Should Scotland be an independent country?
- Thread starter Deej
- Start date
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
What true colours? Not hatred either; rather pity, that sport and politics and deviant actions have crossed over so badly.
Colin L
High-tech low-life
None whatsoever. They do very well with the limited resources that a Scottish football affords them and all the other Scottish sides, but it’s still grim football. With the limited opposition they have they will never develop to standard beyond the level sufficient to dominate in Scotland. If the opportunity came it would have been terrific for Celtic and/or Rangers to play in another league. Maybe a new European Super league (which hopefully never happens) will allow them to. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want that if the chance came.
Regarding Scottish football, I did try for a while. I went to watch Aberdeen, Dundee Utd a few times, the local sides Montrose, Brechin and Forfar, but crikey it’s thud and blunder and not much else.
My eldest son lives in Glasgow. FWIW he tells me the Celtic fans are alright, and the Rangers fans are the obnoxious, aggressive ones.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Indeed. Who has kept a supporters' pub within spitting distance of the other team's home ground just to agitate?
Clue
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
It’s not for me to have answers, Colin. I don’t want to break up the UK.
If the tories are persuaded to allow a referendum you nationalists are going to have to answer questions from voters in Scotland who are unsure how to vote. I hope you try the half-a-millenium one. Should be a real vote winner, don’t you think?
Interesting exchange you had with gassor. You need to watch the mask.
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
Bottled their own goalkeeper in 1969 against Newcastle.
gassor
There may be more posts after this.
gassor
There may be more posts after this.
And don't forget how 'well' they behaved in Manchester 10 years ago. Gentle reminder: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/sep/03/rangers-hooligans-manchester-riot
Colin L
High-tech low-life
The posts were about football. More deflection and nonsense from you, as usual. No mask here. Your paranoia and victim complex are running riot. Give it a rest.
kendo
Prussian bot
Ahem...
HairyHaggis
<((((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸.•´¯`•...¸><((((º>¸.
Reading the way this thread has turned on to footie, I was tempted to think how it could be that the nuanced, sophisticated world of politics could be hijacked by the primitive tribalism of football, where every proponent bangs their own perfect drum. But then I thought again. Politics can be pretty tribal too, with the same principle that for someone to win, someone else has to lose. Success on the back of another's loss. I really dislike the mind numbing idiocy of the terraces, the love me love my team, mentality that alleges superiority over others for any number of vacuous reasons. Politics can be pretty tribal, yes, but football is the epitomy of collective aggression, corrupt and corrupting, in so many ways. And yet, money, sex and drugs seem to lie not too deep below the surface so maybe the slide from one to the other is not so surprising. I think it's time we got rid of the scourge of the polarising effect of footie. It is endemic here in the west coast for example, so deeply embedded that for some poor folks it's the sole form of identity. it's everywhere you look. There have been a number of reports, reviews and research carried out that clearly indicate how we would benefit by ridding ourselves of the weekly tribal gatherings that divide and denigrate and drag so many of the populace, like mindless howler monkeys in the tree tops, to the terraces to hurl abuse on our fellow citizens and propogate violence and aggression. Splitting apart societies, on any basis, any label, be it politics, religion, football, whatever, should be banned. Stop the weekly tribal gatherings. Let's call a halt to the weekly worshipping at the shrine of the terrace.
Signed:
Just Sayin'
Signed:
Just Sayin'
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
Morning Col mate,
I know it was about football, this is how I knew that.
That looks like football to me, so guess what? I asked you a football related question.
Imagine my surprise when you failed to provide an answer
and flipped back to your wish to make Scotland poorer in this half-a-millenium project.I wasted my time with another dose of reality.
As is your way, you deflected.
There is no paranoia or victim complex from me, nor is there deflection and nonsense, that’s your game, Col, as is very clear.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
Hairy:
I think people like tribes. They need to be a member of a group. Life for most is just too scary to be alone.
That's why villages work. But even in a Metropolis, you will find groupings. It's a human thing. As is the distrust of 'them' that is inherent in that system. That doesn't imply violence has to occur when opposing groups meet. That's just the recourse of the brain dead.
As is recurring rudeness in threads, personal insult and name calling.
I think people like tribes. They need to be a member of a group. Life for most is just too scary to be alone.
