Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Loud Whispers]

Also, they don't believe in global warming.

Off to the Arctics with you!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Lukashenko is also doing pretty well in his policy to eradicate Belarusian national identity in favour of a more Russified one. The eventual outcome would be unholy reunuion with Russia. One can see this in his attitude to the Belarusian language, Belarusian flags and so forth. He's also a corrupt, horrible gangster.

I don't see much chance of Belarus joining Russia. Belarus is all for it, or at least their government is, but my understanding is that the Russians don't care much for the Belorussians and see them as hicks.

[Owlbread]

I don't see much chance of Belarus joining Russia. Belarus is all for it, or at least their government is, but my understanding is that the Russians don't care much for the Belorussians and see them as hicks.

They have joined the Union state though. Also, when it comes to the general public's views on the matter, one needs only look at the nature of the massive youth protests.

[Guardian G.I.]

I don't see much chance of Belarus joining Russia. Belarus is all for it, or at least their government is, but my understanding is that the Russians don't care much for the Belorussians and see them as hicks.

Russians (of the non-liberal variety) generally see Belarusians as a part of the Russian nation which split off due to various unfortunate historical events (such as the collapse of the USSR, for example). According to an average stereotype of Belarusians in Russia, Belarusians work hard (unlike Russians), don't drink much alcohol (unlike Russians), and really love potatoes. In all other respects they're identical to Russians.

Lukashenko is also doing pretty well in his policy to eradicate Belarusian national identity in favour of a more Russified one. The eventual outcome would be unholy reunuion with Russia. One can see this in his attitude to the Belarusian language, Belarusian flags and so forth.

Actually, Lukashenko doesn't seem to be working to eradicate the Belarusian culture. He just doesn't care much about it.
Books in Belarusian language are being published, newspapers in Belarusian language are being printed, television programs in Belarusian language are being made, but few people actually read/listen to them, and Lukashenko doesn't want to actively promote them.
The old "white-red-white" flag is not officially banned. The use of it is somewhat discouraged because of its status as a symbol of the opposition, but it is not banned.

Also, about the eradication of Belarusian national identity:
Belarusian history textbooks and Soviet-era history textbooks are very different, for example, according to Soviet textbooks, during the times when Belarusian lands were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Belarusian people were oppressed by Lithuanians and Poles, which tried to eradicate their national identity by various means (such as trying to convert then to Catholicism, for example). The Belarusian people struggled against the oppressors. When the territories of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria, Belarusians were actually liberated by Russia. The annexation of Belarusian lands by Russia during the partition of Poland is called "The Reunification of Belarus and Russia"
Today's Belarusian history textbooks don't state that Belarusians were oppressed and persecuted because of their national identity. The Roman Catholic Church did try to convert Belarusians, but it isn't described as a villainous plot, unlike in the Soviet textbooks. In fact, Belarusian textbooks state that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania's state language (before Polish and Latin were adopted) was Old Belarusian, the majority of its population (and nobility) was Belarusian, and its first capital was Navahrudak. Before Lukashenko became president, the textbooks stated that Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the first Belarusian nation state, but that part was removed.

The actual levels of corruption in the government are low. It's really hard to tell whether Lukashenko himself is corrupt or not, though. Either he is not corrupt, or he is very good at hiding evidence.

[lordcooper]

Anyone familiar with the new parties to have arisen so far? Any besides UKIP? As for them, i got the general sense of wanting to back out of the EU and a good bit of badly hidden BNP sentiment. Anything i should know? (Edit: i'm asking for personal experience/opinion, please dont give me a dismissive google).

UKIP are basically baby's first fascist party.  They're a gateway party, known to lead on to harder stuff like the BNP.  Plaid Cymru seem like they might possibly be decent sorts, but there's a nasty little streak of nationalism present in even their name.

[Nilik]

Could this be the year for the Monster Raving Looney Party's comback?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party

The manifesto, entitled "The Manicfesto", for the 2005 general election featured the major commitment of their long held pledge to abolish income tax, citing as always that it was only meant to be a temporary measure during the Napoleonic Wars. This has been a Loony staple policy since the original manifesto was written by Sutch's agent Pauline Read in 1983. Also included was another old staple, the "Putting Parliament On Wheels" idea of having Parliament sit throughout the country rather than solely in London—with special emphasis this time in its creation negating the need for national/regional assemblies.

