Scottish Independence yea or nay

A Dub in Glasgo

bill66 wrote: »

Oh I see its just because there are more of them. Except this it not so, there are more trade union disputes ongoing than there have been OO marches in years. Time to broaden your outlook and accept and acknowledge your own bias. We all have biased opinions on one subject or another, there is no need to deny them. If you want the OO banned because you don't like them because of your religious, political or social bias just say so. To pretend they cause more trouble than other groups is nonsensical and impossible to verify.

There are lots of groups I don't like (Arsenal fans mainly) but I don't call for them to be banned just because I don't like them.

I am sorry are you saying there are more Trade Union marches in Glasgow than OO marches in Glasgow?

bill66

Originally Posted by kieran--f View Post
"the stubborn unionists who turned out to vote no because of their religion or rangers football"

Just another example to show how bias has been used in this thread. The real voting among football fans will never be known but a Poll published in Scottish newspapers showed that its not as clear cut as might be imagined.

"48 per cent of Celtic fans will vote Yes, compared with 40 per cent planning to vote No. The rest are apparently undecided.

Among Rangers fans, support for independence was placed at 45 per cent – with 41 per cent likely to vote No."

bill66

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I am sorry are you saying there are more Trade Union marches in Glasgow than OO marches in Glasgow?

No I did not, the world does not revolve around Glasgow. Do things that only occur in your immediate vicinity count or can we expand the principle further afield. For arguments sake if you were, or if you had been, around during the miners strike would you or did you call for the banning of trade unions.

A Dub in Glasgo

bill66 wrote: »

No I did not, the world does not revolve around Glasgow

Well then your posts are irrelevant to the particular topic at hand

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

bill66 wrote: »

Your argument was that there is trouble when the OO marches and they should be banned. I asked what the difference was between them and other groups that also have trouble when they gather. As yet you have not given an answer, I suspect the answer is because you don't agree with their point of view because of your bias against them. If not a sectarian bias what alternative, reasonable, conclusion could a sane person come to. Both the OO and Trade Unions are legal organisations that often have trouble at their gatherings. Once again I ask you why one should be banned and not the other.

Anyone who shows the kind of thinking you have could not be described as moderate.

I don't think I said they should be banned, I said "why are they allowed to exist", and I did reply to Jelle1880's question as to why they should be banned with "Perhaps banning them is a bit harsh".

The OO continually clash with the Parades Commission in NI over the simplest of requests not to march past certain areas. They're not told they can't march, simply to take a different route and yet they constantly refuse. They're asked to leave out certain songs their bands play when they do march past these areas and they go ahead and play the ones they've supposedly agreed not to play.

Why are they marching in Glasgow today? Is it a traditional day for OO marches? I don't think it is, so why are they doing it? Why did so many groups from NI march in Edinburgh last week when they were asked by both sides of the Referendum debate not to come?

Perhaps the OO in Scotland are better behaved than their NI counterparts and their parades pass off without incident but the fact they clashed with Glasgow City Council back in 2010/2011 when they tried to reduce the number of parades they could have suggests not. Leaving it to the last possible time to notify the Council of their intention to march, changing traditional dates for marches to make it as difficult as possible to organise stewards and policing. Also in 2009 a report from Strathclyde police highlighted the increase in serious and racially motivated assaults, assaults against police and general breaches of the peace around OO marches.

Yes you can argue that the OO have no control over who attends their marches and what they do but they do have control over when and where they march, what their bands play and how their members behave.

You can compare them to whatever types of groups or marches you like I will not agree that they're the same. The only other group I would have as little time for, in relation to areas relevant to this thread, are Republican groups who behave in exactly the same way. I haven't seen any of them getting involved in this referendum though.

A Dub in Glasgo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Perhaps the OO in Scotland are better behaved than their NI counterparts and their parades pass off without incident but the fact they clashed with Glasgow City Council back in 2010/2011 when they tried to reduce the number of parades they could have suggests not. Leaving it to the last possible time to notify the Council of their intention to march, changing traditional dates for marches to make it as difficult as possible to organise stewards and policing. Also in 2009 a report from Strathclyde police highlighted the increase in serious and racially motivated assaults, assaults against police and general breaches of the peace around OO marches.

