Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Anchorman on September 16, 2015, 01:28:38 PM
-
OK, I might as well start a thread on this, 'cos no-one else has.
The MSM is in melt down over Corbyn's refusal to sing the National Anthem yesterday, despite aceeding to the Lord Chancellor's advice that standing respectfully was fine.
Was he right in not singing the song....a stance he has maintained for decades?
Typical of the reactionary press that they focus on this, rather than the actual policies Corbyn stands for.
-
Burn the witch Corbyn!
-
Some of the papers were running with the line that it was disrespectful to all the old servicemen to not sing it.
Actually that is a lie - I thought it was quite respectful of him to mirror my late fathers republican leanings.
They are such a bunch of [insert epithet here]
No doubt had he sung the national anthem they would have run with the line that he wasn't a man of principle.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
-
Since we don't live in a dictatorship, whether you sing the national anthem (which isn't) or not is a matter of your own choice. We don't have to sing religious-themed hymns to the head of state, unlike some places in the world.
-
I have never sung the national Anthem as an a adult. The brouhaha is farcical.
-
Some of the papers were running with the line that it was disrespectful to all the old servicemen to not sing it.
Actually that is a lie - I thought it was quite respectful of him to mirror my late fathers republican leanings.
They are such a bunch of [insert epithet here]
No doubt had he sung the national anthem they would have run with the line that he wasn't a man of principle.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
This is exactly the case, and precisely what you'd expect of a bunch of swivel-eyed right-wingers. If JC had sung along, we'd now be hearing all about what a hypocrite he is since he's definitely a republican and possibly, according to rumour at any rate, an atheist. (Which one would expect anyway, as he's a highly intelligent thinking man).
-
I spoke to a 95 year old this morning.
Bill was there on the beaches on D-Day, and fought on into 1945...staying in Germany till early '47.
He admired Corbyn's stance and found it in no way disrespectful to the memory of those who fell.
In fact he said if there was a way of getting out of swearing an oath of allegiance to the monarch when he was called up, the queue to take it would have stretched for miles!
-
I'm always skeptical of rabble-rousing posts I see on Facebook, but I do sometimes wonder which ones have a grain of truth: the one I saw this morning was allegedly a serviceman at the event commenting that Corbyn was quiet and respectful, whilst the defence secretary spent most of his time trying to catch the camera and Cameron spent most of his time glad-handing military bigwigs.
O.
-
Whether I agree with the man or not, it's refreshing to see a politician stand by long held principles.
-
Whether I agree with the man or not, it's refreshing to see a politician stand by long held principles.
I would agree if that is what he did, as it is he claims his mind was on something else.
Must say I'm warming to Corbyn, if not his polices, all other politicians come across as bland clones.
-
Whether I agree with the man or not, it's refreshing to see a politician stand by long held principles.
I would agree if that is what he did, as it is he mind was one something else.
Must say I'm warming to Corbyn, if not his polices, all other politicians come across as bland clones.
though it now looks like he will sing it in future - at least it will be better than John Redwood and the Welsh national anthem
-
During the war, the cinemas used to play the national anthem at the end of the show and the audience stood to attention. Mostly there was a stampede to get to the exit before it was played leaving a few stalwarts behind.
As a collective positive affirmation, 'long to rein over us' seems to have worked.
-
During the war, the cinemas used to play the national anthem at the end of the show and the audience stood to attention. Mostly there was a stampede to get to the exit before it was played leaving a few stalwarts behind.
As a collective positive affirmation, 'long to rein over us' seems to have worked.
and for a long time after the war
-
Whether I agree with the man or not, it's refreshing to see a politician stand by long held principles.
I would agree if that is what he did, as it is he mind was one something else.
Must say I'm warming to Corbyn, if not his polices, all other politicians come across as bland clones.
though it now looks like he will sing it in future - at least it will be better than John Redwood and the Welsh national anthem
I don't know why he didn't just say 'look I don't believe in a god and think the monarchy sucks so I'm not singing "God save our Queen"... or words to that effect. :)
-
I don't know why he didn't just say 'look I don't believe in a god and think the monarchy sucks so I'm not singing "God save our Queen"... or words to that effect. :)
Agree
-
I don't sing it because I think the tune itself is dross shite. I don't go around singing Justin Bieber songs either for the same reason.
-
I sing it because, regardless of the words, it's the anthem of my country - I disagree with the words, but I don't really feel anyone pays attention to them in the first place. I'm perfectly happy for him to not to sing them, though.
I do draw the line at England using it as a national anthem, it's the national anthem of Great Britain - the other component countries have their own anthems, I don't see why England thinks that it's special.
O.
-
I never sing the National Anthem as a sign of respect to the people around me.
