Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
I am for justice and truth You are a nationalist He/She is a Nazi.
But that is what they call themselves, which is rather the point!
No nationalist ever says that *their* nationalism (or allied nationalisms) are problematic.
Since the idea that "nationalism" is bad has gained currency, you get nationalists who furiously deny they are nationalists.
The Catalan independistas can't very well call themselves nacionalistas, as that is already taken (in Castilian in a Spanish context), can they? So they have to use something else.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
Point taken. But my understanding is why it’s big sometimes and not others.
I’ll take it as yes, you’ll all help so I will start.
I start from believing point of politics I feel we need to be forging ties and building up cooperation and partnership, I feel cooperation against the real issues are falling apart in push for regional independence, and I to extent blame Nationalism for that.
In fact I don’t - I actually blame the turning to Nationalism by mistake for it because of the times we live in. And I explain that like this.
Can Nationalism run a nation for the benefit of foreign capital not its people? Of course bloody not, people turn to Nationalism to push back against all that. So is it just coincidence there’s rise not just for Scottish Nationalism, but for more localism and autonomy too throughout the UK, after decades of globalisation ravaging our local areas and communities - while governments in London were cocooned and seemly oblivious?
So no, I can understand the popularity of Nationalism right now, but to pursue your own self interest or worse play on fear or frustration for what’s wrong as being outside your borders, onto other peoples other nationalisms and governments, is not the way to achieve the local, regional and global cooperation that’s really needed for you right now.
We all need to be anti-nationalism not pro nationalism right now to achieve the solutions in my honest opinion.
I still believe to get the arrangements needed to live together well and happy, Nationalism is bad option. Anti-nationalism stance much smarter.
Part 2.
So to use the Scottish independence as example, and calling on SNP supporters to help because you know what you are talking about so can teach those of us actually listening to you,
1. Independence from what? 2. Once achieved, what does success look like, what in particular brings happiness and contentment? 3. What is the question being asked in a referendum?
Part 3
So to remind again of my view why nationalism becomes popular, it’s because you have enemies, either real or partly imaginary and bigged up by unscrupulous politicians is why we turn to Nationalism. Not that Sturgeon and all SNP are unscrupulous, not at all, because there is very real enemy - globalisation why Scotland go Nationalist, and maybe Trump too, and brexit or part of same thing why people want to push back.
And Nationalism also popular where you don’t have enough self determination for your common origin, ethnicity, or cultural identity like language, to pursue self determination is a right thing if you are sure you don’t have enough of it - such as how the Catalonian feel.
I’m not hostile to Scottish independence. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke where ever you are like I am is how I feel about it. And Irish Nationalists gained freedom from London, and it’s working good for them. If you can be in a happier place I am actually happy to help you get there, if it doesn’t come at the expense of others. My concern is actually the opposite of hostility.
It seems to me, and happy to be put right if metaphor does not work, Scotland is currently in a long marriage and is asking for a divorce. What this means in practice is, it is in an arrangement, and it is asking for new arrangements going forward? That is it in simple nutshell?
So is it fair and sensible for a referendum to ask “would you like to switch to a new arrangement?” without clarity of detail of that arrangement short term at least, and direction of travel likely to be taken in medium term?
This isn’t me trying to stop separatism, or deny the will of Scottish Nationalists to switch from one arrangement to another, where they will be happier and feel independent and free - I am just trying to define what that success and happy place is come the end and plot best route for getting there.
5. To achieve that new arrangement, does it require concessions from both divorcing parties? 6. If so, what is Scottish Nationalism going to concede?
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
That final sentence is a masterpiece of deadpan.
Still reading, having fast forwarded from an earlier mention which is also a fine exampler of deadpan
"On 25 August extreme measures were therefore being taken to preserve the extremely limited capacity at the airport. The measures taken include the Foreign Office requesting HMA Kabul not evacuate the embassy guards, British soldiers (entirely correctly) forcibly removing people from the Baron Hotel, and the Foreign Office refusing numerous requests from Secretaries of State to evacuate highly eligible people. In this context, we received an instruction from the Prime Minister to use considerable capacity to transport Nowzad’s animals."
The bit towards the end (224 on, I think) about issuing (or rather failing to issue) visas in order to facilitate escape through third countries - in this case Pakistan - also suggests major systemic failure.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
It's a telegraph article - given the other publicity I suspect this has everything to do with the Telegraph point scoring and nothing at all to do with what is a very expensive BBC / PBS joint production.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
It's a telegraph article - given the other publicity I suspect this has everything to do with the Telegraph and nothing at all to do with what is a very expensive BBC / PBS joint production.
It isn't the Telegraph, its David Tennant's own words.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
Surely the Taliban would be horrified by the prospect of naked female animals just wandering around, and the effect that would have on male animals?
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
Surely the Taliban would be horrified by the prospect of naked female animals just wandering around, and the effect that would have on male animals?
"There was a direct trade-off between transporting Nowzad’s animals and evacuating British nationals and Afghans evacuees, including Afghans who had served with British soldiers. 213. This is because soldiers tasked with escorting the dogs through the crowd and into the airport would by definition have otherwise been deployed to support the evacuation of British nationals or Afghans prioritised for evacuation, notably by helping families out of the dangerous crowd into the airport. As noted in paragraph 125, the limited number of British soldiers available to help UK visa holders and British citizens from the crowd into the airport was an important limiting factor on our ability to evacuate people. 214. Nowzad’s staff were subsequently granted visas for the UK and assisted to cross into Pakistan. This was an exception to our then policy. At this point, we were not granting further visas to any other Afghans even if they had served the UK and were at direct risk of murder."
I have just read Raphael Marshall's Select Committee submission which paints a truly horrendous picture of government and senior civil service incompetence.
I assume Marshall is in his 20s (3 years into the CS Fast Stream). Aside from the utter shits that Raab and Johnson come across as, what an absolutely terrible position Marshall and his colleagues were put in.
Thanks to whoever first posted the link to the submission - here it is again.
He writes: 'Despite the urgency of the situation, the default expectation remained that FCDO staff would only work eight hours a day, five days a week.
Staff were only asked to work shifts for which they volunteered. This likely resulted in a lack of night shifts and limited cover over the weekend because these shifts were less popular... I believe this reflects a deliberate drive by the FCDO to prioritise 'work-life balance'.'
He says staff who worked more than their designated hours 'were often encouraged to leave by colleagues' and senior leaders suggested working more than eight hours was 'inefficient'.
---
Seems like the civil service aren't fit for purpose and too busy going to trending talks during work time. I thought the whole point of the civil service was even if ministers were shit (which Raab clearly is), that they formed a backbone of the establishment to ensure crucial things got done, not clock watch and say well that's my 8hrs done, I'm off to Netflix and chill, while some Afghan interrupters get killed by the Taliban.
I agree. In a way though it makes it even more damaging for the government, because a) the account seems balanced in its criticism and therfore more plausible, and b) the this is the FCO we have after 11 years of Conservative rule - why?
One of the most telling points he makes is that the political judgment on priorities for evacuation was essentially meaningless, since the two categories which were reasonable objective effectively encompassed several million people. And the third was utterly unclear in its meaning.
just reading about the pets affair:
" PJHQ pointed out correctly that there was no reason to believe the Taliban would target animal rights charities. There was therefore no justification for concluding that Nowzad’s staff were at significant risk. By contrast many others would inevitably be left behind who were at risk of murder. [...] Similarly the protection of domestic animals was not a UK war aim in Afghanistan."
Surely the Taliban would be horrified by the prospect of naked female animals just wandering around, and the effect that would have on male animals?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
There is however something rather Stalinesque about the efforts by a few PB right-wingers to re-write history and pretend the Nazis were left wing...
Presumably in their eyes right-wing extremism has never led to any nastiness, never - oh no!
It's amazing the lengths lefties will go to defend Nationalism as long as it's Scottish Nationalism
Not me pal - I despise all forms of Nationalism and tbh am deeply suspicious of patriotism, since it leads to nowhere good.
Excellent! - another Team Yoon member! great to have you in the squad.
In other news - I have to go on a beer run.
Laters.
With the weather here right now, going anywhere seems most unwise.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
Point taken. But my understanding is why it’s big sometimes and not others.
I’ll take it as yes, you’ll all help so I will start.
I start from believing point of politics I feel we need to be forging ties and building up cooperation and partnership, I feel cooperation against the real issues are falling apart in push for regional independence, and I to extent blame Nationalism for that.
In fact I don’t - I actually blame the turning to Nationalism by mistake for it because of the times we live in. And I explain that like this.
Can Nationalism run a nation for the benefit of foreign capital not its people? Of course bloody not, people turn to Nationalism to push back against all that. So is it just coincidence there’s rise not just for Scottish Nationalism, but for more localism and autonomy too throughout the UK, after decades of globalisation ravaging our local areas and communities - while governments in London were cocooned and seemly oblivious?
So no, I can understand the popularity of Nationalism right now, but to pursue your own self interest or worse play on fear or frustration for what’s wrong as being outside your borders, onto other peoples other nationalisms and governments, is not the way to achieve the local, regional and global cooperation that’s really needed for you right now.
We all need to be anti-nationalism not pro nationalism right now to achieve the solutions in my honest opinion.
I still believe to get the arrangements needed to live together well and happy, Nationalism is bad option. Anti-nationalism stance much smarter.
Part 2.
So to use the Scottish independence as example, and calling on SNP supporters to help because you know what you are talking about so can teach those of us actually listening to you,
1. Independence from what? 2. Once achieved, what does success look like, what in particular brings happiness and contentment? 3. What is the question being asked in a referendum?
Part 3
So to remind again of my view why nationalism becomes popular, it’s because you have enemies, either real or partly imaginary and bigged up by unscrupulous politicians is why we turn to Nationalism. Not that Sturgeon and all SNP are unscrupulous, not at all, because there is very real enemy - globalisation why Scotland go Nationalist, and maybe Trump too, and brexit or part of same thing why people want to push back.
And Nationalism also popular where you don’t have enough self determination for your common origin, ethnicity, or cultural identity like language, to pursue self determination is a right thing if you are sure you don’t have enough of it - such as how the Catalonian feel.
I’m not hostile to Scottish independence. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke where ever you are like I am is how I feel about it. And Irish Nationalists gained freedom from London, and it’s working good for them. If you can be in a happier place I am actually happy to help you get there, if it doesn’t come at the expense of others. My concern is actually the opposite of hostility.
It seems to me, and happy to be put right if metaphor does not work, Scotland is currently in a long marriage and is asking for a divorce. What this means in practice is, it is in an arrangement, and it is asking for new arrangements going forward? That is it in simple nutshell?
