Polarised Bears

[aweebluesoandso 290]

This exactly where the Nationalist arguments went to mush for me, the were denigrating Westminster, proclaiming political freeeeedom. But were prepared to give most those freedoms away and put on a financial straitjacket in the Euro currency. I t seamed to me freedom from the UK for them was worth signing away their freedom to a European political elite run by Germany and France.

 

One minute the SNP claimed that Scotland was the 14th wealthiest country in the world, and then in the next it was banging on about poverty.

One minute the SNP was talking about the Westminster elite but it offered no opinion on the Brussels elite.

 

One minute it was undermining Westminster as a democracy and yet it wanted to sign up to the EU - an organisation noted for many things - but not its democratic values.

 

Why would an independent Scotland want to join as a nation an organisation that would turn it into a region?

 

It's the elephant in the room - the Scottish National Party is fundamentally anti-English. A simmering centuries-old hatred burns deep within it and colours its every judgement.

 

As you know only too well, it is best avoided.

[buster. 5,183]

One minute the SNP claimed that Scotland was the 14th wealthiest country in the world, and then in the next it was banging on about poverty.

One minute the SNP was talking about the Westminster elite but it offered no opinion on the Brussels elite.

 

One minute it was undermining Westminster as a democracy and yet it wanted to sign up to the EU - an organisation noted for many things - but not its democratic values.

 

Why would an independent Scotland want to join as a nation an organisation that would turn it into a region?

 

It's the elephant in the room - the Scottish National Party is fundamentally anti-English. A simmering centuries-old hatred burns deep within it and colours its every judgement.

 

As you know only too well, it is best avoided.

 

Both campaigns were badly flawed in different ways.

 

The Yes campaign hadn't done the necessary graft/(pre) negotiation required beforehand so as to provide conclusive and unambiguous answers on the vital issues. This deficit was partly filled by Nationalist rhetoric.

 

I remember Salmond waving the Saltire at Wimbledon after Murray won the championship and thought he'd have been so much better giving the flag to his wife. This for me showed patriotism and emotion coming before politics which in one way may be considered an 'honest reaction' but one that carried on into the campaign........

Edited September 22, 2014 by buster.

[buster. 5,183]

Let me assure you' date=' seeing as you seem to be so concerned, that I am not struggling at all.

 

Furthermore rather than "diverting" I am highlighting the type of social injustice and poverty I referred to in the original article.

 

http://immortalrangers.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/2-sides-of-a-coin-2/[/quote']

 

After reading the article I don't see a great deal to change my reply.

 

You are surfing a wave that will in time simply go back to where it was.

That isn't to dispute that people are free to feel as they please or criticise anyone as such, it's only saying that 'Unionism' as such won't grow significantly as a movement although those within may shout louder.

 

Neither is it to dispute the result, which is clear.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The bit at the end about the Conservatives (I presume they are the pro-Unionist UK party you refer to) fighting with "unrelenting determination to establish social justice, as well as eradicate poverty and it’s manifestations from the shores of our United Kingdom.".....................................Is this satire, it made me laugh.

[BEARGER 1,830]

I also post on another forum. As soon as I admitted to being a yes voter the attacks started. I was a phoney, nationalist troll, tim, not a real Rangers fan etc. etc. Some of it was just pure hatred, it got me to thinking do I really want to be associated with these people? In fact I stayed away from the last two home games, not because of the board (although that may come) but due to not wanting to share the same space as these bigots.

Now I know that not all supporters are the same and in fact 1000's voted yes and I will be back, but we seem to have a vocal minority who attend games who have issues that are more important to them than the team.

[Tom Davison 0]

I also post on another forum. As soon as I admitted to being a yes voter the attacks started. I was a phoney, nationalist troll, tim, not a real Rangers fan etc. etc. Some of it was just pure hatred, it got me to thinking do I really want to be associated with these people? In fact I stayed away from the last two home games, not because of the board (although that may come) but due to not wanting to share the same space as these bigots.

Now I know that not all supporters are the same and in fact 1000's voted yes and I will be back, but we seem to have a vocal minority who attend games who have issues that are more important to them than the team.

I am just a wee bit surprised why folk like yourself Bearger would choose to declare your voting intentions. Many considered that this was something that should remain a private matter.

[Zappa 0]

I am just a wee bit surprised why folk like yourself Bearger would choose to declare your voting intentions. Many considered that this was something that should remain a private matter.

 

That's what I was thinking too, especially with regard to Gers fans who regularly use social media sites.

 

Why would you announce which way you're voting on those social media platforms if you know it's a touchy subject amongst many Rangers supporters and something you're quite likely to get some abuse for?

 

Most of us know there's a fair number of our supporters with quite extreme views and not afraid to voice them on those social media sites, so if you declared yourself as a 'YES' voter on them, I think you pretty much knew what was going to happen.

[D'Artagnan 173]

After reading the article I don't see a great deal to change my reply.

 

You are surfing a wave that will in time simply go back to where it was.

That isn't to dispute that people are free to feel as they please or criticise anyone as such, it's only saying that 'Unionism' as such won't grow significantly as a movement although those within may shout louder.

