Armed Struggle and the fight for a Scottish Workers Republic.

[Palingenisis]

Im not posting this because I agree with what seems to have been military adventurism but because of its historical interest.

http://irsn.weebly.com/armed-struggle-and-the-fight-for-a-scottish-workersrsquo-republic.html

"While Scotland can trace a clearly defined, native republican socialist current to the dawn of the 20th Century and an easily identify an emerging republican socialist tendency within its working class as far back as the late 18th Century, it could be argued that there had not been a clearly republican socialist organization in arms until the late 1960s and into the early 1980s. The first of these was the Workers Party of Scotland, a Marxist-Leninist (Maoist) party founded in 1967 in support of both socialism and Scottish national liberation. In 1972, four of its members, most notably Matt Lygate, were arrested and charged with having robbed the Royal Bank of Scotland to raise funds for the party. There is no evidence of the Workers Party of Scotland having engaged in further use of arms after the four were jailed and, though the party continued on until the early 1990s, it never attained its former stature.

The other noteworthy armed organization in Scotland during this period was the Scottish National Liberation Army, which was founded in 1979. Unfortunately, the story of the SNLA has been made difficult to discuss by the later actions of member Adam Busby. There are many who are firmly convinced that Busby is a police agent, but whether that is true or not, what is clear is that his various high profile actions and alleged plots, such as an attempt to poison England’s water supply carried out since the late 1980s have done little to advance the cause of a Scottish workers’ republic and much to discredit Scottish republican socialism. However, the SNLA’s campaign of the early 1980s can more clearly be said to have represented sincere actions of republican socialist activists will revolutionary intent."

[Dimentio]

There are everything.

[Palingenisis]

There are everything.

:confused:

[Bud Struggle]

There are everything.

At least one of each.

[Demogorgon]

I seriously doubt that even one in every thousand Scottish people has ever heard of any of these groups. The notion of armed struggle for Scottish independence in the last century or so is simply absurd.

[Palingenisis]

I seriously doubt that even one in every thousand Scottish people has ever heard of any of these groups. The notion of armed struggle for Scottish independence in the last century or so is simply absurd.

Typical trendy to have a go at some of the finest daughters and sons of the Scottish working class who were prepared to risk all in taking the fight to enemy.

[Demogorgon]

Typical trendy to have a go at some of the finest daughters and sons of the Scottish working class who were prepared to risk all in taking the fight to enemy.
What? :lol: They contributed absolutely nothing to Scottish political life and left no impact whatsoever. The notion of some sort of armed struggle for Scottish independence is utterly laughable given the fact that large sections of the political mainstream in Scotland support it. I know your demented nationalism makes you want to latch onto every lunatic who sees themselves as a glorious soldier of their nation or whatever, but seriously, get a grip on reality.

[Tommy4ever]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

Sometimes this place is like the Communist version of "Risk." :cool:

[ComradeMan]

So the Scots are allowed to have their own "nationalist" state but the Jews are not.
;)

[Ele'ill]

I can see the future.









Of this thread.

[Palingenisis]

Im not going near the subject of Zionism. If I wasnt restricted this would just have been posted in Maoist group. As it is three Maoists thanked the OP. :)

[Bud Struggle]

As it is three Maoists thanked the OP. :)

And one Capitalist! :)

[Dimentio]

So the Scots are allowed to have their own "nationalist" state but the Jews are not.
;)

The Scots are allowed to have an independent state in Scotland, not in Palestine.

Troll.

I doubt the Scottish working class was engaged in that Army. In general, it seems like the Middle Class in Scotland and the upper segments of the Working Class are in favour of independence, considering that SNP is to the right of Labour but to the left of the Tories traditionally.

[Crimson Commissar]

So the Scots are allowed to have their own "nationalist" state but the Jews are not.
;)
For fuck sake, that's not even remotely similar. Jews never HAD a national state before. They lived in Palestine along with the Arabs, sure, but how does that give them the right to claim the ENTIRE COUNTRY for themselves? The Scottish have lived in their land for hundreds of years, longer than the modern English have lived in their's. They wouldn't be stealing land from anybody if they established their own republic, infact I think people from England would still be very much welcome in an independent Scotland. Much different to the situation in Israel where it's considered a crime for a Palestinian to be anywhere near "Jewish" soil.

[Palingenisis]

I doubt the Scottish working class was engaged in that Army. In general, it seems like the Middle Class in Scotland and the upper segments of the Working Class are in favour of independence, considering that SNP is to the right of Labour but to the left of the Tories traditionally.

Actually the days of them (the SNP) being "Tartan Tories" are over. Actually they are too the left of the British Labour Party now (which isnt all that hard granted).

Also you forgot about these guys...

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Socialist_Party

[Bud Struggle]

. Jews never HAD a national state before. Th.

They think they HAD. That's the crux of the problem.

[Palingenisis]

The Scots are allowed to have an independent state in Scotland, not in Palestine.


ComradeMan wants to connect this thread to Palestine in order to wind me up.

[ComradeMan]

For fuck sake, that's not even remotely similar. Jews never HAD a national state before. They lived in Palestine along with the Arabs, sure, but how does that give them the right to claim the ENTIRE COUNTRY for themselves? The Scottish have lived in their land for hundreds of years, longer than the modern English have lived in their's. They wouldn't be stealing land from anybody if they established their own republic, infact I think people from England would still be very much welcome in an independent Scotland. Much different to the situation in Israel where it's considered a crime for a Palestinian to be anywhere near "Jewish" soil.

Scottish people are not one race, nor was all of the current territory of Scotland ever under one united Scotland, nor was their one homogenous Scots state. The original Scots came from Ireland and conquered the native British-Welsh, to which we add the Lowland Scots (Anglo-Saxon) and the Orkney/Shetland Viking (Norse). The Scots invaded Caledonia at roughly the same time the Anglo-Saxons invaded. If we want to start resurrecting these ancient claims to land, then the only people to really have any claim are the Welsh, Cornish and Bretons.

Now, I don't support such stuff to be honest. I appreciate that the Scots situation is different to the Israeli situation, but I do find it ironic that when a perceived Jewish nationalism is attacked so vehemently by the OP, a Scots "Celtic" (made up) nationalism is promoted- especially in the light of the fact that the same user also attacked a Croatian memeber who subsequently left RevLeft as a result, for "nationalism".
:confused:

[Palingenisis]

No nation is one race. Most of my blood isnt Irish gael...Doesnt stop me from being Irish. :rolleyes:

[Crimson Commissar]

Scottish people are not one race, nor was all of the current territory of Scotland ever under one united Scotland, nor was their one homogenous Scots state. The original Scots came from Ireland and conquered the native British-Welsh, to which we add the Lowland Scots (Anglo-Saxon) and the Orkney/Shetland Viking (Norse). The Scots invaded Caledonia at roughly the same time the Anglo-Saxons invaded. If we want to start resurrecting these ancient claims to land, then the only people to really have any claim are the Welsh, Cornish and Bretons.

Now, I don't support such stuff to be honest. I appreciate that the Scots situation is different to the Israeli situation, but I do find it ironic that when a perceived Jewish nationalism is attacked so vehemently by the OP, a Scots "Celtic" (made up) nationalism is promoted- especially in the light of the fact that the same user also attacked a Croatian memeber who subsequently left RevLeft as a result, for "nationalism".
:confused:
Jewish nationalism is much, much different to Scottish nationalism. Scots already have a native land in which they make up the majority of the population. Jews never made up the majority population of anywhere, so they had to steal land from other ethnic groups to establish their state.

[Palingenisis]

Jewish nationalism is much, much different to Scottish nationalism. Scots already have a native land in which they make up the majority of the population. Jews never made up the majority population of anywhere, so they had to steal land from other ethnic groups to establish their state.

This thread is about Scottish nationalism which can be reactionary though. Its about the armed struggle of Scottish Republican Socialists.

[ComradeMan]

Jewish nationalism is much, much different to Scottish nationalism. Scots already have a native land in which they make up the majority of the population. Jews never made up the majority population of anywhere, so they had to steal land from other ethnic groups to establish their state.

Really? Who are the ethnic Scots?

Since when do leftists rely on Social Constructs?

I thought the Proletariat knew no nation?

I'm sorry---- but I am perceiving some serious double standards here.

Since when does making up the majority of the population give a moral right? Hell... isn't that what the Israelis say?

[Palingenisis]

Can we discuss Zionism on another thread please? :crying:

[Bud Struggle]

This thread is about Scottish nationalism which can be reactionary though. Its about the armed struggle of Scottish Republican Socialists.

I think it's been established: No such thing.

[Palingenisis]

Really? Who are the ethnic Scots?


My father's father was probably no Gaelic blood in his veins. As a Dublin protestant he was probably pure Huegnot, Viking, Welsh (maybe) and English...But he was still interned by DeValera in the 1940s as a member of the Irish Republican Army. Please understand Republican Socialists in Scotland and Ireland are NOT ethnic/racial nationalists.

[ComradeMan]

Can we discuss Zionism on another thread please? :crying:

We are not discussing Zionism per se, however I must say it strikes me as strange that someone who seems to deny that there is such a thing as a Jewish people and all the rest, would promote Scots nationalism and support "Celtic" nationalism- afterall, Celtic is even more dubious as an ethnonym than "Jewish"- by your standards that is.

Isn't promoting Scots, English,Welsh nationalism etc a bit like promoting ethnic nationalism when you should, from a leftist position, rather promote a British worker's state?

[Palingenisis]

I think it's been established: No such thing.

In your mind...

[Palingenisis]

Isn't promote Scots, English,Welsh nationalism etc a bit like promoting ethnic nationalism when you should, from a leftist position, rather promote a British worker's state?

If you want unity and friendship between the working classes of the celtic nations and the English ones here is some advice....Remove Westminister's jackboot. I and others I know have encountered much more anti-English chauvinism in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall than in Ireland? I wonder where that comes from? Despite Unionist juggling of figures England has a parasitic relationship to these places which are basically second world countries with a lot more poverty, etc than Mother England. National oppression has to be removed before there can be true "Unity".

[ComradeMan]

If you want unity and friendship between the working classes of the celtic nations and the English ones here is some advice....Remove Westminister's jackboot. I and others I know have encountered much more anti-English chauvinism in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall than in Ireland? I wonder where that comes from? Despite Unionist juggling of figures England has a parasitic relationship to these places which are basically second world countries with a lot more poverty, etc than Mother England. National oppression has to be removed before there can be true "Unity".


"Celtic" what is that?

Chauvanism? Well... that's good.
:rolleyes:

I thought the passport said British, not English.
;)

[Crimson Commissar]

Personally I'd prefer to see a united British socialist republic, but if the people of Britain want independence then they should have it really. It seems like Scotland and Wales are becoming more nationalistic recently, so I honestly wouldn't be surprised if, when a socialist revolution ever comes to Britain, the union is dismantled entirely along with capitalism.

[Palingenisis]

I thought the passport said British, not English.
;)

You really have no clue and you care less. I love our working people and am interested in their struggle. That was the great thing about debating with Costello_1977, despite our many differences we both cared about what we were talking about.

[Palingenisis]

Personally I'd prefer to see a united British socialist republic, but if the people of Britain want independence then they should have it really. It seems like Scotland and Wales are becoming more nationalistic recently, so I honestly wouldn't be surprised if, when a socialist revolution ever comes to Britain, the union is dismantled entirely along with capitalism.

The UK state has its origin in the Norman invasion which butchered a quarter of the population of the north of England in the infamous harrowing of the north. Im for union with England when the time is right. But history teaches us that national chauvinism doesnt magically disappear with socialism. What Im suggesting is a celtic Yugoslavia including Brittany and Galicia.

[Rooster]

I feel as though I have to clear up a few points here.

Genetically speaking, the vast majority of people in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England, can say that they're mostly celtic in origin. I use the termn celtic to cover the language groups that came in along the Atlantic fringe and from central Europe after the ice age. There is a slight difference in regards to the East and West coats but the majority of the inhabitants are of celtic origins. See "A Genetic History of the British Isles".

Secondly, there isn't much of a history of an armed resistance in Scotland over the past century. There has been more activity in traditional working man protests such as the sit-ins and marches. A couple of guys planning to poison water supplies isn't much of an armed resistance.

[gorillafuck]

So the Scots are allowed to have their own "nationalist" state but the Jews are not.
;)
Scottish nationalism isn't like zionism other than that they are both bourgeois movements, Israel are apartheid colonialists (seeing as how it is an objective fact that Israel are colonialists, if you don't think they are then you don't have a good grasp on reality at all) whereas Scottish nationals aren't. I think a better comparison would be to Scottish nationalists with Palestinian nationalists, except that the national oppression Palestinians get is much, much, much worse than what Scottish people get.

[Rooster]

Personally I'd prefer to see a united British socialist republic, but if the people of Britain want independence then they should have it really. It seems like Scotland and Wales are becoming more nationalistic recently, so I honestly wouldn't be surprised if, when a socialist revolution ever comes to Britain, the union is dismantled entirely along with capitalism.

I actually don't think most Scots are that nationalistic. It's been beat into most of them that being a Scottish national is a vulgar thing to be.

[Palingenisis]

In defense of Scottish nationalism as opposed to Israeli colonialism, Israel are apartheid colonialists (seeing as how it is an objective fact that Israel are colonialists) whereas Scottish nationals aren't. I think a better comparison would be to Scottish nationalists with Palestinian nationalists, except that the national oppression Palestinians get is much, much, much worse than what Scottish people get.

I agree with that totally.

But the whole Israel/Palestine comparison is ComradeMan trying to wind me up.

And again I hate all racial nationalisms (I believe the whole idea of racial purity is bullshit).

[Dimentio]

If you want unity and friendship between the working classes of the celtic nations and the English ones here is some advice....Remove Westminister's jackboot. I and others I know have encountered much more anti-English chauvinism in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall than in Ireland? I wonder where that comes from? Despite Unionist juggling of figures England has a parasitic relationship to these places which are basically second world countries with a lot more poverty, etc than Mother England. National oppression has to be removed before there can be true "Unity".

To be fair, Northern and South-Western England are also quite disprivileged. I think it is an inheritance from the Norman conquest, as well as the profound classism in England (where the wealthy seem to harbour almost an open disgust of the most poor segments of society).

[Lt. Ferret]

all this shit about ethnic social states comes off as really national socialistic to me, and definitely not down with any sort of workers struggle. i understand the issues differ between different working classes in different parts of the world, in fact thats a key issue for me, but having a socialist states intentionally mirroring ethnic groups is really striking me a bit odd.

[Palingenisis]

To be fair, Northern and South-Western England are also quite disprivileged. I think it is an inheritance from the Norman conquest, as well as the profound classism in England (where the wealthy seem to harbour almost an open disgust of the most poor segments of society).

Thats a fair enough. We regard Cornwall as a nation but thats beside the point. Northern England contains but England's most progressive and openly fascist elements. Is Scotland more oppressed than the north of England? I dont know. I dont think however that weakens the argument for the break of the UK state.

[Palingenisis]

all this shit about ethnic social states comes off as really national socialistic to me, and definitely not down with any sort of workers struggle. i understand the issues differ between different working classes in different parts of the world, in fact thats a key issue for me, but having a socialist states intentionally mirroring ethnic groups is really striking me a bit odd.

How many kids did your mate fiddle in Afghanistan?

:blushing: http://news.change.org/stories/wikileaks-reveals-us-tax-dollars-fund-child-sex-slavery-in-afghanistan

[Dimentio]

Thats a fair enough. We regard Cornwall as a nation but thats beside the point. Northern England contains but England's most progressive and openly fascist elements. Is Scotland more oppressed than the north of England? I dont know. I dont think however that weakens the argument for the break of the UK state.

