Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mr Bairn

Mhairi Black appreciation thread

Recommended Posts

Well a wee hint - the word has its roots in the 1930s/1940s:

"quis·ling

(kwĭz′lĭng)

n.

A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country.

[After Vidkun Quisling, (1887-1945), head of Norway's government during the Nazi occupation (1940-1945).]"

Foulkes might be a lying duplicitous b*****d but I wouldn't describe him as a quisling.

What you really mean - like most other people who use the word - is someone you disagree with.

Remind me, when Foulkes used that word, who ruled Britain?

I note you also glossed over the Lib Dem North British Governer General. You'll find that I used the term precisely, and with accuracy.

Edited by xbl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remind me, when Foulkes used that word, who ruled Britain?

I note you also glossed over the Lib Dem North British Governer General. You'll find that I used the term precisely, and with accuracy.

The term was used completely inaccurately. It is the usual throwaway abuse by those so obsessed with what they preserve as attacks on their nation that they can't see the woods for the trees.

Unlike the Norwegians our representatives were elected and their actions, whether you agree with them or not were through that democratic mandate. I might not particularly agree with the SNP (although I did vote for Stewart Hosie on a personal basis) but I do recognise that they have a defined mandate due to their 56 MPs. If I disagree I (along with others) can always vote them out.

The Norwegians never had the luxury of either voting Vidkun Quisling in or removing him democratically.

That is the key difference.

But then you know that.

Edited by DeeTillEhDeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term was used completely inaccurately. It is the usual throwaway abuse by those so obsessed with what they preserve as attacks on their nation that they can't see the woods for the trees.

Unlike the Norwegians our representatives were elected and their actions, whether you agree with them or not were through that democratic mandate. I might not particularly agree with the SNP (although I did vote for Stewart Hosie on a personal basis) but I do recognise that they have a defined mandate due to their 56 MPs. If I disagree I (along with others) can always vote them out.

The Norwegians never had the luxury of either voting Vidkun Quisling in or removing him democratically.

That is the key difference.

But then you know that.

Are you referring to Baron Foulkes of Cumnock again? Can't wait to vote him out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term was used completely inaccurately. It is the usual throwaway abuse by those so obsessed with what they preserve as attacks on their nation that they can't see the woods for the trees.

Unlike the Norwegians our representatives were elected and their actions, whether you agree with them or not were through that democratic mandate. I might not particularly agree with the SNP (although I did vote for Stewart Hosie on a personal basis) but I do recognise that they have a defined mandate due to their 56 MPs. If I disagree I (along with others) can always vote them out.

The Norwegians never had the luxury of either voting Vidkun Quisling in or removing him democratically.

That is the key difference.

But then you know that.

Also, Foulkes isn't Norwegian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you referring to Baron Foulkes of Cumnock again? Can't wait to vote him out!

I was referring in general to the use if the word not Foulkes specifically.

But if you want to play that game explain in what leadership role Foulkes was acting when he made those (alleged) comments?

I've also checked the speech and tbh what he said was fair political comment.

Given the financial commitments by the SNP a fall in the oil price would be a deterrent to investment. Foulkes was not calling on businesses to not invest but saying it would be difficult to invest.

The problem is that some nationalists are so deaf to the opinions of others that they see an deviation from their world view as an attack.

It isn't - it's just that someone has a different opinion from you.

For the record, I actually do believe an iScotland could be successful - I just don't believe that the economic policies proposed in the White Paper are either going to work or are realistic. But then that's my opinion and no doubt you will have a different point of view - that's your right. We live in a democracy and respecting others right to have opinions (even if we disagree with them) is part of that democratic process.

The use if intemperate language such as quisling, traitor or uncle tom (which is actually objectionable with its racist connotations) adds nothing to the debate, adds nothing to the democratic process - it just shows your political immaturity and inability to handle someone you disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord George Foulkes:

"The SNP are on a very dangerous tack. What they are doing is trying to build up a situation in Scotland where the services are manifestly better than south of the border in a number of areas."

