SNP 1: Labour -13,872
by botherer on Jul.25, 2008, under The Rest
Oh dear me, Brown’s a goner.
I’m delighted for Scotland. I was also hoping the SNP would win purely because it’s the more interesting result. A Labour win would be a nothing – a big let-down after all the build up. But turning around a 13,507 majority to win (by 365) is incredible, and also funny. It demonstrates how deeply hated Labour have become. Not just disapproved of, but loathed.
Of course, the counter to this is the terrifying fear I now have – a certainty that the Tories will win the next general election. It’s indicative of Labour’s hopelessness, and while I’m as angry with them as anyone with a brain, they’re still a far better option than the horror that is the Conservative party. That Labour have openly abandoned all left wing principles is disgusting and abhorrent. However, this doesn’t automagically make the Tories an alternative. It makes them the further extreme of where Labour have headed. But they will win, and this country will swerve violently to the right, in line with an increasing amount of Europe. I’m genuinely scared.
And all the while the US is looking increasingly likely to be voting in Obama, who despite his current centerist behaviour is clearly a massively left swing for the nation, with a socialist agenda. At that point, with Cameron in power here and Obama in power there, surely I can apply for asylum?
July 25th, 2008 on 06:42
Personally I’m still hoping the Liberal Democrats will pull off a miracle.
July 25th, 2008 on 08:27
Liberal Democrats are a disgraceful nothing. It saddens me when the SNP gains traction, because I consider them little different to the BNP, but with good PR.
July 25th, 2008 on 09:21
“It saddens me when the SNP gains traction, because I consider them little different to the BNP”
On the whole, it’d probably be better if people didn’t say such monumentally idiotic things as this.
July 25th, 2008 on 15:30
The SNP and the BNP share similar acronyms, and little else. And the SNP have good PR? Maybe very recently, given Labour’s troubles and their moderately succesful minority government in Scotland, but before that they had an image as a bunch of kilt-wearing, English-hating loonies. Which some of them are, but it’s hardly a comprehensive image.
July 26th, 2008 on 08:39
Mr Campbell, a nationalist is a nationalist is a nationalist. Perhaps you’d do better to analyse the SNP’s tactics in leveraging face-painting, celt-espousing ethnic nationalism all the while protesting to the press that all they mean by nationalism is “you happen to live here”. Ask the average Scot who’s a rabid supporter of the SNP whether they really think an Indian immigrant is “just as Scottish” as some rubicund highland dweller. The answer, if he’s being truthful, will mirror that of the average BNP supporter in all respects, just with an extra dollop of self-pity thrown in.
I repeat: the British National Party and the Scottish National Party are sects of the same ideology, one of which learned better how to use PR to stop shooting itself in the foot.
July 27th, 2008 on 13:51
Dear NM,
I have to ask – have YOU ever asked an “average Scot” if they think an Indian immigrant is “just as Scottish” as them?
Because if you haven’t got some sort of especially good reason to say what you’ve said I find it deeply offensive. And deeply flawed. I mean, what do you even mean? A recent immigrant? Someone who’s lived in the country all their life? First-generation or second-generation?
The SNP is about independence. Ask someone in Scotland what the SNP stands for and it’s independence. If you asked them “does the SNP stand for getting rid of everyone who isn’t ‘Scottish’?” I’m pretty sure that they’ll look at you blankly.
I’d be really interested to read if you have some sort of sound reason to say what you’re saying, though. Please feel free to back up your argument with links etc – I’m well aware that my response is as purely opinion as yours but as someone who’s lived in Scotland almost his entire life and knows a little about racism, kicking everyone out who isn’t Scottish is non-existent other than in the most lunatic extremes of the party – so lunatic and extreme I’ve never heard of it said before.
July 27th, 2008 on 23:13
I’ve never heard a bigger pile of ignorant, ill-informed and – hilariously enough – racist shite in all my life. The SNP’s policy on immigration is very considerably more inclusive than ANY of the mainstream UK parties, and the party makes no reference whatsoever to notions of “Scottishness” anywhere. The SNP is a left-of-centre social-democratic party, and has Asian, Sikh and Muslim MSPs.
