Seil Chat

Last week Chris Deerin of left leaning Guardian wrote an intelligent, well argued, sobre article about why we should stay in the family of the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... referendum

Within minutes he was attacked in the online responses page of The Guardian by foul-mouthed cyberNationalists. You can see what they wrote by scrolling down from the article, but here's a small selection to save you the trouble.

I would be ashamed to be associated with such vile people if I were tempted to be a Yes voter.

The graphic comes from The Mail who picked up on the story.

I would urge everyone who has an interest in the Scottish Referendum to read that piece http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... referendum

I find it hard to imagine some people could disagree with what Chris Deerin wrote. As for the CyberNats, we all know an argument is won when the only response to it is in the form of insults.

.

Step 1:
Write an offensive, provocative piece of trollbait for the Daily Mail, describing your opponents as “kilted bum-barers who bellow ‘freedom’ whenever an English person hoves into view” and suggesting that a Yes vote is an abdication of morality.

Step 2:
Whine like a baby when you get the response you wanted all along.

(Contrary to what Longshanks says above this piece was first published in the Daily Mail and subsequently picked up by the Guardian)

I imagine that most of the people who read this forum are smart enough to ignore the cesspit that is the Daily Mail. I am surprised at you, Longshanks - I had you down as more of a Telegraph person, yet you seem determined to trawl the tabloids - first the Record and now the Mail - for sensationalist nonsense like this. Surely you are aware that the Mail supported Mosely’s Blackshirts in the 1930′s, and described Herr Hitler as a ‘friend of Europe’.

As for your obsession with 'cybernats' (or 'cabernats' as Ruthie called them this week) well - its one of the oldest propaganda tricks in the world; name your opposition with some nasty type name, and it makes it much easier to denounce them.

I imagine that most of the people who read this forum are smart enough to ignore the cesspit that is the Daily Mail. I am surprised at you, Longshanks - I had you down as more of a Telegraph person, yet you seem determined to trawl the tabloids - first the Record and now the Mail - for sensationalist nonsense like this. Surely you are aware that the Mail supported Mosely’s Blackshirts in the 1930′s, and described Herr Hitler as a ‘friend of Europe’

From the respectable Telegraph, "At its conference in 1939, SNP leader Andrew Dewar Gibb told party members that “imperial England” had no right “to criticise the actions of any other country [i.e. Germany]”. Hugh MacDiarmid, still hallowed as Scotland’s foremost nationalist poet, argued in the 1930s that Nazism should be a model for Scottish socialist nationalists; in 1940 he wrote a poem admitting that if London should be destroyed by bombs, “I hardly care”. He later became an ardent supporter of the Soviet Union – a fact that, appallingly, excuses his earlier sympathies in the eyes of his admirers"

NickB wrote:supported Mosely’s Blackshirts in the 1930′s, and described Herr Hitler as a ‘friend of Europe’.

As for your obsession with 'cybernats' (or 'cabernats' as Ruthie called them this week) well - its one of the oldest propaganda tricks in the world; name your opposition with some nasty type name, and it makes it much easier to denounce them.

Ha......Godwins Law in three !

I agree with you on the use of the term cybernats. I'll refrain from using and revert to either "nationalists" or "independence supporters" when I quote their vile rantings in the future. Okay with you 'n Herby ?

Yes. I see the article was in the Mail originally and was only later picked up by The Gurdian. Hence I too picked up on it later in the week. However the Rev from Bath has kindly posted today's interesting Mail spread (it came up when I googled your last post)


http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-classic-double-whammy/

Chris Deerin writes a calm, orderly review of the reaction and response he got to his calm, orderly, positive argument for keeping the Union. The comments contained on Wings over Scotland regarding his piece are full of pure hatred for one who would just wish to express his opinion. When Alex Salmond said the Scots should start a national debate, surely he didn't envisage this nastiness?

Once again it is a case of the minority shouting the loudest to try and intimidate the silent majority. 242 days to go and I wonder how nasty some of them will get. Will there be violence on the streets, people being beaten up, the odd death or two over the independence matter? I hope Alex Salmond will be held to account if there are.

PentlandPirate II wrote:The comments contained on Wings over Scotland regarding his piece are full of pure hatred . . .

I'm sorry, but I don't see that. Perhaps you would care to quote some of this 'pure hatred' for us.

Your comments about trouble on the streets etc. is pure silliness. Once again you are showing how detached you are from the reality of the debate up here in Scotland.

Do try to stay rational and avoid daft alarmism. There is every bit as much if not a damn sight more nastiness on the Unionist side of the debate. I will be only too happy to provide you with some of the more rabid examples if you choose to disbelieve me.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that. Perhaps you would care to quote some of this 'pure hatred' for us

Did you read them?

Your comments about trouble on the streets etc. is pure silliness

It was a question I asked, not a statement (Don't make things into fact that don't exist). It's an emotive subject. The tension is rising. The insults are being traded. I think it naïve to think that in the next 242 days and perhaps immediately after the referendum, whichever way the vote goes, there could not be violent disturbances. Yes, it would be silly to suggest things could come to blows in the TnT but who knows?

Once again you are showing how detached you are from the reality of the debate up here in Scotland.

I could say exactly the same about you in Balvicar!

I accept there will be nastiness on both sides. And I dislike it all. But I never wanted a referendum which is the cause of it all.

PentlandPirate II wrote: . . . it would be silly to suggest things could come to blows in the TnT

Yes, it would be.

The fact that you are even suggesting it shows that you know little about Seil.

Considering I haven't lived there yet I know a lot about Seil. And more than a few people there know me too.

