Intelligent unionist posters

[renton]

58 minutes ago, madwullie said:

That's a bit harsh. Not necessarily everyone has independence as their ultimate goal. An intelligent guy at my work is a quite strong proponent of independence from the UK, and a massive supporter or independence from Europe. He believes that no state (and he even considers that we should be looking at much smaller areas of government) should in any way answer to or have policy set by a greater collection of states above them.

For these reasons he voted yes in 2014, leave last year, and a future Scottish referendum will have him on the fence unless there is a guarantee of a referendum on eu membership in the first term of an independent Scotland. If we are guaranteed to remain in the eu with no consultation he will with a heavy heart vote no and agitate for an independent Scotland outwith the eu in a future brexited Britain 

I don't agree with a word he says but it's a fair enough position to hold

Or he could vote Yes now, and agitate for a Scotland outside the EU after. A much easier proposition that attempting a third Indy Ref down the line.

[madwullie]

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

So he doesn't strongly believe in independence, then. He believes in other countries making decisions when those decisions best suit his personal beliefs. Out of interest, isn't he agitating to leave the UN, NATO, FIFA and the ICC?

He does mate, well quite strongly as I said in my post. He basically believes in a modern version of the pre-society communistic village state system, where the success of society was measured by how happy people were and each individual would give to society what they could and take what they needed. The best way to achieve these small independent governed states is to break up modern superstates into the smallest possible units (he would argue that Scotland could function better if broken down even further).

 

 

1 hour ago, renton said:

Or he could vote Yes now, and agitate for a Scotland outside the EU after. A much easier proposition that attempting a third Indy Ref down the line.

Yeah that's what I think too, but he sees being pushed into the eu without being given a proper choice would be too much of a mack in the face. Plus when it comes down to it, he reckons even the most ardent Scottish unionist would have second thoughts once the reality of eternal Westminster control kicked in. He actually feels we'd be more likely to win after brexit anyway. 

[renton]

13 minutes ago, madwullie said:

He does mate, well quite strongly as I said in my post. He basically believes in a modern version of the pre-society communistic village state system, where the success of society was measured by how happy people were and each individual would give to society what they could and take what they needed. The best way to achieve these small independent governed states is to break up modern superstates into the smallest possible units (he would argue that Scotland could function better if broken down even further).

 

 

Yeah that's what I think too, but he sees being pushed into the eu without being given a proper choice would be too much of a mack in the face. Plus when it comes down to it, he reckons even the most ardent Scottish unionist would have second thoughts once the reality of eternal Westminster control kicked in. He actually feels we'd be more likely to win after brexit anyway. 

There is a route to exiting the UK in front of us now. Vote No and that route goes away. Leaving the EU is comparatively easy by comparison to the number of ducks you have to line up in order to exit the UK. I honestly can't see why, if you wanted independence from both Unions, you wouldn't take the opportunity to exit the one directly controlling our foreign and European policy, first.

[madwullie]

I don't disagree mate I was more trying to show that while most people on here (from what I can tell) see an independent Scotland as an end, some people see it as a means to an end. 

I don't think sturgeon is going to be daft enough to force us into anything without offering us a choice anyway, it would get too many people's backs up and the number are far too tight and there's too many variables. 

[NotThePars]

I don't disagree mate I was more trying to show that while most people on here (from what I can tell) see an independent Scotland as an end, some people see it as a means to an end. 
I don't think sturgeon is going to be daft enough to force us into anything without offering us a choice anyway, it would get too many people's backs up and the number are far too tight and there's too many variables. 

I think there's two distinct independence camps. Those like Wee Willie who will vote for it regardless of how it could adversely affect the people in this country and those that are voting for it as they believe it's the only way to create a fairer society. I belong to the latter.

[Wee Willie]

8 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

I think there's two distinct independence camps. Those like Wee Willie who will vote for it regardless of how it could adversely affect the people in this country and those that are voting for it as they believe it's the only way to create a fairer society. I belong to the latter.

Fair do's but I belong to the former AND I also belong to the latter.
No one but no one kens what the future holds.
But my point is that whatever it holds it should be decided by Scots in Scotland and no anybody else.
If we make an arse of it then so be it.
Of course I want independence to be a success but I repeat that nobody kens the future.

[NotThePars]

Fair do's but I belong to the former AND I also belong to the latter.

No one but no one kens what the future holds.

But my point is that whatever it holds it should be decided by Scots in Scotland and no anybody else.

If we make an arse of it then so be it.

Of course I want independence to be a success but I repeat that nobody kens the future.

 

 

It's not about whether it's a "success" because that can mean different things to different people. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I get the vibe you'd pick a fascist Scotland over a socialist UK for example as it's "up to Scots to decide for Scotland". I hope that isn't the case and thankfully it's a scenario that would never happen.

[Wee Willie]

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

 

 

It's about whether it's a "success" because that can mean different things to different people. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I get the vibe you'd pick a fascist Scotland over a socialist UK for example as it's "up to Scots to decide for Scotland". I hope that isn't the case and thankfully it's a scenario that would never happen.