We need devolution, but not separatism. Say what you want about English repression, but the Scottish ruling class is an integral part of the British ruling class, and Scots are not directly repressed and have not been that for the 20th and 21st centuries, at least not systematically.

In fact, I believe that it is "progressive" that Europe strives to unite as a federal state. That could mean a continentalisation of the progressive forces.

Internationalism and planetarism are the keywords for the future, not nationalism.

[Lt. Ferret]

How many kids did your mate fiddle in Afghanistan?

:blushing: http://news.change.org/stories/wikileaks-reveals-us-tax-dollars-fund-child-sex-slavery-in-afghanistan


a lot, and he's coming for you next.

[Palingenisis]

We need devolution, but not separatism. Say what you want about English repression, but the Scottish ruling class is an integral part of the British ruling class, and Scots are not directly repressed and have not been that for the 20th and 21st centuries, at least not systematically.

In fact, I believe that it is "progressive" that Europe strives to unite as a federal state. That could mean a continentalisation of the progressive forces.

Internationalism and planetarism are the keywords for the future, not nationalism.

Scotland is a hell of a lot more left wing than England. A hell of a lot.

Independence would strengthen not weaken the working class there.

But the SNP are reactionaires.

Planetarism can only be achieved if we dismantle national oppression.

[Palingenisis]

a lot, and he's coming for you next.

That you could joke about such things shows what a scumbag you are.

[Bud Struggle]

The Lt. is right all this Socialist nationalism is getting downright Fascistic.

From Scotland (and Demo even knows the cute blonde in the audience. :D )

zOkSoQapeEM

[Palingenisis]

This is so much better...

GdQR98e9vog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maclean_(Scottish_socialist)

[Palingenisis]

The red shall be worn me lads, Scotland shall march again...:)

[Bud Struggle]

The red shall be worn me lads, Scotland shall march again...:)

You are a bit of an aquired taste, but in your own way you are pretty sweet. :)

[Lt. Ferret]

That you could joke about such things shows what a scumbag you are.


the irony here is beyond all quantifiable science.

[Palingenisis]

You are a bit of an aquired taste, but in your own way you are pretty sweet. :)

Well I always wear (black) dresses...But ComradeMan was restricted for supporting kiddie fiddling Imperialist scum while I was restricted for being the opposite of a sweet little girlie by White anarchists and Trots.

[Bud Struggle]

the irony here is beyond all quantifiable science.

I think she like you, Lt. ;)

But seriously. this should be about the INTERNATIONALE not about sectarian and unationalsitic fights.

[Lt. Ferret]

:cool: girls love a man in uniform. especially a strong white american male in uniform.

[Revolution starts with U]

:rolleyes:

[hatzel]

:rolleyes:

Thanks for this insight, I concur :)

[Palingenisis]

:cool: girls love a man in uniform. especially a strong white american male in uniform.

Oh really.....The other stuff that I was going to add would probably get me into trouble, Im sure the anarcho-trots dont want to hear about girls wanting to castrate their soldier mates and force feed them their own sexual organs...But whatever.

[Ele'ill]

:cool: girls love a man in uniform. especially a strong white american male in uniform.

Didn't you pass-out and have to go to the hospital after a couple beers about a month ago?

[gorillafuck]

That you could joke about such things shows what a scumbag you are.
You made a remark accusing his mate of being a child molester despite the fact that almost no soldiers are child molesters. You shouldn't do that either.


:cool: girls love a man in uniform. especially a strong white american male in uniform.Shut the hell up.

[Invader Zim]

I and others I know have encountered much more anti-English chauvinism in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall than in Ireland? I wonder where that comes from? Despite Unionist juggling of figures England has a parasitic relationship to these places which are basically second world countries with a lot more poverty, etc than Mother England.

I LOLed. But ok, which figures have been 'fiddled' and what are the true figures?

[Ele'ill]

This thread should be trashed or heavily edited like I do with my posts.

[Palingenisis]

I LOLed. But ok, which figures have been 'fiddled' and what are the true figures?

I will come back to this tomorrow...Arent you famous on here for giving out about kids smashing cappie stuff on a protest and defending the British Monarchy?

:blushing:

[Invader Zim]

Well I always wear (black) dresses...But ComradeMan was restricted for supporting kiddie fiddling Imperialist scum while I was restricted for being the opposite of a sweet little girlie by White anarchists and Trots.

You were restricted when you exposed just how reactionary your views are, namely when you suggested that the role of women is to act as baby factories.

You are where you belong with the rest of the reactionaries.

[Palingenisis]

You made a remark accusing his mate of being a child molester despite the fact that almost no soldiers are child molesters. You shouldn't do that either.


He was an Imperialist soldier in Afghanistan which makes him guilty until proven innocent.

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DYcX_fuvKMsA

[hatzel]

Questions and comments are usually best addressed by answering the question or responding to the comments. Some prefer to just try to discredit the 'dissenter', though, in some kind of 'well, you're bad, therefore I must be right, because the bad person disagrees with me'. It's a far from mature and convincing form of debate, but far be it from me to advise people on their debate / conversation technique :)

[Palingenisis]

You were restricted when you exposed just how reactionary your views are, namely when you suggested that the role of women is to act as baby factories.

You are where you belong with the rest of the reactionaries.

Now where did I say that?

I gave the reasons for restrictions on abortion in the USSR. I also said that they were contarary to the Mass Line.

But yeah radical liberals cant imagine what actual situations revolutions would face in real circumstances.

Cosy theory from middle class ivory towers defines what is reactionary and what isnt...

[gorillafuck]

He was an Imperialist soldier in Afghanistan which makes him guilty until proven innocent.
Of child molestation? No, the reality is that the vast majority of soldiers in Afghanistan have not molested children, so saying he's guilty until proven innocent of that is like saying you're guilty until proven innocent of beating up a homeless person.

(I hate when my advocation of reality makes it sound like I'm defending the military)

[Palingenisis]

Of child molestation? No, the reality is that the vast majority of soldiers in Afghanistan have not molested children, so saying he's guilty until proven innocent of that is like saying you're guilty until proven innocent of beating up a homeless person.

The majority of soldiers dont know about this... http://news.change.org/stories/wikileaks-reveals-us-tax-dollars-fund-child-sex-slavery-in-afghanistan

Come on.

The point of a military occupation is to humiliate the population into submission by whatever means necessary.

[Palingenisis]

(I hate when my advocation of reality makes it sound like I'm defending the military)

I recognize the difference between you and ComradeMan.

[gorillafuck]

The majority of soldiers dont know about this... http://news.change.org/stories/wikileaks-reveals-us-tax-dollars-fund-child-sex-slavery-in-afghanistan
They probably don't. The pentagon obviously does, and the officials who are close that stuff do, but I'm willing to bet that most soldiers don't. Soldiers are just sent on missions and told what to do.


The point of a military occupation is to humiliate the population into submission by whatever means necessary.That doesn't mean soldiers go around with the goal of molesting children. There's a tendency among a lot of leftists to think that the US military is run by dumbasses.

[Palingenisis]

That doesn't mean soldiers go around with the goal of molesting children. There's a tendency among a lot of leftists to think that the US military is run by dumbasses.

This isnt talked about a lot...But generally "Irish Republican" posters here seem to have a severe hatred of Imperialist soldiers? Maybe that's due to being felt up at army check points on the way to school? If shit like that happened in the six counties I dont want to think about what is happening in Afghanistan.

[Palingenisis]

71B5GiJaZYY

[Invader Zim]

Now where did I say that?

In the same thread you exposed you equally reactionary views regarding crime and punlishment.



I gave the reasons for restrictions on abortion in the USSR. I also said that they were contarary to the Mass Line.

You said women have a duty to act as baby factories for the state.



But yeah radical liberals cant imagine what actual situations revolutions would face in real circumstances.

I imagine they would, I also suspect they would find it difficult to imagine the hellish scenario in which women are encouraged to act as incubators for the state. Actually, i take that back, they don't need to imagine it, all they would have to do is examine Nazi policy towards women in practise.

[gorillafuck]

This isnt talked about a lot...But generally "Irish Republican" posters here seem to have a severe hatred of Imperialist soldiers? Maybe that's due to being felt up at army check points on the way to school? If shit like that happened in the six counties I dont what to think about what is happening in Afghanistan.
I was actually thinking more of American leftists when I said that, but alright. I understand hatred of imperialist soldiers....that doesn't mean that imperialist militaries shouldn't be understood as opposed to making statements that can only be backed up by rage. You know, materialism. And undoubtedly a lot of rape happens (probably not to the extent that it used to in like the military occupation of Japan, but still a real lot) but assuming someone molests children for being in Afghanistan is still absurd, no matter how much you hate imperialist troops.

[Palingenisis]

Okay fair enough Zeekloid maybe I was going to far.

But Lt Lemming's mate has still probably killed and terrorized people. You are not going to convince me that they are "nice" people.

[hatzel]

I'm not sure if that's enough of an excuse to explain why you would respond to a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion on Ferret's part with accusations that his friend has engaged in paedophilic activity, citing a vaguely-related article as a reference point. Had Ferret's friend been an Afghan policeman trained by DynCorp, or an employee of DynCorp, there may have been a stronger link to the article posted. Even if this were the case, though, responding to what was a well-meant comment with a totally baseless accusation of a rather heinous crime is never appropriate...

[Palingenisis]

I imagine they would, I also suspect they would find it difficult to imagine the hellish scenario in which women are encouraged to act as incubators for the state. Actually, i take that back, they don't need to imagine it, all they would have to do is examine Nazi policy towards women in practise.

Have you not got a thread about Orwell to troll?

[Palingenisis]

I'm not sure if that's enough of an excuse to explain why you would respond to a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion on Ferret's part with accusations that his friend has engaged in paedophilic activity, citing a vaguely-related article as a reference point. Had Ferret's friend been an Afghan policeman trained by DynCorp, or an employee of DynCorp, there may have been a stronger link to the article posted. Even if this were the case, though, responding to what was a well-meant comment with a totally baseless accusation of a rather heinous crime is never appropriate...

What the fuck do people think Imperialist soldiers do?

They rape and murder thats what they do...And age doesnt count.

Being a Piggie Wiggie in Afghanistan is a heinous enough crime.

[Palingenisis]

Life can continue on after rape, you can manage to get over it...And sexual abuse as a kid.

Being murdered is end of story.

His mate murdered. Catch on to yourselves.

[hatzel]

Then make accusations of murder, with some kind of evidence that the individual in question participated in a lethal attack during his tour of duty, rather than paedophilia. Do it on the chatter board, though, or even better in personal correspondence with Ferret, because your newfound arguments ad amicum hominis have even less place on the 'serious' threads than your tired arguments ad hominem do...

[Palingenisis]

I'm not sure if that's enough of an excuse to explain why you would respond to a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion on Ferret's part with accusations that his friend has engaged in paedophilic activity, citing a vaguely-related article as a reference point. Had Ferret's friend been an Afghan policeman trained by DynCorp, or an employee of DynCorp, there may have been a stronger link to the article posted. Even if this were the case, though, responding to what was a well-meant comment with a totally baseless accusation of a rather heinous crime is never appropriate...

Not it wasnt that...

Maybe because its that Im female that I have the ability to see things in concrete terms...Like children screaming as they die from white phosporous, or what its like when scumbags like Lt Lemming smashes in the door and makes your father cower as he plays will I kill you or wont I kill you now as you scream in the corner...I could continue but it would just give ComradeMan sick kicks...

And I really dont imagine you have a faintest clue what actually empathy is.

[Lt. Ferret]

Oh really.....The other stuff that I was going to add would probably get me into trouble, Im sure the anarcho-trots dont want to hear about girls wanting to castrate their soldier mates and force feed them their own sexual organs...But whatever.


your penis envy is awesome :thumbup1:

[Revolution starts with U]

"it's because I'm a woman that I..."
That's pretty sexist....

it's also a piss poor response to Krim's call for you to not throw out baseless accusations at anybody you disagree with.

[Palingenisis]

"it's because I'm a woman that I..."
That's pretty sexist....

it's also a piss poor response to Krim's call for you to not throw out baseless accusations at anybody you disagree with.

There are genetic differences between men and women...Again what do you think Imperialist soldiers do?

Give out ice cream?

[Lt. Ferret]

There are genetic differences between men and women...Again what do you think Imperialist soldiers do?

Give out ice cream?


mostly candy, water, food, money, medicine, ammunition, supplies, and anything else they need.

[hatzel]

Not it wasnt that...

So, please, tell me why the following doesn't constitute a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion:


all this shit about ethnic social states comes off as really national socialistic to me, and definitely not down with any sort of workers struggle. i understand the issues differ between different working classes in different parts of the world, in fact thats a key issue for me, but having a socialist states intentionally mirroring ethnic groups is really striking me a bit odd.

I'm sure you remember this was what you quoted when accusing Ferret's friend of being a child-molester, so I would like an actual response to the statement, why it is not a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion, as well as an explanation for why the counter-argument 'your friend's a massive pedobear' is suitable, thanks :)

[Palingenisis]

Then make accusations of murder, with some kind of evidence that the individual in question participated in a lethal attack during his tour of duty, rather than paedophilia. Do it on the chatter board, though, or even better in personal correspondence with Ferret, because your newfound arguments ad amicum hominis have even less place on the 'serious' threads than your tired arguments ad hominem do...

He was in Afghanistan killing people....What is that? Its murder! He is murderer end of story.

The US Army are murderers. The IDF are murderers. The British Army are murderers.

Does this have to be explained on a Revolutionary Leftist site?

[Revolution starts with U]

There are genetic differences between men and women...Again what do you think Imperialist soldiers do?

Give out ice cream?

First, where did I disagree with your view on imperialist swine?

Second, I didn't reallize "compassion and empathy" are genetic differences?

... pretty, pretty sexist there Pal.

[Revolution starts with U]

Incoming "if they weren't shooting at us they could get the supplies."
:rolleyes:

[Lt. Ferret]

actually, yeah, it is. you make it sound like they were all fat and happy in afghan history. the biggest issues now in dealing with the average afghan town is building up its infrastructure, and making sure the taliban dont come in the night and tear it back down.

and no, not just the stuff "we" blew up twenty years ago. infrastructure they never had and now do.

[Palingenisis]

First, where did I disagree with your view on imperialist swine?

Second, I didn't reallize "compassion and empathy" are genetic differences?

... pretty, pretty sexist there Pal.

No men of course can be compassionate and empathtic.

Just I think women IN GENERAL see things in concrete terms and men in abstract terms.

I dont think men are inferior. I honestly dont hate men.

Sorry though if it came across like that.

[Ele'ill]

What was this thread about?

[Lt. Ferret]

also my buddy is a medic, so his job wasnt to kill people it was to save people after they had been injured.

[Revolution starts with U]

:thumbup1:

[Lt. Ferret]

What was this thread about?


scottish left wing national socialism.

[Palingenisis]

What was this thread about?

This thread was about me posting stuff that I would normally post in the Maoist group....But it spiralled out of control.

Does anybody want to discuss armed struggle in Scotland?

[hatzel]

No

[gorillafuck]

scottish left wing national socialism.
National Socialism is nazism. National liberation movements that are socialist (or "socialist" depending on how you see it) and national socialism are completely different.

Unless you think the Vietcong were Nazis.

[Lt. Ferret]

there was a left wing of the national socialists you know. national anything movements should be looked at with scrutiny. i dont care about what the backstory to your nationalism is. its still nationalism.

