I find it odd also.
As I said Scottish nationalists portray themselves as pulling out of a union to start on a bright new dawn for a forward thinking nation, whereas anti EU supporters in England are portrayed as xenophobic little Englanders.
This confuses me, but I may be missing a point here.
anti EU supporters in England are portrayed as xenophobic little Englanders.This confuses me, but I may be missing a point here.
I give you Mr Nigel Farage
It does not answer the point gordimhor. I trump you Alex Salmond. Unfortunately I don't really have the opportunity to hound Salmond out of Scotland. The two are closer than you imagine, Salmond is far more shrewd and politically astute.
I dont give UKIP and its leadership too much time however I have to pay attention to the people ruling Scotland. I wonder if UKIP have had any of their top brass arrested before xScotland v England football games for being drunk and disorderly, because the SNP have unless I am being sold misinformation again as has been claimed.
whereas anti EU supporters in England are portrayed as xenophobic little Englanders.
This confuses me, but I may be missing a point here.
Have a look at farage and the kinds of thing UKIP says about Europe and the rhetoric used- his comments on Belgium as a non nation for example* and what the SNP say. FFS even a Tory like CMD called them fruit loops and closet racists.
If you cannot spot a difference in the nationalism then you really cannot be looking very hard,
I am not saying every anti EU person is UKIP but they are far more anti EU[ in a daily mail gentle racist sense]than the Scots are anti England.
Of course there are racists in both countries but only one party stands on a platform of it
*
You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states - perhaps that's because you come from Belgium, which is pretty much a non-country
Said to the EU president in a general slagging off seech
He then got upset when some folk were rude to him and called them racists, the ignorant unaware tit.
JY, you also are missing my point, I am equally repelled by Farage and Salmond. I think the majority of people in England that wish to pull out of the EU are reasonably minded as are most people in Scotland that will vote yes next year. I again ask the quesion, why are the supporters in Scotland considered visionaries and those down south little Englanders?
Actually the pro Union, anti EU including membership of whatever single currency regime remains is entirely logical, if not at first sight. Leave aside the independence for Indepndence sake arguments (which I can have some sympathy with) the best economic interests for Scotland would be served by Union, Indepndence ex-€, then membership of € a very distant third.
The easy one is the € (assuming this still exists). From the snake through ERM to the € history has made three things abundantly clear. 1. There are only three players whose interests are served - Germany, France and the Bundesbank. Read any Economic history of the 1980- early 2000s to understand this (Connelly's The Rotten Heart of Europe is a good start if a nightmarish read) 2. Each of the players have fundamentally different objectives that can and do conflict with each other. History is clear that the interests of all other countries are subordinate to this troika. 3. Fixed exchange rates (contrary to € propaganda) magnify economic swings and condem periphery players to competive disinflation and or wage deflation and or higher than otherwise unemployment. Scotland has too many clever economists to fall for that error hopefully.
So that leaves the other two. From the argument above, it would appear that independence should be the best answer surely. Well perhaps not. The Scottish economy's size is unlikely to support the full infrastructure that goes with Indepndence as well as the status quo. Simple economies of scale. Borrowing costs eg at the sovereign level (and by consequence at the corporate level) would increase most likely. If you are a Scottish company with high gearing why run the risk of being capped by the small country rating cap that Scotland would suffer. You decamp south of the border PDQ. Then the whole issue of central banks/pensions etc......of course you could keep the pound but that defeats the whole objective since you would lose any control over interest rates and currency if you go independent.
In the current situation, Scotland has the benefits that accrue from being part of the union, representation at the local level and at the union level and therefore influence over the key tools of economic and political life. (better than the English?) The economy would be saved the folly of a fixed exchange rate that is designed for the benefit of the three listed above. Scotland is a beautiful country, with a clear national identify (even if it really needs to find a decent national anthem to replace the dirge of FoS that should remain limited to rugby showers and the like), a devolved assembly, excellent education which can teach the rest of the Uk a thing or two, and a clearly identifiable history, culture and heritage. The union protects all this and provides a safer economic future. Is a thistle on the front of a passport really worth giving all that up for??????
thm. You state my feelings in one post better than I have over 7 pages. 🙂
I again ask the quesion, why are the supporters in Scotland considered visionaries and those down south little Englanders?
