-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan: nationalism can be as divisive as bigotry and racism
- Thread starter Audioboxer
- Start date
- Status
MemoryHumanity
Member
What a tool.
You are aware that the act of union was done under a Scottish King correct? That the English never conquered Scotland? That when Scotland "rebelled" the English army had scotmen in it, and the scottish army had frenchmen in it?
I have no issue with taking objection to Sadiq Khan's comments (although I do think some people are reading into this more than what he meant), but to claim that Scotland isn't "free", or to make any equivalence with what Britain did in India, Pakistan, Africa or anywhere else in the world is flat out ignorant and insulting. Hell, Scots people were at the *forefront* of the British empire - they've been over-represented in our political system for hundreds of years!
In summary - Mel Gibson movies are not a good representation of Scotland in the Union, and to suggest in anyway they were conquered or enslaved like the other places around the world the British empire subdued is just wrong.
Audioboxer
Member
That was a bit silly, but it's more in response to public outrage culture putting pressure on those in power to force changes. Just a sign of the times.
Although as much as I defend him caving to action in order to try and keep some happy, his statement is a bit silly
Advertisement has often shown "top-tier" models from clothing, to perfume, to cars, to whatever. It's better we focus on educating the masses diversity in body shape is okay, rather than mercilessly go around banning. Like it or not very fit bodies are reality, and you can't exactly shame people who work hard and exercise frequently for looking how they do. It's the pay off you get, and while it should never be forced upon people to have to look a certain way, we shouldn't get hyper-sensitive around the fact working hard to be fit produces results. It's a sensitive issue in a world where many people do feel inferior, but a hard lesson to learn in life is we aren't all equal physically, and it's more important to learn to love yourself for who you are than get angry at others for who they may be. In other words, make it clear it may well be unrealistic to expect every women, or man, to look a certain way, but not go as far to almost inverse-victim blame people who do take fitness seriously and say to them they make others... uncomfortable?
Anyway, that is veering way offtopic and I guess overall will lead some to criticising Khan on this topic. It's pretty unrelated to his remarks on Scotland/the SNP, other than showing he might be better taking a bit more time to think over his public statements before issuing them.
Have you thought of a career at the Daily Mail? Or perhaps leader of the Scottish Labour Party?
Taking it upon himself to be the "ads policeman" as mayor is idiotic. In general he appears to think of himself as being on a "moral high horse", as these new statements also indicate IMO.
I was actually at a pretty good talk a Welshman gave on this topic yesterday. England has a long history of trying to paint itself, at least when it's convenient, as multicultural, and British, and contrast itself with Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, themselves seen as static and monocultural.
He had quoted Zizek, who I'm usually not a fan of, quite well
He had quoted Zizek, who I'm usually not a fan of, quite well
Thelonelykoopa
Member
From a mostly uninformed postion on this subject I dont really see this as racist. Now if Scotland was to gain independence and than build a wall around in self and force isolatationist policies on it's populance than yeah it would be but IIRC Scotland wants to join the EU afterwards which is the opposite of isolationism as they would be more open than an England that seperated from the EU. Now Nationalism can be dangerous of course but it has yet to show a ugly head in Scotland as far as I know.
One of the biggest parts of the London Mayors job is TFL, and he's talking specifically about adverts on TFL. There are a whole host of rules and regulations about what can and can't be advertised on TFL, which the Mayor gets to decide.
Boris Johnson, for example, banned gay therapy adverts.
This is a bit awkward. The Union was under a Stuart, the Stuarts had been Anglicized for around 90 years by that point, Queen. I'm not sure what rebellion in particular you are talking about but there are certainly actual nationalist sentiments behind 1638, 1715, and 1745.
I agree that calling Scotland unfree is rediculous, and making an equivalence between Scotland and many of the colonies is not fair, but you're hand waving away legitimate problems with the British state in Scotland and especially the highlands. You're also reading Scottish involvement in the empire wrong bordering on the classic chauvinistic English interpretation that the Scots are despots by nature.