July this year in Glasgow for the OO march

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/orange-walk-horror-police-hunt-3822369

bill66

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Well then your posts are irrelevant to the particular topic at hand

I think you will find that the blatantly biased, anti democratic, anti libertarian, sectarian posts are the ones that are irrelevant. Weather one likes it or not the OO will not be banned,( not so sure about unions), it may die out in time but attitudes such as yours keep its fires burning.

A Dub in Glasgo

bill66 wrote: »

I think you will find that the blatantly ....

No, still irrelevant when talking about the OO marching today (6 marches) and the big one last week as well as the hundreds during the summer. You are bringing in marches from all over the world in some weird attempt to justify the amount of OO marches in Scotland

bill66

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I don't think I said they should be banned, I said "why are they allowed to exist", and I did reply to Jelle1880's question as to why they should be banned with "Perhaps banning them is a bit harsh"

"why are they allowed to exist" is actually worse than banning them. You would have to kill them to make them cease to exist. Certainly a bit harsh.

bill66

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

No, still irrelevant when talking about the OO marching today (6 marches) and the big one last week as well as the hundreds during the summer. You are bringing in marches from all over the world in some weird attempt to justify the amount of OO marches in Scotland

Still no answers here! I have not tried to justify anything. I have asked for a rational reason for banning the OO, as yet I have not heard one. The reason is clear why you want them banned, accept it, you are biased, for religious, sectarian or social reasons. You are not the only one.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

bill66 wrote: »

"why are they allowed to exist" is actually worse than banning them. You would have to kill them to make them cease to exist. Certainly a bit harsh.

You're trying to twist everything I say in a desperate attempt to prove I'm a sectarian bigot. I no longer feel the need to engage you on this matter.

---

The National Collective posted a very inspiring statement tonight. Worth reading, if only for the part where they outline all the times the various media outlets sabotaged their campaign.

http://nationalcollective.com/2014/09/20/statement-how-we-won-and-how-we-will-win/

A Dub in Glasgo

bill66 wrote: »

Still no answers here! I have not tried to justify anything. I have asked for a rational reason for banning the OO, as yet I have not heard one. The reason is clear why you want them banned, accept it, you are biased, for religious, sectarian or social reasons. You are not the only one.

I have not claimed I want them banned (maybe you can point out where I say I want them banned). However, I want the number of marches reduced. In case you have not come across the OO, they are a sectarian organisation

Sand

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I have not claimed I want them banned (maybe you can point out where I say I want them banned). However, I want the number of marches reduced. In case you have not come across the OO, they are a sectarian organisation

So is the Catholic Church. All religiously organised or inspired institutions are sectarian by definition.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote: »

So is the Catholic Church. All religiously organised or inspired institutions are sectarian by definition.

Let us see, can you spot the difference?

Sand

In short, its probably a good thing that Scottish independence didn't come to pass if it was going to immediately plunge into sectarian conflict.

TheCitizen

Sand wrote: »

In short, its probably a good thing that Scottish independence didn't come to pass if it was going to immediately plunge into sectarian conflict.

Who says it was immediately going to plunge into sectarian conflict in the event of a Yes vote? What sort of conflict are you on about? A few eejits ranting and raving on the streets is it? And even if it was, are you seriously saying that that would be a reason not to vote Yes because sectarianism would potentially raise it's ugly head? What a depressing and pathetic and spineless outlook to have, don't vote for Independence because it might cause the ire of a few jumped up idiot billy boys that have no wherewithall to inflict any kind of serious trouble?

Those idiots btw would've gained a lot from a Yes vote, if they could see past their obsession with flags and emblems. Scotland would've still been in the commonwealth, would still have the queen as head of state. They could've had it both ways, more power for their country, better conditions for them, and still in the commonwealth.

