Do you have any actual evidence of this prevalent racism because, though Ive witnessed a little flying in both directions, Ive not seen anything as you describe? Its worth nothing that objecting to Scottish independence doesnt equate to racism against Scots. After all, many of the active opponents are Scottish themselves. Which government and who is us? Wouldnt any position the UK government took be biased by definition and given the roughly 50/50 split of opinion in Scotland, how could they avoid going against a significant proportion of the population? In general terms though, how could the national government of any established, stable country be anything other than opposed to breaking it up? Id suggest that getting in to the realms of predictive conspiracy theories isnt a good route to support a reasoned argument.
The Sea Border is not 'Inside Scotland' for the very good reason that it is 'at sea'. You have not been subsidizing us, we have subsidized you. and ,no, I am not interested in some NationList propaganda website to prove otherwise. 'Colonial' what nonsense. Let me remind you that Scotland and England joined as a union because Scotland decided to set up a COLONY in Land actually belonging to Spain and the Spanish kicked you out and you were bankrupted as a result. You [probably think that it was an 'English' Army that beat the jacobites At Sherrifmuir and Culloden
Once you establish a "toxic" word like racism, it's convenient for many to try to stifle a debate by throwing it into the mix. According to some, some of us white north Europeans are "racist" against each other. And yes, and Irishman might well accuse me of "racism" if I push something he objects to. It's just hyperbole and lack of an actual argument.
The Duke of Edinburgh asked a Scottish driving instructor in Oban: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?"
Sorry but an approrpriate reply would take too long. We are fighting a war for control of Scotland right now with London, and the contempt and overt racism shown towards Scots is beyond the pale now. Jim has no clue what he's talking about, its hard for anyone from the outside looking in to understand. Here is an example for the Queen herself just today The Queen commented on the rise of the Scottish National Party during today's investiture ceremony, former Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes said. The former party deputy leader and coalition minister, who lost his Bermondsey and Old Southwark seat to Labour in May's General Election, said the Queen made the comment as she awarded him his knighthood for public and political service. Sir Simon, who represented the London constituency for 32 years, said they had discussed the changes he had seen in politics over the decades. He said: "Her Majesty asked me about the changes I have seen in Parliament and obviously one of the things I said was that of course there are many more women now than when I was first elected. "And she said 'but also many more Scots'." That's Scotland's Queen too you know. Complaining about too many 'Scots' in parliament (she really means Scottish nationalists, the number of 'Scots' hasn't changed). The entire way the UK is even organised is racist, you have the Home (English) Office, then the Scottish Office for Scotland, like a colonial outpost. Racist slurs against Scots (Jock is a legally recognised racist term) appear daily in English newspapers, literally every single day. Google the work 'Jockestan' read some articles, also a racist term for Scotland. I am too busy with all this to really engage people from outside Scotland who don't understand, it doesn't matter if they do or not anyway, we have a war to win.