Interviewer Colin Mackay:"Is that a bad thing?"

Lord George Foulkes: "No, but they are doing it deliberately."

I believe said Foulkes was representing Labour...and Labour were, err, the governing party of Great and Glorious Britain. To be fair though, I can't recall the exact date so I'll happily accept a correction. I'll call it as I see it, and if I see senior figures and Unionist politicians conspiring against the best interests of Scotland, all to serve their London masters, I'll damn well call them quislings. Gordon Brown was the worst of the lot.

Btw, I find it very interesting that one side continues to be under attack for "intemperate" language, while the other side effectively gets a free pass. As it happens, I'm a great believer in free speech. And so I don't feel the need to bow down to the pressure to just lie here and take the abuse from the Unionist side. You can't defeat bullies and thugs by cowing to them and ceding ground. Something that oor more "moderate" independence supporters would do well to remember sometimes.

Edited by xbl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe said Foulkes was representing Labour...and Labour were, err, the governing party of Great and Glorious Britain. To be fair though, I can't recall the exact date so I'll happily accept a correction. I'll call it as I see it, and if I see senior figures and Unionist politicians conspiring against the best interests of Scotland, all to serve their London masters, I'll damn well call them quislings. Gordon Brown was the worst of the lot.

Btw, I find it very interesting that one side continues to be under attack for "intemperate" language, while the other side effectively gets a free pass. As it happens, I'm a great believer in free speech. And so I don't feel the need to bow down to the pressure to just lie here and take the abuse from the Unionist side. You can't defeat bullies and thugs by cowing to them and ceding ground. Something that oor more "moderate" independence supporters would do well to remember sometimes.

And what exactly makes what Foulkes said traitorous?

He didn't attack Scotland he attacked the SNP. The two aren't the same thing. You yourself have said that the SNP can be attacked on its record - so what's the difference?

You also talk about "the best interests of Scotland" - as if your way is the only way. What gives you the right to say that something isn't in the interests of Scotland?

As for bullies and thugs - I've seen them across the political spectrum - it's not the preserve of one party. Unfortunately, what we see in Scotland today are 2 parties whose members who are tribalistically thin-skinned and take every comment out of context or look to seek affront.

Edited by DeeTillEhDeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is ironic for any nationalist to accuse folk of being quislings, traitors or uncle tams given the hidden past of the SNP.

Arthur Donaldson (SNP leader in the 1960s toyed with idea of proposing himself as a leader of a separate Scotland if the Nazis had invaded Britain.

Andrew Dewar Gibb, then leader if the SNP, told their 1939 party conference that "imperial England" had no right "to criticise the actions of any other country" (ie Germany).

Nationalist poet Hugh McDiarmid argued in the 1930s argued that Nazism should be a model for Scottish socialist nationalists - in 1940 he admitted in a poem that if London were destroyed by bombs he would "hardly care."

In 1940, Professor Douglas Young (SNP Chair) was jailed for leading a group of nationalists opposed to conscription in what he described as an "English war".

It's not to say that Donaldson, Gibb, McDiarmid or Young were Nazis but that they couldn't see past their own obsessions - for them Germany was an ally because Germany was the enemy of England.

It should also be noted that other parties had their own sympathisers with Nazi Germany - Mosley in the Labour Party; Rothermere and others for the Tories; Churchill and his arms deals.

No political party is in the position to accuse others of being traitors or quislings given the mistakes of their predecessors in the past.

You never heard of poetic license?

Former Poet Laureate Sir John Betjeman's almost contemporaneous treatment of the subject is, if taken just as literally, far more shocking.

"Slough" (1937)

Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!

It isn't fit for humans now,

There isn't grass to graze a cow.

Swarm over, Death!

Come, bombs and blow to smithereens

Those air -conditioned, bright canteens,

Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans,

Tinned minds, tinned breath

You can read the whole thing at

http://www-cdr.stanford.edu/intuition/Slough.html

Edited by topcat(The most tip top)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what exactly makes what Foulkes said traitorous?

