Should supporting the UK in Europe be treasonous?

[Gordon]

Nationalism can be a form of racism.

So, just out of curiosity, and bearing in mind I've made no secret of my support for Scottish independence both in 2014 and currently, in what ways have I expressed racism?

[JP]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/nicola-sturgeons-gigantic-eu-bluff/

Sums part of it up pretty well.

I don't expect you to see it as I do.

[Bubbles]

Why don't you make it personal, it's so much more conducive to argument?

You chose to write that unpleasant post about the English, what do you expect?

You already made it personal, by sneering at the English.

I'm English, how was I not supposed to take it personally? it was aimed at posters on here.

Just because you put your post in " pseudo intellectual terms" doesn't mean what you actually said is ok.

[Bubbles]

So, just out of curiosity, and bearing in mind I've made no secret of my support for Scottish independence both in 2014 and currently, in what ways have I expressed racism?

I haven't said you have

I said Nationalism can be a form of racism.

[Gordon]

I haven't said you have

So, you'd agree that it is feasible that someone (such as me) can support Scottish independence without this being a racist stance?

[Bubbles]

So, you'd agree that it is feasible that someone (such as me) can support Scottish independence without this being a racist stance?

Yes, of course.

[Aruntraveller]

You chose to write that unpleasant post about the English, what do you expect?

You already made it personal, by sneering at the English.

I'm English, how was I not supposed to take it personally, it was aimed at posters on here.

Just because you put your post in " pseudo intellectual terms" doesn't mean what you actually said is ok.

Well I'm English and I didn't take it personally, nor did I think he was sneering. He was pointing out some well-established examples of the way some sections of the English population think - none of them particularly new or outré , but nevertheless true. Indeed I belong to one of those groups he identified (not telling you which one - try guessing) and in the past I belonged to another one of those groups - I don't see what was so inflammatory about the post.

[Nearly Sane]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/nicola-sturgeons-gigantic-eu-bluff/

Sums part of it up pretty well.

I don't expect you to see it as I do.

And I don't see how putting up this specific article helps. Can you outline an actual example of the tactic with details?

[Bubbles]

Well I'm English and I didn't take it personally, nor did I think he was sneering. He was pointing out some well-established examples of the way some sections of the English population think - none of them particularly new or outré , but nevertheless true. Indeed I belong to one of those groups he identified (not telling you which one - try guessing) and in the past I belonged to another one of those groups - I don't see what was so inflammatory about the post.

I didn't care for being labelled, or the tone in which it appeared to be set.

Perhaps you want to read it again.

[Aruntraveller]

I didn't care for being labelled, or the tone in which it appeared to be set.

Perhaps you want to read it again.

Funnily enough I was going to suggest you read it again - as I have now re-read it several times and I cannot for the life of me see why you are getting so hot under the collar.

[JP]

It's interesting how the old English sense of entitlement is breaking down, in various ways.  Some people are trying to cling onto it, thus talking of 'our history', some are becoming bitter ('please go'), others are accepting of a break-up.   It reminds me to an extent of the ambivalence which existed over Ireland, a mixture of contempt, genuine affection, and entitlement.   Quite queasy making, especially as English nationalism shows its less attractive facets, e.g. racism.

I reckon this is aimed at me.

No sense of entitlement here, just sick to death of the same old broken record from the Nats. They should put their money where their mouth is and call another referendum now, but oh, they are too scared so in the meantime they are making lots and lots of noise, with no plan for anything different to that one they had for their once in a generation referendum two years ago.

Instead of babbling on about Europe why not tell everyone what their economic plans are for the newly independent Scotland, what currency they will use.

I think the nats and their ilk suffer from a sense of entitlement and Westminster (the English) are the eeeeevil ones keeping them from achieving it through the slave shackles of the union.

[JP]

And I don't see how putting up this specific article helps. Can you outline an actual example of the tactic with details?

There are actual examples in the article.

[Nearly Sane]

There are actual examples in the article.

I don't see that they follow what you laid out. Please take one and match it up with your description.