I give you the same answer AGAIN. In England they formed a party called UKIP led by Farage and all it stands for with its pretty clear racist overtones and free market goals. In Scotland they formed the SNP
The most vocal proponents are not alike
ones right wing and a bit racist
one is left [sih] wing and nationalistic
If you cannot see the difference they you are not looking.
Clearly this simplification does not apply to all on either but the difference is pretty clear and obvious
the best economic interests for [s]Scotland[/s]uk would be served by European Union
Whether true or false economic arguments alone are unlikely to be the decisive factor on either side
Still missed the point JY. Not all people in England that wish to pull out of the EU are UKIP supporters. It is oversimplifying the issue to assume they are. Take political parties out of the equation and try again!!
Still missed the point JY. Not all people in England that wish to pull out of the EU are UKIP supporters. It is oversimplifying the issue to assume they are
Clearly this simplification does not apply to all on either but the difference is pretty clear and obvious
I am not saying every anti EU person is UKIP but they are far more anti EU[ in a daily mail gentle racist sense]than the Scots are anti England.
Would you like me to be even more explicit ?
Take political parties out of the equation and try again!!
Its quite hard to take the political parties out of the equation when discussing a political issue whilst answering your question.
As I said Scottish nationalists portray themselves as pulling out of a union to start on a bright new dawn for a forward thinking nation, whereas anti EU supporters in England are portrayed as xenophobic little Englanders
It is still due to those who publicly represents the issue and what they say.
These tend to be political parties/leaders.
You are still missing the point though I think somewhat deliberately now.
Junkyard - lazarus
...Its quite hard to take the political parties out of the equation when discussing a political issue whilst answering your question...
The interesting thing is that it is a cross party issue. The reality is that the SNP vote is coming from people who would otherwise vote Labour or LibDem plus Scotland's other Tory voter.
Because of the top down nature of our supposedly democratic parties everyone is expected to dance to the Westminster tune, but this is creating rifts in the parties, so now we have Labour for Independence, LibDems for Independence as well as the single purpose SNP.
However I don't think there's an Orange Order for independence. 🙂
JY, I will spell it out to you as you are dug deeply into a hole. The reason is fairly simple. The yes campaign is portrayed as positive, whilst the no to the EU campaign is seen as negative because the yes campaign choose to portray it that way. A great example of how to blinker yourself to the truth you don't want to hear. The truth that yes voters are closer in mentality to the people they deride as little Englanders than they will ever admit. The words of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men spring to mind.
As Anglo-Welsh living in Wales I would be sad to see Scotland go. I like Scotland, and I would be sad if it were no longer part of my country. Plus Wales would become even more of a rump than it already is!
However, emotion aside, surely the bottom line has to be economies of scale as THM says. How many big businesses would leave Scotland? If you were a big company would you want to be based in a tiny country if you could help it?
Surely an independent Scotland would be more vulnerable simply due to having fewer eggs in fewer baskets?
If you were a big company would you want to be based in a tiny country if you could help it?
Probably. That way you can do what you like and make the government of said tiny country dance to your tune. Multinationals love basing themselves in small countries. Ireland (Erie) must be about half the size of Scotland.
Works even better if they have a well educated workforce.
Doesn't necessarily do the tiny country much good.
A great example of how to blinker yourself to the truth you don't want to hear.
😆 Oh the ironing
They are seen as fundamentally different because they are for the reason given, the ones you wont listen to.
The words of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men spring to mind.
you are kaesae and I claim my bearings.
As for hole I notice you dont want to comment on your error 😉
surely the bottom line has to be economies of scale as THM says
Many think there is more to being a nation and "free" than economics
Gordimhor: instead of cut and paste Odysseys, it would be better to post a link and state what you think the OECD is saying and how that affects the indepdnence question.
2/10 JY. I have been told before to remove party politics from the issue, as soon as I do you go bringing them back in.
AGAIN, you have a movement of reasonably minded people in Scotland cynical of what it perceives to be a distant government over which it has no real input. There is a movement mainly in England of reasonably minded people cynical of a distant government over which it perceives has no real input? Why is one seen as positive and the other negative. I am being clear and concise and in no way emotive. You are replying with requotes and nonsense!
I don't see how any pro European Scottish nationalists can satisfactorily answer this without contradicting themselves. If a suitable reply can be given then prizes may be handed out. You might get that bearing JY.
