• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

Scottish Independence v. Further devolution, or just convoluted lies?

Should Scotland become independent?

  • Should stay how things are now

    Votes: 6 15.0%

  • Should become fully independent

    Votes: 20 50.0%

  • Should extend devolved powers but remain part of UK

    Votes: 8 20.0%

  • I am Spade

    Votes: 6 15.0%
  • Total voters
    40
Sorry I've had a drink. I'm trying to fing my ethernet cable but cant so can only talk on here. BRB xxxx

Evey
 
a bad winner is just as bad, if not worse, than a bad loser.

alasdair
 
ScotchMist said:
The Heil reckons the Yes supporters were so angry their minds snapped and they all thought they were in 1930's Germany..! 8)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-separate-rival-groups-tension-increases.html

Apparently if you raise your arm above shoulder height, it becomes a Nazi salute..8)

Dj's and ravers beware, "dont put your 'ands up in da air"...!
Click to expand...

It's extremely obvious they're purposely doing a nazi salute, it's hardly new territory for that particular breed of moronic scum.
 
Felt sorry for the Scottish, finally given a chance to split peacefully and a large chunk of the electorate bought Westminster lies and negative propaganda, it was shameful to see the media coverage and how all big business tried to influence the vote.

I think the Scots will probably have another vote in the next decade, hopefully some of the older voters would have passed away by then, I think it's the older demographic that overwhelmingly voted no, apart from the orange parade types and rangers fans.

I was looking forward to welcome Scotland in the big family of free nations, guess they'd rather be a colony, whatever.

It's weird though, every single Scot I ever met in my life anywhere in the world was anti-union and pro-independence, I thought it would be a landslide victory for the Yes camp.
 


Few sieg heils there alright, just how these people reconcile their nazism with their ten German bombers song is beyond comprehension, as is their anger at their victory, "simply the best" indeed, they are god help them, people you look away from rather than down on, car crash people.

Speaking of incomprehension that would describe the feelings of nearly everybody over here that anybody, the mob in the picture excluded, could vote against the establishment of their own country and they would at a visceral level have supported the yes campaign, however there have been large exhalations of relief at the result in certain quarters. The political classes here viewed an Independent Scotland as potentially unwelcome competition in the little economic niche that Ireland has carved out for itself, we are again, God help us and preserve us from Celtic Tigers, the fastest growing economy in the EU. Irish politicos were also concerned that it might reinvigorate calls for a united Ireland among self described Northern Nationalists, a large minority of whom (in one of the particular logics, of the peoples of the dreary steeples), are in favour of the Union. The Northern Irish state is in receipt of an estimated £1 Billion subvention per month from the British Exchequer which allows many to lead cosseted lives, even on welfare, bought and sold for English Dole, if you will, however the main beneficiaries are the Catholic Middle Classes, who unlike their Protestant compatriots are likely to study in and stay and work in the North, mostly in government employ of some sort. The state contribution to the Northern economy is supposed to 80% of GNP which makes the old East Germany look like Silk Road and look what happened Germany after unification.
 
^More proof that which side was most aligned with the 'bad' type of nationalism - not saying most no voters were anything like that of course, but that was implied in reverse against yes voters with much less justification as it turned out.

Not surprising that that sort of nationalist (ie fascist) would vote with the establishment really - that's what fascism is about (albeit the 'right' type of establishment). Fascists clothing themselves in the colours of the anti-establishment is an old trick (and maybe believed by many of its members), but when it's about might-is-right and strong state power, it should recognise its own in the british establishment (as hitler did) when push comes to shove comes to boot stamping on face (forever).
 
Last edited:
They are hardly fascists that would imply some sort of political consciousness, fascistic maybe, but probably just as an extreme type of Shoneenism, any truth in reports they were burning Saltires?
 
I thought some were BNP, who do a pretty good impression; and they did sieg heil. Political awareness isn't a qualification for brownshirt-types as far as i know (the opposite even). Could you tell me what Shoneenism is though please (i will google too).

(i heard 2nd hand abot saltires but no pics)
 
Last edited:
Shoneen (from the Irish) literally is little John, (as in John Bull), it means toady or flunkey, somebody who cast of native ways, out of self loathing (Glasgow Shoneenism) or for economic reasons or for both (Edinburgh Shoneenism)
 
Vurtual said:
^More proof that which side was most aligned with the 'bad' type of nationalism - not saying most no voters were anything like that of course, but that was implied in reverse against yes voters with much less justification as it turned out.
Click to expand...