I was vaguely aware of them before but had never actually read their wikipedia page before. Its an interesting read! Other highlights include:

The first Raving Loony to win as a result of a straight vote rather than an uncontested election was Stuart Hughes, taking the "safe" Conservative seat of Sidmouth Woolbrook on East Devon District Council in May 1991. He then took a seat on Sidmouth Town Council from the Conservatives the following day. His success was met with hostility from the local Tories. Hughes' reaction was to attempt to make their lives a misery for the next three years by refusing to pay his Community Charge (also known as the Poll Tax), then dumping scrap metal in the middle of the council chambers to the value of his unpaid tax when threatened with legal action.

At one stage in England during the early 1990s, there were sixteen councillors elected despite having the phrase "Raving Loony" accredited to them.

At the Bootle by-election in May 1990, the Loony candidate (Sutch) received more votes than the candidate for the continuing Social Democrats. The OMRLP newsletter for June 1990 released by Alan Hope said "What is going on?" and Sutch himself appeared utterly shocked when interviewed by the BBC after the result was announced.

[Owlbread]

UKIP are basically baby's first fascist party.  They're a gateway party, known to lead on to harder stuff like the BNP.  Plaid Cymru seem like they might possibly be decent sorts, but there's a nasty little streak of nationalism present in even their name.

Plaid Cymru's nationalism is generally of the same social democratic, inclusive sort as the SNP's, very different to the racist, ethnic nationalist sort often found in England. They're no less nationalistic than the Conservatives or Labour when it comes to British Nationalism. That's not to say that there aren't anti-English Welsh racists within the Plaid Cymru voters, same with the SNP, but there's a very small number of them - otherwise Welsh independence and Plaid Cymru would be much more popular.

Indeed, nationalism in the countries that make up Britain is a bit confusing to a lot of people because it doesn't really fit with what is regarded as negative traits of nationalism - cultural chauvinism, imperialism, racism, parochialism, all that stuff. It runs along different lines - the parties are geared towards gaining autonomy and independence for their respective nations, whether that's Cornwall, Wales or Scotland. They're generally made up of idealists who want independence for, though they wouldn't say it, largely patriotic reasons though some justify it by arguing that they want to build a particular society that is impossible in the current state. This is often a social democratic or democratic socialist society.

This kind of thing can be found in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and indeed most of the current SNP's leadership is made up of ex-socialist republicans who formed the splinter "79 group" who knew that the only way that they could succeed in Scotland and create a new country and all the stuff that goes with it would be to become left wing. Otherwise Labour would just call the SNP "Tartan Tories", and they basically were when Gordon Wilson led the party, though Labour still wheel out that slogan when the SNP haven't been Tartan Tories for nearly 20 years. Plaid Cymru and other nationalist parties have been heavily influenced by the SNP and Sinn Fein's methods of appealing to the left, and they will head down that route at a far quicker pace with Leanne Wood leading the party. Mrs. Wood is certainly more of a Left-Wing radical with her republicanism and socialism than nearly any modern Labour leader in Westminster.

The other thing about nationalism in these countries is that it is, debatably, more inclusive than other forms of nationalism. That is because the nationalist parties in the UK tend to follow something called "Civic Nationalism" and can be summed up as "the people who live in a place are the best people to make decisions about how that place is governed". Now, you can reduce that down and down to ridiculousness by saying "oh well does that mean my house should become independent?" but that's a bit silly - it obviously wouldn't work, whereas it "may" work with respect to the countries in the UK - Scotland, Wales, England etc. You notice that it's "the people who live in a place", not "the people who are ethnically pure" or "the people who are from this country". It doesn't matter if you actually identify as Scottish or if your ancestors came from here or if you were born here, all that matters is that you live here permanently.

That makes them inclusive enough that they can appeal to immigrants even from England or Pakistan. I remember being at an independence rally last year in Edinburgh and seeing an older Sikh man carrying a sign with an independence slogan on it and there were guys walking up to him and shaking his hand, and he was saying that he'd lived in Scotland for so long now he considered it his country and wanted to see it independent. One of the SNP's best speakers is also Humza Yousaf, a Pakistani-Scottish Muslim who I think may go on to lead the party one day. He's currently filling the boots of the hugely respected "Bashir Ahmad", the first Scottish-Asian or Muslim MSP, who was an SNP man himself. Interestingly, I've actually met a number of distinctly nationalistic Scots such as my grandfather or people on the internet who have said that one of their main reasons for voting no will be that the SNP and further governments will let too many immigrants in. They often want out of Europe for the same reasons.

Now, obviously there's a bit of cultural nationalism thrown in there too in the sense that the SNP and Plaid Cymru both actively promote Scottish and Welsh culture, language, music etc. There's also going to be a lot more flags on display. That's to be expected though.