(I thought keasae was into conspiricy theories so that is lost on me I am afraid).
By nonsense do you mean a point you disagree with or a point you dont understand?
I was replying to athgray when he said rightly that some years ago wee eck had cited Iceland as an example for Scotland to follow .Athgray said that Iceland was now an economic basket case. The OECD survey of Iceland s economy and the UK economy seems to place them in broadly similar health ie fragile recovery with significant work still to do. There's no reason that a small country like Scotland or Iceland cannot do reasonably well in economic terms. Further Iceland with it's small economy and much more seriously damaged banking sector has taken steps to deal with the causes of the banking crisis and the UK government has singularly failed to do so. The size of a country is not a guarantee of s healthy economy or of good government.
A point I don't understand. Sorry.
Gordimhor can you add to the latest query I have shown above? JY is trying but I openly admit I am missing the point a bit.
I did read a bit on the Iceland issue following mentioning it earlier. Iceland is now starting to recover following introduction of some modest austerity measures. Apparently one of the main reasons for it's recovery is down to the fact it has it's own currency, something the SNP have agreed we will not have post independence.
This
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/07/ukip-policies-manifesto-commitments
and this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10166693/Lots-of-Conservative-Party-members-prefer-Ukips-policies.html
That's to say a fairly large percentage of euro sceptics support the policies of a party Cameron described as closet racists.
I accept that not all euro sceptics support UKip or it's policies but a significant number do according to the torygraph
Nope incomprehensible nonsense 2/10 😉
And really there is no comparison between Ukip policies and this
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19477574
The Scottish government legislative programme.
That's to say a fairly large percentage of euro sceptics support the policies of a party Cameron described as closet racists.
I couldn't give a toss about the Tories or UKIP but if you're suggesting that euro sceptic Tories are racist because they prefer the Europe policy of UKIP, that's just gash. If they were really racist they'd be members of the crypto racist UKIP or the actually racist BNP. I don't think UKIP punters are particularly racist as much as xenophobic in the broadest sense of the word.
I travel regularly throughout the UK due to family ties mainly in the SE. For all the faults of the SE I believe it to be one of the most ethnically diverse and racially tolerant parts of the UK. Outisde of bank and IT offices in Scotland terms like p**i, da**ie, fe***n, proddy scum and English wan*er are common.
I personally know plenty, and I am sure there are millions of people in England who would never vote for UKIP but might vote to come out of the EU. The only reason yes campagners see these peoples view as negative is due to their own misguided preconceptions of the typical English voter.
Why the UKIP red herrings?
So what is it that Scots really want (or should want) - devo max. But this isn't on the agenda at the moment. So who is the smart politician here???? Not Salmond because ultimately he has been (1) put on the spot to fight for the thing that at the end of the day is not in the best interests of the Scots and (2) after all this time and effort he has actually been outsmarted here. Not that he has to worry with his four pensions etc...he can ride of into the sunset at Elie or wherever he hangs out.
So the winners after the no vote...the Scots at large and then probably the Scottish Labour party if they focus on hinting at support for gradually more devo max however that will be defined. So the smart politicians.......?
Canny folk the Scots and perhaps Salmond will have ultimately misjudged that simple fact.
Have been reading all of the above fair play for keeping it all reasonably civil folks.
As a Scotsman I'll be voting yes because I want a government that will be voted for and be accountable to the Scottish people. Who act in our best interests.
I dont mind the Snp- they've mostly stuck to their promises and are actually the more socialist party compared to Labour- they've protected as best they can public services especially the Nhs. Something the current government seem determined to dismantle in the name of profit, I mean, efficiency. What have the Labour party done to oppose this- nothing!
I cant see how any of thr main westminster parties at the moment are really acting in Scotlands best interests- no ones saying if it is a yes vote then all will be milk and honey but at least a Scotish Government will be just that- Scottish.
As an interesting aside I've been following the Gibralter tensions with interest the last few days- wonder if the Uk's official stance regarding Gibralter's territorial waters is that they extend straight out from their borders which is why they should be allowed to create their artificial reef where they did.. hmm.
It was David Cameron who described Ukip as closet racist. It's Athgray who asked why one group of people wishing to leave a union of nations might be described as positive and others seen as negative .The simple answer is they are different though Athgray doesn't seem to accept that. I am trying to use the example of Ukip and it's policies which the torygraph said many euro sceptic tories support and the very different policies if the SNP government to show him that the two groups are not the same. ..not even similar.