They didn't come out until the vote was over, because they were told it would hurt the No campaign. Will they ever get it? They are thankfully becoming increasingly irrelevant, I think you overestimate any influence they have other than to be an annoyance.

kieran--f

fryup wrote: »

lol :pac:

ahh thats right blame the prods and rangers fc

didn't realise rangers fc had so much influence in scotland a club that were condemned to the 3rd division not so long ago....and as for religion many prominent catholics i.e. john reid and george galloway not to mention the scottish labour party (which gets a high catholic vote) were against it

so its alot more complex and not as black and white than you may wish to think

It is kind of that black and white though unfortunately, if you ever lived in Glasgow you would know that, I can guarantee that each of the Union Jack Flying people on the streets last night causing havoc were all rangers supporters. Galloway and Reid are irrelevant in this because they represent a different class of person and not the Glaswegian NED. The kind that could do a Nazi salute while wearing a poppy.

philstar

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

or the one's that chant ooh ah up the ra whilst flying irish tri colours in peoples faces

kieran--f

philstar wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

or the one's that chant ooh ah up the ra whilst flying irish tri colours in peoples faces

In what instance did this happen during the Yes vote campaigning ever? Never
Were the no voters crowd that caused violence in George sq. heard chanting Rule Britannia and singing Famine songs, in fact there is footage on youtube? Yes
Yet the BBC was referring to Yes voters as Nationalists even though they merely flung their own flag and sung non sectarian Scottish songs

These orange order marches and Union Flag waving Neds will turn Glasgow into another Derry if they are allowed continue it has already been shown that the majority in that city want out of the union

Jelle1880

kieran--f wrote: »

In what instance did this happen during the Yes vote campaigning ever? Never
Were the no voters crowd that caused violence in George sq. heard chanting Rule Britannia and singing Famine songs, in fact there is footage on youtube? Yes
Yet the BBC was referring to Yes voters as Nationalists even though they merely flung their own flag and sung non sectarian Scottish songs

These orange order marches and Union Flag waving Neds will turn Glasgow into another Derry if they are allowed continue it has already been shown that the majority in that city want out of the union

So what, build a wall around Glasgow and call it the Scottish Kingdom of Weegieland ?

Care to show that video which shows No supporters singing the famine song ?
As for Rule Britannia, nothing wrong with that.

feargale

Sand wrote: »

So is the Catholic Church. All religiously organised or inspired institutions are sectarian by definition.

Before you all engage in semantics it should be pointed out that this word has two separate meanings:
1. Relating to a sect.
2. Partisan, narrow-minded or bigoted.

Atlantic Dawn

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So what, build a wall around Glasgow and call it the Scottish Kingdom of Weegieland ?

Care to show that video which shows No supporters singing the famine song ?
As for Rule Britannia, nothing wrong with that.

There was never a famine in Ireland, there was a potato crop that failed and many thousands of tons of other foods were exported overseas at the expense of the local population, look at the manifests of the ships that left the country during that time, the country was very fertile.

porsche959

Sand wrote: »

So is the Catholic Church. All religiously organised or inspired institutions are sectarian by definition.

The Catholic Church - which I'm no particular fan of - doesn't, as a rule, organise marches with the deliberate intention of provoking those not of their faith.

kieran--f

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A

Celtic fans shouldn't be categorised as the same people even though the teams share a rivalry, it is a shame that the fans who are respected around Europe are constantly dragged down by the former rangers fc. I only hope next time they meet that Celtic fans don't bother attending the game so as not to be painted with the same brush.

A 45% vote for absolute change means the union has lost in Scotland, The SNP has gained thousands of new members and can rally forward now easily shifting a few of the status quo voters who were afraid. The idiotic scenes witnessed at OO marches will no doubt help this. The older generation who vastly voted no because of the lies of the British media's ridiculous better together campaign will be replaced to by a generation who use social media. I give it 10 years maximum for a 10% swing to 55% yes at least.

