Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Watched a link via Reddit and it took an hour to see everything come through. Surely 80k or so there? Not bad for being organised on the back of the election win.

I was trying to keep an eye on the flags (just out of interest) and spotted Saltires, Lion Rampant, EU, Yes, Catalan, Welsh, Irish, English, Italian, and even New Caledonia!

I've never been to one, but tempted to get to one this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lairdyfaeinverclyde said:

Don't really see an issue with ROI flags? Watching it today I seen, welsh flags, Catalonian flags, euro flags plus others. To me the more flags from other countries is a positive and supportive. If people make an issue with ROI flags then that say's more about them. Not having a go at you I get why you commented on this.

The only people who will have an issue with the ROI flag are a small minority of daft huns. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry i wasn't very clear, it was a banner that was about Irish unity that i seen. Personally i think we should keep that at arms length as it will be used as a tool to stir up division  

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting question as to what is divisive or not.

Banners about Tory c----s are presumably offensive to indy supporting Conservatives, or anyone moderately right of centre who doesn't fancy Scotland as a socialist utopia (no offence to socialist utopians!).  

Anything religious or sectarian could be seen to be divisive and have no place in an independence movement. 

However, I'd have thought that Scottish nationalists naturally have common cause with Irish nationalists as with Welsh or Catalan nationalists, etc. Not sure how you can be for Scottish self-determinism yet deny those seeking northern Ireland breaking away from Westminster? To do so would be no more logical than the George Galloway stance of supporting freedom for Ireland while shackling Scotland to the rest of Britain. 

At least, to support democratic Irish nationalism and the idea of a right to vote for a united Ireland is not so different from seeking the right to indyref2. I guess it depends on what the exact 'republican' expression was? 

Those who already say Sturgeon supports the IRA are unlikely to be wooed any time soon. 

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, exile said:

It's an interesting question as to what is divisive or not.

Banners about Tory c----s are presumably offensive to indy supporting Conservatives, or anyone moderately right of centre who doesn't fancy Scotland as a socialist utopia (no offence to socialist utopians!).  

Anything religious or sectarian could be seen to be divisive and have no place in an independence movement. 

However, I'd have thought that Scottish nationalists naturally have common cause with Irish nationalists as with Welsh or Catalan nationalists, etc. Not sure how you can be for Scottish self-determinism yet deny those seeking northern Ireland breaking away from Westminster? To do so would be no more logical than the George Galloway stance of supporting freedom for Ireland while shackling Scotland to the rest of Britain. 

At least, to support democratic Irish nationalism and the idea of a right to vote for a united Ireland is not so different from seeking the right to indyref2. I guess it depends on what the exact 'republican' expression was? 

Those who already say Sturgeon supports the IRA are unlikely to be wooed any time soon. 

Sums it up nicely for me. I fail to see what is wrong with the flag of a fellow Celtic nation proudly flying at the march.

On the point about potential hypocrisy, an auld boy I know whose father was involved with the SNP as far back as the thirties told me some fascinating tales passed from his father regarding the early days of the nationalist movement.

One of them which I found surprising and extremely disappointing was that John MacCormick was a monumental hypocrite. He was completely opposed to India and the African colonies becoming independent from Britain. He also discouraged attempts to form links with the young Welsh nationalist movement and would also infamously insist on party conferences ending with GSTK being sung. 

Contrary to MacCormick's highly selective version of events written years later, for a variety of reasons many within the early SNP were glad to see the back of him when he left in the early 1940s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Sums it up nicely for me. I fail to see what is wrong with the flag of a fellow Celtic nation proudly flying at the march.

On the point about potential hypocrisy, an auld boy I know whose father was involved with the SNP as far back as the thirties told me some fascinating tales passed from his father regarding the early days of the nationalist movement.

One of them which I found surprising and extremely disappointing was that John MacCormick was a monumental hypocrite. He was completely opposed to India and the African colonies becoming independent from Britain. He also discouraged attempts to form links with the young Welsh nationalist movement and would also infamously insist on party conferences ending with GSTK being sung. 

Contrary to MacCormick's highly selective version of events written years later, for a variety of reasons many within the early SNP were glad to see the back of him when he left in the early 1940s. 

I can understand that a Scottish nationalist monarchist might be a proud subject of the Kind of Scotland ('he's oors too') (though not so sure about proudly singing GSTK crushing rebellious Scots).