-
I don't know why he didn't just say 'look I don't believe in a god and think the monarchy sucks so I'm not singing "God save our Queen"... or words to that effect. :)
Agree
Me too.
-
That might have interrupted the proceedings? :)
-
OK, I might as well start a thread on this, 'cos no-one else has.
The MSM is in melt down over Corbyn's refusal to sing the National Anthem yesterday, despite aceeding to the Lord Chancellor's advice that standing respectfully was fine.
Was he right in not singing the song....a stance he has maintained for decades?
Typical of the reactionary press that they focus on this, rather than the actual policies Corbyn stands for.
I think he was ill advised. By failing to sing the national anthem he simply gave free reign for the reactionary press to have a go and also, and just as significant, to ensure all the headlines were about his lack of vocal involvement rather than his speech later in the day which doing the term 'poverty denial' which I thought was rather good.
Now I'm an atheist, republican so the first five words of the national anthem cut across two of my strongly held beliefs. But, and this is a major but - if you are in certain senior public positions there are certain norms you need to abide by and not being seen to 'snub' the monarch or be disrespectful to service personnel is part and parcel. If Corbyn achieves power he can change those conventions should he so wish but until then he really should be smarter than to throw more red meat to the right wing press in a couple of days than perhaps even Michael Foot achieved in months.
As a leader of the opposition and presumably therefore a potential PM he needs to appear statesmanlike and at the moment - whether through this or wonky tie and top button undone - he isn't. He appears to have learned nothing from Foot and the cenotaph.
-
I think he was ill advised.
Perhaps he wasn't advised at all, and simply stuck to his principles?
By failing to sing the national anthem he simply gave free reign for the reactionary press to have a go and also, and just as significant, to ensure all the headlines were about his lack of vocal involvement rather than his speech later in the day which doing the term 'poverty denial' which I thought was rather good.
So you don't then think that if he had joined in, that self-same press today wouldn't have been whipping themselves into a froth of righteous indignation about "Hypocrite Corbyn sings God Save Queen"?
Is it really the case that we have a fourth estate in this country which devotes so much ink and so many column inches to JC's undone shirt button and silence during the national anthem in preference to the £4.4 billion Tory tax credit cuts yesterday? What does that say?
-
It is an odious song with an odious sentiment about an odious institution - and nothing on earth would force me to sing it or stand 'respectfully' for it (the verse asking God to help Wade to 'rebellious Scots to crush' doesn't exactly encourage me greatly).
-
I think he was ill advised.
Perhaps he wasn't advised at all, and simply stuck to his principles?
By failing to sing the national anthem he simply gave free reign for the reactionary press to have a go and also, and just as significant, to ensure all the headlines were about his lack of vocal involvement rather than his speech later in the day which doing the term 'poverty denial' which I thought was rather good.
So you don't then think that if he had joined in, that self-same press today wouldn't have been whipping themselves into a froth of righteous indignation about "Hypocrite Corbyn sings God Save Queen"?
The press have always taken the position that since Thatcher it is only they that can deliver Tory victories for instance the Telegraph was quite open that they would have to do a hatchet job on Miliband rather than depend on Cameron to win his own elections.
They would be destroying any labour leader on any pretext by now.
I suspect that is the reason Cameron is throwing the towel in because he knows a press so pumped with the ability to select the leader would try the stunt on a sitting Tory PM sooner or later.
-
It is an odious song with an odious sentiment about an odious institution - and nothing on earth would force me to sing it or stand 'respectfully' for it (the verse asking God to help Wade to 'rebellious Scots to crush' doesn't exactly encourage me greatly).
-
Yep!
The Ying Tong Song has more meaning.
-
The press have always taken the position that since Thatcher it is only they that can deliver Tory victories for instance the Telegraph was quite open that they would have to do a hatchet job on Miliband rather than depend on Cameron to win his own elections.
And yet when it fell to the Scaly Mail rather than the Torygraph to do the hatchet job on Miliband via his father, it was a spectacular foot-bullet since what transpired was so divorced from reality, so ludicrous, so scurrilous that it earned Miliband a great deal of sympathy and support.
-
The racist fourth verse was once included in the dirge, Rose.
That's good enough for me to treat it with contempt.
-
It wasn't ever officially included as is made clear in Rose's link I blame Billy Connolly
-
It wasn't ever officially included as is made clear in Rose's link I blame Billy Connolly
I didn't know that, and I'll obviously accept that this verse isn't in the current version.
Even so, it is still an odious song containing odious sentiment about an odious institution.
-
That song wasn't racist, Rose - it was sectarian, a particularly vile attitude in the West of Scotland.
The Scots Government has banned the singing of sectarian songs at public gatherings or sporting venues (much to the disgust of certain bigots on both sides of the sectarian divide)
Seeing you quoted a particularly sectarian song, Rose, can I reciprocate by quoting what my candidate for Scotland's National Anthem should be?