[Scoops Novel]

Pragmatically speaking, what's the gist of the argument for it?

[Owlbread]

Pragmatically speaking, what's the gist of the argument for it?

Very good question. Though the SNP and Plaid would claim otherwise, I believe that most nationalists have their beliefs for emotional reasons and try to build pragmatic arguments around them to convince other people. I think it's the same for most political ideologies, including anti-independence for many people.

The pragmatic arguments are, roughly, as follows:

Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland is a different kettle of fish) are two countries with political aspirations that are very different to those of England. These ambitions, specifically the left-wing ones like no tuition fees, no prescription charges etc, will be stifled within the UK and may be under threat. Independence or greater autonomy will guard against that.

Wales and Scotland have resources that they could better exploit as independent states or autonomous regions rather than under British control. In Wales' case, that would be their coastline, tourism and agriculture. In Scotland, that would be our coastline, oil, whisky, agriculture, tourism, fishing and perhaps to a certain extent education (if you can call it an industry). Britain is a very centralised country (even with devolution) and will not give enough time and governmental resources to explore these... possibilities, if you will.

Most recently, the SNP have become a haven for anti-nuclear activists and pacifists who have claimed that nuclear weapons will be illegal on Scottish soil. The UK government has currently stationed much of its nuclear arsenal in Scotland without our consent (we didn't have a government at the time) and refuses to move it because it would be "too dangerous". The SNP also take a strong anti-war stance and were known for their heavy criticism of the Iraq war.

And, well, that's about it. There's plenty more arguments about the benefits of being independent that differ from party to party depending on their political ideologies. One of my own arguments for independence is that it would give us a chance to stem the steady erosion of Scottish culture in favour of a homogenised British one. I would also feel 10x safer carrying a Scottish passport if I went travelling rather than a British one - despite the British government's claims that we are a widely respected country (my arse) and British government resources would be necessary to adequately protect us if anything happened to us (Kenneth Bigley?). One need only look at the number of British tourists who carry Irish passports for safety.

[Il Palazzo]

Whatever was supposed to be found in your arse is not actually there.

[Delta Foxtrot]

Whatever was supposed to be found in your arse is not actually there.

My arse is better than Owlbread's.

[Scoops Novel]

Yeah... I get the impression, bearing in mind that I'm fairly well-traveled, moving from place to place, that Britain is up there with "don't indefinitely arrest and torture this foreigner", including amongst western countries. London is also one of those well-known in most places cities alongside Paris and New York. In terms of having pissed people off rather then retribution, however, yes Ireland is a safe bet.

[Owlbread]

Whatever was supposed to be found in your arse is not actually there.

My arse is better than Owlbread's.

Thank you for letting me know, I have made sure it is visible.

Yeah... I get the impression, bearing in mind that I'm fairly well-traveled, moving from place to place, that Britain is up there with "don't indefinitely arrest and torture this foreigner", including amongst western countries. London is also one of those well-known in most places cities alongside Paris and New York. In terms of having pissed people off rather then retribution, however, yes Ireland is a safe bet.

And yet despite the Swedish and Italian and Swiss and Norwegian and Finnish (and so forth) tourists receiving (allegedly) less respect from foreign police than we do in the UK, they don't really seem to have a big problem with it. It really seems like a bit of a non-story to me and it was probably just another excuse for biased newspaper reporters to plug in some anti-independence claptrap.

[lordcooper]

While I definitely support a lot of the professed aims of Plaid Cymru and the SNP (I'm a liberal/socialist who has lived in Wales since the age of two, so identify as Welsh despite having been born in England), I can't quite bring myself to support secession.  The ideal 'end goal' for me has always been the total abolition of national boundaries, which would stand in stark opposition to creating more of them.

On the other hand, I can get behind devolution.  Give people more leeway to rule themselves, but as a semi-autonomous province rather than a separate nation.  Nations go to war with each other.

One of my own arguments for independence is that it would give us a chance to stem the steady erosion of Scottish culture in favour of a homogenised British one.

Why do you think this is a bad thing?  I'd argue that the smaller and less relevant cultural differences become, the less conflict there will be between groups of 'Us' and 'Them'.

[MonkeyHead]

Speaking as a Taff with the traditional massive chip on his shoulder, the source of conflict between the Welsh and English has been the perception that "we are just like them", and a lack of noticing that we are a distinct cultural grouping. Removing the differences seems a poor substitute for making people aware that there are differences betwen people (and apprecitaing these differences), regardless of what race, nationality or cultures are involved.