TheCitizen

kieran--f wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A

Celtic fans shouldn't be categorised as the same people even though the teams share a rivalry, it is a shame that the fans who are respected around Europe are constantly dragged down by the former rangers fc. I only hope next time they meet that Celtic fans don't bother attending the game so as not to be painted with the same brush.

A 45% vote for absolute change means the union has lost in Scotland, The SNP has gained thousands of new members and can rally forward now easily shifting a few of the status quo voters who were afraid. The idiotic scenes witnessed at OO marches will no doubt help this. The older generation who vastly voted no because of the lies of the British media's ridiculous better together campaign will be replaced to by a generation who use social media. I give it 10 years maximum for a 10% swing to 55% yes at least.

Hopefully you're right. I think if things were allowed to develop fairly naturally and the Yes campaign regroup and forge ahead, that is what will happen. Jack Straw wants to make self determination in Scotland illegal I believe.

philstar

kieran--f wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A

Celtic fans shouldn't be categorised as the same people even though the teams share a rivalry, it is a shame that the fans who are respected around Europe are constantly dragged down by the former rangers fc. I only hope next time they meet that Celtic fans don't bother attending the game so as not to be painted with the same brush.

don't give me that holier than thou crap.....celtic supporters are just as bigoted as rangers supporters even more so imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOwqWQS8oRY

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Everybody knows that there's scumbags on both sides of that particular football rivalry, I don't think anyone can debate that fact. However, in regards to this particular thread and the topic on hand, there were no Celtic supporters or Irish flags involved in any of the trouble I've seen.

tipptom

Isnt everybody in the world biased against a bigoted hate filled group like the OO and especially when they are maching in circles outside catholic churches singing their famine songs and banging their drums cheered on by the obligatory oul wan in her union jack plastic apron doing that strange drunken dance.


If a referendum went to England alone to cut loose NI back to Ireland it would be a landslide to get rid of it and the OO would be a massive contributing factor to this.

Sam Russell

I think the YES side should have emphasized a willingness that all stages of the negotiations for an independant Scotland would be puctuated by plebicites as each part of the negotiations are completed - constitution, use of Sterling, joining the EU, joining Nato, defence, etc. I think much of the 'this is forever with no going back' type of threat/talk would be diffused as it is not 'forever' - it is with the consent of the people of Scotland. If a particular part is against the will of the people, it can be altered.

As for the talk/threat that old people would lose their pensions is just risible. How would anyone but the dimmest not see through that cannard, or many of the other such lies?

However, it is the weight of the British media (inc BBC), the full weight and power of Westminister and Downing St, and the trotting out of the big business Tory cronies that did it for the NO side. And as for Borosso ......

alastair

Sam Russell wrote: »

However, it is the weight of the British media (inc BBC), the full weight and power of Westminister and Downing St, and the trotting out of the big business Tory cronies that did it for the NO side. And as for Borosso ......

This theory is at odds with the long stream of polls on the subject, going back years. If the highpoint of the Yes campaign was a slight lead in a singular poll, amongst a bevy of polls re-stating that the No side held a lead - albeit small, then the lesson to be learned is that there was, in the face of the BBC, Tories, Banks, and whatever other whipping boys you care to wheel out, an increase in support for independence, not a decline.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I saw Margaret Curran on BBC earlier swearing blind that Labour would ensure that the promised timeline for Scotland would be met by Westminster, they would make sure of it. At the exact same time she was on BBC Ed Milliband was on Sky talking about anything and everything except Scotland.

It's incredible how quickly the three Westminster parties have just moved on from the Scotland issue already. Has there ever been such a clear and obvious example of politicians just straight up lying to people? It's incredible. I'd love to get some sort of opinion poll of people who voted No and see how they feel about that now.

Sam Russell

alastair wrote: »

This theory is at odds with the long stream of polls on the subject, going back years. If the highpoint of the Yes campaign was a slight lead in a singular poll, amongst a bevy of polls re-stating that the No side held a lead - albeit small, then the lesson to be learned is that there was, in the face of the BBC, Tories, Banks, and whatever other whipping boys you care to wheel out, an increase in support for independence, not a decline.

