- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3161 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 78788
After seeing this on the news today I finally got the joke known as the SNP. The joke is that the SNP is the antithesis of a nationalist party. She is a blatant Westminster style Marxist globalist who, if she ever managed to secure scotlands independence, would sell it to the EU in a heartbeat. It's like I'm living in an Orwellian state where everyone is the opposite of who they claim to be
Nationalism is Globalism
Independence is EU
Multiculturalism is Nationalist
I would be struggling for breath right now if I did not realise that idiots actually believe the SNP is a nationalist party. Can't she have the decency to rebrand it as the Scottish Globalist Party or something?
|>>|| No. 78796
I can recommend a couple of books on the use of punctuation, capitalisation and general use of the English language required well before one would sit a GSCE, if you would like, lad.
|>>|| No. 78799
How's he going to feel come 2019 when his map of Europe will need altering?
|>>|| No. 78800
Well, by then he will either have done the world a favour and topped himself, or done his family a favour and started listening to the doctors.
My money is very much on the former, should anyone which to take a little flutter. Call it a tenner each way.
|>>|| No. 78803
I wish people who didn't know the history of the SNP wouldn't talk about it.
The SNP has always recognized the UK is the hardest union to extricate Scotland from, because Scotland isn't recognized as sovereign by the UK. Their position on the EEC/EU has developed over time in light of this. In 1975 they advocated a "No" vote to demonstrate Scotland was different from the UK. This position slowly developed as the EEC moved towards the EC and they realized that it could act as a power above the UK to which they could plead their case in the event the UK government gave them the cold shoulder. Their position since then has definitely been uncritical, but it's largely because they can afford to be apathetic to it in light of their primary cause - leaving the UK. It has the bonus of making them look more progressive overall (because Scotland has been more used to the pro-EU consensus than the north of England, and despite free movement already being in place has seen little immigration overall: ~95% white and something like 90% white British.)
Look at it this way, to get a referendum on independence the Scottish government had to:
Ask the UK government for permission
Rely on the UK government to pass an act giving the Scottish parliament the temporary power to call a referendum.
Pass their own act in the Scottish parliament to grant a referendum
Hold a referendum.
To get a referendum on independence on the EU, the UK government had to:
Pass an act in Westminster to grant a referendum
Hold a referendum
A much simpler process. Now that the UK has left the EU, it does remain an outside possibility the SNP's unquestioningly pro-EU strategy might pay off for them. Even if the EU itself doesn't aid them, it can be the one party that can actually complain about leaving with a straight face (as they offer an option that might let Scotland stay, while Labour goes "Yes, we love the EU... but gotta stay in the UK!")
That's before you get into any fuckery about Scottish national identity, "New Scots" and the like. The fact that there are more Scots outside of Scotland than in it and that sort of thing. Overall the SNP's nationalism could be narrowed down into caring about the overall construct of the nation-state instead of the raw individuals of the nation. Scotland is the area from Shetland to Berwick, and it is the independence of that area from the area from Berwick to Land's End (and er... Belfast to... Somewhere) that matters.
|>>|| No. 78804
Nice bit of sophistry there. I wouldn't have expected anything less.
|>>|| No. 78806
Haven't Scotland got little chance of the EU, anyway? I'm sure the Spanish said they'd veto any attempt for them to join because they don't want their uppity separatists getting ideas.
|>>|| No. 78808
As i understand it, that's a meme.
While Spain obviously prefer Scotland to stay away (and make wooly "Oh, that might be a bit tough" statements to that effect) I believe their position is that if the UK government recognizes Scottish Independence, Spain will follow. If Scotland hypothetically went unilaterally Spain would theoretically veto it if everyone else accepted this independence, but in practice UDI means British tanks outside Holyrood. If Scotland was generally recognized as an independent state, Spain's remaining rational option would be to poker-face it and go "Ah... Well Catalonia, you see, that's different, the UK is allowed to do that under their unwritten constitution of "fuck it why not" while we're not allowed to give you a referendum under our proper constitution."
This is semi reflected in their position on Bosnia - "Not independent because Serbia says so" while other ex-Yugoslav states are fine.
|>>|| No. 78810
They've got all the entry criteria.
Rubbish economy, high rates of unemployment....
|>>|| No. 78813
I like Scotland, we must do more to stop it's cultural appropriation.
|>>|| No. 78819
It's okay as long as all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one colour. Ireland really pisses me off though.
|>>|| No. 78820
Maps have been altered all the time throughout history, what makes your map so special? Only a few hundred years ago we were living under the Danelaw map. So what.
|>>|| No. 78831
We went through centuries to get the good map we have now. I won't have some silly fucking alcoholic smackheads throw all of that into jeopardy. Good thing they chose otherwise. So you can go fuck off to one of the islands on the Pacific too small to be seen on a map two feet away. Fucking soppy cunt.
|>>|| No. 78850
What is this some kind of bitter e-sociopath meet and greet? What is wrong with you subhumans?
|>>|| No. 78852
>We went through centuries to get the good map we have now. I won't have some silly fucking alcoholic smackheads throw all of that into jeopardy. Good thing they chose otherwise. So you can go fuck off to one of the islands on the Pacific too small to be seen on a map two feet away. Fucking soppy cunt.