He didn't attack Scotland he attacked the SNP. The two aren't the same thing. You yourself have said that the SNP can be attacked on its record - so what's the difference?

You also talk about "the best interests of Scotland" - as if your way is the only way. What gives you the right to say that something isn't in the interests of Scotland?

He was accusing the Scottish Government of making Scotland better. Deliberately. There is absolutely no scenario when that can be construed as "another way". What is the "other way"? Argue in favour of actively making things shitter? Sometimes, a quisling is just a quisling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was accusing the Scottish Government of making Scotland better. Deliberately. There is absolutely no scenario when that can be construed as "another way". What is the "other way"? Argue in favour of actively making things shitter? Sometimes, a quisling is just a quisling.

It's amazing how quotes taken out of context can be deliberately misrepresented - as was started by Alex Salmond in his speech to the 2008 SNP conference and has done the rounds of nationalist bloggers.

I checked the interview and here us what was actually said"

"LORD GEORGE FOULKES : “The SNP are on a very dangerous tack at the moment. What they are doing is trying to build up a situation in Scotland where the services are manifestly better than south of the Border in a number of areas.”

COLIN MACKAY : “Is that a bad thing?”

LORD GEORGE FOULKES : “No. But they are doing it deliberately I think to fuel resentment. They could do it without saying much - that was happening before devolution , before the SNP took over, quietly, but now it’s almost a “ya boo sucks look at what we’re doing…”, people in England are saying - hey wait a minute this our taxes, whether or not that is true - that is how they feel. I think the SNP are doing this in order to Fuel the case for independence, by building up resentment . . ."

The implication from that full context was that Foulkes was accusing the SNP of knowingly trumpeting better services to deliberately undermine Barnett.

Given that the Tories have put EVEL on the agenda one could argue that he was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that context made zero difference. The quisling is still a quisling. And he's far from the only one. Michael "don't invest in Scotland" Moore and Gordon "radiation, what radiation" Brown are right there on oor wall of shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that context made zero difference. The quisling is still a quisling. And he's far from the only one. Michael "don't invest in Scotland" Moore and Gordon "radiation, what radiation" Brown are right there on oor wall of shame.

I think we're back full circle.

I think Foulkes could be called a lot of things - duplicitous, slimy, self-serving etc. I don't believe however that he doesn't have Scotland interests at heart even if he is sometimes wrong. I would say that's true for most politicians.

For me, accusing people of being traitors because you disagree with their political point of view is a very slippery road. It's political intolerance that would not have been out of place in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany.

Let's just say we'll agree to disagree.

Edited by DeeTillEhDeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't heard any of Black's speeches, but I did hear someone called Pete Wishart the other day.

He was abominable. Made the mistake of trying to be funny. He's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So she's now on £74k a year, some amount of chips and smirny ices that is. must be the highest salaried 20 y/o in Scotland!? How much of that £7k rise is she donating to her poor disadvantaged community? The ones she's so concerned about, they poor poverty stricken weans and asylum claimants. Savage Tory benefit cuts on the way for them, but not Ms Bleck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So she's now on £74k a year, some amount of chips and smirny ices that is. must be the highest salaried 20 y/o in Scotland!? How much of that £7k rise is she donating to her poor disadvantaged community?

"the youngest MP in the parliament, Mhairi Black, has said she would donate any pay rise to charity."

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/1911/mps-get-10-pay-rise-one-week-after-uk-government-announced-four-year-public-sector-pay-freeze

Choke on it, dickhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So she's now on £74k a year, some amount of chips and smirny ices that is. must be the highest salaried 20 y/o in Scotland!? How much of that £7k rise is she donating to her poor disadvantaged community? The ones she's so concerned about, they poor poverty stricken weans and asylum claimants. Savage Tory benefit cuts on the way for them, but not Ms Bleck.

Hahaha you set yourself up for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's remember, charity payments are tax deductible. I want to see her full return for 2015-2016 and if she claims relief for the £7k she claims she'll donate to whatever charity.You mugs might swallow this whole, I certainly don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...