Without checking, I'm fairly sure that The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Telegraph are the three highest read newspapers in the UK, essentially in England as England is 85% of the UK's population (and contributes 87% of UK taxes, Scotland is 8.4% and contributes 9.9%, who is subsidising who again?), every day you see racist tirades against Scotland in all three papers. This has been going on for years, in reality for 300 years but has increased significantly in response to the rise of Scottish nationalism. All Scottish nationalism is btw, is the desire for self-determination for Scotland. Here are some examples, but if you're really interested you should do your own research Former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie takes another swipe at Scots claiming "Jockestan" taxpayers pay less 14:52, 16 Mar 2015 By Chris Clements CONTROVERSIAL former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie has laid in to the Scots before and said they enjoy making money but not spending it - this time he's saying they pay less tax than their counterparts in southern England. 72 shares PA MacKenzie was the editor of the Sun for 13 years MacKenzie was the editor of the Sun for 13 years FORMER Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie has had yet another swipe at Scotland – dubbing it “Jockestan”. The motormouth – who still has a regular column with the English tabloid – claimed Scots pay less tax than their counterparts in southern England. He wrote: “Without the clever and wealth-creating southerners, this country would be Greece without the sunshine. The stats are simply astonishing. “While the 2.6m taxpayers of Jockestan (Scotland) paid £11.3bn in income tax in 2011-12, the 8.4m clever clogs in London and the south east coughed up £64.3bn… “So I am adopting the slogan ‘no taxation without representation’, first used in the 1750s by angry colonists in America.”MacKenzie made the comments as part of a lengthy diatribe in London free paper City AM. He also said he plans to set up a Southern Party. He continued: “Today, little parties can cause big trouble. "Take the SNP . I’m so old I can remember when Alex Salmond and his party were just a bunch of nutters wandering the back streets of Glasgow. “They are now the most powerful and interesting force in UK politics. The same could be said of Nigel Farage and Ukip.”Hitting out at the high cost of commuting, MacKenzie added: “Our chums in Jockestan are subsidised to the tune of over £8 per passenger journey, whereas the folk down here who travel further and create more wealth are down to £1 per journey”. MacKenzie was editor of the Sun for 13 years from 1981 and was known for backing the Tory government of Margaret Thatcher. It isn’t the first time he has laid into the people of Scotland. During a Question Time appearance in 2007, he said Scots enjoyed spending money but not making it. He also used his Sun column to brand Scots as ‘Tartan Tosspots’. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...so-lets-woo-companies-away-from-Scotland.html Encouraging the British government to impoverish Scotland. Bear in mind we are still part of the UK, for now, you wouldn't see a Swedish newspaper encouraging the Swedish government to deliberately impoverish one part of Sweden would you? So if you doubt is about nationality and racism within the UK is about that you should understand it actually is when you think about that. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-longer-ENGLAND-claim-hit-wages-Scotland.html This one is particularly funny, see you have to understand all this or it doesn't make sense to you, which is why I don't have the energy to explain it to people from other countries, its too complex. But here is an article from today, outraged that SNP MP's voted on a bill affecting England (they actually didn't, there was no vote but the paper won't mention that). Whereas yesterday 500 English MP's voted on amendments, all rejected, to the bill devolving more power to Scotland. And that's not a problem, but 59 Scottish MP's voting on an English matter is. The new powers coming to the Scottish parliament are simply a trap designed to damage the Scottish economy, impoverish the people of Scotland and make the SNP Scottish government carry the can for it, meaning they have to either cut services or increase taxes, making them unpopular thus thwarting Scottish independence. That's what its really all about, and is just a device by which London will steal even more money from Scotland.
Gizmo these posts could go on and on. However, much more important than any perceived slurs by your English neighbours is the issue of how Scotland should and will be governed. There is a need to have a debate on the origins of wealth and security in Scotland either in the UK or out of it. We also need to be clear on our attitudes to Scotland's future state spending. Many times these arguments are going to be based on differing opinions based on the benefits or disadvantages of Scotland being a part of the U.K. A vision for Scotland is needed. We can't just carp on about the nasty people next door. Once independent our bile won't keep us warm.
That already exists in buckets, the YES campaign spent years on it, maybe you should read about it. As for keeping us warm, between 1980 and 2012 Scotland contributed £222 billion more in taxes than it got back from Westminstier, we'll have no problem staying warm.
I don't know if this is still true but I have encountered hearsay where the British Government is suspicious of Catholics.
No, it would problably take me some time to get a broad picture of this UK situation, as you say. But is it still racist though? Sure, what was written in the links you provided wasn't very friendly towards scots perhaps, but isn't it still "just" derogatory words and predjudices? I think I'm just against this watering down of the word "racist". I don't know much about the newspapers in the UK, but I think (without googeling) that the Daily mail is somewhat right wing and now, because of your political stance, I would think that this "the telegraph" is also right wing. The Guardian is left wing if I understand it correctly, how is this Scotland situation pictured in that paper, accordingly to you? In Sweden we have essentially two established left wing papers Aftonbladet and Expressen, which is frustrating for me. But in your case, with the healthier and broader opinion corridor among the media, isn't it obvious that right wing papers will defend the proposition that Scotland should stay in the UK?