So is it fair and sensible for a referendum to ask “would you like to switch to a new arrangement?” without clarity of detail of that arrangement short term at least, and direction of travel likely to be taken in medium term?
This isn’t me trying to stop separatism, or deny the will of Scottish Nationalists to switch from one arrangement to another, where they will be happier and feel independent and free - I am just trying to define what that success and happy place is come the end and plot best route for getting there.
5. To achieve that new arrangement, does it require concessions from both divorcing parties? 6. If so, what is Scottish Nationalism going to concede?
Part 4.
Is Nationalism the best way to drive and define this change to a happier place?
By that I mean define what success is, and the route to it - and next either take off or put on your nationalism tinted glasses and define it again. Is it always exactly the same place place and exactly the same route both times? Or does Nationalism help see something not entirely attainable. On nationalism route you don’t appreciate where you need bridges built and compromises must be made.
So how I would answer all five questions.
To my mind that happy place that is successful freedom for you is recognising foreign capital (which after independence can also be from your UK neighbours) is going to carry on eyeing up Scotland in this globalised economy - this means where it buys property for example, locals get priced out the market, global competition, as well as migration and automation will drag down wages or destroy decent employment opportunities in the coming years, as well a growing number of your businesses and assets answering to foreign owners (which again, could be your very near neighbours), so being in weak position to resist this foreign money can inflate the exchange rate you are using, (if you use your own) making exporting harder, reducing output in what manufacturing industry you have, leading to more good job losses.
In other words we know these crap globalisation things very well, you just have to come out in a stronger position after divorce to do something about them, not weaker position to do something about them. To be in that stronger position actually needs bridges and Nationlism to compromise.
To say you are rich because you are free, but actually having financial clout would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define success as that. Would you?
Yes I feel Scotland and all it’s cultural nationals can end up in a better happier place, but need to be mindful that it’s not a weaker place in terms of wealth and economic clout.
Both times you define the new arrangement and the journey to get there, with and without the nationism glasses on, does it look the same?
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
Point taken. But my understanding is why it’s big sometimes and not others.
I’ll take it as yes, you’ll all help so I will start.
I start from believing point of politics I feel we need to be forging ties and building up cooperation and partnership, I feel cooperation against the real issues are falling apart in push for regional independence, and I to extent blame Nationalism for that.
In fact I don’t - I actually blame the turning to Nationalism by mistake for it because of the times we live in. And I explain that like this.
Can Nationalism run a nation for the benefit of foreign capital not its people? Of course bloody not, people turn to Nationalism to push back against all that. So is it just coincidence there’s rise not just for Scottish Nationalism, but for more localism and autonomy too throughout the UK, after decades of globalisation ravaging our local areas and communities - while governments in London were cocooned and seemly oblivious?
So no, I can understand the popularity of Nationalism right now, but to pursue your own self interest or worse play on fear or frustration for what’s wrong as being outside your borders, onto other peoples other nationalisms and governments, is not the way to achieve the local, regional and global cooperation that’s really needed for you right now.
We all need to be anti-nationalism not pro nationalism right now to achieve the solutions in my honest opinion.
I still believe to get the arrangements needed to live together well and happy, Nationalism is bad option. Anti-nationalism stance much smarter.
Part 2.
So to use the Scottish independence as example, and calling on SNP supporters to help because you know what you are talking about so can teach those of us actually listening to you,
1. Independence from what? 2. Once achieved, what does success look like, what in particular brings happiness and contentment? 3. What is the question being asked in a referendum?
Part 3
So to remind again of my view why nationalism becomes popular, it’s because you have enemies, either real or partly imaginary and bigged up by unscrupulous politicians is why we turn to Nationalism. Not that Sturgeon and all SNP are unscrupulous, not at all, because there is very real enemy - globalisation why Scotland go Nationalist, and maybe Trump too, and brexit or part of same thing why people want to push back.
And Nationalism also popular where you don’t have enough self determination for your common origin, ethnicity, or cultural identity like language, to pursue self determination is a right thing if you are sure you don’t have enough of it - such as how the Catalonian feel.
I’m not hostile to Scottish independence. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke where ever you are like I am is how I feel about it. And Irish Nationalists gained freedom from London, and it’s working good for them. If you can be in a happier place I am actually happy to help you get there, if it doesn’t come at the expense of others. My concern is actually the opposite of hostility.
It seems to me, and happy to be put right if metaphor does not work, Scotland is currently in a long marriage and is asking for a divorce. What this means in practice is, it is in an arrangement, and it is asking for new arrangements going forward? That is it in simple nutshell?
So is it fair and sensible for a referendum to ask “would you like to switch to a new arrangement?” without clarity of detail of that arrangement short term at least, and direction of travel likely to be taken in medium term?
This isn’t me trying to stop separatism, or deny the will of Scottish Nationalists to switch from one arrangement to another, where they will be happier and feel independent and free - I am just trying to define what that success and happy place is come the end and plot best route for getting there.
5. To achieve that new arrangement, does it require concessions from both divorcing parties? 6. If so, what is Scottish Nationalism going to concede?
On the Irish nationalism - I was in a debate with some Irish nationalists online a while back. My point about where the Unionists would fit in the structure of the Dail, in the event of NI joining the South inspired an interesting debate. One rather... Republican type was shocked that they thought Protestants should be allowed a voice - that any that "spoke up" after unification should be "put in their place".
He was roundly condemned, with the comment that he should F&^k off and get a blue shirt.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Nationalism is the answer as to how to make people otherwise feel better about being stuck in, objectively, a shit place to live. If you already live in a decent place, really, you don’t need it. Quiet pride, and some altruism in respect of the rest of the world, is entirely sufficient.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
"101 additional confirmed cases of the #Omicron variant of COVID-19 have been reported across the UK. The total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the UK is 437."
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
Point taken. But my understanding is why it’s big sometimes and not others.
I’ll take it as yes, you’ll all help so I will start.
I start from believing point of politics I feel we need to be forging ties and building up cooperation and partnership, I feel cooperation against the real issues are falling apart in push for regional independence, and I to extent blame Nationalism for that.
In fact I don’t - I actually blame the turning to Nationalism by mistake for it because of the times we live in. And I explain that like this.
Can Nationalism run a nation for the benefit of foreign capital not its people? Of course bloody not, people turn to Nationalism to push back against all that. So is it just coincidence there’s rise not just for Scottish Nationalism, but for more localism and autonomy too throughout the UK, after decades of globalisation ravaging our local areas and communities - while governments in London were cocooned and seemly oblivious?
So no, I can understand the popularity of Nationalism right now, but to pursue your own self interest or worse play on fear or frustration for what’s wrong as being outside your borders, onto other peoples other nationalisms and governments, is not the way to achieve the local, regional and global cooperation that’s really needed for you right now.
We all need to be anti-nationalism not pro nationalism right now to achieve the solutions in my honest opinion.
I still believe to get the arrangements needed to live together well and happy, Nationalism is bad option. Anti-nationalism stance much smarter.
Part 2.
So to use the Scottish independence as example, and calling on SNP supporters to help because you know what you are talking about so can teach those of us actually listening to you,
1. Independence from what? 2. Once achieved, what does success look like, what in particular brings happiness and contentment? 3. What is the question being asked in a referendum?
Part 3
So to remind again of my view why nationalism becomes popular, it’s because you have enemies, either real or partly imaginary and bigged up by unscrupulous politicians is why we turn to Nationalism. Not that Sturgeon and all SNP are unscrupulous, not at all, because there is very real enemy - globalisation why Scotland go Nationalist, and maybe Trump too, and brexit or part of same thing why people want to push back.
And Nationalism also popular where you don’t have enough self determination for your common origin, ethnicity, or cultural identity like language, to pursue self determination is a right thing if you are sure you don’t have enough of it - such as how the Catalonian feel.
I’m not hostile to Scottish independence. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke where ever you are like I am is how I feel about it. And Irish Nationalists gained freedom from London, and it’s working good for them. If you can be in a happier place I am actually happy to help you get there, if it doesn’t come at the expense of others. My concern is actually the opposite of hostility.
It seems to me, and happy to be put right if metaphor does not work, Scotland is currently in a long marriage and is asking for a divorce. What this means in practice is, it is in an arrangement, and it is asking for new arrangements going forward? That is it in simple nutshell?
So is it fair and sensible for a referendum to ask “would you like to switch to a new arrangement?” without clarity of detail of that arrangement short term at least, and direction of travel likely to be taken in medium term?
This isn’t me trying to stop separatism, or deny the will of Scottish Nationalists to switch from one arrangement to another, where they will be happier and feel independent and free - I am just trying to define what that success and happy place is come the end and plot best route for getting there.
5. To achieve that new arrangement, does it require concessions from both divorcing parties? 6. If so, what is Scottish Nationalism going to concede?
Part 4.
Is Nationalism the best way to drive and define this change to a happier place?
By that I mean define what success is, and the route to it - and next either take off or put on your nationalism tinted glasses and define it again. Is it always exactly the same place place and exactly the same route both times? Or does Nationalism help see something not entirely attainable. On nationalism route you don’t appreciate where you need bridges built and compromises must be made.
So how I would answer all five questions.
To my mind that happy place that is successful freedom for you is recognising foreign capital (which after independence can also be from your UK neighbours) is going to carry on eyeing up Scotland in this globalised economy - this means where it buys property for example, locals get priced out the market, global competition, as well as migration and automation will drag down wages or destroy decent employment opportunities in the coming years, as well a growing number of your businesses and assets answering to foreign owners (which again, could be your very near neighbours), so being in weak position to resist this foreign money can inflate the exchange rate you are using, (if you use your own) making exporting harder, reducing output in what manufacturing industry you have, leading to more good job losses.
In other words we know these crap globalisation things very well, you just have to come out in a stronger position after divorce to do something about them, not weaker position to do something about them. To be in that stronger position actually needs bridges and Nationlism to compromise.
To say you are rich because you are free, but actually having financial clout would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define success as that. Would you?
Yes I feel Scotland and all it’s cultural nationals can end up in a better happier place, but need to be mindful that it’s not a weaker place in terms of wealth and economic clout.
Both times you define the new arrangement and the journey to get there, with and without the nationism glasses on, does it look the same?
Part 5. And finally
I use me as example. My Dad owns land and businesses not local to London. He is buying property in London (me and my friend live in this lovely flat for free) but is this not pricing proper London people out of the property ladder here? A capital wealth thing from somewhere else changing the way of life of social groups people thst doesn’t have the wealth. (Yes I sensitive it means I may be doing wrong thing, but at least I am not Russian or Chinese I’m British!)