But on the colonial front, do you think he wished India and African colonies to remain subject to the rump UK? Or did he see them as subjects of His Majesty the King of Scotland too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2020/01/09/scottish-secretary-dismisses-snp-independence-referendum-demand/

Unionist hypocrisy knows no bounds. Sturgeon can admit that not all SNP election voters were Yes voters (yet) but this unionist cretin is adamant that all Tory and Labour voters support the union. He should look at facts before spouting such garbage. He should ask himself how there were 700,000 more Yes voters than had voted SNP in 2014. Where did those 700,000 votes came from - a big amount from Labour voters and some (well a few) Tory voters. But it won't stop Jack spouting crap to deny Scotland its rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2020/01/09/scottish-secretary-dismisses-snp-independence-referendum-demand/

Unionist hypocrisy knows no bounds. Sturgeon can admit that not all SNP election voters were Yes voters (yet) but this unionist cretin is adamant that all Tory and Labour voters support the union. He should look at facts before spouting such garbage. He should ask himself how there were 700,000 more Yes voters than had voted SNP in 2014. Where did those 700,000 votes came from - a big amount from Labour voters and some (well a few) Tory voters. But it won't stop Jack spouting crap to deny Scotland its rights.

Just to correct my own post there were actually just under 500,000 SNP votes at the 2010 General Election and then came IndyRef with the Yes votes getting 1.61 million votes so where did those 1.1 million votes come from Mr Jack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2020/01/09/scottish-secretary-dismisses-snp-independence-referendum-demand/

Unionist hypocrisy knows no bounds. Sturgeon can admit that not all SNP election voters were Yes voters (yet) but this unionist cretin is adamant that all Tory and Labour voters support the union. He should look at facts before spouting such garbage. He should ask himself how there were 700,000 more Yes voters than had voted SNP in 2014. Where did those 700,000 votes came from - a big amount from Labour voters and some (well a few) Tory voters. But it won't stop Jack spouting crap to deny Scotland its rights.

Gordon Brewer has just basically put this to Alister Jack right now on Politics Scotland and has pretty much dismantled his argument, also put to him that its ridiculous to claim that the Tories have any form of mandate on Brexit with 43% of the vote in the election but to claim that the same doesn't apply to the SNP.

They'll continue to peddle this line because basically they haven't got anything else to offer.   Their - dwindling - base, the never-Indys will lap it up, the more intelligent amongst them will recognise that its a strategy that can't win.  

The key is the people in the middle, who are either undecided or are more equivocal in their support for the Union, the exact group of people that need to be convinced to vote Yes to deliver the majority and I suspect this approach is one that's likely to move people that way and probably deliver the SNP another majority in 2021.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would not be hard to imagine support for indy now being over 50%. There must be a number of those who were holding out, one more push, for a Corbynist socialist utopia, and passionate pro Remainers voting Lib Dem to stop Brexit, who were not voting SNP in GE but who might now switch if its the only chance of any sort of progressive, European outcome via indy. Add in 16 and 17 year olds and EU citizens denied a GE vote... All to play for....

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, aaid said:

Gordon Brewer has just basically put this to Alister Jack right now on Politics Scotland and has pretty much dismantled his argument, also put to him that its ridiculous to claim that the Tories have any form of mandate on Brexit with 43% of the vote in the election but to claim that the same doesn't apply to the SNP.

They'll continue to peddle this line because basically they haven't got anything else to offer.   Their - dwindling - base, the never-Indys will lap it up, the more intelligent amongst them will recognise that its a strategy that can't win.  

The key is the people in the middle, who are either undecided or are more equivocal in their support for the Union, the exact group of people that need to be convinced to vote Yes to deliver the majority and I suspect this approach is one that's likely to move people that way and probably deliver the SNP another majority in 2021.

I am just gobsmacked that nobody else (that I have seen) have called him out about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I am just gobsmacked that nobody else (that I have seen) have called him out about this.

TBH, that's pretty much how it is as far as any form of political reporting in the UK.   It's only when politicians sit down for these 1-1 interviews that they stand a chance of having their views questioned, which is why a lot - particularly those that can only lose from it - are reluctant to do it.

You'll have opinion pieces from columnists on both print and broadcast media saying, my guy good/your guy bad.   For "News" reporting you'll have a politician from one side saying "X,Y & Z" and then the reporter will say "but critics say" and give the counter from the other side.    

That results in a kind of he said/she said approach, which I suppose is impartial but suffers from false equivalence and doesn't inform the debate, which the BBC are particularly bad for.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, aaid said:

TBH, that's pretty much how it is as far as any form of political reporting in the UK.   It's only when politicians sit down for these 1-1 interviews that they stand a chance of having their views questioned, which is why a lot - particularly those that can only lose from it - are reluctant to do it.

You'll have opinion pieces from columnists on both print and broadcast media saying, my guy good/your guy bad.   For "News" reporting you'll have a politician from one side saying "X,Y & Z" and then the reporter will say "but critics say" and give the counter from the other side.    