[gorillafuck]

there was a left wing of the national socialists you know.
Left wing of the nazi party =/= left wing. They were more "moderate" or more welfare oriented fascists.

Not even close to being anti-capitalists who opposed racism, etc.


national anything movements should be looked at with scrutiny. i dont care about what the backstory to your nationalism is. its still nationalism.
Agreed, but comparisons of national liberation movements to nazis is completely ridiculous. Is Nelson Mandela like a nazi?

[hatzel]

I think it's clear that there aren't enough Maoists active in OI for half of Pali's threads to garner any related discussion. This is one of them.

I suggest we remedy this by calling on the anarcho-trots to purge all the Maoists...

(Purge = restrict)

On second thought, I'd rather OI not be infested with loads of silly Maoist chat about glorious Scottish freedom fighters (doing nothing). I hereby revoke my suggestion :)

[Palingenisis]

National Socialism is nazism. National liberation movements that are socialist (or "socialist" depending on how you see it) and national socialism are completely different.

Unless you think the Vietcong were Nazis.

There is reactionary Scottish nationalism just as there is reactionary Irish nationalism. I support neither. Infact I find both disgusting.

Belief though in Scottish independence and Irish independence and unity doesnt equal national chauvinism though. I dont believe at all in racial ideas of nationhood. However you cannot believe in such nonsense as racial nationalism and still oppose the plunder of Scotland's natural resources by the Westminster regime.

[Palingenisis]

Is Nelson Mandela like a nazi?

Is Lt Lemming a Syndicalist?

[Revolution starts with U]

How about people's liberation movement's, and we leave the fact that they're Scottish, Irish, or Palestinian out of it? :thumbup1:

(<~~ Scotch Irish. In vegas a guy said I looked like a hitman for the Irish mafia :laugh: )

[Palingenisis]

(<~~ Scotch Irish. In vegas a guy said I looked like a hitman for the Irish mafia :laugh: )

I look kinda delicate and uber feminine Im told, almost kinda twee and gentile...But than when when temper gets worked up :blushing:.

[hatzel]

...you headbutt people you don't agree with? :rolleyes:

[Palingenisis]

...you headbutt people you don't agree with? :rolleyes:

I would never head butt someone over disagreeing with me over the taste of chocolate ice cream :rolleyes:.

[hatzel]

Good, because I don't much like chocolate ice cream. I prefer vanilla or strawberry. Strangely, though, I hate eating real strawberries, but love eating real chocolate. What's the deal with that?! :confused:

[gorillafuck]

I look kinda delicate and uber feminine Im told, almost kinda twee and gentile...But than when when temper gets worked up :blushing:.
You're told you look Gentile?:confused:

This thread is wildly off topic, even moreso than before.

[psgchisolm]

He was an Imperialist soldier in Afghanistan which makes him guilty until proven innocent.

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DYcX_fuvKMsA
So what's his conviction of? Not everyone that goes to afghanistan with a uniform murders you know. THe taliban even manage to do it WITHOUT a uniform :cool:.


They probably don't. The pentagon obviously does, and the officials who are close that stuff do, but I'm willing to bet that most soldiers don't. Soldiers are just sent on missions and told what to do.

That doesn't mean soldiers go around with the goal of molesting children. There's a tendency among a lot of leftists to think that the US military is run by dumbasses.
Some of it is run by dumbasses, but not enough to justify their statement.


I was actually thinking more of American leftists when I said that, but alright. I understand hatred of imperialist soldiers....that doesn't mean that imperialist militaries shouldn't be understood as opposed to making statements that can only be backed up by rage. You know, materialism. And undoubtedly a lot of rape happens (probably not to the extent that it used to in like the military occupation of Japan, but still a real lot) but assuming someone molests children for being in Afghanistan is still absurd, no matter how much you hate imperialist troops.
This. Generialized baseless statements ftw:rolleyes:


Not it wasnt that...

Maybe because its that Im female that I have the ability to see things in concrete terms...Like children screaming as they die from white phosporous, or what its like when scumbags like Lt Lemming smashes in the door and makes your father cower as he plays will I kill you or wont I kill you now as you scream in the corner...I could continue but it would just give ComradeMan sick kicks...

And I really dont imagine you have a faintest clue what actually empathy is.
The below quote pretty much sums this up. Just wondering, if there's a revolution what's your thoughts on those same "imperialist scumbags" defecting.

"it's because I'm a woman that I..."
That's pretty sexist....

it's also a piss poor response to Krim's call for you to not throw out baseless accusations at anybody you disagree with.
/Agree


mostly candy, water, food, money, medicine, ammunition, supplies, and anything else they need.
I think I'm in love with you.


He was in Afghanistan killing people....What is that? Its murder! He is murderer end of story.

The US Army are murderers. The IDF are murderers. The British Army are murderers.

Does this have to be explained on a Revolutionary Leftist site?
Are you sure he was killing people? Just because he was in afghanistan with a uniform doesn't mean he killed people. You can ask the surgeons, morticians, cooks, engineers, truck drivers. I doubt they do too much killing;). Where as the Taliban kidnap international aid workers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/world/asia/27iht-27afghan.7665049.html

No men of course can be compassionate and empathtic.

Just I think women IN GENERAL see things in concrete terms and men in abstract terms.

I dont think men are inferior. I honestly dont hate men.

Sorry though if it came across like that.
Those who have bias, will have bias. I don't think those veterans who come home with PTSD would disagree too much with that arguement.


also my buddy is a medic, so his job wasnt to kill people it was to save people after they had been injured.
Let me put a ring on your finger.:wub:

[hatzel]

Oh, c'mon, leave Pali alone, we've already discussed all that. Which might be why you're quoting what other people said to her and then saying the same :)

[psgchisolm]

Oh, c'mon, leave Pali alone, we've already discussed all that. Which might be why you're quoting what other people said to her and then saying the same :)
Plagiarism is fun. Plus it gets me extra rep:drool:

[RGacky3]

there was a left wing of the national socialists you know. national anything movements should be looked at with scrutiny. i dont care about what the backstory to your nationalism is. its still nationalism.

Your argument is ENTIRELY based on semantics, nothing to do with real policy.

[ComradeMan]

Well I always wear (black) dresses...But ComradeMan was restricted for supporting kiddie fiddling Imperialist scum while I was restricted for being the opposite of a sweet little girlie by White anarchists and Trots.

You are becoming libellous.

I don't support the Taliban by the way, I believe they like young girls of 11 to marry old men and stuff like that..... ;)

Anyway, on "Celtic" nationalism

So, as a socialist you propose breaking up a union into smaller "ethnic" states on a Celtic Yugoslavia basis, despite the fact there is no historicity in this whatsoever as none of those countries has either a common language, culture or religion? You are also relying on the term "Celtic" which has only existed for around 200 years and describes a few languages that have common origins but are less mutually intelligible than Spanish and Italian? From what I've read most so-called "Celtic" culture was largely (re)invented in the 19th century and recent genetic and archaeological work has called into question the validity of the term Celtic.

Why not propose the union of all the Germanic country in one Germanic federation....? Oh wait, someone already had that idea once didn't they? ;)

[Demogorgon]

I doubt the Scottish working class was engaged in that Army. In general, it seems like the Middle Class in Scotland and the upper segments of the Working Class are in favour of independence, considering that SNP is to the right of Labour but to the left of the Tories traditionally.
The SNP is to the left of Labour, they are basically Scandinavian Social Democrats in their outlook though they are a very broad party from full blown anti-capitalist socialists like Bill Wilson to radical liberals like Mike Russell who believe in neoliberal reforms mixed with increased social welfare to compensate.

Also you have to remember how the Labour Party in Scotland functions. It is the party you join if you want a leg up. Join it and meet people who can give you a better job than you could otherwise get and so on, this has made it very resistant to changes to the status quo and as such despite the fact it is instinctively more left wing than its English equivalent it can actually be more reactionary. If you look at its elected members you see an interesting picture, the MSPs are less surprising but many of the MPs are extraordinarily reactionary.

That aside, to try and inject a dose of reality into the discussion trying to see the question of Scotland as a "national liberation" question is pretty silly because the question of how Scotland is treated falls down fast when you look at the real geographical biases of the UK Government. They aren't biased in favour of England, but rather in favour of the South of England. Scotland is actually a bit better off than the North of England because of institutional factors forcing Governments not to ignore it. The North of England on the other hand has no defence. Even when Labour is in power and many of the ministers have constituencies there it still gets short changed because of the incredible civil service bias. In theory FPTP means Governments look for pork for the areas that vote for them so Labour should be pretty good for the North of England whatever their other faults, but while spending does go up there under them, the built in disadvantage remains.

To come back to Scotland however, I think independence, or at least "devolution max" is inevitable because of the different political preferences her. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are minor parties in Scotland and the electorate here will simply get sick of having to be run by them. If the Conservatives remain in power for a considerable period of time, even Scottish Labour will grow hostile to taking instructions from them and while it won't favour independence, it will favour Scotland deciding on its own taxation and expenditure. It will be interesting after May when Labour will probably win the Scottish parliament elections because they will very quickly dislike the UK Government being able to make them carry out policies they don't want to.

On another note, I think Scotland is a better size for a political unit than the UK anyway, so that is an argument in favour for independence, it still leaves the problem of England though. Ideally it could be divided up as the North of England needs its own autonomy anyway, but there is simply no demand for the to happen so bringing it about is probably impossible.

[Jazzratt]

You're told you look Gentile?:confused: I imagine she meant genteel (http://www.google.co.uk/dictionary?q=genteel&langpair=en%7Cen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uRxNTergNsnDhAfB8I3wDg&ved=0CB0QmwMoAA), especially as it was immediately preceded by "twee."


This thread is wildly off topic, even moreso than before. True. I'll give everyone a gentle nudge people to stay on topic (despite the clarification above, but I didn't want this to stray into dodgy territory of who looks jewish and who looks gentile) and that.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

It is virtually impossible to imagine the Tories gaining a majority in either Wales or Scotland in the foreseeable future, but it is not impossible to imagine that they could become the dominant party within the British Parliament again in the not too distant future. Such a turn of events would provide a far greater impetus to the struggle for Scottish independence that exists at present, and the present level of support is not something easily dismissed.
Whaddya know, that has now come to pass. Seeing how the Workers' Party of Scotland ain't around any more, it's probably important that a new Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party dedicated to Scottish national liberation be set up. Who knows what revolutionary impetus may possiby surface in the future.

[Wanted Man]

Scottish people are not one race, nor was all of the current territory of Scotland ever under one united Scotland, nor was their one homogenous Scots state. The original Scots came from Ireland and conquered the native British-Welsh, to which we add the Lowland Scots (Anglo-Saxon) and the Orkney/Shetland Viking (Norse). The Scots invaded Caledonia at roughly the same time the Anglo-Saxons invaded. If we want to start resurrecting these ancient claims to land, then the only people to really have any claim are the Welsh, Cornish and Bretons.

Now, I don't support such stuff to be honest. I appreciate that the Scots situation is different to the Israeli situation, but I do find it ironic that when a perceived Jewish nationalism is attacked so vehemently by the OP, a Scots "Celtic" (made up) nationalism is promoted- especially in the light of the fact that the same user also attacked a Croatian memeber who subsequently left RevLeft as a result, for "nationalism".
:confused:

So basically you believe in race and you believe that ethnic nationalism is somehow more legitimate than other forms.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

We are not discussing Zionism per se, however I must say it strikes me as strange that someone who seems to deny that there is such a thing as a Jewish people and all the rest, would promote Scots nationalism and support "Celtic" nationalism- afterall, Celtic is even more dubious as an ethnonym than "Jewish"- by your standards that is.

Isn't promoting Scots, English,Welsh nationalism etc a bit like promoting ethnic nationalism when you should, from a leftist position, rather promote a British worker's state?
I don't necessarily support national liberation, but I sympathize with it in certain contexts. There is a difference between Scottish people wanting to have the right to self-determination on the land that they already live on, free from the British Crown, and the creation of the Israeli state, which was nothing more than an occupation that has lasted for many years, with many terrible consequences.

Scottish nationalists aren't looking to create some Scottish utopia on England or something, they are looking to the right to self-determination within their own borders - they do not want to extend their borders or occupy other countries, but control the resources on the land that they live on. If you go to some poverty stricken parts of Glasgow and Edinburgh, you can understand this, given that Scotland actually has great resources that could probably raise their standard of living significantly if they had the right to self determination. I'd imagine that Scotland would've looked more like Norway if she was free from British rule and had control over her resources.

I believe in a united British republic, or more specifically, a united global republic and commune, but I have to understand nationalism in the United Kingdom. This is not to say I support it, but I understand it, sympathize with it in the context of our capitalistic world that is divided by nations and borders, and can easily tell the difference between it and Zionism. Such a comparison is ridiculous.

Its not about ethnicity as such, but about bits of land that certain people see that they are entitled to. They are bourgeois movements, but they have progressive elements. Not something I would actively support, but if the Scottish working class took to the streets and demanded the right to self-determination after failed attempts to play parliamentary politics to their advantage, I would not deny them the right.

[ComradeMan]

So basically you believe in race and you believe that ethnic nationalism is somehow more legitimate than other forms.

No that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is I detect some serious double-standards going on.

[Bud Struggle]

Your argument is ENTIRELY based on semantics, nothing to do with real policy.

How is that different than anything else on RevLeft? :)

[scarletghoul]

So what's his conviction of? Not everyone that goes to afghanistan with a uniform murders you know.
The US army is trained to kill. That is their job. Millions of Afghans have died because of the invasion. Directly or indirectly, all occupying soldiers bear responsibility for that.

THe taliban even manage to do it WITHOUT a uniform :cool:.
Thanks for letting us know what side you're on. US army deserves a nuanced and delicate approach but the Taliban are just this mass of murdering muslims right

[hatzel]

How is that different than anything else on RevLeft? :)

Because it's actually based on something...even talking about semantics is a massive step in the right direction for some people :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

Thanks for letting us know what side you're on. US army deserves a nuanced and delicate approach but the Taliban are just this mass of murdering muslims right

No, the Taliban are a bunch of reactionary former imperialist lackeys turned on their old masters, in my opinion.;) This is a war between reactionaries that fell out and really socialists should condemn the whole thing from 360 degrees.

[scarletghoul]

Whaddya know, that has now come to pass. Seeing how the Workers' Party of Scotland ain't around any more, it's probably important that a new Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party dedicated to Scottish national liberation be set up. Who knows what revolutionary impetus may possiby surface in the future.
Armed struggle isn't on the cards right now as scottish independence has got a lot closer via bourgeois democracy under Labour. Who knows what the Tories will be like. They will probably try and stop it by preventing referendum etc, but unless there's a massacre or something I think the bourgeois-democratic momentum will still be there, at least in peoples' minds, and a peoples war would not be possible or advisable

[scarletghoul]

No, the Taliban are a bunch of reactionary former imperialist lackeys turned on their old masters, in my opinion.;) This is a war between reactionaries that fell out and really socialists should condemn the whole thing from 360 degrees.
Unfortunately for you the Taliban has changed a lot over the years, and has certainly not been an imperialist lackey for some time (if ever..). In fact they attacked many Mujahideen (or northern alliance now) for their immorality and serving the west. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the Taliban tbh and we could all list things to criticise them for, but its important to understand what they are.

Actually it's interesting, I was reading how in some places the Taliban have mobilised the peasants and got rid of the evil landlords, redistributed some land, etc. This is the same as the Indian Maoists, albeit with a reactionary ideology. We can see a pattern here across South Asia, of semifeudal elements allying with and propping up imperialism/monopoly capitalism, and the peasants joining guerilla armies to drive out them both. Difference is the Taliban are Islamic fundamentalists and the Maoists are dialectical materialists and scientific socialists. But still, at this level they are playing the same role.

