Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Beth Paige-Black

The abolish the Scottish Parliament party.

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Thanks for agreeing with my premise.  Your whitaboutery is normal.

You want to talk about whataboutery? Fine. Let's see you answer you answer these questions directly.

What does "grey and green yins" really mean?

Why do you continue to follow, like and quote racists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

Could I respectfully suggest there are quite a few more, in fact a lot more, who could be added to that list?

 

lol yep. If the failings down south could be confined to the extremist fringes of the Tory Party then unionists could still make a plausible case for the UK but the failures are endemic across the board - left to right, Westminster to Holyrood. Full spectrum failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Amusing to see LTL double down there.

The Torcuils' and Catrionas' who were very much taken by empire and North Britishness have suddenly turned to leadership roles in the SNP ? The party is run by central belt technocrats, not the cast of Brigadoon FFS.

Reducing the Yes movement down to the Hamish Husband cosplayers and linking the rise in support for self determination to Braveheart is the level of political analysis I'd expect from The Sun trying to explain to white van man and the gammons why the Jocks want to f**k off.

Don't really get that part. The Torcuils and Catrionas I've met have mostly been Gaelic-speaking Islanders whose parents and grandparents were cannon-fodder for the Empire while their families were booted off the land by rich cnuts.

Share this post


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

Don't really get that part. The Torcuils and Catrionas I've met have mostly been Gaelic-speaking Islanders whose parents and grandparents were cannon-fodder for the Empire while their families were booted off the land by rich cnuts.

In 1732 and 1739 Macleod of Dunvegan and MacDonald of Sleat sold selected Clan members as indentured servants to landowners in the Carolinas.

Slaves in other words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You want to talk about whataboutery? Fine. Let's see you answer you answer these questions directly.

What does "grey and green yins" really mean?

Why do you continue to follow, like and quote racists?
Looks, quacks, walks etc. He's a bigot and a lifelong supporter of one of the most bigoted, hate-filled institutions in sport. His dirge should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm loving how Scots isn't normalised and I've been living in an alternate universe my whole life. People who use Scots a lot can interchange between both, with ease, depending on the setting.

It is a completely different language though. People from English speaking countries around the globe wouldn't have a clue what you're saying if you're speaking broad Scots between you and your pals. Bet you and your pals would understand them though.

It's a weird one, I prefer speaking in Scots but would never write in Scots. That shit would give me a sore head

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Pie and Bovril mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it had been the language of instruction at school and it was being routinely used in the media it would be easy for us to write sair heid rather than sore head. Scotland was too busy with its junior imperial partner plundering role to do that sort of thing in the 19th century when literary languages like Bokmal and Nynorsk Norwegian were being standardised elsewhere and for whatever reason there is no enthusiasm in the present day for emulating what the Catalans did post-Franco.

What to do with Scots is an awkward one for the SNP because a sizable portion of their activist base are panloaf speakers (for the sake of argument lets call them Torcuil and Catriona) who often still retain negative attitudes from an earlier era about Scots. There is a strand within Scottish nationalism that has latched onto Gaelic instead and try to push it as a national language rather than the reality of it being a local Highland/Hebridean one. Hence why Gaelic gets plastered all over Scottish government websites and Welcome to Scotland signs, etc in an empty token we're no #$%^in English sort of way.

Then there are large portions of Scottish history that are being actively dumped from the collective memory. Edited highlights about Bruce/Wallace talked about obsessively minus the invasion of Ireland by Edward Bruce and the Balliols briefly returning post-Bannockburn, but Knox and the Reformation almost never mentioned even though it explains why Scotland retained an ongoing level of significant adminstrative autonomy post-Union. All kinds of emotionalism from Fergus Ewing about Culloden OK, but Jenny Geddes and the Covenanters never mentioned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it had been the language of instruction at school and it was being routinely used in the media it would be easy for us to write sair heid rather than sore head. Scotland was too busy with its junior imperial partner plundering role to do that sort of thing in the 19th century when literary languages like Bokmal and Nynorsk Norwegian were being standardised elsewhere and for whatever reason there is no enthusiasm in the present day for emulating what the Catalans did post-Franco.
What to do with Scots is an awkward one for the SNP because a sizable portion of their activist base are panloaf speakers (for the sake of argument lets call them Torcuil and Catriona) who often still retain negative attitudes from an earlier era about Scots. There is a strand within Scottish nationalism that has latched onto Gaelic instead and try to push it as a national language rather than the reality of it being a local Highland/Hebridean one. Hence why Gaelic gets plastered all over Scottish government websites and Welcome to Scotland signs, etc in an empty token we're no #$%^in English sort of way.
Then there are large portions of Scottish history that are being actively dumped from the collective memory. Edited highlights about Bruce/Wallace talked about obsessively minus the invasion of Ireland by Edward Bruce and the Balliols briefly returning post-Bannockburn, but Knox and the Reformation almost never mentioned even though it explains why Scotland retained an ongoing level of significant adminstrative autonomy post-Union. All kinds of emotionalism from Fergus Ewing about Culloden OK, but Jenny Geddes and the Covenanters never mentioned...
Wtf is this shite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AUFC90 said:

I'm loving how Scots isn't normalised and I've been living in an alternate universe my whole life. People who use Scots a lot can interchange between both, with ease, depending on the setting.

It is a completely different language though. People from English speaking countries around the globe wouldn't have a clue what you're saying if you're speaking broad Scots between you and your pals. Bet you and your pals would understand them though.