Lots of Scots were involved in the Empire because the British state removed a lot of domestic opportunities for them.
Moreover the Scots have not been over-represented in the British political system for years. Look at the number of seats they received per the Union.
Scotland is hardly an oppressed country in 2017, but the British state has also historically done a lot of terrible things there.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
That was not...helpful.
Let's be real here, many SNP supporters in Scotland are more right-wing and pro-Brexit, which is why the polls haven't shown a significant change so far.
"Take back control from Brussels/Westminster" is the exact same argument, any way you slice it. The SNP has done a good job of marginalising them while taking their votes, but that's all they've done.
?????????
Scotland had a disproportionately high number of seats from at least 1885 until 2005 to compensate, when it was rolled back due to the full implementation of the Scottish Parliament. Scottish votes were worth more.
To this day, the small electorates in the Na h-Eileanan an Iar/Western Isles (the smallest in the UK) and Shetland/Orkney are protected by law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na_h-Eileanan_an_Iar_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Let's be real here, many SNP supporters in Scotland are more right-wing and pro-Brexit, which is why the polls haven't shown a significant change so far.
"Take back control from Brussels/Westminster" is the exact same argument, any way you slice it. The SNP has done a good job of marginalising them while taking their votes, but that's all they've done.
?????????
Scotland had a disproportionately high number of seats from at least 1885 until 2005 to compensate, when it was rolled back due to the full implementation of the Scottish Parliament. Scottish votes were worth more.
To this day, the small electorates in the Na h-Eileanan an Iar/Western Isles (the smallest in the UK) and Shetland/Orkney are protected by law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na_h-Eileanan_an_Iar_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Was not the union done during post feudal times where things were done differently?
Were not there english troops at all?
Were not any Indians or Pakistani enlisted in English army suppressing the indian riots in a similar way Scots were fighting Scots?
Are the people of India, Pakistan or any who felt that their nation wants too be independent to prosper any different from those Scots that want to break free just because in Scotland's case things were done different?
Well, i never mentioned how they treated their conquered people so you answer to something else.
And even if you feel that i am an ignorant idiot that insults you it does not really matter since it does not change there are some Scots that feel they want their country to be independent, just like some Indians did back then.
It is true that many Scotsmen were represented in Britain's politics but some Scots do not care.
Would you call them racists?
Yes, I'm not sure what you're getting at here though.
Involved in what? The union? No troops at all were involved with that though of course in Burns words "English gold" played an, admittedly often over exaggerated, part.
I'm not sure this is relevant either. Scottish involvement against Scottish nationalist forces in rebellions is often ideological. My understanding of troops in Asia is that most were fighting for pay in a country they didn't recognize as their own. Remember India didn't really have a strong national sentiment in the 18th century.
I think anyway you slice it the Scottish case is quite different for a number of reasons. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to vote to leave, but it does mean comparisons to imperial holdings don't work too well.
I support the right to self determination of the Scottish people as I think everyone should. At this moment that self-determination does not conflict with being part of the United Kingdom.
Labour is just upset in the same way that a lot of Dems in the US are with voting blocks that turned out less than they were expecting. They feel like they are owed votes. Scotland was the great labour stronghold after all.
You're right they were somewaht overly represented after in parliament. But I assumed what he was driving at was the Scots were always very overrepresented in the Union.
I think the representation point is quite important, but it needs to be historicised. Scotland is indeed extremely over represented now with a devolved government but also a say in English national matters. Yet the reason for that isn't Scotland, it's England's play to retain Britishness. I think the people of England should also make their own devolved parliament for the record.
This may be the biggest load of shite I've ever seen posted on GAF.
Tranqueris
Banned
I get that that's what was he was trying go for but with England going down the drain, saying "let's go down with this ship together!" comes off as a hollow message that's best left to hypocritical scumbags like Boris.
