Scotland Separatists - The great misdirection

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Both sides are very selective in teaching the history behind The Troubles and events that occurred during it.

Granted, none more so than the British government but none of that justifies the horrific and barbaric actions of the Provo's etc and their Loyalist counterparts.

In the end those involved become more like racketeers and gangsters more concerned with drug and gun running and extorting money from the communities they alleged to be a part of.

I sincerely hope Solo are someone else starts a thread about The Troubles and we can try to have some sort of civilised discussion and debate about the whole shameful episode. (I'm notoriously bad at starting threads and its something that deserves better than I tend to offer).

a reply to: ScepticScot

Some people supported brexit are racist racist/islamaphobic I seem to remember you , quite rightly get very annoyed at any suggestion brexit was racially motivated.

There is a difference there.
First of all I'm absolutely certain that some racists etc voted Remain.
Secondly, no-one is suggesting that all Nats or pro-Scottish independence supporters are sectarian bigots.

All I've been trying to say is that if the sectarian bigotry didn't exist then MSM etc wouldn't be able to spin it to push whatever message they are told to.

As usual there is this tendency to casually dismiss issues and differences between Scots and a refusal to admit there is a problem.
Anyone suggests that English people face racist abuse in Scotland and its generally explained away as banter.
When the shoe is on the other foot its labelled as just another example of those English bastards being arrogant and well, bastards.

I have lots and lots of Scottish friends and associates - some very close - and none of them openly acknowledge this.
Its casually laughed off as English being soft as # and over-sensitive.

Sure, I see the humour in it and have a bit of craic about it but that doesn't make it alright.

I am not making excuses for sectarian behaviour at all.....

I know you're not.

.....but it is a minority of idiots and the majority of what does occur is based round football rather than anything more insidious,

Maybe that is the where the most prominent displays of sectarianism occur - there and at Orange Lodge marches - but please do not be fooled, many of these bigots live and breath this hatred.
I used to work with a guy - his family moved down here when he was a teenager - who couldn't speak about any Catholic without calling them a 'Taig bastard'. He literally crapped his pants when I told him I was a Catholic.
His arse fell out completely....it got even funnier when I became his gaffer.

But I know from other sources he still did all the marches etc and was a total and complete bigot.

Later when I had my pubs or if I was working the doors I would always bump his round.

....you get morons who waive IRA or UDF flags at games but I suspect most of them would crap themselves if faced with anything resembling real terrorist activity.

Undoubtedly.

The reality is it isn't any worse than many other football rivalries but just with a religious overlay that makes it more distasteful.

Got to disagree there.
Been to Newcastle - Sunderland derby, West Ham - Chelsea, Leeds - Sheffield United derbies and quite a few lower league one's.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, compared to the Celtic - Rangers Old Firm game I went to in 2008.
It's a whole different level altogether.

There is still some other more subtle sectarianism that exist but thankfully that is becoming more and more rare. The days of having to lie about what secondary school you went to when applying for a job are now more or less a thing of the past.

Yes, I know it is much better now......but those die-hards still exist and given the opportunity they will try their very best to spread their hatred.
And some ARE trying to ramp up the hatred.

Suggesting that Scotland is comparable to NI during the Troubles due to sectarianism is comparable to suggesting Yorkshire is comparable to the Middle East due to islampahobia or racists in the Midlands is like the deep south during the 50s.

I've already said, twice I think, that comparisons to Belfast during The Troubles is stupid but the examples you gave are hardly comparable.

a reply to: Freeborn

Great idea FB Can you start it with Solo maybe? A thread on the troubles Wold be so interesting with plenty of conspiracies thrown in. I'm too new to it to have enough knowledge for such a task but beginning to get really fascinated by this, I never knew it extended into Scotland until reading about it on ATS.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I think people are reluctant to start threads about The Troubles.
Its an incredibly sensitive and complex subject and emotions can run high when discussing anything related to those horrific times.

I sort of have a foot in both camps.

Some horrific atrocities were committed by all involved and as usual the people who suffered the most were innocent people who just wanted to get on with their lives the same as the rest of us free from the extremists, bigots, terrorists, interfering self-serving politicians, gangsters and racketeers on all sides.

There’s a poll out today for the upcoming Scottish elections suggesting that the SNP will win a slight overall majority. But factor in seats won by other parties which support a second independence referendum ... the Greens and the new Alba party ... and that’d be a tub thumping majority of 79 of 129 seats.