[Gordon]

Yes, of course.

Therefore, you'd further agree that proponents of Scottish independence (such as me) can have grounds for seeking the breakup of the current UK that have nothing to do with racism: for instance, one can favour Scottish independence without this being interpreted as being the anti-English sentiment you implied exists in your #137.

[JP]

I don't see that they follow what you laid out. Please take one and match it up with your description.

I'm afraid I am not getting into it with you as I have neither the time nor the inclination to write war and peace arguments to be nit picked. I am sure you get the gist.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm afraid I am not getting into it with you as I have neither the time nor the inclination to write war and peace arguments to be nit picked. I am sure you get the gist.

yes, you made a statement and seem unwilling to justify it.

[Anchorman]

It's interesting how the old English sense of entitlement is breaking down, in various ways.  Some people are trying to cling onto it, thus talking of 'our history', some are becoming bitter ('please go'), others are accepting of a break-up.   It reminds me to an extent of the ambivalence which existed over Ireland, a mixture of contempt, genuine affection, and entitlement.   Quite queasy making, especially as English nationalism shows its less attractive facets, e.g. racism.

Nationalism need not be ethnic and thus engender racism, Wiggs.
I completely agree that ethnic nationalism has nothing to commend it.
On the other hand, civic nationalism, which not only espouses those patriouts who see themselves as part of a nation, but thiose of all races, creeds, ethnicc origins who wish to make that nation their home and adopt its culture to a greater or lesser degree, is non threatening and can be positive.
(The SNP deputy leader was born in England).
As for England?
The problem is that she has immersed herself in the idea of britain to such a degree that too many of her citizens simply do not see the difference.
I wish England nothing but well in her future dealings with the EU or everyone else; but wish to be governed by a government - of whatever hue - elected by the people of my own nation, and not constantly led into situations we do not wish by a government our nation did not elect.

[wigginhall]

Good points, Jim.  I am very admiring of civic nationalism, which seems to work well in Scotland, as far as I can see.   I think the English are ambivalent about it.  At their best, they welcome other people as 'one of us', see for example, Mo Farah.   But then there is that atavistic note about the 'indigenous', which always strikes me as both sentimental and sinister.   I suppose Brexit has unleashed this to an extent; I would think that in economic terms, nativism would be disastrous. 

[jeremyp]

oil, aye they keep telling us it is running out, but fifty years is a long time

No it isn't. If you are making your decision for independence purely on the basis of the next fifty years, I would regard that as reckless short-termism. Independence is likely to last for hundreds or even thousands of years.

The only way in which oil should factor into the equation is in determining the timing. You want the secession to happen ideally with the price of oil high so that the independent Scottish economy starts off in the best circumstances.

[jeremyp]

What 'history' are you talking about, Rose? The shared crown since 1603 was a catalyst for unrest, civil disobedience and outright war, here. Cromwell was not seen as a proto-democrat, but as a vile dictator. After 1707, the sad history of the destruction of the Gaelic culture, ethnic cleansing, repression, depopulation by force

And you're blaming that on the English?

the Westminster parliament ignored the traditions and structure of the more egalitarian Scots parliament, in favour of a continuance of the daft trash of the English parliament with black rod, numpties in tights, and unelected peers, which were nothing to do with us whatsoever.

The Scots had all of those things too - except their rod was white.

So much for equality. We remember English tanks and regiments on the streets of Glasgow in 1918, because Westminster feared a revolution, and Scots were first in line for the bullet.

The soldiers and tanks were sent in response to a riot over working hours.

And don't even START me on Thatcher. No, the history we remember up here has no commonality with Westminster.

Oh boo hoo. Thatcher wasn't targeting Scotland specifically. And he was the prime minister chosen by a parliament made up of representatives from the whole UK including Scotland.

