Alaska referendum?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There was a great nationalistic fervor in the seventies but nothing like what transpired in Ireland. I am trying to gauge the mood and its quite hard to say how it will go. I had a campaigner at the door and he was telling me about the covert efforts of the Tories to privatize the health service in England, the BBC's bias towards unionists etc and ...[text shortened]... a fine socialist tradition and this in some way might split the vote, I dunno, its hard to say.

Socialism and nationalism do not fit comfortably together. I think they are not compatible philosophies and in general I object to nationalism as a poisonous force in politics. One significant remark in Lee's history of Ireland is that the newly independent state was far less diverse than the larger British nation had been and suffered serious defects as a consequence. Separation produced a narrow range of thinking which became suffocating and parochial. And certainly Ireland failed dismally to prosper in its first fifty years, only taking off in the Seventies. So maybe the risk for the Scots is parochialism but I am inclined to doubt that. It is a very different country to the Ireland of 1922. I think the arguments for independence are no longer based primarily on nationalist sentiment but on very significant conflict with a Westminster based government that has failed to serve the regions and sold its soul to the City of London. If anything, it looks as though the Westminster elite (including New Labour) have become seduced into thinking of the USA as a model to emulate, while a rational observer would see the US as a warning to stay very far away.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Did they save the receipt?

Originally posted by finnegan
Socialism and nationalism do not fit comfortably together. I think they are not compatible philosophies and in general I object to nationalism as a poisonous force in politics. One significant remark in Lee's history of Ireland is that the newly independent state was far less diverse than the larger British nation had been and suffered serious defects as a ...[text shortened]... model to emulate, while a rational observer would see the US as a warning to stay very far away.

yes i fear this division of interests will seriously hamper the nationalist vote but it will be close. Why we should be ruled over by a political party who have not a single representative member in our entire country (The Tories I dont think have any Scottish MPs and have only ever had like one or two mostly among the aged and farming communities of Ayrshire) must be unprecedented in the history of democracy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i fear this division of interests will seriously hamper the nationalist vote but it will be close. Why we should be ruled over by a political party who have not a single representative member in our entire country (The Tories I dont think have any Scottish MPs and have only ever had like one or two mostly among the aged and farming communities of Ayrshire) must be unprecedented in the history of democracy.

I see your point and agree with it. Sadly, the Tories can restrict their interest to England and achieve something close to a majority (this is only a coalition government of course - they have no majority yet) in the same way that the borders of Northern Ireland were drawn to provide a built in Loyalist majority. The problem for England is that devolution removes a great many progressive votes and voices, leaving England a less attractive place in many ways.

Of course it is staggering that the Tories ever became capable of winning an election again after their disgraceful performance under Thatcher and Major. It seemed impossible until they were rescued by the dishonesty of New Labour. It is interesting to notice that the Welsh nationalists are now more socialist than their Labour rivals, and prospering as a result. However, in England, the challenge is from UKIP, for whom the trick is to push the nationalist argument, and that is just too depressing to bother continuing.

Originally posted by finnegan
Rubbish.

Might be useful if you worked out that the European Court of Human Rights is a legal (not political) institution supported by 47 European states INCLUDING RUSSIA. It is not part of nor a responsibility of the European Union It is a quite separate institution altogether.

The European Union only acceded to the European Convention on Human ...[text shortened]... espect for your own human rights I imagine you do not mind seeing them taken from you.

Idiot

screw you dimwad.

Originally posted by redbarons
screw you dimwad.

Malfunction. Where do you get the breath-taking stupidity to complain we have no democracy because we are committed to the European Convention on Human Rights? One of the first things the former soviet states did after breaking free from the soviet system was precisely to adopt that same convention and to submit their new governments to the European Court of Human Rights. Free at last - and they wanted things to stay that way and even get better. That is why they demanded human rights and why some of their dodgier governments today are happy to watch the British Government help to undermine that same convention.

It is a shame that so many of the English (in particular) are unable to grasp the concept of the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. The Coalition government is cheerfully dismantling England's court system and its legal aid to the extent that in time it will become - not impossible perhaps, but extremely unlikely that the government and its agencies will be called to account in future the way they have been - to an insipid degree - in the past.