Those three parties are all going to polls saying it’s their intention to hold another referendum. Manifesto commitments. The people will have spoken. What then ? And how should Boris Johnson play it ? And what would the reaction be if he refuses a second referendum ? He was suggesting a few weeks ago that it might be 2040 or later that another referendum could be held ... really ?

As to sectarianism. Pretty clear that West/Central Scotland is voting on religious lines. The Catholic vote will go SNP, perhaps some to Labour. The hardcore Protestant vote will go conservative, assuming they even vote at all. Non religious centre, left of centre voters will go SNP or Green.

The Conservatives are on a hiding despite playing to the Loyal vote. There ain’t enough of those voters basically. Former steel and mining towns in Lanarkshire might be pretty loyal in a 55 kind of way but it’d stick in the craws of many to translate that support for maintaining the U.K. into an actual Conservative vote. Most of them wouldn’t vote Labour. I think many won’t bother voting at all.

Once religion becomes entwined with politics, all common sense goes out the window completely. Religion hard wires who you’ll vote for. Gives your voting intentions a certain moral basis, no matter your religious tradition. That’s the truth of it.

Altho every chance Scotland might blink again if there’s another referendum. Seems to be a National trait that, grievance then hesitation.

a reply to: TheShippingForecast

The SNP was formed by breakaway members of the Conservative Unionist party.

People vote for the SNP because of their pro-Scotland socialist policies, absolutely nothing to do with religion. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. In fact, it's a downright lie perpetuated by bitter Unionists who want to see a divide in their support.

Labour died a long time ago, Starmer?. A joke. The Tories have never seen a majority vote in Scotland since the 1950s.

Scotland will be independent and no amounts of threats from the Unionists/loyalists will change that fact.

No doubt they'll burn public property, torch cars, and Buses, etc, as they throw their toys out of the pram. Well, boohoo. It won't matter. Independence is inevitable.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

There's nothing pro Scotland about Socialism, nor do i see it as beneficial to pander to the Globalists.

All i see is power hungry politicians latching onto anti-English sentiment with no real regard for the direction of the country or its people.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

The SNP was formed by breakaway members of the Conservative Unionist party.

Founded in 1934 with the amalgamation of the National Party of Scotland and the Scottish Party,....

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Being rather selective there aren't we Solo?

The SNP came into being when two Scottish parties joined together; one a group of Unionists with rather ambiguous aims including Scotland becoming a 'Dominion' of The British Empire similar to Canada, Australia and New Zealand and the other which was centre-left with its origins in Liberalism.

No connection to The Tories as far as I can tell.

People vote for the SNP because of their pro-Scotland socialist policies, absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Are you absolutely certain about that?
Everyone who votes SNP is a socialist?
No-one who votes SNP is a sectarian bigot?

To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

Is it?

Are you saying that none of those bigots that are passionately anti-Unionist, pro-independence actually vote for the SNP?

I'm pretty open about my dislike for Nicola Sturgeon, both as a person and her politics etc, but I wouldn't for one minute suggest that she personally is a bigot or that she tolerates bigotry within her party.
But to suggest that no-one who votes for her party is sectarian is, to borrow your phrase, ludicrous and simply beggars belief.

In fact, it's a downright lie perpetuated by bitter Unionists who want to see a divide in their support.

That's right, of course, every single sectarian bigot in Scotland is a Unionist.
None of those Sinn Fein/IRA/Provo supporters votes SNP.
And none of them are sectarian bigots?

Scotland will be independent and no amounts of threats from the Unionists/loyalists will change that fact.

I seem to recall you saying exactly that in 2014.

What specific threats are you talking about there?

No doubt they'll burn public property, torch cars, and Buses, etc, as they throw their toys out of the pram. Well, boohoo. It won't matter. Independence is inevitable.

I keep on getting told here on ATS that there are no riots in Scotland and that there is no link whatsoever between Northern Ireland and Scottish independence.
Which is it?

a reply to: Grenade

All i see is power hungry politicians latching onto anti-English sentiment with no real regard for the direction of the country or its people

They exploit and manipulate the romantic nature of the Celtic people with emotive pledges of 'Freedom' whilst offering nothing whatsoever of substance.

a reply to: Freeborn

in 1928 a section of the Scottish Conservative Party, the Cathcart Conservative and Unionist Association, left the main body of the Tories to form the National Party of Scotland - soon to be renamed the Scottish National Party - a party claiming to advocate some form of Scottish Home Rule. The main motive of the Tories in this was to undermine the Labour party vote in Scotland.