PentlandPirate II wrote: Once again it is a case of the minority shouting the loudest to try and intimidate the silent majority. 242 days to go and I wonder how nasty some of them will get. Will there be violence on the streets, people being beaten up, the odd death or two over the independence matter? I hope Alex Salmond will be held to account if there are.

Here on Seil some lead rather sheltered lives and may not have much contact with the real world beyond the bridge. You are right to express your concerns PP.

Political violence is by no means uncommon in Scotland.

Here's a recent nasty stramash where nationalists attacked unionists in Glasgow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvKlODzg7pA

Pretty sickening.

Here's another incident from last year showing the strength of feeling in some parts of Glasgow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Go4Pdzh4IE

There seems to be a problem on the forum since yesterday. For some reason the most recent replies are ending up way down the board. Can this be fixed?

PentlandPirate II wrote:There seems to be a problem on the forum since yesterday. For some reason the most recent replies are ending up way down the board. Can this be fixed?

Not a problem at all.

The six YeSNP propaganda videos have been attached to the top of the board by the administrator using "stickies" so that any more recent posts on any other thread cannot move above them.

I have no problem with that and nor should any other member of our community forum. The administrator owns the forum and if that is what he wants to do then so be it.

longshanks wrote:
Political violence is by no means uncommon in Scotland.

Here's a recent nasty stramash where nationalists attacked unionists in Glasgow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvKlODzg7pA

You appear to be attempting to portray sectarian violence as political and in some way connected with the referendum debate.

I find that contemptible. I am beginning to think that there are no depths to which the NO campaign will not stoop.

NickB wrote: You appear to be attempting to portray sectarian violence as political

Correct. It is.

NickB wrote: and in some way connected with the referendum debate.

I made no such connection. Merely giving confirmation of my assertion that "political violence is by no means uncommon in Scotland".

Unfortunately it is you who have now made the connection with your reply

NickB wrote: I find that contemptible.

Here....have a Snickers

longshanks wrote:I made no such connection. Merely giving confirmation of my assertion that "political violence is by no means uncommon in Scotland".

Firstly, your assertion that the sort of sectarian violence portrayed in that video is political is nonsense - at least in a West of Scotland context. It is religious tribalism. Reading anything political into it is daft.

Secondly, I have to ask why you are posting links like this in the independence forum if not as a cheap propaganda exercise and smear tactic. If there is no connection then it is off-topic and wholly inappropriate. Future posts containing links to this sort of inappropriate material will either be deleted or will be edited and the links removed.

NickB wrote:If there is no connection then it is off-topic and wholly inappropriate. Future posts containing links to this sort of inappropriate material will either be deleted or will be edited and the links removed.

What I am about to post is most certainly on-topic and wholly appropriate in that it relates to the Orange Order and its connection to the independence debate in a political sense.

NickB wrote:religious tribalism. Reading anything political into it is daft.

The "religious tribalism" which, as always, is in fact economically and ethnically based has moved firmly into the field of politics.

In the West of Scotland, in particular, The Orange Order has tremendous influence and a huge membership. The Orange Order stands foursquare against independence and intends to make a big impact in the debate at the time of the Glasgow Games.

Here's a recent expose from The Scotsman:

THE Orange Order has begun preparations to convince its members to vote against Scottish independence next year, it has emerged.

• Orange Order declares interest in campaigning for No vote

• Religious organisation positions itself to gain political influence

The religious organisation has sought to apply to community councils and will lobby councillors on the prospect of getting itself involved in the anti-independence movement.

Leaflets have been produced by the Order as it tries to communicate to members how independence will affect them.

The formation of a political party has also been discussed by members of the Order.

(concluding)..............

A spokesman said: “The Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland is continuing to internally discuss its strategy for the independence referendum and will make this public in due course.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-2905564

The Orange Order has now launched its anti-independence website:

[preamble)....

"British Together is a campaign group set up by the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland to assist the mainstream Unionist groups leading up to and including the independence referendum in 2014."

http://www.britishtogether.co.uk/index.php

.

The idea that such a fundamentally divisive and historically violent organisation as the orange order can in any way be associated with the slogan Better Together in your mind or anyone elses is, frankly, beyond my comprehension.

NickB wrote:.

The idea that such a fundamentally divisive and historically violent organisation as the orange order can in any way be associated with the slogan Better Together in your mind or anyone elses is, frankly, beyond my comprehension.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland is an " historically violent organisation" ?

No.....thought not. Just a slur on my fellow Scots eh ?

You do realise of course that more Orangemen marched through Edinburgh to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Acts of Union than nationalists marched on the two recent independence rallies ?

The march culminated in a rally where its leaders warned members of the danger of the Scottish National Party breaking up the UK. The Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland, Ian Wilson, said that "the Union has been good for Scotland and will continue to be good for Scotland"

The Orange Order may only have half a dozen or so members here on Seil, and they undoubtedly don't enter your sphere, so I can understand your lack of comprehension but you do understand the links between the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland and Freemasonry don't you ? And you are aware of the considerable influence Freemasonry has in Oban and hereabouts ? No ?

longshanks wrote:[ . . . the Orange Order may only have half a dozen or so members here on Seil and they undoubtedly don't enter your sphere

No, not really, though I have been asked once here (and once back on the east coast) if I would be interested in joining. I was very polite.

longshanks wrote: . . . you are aware of the considerable influence Freemasonry has in Oban and hereabouts ?

Probably less than you fondly imagine these days.

Not surprised to discover that you are in the Lodge. That explains a few things.

Personally I have no time for freemasonry or any other antiquated quasi-secret organisation that seeks to confer unwarranted advantage or privilege, though I am sure that most of the members are decent enough people.