To use a local idiom "you have hit the nail on the head". It is not racist merely to disagree with someone. By necessity those on the side of the "union" of Scotland and England will make disparaging remarks about the prospect of independence and highlight the problems and difficulties. Gizmo seems to feel every statement opposing independence is one of racial bias (forgetting always that there is no racial difference between the Scots and the English - national and cultural differences yes - but racial differences no). I feel sad that the debate has degenerated into this. It is difficult to assess the wisest course of action for Scotland's people when every debate is so emotionally charged. After many years of SNP membership I am no longer as convinced as I once was of the best plan for the future and feel that some form of federalism is more appealing. However, what has worried me most over the last year has been the growth, in the independence movement, of nationalist sentiment with a hostile and negative streak towards the English. Fortunately Nicola and Alex have so far kept this in check but as passions get heated this will get harder. I don't feel posts, like this one by Gizmo, berating the English for their racism are a healthy sign and, if anything, point to the continued presence of hatred of the English. The SNP take great pride in their nationalism being based on 'civic pride' rather than enmity to others; posts such as this make me less sure that we can be confident that this will remain the case. As Charles De Gaulle said "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." Perhaps Scotland needs more patriots and less nationalists.
Well, De Gaulle would say that, wouldn't he? I think that the decline of patriotism and rise of nationalism in european countries today, is mainly caused by the ineptitude of the old, well established parties representing a growing opinion among the people. Which I think is that the existing social contract should stay put as it is. Mainly the concept of nation states and all what that entails. In the UK you have the SNP and Ukip and in Sweden we have SD, these are the ones chaneling these opinions with growing success. Also, this seems to be seen all across europe. In other words, the decline of patriotism becomes the consequence when a large portion of the population see no politicians or political parties worthy to rule. Which is why I also think that nationalism is more prelavant in historical monarchies such as europe, and patriotism is more prelavant in a republic like USA. If you think about it long enough, you will see that most european peoples have a slight predisposition towards fascism, in a love-hate kind of way. Probably casued by our rich history. I find it pretty beautiful in a way.
Wish we had the fragrant Nicola as our prime minister though, rather than the waste of space loser we've got now.
She is fairly tenacious which is to her credit. However I think that Cameron and the conservatives might not survive the next election although if the UK gets a referendum on the Europe then maybe a third term? As popular as Corbyn might be I still think that there are tons of people that wouldn't vote labour because of him. So all in all there aren't that many viable candidates left for the future.
I think that the nationalist component of fascism is strong throughout Europe but perhaps the authoritarian component only become strong at times of perceived stress. Certainly it is hard to think of any European country which does not have an established fascist grouping.
Vote for me - I'll do it, and better than any of 'em. As for Cameron's pledge to jack it all in at the next GE - he only said that because he knows he won't win. If the Tories do win though, he'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of number 10. The man's drunk and deluded on undeserved power now, and he'll cling on to it for as long as possible.
That is a pretty tempting suggestion. If you set up your own party then I'm sure people will vote en mass for you.
We might think that, but after watching the Question Time audience last night when they applauded to the rafters the panellists who asserted that 'we're one of the richest countries in the world', it rather suggests that they (the audience) are unaware of our £1.7tr and increasing by the day national debt. In fact I'm so out of step with that belief that I think that I might have it wrong. I look at it like this: If I had £1m in the bank but owed fifty times that to my debtors, the £1m doesn't make me a rich man, because the debt make me seriously poor. I feel so isolated over it that I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
In our world its not necessarily the amount of money that you have that makes you rich but rather the ability to pay it back.