What I mean is that is how I would define successful Scottish independence as being actually in a stronger place not weaker place to defend yourself from these things. Happy to help you to a happier place, but I don’t want to help you end up in a worse or weaker position for being able to fight back against many many bad globalised wealth things.
Do you get the point I’m making? Thst if you know your true enemy, and you pick your friends - it makes seeing the journey and necessary compromises on the journey and the fact you need to build bridges to end up in strong place.
Thanks to whoever posted about the ability to walk in at certain London centres.
After being turned down by my local pharmacy twice (for being 5 months not 6 since my last jab), I just got Pfizered at St Leonard’s Hospital in Hoxton.
How did you managed that? I though the gap had to be six months.
It is. At least for the moment. But at the bigger centres, I think, they have already relaxed that rule.
The queue was asked first whether their last jab was “more than 3 months ago”.
Why? - the workshare on this has been painfully scripted with every Euro argued over. The French government will have had to put their chop on it to go forward....
Nationalism has nothing to do with enemies, real or perceived.
Some people can use "enemies" to exploit things, but then so can almost any philosophy and the "enemy within" is often more hated than the external one. Hence the long-running People's Front of Judea meme: the heretic is worse than the infidel.
Nationalism at its core is little more than self-determination, it is the belief that one's own nation should be running itself. At their core, almost everyone on the planet is a nationalist, just the definition of nation may vary.
People like to act like the opposite of nationalism is globalism, but almost nobody actually wants a completely global world government and there is little more horrific a concept than that to me. The opposite of nationalism in reality is often imperialism - the belief that a nation should be ruled by another nation, instead of their own.
Hence why Gandhi was a nationalist. He believed India should be ruled by Indians rather than Britons.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
Why? - the workshare on this has been painfully scripted with every Euro argued over. The French government will have had to put their chop on it to go forward....
It awards a big chunk to the UK, hardly a consequence of Brexit.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
The Corries; Flower of Scotland is, yes, about Bannockburn as well - but it doesn't have the burden that Eabhal places on it in the last verse - no suggesttion of a future repulse of the invader. Nor for that matter doews the Burns one. Just generic anti-tyrant stuff.
Nationalism has nothing to do with enemies, real or perceived.
Some people can use "enemies" to exploit things, but then so can almost any philosophy and the "enemy within" is often more hated than the external one. Hence the long-running People's Front of Judea meme: the heretic is worse than the infidel.
Nationalism at its core is little more than self-determination, it is the belief that one's own nation should be running itself. At their core, almost everyone on the planet is a nationalist, just the definition of nation may vary.
People like to act like the opposite of nationalism is globalism, but almost nobody actually wants a completely global world government and there is little more horrific a concept than that to me. The opposite of nationalism in reality is often imperialism - the belief that a nation should be ruled by another nation, instead of their own.
Hence why Gandhi was a nationalist. He believed India should be ruled by Indians rather than Britons.
Globalism is just another example of supra-nationalism. The migration of nationalism to larger and larger units.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
Flower of Scotland composed in the 1960s. There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
You are not exactly an impartial observer on this issue. Its perfectly valid to criticise something we are forced to pay a tax for. When that isn't the case, they can do what they like and let the market decide.
Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.
What you're really referring to is "the endless intrusion of modern social values into entertainment" or to put it another way 'entertainment follows the fashions of the day'.
'Twas ever thus and, in a free country, ever will be.
Nationalism has nothing to do with enemies, real or perceived.
Some people can use "enemies" to exploit things, but then so can almost any philosophy and the "enemy within" is often more hated than the external one. Hence the long-running People's Front of Judea meme: the heretic is worse than the infidel.
Nationalism at its core is little more than self-determination, it is the belief that one's own nation should be running itself. At their core, almost everyone on the planet is a nationalist, just the definition of nation may vary.
People like to act like the opposite of nationalism is globalism, but almost nobody actually wants a completely global world government and there is little more horrific a concept than that to me. The opposite of nationalism in reality is often imperialism - the belief that a nation should be ruled by another nation, instead of their own.
Hence why Gandhi was a nationalist. He believed India should be ruled by Indians rather than Britons.
Globalism is just another example of supra-nationalism. The migration of nationalism to larger and larger units.
Exactly. You get a lot of "European Nationalists" on this site looking down their nose at "nationalists" without realising they themselves have become Nationalists just their definition of nation has varied.
If you believe in European Nationalism then that's no different to English, Scottish, Welsh, British or Indian nationalism or any other type.
As Orwell wrote, there are a lot of forms of nationalist.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
Flower of Scotland composed in the 1960s. There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
Quite; Murrayfield is hardly Yes Stadium when the rugger buggers are out in force. So their adoption of it is interestingly dissonant with some perceptions.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
Why? - the workshare on this has been painfully scripted with every Euro argued over. The French government will have had to put their chop on it to go forward....
It awards a big chunk to the UK, hardly a consequence of Brexit.
AIUI only because the multinational concerned has the specialist faqcilities in the UK, rather than any specific UK award.
Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
Seems to me it's not so much shifting as closing. On policy the differences between Cons and Lab are small. The choice is stark imo but it's on ethics and competence.
The key difference for me is that the government has been bloody awful on civil liberties this last 2 years, and Labour have been clamouring at every opportunity to be worse. That's why Labour won't be picking up my vote.
If your main beef is the Cons have been too lockdowny then, no, Lab make no sense for you since they have been even more so. Tice's party is the obvious one for you to consider, I'd say.
Or you could stick with Johnson, of course, but to do that you will have to remove ethics and competence from the list of things you are voting on.
Tice's Party is outright libertarian - much more so than run-of-the-Mill (geddit) liberals can stomach. Too right wing. So much to object to there.
Liberals like me and others on here, perhaps Cookie, are regretful that LibDems haven't supplied much, if any, opposition to the civil liberty side of things.
This Tory govt are doing lots of things that are illiberal. A true liberal will be concerned about (eg) the criminal justice system being neglected, the independent judiciary being slapped around, the right to protest being curtailed, human rights law being seen as a bug not a feature. Anybody getting worried about (eg) masks in shops but not about all this other stuff isn't a liberal at all. Tice being a good example of this, I agree, hence why his pitch isn't for liberals. But neither is it really for libertarians imo. I think to call him that grants him too much intellectual coherence. His pitch is for anti-lockdowners, which is a constituency in its own right.
His pitch is "people like me ought not to be inconvenienced in the slightest. An outrageous infringement on Liberty which cannot stand!!!"
People not like him (the accused, victims of crime, protesters, immigrants, etc.) deserve everything they get.
Pretty much precisely it.
"Today, institutions fundamental to the British system of Government are under attack the public schools, the house of Lords, the Church of England, the holy institution of Marriage, even our magnificent police force are no longer safe from those who would undermine our society, and it's about time we said 'enough is enough' and saw a return to the traditional British values of discipline, obedience, morality and freedom. What we want is Freedom from the reds and the blacks and the criminals Prostitutes, pansies and punks Football hooligans, juvenile delinquents Lesbians and left wing scum Freedom from the n.....s and the p....s and the unions Freedom from the Gipsies and the Jews Freedom from leftwing layabouts and liberals Freedom from the likes of YOU"
In times past I might have watched Doctor Who (much prefer Old to New). But they utterly buggered the lore by having the imbecile in charge impose revisionist bullshit.
I know many like Call the Midwife, but it's not the sort of thing I'd watch. Which leaves...? Worth stressing I've never watched tons of TV. But I'd be surprised if you can suggest anything that will end up being as entertaining as Blake's 7.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
You are not exactly an impartial observer on this issue. Its perfectly valid to criticise something we are forced to pay a tax for. When that isn't the case, they can do what they like and let the market decide.
It's a cross country TV production - one that will have more than covered its production costs well before production began.
You can tell that from the fact a second series has been ordered before the first has been shown anywhere.
Or you can believe the typical biased crap of the Telegraph trying to find newspaper readers (Telegraph £100 a year, Times £26 a month minimum).
Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.
Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
Point taken. But my understanding is why it’s big sometimes and not others.
I’ll take it as yes, you’ll all help so I will start.
I start from believing point of politics I feel we need to be forging ties and building up cooperation and partnership, I feel cooperation against the real issues are falling apart in push for regional independence, and I to extent blame Nationalism for that.
In fact I don’t - I actually blame the turning to Nationalism by mistake for it because of the times we live in. And I explain that like this.
Can Nationalism run a nation for the benefit of foreign capital not its people? Of course bloody not, people turn to Nationalism to push back against all that. So is it just coincidence there’s rise not just for Scottish Nationalism, but for more localism and autonomy too throughout the UK, after decades of globalisation ravaging our local areas and communities - while governments in London were cocooned and seemly oblivious?
So no, I can understand the popularity of Nationalism right now, but to pursue your own self interest or worse play on fear or frustration for what’s wrong as being outside your borders, onto other peoples other nationalisms and governments, is not the way to achieve the local, regional and global cooperation that’s really needed for you right now.
We all need to be anti-nationalism not pro nationalism right now to achieve the solutions in my honest opinion.
I still believe to get the arrangements needed to live together well and happy, Nationalism is bad option. Anti-nationalism stance much smarter.
Part 2.
So to use the Scottish independence as example, and calling on SNP supporters to help because you know what you are talking about so can teach those of us actually listening to you,
1. Independence from what? 2. Once achieved, what does success look like, what in particular brings happiness and contentment? 3. What is the question being asked in a referendum?
Part 3
So to remind again of my view why nationalism becomes popular, it’s because you have enemies, either real or partly imaginary and bigged up by unscrupulous politicians is why we turn to Nationalism. Not that Sturgeon and all SNP are unscrupulous, not at all, because there is very real enemy - globalisation why Scotland go Nationalist, and maybe Trump too, and brexit or part of same thing why people want to push back.
And Nationalism also popular where you don’t have enough self determination for your common origin, ethnicity, or cultural identity like language, to pursue self determination is a right thing if you are sure you don’t have enough of it - such as how the Catalonian feel.
I’m not hostile to Scottish independence. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke where ever you are like I am is how I feel about it. And Irish Nationalists gained freedom from London, and it’s working good for them. If you can be in a happier place I am actually happy to help you get there, if it doesn’t come at the expense of others. My concern is actually the opposite of hostility.
It seems to me, and happy to be put right if metaphor does not work, Scotland is currently in a long marriage and is asking for a divorce. What this means in practice is, it is in an arrangement, and it is asking for new arrangements going forward? That is it in simple nutshell?
So is it fair and sensible for a referendum to ask “would you like to switch to a new arrangement?” without clarity of detail of that arrangement short term at least, and direction of travel likely to be taken in medium term?