'Flower of Scotland' is fine, I suppose. I knew the late Roy Williamson; he never intended the song to be Scotland's anthem.
Instead, Hamish Henderson's wonderful lyrics are still relevant today.
Henderson himself served as an officer in the 51st Highlanders during the Italian campaign in WWII.
The tune is the lilting pipe tune "Bloody Fields o Flanders".
Roch the wind in the clear day's dawin
Blaws the cloods heilster-gowdie owre the bay
But there's mair nor a roch wind blawin
Thro the Great Glen o the warld the day
It's a thocht that wad gar oor rottans
Aa thae rogues that gang gallus fresh an gay
Tak the road an seek ither loanins
Wi thair ill-ploys tae sport an play
Nae mair will our bonnie callants
Merch tae war when oor braggarts crousely craw
Nor wee weans frae pitheid an clachan
Mourn the ships sailin doun the Broomielaw
Broken faimlies in lands we've hairriet
Will curse 'Scotlan the Brave' nae mair, nae mair
Black an white ane-til-ither mairriet
Mak the vile barracks o thair maisters bare
Sae come aa ye at hame wi freedom
Never heed whit the houdies croak for Doom
In yer hoos aa the bairns o Adam
Will find breid, barley-bree an paintit rooms
When Maclean meets wi's friens in Springburn
Aa thae roses an geans will turn tae blume
An the black lad frae yont Nyanga
Dings the fell gallows o the burghers doun.
English translation:
It's a rough wind in the clear day's dawning
Blows the clouds head-over-heels across the bay
But there's more than a rough wind blowing
Through the Great Glen of the world today
It's a thought that would make our rodents,
All those rogues who strut and swagger,
Take the road and seek other pastures
To carry out their wicked schemes
No more will our fine young men
March to war at the behest of jingoists and imperialists
Nor will young children from mining communities and rural hamlets
Mourn the ships sailing off down the River Clyde
Broken families in lands we've helped to oppress
Will never again have reason to curse the sound of advancing Scots
Black and white, united in friendship and marriage,
Will make the slums of the employers bare
So come all ye who love freedom
Pay no attention to the prophets of doom
In your house all the children of Adam
Will be welcomed with food, drink and clean bright accommodation
When MacLean returns to his people
All the roses and cherry trees will blossom
And the black guy from Nyanga
Will break the capitalist stranglehold on everyone's life!
-
Interesting to note that the Torygraph has no problems printing all six verses of Lizzie's dirge....and the one that's not supposed to be included is still included......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/1571287/God-Save-the-Queen-lyrics.html
racist tripe.
-
It is an odious song with an odious sentiment about an odious institution - and nothing on earth would force me to sing it or stand 'respectfully' for it (the verse asking God to help Wade to 'rebellious Scots to crush' doesn't exactly encourage me greatly).
Your repeating of that myth doesn't exactly encourage me. That verse was never part of the official National Anthem. And it was written in response to the Jacobite rebellion of 1745 in which some rebels — some of whom were Scottish — invaded England, getting as far South as Derby.
-
And?
-
Interesting to note that the Torygraph has no problems printing all six verses of Lizzie's dirge....and the one that's not supposed to be included is still included......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/1571287/God-Save-the-Queen-lyrics.html
racist tripe.
Its not racist tripe but nationalist tripe, besides Rebellious Scots isn't fair, moaning is a more accurate adjective! :)
-
Its not racist tripe but nationalist tripe, besides Rebellious Scots isn't fair, moaning is a more accurate adjective! :)
In the context in which it was written, a rebel army had come down from Scotland and invaded England. There was a fair amount of justified concern about rebellious Scots, although it was more complicated than that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cGJmxVYQ2o
-
The press have always taken the position that since Thatcher it is only they that can deliver Tory victories for instance the Telegraph was quite open that they would have to do a hatchet job on Miliband rather than depend on Cameron to win his own elections.
I seem to remember several sections of the press making a huge song and dance about how they had delivered the British electorate to Blair, back in 1997.
I suspect that is the reason Cameron is throwing the towel in because he knows a press so pumped with the ability to select the leader would try the stunt on a sitting Tory PM sooner or later.
And which towel would that be, Vlad?
-
Interesting to note that the Torygraph has no problems printing all six verses of Lizzie's dirge....and the one that's not supposed to be included is still included......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/1571287/God-Save-the-Queen-lyrics.html
racist tripe.
Its not racist tripe but nationalist tripe, besides Rebellious Scots isn't fair, moaning is a more accurate adjective! :)
-
No, not nationalist, jakswan.
Scots fought on both sides - Charles Stewart and Butcher Cumberlands armies.