Also SNP isn't wrong, fuck Corbyn. Jesus, I know I made a lot of insulting comparisons between Bernie and him but at least Bernie ultimately did the right thing and worked his ass off to help his country.
Audioboxer
Member
Don't read my post history
To be fair to that poster a lot of the ammunition used against the SNP tries to paint them as haters of the English. It's really not the case at all. Sturgeon more than happily mentions all of the rUK who come to live in Scotland
https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/835296794842181634
Outside of idiots up here who hide behind "banter" to be morons, the actual political party in charge doesn't mind one iota where you are from. If you come to live in Scotland you'll be welcomed if you generally integrate well and want to be happy here. Which is the best you can hope for politically ~ Be led by a political party not trying to consume its population in fear of the other, or fear of the foreigner. It's rather daft for political figures to try and paint the SNP as they do in the face of the two main parties for the rUK either outright supporting Brexit and immigration rhetoric, or fumbling opposing it.
I do agree it was good the speech was somewhat modified from what he put out in the papers this morning, but it's still a kefuffle for Scottish Labour, and won't do them any favours gaining popularity back north of the border
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Well it's a tough situation. There'd need to be majority support for another layer of politicians in England. Considering we're talking 84% of the population as of the 2011 Census, well, perhaps it wouldn't be proper to have one either and shine a fog light on the population difference. It would magnify that, something that I think is best avoided.
If it was put to a vote, I doubt there'd be anywhere near majority support for one in England. Possibly, for the viability of the union, it may be for the best not to have one anyway.
I agree with you, and your last point is dead on. But as long as that's the rationale I don't think the English should complain about over-representation.
Also for some reason you seem to be quoting something else as me. I just thought I'd point that out since I might miss a response if I don't see the green for the quote.
The Hamburglar
Banned
During the indie ref we all saw the rabid nationalism of snp supporters. To say the snp and its message doesn't have a problem with racism, is a lie.
Noone voted for this union, or am i mistaken?
Fair point.
I believe than Indians were rioting in the 20th century and were facing their compatriots.
I know that those cases compared seem different but they both end up having a good number of people to want their country to break free from Great Britain. So what we have here is that both a group of conquered people and a group of people belong in a country that was part of GB due to a royal union to want leave. Why one group should be compared to racists it does not make sense. The Labour (real and/or potential) losses in Scotland can explain but not excuse the silliness of the statement.
However there is a strong sentiment of Scots that believes there is a conflict especially after the referendum results but that is for another topic.
Audioboxer
Member
Who are the SNP being racist against? What part of their message, policies or manifesto is discriminating against a race of people? Can you post a video of Nicola Sturgeon standing up and discriminating against a group of people/race? If their message as you say has a clear problem with racism it shouldn't be hard to show.
A political ideological difference isn't instantly racist unless it is backed or fueled by anti-immigration rhetoric (or anti-minority group(s)) like Brexit was.
Same question applies, who is Alex Salmond being racist against?
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
.jpg/220px-Alex_Salmond,_First_Minister_of_Scotland_(cropped).jpg)
This man's vilification of everything English was more than enough. It has effects on people.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20140511/284026190042622
Audioboxer
Member
This man's vilification of everything English was more than enough. It has effects on people.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20140511/284026190042622
So the best you can come up with is guilt by association because some student ran their mouth at Cameron? Pretty certain the waves of being called a pig-fucker are more offensive than twat.
Politicians tend to be on the receiving end of a lot of anger and flak. Calling someone a twat, or a pig fucker, is often part and parcel of political angst. It's not necessarily particularly civil, but do you even read what Nigel Farage gets called? Or the fact people even on GAF post those helicopter picture crashes of him with quips/jokes? Or Donald Trump mockery considering Khan brought him up? It happens, but this is the best you can come up with? The majority of such remarks are background noise, and as I said, while not very civil, what do they actually have to do with political parties, voting records and public policy? Usually these targets end up getting called names due to what they do to a country and its citizens. Are you going to defend Donald Trump from all the shit he is being called after what he is doing to America? There can indeed be lines we don't want to see crossed, usually violence, or name-calling that is incredibly offensive or racist. A twat? Nah, half of the world probably refers to Cameron as a 'British Twat' after some of the stuff he has said and done.