This isn’t me trying to stop separatism, or deny the will of Scottish Nationalists to switch from one arrangement to another, where they will be happier and feel independent and free - I am just trying to define what that success and happy place is come the end and plot best route for getting there.
5. To achieve that new arrangement, does it require concessions from both divorcing parties? 6. If so, what is Scottish Nationalism going to concede?
On the Irish nationalism - I was in a debate with some Irish nationalists online a while back. My point about where the Unionists would fit in the structure of the Dail, in the event of NI joining the South inspired an interesting debate. One rather... Republican type was shocked that they thought Protestants should be allowed a voice - that any that "spoke up" after unification should be "put in their place".
He was roundly condemned, with the comment that he should F&^k off and get a blue shirt.
There is an argument that democracy is all about how to tolerate, or more than tolerate, help those minority views have a place isn’t there. Maybe that is the very basis of real democracy that people over look.
As for if Starmer can get a confidence and supply from SNP to be PM - imo the SNP would be first to suggest it and already have “Ed - I can make your government great.” SNP would sell it as getting rid of the Tories, and if you once voted Labour but now SNP, keep voting SNP because it delivers non Tory government.
It’s Labour who would have to be most cautious? But isn’t there a good precedent for them, didn’t the Liberal government going into first world war keep Tories out will a block of nationalist votes?
As always thank you very much Malmesbury you are very welcome.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
Flower of Scotland composed in the 1960s. There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
Quite; Murrayfield is hardly Yes Stadium when the rugger buggers are out in force. So their adoption of it is interestingly dissonant with some perceptions.
I think it represents the the kind of nationalism a lot of folk feel comfortable with; sentimental, in the past, temporary, essentially harmless to the status quo. 90 minute* nationalism as one auld battler called it..
Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.
All these Woke entertainers passing comments on race and gender, who do they think they are? Back in the good old days, this never happened. You'd never hear about ethnicity and culture in Tacitus. Ovid never talked about gender. Suetonius had nothing at all to say on empire.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
Why? - the workshare on this has been painfully scripted with every Euro argued over. The French government will have had to put their chop on it to go forward....
It awards a big chunk to the UK, hardly a consequence of Brexit.
IIRC that was because the company in question has equipment and skills in the area of work. The other bidders in Europe didn't have that, so had higher bids.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
Yes, I don't rate the notion that Scot Nat is based on anti-other sentiment. Most nationalism is, I agree with that sentiment, and I'm sure some Scot Nats are that way inclined, but as a movement I don't get that sense at all, esp with Sturgeon in charge. For me there's a solid general distinction to be made between a nationalist movement seeking self-determination - ie to form a new sovereign nation state - and one in a country that's already a sovereign nation state. The latter type is far more likely to be of the nasty racist populist right type. Many examples of this in various European countries. Golden Dawn, AfD, Front National, Zemmour, that Italian one, etc. And MAGA of course in the US.
A shaman would say there is not fire, there is good fire and there is bad fire. So what is good Nationalism and what is bad nationalism? (I asked wise historian y deuthor this question yesterday but he didn’t help much, perhaps he was busy). So I Google around the internet for an answer it doesn’t on average actually say nationalist seeking self determination on the one hand and Adolf Hitler using nationalist arguments to prove its right to be anti democracy in order to actually care about your national identity are using two different things, the consensus seems to be its all nationalism - common origin, ethnicity, or particularly cultural membership group, having statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs for those in membership group - but extreme Nationalism like Hitler bad, but moderate or lite use of Nationalism inside democracy or pushing for self determination is okay.
Well where I am now is I think that consensus view is not good to be honest with you. Like who can be the arbitrator to draw the line between the two? It can’t be you or me, we would judge worthiness in different places.
Do you get the point I’m making? This if you know your true enemy, and you pick your friends - Nationalism is not your helpful friend. In heave form or light form, The fire of Nationalism is bridge burner for you not bridge builder you need.
Part 2.
As the start I found Malmesbury link by George ‘Orwell to be very good.
But then written nearly hundred years old with internet today would he say the same thing?
If I find something I think is better even than Orwell at explaining it, is it better because it appeals to where I am already, or because I feel it moves me to a new position I think is better like more modern. Like you see it because you can stand on the shoulders of Orwell?
I found this link I think explained it better to me:
The take out from this is “the origins of nationalism predate the modern state, and this emotional content remains up to our times, but the actual statist organization is, indeed, modern. However, nation-state is a nationalist dream and fiction, never really implemented, due to the inescapable plurality of social groups.”
With that inescapable plurality of social groups important globalisation may be moving against Nationalism not to it.
By Nationalism because of globalisation I can explain that better if you want me because it’s not clear.
And also why I still don’t think Nationalism is a good driver for self independence change like I am sure Richard Tyndall thinks it is.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Sorry this is bollocks. Remember the Bosnian Serbs?
Yugoslavia in the round tbf.
But 19th Cent. German nationalism was awesome. Aside from 1870, 1914 and 1939... anyone can make a few small mistakes....
Sorry. I don't follow. The point was. Our and our allies Nation
Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
Seems to me it's not so much shifting as closing. On policy the differences between Cons and Lab are small. The choice is stark imo but it's on ethics and competence.
The key difference for me is that the government has been bloody awful on civil liberties this last 2 years, and Labour have been clamouring at every opportunity to be worse. That's why Labour won't be picking up my vote.
If your main beef is the Cons have been too lockdowny then, no, Lab make no sense for you since they have been even more so. Tice's party is the obvious one for you to consider, I'd say.
Or you could stick with Johnson, of course, but to do that you will have to remove ethics and competence from the list of things you are voting on.
Tice's Party is outright libertarian - much more so than run-of-the-Mill (geddit) liberals can stomach. Too right wing. So much to object to there.
Liberals like me and others on here, perhaps Cookie, are regretful that LibDems haven't supplied much, if any, opposition to the civil liberty side of things.
This Tory govt are doing lots of things that are illiberal. A true liberal will be concerned about (eg) the criminal justice system being neglected, the independent judiciary being slapped around, the right to protest being curtailed, human rights law being seen as a bug not a feature. Anybody getting worried about (eg) masks in shops but not about all this other stuff isn't a liberal at all. Tice being a good example of this, I agree, hence why his pitch isn't for liberals. But neither is it really for libertarians imo. I think to call him that grants him too much intellectual coherence. His pitch is for anti-lockdowners, which is a constituency in its own right.
His pitch is "people like me ought not to be inconvenienced in the slightest. An outrageous infringement on Liberty which cannot stand!!!"
People not like him (the accused, victims of crime, protesters, immigrants, etc.) deserve everything they get.
Pretty much precisely it.
"Today, institutions fundamental to the British system of Government are under attack the public schools, the house of Lords, the Church of England, the holy institution of Marriage, even our magnificent police force are no longer safe from those who would undermine our society, and it's about time we said 'enough is enough' and saw a return to the traditional British values of discipline, obedience, morality and freedom. What we want is Freedom from the reds and the blacks and the criminals Prostitutes, pansies and punks Football hooligans, juvenile delinquents Lesbians and left wing scum Freedom from the n.....s and the p....s and the unions Freedom from the Gipsies and the Jews Freedom from leftwing layabouts and liberals Freedom from the likes of YOU"
Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.
In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.
Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.
(As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
Flower of Scotland composed in the 1960s. There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
Quite; Murrayfield is hardly Yes Stadium when the rugger buggers are out in force. So their adoption of it is interestingly dissonant with some perceptions.
I think it represents the the kind of nationalism a lot of folk feel comfortable with; sentimental, in the past, temporary, essentially harmless to the status quo. 90 minute* nationalism as one auld battler called it..
*or 80 minute in the case of RU.
Nothing wrong with being a rugger bugger though, of course! I used to be one ...
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
Point taken. But my understanding is why it’s big sometimes and not others.
I’ll take it as yes, you’ll all help so I will start.
I start from believing point of politics I feel we need to be forging ties and building up cooperation and partnership, I feel cooperation against the real issues are falling apart in push for regional independence, and I to extent blame Nationalism for that.
In fact I don’t - I actually blame the turning to Nationalism by mistake for it because of the times we live in. And I explain that like this.
Can Nationalism run a nation for the benefit of foreign capital not its people? Of course bloody not, people turn to Nationalism to push back against all that. So is it just coincidence there’s rise not just for Scottish Nationalism, but for more localism and autonomy too throughout the UK, after decades of globalisation ravaging our local areas and communities - while governments in London were cocooned and seemly oblivious?
So no, I can understand the popularity of Nationalism right now, but to pursue your own self interest or worse play on fear or frustration for what’s wrong as being outside your borders, onto other peoples other nationalisms and governments, is not the way to achieve the local, regional and global cooperation that’s really needed for you right now.
We all need to be anti-nationalism not pro nationalism right now to achieve the solutions in my honest opinion.
I still believe to get the arrangements needed to live together well and happy, Nationalism is bad option. Anti-nationalism stance much smarter.
Part 2.
So to use the Scottish independence as example, and calling on SNP supporters to help because you know what you are talking about so can teach those of us actually listening to you,
1. Independence from what? 2. Once achieved, what does success look like, what in particular brings happiness and contentment? 3. What is the question being asked in a referendum?
Part 3
So to remind again of my view why nationalism becomes popular, it’s because you have enemies, either real or partly imaginary and bigged up by unscrupulous politicians is why we turn to Nationalism. Not that Sturgeon and all SNP are unscrupulous, not at all, because there is very real enemy - globalisation why Scotland go Nationalist, and maybe Trump too, and brexit or part of same thing why people want to push back.
And Nationalism also popular where you don’t have enough self determination for your common origin, ethnicity, or cultural identity like language, to pursue self determination is a right thing if you are sure you don’t have enough of it - such as how the Catalonian feel.
I’m not hostile to Scottish independence. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke where ever you are like I am is how I feel about it. And Irish Nationalists gained freedom from London, and it’s working good for them. If you can be in a happier place I am actually happy to help you get there, if it doesn’t come at the expense of others. My concern is actually the opposite of hostility.
It seems to me, and happy to be put right if metaphor does not work, Scotland is currently in a long marriage and is asking for a divorce. What this means in practice is, it is in an arrangement, and it is asking for new arrangements going forward? That is it in simple nutshell?
So is it fair and sensible for a referendum to ask “would you like to switch to a new arrangement?” without clarity of detail of that arrangement short term at least, and direction of travel likely to be taken in medium term?
This isn’t me trying to stop separatism, or deny the will of Scottish Nationalists to switch from one arrangement to another, where they will be happier and feel independent and free - I am just trying to define what that success and happy place is come the end and plot best route for getting there.