To take one example only, the Stephen Lawrence case is now credited with exposing systematic corruption and injustice in the way the Metropolitan Police have been operating. This harms all of us. A family whose child was brutally murdered in the street in a racist attack has fought for decades to seek some justice. Some of the gang responsible have been shown to have criminal families who could and almost certainly did bribe police officers to destroy evidence. We have recently had proof that the police, while protecting the murderers from justice, were spying on the Lawrence family and searching for any dirt they could throw to help discredit them and their campaign for justice. Their lawyer has said in the past few days that if he were presented with this case today he would have to turn it down because of the loss of legal aid funding and other changes that make it just unrealistic to attempt to seek justice,

The number of miscarriages of justice that have been exposed ought to make the people of England a little more precious about protecting their human rights against an executive that is clearly not to be trusted without supervision. You imagine that if you have done nothing wrong then you will have nothing to fear. Many of these miscarriages involve people who have indeed done nothing wrong.

Instead, we have our media systematically lying and seeking to discredit the human rights agenda and their lies are accepted without a thought by idiots like yourself, whose votes will help send this country to hell in a handcart.

Originally posted by finnegan
Malfunction. Where do you get the breath-taking stupidity to complain we have no democracy because we are committed to the European Convention on Human Rights? One of the first things the former soviet states did after breaking free from the soviet system was precisely to adopt that same convention and to submit their new governments to the European Court o ...[text shortened]... thought by idiots like yourself, whose votes will help send this country to hell in a handcart.

Its already gone to hell, Blair & Bush should be locked up we are not allowed to deport murderers and rapists because of human rights Russia and America(mainly Texas) don't look after human rights and at the end of the day who can you vote for the working classes have been forgotten I have always voted Labour but now I will write on my ballot paper no faith in any of them.

Originally posted by redbarons
Its already gone to hell, Blair & Bush should be locked up we are not allowed to deport murderers and rapists because of human rights Russia and America(mainly Texas) don't look after human rights and at the end of the day who can you vote for the working classes have been forgotten I have always voted Labour but now I will write on my ballot paper no faith in any of them.

But it is simply a lie that the UK cannot lock up murderers and rapists because of human rights. The prisons are well stocked with such people. Where some are allowed to go free is when the police can stitch up an innocent person for the crime.

Are you thinking that people accused of such crimes have no right to a defence and do you really think the police will ensure that only the guilty get charged? If so you are in a dream world and ignoring what has been happening around you.

Why cannot you understand that powerful interests are attacking the human rights convention because they want to take away your rights? Not the rights of some murdering rapist - your rights. And you ought to worry about protecting your rights, not vote them away.

Why cannot you see that people tell lies in public. Politicians lie. Newspapers lie. It is your job to question them and look for some sort of truth, not just accept what you are told and allow them to manipulate you.

In the specific example that enraged me, you say that human rights are controlled by the EU and I pointed out to you that that is nonsense. Nothing much to do with the EU. So if you are wrong about that, what else have you got wrong?

But on Bush and Blair you are not wrong. You are correct. And the US has no interest in human rights, least of all Texans.

Originally posted by finnegan
But it is simply a lie that the UK cannot lock up murderers and rapists because of human rights. The prisons are well stocked with such people. Where some are allowed to go free is when the police can stitch up an innocent person for the crime.

Are you thinking that people accused of such crimes have no right to a defence and do you really think the p ...[text shortened]... re not wrong. You are correct. And the US has no interest in human rights, least of all Texans.

so?

Originally posted by redbarons
so?

So this:

In the specific example that enraged me, you say that human rights are controlled by the EU and I pointed out to you that that is nonsense. Nothing much to do with the EU. So if you are wrong about that, what else have you got wrong?

Originally posted by finnegan
Socialism and nationalism do not fit comfortably together. I think they are not compatible philosophies and in general I object to nationalism as a poisonous force in politics. One significant remark in Lee's history of Ireland is that the newly independent state was far less diverse than the larger British nation had been and suffered serious defects as a ...[text shortened]... model to emulate, while a rational observer would see the US as a warning to stay very far away.

I can hardly see the animosity between Socialism and Nationalism. History is replete with the two working together. Try starting with Nazi Germany.