It may well be that there are “rabid” SNP voters whose standards are less high, just like whichever party you happen to vote for also has bigoted idiot dickheads in its support too, but it’s hardly fair to tar that entire party, whichever it is, with your brush. Have you ever even MET a Scottish person, far less an SNP voter? I don’t like to lower the tone of John’s blog by pointing out that you’re a stupid cunt, but you’ve kinda already done it anyway.
July 28th, 2008 on 10:08
I’m not convinced Britain is headed for a violent swerve to the right. It does look likely that David Cameron will be the next Prime Minister (or next but one, depending on whether Brown gets kicked out), but I don’t see him as the kind of politician that will massively swing the country in any direction. Especially considering the country’s broke and he’ll likely have to do nasty un-Tory-y things like raise taxes. Or maybe I’ve missed something, I don’t know a lot about the majority of the Conservative Party, But my understanding is that, it’s more that people are really pissed off with Labour than really enthusiastic about the Tories and that there isn’t really a deep desire for shifting the poltiics here strongly either way.
July 28th, 2008 on 11:00
There’s two problems there. The first is that Cameron is a Trojan horse for an extreme-right Conservative party. Even if he were a wobbly centerist of little concern – which he isn’t – he won’t be single-handedly running the country – it will be his extreme right party doing it.
But more importantly, your final comment is exactly what I’m talking about. People are going to vote in the extreme-right Conservatives because they want “change”, which is the usual vicious stupidity of a two party electoral system. But of course they’ll be voting in exactly what they were hoping to change from, but far, far worse. It’s like voting for axe-weilding maniacs because you are fed up of the people who tread on your toes.
And I think their IS a strong desire for a shift to the right in this country. Just look at the increasing BNP successes in council elections. All they need is an anti-immigration party in power, and tada! It’s going to get really, really bad.
July 28th, 2008 on 18:38
“you’re a stupid cunt”.
Mr Campell, it is sad that you have resorted to that. Are you suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance in having to accept phrases like “Scotland for the Scots” as left-wing, but “England for the English” as right?
As a matter of fact, I know what a Scotch are, I am well read on the history and philosophical basis of the SNP (you, it seems, are not); furthermore, my brother’s PhD touches largely on Scottish Nationalism and its effect on the formation of the United States.
So, yes, I do *actually* know what I’m talking about and would like to challenge you to a more civilised discussion of the paradox of an allegedly left-wing NATIONALISTIC party. After all, even if you do not agree that the SNP, behind its veneer, is strongly ethnically nationalist, you surely will agree that the fetishising of Westphalian sovereignty is the sine qua non of a right wing organisation?
By the way, in my many trips to Scotland, I enjoy seeing the STV adverts where they tell people not to call those whose skin is brown “pakkies”.
July 28th, 2008 on 18:49
Tell you what – I’ll engage you in civilised discussion as soon as you point me to ANY page of ANY kind of official SNP document, website, poster or any other form of media in which the phrase “Scotland for the Scots”, or anything of an equivalent paraphrase, can be found.
Otherwise, fuck off with your arrogant cockery, which deserves no more respect than I’ve given it.
July 28th, 2008 on 19:16
Oh, and by the way, I ought to pre-emptively save you from some further embarrassment. William Wolfe, leader of the SNP for a decade during its most successful period pre-devolution and whose Wikipedia entry notes “is credited with doing much to develop the SNP as a clearly defined left-of-centre political party”, has been a family and personal friend of mine ever since I was five years old and he was my dad’s employer at the small forestry-equipment manufacturer Chieftain Forge in Bathgate. (Also makers of rather splendid ceremonial claymore swords.) My copy of his book, “Scotland Lives – The Quest For Independence” is signed thusly:
“This book is dedicated to the men, women and children who have given me the inspiration and encouragement to continue the struggle for an independent Scotland – folk like Stuart Campbell, to whom I give my very best wishes. – Billy Wolfe, Bathgate”
So if you continue to assert that my knowledge of the SNP’s “history and philosophical basis” is lacking, you’re likely only going to end up making an even bigger tit of yourself than you have until now. Whatever your brother’s PhD says.