5. To achieve that new arrangement, does it require concessions from both divorcing parties? 6. If so, what is Scottish Nationalism going to concede?
On the Irish nationalism - I was in a debate with some Irish nationalists online a while back. My point about where the Unionists would fit in the structure of the Dail, in the event of NI joining the South inspired an interesting debate. One rather... Republican type was shocked that they thought Protestants should be allowed a voice - that any that "spoke up" after unification should be "put in their place".
He was roundly condemned, with the comment that he should F&^k off and get a blue shirt.
There is an argument that democracy is all about how to tolerate, or more than tolerate, help those minority views have a place isn’t there. Maybe that is the very basis of real democracy that people over look.
As for if Starmer can get a confidence and supply from SNP to be PM - imo the SNP would be first to suggest it and already have “Ed - I can make your government great.” SNP would sell it as getting rid of the Tories, and if you once voted Labour but now SNP, keep voting SNP because it delivers non Tory government.
It’s Labour who would have to be most cautious? But isn’t there a good precedent for them, didn’t the Liberal government going into first world war keep Tories out will a block of nationalist votes?
As always thank you very much Malmesbury you are very welcome.
The link you had earlier about the nation-state is one from a particular point of view. This uses the idea that nation-state is only about a single "ethnic" identity and therefore is irrelevant to the modern world, no longer exists, and all nationalism is racism etc etc.
This ignores the fact that nearly all nation-states have incorporated multiple identities within them, since the idea was conceived.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
I am for justice and truth You are a nationalist He/She is a Nazi.
But that is what they call themselves, which is rather the point!
No nationalist ever says that *their* nationalism (or allied nationalisms) are problematic.
Since the idea that "nationalism" is bad has gained currency, you get nationalists who furiously deny they are nationalists.
But Scottish Nationalism is so much better than other country's nationalism......
Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.
All these Woke entertainers passing comments on race and gender, who do they think they are? Back in the good old days, this never happened. You'd never hear about ethnicity and culture in Tacitus. Ovid never talked about gender. Suetonius had nothing at all to say on empire.
How is it we've fallen so far?
And of course tables didn't have gender in the good old days.
Mr. Farooq, it's not the passing of comments, it's the subversion of a cohesive story and interesting characters for the sake of promoting nonsense (women are great led to Rey being a plank of wood and Kylo Ren being utterly feeble compared to Vader).
It also buggered up the last season of Game of Thrones (Snow/Night King) although I suspect that may have been due to rampant incompetence rather than gender ideology. Hard to say.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots played as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
So are roads. But PT was going on about how he drives everywhere without paying a mileage rate. So he's accepting the principle, as he doesn't drive on all the roads in the UK, and doesn't take trains at all..
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.
All these Woke entertainers passing comments on race and gender, who do they think they are? Back in the good old days, this never happened. You'd never hear about ethnicity and culture in Tacitus. Ovid never talked about gender. Suetonius had nothing at all to say on empire.
How is it we've fallen so far?
And of course tables didn't have gender in the good old days.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
In the same way that other episodes of history can be alarming. The Hadrianic ethnic cleansing of Judea is over, but it's still alarming to hear about.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.
Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Some forms of entertainment are pure public goods (in the technical sense) - firework displays for example.
Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.
Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
This is true. However it's also very important to bear in mind that literature and many cultural forms are not *only* ideology. This is one of the main things I learnt, as someone who remains and still broadly perceives myself a left liberal, from an exhaustive university degree at the height of a period for ideological fashion.
Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.
All these Woke entertainers passing comments on race and gender, who do they think they are? Back in the good old days, this never happened. You'd never hear about ethnicity and culture in Tacitus. Ovid never talked about gender. Suetonius had nothing at all to say on empire.
How is it we've fallen so far?
And of course tables didn't have gender in the good old days.
But had their legs covered, just in case?
One does wonder about the effects of all tyhat classical education in Victorian times.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
Even worse, watching ITV without paying for a BBC licence is also illegal.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.
Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
So are roads. But PT was going on about how he drives everywhere without paying a mileage rate. So he's accepting the principle, as he doesn't drive on all the roads in the UK, and doesn't take trains at all..
Mr. Farooq, it's not the passing of comments, it's the subversion of a cohesive story and interesting characters for the sake of promoting nonsense (women are great led to Rey being a plank of wood and Kylo Ren being utterly feeble compared to Vader).
It also buggered up the last season of Game of Thrones (Snow/Night King) although I suspect that may have been due to rampant incompetence rather than gender ideology. Hard to say.
It can also be dangerous.
A friend of my daughter got mugged in the street. When talking to my daughter about it, she was talking about fighting back if someone stole her phone.
It turned out that all the Waif-Fu she'd watched in various shows had given her a totally unrealistic impression of her capabilities or indeed the likely consequences of a fight with a criminal in the street.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Some forms of entertainment are pure public goods (in the technical sense) - firework displays for example.
That's true they are. They're not excludable and not rivalrous, since anyone can turn up to see the display. Our local Council put on a display on Guy Fawkes Night and we walked to the local park and took the kids to see it.
If we had to pay to see it and anyone who hadn't paid who looked at it was breaking the law, then that wouldn't be a public good. There were no charges, but there were voluntary donation buckets for the Lord Mayor's charity instead.
The BBC isn't a public good though since it is excludable.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.
Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
I don't think anyone is suggesting denying Scotland equal representation in parliament.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.
Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
Overridden by English majorities most of the time. Hence the imposition of Tory satraps repeatedly. And the control of Scottish law and education and culture in London. That's imperial stuff.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.
Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
I don't think anyone is suggesting denying Scotland equal representation in parliament.
Different legal etc systems. A country without immediate control of its legal system ...
Edit: referring to the pre-1998 system. And the return of it which the Tories apparently would love.
Mr. Farooq, it's not the passing of comments, it's the subversion of a cohesive story and interesting characters for the sake of promoting nonsense (women are great led to Rey being a plank of wood and Kylo Ren being utterly feeble compared to Vader).
It also buggered up the last season of Game of Thrones (Snow/Night King) although I suspect that may have been due to rampant incompetence rather than gender ideology. Hard to say.
I think both those examples are bollocks. Star Wars' problems are nothing to do with promoting nonsense (aside from the films themselves): it's to do with the fans being a bunch of idiots who essentially want EpIV-VI all over again. The over-arching plot issues, and changes from film to film to match fan comments, were nothing to do with woke or modern agendas.
I mean, take Rogue One. That had a very strong female lead character and was, IMO, great. It was also very successful.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.
Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
Overridden by English majorities most of the time. Hence the imposition of Tory satraps repeatedly. And the control of Scottish law and education and culture in London. That's imperial stuff.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
LOL you can be as indignant as you like but the BBC is excludable, so it is not a public good. It quite literally doesn't meet the definition.
If you have a funny definition of public goods that include excludable paid for activities then I'd love to see that.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
Yes, I don't rate the notion that Scot Nat is based on anti-other sentiment. Most nationalism is, I agree with that sentiment, and I'm sure some Scot Nats are that way inclined, but as a movement I don't get that sense at all, esp with Sturgeon in charge. For me there's a solid general distinction to be made between a nationalist movement seeking self-determination - ie to form a new sovereign nation state - and one in a country that's already a sovereign nation state. The latter type is far more likely to be of the nasty racist populist right type. Many examples of this in various European countries. Golden Dawn, AfD, Front National, Zemmour, that Italian one, etc. And MAGA of course in the US.
A shaman would say there is not fire, there is good fire and there is bad fire. So what is good Nationalism and what is bad nationalism? (I asked wise historian y deuthor this question yesterday but he didn’t help much, perhaps he was busy). So I Google around the internet for an answer it doesn’t on average actually say nationalist seeking self determination on the one hand and Adolf Hitler using nationalist arguments to prove its right to be anti democracy in order to actually care about your national identity are using two different things, the consensus seems to be its all nationalism - common origin, ethnicity, or particularly cultural membership group, having statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs for those in membership group - but extreme Nationalism like Hitler bad, but moderate or lite use of Nationalism inside democracy or pushing for self determination is okay.
Well where I am now is I think that consensus view is not good to be honest with you. Like who can be the arbitrator to draw the line between the two? It can’t be you or me, we would judge worthiness in different places.
Do you get the point I’m making? This if you know your true enemy, and you pick your friends - Nationalism is not your helpful friend. In heave form or light form, The fire of Nationalism is bridge burner for you not bridge builder you need.
Part 2.
As the start I found Malmesbury link by George ‘Orwell to be very good.
But then written nearly hundred years old with internet today would he say the same thing?
If I find something I think is better even than Orwell at explaining it, is it better because it appeals to where I am already, or because I feel it moves me to a new position I think is better like more modern. Like you see it because you can stand on the shoulders of Orwell?
I found this link I think explained it better to me:
The take out from this is “the origins of nationalism predate the modern state, and this emotional content remains up to our times, but the actual statist organization is, indeed, modern. However, nation-state is a nationalist dream and fiction, never really implemented, due to the inescapable plurality of social groups.”
With that inescapable plurality of social groups important globalisation may be moving against Nationalism not to it.
By Nationalism because of globalisation I can explain that better if you want me because it’s not clear.
And also why I still don’t think Nationalism is a good driver for self independence change like I am sure Richard Tyndall thinks it is.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Sorry this is bollocks. Remember the Bosnian Serbs?
Yugoslavia in the round tbf.
But 19th Cent. German nationalism was awesome. Aside from 1870, 1914 and 1939... anyone can make a few small mistakes....
Sorry. I don't follow. The point was. Our and our allies Nation
Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
Seems to me it's not so much shifting as closing. On policy the differences between Cons and Lab are small. The choice is stark imo but it's on ethics and competence.
The key difference for me is that the government has been bloody awful on civil liberties this last 2 years, and Labour have been clamouring at every opportunity to be worse. That's why Labour won't be picking up my vote.
If your main beef is the Cons have been too lockdowny then, no, Lab make no sense for you since they have been even more so. Tice's party is the obvious one for you to consider, I'd say.
Or you could stick with Johnson, of course, but to do that you will have to remove ethics and competence from the list of things you are voting on.
Tice's Party is outright libertarian - much more so than run-of-the-Mill (geddit) liberals can stomach. Too right wing. So much to object to there.
Liberals like me and others on here, perhaps Cookie, are regretful that LibDems haven't supplied much, if any, opposition to the civil liberty side of things.
This Tory govt are doing lots of things that are illiberal. A true liberal will be concerned about (eg) the criminal justice system being neglected, the independent judiciary being slapped around, the right to protest being curtailed, human rights law being seen as a bug not a feature. Anybody getting worried about (eg) masks in shops but not about all this other stuff isn't a liberal at all. Tice being a good example of this, I agree, hence why his pitch isn't for liberals. But neither is it really for libertarians imo. I think to call him that grants him too much intellectual coherence. His pitch is for anti-lockdowners, which is a constituency in its own right.