 

Neither is it to dispute the result, which is clear.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The bit at the end about the Conservatives (I presume they are the pro-Unionist UK party you refer to) fighting with "unrelenting determination to establish social justice, as well as eradicate poverty and it’s manifestations from the shores of our United Kingdom.".....................................Is this satire, it made me laugh.

 

Then Im afraid you have presumed wrongly.

 

Its inclusive of all political parties who are pro-union not necessarily the Conservatives.

 

Furthermore Im not as convinced as you are the wave will go back to where it was. I think disaffection with all pro-union parties was a characteristic of this campaign, lets remember alot of those Yes supporters are dis-affected Labour supporters. If the notion of the union is to be defended effectively at the ballot box then those voters are going to have to be won back - already in the last few days the SNP are proudly proclaiming a considerable increase in membership.

 

Where we would find common agreement is in the failings of the Yes camapign - the critical issues for many people remained unanswered - realting to economy, currency and central bank.

[BEARGER 1,830]

I am just a wee bit surprised why folk like yourself Bearger would choose to declare your voting intentions. Many considered that this was something that should remain a private matter.

 

That's what I was thinking too, especially with regard to Gers fans who regularly use social media sites.

 

Why would you announce which way you're voting on those social media platforms if you know it's a touchy subject amongst many Rangers supporters and something you're quite likely to get some abuse for?

 

Most of us know there's a fair number of our supporters with quite extreme views and not afraid to voice them on those social media sites, so if you declared yourself as a 'YES' voter on them, I think you pretty much knew what was going to happen.

 

Ok it was on FF in the lounge on a specific thread to discuss the referendum. I was expecting some criticism but it was way over the top IMO.

[Hildy 0]

As we trumpet about how the Scottish people engaged in the democratic process and enthuse about the high turnout, we should remember one thing: this referendum has split the country.

 

It's easy to wax lyrical about it, but it was as tense as the lead-up to an Old Firm game and the result was either going to delight and overjoy or disappoint and infuriate. I know people - I'm sure we all do - who dreaded the 'wrong' outcome.

 

The idea that people could lose their British identity overnight was highly traumatic and as we can see from vain demands for a recount, the unfulfilled dreams of those who lost have caused hurt, frustration and disillusionment.

 

Repeating this exercise any time soon would not be a good idea - not because my side won - but because the political and social climate has been badly soured. Another referendum would only reopen wounds and needlessly unsettle the country. Scotland has been drained by it. It needs to heal and healing takes time.

 

Democracy won in the end, but the process has maybe exacted a higher price than is immediately apparent. When we vote in elections, we are civilised enough to cope with disagreeable outcomes, but when the vote can terminate nationality, it is a very, very big deal.

 

I wanted to see the Union side win, but whichever side triumphed, I believed that it would be better for the country, and I actually used the following figures to a friend, if the winning vote was a decisive 55-45 rather than 51-49.

 

The percentage vote share and region carve-up - a massive 28-4 to NO - will hopefully be enough to see stability kick in, but these are uncertain times. Nothing can be taken for granted.

[buster. 5,183]

Then Im afraid you have presumed wrongly.

 

Its inclusive of all political parties who are pro-union not necessarily the Conservatives.

 

Furthermore Im not as convinced as you are the wave will go back to where it was. I think disaffection with all pro-union parties was a characteristic of this campaign' date=' lets remember alot of those Yes supporters are dis-affected Labour supporters. If the notion of the union is to be defended effectively at the ballot box then those voters are going to have to be won back - already in the last few days the SNP are proudly proclaiming a considerable increase in membership.

 

Where we would find common agreement is in the failings of the Yes camapign - the critical issues for many people remained unanswered - realting to economy, currency and central bank.[/quote']

 

I think you are still on some kind of idealistic high, Mr.D.

 

The silent majority have spoken. But we must continue to speak, and speak with a sense of passion and renewed confidence in what we truly believe in and seek to uphold. Let it now be the Unionist voice which protects our NHS, fights with unrelenting determination to establish social justice, as well as eradicate poverty and it’s manifestations from the shores of our United Kingdom.

 

Our voice is on the rise, we must by actions, not words or political sound bites, ensure our Union is defended, by attacking the root causes of social injustice and poverty within our society.

 

If you think that the main parties will stick together in some kind of unified pact to "fight with unrelenting determination to establish social justice, as well as eradicate poverty and it’s manifestations from the shores of our United Kingdom." ie. to undo what they have been supervising over a number of years..................then you don't live in the real world.

If the rhetoric is to help drum up enthusiasm then fine but you should learn from the Nationalists mistakes regards not having enough substance or not being able to convince anyone outwith the 'membership' or already converted.

 

 

As for Scottish Labour winning back supporters from the SNP, for a start they need some 'credible people' and not the likes of Lamont. There is more chance of Clement Atlee returning than your line about the UK parties seriously working together and achieving the "eradication of poverty" , perhaps Gordon Brown is as high as they could go but it's doubtful he'd want to and he comes with baggage.

 

For a number of reasons, democracy in the UK is in an unhealthy state and for me there are issues that are far more important than the Union or Nationalism.