July 28th, 2008 on 19:17
“I have to ask – have YOU ever asked an “average Scot” if they think an Indian immigrant is “just as Scottish” as them?”
Mathew, yes I have, as it happens. In a nice little pub near Fort William. One of the most racist men I’ve ever had the displeasure of meeting. He was strong SNP supporter. Still, I’m not sure that picking one individual and generalising him is particularly useful. I note, however, how easily he used the SNP’s language in his grievances at the “foreign” occupation of Scotland, and how it would one day be purified again. It was fascinating how traditional racism combined with the SNP’s brand of anti-English whining to create quite a heady dram!
My claiming that the SNP’s project, whatever its current veneer, is inherently right-wing and tinged with racism is based on three factors:
1) ETHICS: The party’s historical and moral foundation and its early allyships, particularly in the late 30s. Then, later, with the formation of the noxious Siol nan Gaidheal faction. The latter’s promotion of exclusive Celticism would make the KKK (who do the same thing) blush!
Take this conclusion to their discussion about “ethnic” Scottishness. They make this point:
“No-one would dare suggest that, for the sake of argument, Mr. Yamamoto, a senior electronics manager with Mitsuhiro Electrical (U.K.) based in some light industrial complex in East Kilbride for the last two years, is anything other than Japanese. A Scot, Yamamoto San ? No, not even the trendy cappuccino-swilling Brito-Scots would stretch ridicule to that extent. Although very welcome to our country, this Japanese resident could not and would not expect to be afforded, even if he so desired, Scottish nationality”
And conclude their lengthy discussion thus:
“The fostering of Scottish ethnicity as the bedrock of Scottish nationality should in turn form the basis for Scottish citizenship.”
Now, these are not crackpots, but a large and important and historically nourishing and honest part of the forces that formed and continue to inform Scottish Nationalism.
This is not to mention the violent attacks against English homeowners and so on. If you’d like further links about the substantial anti-English violent racism which remains strongest in SNP supporting areas, I shall leave it to you to find the “links”. If you wish not to, I can do your pasting for you.
2) POLITICS: The paradox obviously inherent in any attempt to define an exclusive project of Nationalism as a left-wing ideal. The 79ers and the Siols are in a very shaky alliance because of that, and so they should be.
3) EMPIRICISM: . Despite its claims at “civic” nationalism, whatever that is, and that the 79ers appear to be in control, it is noticeable that the Siols hold the party’s heart: the way they grag steadfast onto any tacky symbol of ethnic essentialism: be it their mass face-daubings on the release of Braveheart, their oft-evident profound anti-English sentiment or the fetishising of Celtic mythmaking, the Scots dialect and gaelic languages
As for whether you find something I say “deeply offensive” – I don’t care. I don’t mind offending people, and think we have a large problem of being insufficiently offensive in our twee discourse.
July 28th, 2008 on 19:20
Oh, Rev. Sorry. You know a bloke and have read a wikipedia entry. I stand humbled.
July 28th, 2008 on 19:22
SNP = Siol nan Gaidheal?
You know what else? All Catholics are in the IRA.
TRUFAX.
July 28th, 2008 on 19:25
“You know a bloke”
The former leader of the SNP and the prime motivator of its political and philosophical direction to the current day, yes. For 35 years. I admit it pales somewhat beside your brother writing an essay and you meeting a twat in a pub once.
July 28th, 2008 on 19:49
“SNP = Siol nan Gaidheal?
You know what else? All Catholics are in the IRA.
TRUFAX.”
No, Rev. I made it very clear that the SNP are *not* them, but that they represent one of the two important ideological sects of the SNP, the other of which is the 79ers. The latter are in the tactical ascendancy at the moment, the former have the “hearts and minds”.