I'm sure you also saw she apologised in the article? Either way, it's the least of Camerons worries being called an 'English Twat' by a student. Tabloid newspaper guff to stroke outrage. Again I refer back to what I said to The Hamburglar and await some damning video evidence of the actual party condoning and standing for even something in the vein of say, UKIP. People being offended on behalf of David Cameron in some tabloid smear campaign isn't really going to do it for me, and I doubt many others. I guess next you'll post some "most dangerous woman in Britain" articles?
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
This is a pretty good example of Gaf's confused liberalism. Supporting the SNP is regressive, illiberal and requires a healthy dose of swallowing lies and misinformation.
CyclopsRock
Member
SNP MSPs routinely spout things which are literally conspiracy-laden falsehoods in support of Independence which ultimately lead you to one of two conclusions - they're tremendously stupid or actively lying for the purposes of their desired political outcome. Of course, we shouldn't rush to assume they're mutually exclusive.
You're a Tory. The party of Philip Davies and Rees Mogg don't go throwing stones.
Here:
London Mayor Sadiq Khan 'not accusing SNP of being racists' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39089604
I agree that it was poorly worded.
- Increased transport workers wages
- Introduced the hopper fare
- Introducing charges for diesle vehicles
- Prevented some of the major train strikes earlier this year
- Put all his backing to prevent Liquid nightclub from closing down
- Strongly supports (and has commissioned a report) to take powers away from private Overground rail companies with the possibility of handing over thier day to day running ro TFL
Off the top of my head. Granted these are mostly areas of development that effect me personally, but he's been Mayor for under a year and has already positively impacted me as a Londoner.
This isn't about the Scottish discriminating England. This is about not undoing diplomatic ties than bind the two nations while sentiments are hot. I realize that Brexit was the major crux of the new debate and "why should we sink with the rest of England when we precisely wanted to stay in the EU". Khan's position is about not furthering weakening England, not some moral judgement on Scotxit psychology.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
They can't stay in the EU anyway, so the whole debate is moot.
Well I'm glad they're changing the wording. Seems it better reflects what he was allegedly going for. The original version came across as a terrible comparison and failed as an analogy.
I still feel this isn't the best approach to take but at least it doesn't sound terrible anymore.
I still feel this isn't the best approach to take but at least it doesn't sound terrible anymore.
Audioboxer
Member
Yes, Khan has been a net gain for London. Also as I said earlier it is good to see him revise his remarks, and fair enough the topic title was changed in light of this. Still caused a ruckus through his own choice of words in the papers this morning though.
Untrue. We certainly can, but have to do so as an independent nation, hence discussions about the possibility.
'nationalism can be as divisive as bigotry and racism'
This is just wrong. Nationalism can be as divisive but it's not nearly as destructive as bigotry/racism which was the deciding factor in the Brexit vote.
Also, context is important. Scotland want independence so that they can keep their borders open. You can bet they'd be welcoming to progressive Brits as well.
This is just wrong. Nationalism can be as divisive but it's not nearly as destructive as bigotry/racism which was the deciding factor in the Brexit vote.
Also, context is important. Scotland want independence so that they can keep their borders open. You can bet they'd be welcoming to progressive Brits as well.
Audioboxer
Member
Politics are always divisive. If they weren't it would either mean all your parties might as well be one large party, or your country isn't formed by humans, but some cohesive AI/androids.