Niether cause, if victorious, would have resulted in Scotland's freedom.
Both leaders were inbred examples of why Republicanism is a far more viable option.
-
Interesting to note that the Torygraph has no problems printing all six verses of Lizzie's dirge....and the one that's not supposed to be included is still included......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/1571287/God-Save-the-Queen-lyrics.html
racist tripe.
Its not racist tripe but nationalist tripe, besides Rebellious Scots isn't fair, moaning is a more accurate adjective! :)
No, not nationalist, jakswan.
Scots fought on both sides - Charles Stewart and Butcher Cumberlands armies.
Niether cause, if victorious, would have resulted in Scotland's freedom.
Both leaders were inbred examples of why Republicanism is a far more viable option.
Yes but they were not true Scotsmen AM, besides it still would not have been a race issue!
Are you frit? :)
-
The song predates Nicola, Rose - it was written in 1960, before SNP were anything like a credible party.
Henderson had been a passionate advocate for an end to war, nuclear disarmament, and race tolerance ever since his experiences in Siciliy and Italy as an intelligence officer in WWII. on returning home, he founded "The School of Scottish Studies" in an effort to preserve Scots language and culture.
Along with Willie Lomax - an American, - and Ewan McColl, (Kirsty's dad) he collected many songs from the travelling community ( the 'gaberlunzie fawk') and smaller communities, and stimulated the folk revival in Scotland.
He was also a very well respected poet - a 'makar' in his own right.
The sentiments of welcoming 'a the bairns o Adam' into the land simply reflects the fact that Scotland is a nation of immigrants, and long may it remain so.
-
I have posted this before but following on from Jim's post seems appropriate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yChTjZqGCt0
-
I have posted this before but following on from Jim's post seems appropriate
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yChTjZqGCt0
-
Great stuff, NS - especially given the origins of the person singing it!
Mind you, I prefer Dick Gaughan's version.
(Actually, that goes for just about anything Gaughan records.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI-ShJft9Bc
-
I seem to remember several sections of the press making a huge song and dance about how they had delivered the British electorate to Blair, back in 1997.
Just because it is in the press does not make it true.
-
I have posted this before but following on from Jim's post seems appropriate
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yChTjZqGCt0
-
Great stuff, NS - especially given the origins of the person singing it!
Mind you, I prefer Dick Gaughan's version.
(Actually, that goes for just about anything Gaughan records.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI-ShJft9Bc
That applies to the German tenor who sang 'Rule Britannia' at the Last Night of the Proms. For him 'the war is over'.
-
Dear Jim,
Aye thats a nice song, gets the Scottish heart a fluttering, but what does it mean tae the wee wifie standing in the queue at the foodbank in Liverpool or Birmingham or even London.
I am a royalist but I applaud Mr Corbyn for his stand, he will bend the knee if it means a better Britain.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jim,
Aye thats a nice song, gets the Scottish heart a fluttering, but what does it mean tae the wee wifie standing in the queue at the foodbank in Liverpool or Birmingham or even London.
-
Nothing, since it was written in Scots, by a Scot, for a Scotland emerging from the suffocating dross of a british empitre fixated on the ppast.
-
I am a royalist but I applaud Mr Corbyn for his stand, he will bend the knee if it means a better Britain.
Gonnagle.
-
Since I couldn't give a stuff for britain, better or otherwise, and much prefer a head of state voted for by the people, rather than one who popped into existance because her mum and dad had sex in the right bed (an unusual phenomenon amongst the 'royals'), I can't comment.
-
How about trying to find some feeling for the British then? Or don't you give a stuff about them either unless they belong to Scotland?
-
Since I couldn't give a stuff for britain, better or otherwise, and much prefer a head of state voted for by the people, rather than one who popped into existance because her mum and dad had sex in the right bed (an unusual phenomenon amongst the 'royals'), I can't comment.
This why we would be better off getting Scotland off the British teat. :)
-
How about trying to find some feeling for the British then? Or don't you give a stuff about them either unless they belong to Scotland?
-
While I feel nothing but warmth toward England and Wales (though ambivolent to the 'province' of Northern Ireland as a concept)
I have no feelings toward the political construct of the 'UK'.
-
But you can't have missed that Gonners meant 'a better Britain' to be a better place for the ordinary British people. Instead of engaging with that idea you shrugged your shoulders and turned your back, however 'warm' you may feel. Your nationalism seems to have caused you to forget what is important.
-
I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
-
I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
Yes and Scottish people have determined that the remain part of British nation.
-
From my point of view, as a Scot, my main objection to 'God Save the Queen' isn't about the UK or Scottish Independence: it is because I think that monarchy is an archaic and undemocratic institution and that whatever nation state I end my days in (be it in an independent Scotland or in the current UK) I'd prefer that it was a republic.