I’m quite sure that Wolfe is a charming and honourable man. This says nothing of Nationalism per se, which is a strong and dangerous force. If the “nice people” happen to be in control of it, it merely acts as promoter of false-consciousness and a divider of the proletariate (some left-wing scheme that). But when the “nasty people” get a hold of it – well, we’re all in trouble. So any decent, thoughtful person will bury Nationalism very, very deep and back away from it slowly, and not fan its embers, however happy the contingent cause.
And I speak as someone whose immediate family has been affected be at least three divisive nationalisms in its time!
July 28th, 2008 on 19:59
I still await your source for “Scotland for the Scots” or anything like it in any SNP statement of any kind ever. Until then, your patronising, arrogant ignorance can amuse itself.
(Though perhaps if you stopped sucking your own cock for a moment to note that the “N” in “SNP” does not stand for “Nationalist”, it’d help you.)
July 28th, 2008 on 20:33
I know that the N stands for National. The Scottish National Party is a nationalist party, by their definition and as they make clear (they call it “civic nationalism”, but then you know that, prof). If we’re playing semantic games, then I’ll remind you that another famous leftist nationalist Socialist movement began with the same word ;-)
But that’s not fair. They’re not Nazis. They’re just playing with the same box of matches.
When you say “SNP statement”, what exactly do you mean? A supporter? In a manifesto?
Finally, you have been very intemperate. You act as if I’m attacking your mother or your religion. Grow up. It’s a political party.
July 28th, 2008 on 20:36
“Finally, you have been very intemperate. You act as if I’m attacking your mother or your religion. Grow up. “
Sorry, I’m confused. I thought we had “a large problem of being insufficiently offensive in our twee discourse”. Oddest thing is, I get mildly annoyed when ignorant dickheads who don’t have the first idea what they’re talking about call me a racist.
Waiting for that quote/link/whatever. I made it utterly plain what I regarded as an acceptable source.
July 28th, 2008 on 21:01
When did I call you racist, Mr Campbell? In fact, whom exactly have I called racist except the racist old man I met near Fort William? You are the only person who has used the word, in calling me racist, inter alia multa.
July 28th, 2008 on 21:11
“If Gaidhlig is not placed in the vanguard of our aspirations, then Scotland’s historical identity will be lost completely. We must ensure that Nationalists defend Gaidhlig, demanding its rightful place in Education, as well as in the Media. This is the paramount duty of all Scottish Nationalists, regardless of whether or not they themselves are Gaidhlig speakers. Despite the suspicion and ignorance that still sets English and Gaidhlig speakers apart, we must work together, for only in victorious struggle for National Liberation can all things Scottish rise free.”
July 28th, 2008 on 21:14
“It saddens me when the SNP gains traction, because I consider them little different to the BNP, but with good PR.”
What else could anyone mean by “little different to the BNP”?
You’re really taking your time with that quote. It’s a simple enough challenge, to have you offer the most basic support to that disgraceful, groundless assertion. When have the SNP, since their inception almost 80 years ago, said anything even remotely akin in grammar or sentiment to “Scotland for the Scots”?
Not some random drunk arse in a pub. The actual SNP.
Take as long as you like.
PS Do you actually ejaculate when you use phrases like “sine qua non”, “fetishising of Westphalian sovereignty” and “inter alia multa”? I like to think that you do, because being able to wank and type at the same time would be a lot more impressive than the dismal excuses for arguments you’ve offered so far.
July 28th, 2008 on 21:54
I’m currently learning Latin, and so I take delight in actually feeling these tired old phrases anew, and am thus taking them for a test drive. Sadly, though, my delight is not priapic.
As for wanking and typing – easier in Dvorak than Qwerty, I find.
July 28th, 2008 on 22:05
But I shall leave the last word to someone else:
“Salmond launched his 2005 General Election campaign by swinging a claymore around his head outside the statue of Mel Gibson William Wallace in Stirling. That single image is more significant than a thousand assurances that the SNP regards anyone who happens to live in Scotland as “Scottish”.”
http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/02/19/snp-lib-dems-should-apologise-for-stating-the-bleeding-obvious/
July 28th, 2008 on 22:08
# James Graham Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
It’s what has become known as ‘dog whistle’ politics. Waving a claymore around his head whilst mouthing pieties about having an open concept of citizenship is all about plausible deniability. Scratch beneath the surface, and the SNP is all ‘It’s Scotland’s Oil’ and ‘Remember Culloden’.