It's a weird one, I prefer speaking in Scots but would never write in Scots. That shit would give me a sore head emoji23.png

Yep, there was a recent series on the BBC Scotland channel (or divisive nationalist Pravda channel as dispassionate neutrals LongTermLoyalist would have us believe) in which sociolinguists and other experts demonstrated the full extent of Scots influence in everyday life. Nearly everyone in the country is already bilingual to a significant degree and grades their word choice without even conscious thought: this is a remarkable skill that we should be celebrating and perhaps if we did that then more people would then be encouraged to take up a third language, whether a main European one, Gaelic or Arabic. Instead we suppress it under the label of 'slang' and wring our hands about being a region of monoglot thickos. 

The only real distinction between Scots and other small European languages is that there was never an influential movement to standardise its spelling in the 19th Century. Literary Slovak for example was created on the back of fag packet in the 1850s and barely a few thousand people out of two and a half million speakers could use it in any consistent form until it became a language of written instruction in Czechoslovakia after 1918: even today, the eastern Slovak written script and word choice is significantly different to the main form. If your national movement was developed in the context of 19th Century romanticism like the Slovak one then having a written literary language seemed crucial; if your nationalism rests on the legacy of the twentieth century like the Scottish case or countless post-colonial independence movements then it really is not, which is why our busted flush expert is floundering so badly here. 

Edited by vikingTON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm loving the uberstaunch hot take btw in which a Reformation that saw the KIngdom of Scotland ditch its long-standing international guarantors of independence - thereby making possible its regular occupation, attempted complete absorption and finally pretend union of equals with the English state over the following 150 years - being passed off as a great national triumph because the Kirk got to preserve its weirdo Presbyterian theocracy over everyone after 1707. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it had been the language of instruction at school and it was being routinely used in the media it would be easy for us to write sair heid rather than sore head. Scotland was too busy with its junior imperial partner plundering role to do that sort of thing in the 19th century when literary languages like Bokmal and Nynorsk Norwegian were being standardised elsewhere and for whatever reason there is no enthusiasm in the present day for emulating what the Catalans did post-Franco.
What to do with Scots is an awkward one for the SNP because a sizable portion of their activist base are panloaf speakers (for the sake of argument lets call them Torcuil and Catriona) who often still retain negative attitudes from an earlier era about Scots. There is a strand within Scottish nationalism that has latched onto Gaelic instead and try to push it as a national language rather than the reality of it being a local Highland/Hebridean one. Hence why Gaelic gets plastered all over Scottish government websites and Welcome to Scotland signs, etc in an empty token we're no #$%^in English sort of way.
Then there are large portions of Scottish history that are being actively dumped from the collective memory. Edited highlights about Bruce/Wallace talked about obsessively minus the invasion of Ireland by Edward Bruce and the Balliols briefly returning post-Bannockburn, but Knox and the Reformation almost never mentioned even though it explains why Scotland retained an ongoing level of significant adminstrative autonomy post-Union. All kinds of emotionalism from Fergus Ewing about Culloden OK, but Jenny Geddes and the Covenanters never mentioned...
Word salad is all that post deserves.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Pie and Bovril mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever met anyone who seriously wants to abolish the Scottish Parliament?

My family (apart from my sister) are all unionists, and every single one of them would be outraged at the suggestion.

Edited by oneteaminglasgow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone ever met anyone who seriously wants to abolish the Scottish Parliament?
My family (apart from my sister) are all unionists, and every single one of them would be outraged at the suggestion.
I've met two or three who shout from the rooftop about getting rid etc but usually when you begin to dissect their responses they start foaming at the mouth.

I think, anecdotally, at least that the very vast majority of Scots/people living in Scotland think it's a good thing, regardless of their political persuasion.

The idea that Holyrood has done more damage than good doesn't really hold any weight when you look at what has been achieved. They've (regardless of party in power) made a monumental arse of some things - no more than their contemporaries down the road however - and worked some wonders in other areas.

This anti-Scottish Parliament party will last about as long a Saints clean sheet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This lot are a halfwit collection of cracks and nutters. They might better ask themselves why there is a need to spend £350m on a new HQ for whatever is replacing Public Health England. If only every last penny could be spent on the Armed Forces though eh? Arseholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

Has anyone ever met anyone who seriously wants to abolish the Scottish Parliament?

My family (apart from my sister) are all unionists, and every single one of them would be outraged at the suggestion.

Yes, and I've met a couple of yoons who are so craven and self-loathing they actually deny Scotland is a country, and would gladly see it annexed by England. 

I'm not the sort of Scot who romanticises the country at all, in fact I'm rather ambivalent about Scotland as a place, but I'll never understand Scots who are so in love with the notion of being part of the union that they venerate England and all things English, to the point whereby they're visibly embarrassed at their own identity and nationality, and openly wish to see Scotland diminished as if that would somehow lead to them becoming 'more English'. No surprise either that the particular individual I have in mind also claims that Scotland is an anti-English xenophobic backwater, that they've never once encountered anti-Scottish feeling in England, and that on the whole England is a much more tolerant and affable place. 

I genuinely wonder if we're talking about the same countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, scottmcleanscontacts said:

I've met two or three who shout from the rooftop about getting rid etc but usually when you begin to dissect their responses they start foaming at the mouth.

I think, anecdotally, at least that the very vast majority of Scots/people living in Scotland think it's a good thing, regardless of their political persuasion.

The idea that Holyrood has done more damage than good doesn't really hold any weight when you look at what has been achieved. They've (regardless of party in power) made a monumental arse of some things - no more than their contemporaries down the road however - and worked some wonders in other areas.

This anti-Scottish Parliament party will last about as long a Saints clean sheet.

The problem the staunchest opponents of Scotland having any form of self government have is that they base their argument entirely on claiming the SNP are bad. The logic of that argument is that because the Tories are demonstrably a far worse, more incompetent, deeply corrupt, and foul party of government, the UK also does not deserve to be self governing. Pointing that out appears to make their heads explode, though, because hardcore UK nationalism is all about the UK, its government, and its institutions being infallible. 

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...