-
I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
All nations are political constructs. Scotland is no different. There's no divine instruction that makes it any different.
It makes no difference whether we call them British, Anglo-Saxons or Jedi knights; you are switching off your compassion for people purely because of the label given them. It's sad how your nationalism has changed the tone of your posts so much over the past couple of years.
-
I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
All nations are political constructs. Scotland is no different. There's no divine instruction that makes it any different.
It makes no difference whether we call them British, Anglo-Saxons or Jedi knights; you are switching off your compassion for people purely because of the label given them. It's sad how your nationalism has changed the tone of your posts so much over the past couple of years.
The problem I think is self identity
In fighting for our own identity, we unintentionally or inevitably reject someone else's
:)
simplistic,I know many Yes voters who don't think like that.
-
As soon as we stop recognising people and see only nationalities we are in the shit.
-
And who is doing that?
-
As soon as we stop recognising people and see only nationalities we are in the shit.
-Agreed.
Which is why I support civic, rather than cultural or racial, nationalism.
Civic nationalism makes no distinction between race, sexual orientation, creed, ethnicity, etc, within a defined geographical area.
Scotland is such an area.
Whether or not the majority voted YES or NO last year, poll after poll over the last twenty years has shown that the majority of those living in Scotland regard themselves as Scots, with the numbers regardinng themselves as Brits diminishing over the last two decades.
-
You don't 'give a stuff for Britain' and you don't recognise 'the concept of the British people'.
Good for you. You carry on 'not giving a stuff' and using Gonner's heartfelt wish that the lot of ordinary British people improves to make a narrow political point. Gonners talks about compassion in politics; your style of nationalism brings only the opposite.
-
Dear Jim,
Where does it stop! I have much the same feelings as you do towards Edinburgh as you do towards Westminster, should I start the GNP.
What about the wee fella in Cornwall, should he start the CNP.
You have a badge, you wear it on your sleeve, it is labelled Scotland, I have one, it is labelled Glasgow.
I suppose it is just frames of mind, I want to shake up Westminster you want to get rid of it.
How the world has shaped us, do we have free will, oh Nearlysane!! this is your department. ::)
Gonnagle.
-
For me, my main objection to 'God Save the Queen' is primarily because of my objections to the institution of the monarchy and to the overt pro-monarchy sentiment of this song. On that basis I'd imagine that people elsewhere in the UK (outwith Scotland) might share my views regarding both the monarchy and 'God Save the Queen' even if we differed as regards Scotland being an independent country.
I think the SNP were, and still are, very careful to avoid conflating independence and republicanism, since they aren't mutually exclusive and the current UK could, at some point, ditch the monarchy: although I suspect that this would be more likely in an independent Scotland.
If the UK national anthem was changed to 'How much is that doggie in the window' I'd quite happily sing along :)
-
I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
All nations are constructs - it's the imposition of that construct on the middle-East in the late 1800's and early 1900's over the heads of their pre-existing tribal delineations that's a major element of so much of the trouble we're reaping now.
O.
-
Dear Jim,
Where does it stop! I have much the same feelings as you do towards Edinburgh as you do towards Westminster, should I start the GNP.
-
Has Glasgow or Edinburgh expressed itheir wish for nationhood?
-
What about the wee fella in Cornwall, should he start the CNP.
-
There is a party dedicated to a devolved parliament for Kernow!
-
You have a badge, you wear it on your sleeve, it is labelled Scotland, I have one, it is labelled Glasgow.
-
No.
It is labelled 'Christian'....and I do not like the unChrist-like policies of Westminster, therefore I disdain it.
-
I suppose it is just frames of mind, I want to shake up Westminster you want to get rid of it.
-
Mo. if England and Wales and the rump province want to stay mired in the false traditions of an anachronistic pseudodemocratic mess, that's their choice.
-
How the world has shaped us, do we have free will, oh Nearlysane!! this is your department. ::)
-
I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
All nations are constructs - it's the imposition of that construct on the middle-East in the late 1800's and early 1900's over the heads of their pre-existing tribal delineations that's a major element of so much of the trouble we're reaping now.
O.
-
Yep.....and guess which 'Land of Hope and Glory' was largely responsible.....this so-called 'great' Britain.
-
I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
All nations are constructs - it's the imposition of that construct on the middle-East in the late 1800's and early 1900's over the heads of their pre-existing tribal delineations that's a major element of so much of the trouble we're reaping now.
O.
-
Yep.....and guess which 'Land of Hope and Glory' was largely responsible.....this so-called 'great' Britain.
Yes. A Britain of which Scotland was an integral and important part - it provided the nation with explorers and inventors and scientists and politicians and surveyors and soldiers. As someone with a foot in both camps, as it were, the rise of nationalism on both sides of the border - more dramatically in Scotland - saddens me. I don't think of myself as English or Scots or half-and-half, I think of myself as British.