So the Taliban is not just a load of crazy muslims who want to kill the infidels, they are a huge guerilla force with the support of most Afghan people.

The problem with 'condemning the whole thing 360 degrees' is that it places your opinion completely outsidse the situation and makes it irrelevent. Imho we should support the Afghan peoples' struggle against imperialism and its running dogs, while criticising the leadership and their ideology

[ComradeMan]

Unfortunately for you the Taliban has changed a lot over the years, and has certainly not been an imperialist lackey for some time (if ever..). In fact they attacked many Mujahideen (or northern alliance now) for their immorality and serving the west. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the Taliban tbh and we could all list things to criticise them for, but its important to understand what they are.

Actually it's interesting, I was reading how in some places the Taliban have mobilised the peasants and got rid of the evil landlords, redistributed some land, etc. This is the same as the Indian Maoists, albeit with a reactionary ideology. We can see a pattern here across South Asia, of semifeudal elements allying with and propping up imperialism/monopoly capitalism, and the peasants joining guerilla armies to drive out them both. Difference is the Taliban are Islamic fundamentalists and the Maoists are dialectical materialists and scientific socialists. But still, at this level they are playing the same role.

So the Taliban is not just a load of crazy muslims who want to kill the infidels, they are a huge guerilla force with the support of most Afghan people.

The problem with 'condemning the whole thing 360 degrees' is that it places your opinion completely outsidse the situation and makes it irrelevent. Imho we should support the Afghan peoples' struggle against imperialism and its running dogs, while criticising the leadership and their ideology


They also are against things like women going to school, and promote old men marrying young girls... amongst other things.

The Taliban are no more interested in a progressive Afghanistan now than they were before.

[scarletghoul]

They also are against things like women going to school, and promote old men marrying young girls... amongst other things.

The Taliban are no more interested in a progressive Afghanistan now than they were before.I guess you don't consider getting rid of a foreign occupation to be progress?

[Palingenisis]

I sipped too much cider last night and yes I meant genteel as opposed to gentile.

Ugh....Interesting though how let myself be trolled yet again.

Sometimes Im such a sucker.

[hatzel]

What type of cider, if I may ask? I mean, are we talking about the kind of 8% cider that comes in 3l bottles for about the price of lemonade, or a 'mid-range' number, like Strongbow or Bulmers, a Kopparberg-esque piece, or perhaps even the proper, opaque headache scrumpy stuff, like Old Rose? The latter really gets your head heavy fast, I don't even know how! Much faster than drinking wine, despite having half the alcohol content...hmm...we need a scientist like NoXion to explain how that works :)

[scarletghoul]

I made some plum scrumpy in a coke bottle a few months ago, hid it somewhere in my room. it was nastyyy but very strong

[hatzel]

I've got a bit of a reputation for home-brewing...my experiments often take a turn for the worse :lol: Maple syrup 'mead', for instance...yeah, maybe not my finest creation :laugh: I'll try to perfect the recipe, though, I'm sure it's possible :)

Incidentally, there's a Swedish film called 'Smala Sussie' (I think it's called 'Slim Sussie' in English) with a quite funny scene, when a character is making homebrew, and explains that there is a sock in the bucket because the yeast is needed for fermentation. Jank.

[ComradeMan]

I guess you don't consider getting rid of a foreign occupation to be progress?

Well, be occupied by foreign reactionaries or homegrown reactionaries with medieval values on women's rights etc? What progress would it be for the Afghani peoples to be under the Taliban?

I support people like RAWA.

Check out some of the information on their site.

http://www.rawa.org/index.php

This is the dilemma, what do you when all the sides in a dispute are shitty?

[Palingenisis]

Posting drunk always seems good for my rep though. Weird.

[Palingenisis]

What type of cider, if I may ask? I mean, are we talking about the kind of 8% cider that comes in 3l bottles for about the price of lemonade, or a 'mid-range' number, like Strongbow or Bulmers, a Kopparberg-esque piece, or perhaps even the proper, opaque headache scrumpy stuff, like Old Rose? The latter really gets your head heavy fast, I don't even know how! Much faster than drinking wine, despite having half the alcohol content...hmm...we need a scientist like NoXion to explain how that works :)

Brutal home made stuff I got off a semi-gutter punk I flirt with.

Revolutionaires should avoid getting drunk in general. I should avoid getting drunk in particular. Especially on cider or whiskey because they bring out my aggression. But I only really enjoy getting drunk on cider or whiskey.

[Lt. Ferret]

i learned to homebrew wine in my crust punk days. sold it outside grind shows for a dollar a cup, mostly to underage squatter punks.

i can make a chili pepper wine that will get you drunk AND make you cry.

[hatzel]

Ukrainian-style chili vodka is particularly good. But that's cheating, you know, just putting a chili pepper in a bottle of vodka...nothing impressive there :) Still, burns the throat for two reasons! Niiiiice...

[bcbm]

Revolutionaires should avoid getting drunk in general.

my hangover agrees whole-heartedly. ugggggh

[Wanted Man]

No that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is I detect some serious double-standards going on.

Then what is the point? The conditions are so wildly different that it's impossible to make that kind of judgement. Scots nationalism, for all its faults, is entirely non-racial and non-expansionist. The only people who have to worry about being annexed to Scotland live in Berwick-upon-Tweed, but they've been at war with Russia for 200 years, so they're used to something. ;)

What would make it more controversial is the armed struggle that this thread is about after all, but that is so marginal that it's not a serious "threat" today.


Brutal home made stuff I got off a semi-gutter punk I flirt with.

Revolutionaires should avoid getting drunk in general. I should avoid getting drunk in particular. Especially on cider or whiskey because they bring out my aggression. But I only really enjoy getting drunk on cider or whiskey.

Let's get drunk sometime.

[ComradeMan]

Then what is the point? The conditions are so wildly different that it's impossible to make that kind of judgement. Scots nationalism, for all its faults, is entirely non-racial and non-expansionist. The only people who have to worry about being annexed to Scotland live in Berwick-upon-Tweed, but they've been at war with Russia for 200 years, so they're used to something. ;)

What would make it more controversial is the armed struggle that this thread is about after all, but that is so marginal that it's not a serious "threat" today..

Are you so sure about that?

Settler Watch?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the-warnings-that-scotlands-patient-nationalism-could-turn-nasty-1505824.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scots-radicals-aim-to-drive-out-english-1511367.html

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1000736

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Are you so sure about that?

Settler Watch?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the-warnings-that-scotlands-patient-nationalism-could-turn-nasty-1505824.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scots-radicals-aim-to-drive-out-english-1511367.html

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1000736
Yes, those types are totally representative of the entire Scottish independence movement... :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

Yes, those types are totally representative of the entire Scottish independence movement... :rolleyes:

Yeah, I can appreciate that- but Wanted Man said "entirely non racial"- entirely is a big word.

[Palingenisis]

Yeah, I can appreciate that- but Wanted Man said "entirely non racial"- entirely is a big word.

We have already condemned racial nationalism and anti-English chauvinism.

There is a loon who lives in Cork and thinks he is a Druid and that the Irish are some master race who sometimes tries to pass himself as an Irish Republican...But he is just that a loon. The scum of settler watch are insignificant.

[Palingenisis]

http://ssy.org.uk/2010/03/hundreds-march-for-asylum-rights/

Look big Nazies ComradeMan.....:rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

http://ssy.org.uk/2010/03/hundreds-march-for-asylum-rights/

Look big Nazies ComradeMan.....:rolleyes:

Did I say that?

Did you read the articles posted too?

[Palingenisis]

Settler Watch were sorted out by AFA a while back.

Your googling skills are impressive I will give you that.

[Wanted Man]

Are you so sure about that?

Settler Watch?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the-warnings-that-scotlands-patient-nationalism-could-turn-nasty-1505824.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scots-radicals-aim-to-drive-out-english-1511367.html

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1000736

Then I have to concede that some of them did take an ethnic approach, there is no doubt about that. But one instance from 20 years ago seems to me the exception that proves the rule. As the first article puts it:


HOW agreeable it is to have a prejudice confirmed - a solid clunk-click in the mind] When Settler Watch, a group dedicated to driving English immigrants out of Scotland, appeared a few months ago, there were nods of recognition south of the border. The English have always assumed that Scottish and Welsh nationalisms are fuelled by ethnic Anglophobia. Most Scots, however, are appalled.

(...)

HOW agreeable it is to have a prejudice confirmed - a solid clunk-click in the mind] When Settler Watch, a group dedicated to driving English immigrants out of Scotland, appeared a few months ago, there were nods of recognition south of the border. The English have always assumed that Scottish and Welsh nationalisms are fuelled by ethnic Anglophobia. Most Scots, however, are appalled.


Also, while fully denouncing their methods in general, it seems to me that part of the problem for them was gentrification:


One reason is visibility. Let me coin a horrible but useful term: the English movement into Scotland is 'niche-conspicuous'. The new arrivals cluster in certain places and occupations where their presence is immediately felt. The Orkney 'Satanic abuse' scandal in 1992 showed this with glaring clarity. Almost all the protagonists were English, but from two very different niches. The children came from English New Age families who had settled as idealistic neo- crofters in Orkney. The social workers were, to put it crudely, persons surplus to requirements down South who had found a Scottish local authority less demanding. Small in numbers, both groups were locally conspicuous long before the scandal broke.

Niches of New Age and 'caring profession' incomers are widespread now in rural Scotland. But there are several other categories. One is the retired middle- class couple, thankful to find a cheap house in a beautiful place. Their dream is precisely to be inconspicuous; they are scarcely aware of what their purchasing power may have done to the housing hopes of local families. Another, highly conspicuous niche is the new cultural bureaucracy: in Scotland, the direction and management of theatres, galleries, orchestras, festivals, museums, the Scottish Arts Council and the whole plethora of scientific and conservationist quangos are dominated to a phenomenal extent by non-Scots. This has alienated many Scottish intellectuals, a vocal and unforgiving group.

As for the rest of the article, we can safely say that the ethnic-nationalist element has remained as marginal as it was in 1993, despite the author's predictions at the time.

[Palingenisis]

As for the rest of the article, we can safely say that the ethnic-nationalist element has remained as marginal as it was in 1993, despite the author's predictions at the time.

They were well and truelly sorted out by Anti-Fascist-Action which was made up overwhelmingly in Scotland of Republican Socialists. ComradeMan is just trying to wind people up...Actually realities dont really bother him.

[ComradeMan]

They were well and truelly sorted out by Anti-Fascist-Action which was made up overwhelmingly in Scotland of Republican Socialists. ComradeMan is just trying to wind people up...Actually realities dont really bother him.

Now I'm not. I'm just naturally suspicious of anyone that has "National Party" attached to their name or nationalist movements as there is nearly always some underlying racism somewhere. 20 years is not a long time either in the great scheme of things.

[gorillafuck]

No that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is I detect some serious double-standards going on.
But Israeli nationalism isn't like Scottish nationalism. Palestinian nationalism is like Scottish nationalism. You have it backwards.


Revolutionaires should avoid getting drunk in general. I should avoid getting drunk in particular. Especially on cider or whiskey because they bring out my aggression. But I only really enjoy getting drunk on cider or whiskey.I politely decline your suggestion.

[ComradeMan]

But Israeli nationalism isn't like Scottish nationalism. Palestinian nationalism is like Scottish nationalism. You have it backwards.

Yeah because living in Scotland is the same as the West Bank or the Gaza strip and the Scots are all so oppressed by the English, they've been driven out of house and home and are for the most part refugees in other countries. And to think I am accused of false equivalency.:rolleyes:

[Wanted Man]

Now I'm not. I'm just naturally suspicious of anyone that has "National Party" attached to their name or nationalist movements as there is nearly always some underlying racism somewhere. 20 years is not a long time either in the great scheme of things.

The onus is on you to prove this, of course.

This post basically translates to: "I found one exception from 20 years ago that doesn't prove anything, but I'm pretty sure that contemporary Scottish nationalism is racist. Besides, the SNP seem kind of shifty."

Please try a bit harder.

[gorillafuck]

Yeah because living in Scotland is the same as the West Bank or the Gaza strip and the Scots are all so oppressed by the English, they've been driven out of house and home and are for the most part refugees in other countries. And to think I am accused of false equivalency.:rolleyes:
1) Go towards the beginning of the thread and look at what I said earlier about your equivocation, and then come back to me. If you don't respond I'm gonna pester the shit out of you until you do.

2) So you're conceding that you were outright wrong when you said that Scottish nationalism is like Israeli nationalism?

[ComradeMan]

The onus is on you to prove this, of course.

This post basically translates to: "I found one exception from 20 years ago that doesn't prove anything, but I'm pretty sure that contemporary Scottish nationalism is racist. Besides, the SNP seem kind of shifty."

Please try a bit harder.

Try the Lega Nord with their "Celtic" Nationalism.... or the other examples of ethnic nationalism in Europe and what that has led to.... Yugoslavia? Or what about the charming Flemish nationalists.... :thumbup1:

[Wanted Man]

Try the Lega Nord with their "Celtic" Nationalism.... or the other examples of ethnic nationalism in Europe and what that has led to.... Yugoslavia? Or what about the charming Flemish nationalists.... :thumbup1:

What do they have to do with it? All of these are indeed racists. Contrary to, wait for it...

[Invader Zim]

Have you not got a thread about Orwell to troll?

No dear, that was a passtime for reactionary scumbags like you; but thankfuly now that you are where you belong we can have a mature discussion regarding Orwell. Hopefuly the rest of your lot will be joining you in here soon.

[ComradeMan]

What do they have to do with it? All of these are indeed racists. Contrary to, wait for it...

Look, I didn't say "all Scottish nationalists are de facto ethnic bigots" but I don't think it's unreasonable to be wary of nationalist movements- at least from a leftist position. The claim was made that Scots nationalism was entirely unracial in motivation and some evidence, admittedly older, that some currents have not always been so unracial was presented.

As for the rest, I think, from a leftist position, it's not such a good idea. I mean- are the Scots really being oppressed by the English? What's wrong with a British worker's state?

This also doesn't mean I don't support local/regional autonomy

[Invader Zim]

The onus is on you to prove this, of course.

This post basically translates to: "I found one exception from 20 years ago that doesn't prove anything, but I'm pretty sure that contemporary Scottish nationalism is racist. Besides, the SNP seem kind of shifty."

Please try a bit harder.

Well, I'm not from Scotland and have only ever had the pleasure of visiting on a couple of occassions, though I would love to go back. However I live in Wales, and have done for many years now, and I can assure you that racism is a core tenet of the ideological makeup of many of the nationalists here; I fail to see any good reason why Scotland would be any different. Afterall racism goes hand in hand with nationalism, indeed I would go as far as to contend that racism is the logical extension of nationalism.

[Wanted Man]

Look, I didn't say "all Scottish nationalists are de facto ethnic bigots" but I don't think it's unreasonable to be wary of nationalist movements- at least from a leftist position. The claim was made that Scots nationalism was entirely unracial in motivation and some evidence, admittedly older, that some currents have not always been so unracial was presented.

Well, evidence was presented that someone sometime somewhere has used something for purposes which were not originally intended. I'm fairly sure that, at some point, some sickos have also tried sticking their toothbrush up their backsides. That doesn't mean that leftists have to be wary of this happening, or that toothbrushes should have warning labels on them that say: "Warning: don't stick in your ass."

I really can't think of a better way to explain this. What's wrong with me?

