• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About exile

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    The South Peninsula
  1. Oh no. i nearly quit the internet.
  2. And it seems impossible to refute, since it seems to contain inner logic "You lot are racist, and if you deny it, it proves you must be a racist!" But if you're English pro-indy, does that mean you must be racist against your own country? Or if not, is it only the Scots guilty? If so, isn't that charge itself 'racist'?
  3. I see the Guardian is fanning the flames of racism now Says a recent columnist was drawing "parallels between Scottish nationalism and racist movements elsewhere in the world" has been chased off Twitter... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/28/woman-who-linked-racism-with-scottish-nationalism-sadiq-khan-quits-twitter-over-safety-fears
  4. Indeed. But whatever sort of Federalism he had in mind, he already promised it in 2014, and Scottish Labour should tell us (and journalists should ask them) where they stand on this, and if Dugdale's federalism is fulfilment of Brown's vision, if Brown's vow is supposed to have been already delivered?. Then again, Brown did not propose a constitutional convention, he promised 'faster' change than independence, which surely must mean, either faster than Salmod's deadline for independence being completed, or at the very least, faster than the next independence referendum. Surely they can't go into an indyref2, promising federalism as an option, when the last referendum was won on the promise of federalism faster than independence?
  5. Not sure if Federalism deserves a new thread, as it's probably dead in the water. https://labourlist.org/2017/02/scottish-labour-commits-to-federalism-as-dugdale-reaffirms-her-support-of-the-union/ On one hand they say they're not tinkering with the constitution, then give us a plan for revamping the constitution. They say there's no need for an indyref2, but if there is one, here's our option to go on the ballot paper. From what I've seen, if it would mean splitting England into Regions, then it is more like a federation of regions than a union of kingdoms, If this is styled as a new Act of Union then it would seem to be downgrading Scotland to being no longer an equal with the nation of England, but equal to a region of England. This does not seem to fit what 'true Unionists' would wish out of our Union. Also, it controversially starts meddling with England, and that often provokes an angry response, as it can be seen as trying to diminish England by not allowing it to have the same status as Scotland (with its own 'national' parliament and first minister) while being dismembered into regions. By 'true Unionist' I mean those who believe the UK is, and should remain, a partnership of equal nations. As opposed to those who regard that as an 18th century romanticism, and that the modern UK is really just a unitary state, with Scotland little more than a cereal-eating region
  6. So, Khan is saying if you divide people on basis of national identity or origin, that's the same as racism. It seems it's the Record who interprets that as 'Scottish nationalism'. Khan wishes more control, cash, influence & special deals for the geographical/political area of London, irrespective of background, race or religion. So that is a better fit with the with Scottish 'civic' nationalism.
  7. As far as I can see, Khan does not actually say that. That is the Record's interpretation - stirring things up and getting publicity. Though it may be what Khan (or Scottish Labour) wanted us to hear. As far as I saw, Khan was saying that dividing on the basis of Scottish and English would be racism. So IF Scottish nationalism were doing that, it would be compared to being 'racist'.
  8. Ah but they love to live off the sentiment when the going is good. And in any case, even from a completely hard-headed view, the 'fairytale' of leicester could be worth more milking of goodwill, even if they go down (and maybe come back up) whereas they've trashed any chance of banking that goodwill now.
  9. I would prefer a separate Scottish channel. This new BBC Scotland is like the equivalent of the Sunday Times Scotland or Scottish Daily Mail. tt's a branch office with local window dressing. Better than nothing, maybe, but no substitute for a genuine alternative Scottish based national like the Scotsman or Herald at their best. The ultimate problem is the licence fee, being forced to pay for the BBC whether we like it or not. Imagine if we were forced to pay for the STS or SDM, how difficult it would be for a Scotsman or Herald to get off the ground.
  10. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/ "The people who object to a Scottish Six... on the grounds that such a service would be nothing more than “SNP TV”... are the self-same people who claim that the BBC is completely impartial and unbiased when it comes to reporting on Scottish politics and current affairs. They never explain why a Scottish public service broadcasting corporation which would presumably be set up with the same safeguards and structures that allow the BBC its lofty neutrality would be little more than the propaganda arm of the independence movement, whereas its British equivalent is studiously above any such bias. They can’t have it both ways."
  11. On a related topic, the recent Trump railing against the media sounds petulant As someone tweeted, So I guess SNP Govt wouldn't want to be seen in that company (i.e. while some say the SNP should be more aggressively anti-MSM if you look at it this way, a party esp one in Govt should be able to be big enough to take the heat and not seek special treatment). Especially I think the independence cause is better served by those parties being seen as mainstream and not a persecuted minority. Still, the BBC is a law unto itself (with our money) and Trump would have a point if there was a state broadcaster fleecing the 'American people', or sending the cash to bolster the UN instead of domestic fare.
  12. Not sure the TV significance of this any more - how many people actually watch TV at 6pm? Still, it's a bit of a slap for BBC Scotland to feel like a branch office rather than a 'national' broadcaster - I mean in the sense the newspapers like the Scotsman are happy to be (sort of) 'national' newspapers which quite obviously doesn't make them necessarily or at all 'nationalist'. In fact It's one of the crazier absurdities of the debate that newspapers like that (SoS I recall, definitely) opposed the S6 despite their own whole raison d'etre being exactly to reflect world coverage through a Scottish [or at least Edinburgh] lens. By that logic SoS needn't exist - just the London Times and the Evening Times/News.
  13. I see the Economist still sees 'Scoxit' as visually akin to the Tartan Army http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21717038-decision-leave-eu-appears-strengthen-case-scottish-independence-fact
  14. The day Britain died: Brexit, Trump and Scottish independence https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/gerry-hassan/day-britain-died-brexit-trump-and-scottish-independence