Had the Yes vote prevailed, I think we'd have witnessed similar behaviour from a certain minority within that camp. Maybe not sieg heils, but certainly a similar brand of thuggery. Emotionally-charged nationalist politics attracts extremist nutters, that's all.

Vurtual said:
Not surprising that that sort of nationalist (ie fascist) would vote with the establishment really - that's what fascism is about (albeit the 'right' type of establishment). Fascists clothing themselves in the colours of the anti-establishment is an old trick (and maybe believed by many of its members), but when it's about might-is-right and strong state power, it should recognise its own in the british establishment when push comes to shove (as hitler did).
Click to expand...

They aren't fascists, they're just bigoted Rangers supporters. Go to an Old Firm game (not that there are many of those right now) and you'll witness far worse. The salute is just a hateful gesture which they know will cause controversy. They were most certainly very drunk.

It's nothing at all to with adherence to 'the Establishment'. It's just ill-defined, directionless aggression and hatred, coupled with cherished ideas of national identity.

No Nazis. No lizards.
 
I hear PTCH was out for a few bevvies last night and was giving it large salutes all over the place, any body got a photo?
 
Thanks for the definition gannets.

I learned another nice political idiom the other day from 19th century US - 'pearl clutching' - to describe the sort of doom mongering of rich people when the lower orders start getting democratic; saying 'there'll be economic catastrophe, fighting in the streets' etc. Pretty apt for the no campaign i'd say.

@sam - i didn't say they weren't random thugs (no need to 'icke' me really); but just because they aren't doing speeches about mein kampf doesn't mean the loose label of fascist (or fascistic) doesn't fit them (they'd certainly fit the bill of the most likely footsoldiers of a facsist movement). Just the same as the average random member of a socialist demo doesn't know marx, doesn't make them not a socialist in the same loose sense (is that not not enough double negatives for you?). And i never saw much evidence of that sort of nationalism on the yes side - if there were after a yes win they would have been outshouted by all the nice normal happy optimistic people.

EDIT - and i don't trust the thread poll - i reckon some of the Spades were GCHQ dressed in a track suit ;)
 
Last edited:
All I'm seeing is a lot of sour grapes from the losing side.

Like it or not you live in a democracy, where majority rules. When 97% of the electorate votes! and you get beaten by ten percent, you have to accept the result and move on. Unfortunately, unlike an election, it will be many years before you are allowed another referendum on the issue.

Reality is this referendum was fought along socio economic lines, and the poorer amongst you are in the minority. Unless you plan on picking up pitchforks and physically fighting for independence you have to move on and suck it up.
 
I agree we should accept how people voted, but we don't have to ignore how unbalanced the campaign was or voting irregularites if proven. And the poor aren't a minority in any country, it's just that enough of the slightly-less-poor are convinced that having a mortgage somehow makes them rich, and so being on the proper rich's political side will help them somehow (this is western democratic politics in a nutshell).
 
One Thousand Words said:
All I'm seeing is a lot of sour grapes from the losing side.

Like it or not you live in a democracy, where majority rules. When 97% of the electorate votes! and you get beaten by ten percent, you have to accept the result and move on. Unfortunately, unlike an election, it will be many years before you are allowed another referendum on the issue.

Reality is this referendum was fought along socio economic lines, and the poorer amongst you are in the minority. Unless you plan on picking up pitchforks and physically fighting for independence you have to move on and suck it up.
Click to expand...

Ace post....

Evey
 
It is a sign of a poorly thought out campaign if you whinge after you lose though. Hind sight is a wonderful thing, and I'm sure if they decided to hold it again in a years time, the result could be reversed. The reservations the majority of people had was of the unknown. That is where they failed to come up with a solid financial and economical plan of how things would work.

Emotional campaign of nationalism works while you host the commonwealth games, but the ma and pa's who then head off to work worry more about micro issues at home than historical events. Reality is oil alone is not enough to runs Scotland without introducing higher taxation that exists in say Norway. Their economic success comes from decades of financial prudence, something that would require initially a financial readjustment. For many families, they would not see the long term benefits, only the short term pain of higher cost of living.

I am all for more local governance personally. However it borders on xenophobia when you start to argue about who is indigenous and who should rule. How many from an immigrant background would have voted Yes? If anything borders such as this should be slowly broken down around the world, not re established. We are all humans, and bloodlines or countries only serve to divide us as a species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top