[Palingenisis]

Well, I'm not from Scotland and have only ever had the pleasure of visiting on a couple of occassions, though I would love to go back. However I live in Wales, and have done for many years now, and I can assure you that racism is a core tenet of the ideological makeup of many of the nationalists here; I fail to see any good reason why Scotland would be any different. Afterall racism goes hand in hand with nationalism, indeed I would go as far as to contend that racism is the logical extension of nationalism.

That's an outright lie about Welsh seperatists put around English people who believe that any manifestation of Welsh distinctiveness from England equals chauvinism, racism, etc. The thinskinness of Unionists anywhere in the UK state never ceases to surprise me. You are going on ignore now.

[Bud Struggle]

hypocrisy.how can you support zionism and say what youve just said.is it to prove that zionism is acceptable compared to european nationalism ?????

I have no problem with people complaining about Zionisn and how Palestinians are being treated. It is a major issues confronting the equalilty of al people.

But there are a lot of similar situation around the world.

Isreal is becomming a fetish and another way that the Left is pidgeon holing itself into being a hither and yon issue organization.

You marginalizes your cause when you become marginalized by your issues.

Communism is bigger than quibbles over who owns what land. Again: you sound like Real Estste brokers.

[Palingenisis]

The Maoist position on Scottish Independence is actually shared by a lot of Trots aswell...It isnt unique to us.

Also the only person ever to have compared Scottish nationalism to Zionism, or believes that there are strong parrallels between the situation in Scotland and in the middle east is ComradeMan.

[ComradeMan]

That's an outright lie about Welsh seperatists put around English people who believe that any manifestation of Welsh distinctiveness from England equals chauvinism, racism, etc. The thinskinness of Unionists anywhere in the UK state never ceases to surprise me. You are going on ignore now.

So here's a guy who lives in Wales, talks about a situation he has witnessed- and because it doesn't fit with your rose tinted view of things you accuse him of lying and ignore him. I don't know about Wales in particular but I do remember hearing about English people's homes being burned down and anti-English racism being scrawled on walls etc.

[ComradeMan]

The Maoist position on Scottish Independence is actually shared by a lot of Trots aswell...It isnt unique to us.

Also the only person ever to have compared Scottish nationalism to Zionism, or believes that there are strong parrallels between the situation in Scotland and in the middle east is ComradeMan.


Errr.... where did I compare Scots nationalism to Zionism? Was it I who said that Scots nationalism is like Palestinian nationalism? Err.... no it wasn't.

[Invader Zim]

That's an outright lie about Welsh seperatists put around English people who believe that any manifestation of Welsh distinctiveness from England equals chauvinism, racism, etc.

See this kind of comment, which buys into gross stereotypes and vulgar social constructions of race and nationality (in addition gender, which resulted in your restriction) which make you a reactionary of the most vile stripe. let us analyse this comment; I am intrigued by your assertions that there is something that makes any group of individuals distinct from another. What is this factor, do you believe it to be biological? Cultural? Social? I am genuinely intrigued to study the roots of racism, that we may combat it more effectively.

[gorillafuck]

Isreal is becomming a fetish and another way that the Left is pidgeon holing itself into being a hither and yon issue organization.That is part of opposing your own government, focusing on it's actions.


Communism is bigger than quibbles over who owns what land. Again: you sound like Real Estste brokers.Ummm, that's an incredibly stupid way of looking at an issue of colonialism.

[Bud Struggle]

That is part of opposing your own government, focusing on it's actions. My government has lots of actions and inactions and they all should be focused on. But you Communists focus on one. And you wonder why you are so marginalized. :rolleyes:


Ummm, that's an incredibly stupid way of looking at an issue of colonialism. Over the top. Yes it's colonialism, and so is Northern Ireland, and so is Southern Sudan and so is Tibet and so is a hundred other places.

But RevLeft has ten threads on Isreal.

FETISH.

[Palingenisis]

I think this thread is screaming to be closed.

[Bud Struggle]

I think this thread is screaming to be closed.

Or are you just screaming? ;)

[Demogorgon]

This thread started ridiculous and it is getting worse, but for those of you actually interested in Scottish politics, it is a bit simplistic to regard Scottish Nationalism as being in opposition to anti-nationalism. The way Scottish politics work Nationalists generally claim to support Scotland as a nation and Unionists Britain as a nation. Unionism manifests itself here as British Nationalism (not to be confused with the BNP incidentally, it isn't that bad!) and in my experience is actually stronger in its support for Britain than Nationalism is for Scotland so paradoxically Scottish Nationalism is less "nationalist" than Scottish Unionism. To people outside of Scotland this seems utterly bizarre and it is of course, but that's the way political divisions work here. You can see proof of this in SNP policies on immigration and such, they are probably the most pro-immigration mainstream party anywhere in Europe.

Anyway as I oppose all nationalisms, that means I am against British and Scottish nationalism. The question of whether Scotland becomes independent is therefore not one that should be settled by appeals to nationhood but rather simply by what is likely to yield the best policy output. Speaking cynically, as I have to live here and the Scottish electorate is to the left of the British electorate and after a fashion the parties accept that, I tend to favour independence or "devolution-max". Also of course as I said earlier, smaller political units are often preferable to bigger ones, so splitting a fairly large country into smaller chunks isn't that bad an idea.

[ComradeMan]

This thread started ridiculous and it is getting worse, but for those of you actually interested in Scottish politics, it is a bit simplistic to regard Scottish Nationalism as being in opposition to anti-nationalism. The way Scottish politics work Nationalists generally claim to support Scotland as a nation and Unionists Britain as a nation. Unionism manifests itself here as British Nationalism (not to be confused with the BNP incidentally, it isn't that bad!) and in my experience is actually stronger in its support for Britain than Nationalism is for Scotland so paradoxically Scottish Nationalism is less "nationalist" than Scottish Unionism. To people outside of Scotland this seems utterly bizarre and it is of course, but that's the way political divisions work here. You can see proof of this in SNP policies on immigration and such, they are probably the most pro-immigration mainstream party anywhere in Europe.

Anyway as I oppose all nationalisms, that means I am against British and Scottish nationalism. The question of whether Scotland becomes independent is therefore not one that should be settled by appeals to nationhood but rather simply by what is likely to yield the best policy output. Speaking cynically, as I have to live here and the Scottish electorate is to the left of the British electorate and after a fashion the parties accept that, I tend to favour independence or "devolution-max". Also of course as I said earlier, smaller political units are often preferable to bigger ones, so splitting a fairly large country into smaller chunks isn't that bad an idea.


Interesting and enlightening comments.

However, would an independent Scotland (fully) be economically viable?

[Demogorgon]

Interesting and enlightening comments.

However, would an independent Scotland (fully) be economically viable?It is a Western European country with the sort of economy that you would expect for that. The question of whether Scotland would be better off or worse off is a complicated one and depends on a number of factors, not least whether an independent Government would be better able to utilise natural resources (oil being the classic example, but considerable possibilities for generating vast amounts of electricity through wind being the more up to date one) but whether it was slightly better or slightly worse off, it would certainly get by.

[The Red Next Door]

You were restricted when you exposed just how reactionary your views are, namely when you suggested that the role of women is to act as baby factories.

You are where you belong with the rest of the reactionaries.

That was taking out of context though, she should be unrestricted.

[ComradeMan]

I would like to ask Palingenesis why she thinks Scots nationalism is okay and yet trashed a Croatian guy for being "proudly" Croatian- given what he must have lived through? Surely the Croatians with their experience in Yugoslavia and then the terrible war they went through are more excusable in their patriotic sentiments?

Personally, I don't care whether Scotland is independent or not- that's up to the majority of Scots people to decide, but this question is from a more ideological point of view.

[Invader Zim]

That was taking out of context though, she should be unrestricted.

No, it wasn't and no she shouldn't. Her comment was:

"Abortion was made illegal because it was very necessary to raise the population levels that had been decimated during the civil war...Not everything is about the "rights of the individual"."

Which is clear apologism for a policy which effectively implied that the role of women was to be incubators for the State. Her later backpeddling doesn't alter the fact that she was spewing extremely reactionary drivel in defence of an extremely reactionary policy. Her restriction was thoroughly warrented. Furthermore as her nonsense in here suggests her restriction is also warrented for her shocking views on race and nationality.

[Palingenisis]

Her restriction was thoroughly warrented. Furthermore as her nonsense in here suggests her restriction is also warrented for her shocking views on race and nationality.

What shocking views?

Ive clearly opposed racial nationalism. My position is "classical" Marxism-Leninism-Maoism...Actually just classic Leninism. :rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

What shocking views?

Ive clearly opposed racial nationalism. My position is "classical" Marxism-Leninism-Maoism...Actually just classic Leninism. :rolleyes:

Your position is that of a crypto-fascist. As for your shocking views on race and nationality, you informed us earlier that there are characteristics inherent within socially constructed groups that makes that group 'distinct' from any other group - in other words national/racial exceptionalism. Reality of course tells us that race and nationality are social constructions, and from a lefist point of view are actually harmful and utterly reactionary social constructions that keep the working class divided.

[Dimentio]

Irish, Scottish and Welsh nationalism is not a racist type of nationalism, or an expansionist type. It is merely so that a lot of people feel unfairly treated by London and cannot identify culturally with England, which is the dominant entity of the UK.

Aq7bcY9tuao

[Invader Zim]

Irish, Scottish and Welsh nationalism is not a racist type of nationalism, or an expansionist type.

Aq7bcY9tuao

That depends entirely on the individual. As noted I have witnessed xenophobia from Welsh nationalists. Typically it amounts to little more than verbal sneers, but I have witnessed xenophobic violence fuelled by sport and booze, though thankfuly witnessed it from a distance as opposed to first hand.

[Palingenisis]

Your position is that of a crypto-fascist. As for your shocking views on race and nationality, you informed us earlier that there are characteristics inherent within socially constructed groups that makes that group 'distinct' from any other group - in other words national/racial exceptionalism. Reality of course tells us that race and nationality are social constructions, and from a lefist point of view are actually harmful and utterly reactionary social constructions that keep the working class divided.

Way to twist words....Did you ever consider that maybe your "British"/English chauvinism maybe just a little bit responsible for keeping divided? Ah yes lets blame the weaker party.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

People with justifiable grievances can still have lousy attitudes. I was bullied at school for being English - a socially awkward kid who had just been uprooted from his birthplace, with no power over the decision to move. Where did they get that idea from?

[Invader Zim]

Way to twist words....Did you ever consider that maybe your "British"/English chauvinism maybe just a little bit responsible for keeping divided? Ah yes lets blame the weaker party.

I don't come from or live in England. And you are the one who buys into the notion of national/racial exceptionalism Palingenesis, not me. I don't give a shit where a person comes from, but clearly it matters a very great deal to you. And that is because you a rotten reactionary scumbag.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I seriously fail to see her "shocking" racism anywhere round here

[ComradeMan]

I think it would help if Palingenesis didn't instantly jump to the conclusion that anyone who perhaps does not hold her views on a subject is automatically the extreme opposite to the right- usually based on what ethnicity/background or football team they support.

[Dimentio]

That depends entirely on the individual. As noted I have witnessed xenophobia from Welsh nationalists. Typically it amounts to little more than verbal sneers, but I have witnessed xenophobic violence fuelled by sport and booze, though thankfuly witnessed it from a distance as opposed to first hand.

Racism exists everywhere. But racism in Wales and Scotland is not enshrined within the separatist or devolutionist movements, but rather within the Pro-British sentiments which also exist there.

[Palingenisis]

Racism exists everywhere. But racism in Wales and Scotland is not enshrined within the separatist or devolutionist movements, but rather within the Pro-British sentiments which also exist there.

For the most part yes but not entirely. For instance Nick Griffin at one point styled himself as a Welsh seperatist and there were dodgy elements in Siol Na Gael (or something like that I forget their actual name) just as there are dodgy elements in and especially around Republican Sinn Fein. These are very much fringe elements but at the same time they shouldnt be ignored and white washed over.

[Palingenisis]

. And that is because you a rotten reactionary scumbag.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/extream-communism-enemy-t5994/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolution-morally-wrong-t6178/index.html

Still fighting "extream" communism? :rolleyes:

Your rant against the students smashing up Tory stuff and scrapping with the filth would suggest so.

Should you not be restricted for reformism?

[Demogorgon]

I would like to ask Palingenesis why she thinks Scots nationalism is okay and yet trashed a Croatian guy for being "proudly" Croatian- given what he must have lived through? Surely the Croatians with their experience in Yugoslavia and then the terrible war they went through are more excusable in their patriotic sentiments?

Personally, I don't care whether Scotland is independent or not- that's up to the majority of Scots people to decide, but this question is from a more ideological point of view.
Yes there is a huge double standard there. Of course it is stupid to say you are proud of belonging to any nationality. I mean why should I be proud to be Scottish? It hardly took much effort on my part. I like living here to be sure, but if I lived elsewhere I would hope I liked living there. Naturally we can never be entirely rational about it, in the extraordinarily unlikely situation that Scotland won a major football tournament I would be extremely happy, maybe even proud, despite playing no part in making it so, but by and large we should be sensible about this and not be ridiculous about our backgrounds.

As for the double standard, well hypocrisy abounds. Anybody who claims that nations "should" be independent simply because they have a certain identity is going to run into an instant problem when it comes to what a nation is. I recall a poster here saying that the highly stable multi-national state of Switzerland should be split up despite there being no demand for this simply because he thought each nation should be separate. He also backed calls for a Volkstaat which frankly ought to tip people off about where he stood. You could say that while demented this position was at least consistent, but he refused to consider that Ulster Protestants for instance should have the right to define themselves as their own nationality. He did this of course because he wanted to reconcile his belief in Irish Unity with his opposition to multi-national states, even though the two come into opposition. For me who supports both multi-national states (where there is a desire for them of course) and Irish Unity there is no contradiction in my position, but as soon as you claim each nationality should be under separate Government you fall down.

Leaving aside that particular issue, the key point I am trying to make is that anybody who gets into nationalist games immediately falls into trouble when they have to define what a nation is. Palingenesis does this all the time without noticing when she cries about the evils of "Britain this" and "Britain that", yet as she has shown in this thread she doesn't actually think there is a British nationality. She divides it into English, Scottish, Welsh and possibly Cornish. I suspect when she criticises "Britain", she uses it as a proxy for "England", but it clearly shows her inconsistency. That's what comes of caring so much about people's nationality, you tie yourself in knots.

[Demogorgon]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/extream-communism-enemy-t5994/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolution-morally-wrong-t6178/index.html

Still fighting "extream" communism? :rolleyes:

Your rant against the students smashing up Tory stuff and scrapping with the filth would suggest so.

Should you not be restricted for reformism?
Very clever, searching back eight years for posts he made when he was in his mid teens, don't you have anything better to do?

[Invader Zim]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/extream-communism-enemy-t5994/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolution-morally-wrong-t6178/index.html

Still fighting "extream" communism? :rolleyes:

Your rant against the students smashing up Tory stuff and scrapping with the filth would suggest so.

Should you not be restricted for reformism?

Suffice to say views I held nearly a decade ago as a school boy new to the study of leftwing politics are not the views I hold now. When I was even younger I also believed in Father Christmas, suffice to say we grow up. What is concerning are your views on the role of women as incubators for the state and the exceptionalism of various races and national groups, views which you currently hold.

[Invader Zim]

I seriously fail to see her "shocking" racism anywhere round here

Now there's a supprise.

[ComradeMan]

Yes there is a huge double standard there. Of course it is stupid to say you are proud of belonging to any nationality. I mean why should I be proud to be Scottish? It hardly took much effort on my part. I like living here to be sure, but if I lived elsewhere I would hope I liked living there. Naturally we can never be entirely rational about it, in the extraordinarily unlikely situation that Scotland won a major football tournament I would be extremely happy, maybe even proud, despite playing no part in making it so, but by and large we should be sensible about this and not be ridiculous about our backgrounds..