C'mon gies a break!
For future reference I wouldn't pick a fascist Scotland.
The point your missing is that 'it's up to Scots to decide for Scotland' and if enough Scots (no me) voted for a Fascist Scotland then so be it.
Would that be democracy at work?
Anyway surely that scenario is wildly far out and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[NotThePars]

C'mon gies a break!
For future reference I wouldn't pick a fascist Scotland.
The point your missing is that 'it's up to Scots to decide for Scotland' and if enough Scots (no me) voted for a Fascist Scotland then so be it.
Would that be democracy at work?
Anyway surely that scenario is wildly far out and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Thankfully it is a scenario that will probably never happen but it's where I think we differ though. I don't think democracy should supersede everything else in society. The tyranny of the majority (or in the UK's case tyranny of the third) can lead to a lot of misery for minority groups that obviously outvoted. Again it's just a brainstorming exercise as Scotland seems to be, in general, more progressive than down south or at least our parties are less willing to indulge the xenophobic bampot contingent up here.

[Wee Willie]

39 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

Thankfully it is a scenario that will probably never happen but it's where I think we differ though. I don't think democracy should supersede everything else in society. The tyranny of the majority (or in the UK's case tyranny of the third) can lead to a lot of misery for minority groups that obviously outvoted. Again it's just a brainstorming exercise as Scotland seems to be, in general, more progressive than down south or at least our parties are less willing to indulge the xenophobic bampot contingent up here.

How would that work in an independent Scotland?
If a majority of Scottish voters elected (dare I say it) a Tory/Fascist government surely the fact they were elected democratically is sufficient for them to govern.
As you say, thankfully it will probably never happen just as 'a socialist UK for example' will also never happen.
I mean get real, there may be a UK Labour government in the future but socialist - never.

[NotThePars]

How would that work in an independent Scotland?
If a majority of Scottish voters elected (dare I say it) a Tory/Fascist government surely the fact they were elected democratically is sufficient for them to govern.
As you say, thankfully it will probably never happen just as 'a socialist UK for example' will also never happen.
I mean get real, there may be a UK Labour government in the future but socialist - never.

But simply kicking your feet back and saying "people voted for this" is unhelpful and enables the state to act as it pleases against its own citizens, and others. That's why I find the independence at all costs crowd unhelpful. The manner in which we win independence and the people who lead the movement will shape the country moving forward. That's why we have to be critical of the SNP, amplify progressive voices of the movement and don't allow the far right a platform just because they might have the same end goal.

[Wee Willie]

7 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

But simply kicking your feet back and saying "people voted for this" is unhelpful and enables the state to act as it pleases against its own citizens, and others. That's why I find the independence at all costs crowd unhelpful. The manner in which we win independence and the people who lead the movement will shape the country moving forward. That's why we have to be critical of the SNP, amplify progressive voices of the movement and don't allow the far right a platform just because they might have the same end goal.

But unfortunately that is the truth.
Are you saying that we (the people of Scotland) should ignore any Scottish government that some of us may disagree with?
How would we do that?

The manner in which we win independence and the people who lead the movement will shape the country moving forward.
That's all very well but in 50, 100, 200 years down the road it will be others who will shape Scotland (for better or worse).

don't allow the far right a platform just because they might have the same end goal.
That's no what I'm advocating but the far right have every right to state their case just as the far left (me) have the same right.
Especially in this forum and no hound folk out because of their political beliefs.

[NotThePars]

But unfortunately that is the truth.
Are you saying that we (the people of Scotland) should ignore any Scottish government that some of us may disagree with?
How would we do that?
The manner in which we win independence and the people who lead the movement will shape the country moving forward.
That's all very well but in 50, 100, 200 years down the road it will be others who will shape Scotland (for better or worse).
don't allow the far right a platform just because they might have the same end goal.
That's no what I'm advocating but the far right have every right to state their case just as the far left (me) have the same right.
Especially in this forum and no hound folk out because of their political beliefs.

I'd be interested to hear what's far left about your politics since you're very much a middle of the road liberal in everything you've shared so far. Apart from maybe your anti-monarchism but even then it's still middle of the road in a lot of countries. And I would hope people would resist the state in any way they could if the state was acting violently or oppressing its own citizens. There's nothing far left or even morally acceptable IMO about shrugging your shoulders and saying "aw well".

With giving far right people a platform. Building a broad based inclusive movement doesn't mean accepting everyone into it because that's impossible. You can't welcome people of colour or LGBT people into a movement if you give prominent space to people that are avowedly racist or homophobic, they're fundamentally incompatible. If these people want to vote for independence, state their case or support it then they can but that doesn't mean we have endorse their view or amplify it because you risk alienating other members of the movement who, IMO, should be made to feel more welcome than bigots.

[Ad Lib]

3 hours ago, Wee Willie said:

The point your missing is that 'it's up to Scots to decide for Scotland' and if enough Scots (no me) voted for a Fascist Scotland then so be it.
Would that be democracy at work?

No, it would be fascism at work.

A fascist Scotland would be an illegitimate state, and a significantly more illegitimate one than even a flawed, somewhat authoritarian, United Kingdom for whom Scotland did not vote.