Labour candidates in Scotland stood as Labour and Home Rule candidates until 1945 and received a considerable nationalist vote. The founders of the National Party of Scotland intended to deprive Labour of its nationalist vote. Initially the NPS absorbed some genuine nationalist groups, but these were soon expelled as “extremists”, and the National Party of Scotland united with the even more right-wing Scottish Party and adopted the name Scottish National Party. The sham of modern Scottish nationalism was born.

Essentially an extreme pro-British element had hijacked Scottish nationalism.

The SNP then embarked on a campaign against the “Green Terror” of Irish Catholic immigration which was assisted by the support of the more reactionary elements in the Scottish media. This too was largely aimed at Labour as most Irish Catholics were Labour voters. These early fascistic antics of the SNP have been airbrushed out of history by modern SNP partisans.

The Scottish National Party - dubbed the "Tartan Tories" because of their Tory origins.

So remind me again why Catholics, made up mainly of an Irish diaspora, would vote for the SNP?.

Shouldn't it be the Protestants who lend their support to this party?... Scottish politics, eh?.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
The Scottish National Party - dubbed the "Tartan Tories" because of their Tory origins.

Tartan Tories was coined when the SNP were supporing Margaret Thatcher back in the late 1970's early '80's. Yes, some Scots loved Maggie.

The SNP spend all their time blaming the Tories, but used to support them. The term "the bigger the front, the bigger the back" comes to mind. The SNP pretend too much.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
The Scottish National Party - dubbed the "Tartan Tories" because of their Tory origins.

Tartan Tories was coined when the SNP were supporing Margaret Thatcher back in the late 1970's early '80's. Yes, some Scots loved Maggie.

Another Myth. When did the SNP Support Thatcher?, Putting up politicians to stand against Labour is not supporting Thatcherism in any way shape, or form.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Thank you for your courteous reply.

in 1928 a section of the Scottish Conservative Party, the Cathcart Conservative and Unionist Association, left the main body of the Tories to form the National Party of Scotland.....

Have you got a source for that?

The NPS was formed in 1928 after John MacCormick of the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association called a meeting of all those favouring the establishment of a party favouring Scottish Home Rule. The meeting was presided over by Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham, who had been a Liberal Party, then Scottish Labour Party politician. The NPS was formed by the amalgamation of GUSNA with the Scots National League, Lewis Spence's Scots National Movement and the Scottish Home Rule Movement.[1] On 23 June an inauguration took place in Stirling.[2]

The NPS was a left-of-centre party. The celebrated poet, Hugh MacDiarmid was a member, but was expelled on account of his communist views (ironically, he would later be expelled from the Communist Party of Great Britain for his Scottish Nationalist beliefs). Other figures besides MacDiarmid were involved. Eric Linklater stood as an NPS candidate in the 1933 East Fife by-election, and Neil Gunn played a role in aiding the NPS amalgamation with the Scottish Party.

news.google.com...
(Quite an informative article)

.... - soon to be renamed the Scottish National Party - a party claiming to advocate some form of Scottish Home Rule. The main motive of the Tories in this was to undermine the Labour party vote in Scotland.

Perhaps you got them mixed up with The Scottish Party?
en.wikipedia.org...

Either way these two strange bed fellows amalgamated in 1934 to form the SNP.

Essentially an extreme pro-British element had hijacked Scottish nationalism.

Again, any sorces?
As far as I can tell the Home Rule advocates were either expelled or left of their own accord leaving those in favour of outright independence in total control of the SNP.

The SNP then embarked on a campaign against the “Green Terror” of Irish Catholic immigration which was assisted by the support of the more reactionary elements in the Scottish media.

Again, any links etc.
I've never heard of any persecution of Scottish Catholics of Irish origin by the SNP - I have many friends in that community and I am of Irish Catholic heritage myself and my friends are aware of both my background and opinions and they've never mentioned it to me and I've never read or heard of this 'Green Terror' campaign by the SNP.

Sources.
Links.

This too was largely aimed at Labour as most Irish Catholics were Labour voters.

I suspect that 'back in the day' many working class Protestants also voted Labour but yes, most 'Irish Catholics' would have been Labour supporters.
As they would be seen as having a natural empathy with Scottish Nationalists I would have thought they would have been targeted for their support and not to be subjected to any sectarian bigotry.