July 28th, 2008 on 23:49
So, still not a single quote or link supporting the odious lie that the SNP want to exclude or expel non-Scots from Scotland? Your best shot is “Salmond did a frivolous photoshoot for some election publicity, with no relevance whatsoever to the notion of excluding or expelling non-Scots from Scotland”? Really? From 80 years of history that you apparently know so well? That’s it? That’s your best shot?
I’m off to the seaside tomorrow, see if you can manage at least something by the time I come back. Or, of course, simply concede that you’re talking utter shite, and are just an ignorant tool who thought it was terribly clever and arch to make a simply-outrageous-darling statement groundlessly slurring half the electorate of Scotland, thinking that nobody who knew better would see it and point you out for the smug, vacant twerp you are.
(And hey, who’d have thought you were dumb enough to suggest that Culloden was a Scotland-vs-England matter? Truly your ignorance is as wide as it is deep.)
July 29th, 2008 on 09:41
Rev, I know too well what Culloden was. Sadly, the revisionists in the SNP like it to be something else.
And again, where exactly did I say that the SNP would exclude or expol non-Scots from Scotland? You assume that the unpleasant aspects of predatory nationalism display themselves in such binary forms! I make no such assumption.
Will you concede that Nationalism is a dangerous force, even in the abstract, or are you going to argue about whether I find banners or not?
July 29th, 2008 on 11:35
Dear NM,
You’re doing a lot of those excellent things people like to do during arguments to obfuscate and complicate the issue rather than dealing with it in a straight forward manner. From yes, as Stuart has picked up, using excessively flowery language, but more importantly you keep shifting the goalposts to suit what you’re trying to say, and each time Stuart or someone else tries to point out where they were, you’re claiming they we never there in the first place.
For example, you ask for anecdotal evidence – “ask an average Scot” and then bizarrely when you give your own anecdotal evidence disown it, though I’m guessing because it’s pretty damn easy to find people who aren’t racists in Scotland that support the SNP to balance out one crackpot in a pub. Like all the people I know, who come from a wide range of ethic backgrounds etc. etc.
Then there’s the troubling problem of your own statement, “Are you suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance in having to accept phrases like ‘Scotland for the Scots’ as left-wing, but ‘England for the English’ as right?”
Stuart has challenged you to find this exact phrase used by the party or by, basically, anyone at all, and you’ve danced around the issue. I see you’ve now jumped on the semantics of Stuart’s interpretation of that sentence (“So, still not a single quote or link supporting the odious lie that the SNP want to exclude or expel non-Scots from Scotland?”) as an easy get-out on actually supporting your original statement, which is clever indeed, but only as a way to prolong an argument. Why not support your argument that the SNP of it’s supporters use the phrase “Scotland for the Scots” with links etc. if you believe it? There’s a whole internet out there!
Plus, what on earth does that even mean if the SNP use it, but don’t plan on excluding non-Scots from Scotland? I’m interested!
Then there’s the Siol nan Gaidheal thing. I think it’s interesting in your decision to talk about the SNP you concentrate on them, almost certainly because they exhibit the problems you want to prove the SNP do. Of course, you fail to prove a link between the groups that makes any particular sense. Please do.
As for “If you’d like further links about the substantial anti-English violent racism which remains strongest in SNP supporting areas, I shall leave it to you to find the ‘links’. If you wish not to, I can do your pasting for you.”
Please do! I’d particularly like to read those which explain the ways in which violent racisim is a party policy, or otherwise informed/condoned by the SNP!
You have posted an unattributed quote in one of your comments. Attribute it, please.
Also, I notice you didn’t respond to this rather insightful comment from Stuart – “‘Finally, you have been very intemperate. You act as if I’m attacking your mother or your religion. Grow up.’