His pitch is "people like me ought not to be inconvenienced in the slightest. An outrageous infringement on Liberty which cannot stand!!!"
People not like him (the accused, victims of crime, protesters, immigrants, etc.) deserve everything they get.
Pretty much precisely it.
"Today, institutions fundamental to the British system of Government are under attack the public schools, the house of Lords, the Church of England, the holy institution of Marriage, even our magnificent police force are no longer safe from those who would undermine our society, and it's about time we said 'enough is enough' and saw a return to the traditional British values of discipline, obedience, morality and freedom. What we want is Freedom from the reds and the blacks and the criminals Prostitutes, pansies and punks Football hooligans, juvenile delinquents Lesbians and left wing scum Freedom from the n.....s and the p....s and the unions Freedom from the Gipsies and the Jews Freedom from leftwing layabouts and liberals Freedom from the likes of YOU"
Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.
In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.
Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.
(As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).
Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did. Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Some forms of entertainment are pure public goods (in the technical sense) - firework displays for example.
I would take the license fee revenue and distribute it amongst all broadcasters including ITV, C4, C5 and Sky but only for public interest programmes like high arts and culture, heritage, science, major sporting events and current affairs etc.
The rest the BBC can pay for through advertising, that way it would easily self fund Strictly, the Night Manager and Bodyguard etc and keep the Proms and David Attenborough but have to scrap some of the rubbish dramas and reality programmes it had produced which would not get the audience and advertising revenue
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I think there might be a clue in the name RE: Nazis
I'm glad we've got some of the ground rules sorted though and you agree that they are left-nationalists.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the SNP is a centre left party on economic and social policies, and a nationalist party in calling for Scottish independence. I don't see anything particularly sinister about that. It's about as far from the Nazis' political platform as you could get; in fact I would say it is grossly insulting to the memory of the Nazis' millions of victims to seek to equate the two.
Yes, I don't rate the notion that Scot Nat is based on anti-other sentiment. Most nationalism is, I agree with that sentiment, and I'm sure some Scot Nats are that way inclined, but as a movement I don't get that sense at all, esp with Sturgeon in charge. For me there's a solid general distinction to be made between a nationalist movement seeking self-determination - ie to form a new sovereign nation state - and one in a country that's already a sovereign nation state. The latter type is far more likely to be of the nasty racist populist right type. Many examples of this in various European countries. Golden Dawn, AfD, Front National, Zemmour, that Italian one, etc. And MAGA of course in the US.
A shaman would say there is not fire, there is good fire and there is bad fire. So what is good Nationalism and what is bad nationalism? (I asked wise historian y deuthor this question yesterday but he didn’t help much, perhaps he was busy). So I Google around the internet for an answer it doesn’t on average actually say nationalist seeking self determination on the one hand and Adolf Hitler using nationalist arguments to prove its right to be anti democracy in order to actually care about your national identity are using two different things, the consensus seems to be its all nationalism - common origin, ethnicity, or particularly cultural membership group, having statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs for those in membership group - but extreme Nationalism like Hitler bad, but moderate or lite use of Nationalism inside democracy or pushing for self determination is okay.
Well where I am now is I think that consensus view is not good to be honest with you. Like who can be the arbitrator to draw the line between the two? It can’t be you or me, we would judge worthiness in different places.
Do you get the point I’m making? This if you know your true enemy, and you pick your friends - Nationalism is not your helpful friend. In heave form or light form, The fire of Nationalism is bridge burner for you not bridge builder you need.
Part 2.
As the start I found Malmesbury link by George ‘Orwell to be very good.
But then written nearly hundred years old with internet today would he say the same thing?
If I find something I think is better even than Orwell at explaining it, is it better because it appeals to where I am already, or because I feel it moves me to a new position I think is better like more modern. Like you see it because you can stand on the shoulders of Orwell?
I found this link I think explained it better to me:
The take out from this is “the origins of nationalism predate the modern state, and this emotional content remains up to our times, but the actual statist organization is, indeed, modern. However, nation-state is a nationalist dream and fiction, never really implemented, due to the inescapable plurality of social groups.”
With that inescapable plurality of social groups important globalisation may be moving against Nationalism not to it.
By Nationalism because of globalisation I can explain that better if you want me because it’s not clear.
And also why I still don’t think Nationalism is a good driver for self independence change like I am sure Richard Tyndall thinks it is.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
Sorry this is bollocks. Remember the Bosnian Serbs?
Yugoslavia in the round tbf.
But 19th Cent. German nationalism was awesome. Aside from 1870, 1914 and 1939... anyone can make a few small mistakes....
Sorry. I don't follow. The point was. Our and our allies Nation
Just noticed that small village just outside the North of the constituency.
Quite a famous window there. Which of the parties will be able to shift it in this election?
Seems to me it's not so much shifting as closing. On policy the differences between Cons and Lab are small. The choice is stark imo but it's on ethics and competence.
The key difference for me is that the government has been bloody awful on civil liberties this last 2 years, and Labour have been clamouring at every opportunity to be worse. That's why Labour won't be picking up my vote.
If your main beef is the Cons have been too lockdowny then, no, Lab make no sense for you since they have been even more so. Tice's party is the obvious one for you to consider, I'd say.
Or you could stick with Johnson, of course, but to do that you will have to remove ethics and competence from the list of things you are voting on.
Tice's Party is outright libertarian - much more so than run-of-the-Mill (geddit) liberals can stomach. Too right wing. So much to object to there.
Liberals like me and others on here, perhaps Cookie, are regretful that LibDems haven't supplied much, if any, opposition to the civil liberty side of things.
This Tory govt are doing lots of things that are illiberal. A true liberal will be concerned about (eg) the criminal justice system being neglected, the independent judiciary being slapped around, the right to protest being curtailed, human rights law being seen as a bug not a feature. Anybody getting worried about (eg) masks in shops but not about all this other stuff isn't a liberal at all. Tice being a good example of this, I agree, hence why his pitch isn't for liberals. But neither is it really for libertarians imo. I think to call him that grants him too much intellectual coherence. His pitch is for anti-lockdowners, which is a constituency in its own right.
His pitch is "people like me ought not to be inconvenienced in the slightest. An outrageous infringement on Liberty which cannot stand!!!"
People not like him (the accused, victims of crime, protesters, immigrants, etc.) deserve everything they get.
Pretty much precisely it.
"Today, institutions fundamental to the British system of Government are under attack the public schools, the house of Lords, the Church of England, the holy institution of Marriage, even our magnificent police force are no longer safe from those who would undermine our society, and it's about time we said 'enough is enough' and saw a return to the traditional British values of discipline, obedience, morality and freedom. What we want is Freedom from the reds and the blacks and the criminals Prostitutes, pansies and punks Football hooligans, juvenile delinquents Lesbians and left wing scum Freedom from the n.....s and the p....s and the unions Freedom from the Gipsies and the Jews Freedom from leftwing layabouts and liberals Freedom from the likes of YOU"
Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.
All these Woke entertainers passing comments on race and gender, who do they think they are? Back in the good old days, this never happened. You'd never hear about ethnicity and culture in Tacitus. Ovid never talked about gender. Suetonius had nothing at all to say on empire.
How is it we've fallen so far?
And of course tables didn't have gender in the good old days.
But had their legs covered, just in case?
One does wonder about the effects of all tyhat classical education in Victorian times.
A gnawing fear that looking at all that salacious stuff would drive people mad, seems to be a theme....
Fortunately, modern people, being so much more sophisticated, with the internet and all, have turned into moral giants thanks to openly...
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
Its funny to see the desperation of Opposition supporters once again treating the Lib Dems as "not Tories" and thus Labour's baby sister.
The Lib Dems are not Tories, but they're not Labour either. They've been prepared to support the Tories in Downing Street in the past and the could again in the future. The Lib Dems winning seats isn't good enough for Labour to take Downing Street, they need to take some themselves.
Yes and no. Could the future LibDems work with a future Tory party? Of course. Is that in play at the next election? No.
There are NO parties who will work with these Tories. None. Unless the Nigel returns to lead REFUK and they somehow actually win seats.
So the block is simple - Tories, Not Tories, and unaligned. I can see a few NI parties in the unaligned camp, the rest will all be Not Tories.
You shouldn’t be so eager to jump into bed with the SNP if you want to win English seats…
The non-Tory block will have to include the SNP - its just adding. As there is no way on this planet that the SNP would repeat the mistake of 1979 in voting down a Labour government for a Tory one, no formal deal is needed.
In simple truth the SNP would give confidence and supply to any minority Labour government with no deal of any description offered. And that needs to be the message from the Labour front bench if it looks close in 2024.
The SNP will actually only give Starmer confidence and supply in return for devomax and indyref2. Otherwise they would abstain
Forgive my possible oversimplification, but:
- MPs for Scottish seats don't (by convention) vote at Westminster on matters relating only to E&W - Devomax means that, effectively, almost all possible votes fall into that category - A win for Leave at SindyRef2 means all the SNP MPs leave Westinster at some point anyway
So what exactly is the long-term benefit to Starmer of C&S from the SNP?
None. All Starmer has to do is put together a reasonable budget and then dare the SNP to vote with the Tories.
Anti-Tory voters in Scotland might not be best pleased to see their "anti-Tory" SNP MPs vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government.
This is why a Tory majority at Westminster is imperative for the SNP.
That's not all Starmer has to do. Starmer can't even go to see the King or Queen without an agreement first. The precedent is already set that until the Opposition has the votes to take power, the government continues in office.
Its a very English Left way of thinking to think that SNP voters are "anti-Tory". They're "anti-UK" and "anti-London" more now.
No way Sturgeon could survive holding the balance of power and not getting her referendum, its simply implausible. Her critics in the SNP and wider independence movement would destroy her.
The SNP have succeeded in creating the identity that English=Tory, so that to be anti-Tory is to be anti-English and vice versa. Presumably the non-Tory English are not truly English. A lot of what our RochdalePioneers writes reflects this view.
For the SNP to fail to support Labour to oust the Tories would test the question of how many of the supporters they gained during the referendum campaign are more anti-English than anti-Tory.
It worries me that Sturgeon is a more skilled politician than Starmer, and she might succeed in encouraging many people to take the final step of embracing anti-English Scottish Nationalism.
Having grown up in Scotland with English parents I know what anti-English Scottish nationalism looks like. It's not what Sturgeon and the SNP are offering.