What you have to try and push for is the majority of voters to aim to back the most progressive and/or citizen beneficial policies/MPs/parties. That in itself is divisive as even like minded people can fall on slightly different sides of individual debates. Around matters of fiscal policy or some business/tax practices, then this is fine. That is merely political opinions at play. Most people don't have as much leeway for when it's about debating bigotry or racism fueled policy.
What you've correctly pointed out though is within context of the SNP nationalism is not linked to bigotry and racism. Neither of those are largely accepted social movements in Scotland, they're detrimental to progress. Independence or nationalism isn't by default a destructive social movement if it is within the context of trying to be a more inclusive and socially progressive nation. Like it or not being part of a union means there are times you have to do what the biggest nation tells you, as something like Brexit cannot be devolved. Or well, it could have been to an extent, if Cameron had put in place some clause like all the nations need to vote leave. However, there wasn't any sort of clause at all so we are where we are.
Benefits and negatives to being in the union we are in, therefore political division. To simply imply or infer the Scottish people are pandering to bigotry or racism is rather short sighted, hence why Khan got blowback and had to revise his statement. The kind of nationalism UKIP peddle is not the same as that of the SNP. To deny this is to be intellectually dishonest. The Guardian article I posted twice in here does a better job of stating that than my dumb ass can.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
I know we've talked about this before. He couldn't really put that clause in there, it's not done in a similar situation anywhere on Earth, including in formally federal countries.
Belgium is a rare pseudo-exception, but Wallonia and Flanders are much closer in population. A better comparison to the equivalent in the UK would be if, for example, Northern Ireland (3% of UK pop.) had that veto power you mention, it'd be more like if the German-speaking Community in Belgium (1% of Belgian pop.) had that same veto Wallonia and Flanders have. In the UK, if such a thing were to happen where each country got an absolute veto, that would mean the 84% of the population in England could always be overridden, and given the uncodified constitution, that'd make things even more difficult. Throw in Wales and you're looking at 89% of the population being vetoed, and a theoretical Northern Irish veto of a constitutional question at referendum could veto 97% of the UK's total population at some point.
The UK is essentially quasi-federal at this point, but it has to be workable, while accommodating each constituent country. The union is of course quite popular in England, so accommodations for all nations have been made, but those accomodations can't extend to making the UK ungovernable, as some (i.e. the SNP) would desire. It still has to function as a sovereign entity. The Brexit vote was stupid and showed embarrassing divisions. I suspect it's the last UK-wide referendum for a very long time no matter what happens.
gutter_trash
Banned
Labour members are just salty that they lost to SNP MP in Scotland
The Mayor's rant is rooted by partisan salt
The Mayor's rant is rooted by partisan salt
Yup British nationalism is generally horrid. And the mainstream U.K. Parties all play up too it, posing in front of nationalistic symbols ; see any Tory party conference, remember the leader of the Labour Party promising jobs for 'British' workers! and playing along with anti immigrant rhetoric.
Audioboxer
Member
I mean I get your point, England probably wouldn't be too chuffed if small nations like Scotland and Ireland could veto their decision. That's kind of precisely the point of the smaller nations reversed, though. The big nation is always going to be largely "in charge". If the smaller nation(s) manage to veto 80% of the union, outrage, but if the bigger nation manages to veto a smaller nation, then it's part of being part of a union because Scotland only has 5.2m people, deal with it. Funnily enough I don't know anyone up here who would want to stop the rUK having its Brexit. It is more about seeing if we can prevent our nation from going through with it. It's a lost cause trying to remain part of the union and stay within the EU. That is something that without a doubt has been shot down. That is something Spain almost certainly would veto, as well as other EU nations, as it is a country within a union acting like it's independent, but not having legal jurisdiction to do so. If the UK votes leave, the UK leaves. Only way you can avoid that is if you aren't part of the UK anymore, and by legal/mutual separation, not by force or simply because you say you are. That is undemocratic, and potentially illegal.