O.
-
Civic nationalism makes no distinction between race, sexual orientation, creed, ethnicity, etc, within a defined geographical area. Scotland is such an area.
Isn't the British Isles such an area? There are probably more people of Scottish descent living in England than in Scotland. There is no distinction made when they vote in British elections but they seem to have been excluded from the Scottish referendum. Was this because they were not civic nationalists?
-
.
How the world has shaped us, do we have free will, oh Nearlysane!! this is your department. ::)
Gonnagle.
As expressed previously 'Of Course we have free will, I have no choice but to accept it'. The question of free will is a philsophical indulgence, only of import in certain fairly abstruse discussions. For the everyday and discussions like this, it makes sense to assume it.
-
Civic nationalism makes no distinction between race, sexual orientation, creed, ethnicity, etc, within a defined geographical area. Scotland is such an area.
Isn't the British Isles such an area? There are probably more people of Scottish descent living in England than in Scotland. There is no distinction made when they vote in British elections but they seem to have been excluded from the Scottish referendum. Was this because they were not civic nationalists?
No, because in terms of self determination it's the breakaway gets the vote - unless you want Russians to have had a say in the Baltic states?
-
When the next Indyref happens England and Wales will be given options too. It's no longer just about Scottush nationalism.
-
When the next Indyref happens England and Wales will be given options too. It's no longer just about Scottush nationalism.
That will depend on many factors - but they still won't have a vote about whether Scotland would be independent if there is an Indyref.
In many ways, it never was just about Scottish nationalism - it's about the problems of the arrangement of power. Donald Dewar was not a nationalisty but supported devlotion because of the anomalies in teh state with Scotland having separate legal and education systems amongst other things. To be fair to the Labour party in 97, they did try and address the issues with the idea of increased devolution for the regions but the problems there are different.
-
Civic nationalism makes no distinction between race, sexual orientation, creed, ethnicity, etc, within a defined geographical area. Scotland is such an area.
Isn't the British Isles such an area? There are probably more people of Scottish descent living in England than in Scotland. There is no distinction made when they vote in British elections but they seem to have been excluded from the Scottish referendum. Was this because they were not civic nationalists?
No, because in terms of self determination it's the breakaway gets the vote - unless you want Russians to have had a say in the Baltic states?
If Russians live in the Baltic states, wouldn't they have a say under this arrangement? If Baltic state citizens live in Russia they wouldn't have a say. If there were more Russians living in a particular Baltic state then there probably wouldn't be a breakaway or there might be a forceful attempt as in the splitting in eastern Ukraine.
-
If Russians live in the Baltic states, wouldn't they have a say under this arrangement? If Baltic state citizens live in Russia they wouldn't have a say. If there were more Russians living in a particular Baltic state then there probably wouldn't be a breakaway or there might be a forceful attempt as in the splitting in eastern Ukraine.
Which was the situation with the referendum - it was restricted to those living in Scotland.
-
If Russians live in the Baltic states, wouldn't they have a say under this arrangement? If Baltic state citizens live in Russia they wouldn't have a say. If there were more Russians living in a particular Baltic state then there probably wouldn't be a breakaway or there might be a forceful attempt as in the splitting in eastern Ukraine.
Which was the situation with the referendum - it was restricted to those living in Scotland.
I was trying to understand the motive.
-
I was trying to understand the motive.
The motive for having it the people living in the country? Because it's not about being Scottish , it's about living in Scotland.
-
I was trying to understand the motive.
The motive for having it the people living in the country? Because it's not about being Scottish , it's about living in Scotland.
Which is strange. Should Scotland become independent, I'd be entitled (presumably) to dual-citizenship, it would have a profound effect on my life going forward.
I could decide to be a citizen of whatever the RoUK called itself based on residency, or I could decide to be a Scottish citizen based on parentage, or I could opt for dual nationality, if such a combination were permitted (I believe some aren't).
Yet I don't get a say...
O.
-
Which is strange. Should Scotland become independent, I'd be entitled (presumably) to dual-citizenship, it would have a profound effect on my life going forward.
I could decide to be a citizen of whatever the RoUK called itself based on residency, or I could decide to be a Scottish citizen based on parentage, or I could opt for dual nationality, if such a combination were permitted (I believe some aren't).
Yet I don't get a say...
O.
Because you dfon't live in Scotland and it isn't about nationality.
-
Because you dfon't live in Scotland and it isn't about nationality.
How can it not be about nationality, it's about whether Scotland should be an independent nation or part of a larger nation. It is, by definition, about nationality.
O.
-
Because you dfon't live in Scotland and it isn't about nationality.