I openly admit there are racists and bigots in all parts of society. Some of them are euro sceptics, some are Scottish nationalist some are tories some like football and some like rice pudding. Only a tiny minority of any of these groups are racist or bigoted.
What's the difference between Scottish people and British people then?
molgrips - Member
What's the difference between Scottish people and British people then?
Scots are lucky enough to live in a great country with open access to the countryside, and that's not trying to sell all the public infrastructure to mates in the establishment.
To most Scots, British = English.
They are not gordimhor, you are only choosing to accept the UKIP view as that of the majority of Euro sceptics. How is a say a traditional labour voter in England who now feels that EU is distant and does not best serve them, and reckons that perhaps the best course for Britain would be to pull out amicably considered negative and your stance on Scotland positive?
No nationalist can come on here and yet put forward a reasonable case for this.
Some on here's idea of positivity seems to be to mention Farage and post pictures of right wing rallies.
Part of Salmonds message is to portray all aspects of the union in a bad light or go one step further and refuse to acknowlege it even exists and you are all falling for it hook, line and sinker.
So basically the difference is political alignment, is that what you're saying?
but if you're suggesting that euro sceptic Tories are racist because they prefer the Europe policy of UKIP, that's just gash.
i think what people are saying is that the anti union english message is presented as more anti eu - ie its more we hate the EU than we love the UK
I don't think UKIP punters are particularly racist as much as xenophobic in the broadest sense of the word.
a good point andanother reason as to why they appear different to scottish ones
The only reason yes campagners see these peoples view as negative is due to their own misguided preconceptions of the typical English voter.
None as blind as those who cannot see
You are assuming the comments made cover every voter, they dont and no one has claimed they do- even though you suggested I had. It does answer your question as to why they are perceived differently.
Why the UKIP red herrings?
To answer his question. Are you really claiming its a fallacy to discuss the main [only] anti EU english based party when discussing english anti union attitudes 😯
If you think Dave has been setting the agenda and backing the SNP into a corenr with the vote then it is a strange analysis which is beyond spin IMHO. The SNP wants independence and Dave wants union. Why you think a vote on this issues means the pro union lot are dictating the agenda is lost on me tbh.
you are only choosing to accept the UKIP view as that of the majority of Euro sceptics.
Yet no one has said this and everyone has gone to great lengths to point out it is not everyone but it still explains the perception/answers your question
How is a say a traditional labour voter in England who now feels that EU is distant and does not best serve them, and reckons that perhaps the best course for Britain would be to pull out amicably considered negative and your stance on Scotland positive?
Moving the goal posts as you are now asking a different question - though you probably wont be able to see that either. Again no one is saying every English nationalists is a racists UKIP little englander nor that no SNP pro scottish independent person is not racist. They are broiad churches. It still answers yoru question
No nationalist can come on here and yet put forward a reasonable case for this.
This is like debating with TJ now where you just repeat we have not answered the question. The fact that you do not "understand" the point when made do you does not mean they have not made the case.
Your broader point about pro independence folk being a broad church is undeniably true. However the reason the movements and key players are seen as different remains the perception caused by the public mouthpiece of the movement being UKIP who even a right winger described as fruit loops and closet racists.
Why not just say you disagree [ though it will still be the answer] rather than say you dont understand the answer or you think none has been given. Its a reasonable answer and way more credible than a Putin comparison.
A lot of opinion seems to have bee presented as fact in this thread.
The fact is we don't know and can't know what the outcome will be of a Yes vote as much of it is subject to negotiation with the rUK government and to a lesser extent the EU.
As a Scotsman I'll be voting yes because I want a government that will be voted for and be accountable to the Scottish people. Who act in our best interests.
Thank you athepal, very nicely put and a sentiment I also share.
I'd agree with Scottish votes for a Scottish Government. Can't wait.
As a Scotsman I'll be voting yes because I want a government that will be voted for and be accountable to the Scottish people. Who act in our best interests.
Thank you athepal, very nicely put and a sentiment I also share.
I'd agree with Scottish votes for a Scottish Government. Can't wait.
Abracadabra alacazam; http://home.scotland.gov.uk/home you have 2 wishes remaining.