These early fascistic antics of the SNP have been airbrushed out of history by modern SNP partisans.

Pretty much as the 79 Group are conveniently ignored.

The Scottish National Party - dubbed the "Tartan Tories" because of their Tory origins.

They were called 'Tartan Tories' because of their support for Thatcher in bringing down the Labour government of the day and subjecting the country - including Scotland - to The Thatcher years.

So remind me again why Catholics, made up mainly of an Irish diaspora, would vote for the SNP?.

An empathy with Nationalism and a desire to be 'free' from Westminster etc.
It is sort of a natural fit.

Please explain to me who they vote for in the current climate?

Shouldn't it be the Protestants who lend their support to this party?...

Why?
Many - not all - Protestants are Loyalists and Unionists.
Why would they vote to break up the very thing they have sworn to protect?

Scottish politics, eh?.

Lol.
Politics full stop - it makes for strange bed fellows and much double dealing, back stabbing and basically selling out those who they allegedly represent.
Neither Scotland/Holyrood/Westminster/the UK are unique in any way shape or form in that respect.

I distrust anyone who has the arrogance to believe they have the answers and that they are suited to High Office.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Sorry, I forgot; what about your convenient whitewashing about sectarian bigotry etc in Scotland?

I'm in no way accusing every Scot of being a bigot - I know for a fact the vast majority are not - but surely no-one can deny that they do exist and are of all political persuasions etc?

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Another Myth. When did the SNP Support Thatcher?, Putting up politicians to stand against Labour is not supporting Thatcherism in any way shape, or form.

Everything you don't agree with, or disturrbs your echo chamber is a myth. (sad face)

Anyway...

In 1979 the SNP MPs at Westmister did a deal with Margaret Thatcher to bring down the Labour government led by James Callaghan in a vote of no 
confidence. The vote of no confidence was won because of the support by the SNP - 311 votes to 310. Maggie was elected and the rest is history.

The SNP MPs were: Douglas Crawford, Margaret Ewing, Winnie Ewing, Douglas Henderson, Iain MacCormick, George Reid, Donald Stewart, George Thompson, Hamish Watt, Andrew Welsh and Gordon Wilson.

It's all in the historical record.

Whatever Happened to World Unity?

“For the first time since World War II the international community is united. . . . The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order.”

So said a president of the United States in the last decade of the 20th century (Bush sr.). At that time, international events seemed to suggest that world unity was on the horizon. Totalitarian governments fell one after another. The Berlin Wall came down, signaling a new era for Europe. The Soviet Union, viewed by many in the West as an instigator of global conflicts, disappeared before the eyes of an astonished world. The Cold War came to an end, and there was optimistic talk about disarmament, including nuclear disarmament. Granted, war broke out in the Persian Gulf, but that seemed to be just a momentary blip that left much of the world more determined to pursue a peaceful order.

Positive signs could be seen not only on the political front but also in other areas of life. The standard of living was improving in many parts of the world. Advancements in the medical field made it possible for doctors to do things that would have been called miracles just a few decades earlier. Economic growth in many countries moved ahead at a pace that appeared to be leading to global prosperity. It looked as though things were heading in the right direction.

Today, not many years later, we cannot help but ask: ‘What happened? Where is the promised world unity?’ If anything, the world seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Suicide bombings, terrorist attacks, the reported proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other disturbing developments have become regular features of published news. Such events appear to be pushing the world further and further away from unity. One prominent financier recently said: “We are becoming enmeshed in a vicious circle of escalating violence.”

World Unity or Global Fragmentation?

When the United Nations was formed, one of the stated purposes was “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” After nearly 60 years, has that noble objective been reached? Far from it! Rather than “friendly relations,” the expression “self-determination” appears to be more on the mind of the nations. Peoples and ethnic groups struggling to establish their own identity and sovereignty have increasingly divided the world. When the United Nations was formed, it had 51 member nations. Today, there are 193.

As we have seen, toward the end of the 20th century, hope for a united world was in the air. Since then, that hope has turned to dismay as mankind has witnessed the progressive fragmentation of the world community. The violent disintegration of Yugoslavia, the clashes between Chechnya and Russia, the war in Iraq, and the continued carnage in the Middle East​—all of this has been evidence of ever greater disunity.