That results in a kind of he said/she said approach, which I suppose is impartial but suffers from false equivalence and doesn't inform the debate, which the BBC are particularly bad for.  

Yes I get that. However, Jack and Johnson are using this totally false reasoning and making it into a legitimate reason for denying a second IndyRef and too many are accepting it as fact and a valid reason which it is not. Still I feel it just helps pull more voters across into the Yes camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, I've just seen the banner in question pop up in Facebook.   It was shared by someone who I knew growing up, who is a really nice guy politics aside, but its safe to say is never going to vote Yes in a million years and judging by the comments on it - and the number of band uniforms in profile pictures, I doubt many of them will be either.   Usual SNP/Sinn Fein bollocks.

It's from this group - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairde_na_hÉireann

Seems their primary objectives are all around a United Ireland rather than Scottish Independence - not suggesting that they don't support that though - but I suppose its worth asking whether or not they're looking to hijack events like yesterday's for their own agenda and if so, is that accpetable.

It does look to me a bit like that rather than it being a case of Yes supporters showing solidarity with other groups seeking independence, i.e. Catalonia, Wales or indeed Northern Ireland.

Oh and by the way, apparently the media are silent on this because the SNP are the media.

Edited by aaid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51082184

So in other words for Allister Jack there will never be a mandate for a second Indy Ref until a lifetime/generation has passed since 2014.

This is good.  The indy referendum happened and people haven't aged enough yet for it to happen again. 

Think of 2014 as a standing order that doesn't expire for a while yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bonny79 said:

This is good.  The indy referendum happened and people haven't aged enough yet for it to happen again. 

Think of 2014 as a standing order that doesn't expire for a while yet. 

What are you so worried about? Your case is clearly the strongest and the best path to follow, so let the people have their say on it. The landscape has changed completely since the last vote, only an arsehole would deny this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if I were the Yes movement I'd ask Westminster to provide evidence within the Scotland Bill for the 2014 Independence Referendum about any part stating it was solely a 'once in a lifetime/generation' event. It did not and that is all that matters. If they want to point to what Salmond said then in that case can we hand a gun to Johnson so he can shoot himself in a ditch?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Well if I were the Yes movement I'd ask Westminster to provide evidence within the Scotland Bill for the 2014 Independence Referendum about any part stating it was solely a 'once in a lifetime/generation' event. It did not and that is all that matters. If they want to point to what Salmond said then in that case can we hand a gun to Johnson so he can shoot himself in a ditch?

 

Well the Smith Commission said, "“It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”  

So there is no legal or even common sense basis to limit when the next decision in independence be made.

And it can't be based on cherry-picked campaign quotes, else we could have a field day with Brown's promises of Devo Max and federalism, not to mention 'vote No to stay in the EU'. 

Only someone who's desperate or in denial would seriously use 'once in a generation' as anything other than an empty stalling tactic.  It's the Tories' weakness that since GE2019, they are not even saying Holyrood 2021 would be a mandate, they must be running scared. 

It's about time the EU and UN were consulted on when this talk of 'over your dead body' becomes denial of democracy and self-determination, and the conditions for recognition of an indyref2 mandate.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Farcity said:

What are you so worried about? Your case is clearly the strongest and the best path to follow, so let the people have their say on it. The landscape has changed completely since the last vote, only an arsehole would deny this. 

Not worried. Just joining in the discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bonny79 said:

This is good.  The indy referendum happened and people haven't aged enough yet for it to happen again. 

Think of 2014 as a standing order that doesn't expire for a while yet. 

Think of 2014 as a marriage. Your promised all sorts of things. For the last 5 years you've been lied too, not listened too, made to do things you don't want. So you believe because you made statements at your wedding service you need to stick with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Well if I were the Yes movement I'd ask Westminster to provide evidence within the Scotland Bill for the 2014 Independence Referendum about any part stating it was solely a 'once in a lifetime/generation' event. It did not and that is all that matters. If they want to point to what Salmond said then in that case can we hand a gun to Johnson so he can shoot himself in a ditch?

 

I’ve been saying this for months. 

Given that this is a supposedly competent UKgov who are entrusted to negotiate our future outside the EU - surely they would have written this into the referendum bill. 

We know that the didn’t. 

They know that they didn’t. 

Lets highlight that fact and blow away this once in a generation nonsense. If they didn’t write it into the rules then you don’t get to retrospectively choose the rules based on selective soundbites. 

The SNP should probably have done a better job on dismantling it by now. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lairdyfaeinverclyde said:

Think of 2014 as a marriage. Your promised all sorts of things. For the last 5 years you've been lied too, not listened too, made to do things you don't want. So you believe because you made statements at your wedding service you need to stick with it?

A marriage that went to a vote?? 

Nah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...