BIKINI STATE AMBER
|>>|| No. 78865
I'm not sure why anyone's making much of a fuss over the whole second referendum thing. She can bring in as many bills as she likes. The reality is that Theresa May can veto it by simply refusing to put the matter to Parliament. She can even use her new favourite catchphrases about how she will deliver Brexit, and how a second referendum would be Scotland remaining by the back door.
As evidenced by the referendum result, Scotland clearly wants to stay in the EU, and as we all remember, Callmedave made it clear that Scotland's best chance for that was to remain in the UK. Less than two years down the line, it's not hard to see how many north of the border would see that as being cheated. Cameron allowed the first referendum in part because he was confident that he would win it. May surely would not allow a second referendum in part because she can be confident there's a good chance she'd lose it.
|>>|| No. 78875
You're allowed to say "Muslamic" here, lad. Or are you one of those oddballs who writes Islam when commenting on the DM in garbled l33t because you think their mods won't notice that way?
|>>|| No. 78884
If we're not part of the European experiment we'll be the 51st - or is it 52nd? - state of the Union. Then we'll see just how much the old country counts for in Pax Americana.
If all else fails, we'll make a splendid airstrip for the Yanks.
|>>|| No. 78886
>She is a blatant Westminster style Marxist globalist
Yes, more globalism please. I welcome it.
Although I am confused about why the word "internationalist" is no longer used? It seems perfectly fine still. Perhaps it's because, in fact, internationalism has had such an honourable history - the labour, environmental and anti-war movements have all put inter- before the national? And that how is Alex Jones supposed to wave all that away without bamboozling his audience? Globalism, conversely, has no reputation but the one the reactionaries had made for it.
Anyone who has been to a border knows how arbitrary it is (I wouldn't be surprised to find most Brexit voters haven't even ventured that far). All borders do is breed nationalism and foster dolphin rape, two of the greatest of all human ills.
However, I'm getting the distinct impression that many Brits have grown a little too fond of their pathologises and pet hates. There appears to be no talking them out of it: they wave facts away, and shudder at the sight of an expert. We may need to consider some
re education camps later down the line.
Also: I'm a part-time Marxist and I can just tell you, no one is the Commons is even Marx-ish. Mores the pity.
|>>|| No. 78888
Internationalism has decidedly socialist connotations.
And McDonnell is definitely of a Marxist bent, probably uniquely so even amongst the parliamentary hard left.
|>>|| No. 78889
>And McDonnell is of a decidedly Marxist bent
That's true. I wrongly overlooked him.
|>>|| No. 78893
Yeah, I think I preferred being the seventh state. It's a bit of a drop from there down to the fifties.
|>>|| No. 78921
Globalism is international finance capitalism wrapped in the clothes of internationalism so that the soft-left are drawn to defend it under the banner of anti-dolphin rape. The two are not the same thing.
Perhaps this will make a global revolution genuinely possible as conditions become shit for everyone, but being somewhat of the SNP-bent, I'm more inclined to believe all it will do is mean national governments are severely limited in their ability to make things slightly less shit for some people. As a matter of practical, pragmatic reality for example - the Scottish border is entirely arbitrary, but without that arbitrary border nobody in the UK would get free tuition, and everyone would have to suffer the stupid policy decisions of the Blair (and following Cameron) administrations.
As international finance continues to grow in power (and the jet-setting international rich don't have to worry about the affairs of individual nations too much, since if the UK degenerates into riots they can just convert all their money to Euro and fuck off) and national governments weaken, all I can see is untold suffering since any attempt at even moderate reform results in "the markets" destroying the national economy.
Freely convertible currencies were a mistake. Stop that, and you tether the rich more closely to their homelands, you make exporting a business for tax reasons more difficult, etc, etc. Of course this requires international agreement amongst major economies to impose currency controls, otherwise you just commit economic suicide, and you'll never get such agreement so: Untold suffering it is.
|>>|| No. 78939
>Anyone who has been to a border knows how arbitrary it is (I wouldn't be surprised to find most Brexit voters haven't even ventured that far). All borders do is breed nationalism and foster dolphin rape, two of the greatest of all human il
Go on then, cross over to North Korea where you'd be most welcome.
|>>|| No. 78952
Thanks for reiterating my point:
>All borders do is breed nationalism and foster dolphin rape
|>>|| No. 78954
Tell that to the Indians and laplanderstanis and Bangladeshis after the Raj pal.
|>>|| No. 78958
The Middle East, along with several western states in the US, would like a word with you.
|>>|| No. 78961
>Borders are certainly not arbitrary
This is the single stupidest thing I've read all day, and I've just been reading about British policy in Ireland.
|>>|| No. 78965
>This is the single stupidest thing I've read all day, and I've just been reading about British policy in Ireland.