Very good points. I think it boils down to a fundamental difference between patriotism which is being proud perhaps of a culture's achievements, like say if I look at the Italian Renaissance or the great Italian scientists, and nationalism that implied exclusivism and usually involves hating someone else, the far right etc. At the same time I cannot claim the glory of Fibonacci because of some perceived common ground!

It's quite difficult really especially when the whole mechanism of society and the state etc promotes nationalism- just like football matches and national days etc. It's where you draw the line too. :confused:

What I do note is that intrinsically nationalist groups and people always seem to highjack and "recreate" the folklore and symbology of their nations in order to promote their own agenda. I presume most Scots do not go about their everyday lives dressed like the Highlander yet when nationalism rears it's serpentlike head the kilts and the bagpipes come out. I have seen this in Brittany where the Breton nationalist movement has a very checkered history indeed and there is quite a lot of hostility to the "French", yet this conveniently ignores the Gallo speaking part of Brittany and thus the whole area is consumed by an artificial form of national culture. I seem to recall that some parts of Scotland were Norse/Norwegian speaking until only a century or two ago and that the south of Scotland preserved the oldest form of the English language! So this idea of a united Scots-Gaelic speaking Scotland is a bit of an historical myth.

On the other hand I can understand when people have had their language banned and their folklore persecuted by a given state that it's a vicious circle at times too. A Breton once told me that to speak Breton was an act of defiance against the French state, to which I pointed out that perhaps yes, but it was also an act of hostility perhaps to that individual French person who he was speaking with and that the French state probably couldn't care less!

It's a difficult subject really. I personally believe that if geographical areas were locally autonomous within a network of interlinked regions then a lot of this nonsense could be avoided by all. In that way the local culture could preserve its language and customs but artificial and equally nationalistic "states" would be avoided.

[Demogorgon]

Well you have to be careful, kilts in Scotland are standard formal wear for men and it doesn't have anything to do with nationalism. For instance non Scottish people attending formal dinners in Scotland will often wear kilts and men, regardless of nationality, attending a wedding in Scotland are more or less expected to wear a kilt in a lot of circles. The last wedding I was at wasn't so formal so I just wore a suit, but at a more formal one I would wear a kilt.

Also our previous First Minister, Jack McConnell, who was nicknamed "Union Jack" for his fierce Unionism was notorious for wearing a kilt at every conceivable opportunity, even when it was not a very good idea like the time he wore a pin striped one. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SsEJYY3HW8E/SpSCXZff8kI/AAAAAAAAAho/KFKHzFppgZM/s400/McConnell+in+kilt.jpg

As for the language thing, well Scots is, so far as I know, the closest modern language to medieval English so you are quite right, but I don't think Nordic languages have been spoken in Scotland for many hundreds of years. Gaelic was until the clearances the main language of the Highlands, but the fact it was banned for quite some time by English authorities crippled it. It is still a first language for a number of people up North though.

That being said the lowlands elite never thought much of it, long before Union with England, at the time of the reformation in the sixteenth century when the Parliament of Scotland legislated to allow the translation of the Bible from Latin into the "vulgar tongues" the legislation specified it was to be translated into "Inglis an' Scottis", Scots for "English and Scots". Gaelic simply wasn't mentioned, even though many in the Highlands probably spoke neither English nor Scots.

I agree that different areas being autonomous with a transnational federation with divisive boundaries abolished is the ideal to which to aspire, though it leaves the question of what the boundaries should be. For the current UK, Scotland is a pretty natural political unit, so in Wales, but England isn't. The political preferences of the North of England are totally different to those of the South East, but there is little to no appetite for dividing up England. There is a movement for federalism in the UK and the options for England are either having it as an oversized state dwarfing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (and making Westminster superfluous) or splitting up England into a number of different states, the latter being Liberal Democrat policy, but there is little appetite for that amongst the wider public. The idea of giving England its own Government is popular however, but as I said that would make the UK Government pointless as it is basically an English elected Government with a few bits and pieces added on for the rest of the UK. That sort of attitude again makes the UK splitting up pretty inevitable I think.

Anyway I think until there is an appetite for giving different areas of England their own autonomy, it is going to remain a problem without a solution. I wonder how the demented nationalists here will take that though. Will they have a fit at me wanting to split up a nation or will hypocrisy rule again with them supporting England being split up due to their anti-English prejudice?

[ComradeMan]

...

Interesting points. I think films like Braveheart don't help at times! ;) The point I was trying to make, albeit it not the most imporant issue, is that the adoption of the modern kilt (which I read was invented by an English industrialist quaker based on earlier highlander costumes) as a symbol for "all of Scotland" when it seems to be a Highland-Gaelic Scots specific "symbol" is similar to me as the Breton vs Gallo "identity" issue in Brittany. On the other hand, the kilt is obviously such a strong symbol of Scots identity now that no one would be against it, afterall all traditions have to begin somewhere! What irritates me about it as that now there are Lega Nord-type "Celtic" nationalists going around in Northern Italy wearing kilts and stuff as symbols of their "Celtic" heritage- the "celticness" of which, if we can ever speak of such things, has not existed for a good 2,300 years!

On a note about the Norse language- I checked, it's not Norse as such but a Norse derived language that was spoken in the far northern islands of Scotland- Norn- apparently the last native speaker died c1850.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norn_language

Here's a book you might like, on lighthearted note:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Scots_Invented_the_Modern_World
How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The true story of how western Europe's poorest nation created our world & everything in it (or The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots invention of the Modern World) Arthur Herman.

...at least you're good enough too to let Italy win at least one rugby football match in the 6 Nations tournament! ;) But Meucci invented the telephone!!!

[Obzervi]

I feel as though I have to clear up a few points here.

Genetically speaking, the vast majority of people in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England, can say that they're mostly celtic in origin. I use the termn celtic to cover the language groups that came in along the Atlantic fringe and from central Europe after the ice age. There is a slight difference in regards to the East and West coats but the majority of the inhabitants are of celtic origins. See "A Genetic History of the British Isles".

I'd like to ask how do you feel about black people living in Scotland? I'm trying to see if your ideas are based around ethnocentrism/racism. Would you object to Africans and other non-whites moving into Scotland?

[Obzervi]

That's an outright lie about Welsh seperatists put around English people who believe that any manifestation of Welsh distinctiveness from England equals chauvinism, racism, etc. The thinskinness of Unionists anywhere in the UK state never ceases to surprise me. You are going on ignore now.
There is no such thing as "Welsh" or "English" in the first place. These are all social constructs, race doesn't exist. We are one race, the human race.

[Che a chara]

Am i right in implying that there is a certain element on here rejecting the notion for scottish independence ? or indeed any national liberation from an imperialist power ?

[ComradeMan]

rooster][/B]
I feel as though I have to clear up a few points here.

Genetically speaking, the vast majority of people in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England, can say that they're mostly celtic in origin. I use the termn celtic to cover the language groups that came in along the Atlantic fringe and from central Europe after the ice age. There is a slight difference in regards to the East and West coats but the majority of the inhabitants are of celtic origins. See "A Genetic History of the British Isles".

Genetically speaking that's a lot of nonsense really. Firstly, NW Europeans tend to have a dominant Atlantic modal haplotype that long predates any kind of generally accepted "Celtic" (-speaking) culture, Hallstatt or the later La Tene and perhaps Italian Golasecca cultures. The idea of "Celtic" genes is absurd. Even the word Celtic has been misappropriated from linguistics to describe people who probably never used the word or called themselves it as far as we know.

Genetically speaking we are all East African. :thumbup1:

[Demogorgon]

Am i right in implying that there is a certain element on here rejecting the notion for scottish independence ? or indeed any national liberation from an imperialist power ?
While I don't reject Scottish Independence, as I think I made clear, the notion that it can be framed in national liberation terms against "imperialism" is absurd. The relationship between Scotland and England is no more about imperialism than the relationship between Nevada and California.

[ComradeMan]

While I don't reject Scottish Independence, as I think I made clear, the notion that it can be framed in national liberation terms against "imperialism" is absurd. The relationship between Scotland and England is no more about imperialism than the relationship between Nevada and California.

I agree- it's completely ridiculous to call this an anti-imperialist struggle, especially when the Royal Bank of Scotland was saved not long ago by the "imperialist" government etc. If anything Scotland and England etc are all part of "imperialist" Britain and unless people start looking at things in terms of economic classes instead of outdated nationalist struggles nothing will ever change, be that in an "imperialist" Britain or an independent and smaller "imperialist" Scotland.

[Che a chara]

While I don't reject Scottish Independence, as I think I made clear, the notion that it can be framed in national liberation terms against "imperialism" is absurd. The relationship between Scotland and England is no more about imperialism than the relationship between Nevada and California.

Well lets look at some of the ties that serves the British empire via Scottish proxy- the monarchy, Scottish civilians being used as cannon fodder to engage in illegal wars ('fighting for queen and country' :rolleyes:), the usage of Scottish land/territory to base, train and deploy British Army soldiers, exploitation of Scottish natural resources (oil, gas, minerals) and domestic/local affairs in Scotland can also be at the scrutiny of Westminster if needs be.

Should the above (which is just a small example) misuses continue ?


I agree- it's completely ridiculous to call this an anti-imperialist struggle, especially when the Royal Bank of Scotland was saved not long ago by the "imperialist" government etc. If anything Scotland and England etc are all part of "imperialist" Britain and unless people start looking at things in terms of economic classes instead of outdated nationalist struggles nothing will ever change, be that in an "imperialist" Britain or an independent and smaller "imperialist" Scotland.

Well the OP is definitely advocating an anti-imperialist struggle. A Scottish republican socialist revolution would be just that.... a removal from an Empire via socialist means.

[Demogorgon]

Well lets look at some of the ties that serves the British empire via Scottish proxy- the monarchy, Scottish civilians being used as cannon fodder to engage in illegal wars ('fighting for queen and country' :rolleyes:), the usage of Scottish land/territory to base, train and deploy British Army soldiers, exploitation of Scottish natural resources (oil, gas, minerals) and domestic/local affairs in Scotland can also be at the scrutiny of Westminster if needs be.

Should the above (which is just a small example) misuses continue ?

Which of these things exactly is not also suffered by England? Britain has a capitalist system with an unpleasant Government go with it. Those at the top kick around everyone else, it is a class problem. You are trying to turn it into a national question when there is none there.

In what way are people in Liverpool in a better position than people in Edinburgh according to your perception of the UK?

[ComradeMan]

This makes out that "Britain" is occupying Scotland- "British" soldiers etc- do the Scots not actually make up some of the most famous and historical regiments of the British Army?

[Blackscare]

ComradeMan's dogged persistence in tailing pali everywhere she goes and trolling the fuck out of her is beyond pathetic. Don't take that to mean that I like Pali, because I don't.


But get a fucking life CM.

[Che a chara]

Which of these things exactly is not also suffered by England? Britain has a capitalist system with an unpleasant Government go with it. Those at the top kick around everyone else, it is a class problem. You are trying to turn it into a national question when there is none there.

In what way are people in Liverpool in a better position than people in Edinburgh according to your perception of the UK?

That's bad logic. Your excusing and even being an apologist for exploiting another country all for the 'common good of queen and country'. Scotland is part of the union and is therefore accountable and answerable to and for the union and all of it's interests. Would Scottish liberation have a detrimental effect on the British empire and it's imperialist interests and standing ? Do you not think ignoring Scottish national self determination has a negative impact on the working class psyche ?

[Demogorgon]

That's bad logic. Your excusing and even being an apologist for exploiting another country all for the 'common good of queen and country'. Scotland is part of the union and is therefore accountable and answerable to and for the union and all of it's interests. Would Scottish liberation have a detrimental effect on the British empire and it's imperialist interests and standing ? Do you not think ignoring Scottish national self determination has a negative impact on the working class psyche ?
No, you have claimed that one country is exploiting another without giving any reason why it should be seen as a national issue at all. How exactly is Scotland more exploited than Yorkshire or Cumbria?

It is utterly absurd to claim that Scotland is somehow being more (or less) exploited than any other part of the UK. It is not even possible to claim that the exploiters are English, the amount of capital headquartered in Edinburgh testifies against that.

Now as I said I tend to favour greater autonomy or independence for Scotland as I prefer smaller political units anyway and because Scottish independence would likely lead to less in the way of particularly right wing policies here, but I totally reject trying to add a nationalist dimension to this. Once again, what basis do you have for claiming that Scotland suffers from something worse than England?

[Che a chara]

No, you have claimed that one country is exploiting another without giving any reason why it should be seen as a national issue at all. How exactly is Scotland more exploited than Yorkshire or Cumbria?

It is utterly absurd to claim that Scotland is somehow being more (or less) exploited than any other part of the UK. It is not even possible to claim that the exploiters are English, the amount of capital headquartered in Edinburgh testifies against that.

Now as I said I tend to favour greater autonomy or independence for Scotland as I prefer smaller political units anyway and because Scottish independence would likely lead to less in the way of particularly right wing policies here, but I totally reject trying to add a nationalist dimension to this.

I have claimed that an empire is exploiting Scotland and using it's control and domination over it's territory and resources for imperialist expansion in it's interests.

I'm not supporting a reactionary nationalist solution to this. All I have done is shown examples that a country is being subservient to it's own interests and what i seem to be getting from you is that as long as everyone is being exploited equally, then it's ok for one to continue to be subservient without any regard for a future solution - Scotland can't or shouldn't do Jack shit without the English.


Once again, what basis do you have for claiming that Scotland suffers from something worse than England?

:confused: Nowhere did I claim this.

[Che a chara]

This makes out that "Britain" is occupying Scotland- "British" soldiers etc-

Erm not really. when a government/monarchy is dropped on a people, they had very little choice other than be used compulsory or through necessity and in coercion, for example; through decades of normalisation etc..


do the Scots not actually make up some of the most famous and historical regiments of the British Army?

Yeah like James Connolly ;) he wised up though :)

[Demogorgon]

I have claimed that an empire is exploiting Scotland and using it's control and domination over it's territory and resources for imperialist expansion in it's interests.

I'm not supporting a reactionary nationalist solution to this. All I have done is shown examples that a country is being subservient to it's own interests and what i seem to be getting from you is that as long as everyone is being exploited equally, then it's ok for one to continue to be subservient without any regard for a future solution - Scotland can't or shouldn't do Jack shit without the English.

:confused: Nowhere did I claim this.
What Empire is using Control of Scottish territory for Imperialist Expansion? Not the British Empire surely? It is a little bit on the dead side these days. And when it did exist, Scottish Capital was disproportionately leading and benefitting from it. One could make a-probably true-argument that Union leads to problems for Scotland, mainly due to incompetence, but some malice too when the Tories are involved, but how this could be seen as "imperialist" is beyond me.

[Dimentio]

While I don't reject Scottish Independence, as I think I made clear, the notion that it can be framed in national liberation terms against "imperialism" is absurd. The relationship between Scotland and England is no more about imperialism than the relationship between Nevada and California.

Yes, and no. Nevada's and California's relation could more be compared to the relation between Norwich and Essex than between Scotland and England. Consistently, throughout history, Scotland has been repressed by London.

[robbo203]

Typical trendy to have a go at some of the finest daughters and sons of the Scottish working class who were prepared to risk all in taking the fight to enemy.