Sorry, I’m confused. I thought we had ‘a large problem of being insufficiently offensive in our twee discourse’.”
Much like Stuart, I have to say you’re not particularly worth talking to if you’re not willing to back up what you’re saying. You’ll notice in this post I haven’t even tried to argue with anything you’ve said because frankly what’s the point in arguing opinions over unproven statements?
July 29th, 2008 on 11:46
As referee, I call a foul against Nick here.
Nick, you stated:
“Are you suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance in having to accept phrases like “Scotland for the Scots” as left-wing, but “England for the English” as right?”
Stu has then since asked you repeatedly to indicate any incident of “Scotland for the Scots” in any literature of the SNP in the last eighty years. A not unreasonable claim, since you suggested one would need to accept such phrases to support the SNP.
Your foul is when you say:
“And again, where exactly did I say that the SNP would exclude or expol non-Scots from Scotland?”
That Stuart rephrased your previous claim to its natural conclusion is not a way out of this. What about responding to all the other times you’ve been asked to prove the statement you *did* make? That’s cheating. Yellow card.
July 29th, 2008 on 18:49
Man, the seaside was AWESOME!
I see the standard of debate didn’t improve while I was away, which I wish I could claim to be surprised about. We seem to have landed in a clear pattern – you say X, I say “X is patently untrue bollocks, kindly support it with a source”, and you say “I never said X!” before going off on some laughable, irrelevant new tangent in a ham-fisted attempt to draw attention away from your humiliation.
You say the SNP are “little different to the BNP”, an openly racist party who advocate the total closing of Britain’s borders to immigrants, and “repatriation” of those they do not consider ethnically British.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/02/bnp-policies/
Do you or do you fucking not believe that the SNP has similar beliefs and aims with regard to Scotland, namely that it should be “for the Scots” only? If so, kindly provide some kind of proper source in support of that assertion, namely any manner of SNP literature ever making such a statement or anything close to it. If not, the manly thing to do would be apologise and then fuck off with your tail between your legs, promising to never say something so outright cretinous ever again as long as you live.
I’m off to Wales tomorrow (even though I hate all non-Scottish people). You’ve got another whole day. I won’t hold my breath.
July 30th, 2008 on 08:37
Excuse me, Mr Campbell, but what is the demand for nationhood if it is not making an exclusive power-claim for the inhabitants for that nation? Whilst it might well be gracious enough not to burn down the houses of those who remain who aren’t in the special club, please explain exactly how the SNP’s demand for a NATION is not demanding Scotland for the Scots? Why do I need a banner with these exact words printed on them when this is logically, consistently and necessary the SNP’s policy?
I have found a number of professed SNP supporters saying “Scotland for the Scots” in comments to Scotsman articles and the like, but cannot find any photos of official SNP banners saying the same. But I ask again – why would it be shocking so to find?
July 30th, 2008 on 08:41
Again, articles like this make for interesting reading, as do the comments. Again, you can ignore it all as hearsay and unrepresentative, but this would be mendacious. You cannot deny that it is politically useful for the SNP to stir up divisive currents which result in things like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2007/06/leaving_bigotry_in_the_past.html
“I have been surprised by the level of casual racism and sectarianism here in Scotland since ariving three years ago.
On the tube a couple of weeks ago – a Saturday – a group of teenage football supporters were singing sectarian songs. I imagine they had no real understanding of the words or history behind the song, but it was saddening all the same.
Whilst I have seen no sign at all from senior SNP figures that they have racist/sectarian tendencies, I am struck when speaking to SNP voters how there is often a ‘Scotland for the Scots’ subtext which is very worrying.”
July 30th, 2008 on 08:52
John, did I say that the SNP would *exclude* non-Scots? Since when does “Scotland for the Scots” mean “Removed Everyone Else From Scotland”? To me, it means “make sure that Scotland is ruled by Scots, and any other group or powerblock is to be considered second class thereto”. The model is more Caliphate (where second class citizens are allowed to live in cowering submission) than Nazi Germany (where second class citizens are not allowed).