There is no doubt that many of the efforts for peace have been sincere and well-meant. In spite of this, world unity seems unattainable. Though there is a lot of talk about unifying the world, we see few concrete results. Again and again, meetings of world leaders have focused on the subject. Despite the sincere efforts of many, why has world unity continued to elude mankind into the 21st century?

Part of the answer is reflected in the comments of one of the prime ministers who attended the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference held in Thailand, October 2003. He said, “There is this thing called national pride.” Yes, human society is steeped in nationalism. Each nation and ethnic group is driven by the desire for self-determination. National sovereignty combined with the spirit of competition and greed has produced a volatile mix. In one case after another, when national interests conflict with global interests, national interests win out.

Nationalism is well described by the psalmist’s expression, “the pestilence causing adversities.” (Psalm 91:3) It has been like a plague on humanity, leading to untold suffering. Nationalism with its resultant hatred of other peoples has existed for centuries. Today, nationalism continues to fan the flames of divisiveness, and human rulers have not been able to stop it.

In a flurry of published information celebrating Albert Einstein’s centennial, news columnist Joseph Kraft wrote concerning Einstein’s views on nationalism: “[Einstein] set an example in renouncing nationalism. ‘I never identified myself with any particular country,’ he once wrote. He called nationalism ‘an infantile disease . . . the measles of the human race.’” (note the similarity with Psalm 91:3)

Similarly, in a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

What Obstructs Universal Brotherhood?

In 1469 C.E. a man named Niccolò Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy. He wrote a book on politics entitled “The Prince,” using as a model Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI. Borgia, according to one historian, was “an artist in ‘power politics,’ using without scruple and remorse such measure of force or fraud as may enable him to extend and secure his conquests.”

The Encyclopædia Britannica says that Machiavelli “founded the science of politics for the modern world.” “Machiavellianism” is now a word meaning the political principle “that any means however lawless or unscrupulous” may be used by a ruler to maintain his power.

Such politics has plagued the 20th century. Wars, coups, corruption, horrible violence and terrorism are all manifestations of it. Politics divides the East from the West. It divides nations, cities (such as Berlin) and even families. Politics is one of the most divisive influences of mankind.

Closely related to such politics and often exploited by political leaders is the spirit of . . .

Nationalism

On this subject an amusing story is told about an army chaplain in Scotland who, at a new military camp, asked for volunteers to convert an old barn into a chapel. In the absence of the chaplain the volunteers painted in large letters above the altar: “Scotland forever and ever.” The surprised chaplain asked them to make the sign a bit more religious. They did. The inscription then read: “Scotland forever and ever. AMEN.”

Scotsmen are known for being very proud of their country. But they are not alone in this. For example, English children, especially in the days when the British Empire was dominant in the world, were fed nationalistic fervor from earliest childhood. They were taught to believe that ‘Britannia Rules the Waves,’ and that the English are a superior nation, blessed by God.

In every nation similar feelings are promoted by politicians who know that a strong nationalistic spirit serves their purposes well. But their purpose may not be in the best interest of people. In an article entitled “Nationalism Is Alien to True Patriotism,” columnist Sydney J. Harris observed: “Nationalism means ‘going along’ with a Hitler or a Stalin or any other tyrant who waves the flag, mouths obscene devotion to the Fatherland, and meanwhile tramples the rights of people.”

Too, as the story of the chapel in Scotland shows, nationalism and religion often go together. Wrote Dr. Robert L. Kahn, a rabbi: “Religion and Nationalism always tend to go hand in hand. In times of war, particularly, . . . ‘For God and Country’ becomes a sort of battle cry. This has always been so. [In World War II] one of the popular songs was the war-whoop of a chaplain, ‘Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”’

Why is the world so disunited in spite of efforts by many apparently sincere and dedicated world leaders? Philippine educator Primo L. Tongko commented on one factor in “PHP” magazine (1977).

He observes that “national anthems and national flags have frequently given rise to a very questionable human motive of extreme or blind love of country, they have tended to make people fanatically nationalistic, so much so that sometimes they have not been ashamed even to say, ‘My country right or wrong.’”*

“Nationalistic attitudes” have filled the “pages of history with continuous wars for conquest, colonization, exploitation and oppression,” Tongko notes, “thus giving rise to all kinds of prejudices, suspicions and hatred that now divide the world.”

Then he asks: “Is it not high time that we reverse the course of history from that of division to that of union, by getting rid of or abolishing these practices that have caused the sad state of affairs we now have in our divided and confused world?”