Typical reactionary advocating bourgeois nationalism and class compromise between scottish workers and scottish capitalists for the sake of some abstract capitalist entity called the "Scottish nation" when the workers have a world to win

[Demogorgon]

Yes, and no. Nevada's and California's relation could more be compared to the relation between Norwich and Essex than between Scotland and England. Consistently, throughout history, Scotland has been repressed by London.
There has been a history of repression, but this cannot be seen as a factor in the current context. There is a tendency to be sure for London centric Government to minimise the needs of Scotland and show favouritism elsewhere, but they do that to the North of England too, perhaps to an even greater extent, and at least Scotland now has devolved Government to partly compromise.

To be sure the current arrangement is not a good one, even compared to other possible arrangements within liberal capitalism, and I am no fan of the Union as you know, but to say that Scotland is in the twenty first century an oppressed nation is ridiculous.

Even going back to the late nineteenth century, Scottish workers were getting a raw deal to be sure, but Scottish capital was amongst the most oppressive on earth and a strong case can be made for claiming it was the hardest force in British imperialism.

[ComradeMan]

This is what happens when you take out the class analysis. The last time I looked the Scottish "upper-classes" had done quite well out of the deal with England, the Highland Clearances which are often cited as English v Scottish were done with the collusion of the wealthy Scots landowners, i.e. the aristocracy. One of the most powerful banks in the UK is Scottish and I believe the current Queen of England's mother was also Scottish. Further to which both Gordon Brown, and I believe Blair, were Scottish too. The argument about being capital city centric is to be found in all countries. In Italy it's Milan (although Milan is not the official capital to all intents and purposes it is because the stock exchange is in Milan! ;) and in France I have heard people say the same things about Parisian-centric policies etc- usually people from Marseilles! :lol:

[Dimentio]

There has been a history of repression, but this cannot be seen as a factor in the current context. There is a tendency to be sure for London centric Government to minimise the needs of Scotland and show favouritism elsewhere, but they do that to the North of England too, perhaps to an even greater extent, and at least Scotland now has devolved Government to partly compromise.

To be sure the current arrangement is not a good one, even compared to other possible arrangements within liberal capitalism, and I am no fan of the Union as you know, but to say that Scotland is in the twenty first century an oppressed nation is ridiculous.

Even going back to the late nineteenth century, Scottish workers were getting a raw deal to be sure, but Scottish capital was amongst the most oppressive on earth and a strong case can be made for claiming it was the hardest force in British imperialism.

It's hardly oppressed, yes, and an armed struggle would be silly under this context. Nevertheless, the dissolution of the UK would mean that one of the European states with the most reactionary policies (being a bulwark of the Anglo-American interests and a Trojan horse within the EU) would weaken, thus strengthening France, Germany and the EU, which have partially more differing interests from the USA.

[Demogorgon]

It's hardly oppressed, yes, and an armed struggle would be silly under this context. Nevertheless, the dissolution of the UK would mean that one of the European states with the most reactionary policies (being a bulwark of the Anglo-American interests and a Trojan horse within the EU) would weaken, thus strengthening France, Germany and the EU, which have partially more differing interests from the USA.
That's all true, and the weakening of the UK in foreign policy terms through Scottish independence is a good reason to support it, but that isn't the issue in controversy here.

[ComradeMan]

It's hardly oppressed, yes, and an armed struggle would be silly under this context. Nevertheless, the dissolution of the UK would mean that one of the European states with the most reactionary policies (being a bulwark of the Anglo-American interests and a Trojan horse within the EU) would weaken, thus strengthening France, Germany and the EU, which have partially more differing interests from the USA.

This is silly really. France is just as much a bulwark of interests etc and the only reason why they didn't go to war in Iraq is because of all the arms deals they had with Saddam. To say the UK is a Trojan Horse within the EU implies some kind of American plot to bring down the EU! Certainly Italy is just as pro-US and we are talking about the 7th economy in the world. As for reactionary policies? What like deporting the Rom? Or Mediterranean policies on refugees?

[Demogorgon]

This is silly really. France is just as much a bulwark of interests etc and the only reason why they didn't go to war in Iraq is because of all the arms deals they had with Saddam. To say the UK is a Trojan Horse within the EU implies some kind of American plot to bring down the EU! Certainly Italy is just as pro-US and we are talking about the 7th economy in the world. As for reactionary policies? What like deporting the Rom? Or Mediterranean policies on refugees?
I think he simply means it is better to have European powers disagreeing with America. After all it is usually the case that several groups working together for a common cause achieve more than if they are squabbling and trying to undermine one another. Therefore moving Europe out of step with America may well slow down bad behaviour on both sides of the Atlantic.

[The Red Next Door]

No, it wasn't and no she shouldn't. Her comment was:

"Abortion was made illegal because it was very necessary to raise the population levels that had been decimated during the civil war...Not everything is about the "rights of the individual"."

Which is clear apologism for a policy which effectively implied that the role of women was to be incubators for the State. Her later backpeddling doesn't alter the fact that she was spewing extremely reactionary drivel in defence of an extremely reactionary policy. Her restriction was thoroughly warrented. Furthermore as her nonsense in here suggests her restriction is also warrented for her shocking views on race and nationality.

YES, It was taking out of context. Yes, she be should unrestricted and now, you taking her out of context. Yet again, It seem like you have your liberal ass up your head.

[The Red Next Door]

That depends entirely on the individual. As noted I have witnessed xenophobia from Welsh nationalists. Typically it amounts to little more than verbal sneers, but I have witnessed xenophobic violence fuelled by sport and booze, though thankfuly witnessed it from a distance as opposed to first hand.

You have Xenophobia from English people too. All this picking on the welsh and the irish.

[Obzervi]

You need to stop thinking in national terms, this is completely against marxism. Borders are invisible lines. There is only one race, the human race.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Yeah, but uniting the human race isn't going to be achieved by shunning national liberation and ignoring imperialism. The opposite will be achieved, in fact. Nationalism will end when all nations are on an equal footing with each other.

[Jazzratt]

Yeah, but uniting the human race isn't going to be achieved by shunning national liberation and ignoring imperialism. The opposite will be achieved, in fact. Nationalism will end when all nations are on an equal footing with each other. This is inane and empty rhetoric. It's like saying we can only do away with bosses when all our workplaces are on equal levels, it's just nonsense. The way nations work precludes any kind of "equality" between them, they are units of competition within imperialism. Nationalism will only end when all nations are destroyed.

Nationalism is just another lie used to divide workers and it is a pernicious one that often gets into the heads of a certain kind of leftist. The liberation of the nation's bourgeoisie (and for all the rhetoric that's what national liberation boils down to) demands a steep price in the blood of workers and not one that any kind of communist should want to see paid.

[Thug Lessons]

This is inane and empty rhetoric. It's like saying we can only do away with bosses when all our workplaces are on equal levels, it's just nonsense. The way nations work precludes any kind of "equality" between them, they are units of competition within imperialism. Nationalism will only end when all nations are destroyed.

Nationalism is just another lie used to divide workers and it is a pernicious one that often gets into the heads of a certain kind of leftist. The liberation of the nation's bourgeoisie (and for all the rhetoric that's what national liberation boils down to) demands a steep price in the blood of workers and not one that any kind of communist should want to see paid.

There are no words in the English language strong enough to express how glad I am that absolutely no one listens to this anarchist bloviation, and that anti-imperialists across Africa, South America, the Middle East, India, East and Southeast Asia have thrown off the chains of colonial oppression for the benefit of their own people and the entire human race.

You seem to have this idea that liberation and equality are all-or-nothing matters. You're quite correct in comparing imperialist relation between nations with capitalist relations between workers and bosses, but it's frankly astonishing that the conclusion you draw from this is that both nations and capitalism must be destroyed before we can make any progress towards equality. The history of the labor movement is largely a history of amelioration, where workers organized to demand concessions from their bosses, and to great effect. At best, revolutionaries have hitched along for the ride and helped to direct workers in a direction that moves more towards a socialist solution. This process, where union workers, (or national liberationists, for that matter), work together with socialists for immediate gains in the face of brutal oppression is nothing less than the process by which the proletariat develops from a mass of alienated individuals into an organized and capable force for the promotion of class interests. No doubt, the price is high. But it's a price we not only should, but must pay if we want to have any sort of progress, and even when the results are less than ideal we have still accomplished something good, something important and something that the people demand.

I'm reminded here of the words of Karl Marx that open Settlers. They don't totally apply, but they're words that praxeologists of the left such as yourself desperately need to hear:


The minority puts a dogmatic view in place of the critical, and an idealist one in place of the materialist. They regard mere discontent, instead of real conditions, as the driving wheel of revolution. Whereas we tell the workers: You have to go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil wars and national struggles, not only in order to change conditions but also to change yourselves and make yourselves capable of political rule; you, on the contrary, say: "We must come to power immediately, or else we may as well go to sleep." Whilst we make a special point of directing the German workers' attention to the underdeveloped state of the German proletariat, you flatter the national feeling and the status-prejudice of the German artisans in the crudest possible way - which, admittedly is more popular. Just as the word "people" has been made holy by the democrats, so the world "proletariat" has been made holy by you.

[Jazzratt]

There are no words in the English language strong enough to express how glad I am that absolutely no one listens to this anarchist bloviation, and that anti-imperialists across Africa, South America, the Middle East, India, East and Southeast Asia have thrown off the chains of colonial oppression for the benefit of their own people and the entire human race. This is not a position unique to anarchists at all, as I understand it the position is also held by members of the communist left (i.e those of the left communist tendency) and various other groups. As for the "benefit of their own people" you'll forgive me for not seeing the benefit to a worker in being ruled by a local boss rather than a foreign one. They've swapped one kind of oppression for another - that hasn't benefited the "entire human race" at all.

This is exactly the kind of pointless lesser-evilism you're espousing in that other thread. You've somehow convinced yourself that it's worth supporting workers fighting and dying for your preferred flavour of capitalism. It's totally asinine.


You seem to have this idea that liberation and equality are all-or-nothing matters. I "seem to have" that idea because it's the only one that makes an ounce of fucking sense. You're either free and equal or you aren't: what exactly does being "half equal" look like?


You're quite correct in comparing imperialist relation between nations with capitalist relations between workers and bosses, but it's frankly astonishing that the conclusion you draw from this is that both nations and capitalism must be destroyed before we can make any progress towards equality. You misread me. The relation between nations is the same as that between bosses and bosses. It is simple competition, which is why they will never be "equal" as some will win on the stage of imperialism and others will lose. What's astonishing is that you can conclude from this state of affairs that supporting one of these nations so they have more success is really helpful to the working class.


The history of the labor movement is largely a history of amelioration, where workers organized to demand concessions from their bosses, and to great effect. At best, revolutionaries have hitched along for the ride and helped to direct workers in a direction that moves more towards a socialist solution. This process, where union workers, (or national liberationists, for that matter), work together with socialists for immediate gains in the face of brutal oppression is nothing less than the process by which the proletariat develops from a mass of alienated individuals into an organized and capable force for the promotion of class interests. No doubt, the price is high. But it's a price we not only should, but must pay if we want to have any sort of progress, and even when the results are less than ideal we have still accomplished something good, something important and something that the people demand. It's noticeable that this history of compromise has thus far failed to bring us anywhere near a stateless classless society. I contend that any gains made have not been made because workers were willing to negotiate with and capitulate to the demands of their bosses but in spite of it. Union bureaucrats and national leaders act to stymie class consciousness, it is certainly not their job to "lead" the masses in struggle (nor is it the job of soi-dissant revolutionaries but that's another story) as if workers are incapable of organising and struggling without their interference.

You can leave the support for minor gains to the reformists and social democrats, thanks.


I'm reminded here of the words of Karl Marx that open Settlers. They don't totally apply, but they're words that praxeologists of the left such as yourself desperately need to hear: I'm not really sure why I so desperately needed to read that. I don't agree with what he says there, I think that characterising opposition to needless national struggle as being opposed to all struggle such that we "...may as well go to sleep," is a strawman on Marx's part. I don't think that Marx is always right, so you've just wasted a load of my time making an appeal to authority, you pointless tosser.

[The Grey Blur]

speaking as an anti-imperialist i have no faith in my nation's ruling class and in fact the entire history of ireland makes it evident that the only consistently revolutionary force has been the "men of no property" which the united irishmen spoke of, and today's modern working class are the inheritors of that mantle. so could you stop with this strawman bullshit* that anti-imperialism implies following blind petit-bourgeois nationalist leadership; i don't want 'national liberation', i want socialism but unfortunately you can't build socialism under an occupation.

i know it's a cliché especially in left circles to use the words 'middle class', 'white', 'first world' etc as insults but some of the anarchists/left comms on here really remind of me of the 'white male privilege dude' meme: "national liberation? it will only be other masters". aside from devrim obviously who has lived everywhere in the world and seen everything and will supply an anecdote in lieu of argument which brilliantly contradicts the politics of his opponent.

* i accept some stalinist relics actually think like this.

[#FF0000]

i know it's a cliché especially in left circles to use the words 'middle class', 'white', 'first world' etc as insults but some of the anarchists/left comms on here really remind of me of the 'white male privilege dude' meme: "national liberation? it will only be other masters". aside from devrim obviously who has lived everywhere in the world and seen everything and will supply an anecdote in lieu of argument which brilliantly contradicts the politics of his opponent.

This is funny because the ICC's largest/most active branches are in Mexico and Turkey and somewhere else but I can't remember.

[The Grey Blur]

that definitely contradicts the political thrust of my argument.


http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/5734673/National-Liberation-Just-Destroy-Capitalism-bro.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Privilege-Denying-Dude

[#FF0000]

that definitely contradicts the political thrust of my argument.There is no political thrust to your post there, though. It was mostly ad-hom.

[The Grey Blur]

you can't build socialism under an occupation...history...makes it evident that the only consistently revolutionary force has been the "men of no property"...stop with this strawman bullshit that anti-imperialism implies following blind petit-bourgeois nationalist leadership

http://memegenerator.net/Privilege-Denying-Dude/ImageMacro/5735344/FIGHT-IMPERIALISM-communists-have-no-nation

[Che a chara]

A step closer to the end of the British empire/war machine is progressive for many, many reasons (domestically and abroad - middle east wars, foreign intervention, US imperialist relations) and this doesn't necessarily mean that in any future Scottish liberation that a working class consciousness wont be at the front.

[Jazzratt]

http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/5734673/National-Liberation-Just-Destroy-Capitalism-bro.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Privilege-Denying-Dude Ah yeah, my mistake. I forgot that it was an imutable prerequisite of capitalism that you have to have thousands of workers die in the name of their nation. Obviously it's my "privilege" that causes me not want to see workers fight workers for the gain of national bourgeois factions. :rolleyes:

[RED DAVE]

So the Scots are allowed to have their own "nationalist" state but the Jews are not.
;)No, the Zionists are not allowed to take over large chunks of another people's country and declare it a nationalist homeland.

RED DAVE

[Thug Lessons]

This is not a position unique to anarchists at all, as I understand it the position is also held by members of the communist left (i.e those of the left communist tendency) and various other groups. As for the "benefit of their own people" you'll forgive me for not seeing the benefit to a worker in being ruled by a local boss rather than a foreign one. They've swapped one kind of oppression for another - that hasn't benefited the "entire human race" at all.

It is not the case that all oppression is equal. In some sense, the abolition of slavery was simply "swapping one kind of oppression for another", but absolutely no one would prefer to live as a slave rather than a peasant or proletarian. And no one wants their nation to be occupied by another nation either, and that's why time and again national liberation movements have overthrown the colonialists. Maybe you don't see any difference between, say, the British Raj and contemporary India, but I can tell that there's a huge difference in practice. The largest famine in history, arguably, took place under British colonialism during the late 19th century in India, as detailed in Mike Davis's Late Victorian Holocausts, and while hunger remains a devastating issue in India even today it's not even remotely comparable to a period when hundreds of thousands or millions of people were dying every year from starvation. This is one isolated example but history has demonstrated quite well that imperialism and colonialism are brutal beyond belief and beyond anything that a national liberal democracy could ever hope for.