I disagree - there's plenty of anti-engiish sentiment in SNP Types e.g. Nippy dropping the word Oxford from the AZ vaccine and loads of mentions of the "Kent" variant.
They are mainly just left-wing nationalists though. The type we defeated in the 1940's.
Such a shame it has risen again on this island of ours.
Calling the Astra Zeneca vaccine the Astra Zeneca vaccine (like most people do)... Referring to the Covid variant first identified in Kent as the Kent variant... If those are your leading examples of anti English sentiment then you are failing to conjour up a very convincing picture of this apparently rabid nationalism, I'm afraid. As for your Nazi comparison, I'm going to invoke Godwin and leave it at that, but please... I'm not a supporter of the SNP, BTW.
People do call AZ just AZ now but at the time everyone was calling is Oxford/AZ.
The Kent variant meme of hers came after everyone had decided to stop calling variants from they're origin. South Africa et al
They're maybe not "rabidly" anti-english but they know their base and they certainly are left-wing nationalists.
They are left wing nationalists, but the Nazis weren't.
I’m not wading into this again, I don’t come here to upset people but to learn politics things. But I have been reading up on nationalism. And Malmsburies link was a very good start.
So my distinction then -
(i) Nationalist movement to create a new nation.
(ii) Nationalist movement promoting an existing nation.
Number (ii) is by and large where the nasty stuff resides. I think this is a good insight from me here. I'm pleased with it.
If I am to explain why I think SNP is not right thing to support I would like to break it into blocks and the SNP supporters on here hold my hand tell me where I am wrong as we go along, as I don’t intend to want to upset anyone as I explain my view.
Will people help me with this? Shall I begin?
It might be useful to bear in mind the Spanish distrinction. English is too restrictive a language.
Independista - as in Catalans - usually social democratic. SNP for instance.
Nacionalista - as in more centralised Spanish politics - much more right wing. Tories for instance (British nationalists).
Point taken. But my understanding is why it’s big sometimes and not others.
I’ll take it as yes, you’ll all help so I will start.
I start from believing point of politics I feel we need to be forging ties and building up cooperation and partnership, I feel cooperation against the real issues are falling apart in push for regional independence, and I to extent blame Nationalism for that.
In fact I don’t - I actually blame the turning to Nationalism by mistake for it because of the times we live in. And I explain that like this.
Can Nationalism run a nation for the benefit of foreign capital not its people? Of course bloody not, people turn to Nationalism to push back against all that. So is it just coincidence there’s rise not just for Scottish Nationalism, but for more localism and autonomy too throughout the UK, after decades of globalisation ravaging our local areas and communities - while governments in London were cocooned and seemly oblivious?
So no, I can understand the popularity of Nationalism right now, but to pursue your own self interest or worse play on fear or frustration for what’s wrong as being outside your borders, onto other peoples other nationalisms and governments, is not the way to achieve the local, regional and global cooperation that’s really needed for you right now.
We all need to be anti-nationalism not pro nationalism right now to achieve the solutions in my honest opinion.
I still believe to get the arrangements needed to live together well and happy, Nationalism is bad option. Anti-nationalism stance much smarter.
Part 2.
So to use the Scottish independence as example, and calling on SNP supporters to help because you know what you are talking about so can teach those of us actually listening to you,
1. Independence from what? 2. Once achieved, what does success look like, what in particular brings happiness and contentment? 3. What is the question being asked in a referendum?
Part 3
So to remind again of my view why nationalism becomes popular, it’s because you have enemies, either real or partly imaginary and bigged up by unscrupulous politicians is why we turn to Nationalism. Not that Sturgeon and all SNP are unscrupulous, not at all, because there is very real enemy - globalisation why Scotland go Nationalist, and maybe Trump too, and brexit or part of same thing why people want to push back.
And Nationalism also popular where you don’t have enough self determination for your common origin, ethnicity, or cultural identity like language, to pursue self determination is a right thing if you are sure you don’t have enough of it - such as how the Catalonian feel.
I’m not hostile to Scottish independence. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke where ever you are like I am is how I feel about it. And Irish Nationalists gained freedom from London, and it’s working good for them. If you can be in a happier place I am actually happy to help you get there, if it doesn’t come at the expense of others. My concern is actually the opposite of hostility.
It seems to me, and happy to be put right if metaphor does not work, Scotland is currently in a long marriage and is asking for a divorce. What this means in practice is, it is in an arrangement, and it is asking for new arrangements going forward? That is it in simple nutshell?
So is it fair and sensible for a referendum to ask “would you like to switch to a new arrangement?” without clarity of detail of that arrangement short term at least, and direction of travel likely to be taken in medium term?
This isn’t me trying to stop separatism, or deny the will of Scottish Nationalists to switch from one arrangement to another, where they will be happier and feel independent and free - I am just trying to define what that success and happy place is come the end and plot best route for getting there.
5. To achieve that new arrangement, does it require concessions from both divorcing parties? 6. If so, what is Scottish Nationalism going to concede?
On the Irish nationalism - I was in a debate with some Irish nationalists online a while back. My point about where the Unionists would fit in the structure of the Dail, in the event of NI joining the South inspired an interesting debate. One rather... Republican type was shocked that they thought Protestants should be allowed a voice - that any that "spoke up" after unification should be "put in their place".
He was roundly condemned, with the comment that he should F&^k off and get a blue shirt.
There is an argument that democracy is all about how to tolerate, or more than tolerate, help those minority views have a place isn’t there. Maybe that is the very basis of real democracy that people over look.
As for if Starmer can get a confidence and supply from SNP to be PM - imo the SNP would be first to suggest it and already have “Ed - I can make your government great.” SNP would sell it as getting rid of the Tories, and if you once voted Labour but now SNP, keep voting SNP because it delivers non Tory government.
It’s Labour who would have to be most cautious? But isn’t there a good precedent for them, didn’t the Liberal government going into first world war keep Tories out will a block of nationalist votes?
As always thank you very much Malmesbury you are very welcome.
I think your first paragraph refers to liberalism rather than democracy.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
LOL you can be as indignant as you like but the BBC is excludable, so it is not a public good. It quite literally doesn't meet the definition.
If you have a funny definition of public goods that include excludable paid for activities then I'd love to see that.
The BBC is not technically excludable. Only legally. That’s why you can watch it without a license.
Public service broadcasting is literally cited as the best example of a public good in textbooks.
If you don’t know this you are not fit to practice your supposed profession.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
If Scotland was genuinely a colony then Holyrood would be scrapped and all Scottish MPs removed from the Commons and direct rule imposed from Westminster with a provincial governor. Plus of course Scots plated as big a part in the British Empire as the English did anyway
First centence - that is what happened til 1998 and which the PM wishes to return to, as he said to Tory MPs.
Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
Since when were there no Scottish MPs at Westminster before 1998?
Overridden by English majorities most of the time. Hence the imposition of Tory satraps repeatedly. And the control of Scottish law and education and culture in London. That's imperial stuff.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
The honours still refer to the Empire.
It isn't over.
Es\pecially the cringing to higher ranks.
Are Cornwall and Yorkshire colonies too?
Not in that sense, as they don't have different legal systems fromk the rest of England. In otgher senses, for instance in the way in which their economies are managed overall, possibly, but I wouldn't wish to presume on what the locals might think.
Seriously Mr Littlejohn? THAT is your contribution?
“ I have absolutely no intention of repeating the gruesome details, largely because I refused to read them in the first place.”
Fair enough, you might think. But you’re being paid to write about Arthur’s death. And then..
“ what this column wants to address is the calculated exploitation of this tragedy by football clubs and directors desperate to burnish their 'caring' credentials.
Had this 'tribute' been a spontaneous gesture by genuinely horrified spectators it may have been understandable. But it was nothing of the sort.
This was another stage-managed display of shameless virtue-signalling by a venal, amoral industry which insists on clambering aboard every passing bandwagon, from anti-racism to trans rights.”
Fuck off mr Littlejohn. Every single football fan that clapped is a better person than you.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
Mr. Farooq, it's not the passing of comments, it's the subversion of a cohesive story and interesting characters for the sake of promoting nonsense (women are great led to Rey being a plank of wood and Kylo Ren being utterly feeble compared to Vader).
It also buggered up the last season of Game of Thrones (Snow/Night King) although I suspect that may have been due to rampant incompetence rather than gender ideology. Hard to say.
I don't really know Star Trek enough to know what you're on about in your first paragraph. But to stick to the points first raised. The racial and sexual politics of Victorian England is pretty standard fare in an English literature course. "Sex and death" is an encapsulation of a lot of the didactic poetry of the time, and it's a legitimate and long-standing theme. Without understand Victorian attitudes to the world, we can't hope to understand our own.
I mean, the fact that I often use Ancient Rome as an analogue is because we're all heirs to their Roman-focus of history. If I talked about aspects of the Gupta Empire, how many here would have a clue what I was on about? We are inheritors not only of some attitudes, but also some areas of focus. To reassess Victorian attitudes to sex is totally essential if we ourselves are to come close to understanding the subject.
And, even after all that, you can choose not to watch it if you don't like it.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
All of those have expressed their self determination to be British.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
What I don’t get is how the British empire can be “alarming”. It’s long since over…
BVI, Gib, Falklands, Scotland (just listen to HYUFD on here).
All of those have expressed their self determination to be British.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
LOL you can be as indignant as you like but the BBC is excludable, so it is not a public good. It quite literally doesn't meet the definition.
If you have a funny definition of public goods that include excludable paid for activities then I'd love to see that.
The BBC is not technically excludable. Only legally. That’s why you can watch it without a license.
Public service broadcasting is literally cited as the best example of a public good in textbooks.
If you don’t know this you are not fit to practice your supposed profession.
Public service broadcasting is a public good, but the BBC isn't a public service broadcaster since it requires the license fee making it excludable.
Other countries like Australia's ABC are a proper public service broadcaster paid for by taxes and they're not excludable. The BBC is not that.
Comments
So to remind again of my view why nationalism becomes popular, it’s because you have enemies, either real or partly imaginary and bigged up by unscrupulous politicians is why we turn to Nationalism. Not that Sturgeon and all SNP are unscrupulous, not at all, because there is very real enemy - globalisation why Scotland go Nationalist, and maybe Trump too, and brexit or part of same thing why people want to push back.
And Nationalism also popular where you don’t have enough self determination for your common origin, ethnicity, or cultural identity like language, to pursue self determination is a right thing if you are sure you don’t have enough of it - such as how the Catalonian feel.
I’m not hostile to Scottish independence. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke where ever you are like I am is how I feel about it. And Irish Nationalists gained freedom from London, and it’s working good for them. If you can be in a happier place I am actually happy to help you get there, if it doesn’t come at the expense of others. My concern is actually the opposite of hostility.