How can it not be about nationality, it's about whether Scotland should be an independent nation or part of a larger nation. It is, by definition, about nationality.
O.
It's about how a country runs itself .. If you live in a country you determine the future of that country. If you live in another country determine the future of that country. As Jim's already covered the nationality in question is civic not ethnic
-
Because you dfon't live in Scotland and it isn't about nationality.
How can it not be about nationality, it's about whether Scotland should be an independent nation or part of a larger nation. It is, by definition, about nationality.
O.
It's about how a country runs itself .. If you live in a country you determine the future of that country. If you live in another country determine the future of that country. As Jim's already covered the nationality in question is civic not ethnic
If Scotland were to become a separate nation, and I were to get dual-nationality, I'd be entitled to vote in Scottish affairs, I'd be potentially entitled to benefits from the Scottish finances, I'd be entitled to consular representation from the Scottish Foreign Office.
The details are civic, and ethnicity isn't a concern, but eligibility is - my nationality could be irrevocably changed regardless of which side of the border I live.
O.
-
If Scotland were to become a separate nation, and I were to get dual-nationality, I'd be entitled to vote in Scottish affairs, I'd be potentially entitled to benefits from the Scottish finances, I'd be entitled to consular representation from the Scottish Foreign Office.
The details are civic, and ethnicity isn't a concern, but eligibility is - my nationality could be irrevocably changed regardless of which side of the border I live.
O.
And what you did there would be in the main your choice - the point is that eligibility just as ethnicity is just as much a construct as the idea of a country.
-
Two extracts from the Edinburgh Agreement
The governments are agreed that the referendum should:
• have a clear legal base; • be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament;
• be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people; and
• deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.
and
They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.
Respect and decisive clearly means something else to the SNP because no sooner did they lose, they started bleating on.
-
I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
All nations are constructs - it's the imposition of that construct on the middle-East in the late 1800's and early 1900's over the heads of their pre-existing tribal delineations that's a major element of so much of the trouble we're reaping now.
O.
-
Yep.....and guess which 'Land of Hope and Glory' was largely responsible.....this so-called 'great' Britain.
Yes. A Britain of which Scotland was an integral and important part - it provided the nation with explorers and inventors and scientists and politicians and surveyors and soldiers. As someone with a foot in both camps, as it were, the rise of nationalism on both sides of the border - more dramatically in Scotland - saddens me. I don't think of myself as English or Scots or half-and-half, I think of myself as British.
O.
Absolutely, Outrider.
Scots did, unfortunately, play their part in empire - and a fair population of the English speaking former colonies are descended to those cleared from the land in an early example of ethnic cleansing - another invention, to add to the concentration camp, genocide, exploitation, etc, of which the British Empire (including Scots) was guilty.
That's why 'Land of Hope and Glory' is a shameful song.
That's why, too, that I believe that, just as the British project built up gradually over the centuries, it's long past time for its' disintegration.
-
I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
Odd that, Jim. After all, the people who lived in the British Isles were referred to as (Ancient) Britons for centuries before it became a political statement.
-
That's why, too, that I believe that, just as the British project built up gradually over the centuries, it's long past time for its' disintegration.
That's like Christianity, if you can't agree, split up. I should have thought that working towards better integration would be a higher motive, but I suppose if you are conditioned in a certain way you will look to project your difficulties on to an evil empire or a Satan, play the blame game and facilitate disintegration.
-
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
All nations are 'constructs' - Scotland no more nor less so than Britain.
Actually Britain has a far greater objective validity as a nation than any of its three constituent parts - on the basis of geography. Britain is surrounded by sea, it has no arbitrarily drawn land border, but has a naturally defined border of water.
-
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
All nations are 'constructs' - Scotland no more nor less so than Britain.
Actually Britain has a far greater objective validity as a nation than any of its three constituent parts - on the basis of geography. Britain is surrounded by sea, it has no arbitrarily drawn land border, but has a naturally defined border of water.
NI?
-
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
All nations are 'constructs' - Scotland no more nor less so than Britain.
Actually Britain has a far greater objective validity as a nation than any of its three constituent parts - on the basis of geography. Britain is surrounded by sea, it has no arbitrarily drawn land border, but has a naturally defined border of water.
NI?
NI is part of the United Kingdom - it isn't part of Britain.
-
NI?
NI is part of the United Kingdom - it isn't part of Britain.
And Britain isn't a nation so your pedantry here is specious. The construct that exists includes NI. As for the 'greater objective validity' for something that is a subjective construct, that is a meaningless statement.
-
NI?
NI is part of the United Kingdom - it isn't part of Britain.
And Britain isn't a nation so your pedantry here is specious. The construct that exists includes NI. As for the 'greater objective validity' for something that is a subjective construct, that is a meaningless statement.
No it isn't.
