but I think it is the sensible thing. I also broadly support the EU and ever closer union."

I did not say I sympathised, do not lie about what I write. I said I understood a completely different thing. If you are going to overcome peoples prejudices you at least need to understand where they are coming from. Understanding other people does not mean you have to agree with them.

In fact I said in relation to this in a subsequent post;
"Yes people are really stupid, on a skeptic site one thing we should be able to agree on is that people are hugely misled by their irrational prejudices and people find it really hard to think logically."
Does that sound sympathetic towards religious prejudice?

Again this post is addressing the poster not the argument. if you want to discuss the subject do so, do not discuss me.

PS him is her

Apologies for getting your sex wrong! I've lost count of the amount of times I've had to correct people on the interwebz for assuming I'm male, so you'd think I'd know better than to make the same mistake.

However, your understanding of religious prejudice only worked one way, until you were reminded that Protestant sectarianism exists and that British nationalism has an anti-Irish element. Only then did you give a blanket condemnation of religious bigotry. As for your reaction to a violent riot motivated by religious bigotry - carping about how many upmarket shopping centres exist in Glasgow, really? Excuse me for suspecting that your reaction would have been different if the religious bigots in question had been Catholic.

With hindsight, do you think you might have had your priorities wrong there?

 

[Craig B]

So what is it you want me to say about it? bad behaviour is a bad thing. I have already been critical of sectarianism in the west of Scotland, of Orange marches. Does bad behaviour by Scots people mean that they are not able to run their own country? No of course not. Are you trying to say that Scots have idiots just as they do in the rest of the UK then Yes.

I do not really understand the argument you are making? Or are you just trying to gang up on me because I question your arguments.

That last bit looks like a personal comment, but that isn't a problem. I was merely making an observation about the conduct of people politically, as you are doing here, rather than about how many upmarket shops there are in Glasgow, which seemed an odd point to make. But of course you are free to make any comment you like.

 

[Planigale]

Apologies for getting your sex wrong! I've lost count of the amount of times I've had to correct people on the interwebz for assuming I'm male, so you'd think I'd know better than to make the same mistake.

However, your understanding of religious prejudice only worked one way, until you were reminded that Protestant sectarianism exists and that British nationalism has an anti-Irish element. Only then did you give a blanket condemnation of religious bigotry. As for your reaction to a violent riot motivated by religious bigotry - carping about how many upmarket shopping centres exist in Glasgow, really? Excuse me for suspecting that your reaction would have been different if the religious bigots in question had been Catholic.

With hindsight, do you think you might have had your priorities wrong there?

Sorry, I can see where you are coming from. The original paper was 'The Guardian' a very English paper, not one with a Scottish edition as far as I am aware. I was just struck that Buchanan street was described in a way that I think no none who knew the street would do.

So just to be clear Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist who sent Irish people into the equivalent of slavery in a near genocidal act. Lots of other people did really bad things. In terms of a united Ireland as I understand it the barrier is primarily the Unionist population in NI, therefore it is their beliefs that are significant. The bad treatment of catholics by protestants in NI is a bad thing but was not the issue I was addressing.

By and large I assume people are adults can read documents posted and make up their own minds. I do not project words or thoughts onto others. I do not assume that people somehow need my validation for them to decided whether something is good or bad. At a fundamental level it is irrelevant what I think about catholics or protestants (I was brought up as a muslim - for me being an atheist could result in a death penalty in some places, I am probably more aware of the bad consequences of religious beliefs than some). The argument will speak for itself.

 

[Strawberry]

Sorry, I can see where you are coming from. The original paper was 'The Guardian' a very English paper, not one with a Scottish edition as far as I am aware. I was just struck that Buchanan street was described in a way that I think no none who knew the street would do.

So just to be clear Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist who sent Irish people into the equivalent of slavery in a near genocidal act. Lots of other people did really bad things. In terms of a united Ireland as I understand it the barrier is primarily the Unionist population in NI, therefore it is their beliefs that are significant. The bad treatment of catholics by protestants in NI is a bad thing but was not the issue I was addressing.

By and large I assume people are adults can read documents posted and make up their own minds. I do not project words or thoughts onto others. I do not assume that people somehow need my validation for them to decided whether something is good or bad. At a fundamental level it is irrelevant what I think about catholics or protestants (I was brought up as a muslim - for me being an atheist could result in a death penalty in some places, I am probably more aware of the bad consequences of religious beliefs than some). The argument will speak for itself.

Fairy nuff. Maybe I over reacted, in my defense I've seen nearly as much anti-Catholic clap trap among those who pride themselves on being skeptic atheist types as I have among Protestants in NI. However, I do see your point now you explain it that way.