JY. See I don't perceive the mouthpieces of UKIP and SNP as all that different. More like ring pieces.
One party has a leader that is a pompous bully that is happy to see the right of free speech denied to someone that he disagrees with. This same party has a prominent member that cannot control his behaviour resulting in a drunk and disorderly arrest before a football match. The other party is UKIP. You can base your views on what UKIP may do with real power. I will draw my conclusions on the SNP hierarchy vased on what they have actually done.
George Galloway recently on QT said that the Farage incident in Edinburgh recently appeared 'ugly' to many outside Scotland. was certainly worrying in my eyes!
Again, I mean no ill will here and admit JY that you have formulated your argument in a way I can at least follow. I do still disagree however but am happy to leave such disagreements at the door on this thread.
Athgray it's clearly the case that the snp and other pro independence groups put forward quite different policies from Ukip and other euro sceptical Therefore they appeal to different people or different groups of people. This link might help you to see a difference between Salmond and Putin
http://amnesty.org/en/region/russia
One party has a leader that is a pompous bully that is happy to see the right of free speech denied to someone that he disagrees with. This same party has a prominent member that cannot control his behaviour resulting in a drunk and disorderly arrest before a football match.
first word "ad" second word "hominem"
I could point out similar deficiencies in UKIP candidates, but I won't as its not even remotely relevant to debate on whether Scotland should be independent
I don't perceive the mouthpieces of UKIP and SNP as all that different
You will be in a tiny minority and I assume you now view farage as being like Putin
What an interesting troika that is
Being arrested for an offence does not equate to guilt as shown by the lack of charges. You are just flinging mud
I think you may be unpleasantly surprised as to peoples views on Salmond. Don't forget that as things stand the arguments put forward by the nationalists for indepenence are the minority although you would not think so. As there appears to be a lack of authorative voice within the no camp it appears they will have to put up with me.
I have previously stated he was not charged, however he had admitted to a 'misunderstanding' with an officer in London. Seems to be a case of no smoke without fire. What worries me is the fact that of all the games for something like this to happen, it was against England. Also Farage has not yet wielded any power towards the racist ends you describe, so you can't just accuse me of mud flinging.
Also Farage has not yet wielded any power towards the racist ends you describe,
It was Camerons description not mine and he has no power to wield.
Given his Speech to van Rompey , for which he was suspended as an MEP, I think a reasonable case can be made that he is that end of his party. Xenophobe is probably a better descriptor than racist as noted above for UKIP in general.
you can't just accuse me of mud flinging.
Fair comment though I am using stronger evidence than no smoke without fire.
On a similar thread I posted Salmonds reply in BBC interview when asked what he thought about Farage in Edinburgh. What he said worried me. I think we can both agree that Farage is a bigoted idiot, however he does have some degree of support in England, and I will defend his right to voice his opinions here. Letting him speak will only make him come across as more foolish.
Many yes campaigners will say he is a dick leading a minority party he got what he deserves. where then do we draw the line on free speech? This is a serious concern and not a case of no smoke without fire. I am seriously interested in your take on this JY and do not intend to appear chirlish.
Forgive my copy and paste frenzy 8)
On a similar thread I posted Salmonds reply in BBC interview when asked what he thought about Farage in Edinburgh. What he said worried me.
Linky -as noted I live in England so dont get all the news here
I think we can both agree that Farage is a bigoted idiot, however he does have some degree of support in England,
Indeed
and I will defend his right to voice his opinions here.
So would I but he is an idiot if he thinks he wont get a reaction. just like a german coming here to support the UK staying in the EU they will get a reaction as well. To then play a racism card by Farage was low and innacurate to say the least. My main reaction was to think it was amusing tbh
Letting him speak will only make him come across as more foolish.
I think i said on the thread on this that if I was the yes campaign I would pay for his bus tour
Many yes campaigners will say he is a dick leading a minority party he got what he deserves. where then do we draw the line on free speech?
He can do as he please and I will oppose. i dont think anyone is trying to stop him speaking just commenting in what he says and what it shows
UKIP have the right to speak out, to oppose the Eu but the language/rhetoric they use is a mixture of xenophobic, chest beating nationalism and gibberish which is what you also think the SNP do. I disagree that they do it to the same degree or magnitude. Nationalism is always an emotive voice though.
simply one is scotland we can stand alone as nation state the other is more **** of europe with your interference.