I said very clearly that all nations are constructs. However where there is some non-political geographic natural border there is a greater validity in saying that a certain block of land is naturally 'one' and therefore more naturally 'a nation' than if you have to arbitrarily define a land border to define a nation.
So in that context England, Scotland and Wales individually are more much more political constructs than Britain is (with its naturally defined sea border). The UK is also much more a political construct akin to England, Scotland and Wales than Britain is.
Ireland in its entirety has greater validity as a naturally defined nation than the republic and NI do individual as they are very clearly, and very recent (in overall terms) political constructs.
-
It is merely your subjective opinion about what makes the construct more valid, nothing more.
-
And of course the constructs of England, Wales and Scotland also include multiple islands.
-
It is merely your subjective opinion about what makes the construct more valid, nothing more.
Ok try to walk across the arbitrarily defined border between Wales and England - say from Stapleton (in England) to Presteigne (in Wales).
Do the same across the 'arbitrarily' defined border between Scotland and NI - say from Portpatrick (in Scotland) to Carrickfergus (in NI).
Then tell me which is more subjective and which more objective.
-
And of course the constructs of England, Wales and Scotland also include multiple islands.
Which are all entirely part of one of those countries, or not at all.
No land borders involved.
-
Since the constructs are entirely that the difficulty in walking is merely a subjective standard you have added in. By the way do you want to walk to Lewis from Lewes?
-
Since the constructs are entirely that the difficulty in walking is merely a subjective standard you have added in.
Nope - I think it is objectively difficult to walk from Portpatrick (in Scotland) to Carrickfergus (in NI) - no subjectivity required.
There is a natural border between Britain and the rest of Europe, or Ireland which would still exist whether or not there were people living on either side, and regardless of the make up and cultural heritage of the people living on either side. The same isn't true for the border between Scotland and England or England and Wales.
And indeed a little understanding of history demonstrates this - so about 1000 years ago the natural border between Britain and the rest of Europe, or Ireland existed exactly as it does today. Yet the whole of the norther east of what we now call England and the south east of what we now call Scotland were a single Kingdom (Northumbria). Where these is an arbitrarily drawn border today would cut that earlier nation in half.
-
And of course the constructs of England, Wales and Scotland also include multiple islands.
Which are all entirely part of one of those countries, or not at all.
No land borders involved.
but I thought walking places was somehow important to you in your subjective way
-
It is harder to walk across the sea unless you are Jesus. That does not mean that it is objectively true than land borders are less valid than sea ones as regards the artificial constructs that nation states are.
-
It is harder to walk across the sea unless you are Jesus. That does not mean that it is objectively true than land borders are less valid than sea ones as regards the artificial constructs that nation states are.
Sea borders provide a natural geographic boundary that exists regardless of the influence of people - in other words they exist objectively. Land border are entirely (or largely) constructs of people, they do not exist outside of the construction of people, they are therefore subjective, rather than objective.
There are of course some land borders that are pretty objective - the border between Tibet and Nepal being one good example as the mountains are as great a barrier to integration between one side and the other as any stretch of sea.
-
Borders in terms of nation states don't exist objectively at all. They are a subjective concept and subjectively you are adding a preference for those borders to be sea ones. That islands exist is irrelevant.
-
Borders in terms of nation states don't exist objectively at all. They are a subjective concept and subjectively you are adding a preference for those borders to be sea ones. That islands exist is irrelevant.
Like I said right at the start all nations are constructs. The point is that those that align with geographically distinct regions have a greater objective validity and islands are the most obvious example. Nations defined merely by land borders arbitrarily drawn on the map for some purely subjective political purpose are less 'objectively valid' than those that align with geographic borders and boundaries.
-
It is merely your subjective opinion about what makes the construct more valid, nothing more.
Wouldn't the construct be more 'valid' if more people agreed with it. Anchorman can claim he's a Scottish citizen as can a member claim they are an Islamic State citizen however since no one else recognises these countries Anchorman remains a British Citizen.
-
Ludicrous nonsense
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-in-new-row-as-he-snubs-england-s-big-rugby-world-cup-opener-a2950931.html
-
I don't accept the concept of a 'british people'.
All nations have the right to self determination.
As far as I'm concerned, britain is not a nation, but a construct.
The British Project was a great success story alas undermined by people with no real vision like Thatcher, Cameron and yersel'
We're doooomed I telt yer dooooooomed.
-
Ludicrous nonsense
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-in-new-row-as-he-snubs-england-s-big-rugby-world-cup-opener-a2950931.html
I would have snubbed fucking Rugby, an elitist excuse for a fondle between posh meatheads.
-
It's sexier than cricket though.
-
It's sexier than cricket though.
Banging your head repeatedly against a wall until you pass out is sexier than cricket.