[Anchorman]

I blame it on the british, not the English, jeremy. As far as the Scots estates went - or the 'tables' which served as our government whilst we were rebelling against Charles Stewart - the relationship between crown and parliament - or the representative of that crown - was somewhat different to that of Westminster. The crown never really exercised the same authority in Scotland as in England - mainly because of either internecine struggles in the Stewart family from Robert II onward, or when a minority on the throne meant a ruling council or council of regency was the norm. By the time of presbyterianism, parliamentary authority was curbed by that of the kirk - which for that time was actually more democratic than parliament, and the Scottish equivalent of peer was composed of the main earls and 'lords of parliament' - effectively nominated 'life' peers from the judiciary, the leading professions and the kirk. Such lords were subject to summary dismissal by the other two houses or tables of estate - a simple majority being all that was needed, and no royal approval was either sought or heeded if it was given! Refreshingly different from the Westminster of the eigheenth through twenty first centuries! Of necessity, landowners of various ranks made up the bulk of membership until the disasterous policies of Charles Stewart led to the Covenanters effectively removing crown ontrol from the monarch....a control which was not entirely restored under Charles II or his Lord High Commissioner. Records are somewhat sketchy, due to frequent destruction of property in the various conflicts from Henry VIII's 'rough wooing' until the dissolution of the estates in 1707, but here's a reasonable site giving historical sources (though the four volume "Edinburgh History of Scotland" (Edinburgh University) is a bit more comprehensive. http://www.rps.ac.uk/static/historicalintro5.html

[L.A.]

I blame it on the british, not the English, jeremy. As far as the Scots estates went - or the 'tables' which served as our government whilst we were rebelling against Charles Stewart - the relationship between crown and parliament - or the representative of that crown - was somewhat different to that of Westminster. The crown never really exercised the same authority in Scotland as in England - mainly because of either internecine struggles in the Stewart family from Robert II onward, or when a minority on the throne meant a ruling council or council of regency was the norm. By the time of presbyterianism, parliamentary authority was curbed by that of the kirk - which for that time was actually more democratic than parliament, and the Scottish equivalent of peer was composed of the main earls and 'lords of parliament' - effectively nominated 'life' peers from the judiciary, the leading professions and the kirk. Such lords were subject to summary dismissal by the other two houses or tables of estate - a simple majority being all that was needed, and no royal approval was either sought or heeded if it was given! Refreshingly different from the Westminster of the eigheenth through twenty first centuries! Of necessity, landowners of various ranks made up the bulk of membership until the disasterous policies of Charles Stewart led to the Covenanters effectively removing crown ontrol from the monarch....a control which was not entirely restored under Charles II or his Lord High Commissioner. Records are somewhat sketchy, due to frequent destruction of property in the various conflicts from Henry VIII's 'rough wooing' until the dissolution of the estates in 1707, but here's a reasonable site giving historical sources (though the four volume "Edinburgh History of Scotland" (Edinburgh University) is a bit more comprehensive. http://www.rps.ac.uk/static/historicalintro5.html

I used to think it was just the Northern Irish who were prisoners of their history, but  I am concluding that it is a collective madness that is sweeping through these isles.

[jeremyp]

I blame it on the british, not the English, jeremy.

Well that's Scotland too.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

aye they keep telling us it is running out, but fifty years is a long time and if we put the revenue to good use like Norway we would be laughing.

I have added the bit you left out, and this is what it is all about, it is not a Scottish thing but a global thing, using what we have now to invest in the future, the oil will one day run out, we could frack the frack out of this country or we can use the revenue from oil to invest in wind, tide, solar, hydro, our kids will thank us for investing in their future.

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

Dear Jeremyp,

I have added the bit you left out, and this is what it is all about, it is not a Scottish thing but a global thing, using what we have now to invest in the future, the oil will one day run out, we could frack the frack out of this country or we can use the revenue from oil to invest in wind, tide, solar, hydro, our kids will thank us for investing in their future.

Gonnagle.

Having put the revenue from the oil to good use will not magically make the future non revenue reappear.  When you are talking about nationhood, 50 years is not a long time. This is also why the arguments against independence based on the current low oil price are also nonsense. It'll give you a rocky road for the first few years, but nothing more.