That's why villages work. But even in a Metropolis, you will find groupings. It's a human thing. As is the distrust of 'them' that is inherent in that system. That doesn't imply violence has to occur when opposing groups meet. That's just the recourse of the brain dead.
As is recurring rudeness in threads, personal insult and name calling.
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
I couldn’t agree more. The small number of genuine Scottish nationalists here are very much like a tribe.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
A nationalist might be someone who thinks their nation is great and who shares these views with like minded people??
Well well. Point is, why is that view bad? In reality, wherever you draw your border, it's likely that some of what is beyond that wall is not good. In all honesty, it isn't hard to feel sympathy for nationalism as a concept. It's just that the reaction to that 'not good' needs to be rational and educated and sprinkled with understanding. The understanding that, in the end, we are all flawed. You, me, everyone. So we shouldn't waste our lives criticising others, but enjoying those around us.
Nice nationalism. That'll be fine. Stop looking for weapons and look for good things instead.
Well well. Point is, why is that view bad? In reality, wherever you draw your border, it's likely that some of what is beyond that wall is not good. In all honesty, it isn't hard to feel sympathy for nationalism as a concept. It's just that the reaction to that 'not good' needs to be rational and educated and sprinkled with understanding. The understanding that, in the end, we are all flawed. You, me, everyone. So we shouldn't waste our lives criticising others, but enjoying those around us.
Nice nationalism. That'll be fine. Stop looking for weapons and look for good things instead.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
It seems quite reasonable to me that the time to make the 'case for voting for independence' will be in the period where the circumstances can taken into account. i.e. Once a referendum is allowed and called.
This links with a second point.
We were explicitly and repeatedly told as 'fact' last time that voting to leave the UK would mean being ejected from the EU. So we *had* to vote 'No' to Scots Independence if we wished to remain in the EU. We were also explicitly told that, because of Spain, we would be refused re-entry if we became independent.
Thus any 'prospects' laid out hinge on the circumstances at the time people are making the actual decision of choosing independence or not.
Thus your presumption about "losing the case" last time is actually misleading because a factor was being told what turned out to be a lie, now exposed, and the circumstances now being starkly different.
Again, I have no idea how I would/will vote, nor what he outcome would be. But I think it now would make sense to allow another IndyRef in the next few years.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
You'd need to deal with the entire set of points I made.
However I'd agree that the Tory government at Westminster might well simply dismiss the idea. The snag is that I think it likely that this will simply cause the support for both a referendum and a 'yes' vote to grow steadily. This would delay independence, but make it more likely to happen eventually.
More generally, BloJo and his mates now clearly have power and thus will 'own' what happens. Delays mean that people may gradually find that the reality turns out not to be as they were promised. e.g. the unicorns fail to arrive. Policies can look wonderful when spun as future plans, but then turn out to be seriously flawed once people experience them.
No doubt they will blame 'Johnny Foriegner' for all ills. But going on blaming someone else who *wasn't* elected with a big majority to 'get things done' may wear a bit thin.
So, yes, Westminster can't be forced to allow another ref soon. But I think that just means it - and independence - become more likely. And given that I think Sturgeon is rather sharper than BloJo, it may be what she has in mind. So people arguing against another IndyRef may suit her fine at present.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
For me, the point is not who may or may not be 'great'. It is if a body of people overall have a different view about how they want their place to be run, and what it should be like to live there.
Having spent decades in London, then decades in Scotland, I'm satisfied that they *are* different places in many ways - social, legal, political, etc.
e.g. anyone in England still struggling with 'freehold' exploitation might find it useful to know the Scots legal system did away with its equivalent here some time ago. Lots more examples like that in details that tend never to be mentioned in UK-wide broadcasts, etc.
And if anything the Brexit process underlined this feeling of difference. Not a claim to be better or worse, but of preferring something different. In this case annoyance at being dragged out of the EU when we were told that independence would do this last time.
And the UK has been claimed to be a construct where partners come together by *mutual* consent. Not by dictat from London.
So I think that, yes, Westminster can delay this and dismiss it for now. But in the long run that will make Scots Independence more likely. if they held a referendum soon, people might vote against just to minimise all the guddle caused by adding it to Brexit being a scunner.