[Antlion]

The question is whether there would be any meaningful calls for Scottish independence if the UK had ever shown any inclination to be a force for good - for the good of all citizens and all constituent nations. Instead it has become one of the most unequal states on earth, endlessly intent on enriching the few, and squandering the resources of constituent nations (and regions) to that end. Once upon a time it was content to plunder the empire (and Scotland was of course part of that state), but the old habit of using, enriching a few, and squandering, has turned inwards since the empire died.

Basically, for anyone progressive, the UK is a dead end. If anything, it's getting less so. Scotland re-establishing statehood thus has the political argument and the progressive argument won - simply by virtue of the UK being demonstrably poor as both an equitable "union" and a progressive state.

[NotThePars]

The question is whether there would be any meaningful calls for Scottish independence if the UK had ever shown any inclination to be a force for good - for the good of all citizens and all constituent nations. Instead it has become one of the most unequal states on earth, endlessly intent on enriching the few, and squandering the resources of constituent nations (and regions) to that end. Once upon a time it was content to plunder the empire (and Scotland was of course part of that state), but the old habit of using, enriching a few, and squandering, has turned inwards since the empire died.

Basically, for anyone progressive, the UK is a dead end. If anything, it's getting less so. Scotland re-establishing statehood thus has the political argument and the progressive argument won - simply by virtue of the UK being demonstrably poor as both an equitable "union" and a progressive state.

 

I'm more understanding of those who are lukewarm on independence because of class solidarity throughout the UK than indy at all costs people but, aye, you're right the chances of a progressive UK government are zilch. Look at the hysteria towards the mild social democratic politics of Corbyn. And there's never been a government of the UK that wasn't avowedly imperialist.

[Wee Willie]

3 hours ago, NotThePars said:

 

I'd be interested to hear what's far left about your politics since you're very much a middle of the road liberal in everything you've shared so far. Apart from maybe your anti-monarchism but even then it's still middle of the road in a lot of countries. And I would hope people would resist the state in any way they could if the state was acting violently or oppressing its own citizens. There's nothing far left or even morally acceptable IMO about shrugging your shoulders and saying "aw well".

With giving far right people a platform. Building a broad based inclusive movement doesn't mean accepting everyone into it because that's impossible. You can't welcome people of colour or LGBT people into a movement if you give prominent space to people that are avowedly racist or homophobic, they're fundamentally incompatible. If these people want to vote for independence, state their case or support it then they can but that doesn't mean we have endorse their view or amplify it because you risk alienating other members of the movement who, IMO, should be made to feel more welcome than bigots.

That's fair enough.
My politics don't have a political label as such it's just me saying I'm very much left-wing.
By that I mean I'm on the side of the needy and no the greedy.

But you're giving the impression that Scotland is heading for a right wing/fascist state.
That's as much scaremongering as me wanting to give anyone the right to hold any political view they want.
To put it bluntly, I'll accept any vote for an independent Scotland be it from the far left, far right and everywhere in-between.
Once we have independence then you go your way (politically) and I'll go mine.
What could be fairer than that

 

[NotThePars]

Labour politicians throughout the Blair era would've said they were on the side of the needy rather than the greedy. In fact, most politicians would say that. It doesn't mean anything. A majority of Labour MPs said they were socialists rather than capitalists during a daft poll on Daily Politics. And at no point have I said Scotland is heading for a right wing/ fascist state. I mean I've literally said "it's a scenario that would never happen".

[Antlion]

41 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

I'm more understanding of those who are lukewarm on independence because of class solidarity throughout the UK than indy at all costs people but, aye, you're right the chances of a progressive UK government are zilch. Look at the hysteria towards the mild social democratic politics of Corbyn. And there's never been a government of the UK that wasn't avowedly imperialist.

I used to be, but Brexit killed off that zombie argument. Now anyone promoting "class solidarity" across the UK is excluding non Britons from that, and so can no longer promote themselves as non-nationalists. Even before June last year, of course, it was a very shaky argument, as - as you say - the UK has never shown the slightest concession to class solidarity. The "left wing argument" for the UK is far more of a demonstrable fantasy than anything the SNP could say about an iScotland, as the last three centuries have proven.

In fact, I seem to recall a fair number of supposed left wingers last time around acknowledging less that we were "better together" and more that we should suffer Tory rule together, just because.

[NotThePars]

I used to be, but Brexit killed off that zombie argument. Now anyone promoting "class solidarity" across the UK is excluding non Britons from that, and so can no longer promote themselves as non-nationalists. Even before June last year, of course, it was a very shaky argument, as - as you say - the UK has never shown the slightest concession to class solidarity. The "left wing argument" for the UK is far more of a demonstrable fantasy than anything the SNP could say about an iScotland, as the last three centuries have proven.
In fact, I seem to recall a fair number of supposed left wingers last time around acknowledging less that we were "better together" and more that we should suffer Tory rule together, just because.

Aye definitely. The lexit argument was among the most stupid positions I've seen in years. Completely about ideological purity and no concern about the effects on immigrants in this country.