I think you missed what I was saying. I think the YES side were hard done by as they had so many lies told to damage their case. Not the other way round.

No doubt that the YES side moved from 25% approval two years ago to 50% in the polls in the last few weekes of the campaign, with a final vote of 45% in the actual poll. This means that they will be back after the next Scottish Parliament if the SNP increase their vote.

Sand

TheCitizen wrote: »

Who says it was immediately going to plunge into sectarian conflict in the event of a Yes vote?

Well, within 24 hours of the vote the thread is going on about the orange order, sectarianism and efforts either ban or restrict groups...that will definitely not confirm the Orange Order narrative of their rights being only secured within the Union. Smart play.

Not too surprising given the Team Scotland/Team Westminster view of the Yes side, not too subtly painting the No campaign as not really Scottish. So much for Salmonds "One Scotland".

Like I said, its probably for the best that independence didn't come to pass - as we've seen, when the dynamics of power shift drastically there is usually score settling by the winning side.

kieran--f

philstar wrote: »

don't give me that holier than thou crap.....celtic supporters are just as bigoted as rangers supporters even more so imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOwqWQS8oRY

This video is completely unrelated to the referendum and the celtic supporters are merely singing celtic symphony a song recorded by the Wolfe Tones to celebrate the men who fought the war of independence, it dosen't attack anyone in anyway but celebrates a period in Irish history we should be proud of (Celtic was founded by an Irishman and I am proud that the Scots will wave our flag at games), back to the youtube search and try again for a video where yes voters act in a sectarian manner (note: find a video of actual yes voters this time) you won't find one because these people are open minded folk who want the best for scotland and were willing to take a risk to build a better nation.

alastair

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you missed what I was saying. I think the YES side were hard done by as they had so many lies told to damage their case. Not the other way round.

I get what you're saying - I just don't agree. The Yes side's case wasn't damaged, if their support increased - which it did. They had lower support before any No campaigning - devious or otherwise kicked in.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ You could argue that the Yes campaigns support gained in spite of the unfair treatment they got. They managed to gain 20ish% support through their own hard work on the ground. If they'd gotten the same opportunities from the various media outlets to make their case and dispute the NO campaigns statements about pensions, jobs etc. perhaps they could have won even more support.

feargale

Jelle1880 wrote: »

As for Rule Britannia, nothing wrong with that.

Will you say the same when you hear " China Rules the Waves" ? It could be the next big hit, you know.

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

^ You could argue that the Yes campaigns support gained in spite of the unfair treatment they got. They managed to gain 20ish% support through their own hard work on the ground. If they'd gotten the same opportunities from the various media outlets to make their case and dispute the NO campaigns statements about pensions, jobs etc. perhaps they could have won even more support.

Well - my experience was that the Yes campaign had lots of exposure in the media, and where dubious claims were made by the No campaign, there was ample time and space to refute them. If anything, one of the hallmarks of the campaign coverage, was the ridicule of bogus assertions from both sides, but more obviously those coming from the No side. There's no case to be made that there was unfair treatment of the Yes campaign, or fewer opportunities for them in the media. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

A Dub in Glasgo

alastair wrote: »

Well - my experience was that the Yes campaign had lots of exposure in the media, and where dubious claims were made by the No campaign, there was ample time and space to refute them. If anything, one of the hallmarks of the campaign coverage, was the ridicule of bogus assertions from both sides, but more obviously those coming from the No side. There's no case to be made that there was unfair treatment of the Yes campaign, or fewer opportunities for them in the media. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

What media was this?

alastair

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What media was this?

BBC, Channel 4, Guardian, Sunday Times, RTE, Assorted Blogosphere and Web channels.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

alastair wrote: »

Well - my experience was that the Yes campaign had lots of exposure in the media, and where dubious claims were made by the No campaign, there was ample time and space to refute them. If anything, one of the hallmarks of the campaign coverage, was the ridicule of bogus assertions from both sides, but more obviously those coming from the No side. There's no case to be made that there was unfair treatment of the Yes campaign, or fewer opportunities for them in the media. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Did you read the statement from the National Collective yesterday where they outlined numerous instances of the media ignoring them? Did you see the huge protests outside the BBC last week over their coverage?