July 30th, 2008 on 10:45
I like how you keep posting random people’s comments to articles as if they are somehow gospel! (Though I think your most recent quote is especially sneaky, as the way you posted it makes it look like Brian Taylor wrote it. Which he didn’t – and his article is about religious divisions, anyway.)
However, I think you might have undone yourself, anyway. It appears your statement “Are you suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance in having to accept phrases like ‘Scotland for the Scots’ as left-wing, but ‘England for the English’ as right?”
Is based on the idea in this quote “please explain exactly how the SNP’s demand for a NATION is not demanding Scotland for the Scots?”
you may note that your original statement makes reference to “phrases”. You did not originally push the argument that the SNP’s “demand for a nation” was an inherently racist act, which is arguably a different sort of statement entirely. And is still one which implies no real link between SNP and BNP policies.
But it’s in your original statement that the seed of our request (to show us anywhere on official SNP literature, or even to show us any SNP party member, stating “Scotland for the Scots” or making any BNP-like statement.)
I’m saddened that you continue to shift the goalposts. Your final comment for example is again entirely a semantic argument and just another attempt to not stand up and either admit you are basing your concept that the SNP are a BNP-esque party on your own assumptions – that a “demand for a nation” is an inherently racist act. Or at least, that seems to be your assumption, feel free to prove me wrong.
July 31st, 2008 on 08:57
I don’t seem to see an answer to my question anywhere in those outpourings of increasingly desperate semantic hair-splitting and random irrelevant drivel. (But well done on noticing that there are still sectarian religious tensions in Scotland. What incredible insight will you dazzle us with next? That the politics of the Middle East are a little tricky? That fire is hot?)
Do you believe the SNP wish to implement racist policies such as closing Scotland’s borders to immigration and “repatriating” those they consider ethnically “non-Scottish”, or not?
Because, y’know, by definition the “inhabitants” of a country are EVERYONE who lives there, regardless of race, creed, political affiliation, hair colour, penis size, favourite Kylie Minogue song or anything else.
July 31st, 2008 on 09:29
Here’s someone with more patience for explaining the reality of Scottish “nationalism” to a humiliated idiot without the emotional or intellectual maturity to admit his ignorance than I have:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.2413521.0.for_whom_would_independence_be_a_catastrophe.php
August 2nd, 2008 on 09:25
“If not, the manly thing to do would be apologise and then fuck off with your tail between your legs”
Looks like you’re about half-manly, then. Good luck working your way up.
August 4th, 2008 on 16:58
“Do you believe the SNP wish to implement racist policies such as closing Scotland’s borders to immigration and “repatriating” those they consider ethnically “non-Scottish”, or not?”
As official policy? No. Would most of their members want this nevertheless? No. Does this mean that nationalism is not a noxious weed, however innocuous its initial bloom? No.
I am sorry that this has dissolved into a “has any member of the SNP said X, Y or Z and had it recorded in a nice MP3 somewhere” hissy fit. I have seen the party play nasty games with the semantics of ethnic nationhood without rising to such obvious and idiocies. That’s why I said, right from the beginning, that they were much better at this than the BNP. The BNP is inherently racist and bases its nationalism thereupon. The SNP is a little cloudy about what its nationalism actually means: some factions are racist, others define themselves by mere anti-Englishness, still others have a toddler-like “I want it I want it” mentality. Nationalism is never liberal. We’ll find out what its true mettle is if and when it gets the divorce it so keenly seeks from the nation below it whom it so keenly can’t stand.
August 5th, 2008 on 19:16
Or not even half, as it turns out. Oh well. At least we’ve progressed from “The SNP are little better than the BNP” to “Neither the SNP nor its supporters are racists, which is the BNP’s sole raison d’etre”. Quite a turnaround from your absurdly offensive initial hogwash, there, even if you’re too busy blustering to admit that’s what it is.
“Nationalism is never liberal” is awesome, though. I’d ask you to support that comedy Daily Mail generalisation with some sort of justification, but we all know where that leads.