Tell me about it.
|>>|| No. 78969
I was reading about various periods, but mainly the British suppression following the Easter Rising. The independence movement wasn't all that popular among the "ordinary" citizenry up until that point, which surprised me. It was mainly a topic isolated to intellectuals or the self-exiled.
James Connolley, a little known but brilliant Irishman, was condemned to death following his capture. A very, very short bio: Connolley, completely self-taught, claimed to uncover a native socialism - if not communism - in the country's Celtic roots, and spent most of his adult life union organising on both sides of the Atlantic. He was one of the few Irishmen of his time who was a feminist too, and was particularly pissed off with Catholicism's role in oppressing women.
On the day of his execution he was so badly wounded that he needed to be brought out on a stretcher and tied to a chair for the shooting. His final exchange with his wife (who was later shunned by many in Dublin) went:
>[Upon hearing of his execution in the morning] “But your life, James, your beautiful life.”
>“Well, Lillie,” he answered, “hasn’t it been a full life, and isn’t this a good end?”
I particularly like Connolley because he was a committed internationalist and atheist. Not like the awful insular Pope-fearing crowd who followed him.
Because of something I'm writing at the moment I've also been looking at Churchill's role in all this. He helped form the Black and Tans and competed with Lloyd George on how harshly to respond to the Irish Question: his solution was pretty much "hang 'em all!"
I had a great uncle who was victim to the British restoring order in Dublin. He was hung by his feet under the Liffey Bridge for quite a while. Needless to say, he never recovered physically or mentally.
Sorry, that's all a bit messy and garbled. But I assure you it's worth reading into if you get a chance.
|>>|| No. 78972
They brought it on themselves. It was wartime. Rightly or wrongly, we were shooting our own men in France for desertion. Morale would plummet if we shot our own men for desertion while letting usurpers and secessionist rebels off with prison sentences. It isn't as simple as 'bullying England’, there was no choice but to be harsh.
|>>|| No. 78973
>I've also been looking at Churchill's role in all this. He helped form the Black and Tans and competed with Lloyd George on how harshly to respond to the Irish Question: his solution was pretty much "hang 'em all!"
Churchill actually argued in favour of Home Rule in Belfast in 1912. His role is rather complicated.
You can fuck off.
|>>|| No. 78974
>They brought it on themselves. It was wartime
That was the mentality of the authorities, sure. I would've thought that obvious.
But, seeing as truisms apparently need to be stated: the revolutionaries weren't going to put their ambitions to one side because the British had decided to enter the great imperial meat-grinder in mainland Europe.
They had been told countless times, as a people, that they had to put English (upper class) interests before their own - and I'm not going to condemn those men who rose up said, "we're not going to be spoken to like that anymore".
(And, in case its not obvious, I would also support the English who refused to fight that pointless war.)
|>>|| No. 78975
>Churchill actually argued in favour of Home Rule in Belfast in 1912. His role is rather complicated
As is everything he got involved in, irritatingly. One of Connolley's essays confronts the fact that Churchill may have spoken harshly of Orange violence (one of his meetings in Belfast had to be moved due to threats against his life from that lot), he actually did nothing about it. As soon as nationalist - or independent or Catholic or whatever - forces kicked off, he called for a suspension of the rule of law, and sent ex-cons with guns beyond the Pale.
It is complicated though. He was a canny politician for the most part, occasionally a ferment ideologue.
|>>|| No. 78977
>a ferment ideologue.
Hopefully someone clever will invent a stupid detecting laser guided barrel bomb to blow up your head.
|>>|| No. 78981
You seem unaware of his raving defenses of empire? How he came to justify chemical attacks, indiscriminate murder and mass execution - all in the service of British order. Even when it was clear to everyone else that Pax Britannia was definitely on its way out. You'd have to be more than a little committed to the idea of Anglo Saxon supremacy to act like that (his handling of the Benghal Famine led one former ally to compare him to Hitler, to take just one example).
His Fulton speech alone, with its paranoia and hysteria, should be enough to convince you. This was someone who would risk nuclear war to maintain a hegemony of what he called "responsible white men".
But, it seems, you're a committed adherent to the Churchill Cult, so maybe not.
|>>|| No. 79535
Sturgeon is a wee ginger that stinks of fags so much so as to kill the smell of her baggy kipper fanny.
|>>|| No. 79537
Sturgeon has made a career out of finding ways Scotland can differentiate itself from Westminster. The better or worse for the Scottish people doesn't concern her.
|>>|| No. 79539
Sturgeon has made a career out of being Salmond's underling. I have serious doubts she'd have won 2007 (and she did stand for leader at the time, withdrawing to let Salmond in), even against a government as shite as the Labour administration of the day. (One must remember there was only one seat in it.)
Though I have been reminded of perhaps my favourite quote from a Labour representative.
Lord Foulkes: The SNP are on a dangerous tack at the moment. What they are doing is trying to build up a situation in Scotland where the services are manifestly better than south of the border in a number of areas.
Colin MacKay: Is this such a bad thing?
Lord Foulkes: No, but they are doing it deliberately.
Boy George then tried to amend the Scotland bill to bugger free tuition. Nice chap.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]