Alex Salmond and the SNP got a fair bit of screen time and media coverage but Alex Salmond was not the leader of the Yes campaign, the SNP were not the only political party supporting a Yes vote.

Grudaire

alastair wrote: »

This theory is at odds with the long stream of polls on the subject, going back years. If the highpoint of the Yes campaign was a slight lead in a singular poll, amongst a bevy of polls re-stating that the No side held a lead - albeit small, then the lesson to be learned is that there was, in the face of the BBC, Tories, Banks, and whatever other whipping boys you care to wheel out, an increase in support for independence, not a decline.

In fairness those polls actually showed a huge number of undecided. The undecided in early polls overwhelmingly turned into YES voters.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

On the subject of the media coverage here's an interesting short video looking at the role played by the traditional media sources and the rise of new media during the referendum campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWTBOH7hZow

Interesting to note how many No voters list the BBC, Sky etc. as their main source of information.

There's also a movement underway to have control of the media in Scotland devolved to the Scottish Parliament as part of any Devo settlement.

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Did you read the statement from the National Collective yesterday where they outlined numerous instances of the media ignoring them? Did you see the huge protests outside the BBC last week over their coverage?

Alex Salmond and the SNP got a fair bit of screen time and media coverage but Alex Salmond was not the leader of the Yes campaign, the SNP were not the only political party supporting a Yes vote.

The Yes campaign didn't have a leader as such, but Alex Salmond was certainly filling the role of the opposite representative to Alistair Darling's in the No campaign. That's the way it worked out, and it wasn't entirely unexpected that Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson seemed to be set up in opposition to each other either.

The National Collective ignored? An honest appraisal of where the voice of the Arts in Scotland was evident in the campaign debate, would have been on the Yes side. Media struggled to find any cultural figures in Scotland who were sympathetic to the No side - and often had to go elsewhere in the UK to find cultural figures to make a case for the Union.

Berserker

tipptom wrote: »

If a referendum went to England alone to cut loose NI back to Ireland it would be a landslide to get rid of it and the OO would be a massive contributing factor to this.

Cobblers, it has nothing to with the OO. Most people don't know what the Order is or what it is about in the UK (England and Wales for definite). They would want rid of NI because it is a massive financial noose around their neck, in the eyes of most people. They have spent hundreds of billions in NI throughout the years and got absolutely nothing in return.

A similar 'No' result would happen in the RoI. IF a vote came, the potential costs and complexities of undertaking NI would hit home and armchair republicans would soon change their minds. Reality will always get the better over idealism, in the mind of any responsible adult. Scotland is the perfect example of this.

alastair

Grudaire wrote: »

In fairness those polls actually showed a huge number of undecided. The undecided in early polls overwhelmingly turned into YES voters.

Which doesn't do much for the claim that the devious No campaign did in the chance for independence.

A Dub in Glasgo

alastair wrote: »

BBC, Channel 4, Guardian, Sunday Times, RTE, Assorted Blogosphere and Web channels.

I cannot comment on C4 and ignoring your online sites and RTE, the other sources were all supporting the No side

Berserker

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I cannot comment on C4 and ignoring your online sites and RTE, the other sources were all supporting the No side

As a 'Yes' voter, you are always going to say that. A 'No' voter would say the complete opposite. That is a natural human reaction. This Irish media here was visibly pushing 'Yes'. The papers last weekend (Times and Indo) even had articles about life in an independent Scotland.

A Dub in Glasgo

alastair wrote: »

The Yes campaign didn't have a leader as such,

They did, it was Blair McDougall

alastair

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There's also a movement underway to have control of the media in Scotland devolved to the Scottish Parliament as part of any Devo settlement.

Just where is the media currently controlled by Westminster? Honestly this is the sort of guff that you'd expect of Putin, not a mature democracy.