This whole argument is based on brain-dead reduction and essentialism. Oppression is oppression. A=A. I'd love to watch you try to explain to a Palestinian living under Israel occupation, a black American living under Jim Crow or a Chinese peasant living under genocidal Japanese rule that their struggle doesn't matter because it's "just swapping one kind of oppression for another". It's evidence of a real disconnect from the people, and reality more generally, to demand that everyone work exclusively towards your idealistic dreams no matter how horrific their current situation is.


This is exactly the kind of pointless lesser-evilism you're espousing in that other thread. You've somehow convinced yourself that it's worth supporting workers fighting and dying for your preferred flavour of capitalism. It's totally asinine.I'd like to remind everyone at this point that the "lesser-evilism" I was espousing in that other thread was the idea that liberal democracy was better than Nazism. This is a guy that literally believes it does not matter whether we are governed by Barack Obama or Adolph Hitler. "Left" Communism, folks!


I "seem to have" that idea because it's the only one that makes an ounce of fucking sense. You're either free and equal or you aren't: what exactly does being "half equal" look like?A score of 50 on the GINI index would be one abstraction of "half equality". It's entirely possible for a society to be closer or further from equality, to have more or less freedom, and so on. Bourgeois democracy itself would be an example of "half freedom", better than previous autocracies but far worse than genuine democracy.


It's noticeable that this history of compromise has thus far failed to bring us anywhere near a stateless classless society. I contend that any gains made have not been made because workers were willing to negotiate with and capitulate to the demands of their bosses but in spite of it. Union bureaucrats and national leaders act to stymie class consciousness, it is certainly not their job to "lead" the masses in struggle (nor is it the job of soi-dissant revolutionaries but that's another story) as if workers are incapable of organising and struggling without their interference. No ideology or group has brought us anything like a stateless, classless society so if we're to conclude that the lack of a stateless, classless society is evidence of failure, then the left communists, anarchists, libertarian socialists and the proletariat itself are as much failures as the national liberationists and Leninists. The only difference would be the national liberationists and Leninists actually achieved something for their people by improving their standard of living, life expectancy, wealth and freedom, whereas those other groups, (with the exception of the proletariat itself), have achieved nothing but being ruthlessly crushed in heroic but doomed struggles or being absolute non-starters.

If you want to rely on history as a guide, there's no clear path to the goals you're pursuing. Since we're facing an uncertain future, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss 'minor gains'. I'm willing to support the labor movement and social democrats when they do some good.


I'm not really sure why I so desperately needed to read that. I don't agree with what he says there, I think that characterising opposition to needless national struggle as being opposed to all struggle such that we "...may as well go to sleep," is a strawman on Marx's part. I don't think that Marx is always right, so you've just wasted a load of my time making an appeal to authority, you pointless tosser.No, an appeal to authority is when you cite a person as an expert when they really aren't, or when their expert claims are simply wrong. I'm not saying that you're wrong because Marx said so (neener neener), I just think he did a great job summing up how stupid your position is. Keep in mind that I take being accused of logical fallacies on the internet very seriously and will not tolerate it.

[Thug Lessons]

There is no political thrust to your post there, though. It was mostly ad-hom.

Indeed. Massive adhomming and all forms of strawmannery up on the forums today. If any more of you want to play with strawmen all night be my guest, but also be warned, because the thing about straw is that it's easy to ignite, and I'm carrying a torch, so watch out or you're liable to get burned. And by the way, that's not an ad-hom, it's a promise.


Ah yeah, my mistake. I forgot that it was an imutable prerequisite of capitalism that you have to have thousands of workers die in the name of their nation. Obviously it's my "privilege" that causes me not want to see workers fight workers for the gain of national bourgeois factions. :rolleyes:

One of the things I like most about Marxism is that, at least in principle, it doesn't let itself be controlled by ideology. When Marx was developing his theories he didn't start from the goal of a stateless, classless society and work backwards to see how it could be realized. He lived in a time of turmoil and revolution, a time of angry workers barricading the streets and storming the government offices, and tried to figure out what material forces underlay this anger and discontent, and what it would develop into. If you want to criticize national liberation movements then go ahead, but back it up with something compelling. I'm not content to believe that mass anti-colonial revolutionary forces are mere dupes of the bourgeoisie simply because you tell me so. I suspect that, like all revolutionary forces, they are motivated by their own material interests, not that of any bourgeois faction. And even when their struggles do lead to a form of bourgeois democracy rather than the proletarian democracy I would favor, I see it as a great step up and they have my absolute support. Would you chide the sans-culottes in France or today's democracy activists in Egypt? If not, I don't see where you get off going after national liberationists.

[Viet Minh]

As a resident Scot I felt the need to contribute.. Actually to be more accurate I am half south-western English, half 'Highlandish' if there is such a thing, but brought up in Edinburgh and now living in Glasgow just to complicate matters further. Actually no, to complicate matters I am a Protestant (by birth) and went to a catholic school. For me the recent resurgance of Nationalism was synonymous with the release of such films as Braveheart and Rob Roy, although there was always animosity towards the 'sassenachs' (English bastards) north of the border.
The concept of Scottish socialism has a history in irish Republicanism, and has therefore always had a unique brand of nationalism and cultural identity, of Scots as 'celts' and particularly as cousins of the Irish.
However there was very little in the way of actual armed resistance, unless you include scotland versus england football matches. The SNLA and other such groups were usually very limited in numbers and support, check out a book called 'Britains secret war' for more information.
So the independence movement has been split into three: There are the Tartan toraidhs, the Scottish National (supposedly Socialist) Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, which is essentially now the Tommy Sheridan Party, which like every good party probably just involves lots of champagne and cocaine. And then there are parties who advocate Independence for purely political reasons, such as the Scottish Greens. There are more right wing Nationalist movements in Scotland, such as Siol nan Gaidheal, but they have no actual party representing them officially, and they are fairly critical of the SNP. The 'Scottish BNP' are probably just the usual suspect loyal Nazi Brits :rolleyes: although its rumoured their organiser is a catholic celtic fan. And in typical bonehead stylee they are staunchly unionist, failing to realise its actually westminster 'destroying our proud white heritage' with immigration.

[Tim Finnegan]

...the Scottish Socialist Party, which is essentially now the Tommy Sheridan Party...
You're about five years out of date with that, I'm afraid. Sheridan split from the SSP in 2006 over his libel case against the News of the World, and formed Solidity, which really was just the Tommy Sheridan Party. Both of them pretty much fell out the arse end of mainstream recognition, surfacing again only briefly when Tommy was recently packed off to jail for perjury. They now devote almost all of their efforts to going after each other, and almost nothing to making themselves useful- the SSP, in particular, have made complete and utter arses of themselves by spending the last few months devoting far more time and attention to cannibalistic gloating over Sheridan's trial and conviction than to the anti-cuts movement. On the other hand, Solidarity, already a tiny player after the split, is pretty much dead in the water now that Sheridan is out of action, and even their SWP backers have almost entirely lost interest in carrying that farce on any longer. It's been commented, with what I would call tragic accuracy, that these idiots have pretty much killed off socialism in Scotland for a generation.

tl;dr: Tommy is in jail, the party is in two, Scottish socialism is in the toilet.

[ComradeMan]

Well it seems that in relation to the OP and armed struggle etc isn't going to happen.

[Demogorgon]

You're about five years out of date with that, I'm afraid. Sheridan split from the SSP in 2006 over his libel case against the News of the World, and formed Solidity, which really was just the Tommy Sheridan Party. Both of them pretty much fell out the arse end of mainstream recognition, surfacing again only briefly when Tommy was recently packed off to jail for perjury. They now devote almost all of their efforts to going after each other, and almost nothing to making themselves useful- the SSP, in particular, have made complete and utter arses of themselves by spending the last few months devoting far more time and attention to cannibalistic gloating over Sheridan's trial and conviction than to the anti-cuts movement. On the other hand, Solidarity, already a tiny player after the split, is pretty much dead in the water now that Sheridan is out of action, and even their SWP backers have almost entirely lost interest in carrying that farce on any longer. It's been commented, with what I would call tragic accuracy, that these idiots have pretty much killed off socialism in Scotland for a generation.

tl;dr: Tommy is in jail, the party is in two, Scottish socialism is in the toilet.
I agree that it is extremely tragic, though I don't think it has completely killed off socialism. The people who backed the SSP haven't changed their own views, they just don't have a viable outlet for them any more and will go back to voting SNP and hope that brings some incremental improvements. But with a viable socialist alternative appearing again, they will take it. Right now our best hope is George Galloway heaven help us (when you use "Galloway" and "best hope" in the same sentence you know things are desperate) but there is no reason why something better can't come along.

[Tim Finnegan]

I agree that it is extremely tragic, though I don't think it has completely killed off socialism. The people who backed the SSP haven't changed their own views, they just don't have a viable outlet for them any more and will go back to voting SNP and hope that brings some incremental improvements. But with a viable socialist alternative appearing again, they will take it. Right now our best hope is George Galloway heaven help us (when you use "Galloway" and "best hope" in the same sentence you know things are desperate) but there is no reason why something better can't come along.
True. I suppose I'm still carrying a lot of cynicism from before the recent economic balls-up, and the world is simply not the same place that it once was. Scotland still has a strong egalitarian tradition, which, even weakened by decades of Thatcherism, has not yet been stamped out- as you say, it's merely lost the ability to express itself prominently.

We just have to hope, I suppose, that the outrage against the Tories is maintained, and can become the basis of a broader anti-capitalist movement.

[Viet Minh]

You're about five years out of date with that, I'm afraid. Sheridan split from the SSP in 2006 over his libel case against the News of the World, and formed Solidity, which really was just the Tommy Sheridan Party. Both of them pretty much fell out the arse end of mainstream recognition, surfacing again only briefly when Tommy was recently packed off to jail for perjury. They now devote almost all of their efforts to going after each other, and almost nothing to making themselves useful- the SSP, in particular, have made complete and utter arses of themselves by spending the last few months devoting far more time and attention to cannibalistic gloating over Sheridan's trial and conviction than to the anti-cuts movement. On the other hand, Solidarity, already a tiny player after the split, is pretty much dead in the water now that Sheridan is out of action, and even their SWP backers have almost entirely lost interest in carrying that farce on any longer. It's been commented, with what I would call tragic accuracy, that these idiots have pretty much killed off socialism in Scotland for a generation.

tl;dr: Tommy is in jail, the party is in two, Scottish socialism is in the toilet.

My apologies, you're right it was Sheridan who split from the SSP and formed Solidarity, and since then both have spent their entire time bad mouthing each other. Nobody came out of that well! I suspect there will be the biggest split ever now, a few will remain with Solidarity and SSP, some might go to the greens, some to Labour (as a general move against the Tories) and some to the SNP. I don't understand why any Socialist would support the SNP however, unless they allied with the SSP to become the Scottish National Socialist Party! :D

On the other hand it could be a positive change in some ways, despite their good intentions I believe the SSP alienated a lot of potential support, this might well open up the debate and create a more rounded leftist opposition.

[S.Artesian]

There are no words in the English language strong enough to express how glad I am that absolutely no one listens to this anarchist bloviation, and that anti-imperialists across Africa, South America, the Middle East, India, East and Southeast Asia have thrown off the chains of colonial oppression for the benefit of their own people and the entire human race.

You seem to have this idea that liberation and equality are all-or-nothing matters. You're quite correct in comparing imperialist relation between nations with capitalist relations between workers and bosses, but it's frankly astonishing that the conclusion you draw from this is that both nations and capitalism must be destroyed before we can make any progress towards equality. The history of the labor movement is largely a history of amelioration, where workers organized to demand concessions from their bosses, and to great effect. At best, revolutionaries have hitched along for the ride and helped to direct workers in a direction that moves more towards a socialist solution. This process, where union workers, (or national liberationists, for that matter), work together with socialists for immediate gains in the face of brutal oppression is nothing less than the process by which the proletariat develops from a mass of alienated individuals into an organized and capable force for the promotion of class interests. No doubt, the price is high. But it's a price we not only should, but must pay if we want to have any sort of progress, and even when the results are less than ideal we have still accomplished something good, something important and something that the people demand.

I'm reminded here of the words of Karl Marx that open Settlers. They don't totally apply, but they're words that praxeologists of the left such as yourself desperately need to hear:

Except the "benefits" that have been achieved have NOT been achieved by nationalism, or through nationalism, but through class struggle. Nationalism in its various iterations, "stage" theory of revolution, "bourgeois democratic revoluton" "national new democracy" has been used historically by those seeking to interrupt, suspend, contain a revolution and prevent it from actually resulting in.... the taking of power by workers as a class for all of society.

We need only look at the history of class struggle in Vietnam, when the official Vietnamese Communists, at the close of WW2 mobilized against workers striking in opposition to the restoration of French colonialism; when the official Communists suppressed independent peasant movements seizing land in both North and South; when Ho Chi Minh sent troops under Nguyen Binh to break the commune established by the miners in the Tonkin area of Vietnam.

And the result of all this, this "nationalism" in the service of "national liberation"-- all this "sniffing of a little French shit" as Ho put it? Just 30 years more of war, and the deaths of millions leading to.... leading to what? Why leading to Vietnam being the scene of foreign capitalist penetration, the very same foreign capitalist penetration that "national liberation" supposedly expelled.

With liberation like that, who needs oppressors?

[Tim Finnegan]

My apologies, you're right it was Sheridan who split from the SSP and formed Solidarity, and since then both have spent their entire time bad mouthing each other. Nobody came out of that well! I suspect there will be the biggest split ever now, a few will remain with Solidarity and SSP, some might go to the greens, some to Labour (as a general move against the Tories) and some to the SNP. I don't understand why any Socialist would support the SNP however, unless they allied with the SSP to become the Scottish National Socialist Party! :D
I think a lot of that is down to the stance adopted by the local branch of the SNP, which is rarely consistent- they're a broad-tent party, after all, and while they may purr Thatcerisms to the upper middle class, they're quite happy to claim the legacy of Red Clydeside to working class Scots who find themselves unable to trust New Labour. (Although they tend to stop short of claiming John Maclean- there's a fellow that's too radical for the Salmondites to despoil. ;))


On the other hand it could be a positive change in some ways, despite their good intentions I believe the SSP alienated a lot of potential support, this might well open up the debate and create a more rounded leftist opposition.Perhaps. A cynical man could even go so far as to suggest that the destruction of the SSP just prior to the crash was fortuitous, as it provides relatively level ground for the constructive of a new, broader-based party. ;)

[Viet Minh]

I think a lot of that is down to the stance adopted by the local branch of the SNP, which is rarely consistent- they're a broad-tent party, after all, and while they may purr Thatcerisms to the upper middle class, they're quite happy to claim the legacy of Red Clydeside to working class Scots who find themselves unable to trust New Labour. (Although they tend to stop short of claiming John Maclean- there's a fellow that's too radical for the Salmondites to despoil. ;))

Perhaps. A cynical man could even go so far as to suggest that the destruction of the SSP just prior to the crash was fortuitous, as it provides relatively level ground for the constructive of a new, broader-based party. ;)

I'd ideally like to see Labour return to its roots, and provide a voice for the left in Scotland. Some may discount it altogether as a Unionist party but I believe Scotland still has the power to make radical changes, and to greater effect than we could as an independent nation.