*: The situation is similar today. To achieve a nationalistic spirit (attitudes) among their peoples, nations have set up objects that actually are given religious veneration. As historian Carlton Hayes observes in his book What Americans Believe and How They Worship: “Nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag, and curious liturgical forms have been devised for ‘saluting’ the flag, for ‘dipping’ the flag, for ‘lowering’ the flag, and for ‘hoisting’ the flag. Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.” It was because of refusing to take part in this religious exercise that peaceful Christians were bitterly persecuted in the United States in the early 1940’s:

Persecuted for resisting nationalism (playlist)

The education most receive​—whether from parents or from nationalistically oriented school systems—​inculcates hatred, intolerance, and notions of superiority based on nationality, ethnic and tribal origin, or language. Nationalism, called by the weekly magazine Asiaweek “the Last Ugly Ism,” is one of the unchanging factors that continues to provoke hatred and bloodshed. That magazine stated: “If pride in being a Serb means hating a Croat, if freedom for an Armenian means revenge on a Turk, if independence for a Zulu means subjugating a Xhosa and democracy for a Romanian means expelling a Hungarian, then nationalism has already put on its ugliest face.”

We are reminded of what Albert Einstein said: “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” Nearly everybody gets it at one time or another, and it continues to spread. Back in 1946, British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Patriotism . . . has very largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the Western World.”

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: djz3ro
...
I have come to the conclusion that regardless of political affiliation and/or nationality the vast majority of people who seek higher office are incredibly arrogant and are consumed with an overwhelming sense of their own importance. They seek to further their own personal agenda's before the well being, interests and wishes of those they allegedly represent.

Would you agree then with the Indian man quoted in the Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper quoted in my previous comment? Cause what you said there about personal agendas is very similar. What about the last part of that quotation?

a reply to: whereislogic

A good read and an interesting perspective.

I don't know.
I don't see anything wrong with a bit of national pride and in celebrating and honouring our unique heritages and cultural differences.
But national pride is all too often used to manipulate ordinary, everyday people into furthering the agenda's of elites.

I'm all for peace, love and understanding, no more wars, wealth distribution and improving the standard of living etc for the millions of people who live in appalling conditions.
I don't however think it should be at the expense of those who don't live in such poor conditions.
I don't think that the globalist agenda helps anyone other than elite cabals.

I don't buy into woke politics at all and think that the cancel culture and political correctness are the biggest threats this world faces at present.

Many may disagree, but that's simply how I see things.

I could go on but I nearly forgot:
The Jehovah's Witness perspective according to Watchtower?
wol.jw.org...
www.jw.org...

I was born in Scotland and moved to London during my twenties.

I moved back to Scotland for my 30s and half of my 4th decade.

Now back in England, I would vote for Scottish independence as I fear it's an inevitability and we need to just rip off that proverbial plaster.

Now, i way prefer England and the English. Am heartily sick of my national flag being hijacked and the creation of a fake history where we all spoke Gaelic.

Most of the nationalists I have met have never lived anywhere other than Scotland....and it shows.

Now I am British first and scottish second.

Let them have it. Give them independence. Am sick of the whining and they need to JFDI.

To any Scottish nationalists on the thread, I won't respond. My mind is made up and I have heard all your arguments through living in Scotland and being Scottish.

The Scots are their own worst enemy and you tend to find the good ones leave...the others stay at home and nurse the chips on their shoulder.

Good luck with independence. I wish Scotland the best.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: whereislogic
...
I don't see anything wrong with a bit of national pride and in celebrating and honouring our unique heritages and cultural differences.
But national pride is all too often used to manipulate ordinary, everyday people into furthering the agenda's of elites.

Perhaps the latter is a clue that under some conditions, there can be at least some danger to feelings of national pride, if it is that easily manipulable by politicians and opinon makers (under certain conditions, such as among those who think of it as completely harmless in all situations, I know, you said “a bit” in your first sentence there, perhaps implying that it can indeed take on an excessive or extreme form; but in order to take on that form, it has to start somewhere on that scale, doesn't it?). If people had no national pride to manipulate, there would be nothing to play on, to build on, so it's a useful starting point for those who first promote national pride before they start pushing that particular button. As the Bible proverb puts it: “Pride is before a crash, and a haughty spirit before stumbling.” (Pr 16:18) This is a warning that the individual who does not get rid of his pride will suffer. Of course this is speaking of pride in the form of inordinate self-esteem; an unreasonable feeling of superiority as to one’s talents, beauty, wealth, rank, and so forth; disdainful behavior or treatment; insolence or arrogance of demeanor; a haughty bearing. Pride can, more rarely, have the good connotation of a sense of delight or elation arising from some act or possession. Some synonyms of pride are egotism, arrogance, haughtiness.

