Off Topic Politics Thread

With respect I think that is neither here nor there, and doesn’t hold water as a justification of Nationalism. The SNP did not arrive on the political scene in response to Brexit, they have been growing in influence for decades.

Nationalism is by definition predicated on an appeal to tribal sentiment and identity politics. To say that the SNP is a world apart from the EDL may seem like a convincing statement on the face of it, but I’m not sure if I am convinced. It looks to me like a case of same ****, different bucket, as they say in Australia.

English Nationalism, on the rise since the collapse of the world banking system in 2008, makes me feel deeply uncomfortable. The fact that Scottish Nationalism wears a modern face doesn’t make me any less uncomfortable.

 

It’s not ridiculous at all to point out that Nationalism is insular by definition. The fact that this particular bunch of Nationalists have certain views in common with your own, seems to have blinded you to the central tenets on which their movement is founded.

If this party you so admire were called the Scottish Republican Party, your argument that they are essentially progressive might carry some weight. But they’re not Republicans, they’re Nationalists. Words are important. Language is important.

 

Calling them insular and xenophobic is, plainly, ridiculous.

 

Again, I think you're conflating what are two largely separate veins of political thought. Yes, they call themselves nationalists, because they wish to form a nation-state. But if they called themselves the Scottish Self-Determination Association, their aims would be no different, but I suspect that the perception would be.

If wishing to remove one's self from an entity that one deems xenophobic and insular is itself xenophobic and insular, I'm at something of a loss to figure out how you go about it while retaining your honour. "Just vote the bastards out" is a great thought, but what if you didn't vote for the bastards in the first place?

 

Only if you don’t know what Nationalism means.

 

I’ve never voted for “the bastards”, though I did vote for Tony Blair, who aligned himself to that bastard Bush. That was a bit of a bastard.

I live in London, a Labour stronghold, my constituency had the highest % Remain vote of anywhere in the U.K. (something like 78%) I don’t see ceding from the more xenophobic regions of the UK as the solution to this uncomfortable solution; winning the argument is the solution.

 

And just how well did Corbyn et al do at that?

 

You're stretching the definition to the limits, there. It involves some pretty spurious "if A = B, and B = C, then A = C" conflation.

 

I think you have fundamentally missed Corbyn's failures based on this post.

RLB would have been a bad choice. She would have got the same communist treatment from the media. Plus her accent and working class attitude wouldnt win votes.

None of politics is about integrity or values anymore. It's all a PR and marketing game.

Most people do not care about politics, enough to read a manifesto. Identity politics is the only form of politics that matters. It's not "forgetting labour's principles", its recognising what people respect, and what society values, and aligning with that.

Keir Starmer exudes confidence, intelligence and leadership. Plus his voting record proves that he is both a team player, and cares about the working class.

In a world where Trump and Boris can be elected, you have to come to the conclusion that media presence is a huge deal.

 

Ostensibly, not very. You could consider Corbyn’s tenure as party leader a total failure, but I don’t think that’s fair. He invigorated the grass roots and shifted the Labour Movement back towards the radical vision that gave birth to it in the first place.

Ultimately, he proved unelectable for a variety of reasons; but he’s not a thousand miles from the truth when he claims to have won a lot of the arguments - in fact I wonder if Rishi Sunak would privately agree there.

 

Doesn’t take much of a stretch tbh...

 

The people of Scotland voted to stay in the EU. Also by quite a majority. It is natural that sturgeon and co are going to jump on the bandwagon to demand independence.

I have to remind you the people of England did not. The only major party to offer to keep the Uk in was the liberals. People still voted out in a way by backing the Tories. So in a way it was not just once the people voted to leave but twice.

 

But Northern Ireland and Scotland voted for Remain parties, so they are being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of their electorate. That smacks of dictatorship when their people are being denied something they voted for.

 

In reality it begs the question, what is the purpose of the UK? Has it served its time? A mature Westminster Government would allow the Scots another say, and the big celebs like Beckham should keep their noses out of the issue.

 

And as a believer in democracy, I have to swallow this bitter pill. We Remainers lost that argument and we have to accept it.

Although things do change, very quickly sometimes.

 

In the scheme of things both Scotland and Northern Ireland are still part of the uk. The constituencies that voted to stay as well as those wanting to leave in both countries. Accepting that the majority want out. However when you think of the numbers involved the number in Scotland as one is only as big as some of England’s biggest constituencies who voted to stay. Same as NI........Which begs the question then perhaps London should go for independence as they voted to leave too? Also just for the record NI is still allied to the EU isn’t it?

 

Are you one of those who believe that Bernie Sanders and Adolf Hilter are likeminded, because in both cases their movements involved the word "socialist"? Or that the UK and North Korea have similar forms of government because both lay a claim to being democratic?

Sometimes, words mean things. And sometimes, you have to take a closer look to determine whether words are being used in the same fashion.

 

I am one of those who believe words have weight, and that they matter.

Isn't there some law that says you've lost the argument when you escalate it to the point of dragging Hitler into it? However, since you brought the subject up, Nationalism and Socialism have not made good bedfellows in the past.

Bernie's not a Nationalist is he? How do you think he would respond if he was labelled as one?

 

It's a fairly straightforward point: "the Nazis were socialists it's right there in the name!" has been a common argument in the US for years. And it has been a moronic argument, because anyone with an understanding of the tenets of socialism can readily identify all the many areas of divergence.

Nationalism and socialism were not bedfellows. The NSDAP bore as much in common with Eugene Debs as you or I do with a barn owl. Whatever tenuous connections they might have had ended at the point of a knife in 1934. From there it was mere branding, and branding is really the only connection between the likes of the SNP and EDL, too.

 

Yeah, I'm not a moron mate, and I give you the benefit of assuming that you're not one either. So there's really no need either for that, or for the deconstruction of an argument I didn't make.

The demographic fascists recruit from has traditionally been the same demographic on which left wing movements are built. Radical Nationalism has borrowed Socialist and Communist rhetoric for a reason.

Oh, and branding is important btw. That's why businesses and political parties spend fortunes on it.