It seems to me, and happy to be put right if metaphor does not work, Scotland is currently in a long marriage and is asking for a divorce. What this means in practice is, it is in an arrangement, and it is asking for new arrangements going forward? That is it in simple nutshell?
So is it fair and sensible for a referendum to ask “would you like to switch to a new arrangement?” without clarity of detail of that arrangement short term at least, and direction of travel likely to be taken in medium term?
This isn’t me trying to stop separatism, or deny the will of Scottish Nationalists to switch from one arrangement to another, where they will be happier and feel independent and free - I am just trying to define what that success and happy place is come the end and plot best route for getting there.
5. To achieve that new arrangement, does it require concessions from both divorcing parties?
6. If so, what is Scottish Nationalism going to concede?
evacuating British nationals and Afghans evacuees, including Afghans who had
served with British soldiers.
213. This is because soldiers tasked with escorting the dogs through the crowd
and into the airport would by definition have otherwise been deployed to support
the evacuation of British nationals or Afghans prioritised for evacuation, notably by
helping families out of the dangerous crowd into the airport. As noted in paragraph
125, the limited number of British soldiers available to help UK visa holders and
British citizens from the crowd into the airport was an important limiting factor on
our ability to evacuate people.
214. Nowzad’s staff were subsequently granted visas for the UK and assisted to
cross into Pakistan. This was an exception to our then policy. At this point, we were
not granting further visas to any other Afghans even if they had served the UK and
were at direct risk of murder."
Very revealinhg, as @Nigelb has just pointed out.
But there is a lot more and not just about the pets. Not that it ever was just about the animals.
It will be very interesting to see the rebuttals to this statement.
Is Nationalism the best way to drive and define this change to a happier place?
By that I mean define what success is, and the route to it - and next either take off or put on your nationalism tinted glasses and define it again. Is it always exactly the same place place and exactly the same route both times? Or does Nationalism help see something not entirely attainable. On nationalism route you don’t appreciate where you need bridges built and compromises must be made.
So how I would answer all five questions.
To my mind that happy place that is successful freedom for you is recognising foreign capital (which after independence can also be from your UK neighbours) is going to carry on eyeing up Scotland in this globalised economy - this means where it buys property for example, locals get priced out the market, global competition, as well as migration and automation will drag down wages or destroy decent employment opportunities in the coming years, as well a growing number of your businesses and assets answering to foreign owners (which again, could be your very near neighbours), so being in weak position to resist this foreign money can inflate the exchange rate you are using, (if you use your own) making exporting harder, reducing output in what manufacturing industry you have, leading to more good job losses.
In other words we know these crap globalisation things very well, you just have to come out in a stronger position after divorce to do something about them, not weaker position to do something about them. To be in that stronger position actually needs bridges and Nationlism to compromise.
To say you are rich because you are free, but actually having financial clout would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define success as that. Would you?
Yes I feel Scotland and all it’s cultural nationals can end up in a better happier place, but need to be mindful that it’s not a weaker place in terms of wealth and economic clout.
Both times you define the new arrangement and the journey to get there, with and without the nationism glasses on, does it look the same?
He was roundly condemned, with the comment that he should F&^k off and get a blue shirt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Scotland
"101 additional confirmed cases of the #Omicron variant of COVID-19 have been reported across the UK.
The total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the UK is 437."
https://twitter.com/UKHSA/status/1468226114132787202?s=20
I use me as example. My Dad owns land and businesses not local to London. He is buying property in London (me and my friend live in this lovely flat for free) but is this not pricing proper London people out of the property ladder here? A capital wealth thing from somewhere else changing the way of life of social groups people thst doesn’t have the wealth. (Yes I sensitive it means I may be doing wrong thing, but at least I am not Russian or Chinese I’m British!)
What I mean is that is how I would define successful Scottish independence as being actually in a stronger place not weaker place to defend yourself from these things. Happy to help you to a happier place, but I don’t want to help you end up in a worse or weaker position for being able to fight back against many many bad globalised wealth things.
Do you get the point I’m making? Thst if you know your true enemy, and you pick your friends - it makes seeing the journey and necessary compromises on the journey and the fact you need to build bridges to end up in strong place.
But at the bigger centres, I think, they have already relaxed that rule.
The queue was asked first whether their last jab was “more than 3 months ago”.
Some people can use "enemies" to exploit things, but then so can almost any philosophy and the "enemy within" is often more hated than the external one. Hence the long-running People's Front of Judea meme: the heretic is worse than the infidel.
Nationalism at its core is little more than self-determination, it is the belief that one's own nation should be running itself. At their core, almost everyone on the planet is a nationalist, just the definition of nation may vary.
People like to act like the opposite of nationalism is globalism, but almost nobody actually wants a completely global world government and there is little more horrific a concept than that to me. The opposite of nationalism in reality is often imperialism - the belief that a nation should be ruled by another nation, instead of their own.
Hence why Gandhi was a nationalist. He believed India should be ruled by Indians rather than Britons.
http://www.scocha.co.uk/scots_wha_hae.html
The Corries; Flower of Scotland is, yes, about Bannockburn as well - but it doesn't have the burden that Eabhal places on it in the last verse - no suggesttion of a future repulse of the invader. Nor for that matter doews the Burns one. Just generic anti-tyrant stuff.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Scotland
There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
'Twas ever thus and, in a free country, ever will be.
If you believe in European Nationalism then that's no different to English, Scottish, Welsh, British or Indian nationalism or any other type.
As Orwell wrote, there are a lot of forms of nationalist.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
"Today, institutions fundamental to the British system of Government are under attack
the public schools, the house of Lords, the Church of England, the holy institution of Marriage, even our magnificent police force are no longer safe from those who would undermine our society, and it's about time we said 'enough is enough' and saw a return to the traditional British values of discipline, obedience, morality and freedom.
What we want is
Freedom from the reds and the blacks and the criminals
Prostitutes, pansies and punks
Football hooligans, juvenile delinquents
Lesbians and left wing scum
Freedom from the n.....s and the p....s and the unions
Freedom from the Gipsies and the Jews
Freedom from leftwing layabouts and liberals
Freedom from the likes of YOU"
PITD by TRB.
In times past I might have watched Doctor Who (much prefer Old to New). But they utterly buggered the lore by having the imbecile in charge impose revisionist bullshit.
I know many like Call the Midwife, but it's not the sort of thing I'd watch. Which leaves...? Worth stressing I've never watched tons of TV. But I'd be surprised if you can suggest anything that will end up being as entertaining as Blake's 7.
You can tell that from the fact a second series has been ordered before the first has been shown anywhere.
Or you can believe the typical biased crap of the Telegraph trying to find newspaper readers (Telegraph £100 a year, Times £26 a month minimum).
You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
As for if Starmer can get a confidence and supply from SNP to be PM - imo the SNP would be first to suggest it and already have “Ed - I can make your government great.” SNP would sell it as getting rid of the Tories, and if you once voted Labour but now SNP, keep voting SNP because it delivers non Tory government.
It’s Labour who would have to be most cautious? But isn’t there a good precedent for them, didn’t the Liberal government going into first world war keep Tories out will a block of nationalist votes?
As always thank you very much Malmesbury you are very welcome.
*or 80 minute in the case of RU.
How is it we've fallen so far?
The point was. Our and our allies Nation What is that from?
In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.
Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.
(As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
This ignores the fact that nearly all nation-states have incorporated multiple identities within them, since the idea was conceived.
It also buggered up the last season of Game of Thrones (Snow/Night King) although I suspect that may have been due to rampant incompetence rather than gender ideology. Hard to say.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
Second - not relevant. We're talking about the 21st century.
It isn't over.
A friend of my daughter got mugged in the street. When talking to my daughter about it, she was talking about fighting back if someone stole her phone.
It turned out that all the Waif-Fu she'd watched in various shows had given her a totally unrealistic impression of her capabilities or indeed the likely consequences of a fight with a criminal in the street.
If we had to pay to see it and anyone who hadn't paid who looked at it was breaking the law, then that wouldn't be a public good. There were no charges, but there were voluntary donation buckets for the Lord Mayor's charity instead.
The BBC isn't a public good though since it is excludable.
Edit: referring to the pre-1998 system. And the return of it which the Tories apparently would love.
I mean, take Rogue One. That had a very strong female lead character and was, IMO, great. It was also very successful.
If you have a funny definition of public goods that include excludable paid for activities then I'd love to see that.
Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
The rest the BBC can pay for through advertising, that way it would easily self fund Strictly, the Night Manager and Bodyguard etc and keep the Proms and David Attenborough but have to scrap some of the rubbish dramas and reality programmes it had produced which would not get the audience and advertising revenue
Song by Tom Robinson Band
Fortunately, modern people, being so much more sophisticated, with the internet and all, have turned into moral giants thanks to openly...
Only legally.
That’s why you can watch it without a license.
Public service broadcasting is literally cited as the best example of a public good in textbooks.
If you don’t know this you are not fit to practice your supposed profession.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10281731/amp/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Football-clapping-Arthur-Labinjo-Hughes-display-virtue-signalling.html
Seriously Mr Littlejohn? THAT is your contribution?
“ I have absolutely no intention of repeating the gruesome details, largely because I refused to read them in the first place.”
Fair enough, you might think. But you’re being paid to write about Arthur’s death. And then..
“ what this column wants to address is the calculated exploitation of this tragedy by football clubs and directors desperate to burnish their 'caring' credentials.
Had this 'tribute' been a spontaneous gesture by genuinely horrified spectators it may have been understandable. But it was nothing of the sort.
This was another stage-managed display of shameless virtue-signalling by a venal, amoral industry which insists on clambering aboard every passing bandwagon, from anti-racism to trans rights.”
Fuck off mr Littlejohn. Every single football fan that clapped is a better person than you.
Just fuck off and get another job.
But to stick to the points first raised. The racial and sexual politics of Victorian England is pretty standard fare in an English literature course. "Sex and death" is an encapsulation of a lot of the didactic poetry of the time, and it's a legitimate and long-standing theme. Without understand Victorian attitudes to the world, we can't hope to understand our own.
I mean, the fact that I often use Ancient Rome as an analogue is because we're all heirs to their Roman-focus of history. If I talked about aspects of the Gupta Empire, how many here would have a clue what I was on about? We are inheritors not only of some attitudes, but also some areas of focus. To reassess Victorian attitudes to sex is totally essential if we ourselves are to come close to understanding the subject.
And, even after all that, you can choose not to watch it if you don't like it.
Other countries like Australia's ABC are a proper public service broadcaster paid for by taxes and they're not excludable. The BBC is not that.