In the form of inordinate self-esteem or haughtiness, pride can also make a person more susceptible to prejudice. For example, it may make him inclined to believe propaganda that elevates his national or ethnic group. Clever propagandists, such as Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, have deliberately nurtured national and racial pride to rally the support of the masses and to malign those considered to be different or undesirable.

What more does the Bible have to say about it? “Everyone that is proud in heart is something detestable to Jehovah.” (Proverbs 16:5) “[Do] nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with lowliness of mind [consider] that the others are superior to you.” (Philippians 2:3) Ask yourself: ‘Do I take secret delight in flattering comments about my own race or national group or in disparaging remarks about others?

Remember how Einstein and the Psalmist compared nationalism to a disease like the measles (the word “pestilence” was used by the Psalmist)? Diseases start small, and then they grow. National pride is much the same way (nationalism being built upon feelings of national pride). And I'm still talking here about inside the individual, not even talking about the infectuous nature of it (the pestilence aspect).

I don't think that the globalist agenda helps anyone other than elite cabals.

Hvae you considered the possibility that the term and concept of “the globalist agenda” is furthered by self-styled patriots and nationalists for their own “aggrandizement”, as the Indian man put it, in order to set themselves up as the great Champions against the evil globalists, globalism and globalist “elite (cabals)” that we should all look to to lead the fight and defend our (sovereign) rights?* Making it a part of the “opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment.” As the Indian man puts it when talking about both patriotism and nationalism later on. Even as perhaps they themselves are benefitting or profiting from the phrenomena of globalization (see Globalization​—Curse or Cure? from the Awake! magazine of May 2002, for some further views on that phenomena, such as an answer to the question: Can Globalization Really Solve Our Problems?)? (*: see end of comment for footnote)

Why was it that it was the self-styled Republican patriot, president Bush sr. (no doubt also a nationalist, although at the time it may not have been a smart political move to use that exact term for themselves), that was harping on about a “new world order”?

I also remember Trump claiming he was both a nationalist and a globalist (you can google it fairly easily, but I saw a video as well in which I think, not sure if I remember correctly, I heard him say it). Are these self-styled patriots really our greatest Champions against the so-called “globalist agenda”? Was Hitler a great Champion against “the globalist agenda” when Nazi Germany decided to drop out of the League of Nations (the forerunner of the UN) and railing against the evil Jewish Zionist bankers and “elite (cabals)”?

Or were all 3 faking it for their own “aggrandizement”, prosperity and betterment, to fuel the opium of patriotism and nationalism innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. And can the same be said of certain other patriots and nationalists that demonstrate the same tricks?

Don't really know the Scottish ones very well, can't say I care to know what the most famous names among them are.

Footnote from earlier: remember when the earlier quotation from my previous comment?

In every nation similar feelings are promoted by politicians who know that a strong nationalistic spirit serves their purposes well. But their purpose may not be in the best interest of people. In an article entitled “Nationalism Is Alien to True Patriotism,” columnist Sydney J. Harris observed: “Nationalism means ‘going along’ with a Hitler or a Stalin or any other tyrant who waves the flag, mouths obscene devotion to the Fatherland, and meanwhile tramples the rights of people.”

Those who know that a strong nationalistic spirit serves their purposes well and are going on about the evil globalists and “the globalist agenda”, are doing so to serve their own interests, not yours. As the Indian man put it: “It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I.”

And any globalist agenda so far (as in efforts to unite the world under human rulership) has already failed miserably, as elaborated on in my previous comment concerning the questions: “Whatever Happened to World Unity?” and “World Unity or Global Fragmentation?” It was a hopeless endeavor from the start. But its's definitely not the biggest threat, or should be of biggest concern, to those already prone to feelings of national pride and/or patriotism and victims (or potential victims) of nationalistic ideology. People looking to humans to bring about this global unity and getting on that bandwagon so to speak, do however receive the mark of the beast mentioned in Revelation 13:16, but that's a long story involving considerably more theology, so I won't bother you with that now.