Ultimately if nations within a union are so politically opposed on some major political points, it can just lead to general unrest. It's all fine when majorities of each nation all fall in line with the other nations, and the union moves forward on the path the majorities want. When you have majorities within a nation, regardless of its size, being overruled by one of the larger nations, it begins to increase the sentiment of "political division". As in, you guys don't want what we want within your majority, so this could be a problem for us.
Others have stated Cameron should have had some clause such as we need 60% or something to trigger leaving the EU. However, even there I can accept that would seem unfair for leave voters, as isn't a winning % a winning %? We are where we are, nothing can reverse time, but that is precisely why this nation, meaning Scotland, is in overdrive to weigh up all opportunities to make it so when a vote happens here we really only rely on our nations people's votes. It may well be the case if an indyref2 happens the majority here shut it down again, in which case it probably would kill it until we are in the grave. However, even most of the hardest unionists can somewhat begrudgingly accept it was in the manifesto the people up here voted through with the SNP that if something big happened, it could be revisited. Brexit is big, especially coming after all the pro-EU stances taken by BetterTogether just a few years ago. It's a messy situation which I expect most unionists do not want to be in, but we're in it, and political divisions are what it is largely about. Racism and bigotry? No, not really. Other than many Scots saying they oppose Brexit because so much of it was advertised via xenophobia and fearing the foreigner. We most certainly don't on mass advertise an indyref on racism and bigotry, regardless of articles about students being potty mouths and calling Cameron/other MPs mean names.
That is also why Labour biting off more than they can chew in Scotland continues to further marginalise their party, and at a time where okay, they can say they see the UK being the UK, but they will work with the SNP to challenge the Tories. They aren't doing that though, as always thinking about the union comes at the price of never wanting to be seen as getting into bed with the SNP, on ANY matters. Even Corbyn couldn't rally much anti-nuclear support from within his own party, and Trident was voted through with ease. That's but one vote where Labour could have gained some ground back North of the border.
While I don't particularly like Salmond and think he was at best, marginally a better leader than Corbyn (he did get 45% behind him), ties with Trump? Salmond and Trump hate each other and have been embroiled in drama for years. Hence why a lot of Scotland hates Trump. He's a complete dick about our renewable energy efforts.
I feel like this is an opinion largely fostered by how terrible Salmond was. Sturgeon has largely avoided this shit.
Salmond was the one lying through his teeth and blaming the English for every little thing he could, while chumming up with Trump and Murdoch and the party is a damn site better with him relegated to being largely irrelevant in Westminster.
No one voted for the Royal Union, but the Royal Union wasn't really that big of a deal for the domestic state. Both England, i.e. England and Wales, and Scotland voted for the 1707 Acts of Union in each country via their parliaments.
Far enough, though I still don't know if this is really that important. Scots being on both sides of 1638, 1715, and 1745 is I think a fundamentally different thing than Indian Raj troops in the 20th century.
No disagreements here. I think what he said was stupid. I'm just not super partial to uncritical comparisons between Scotland and the Empire. It can work sometimes but you need to be careful, and Scots are, rather unfortunately, on the whole too eager to do so.
Rather extreme don't you think. This is fairly odd given that your use of liberalism seems to be the American one here. What's your horse in the game here? I'd also like to refer you to this.
I think it's quite relevant to what you are saying here.
Nationalism and racism are too often intertwined to say this. I certainly think Nationalism can be as bad as racism. Especially when you get into Nationalistic-Racial constructs like the Nazis. The question is is Scottish nationalism as bad as racism, and the answer is no.
I would say for most of the recent past British nationalism has been relatively benign. Things are taking a bad turn with nationalism throughout the west, that's not distinctly British. The only reason we had the Brexit is because Britain has always been the least invested in it.
He hates him now. Trump's monstrosity of a golf resort only got allowed because Salmond pulled strings. They were pretty chummy when Salmond was trying to boost our economy as much as possible for an independence bid.
Edit: First link I found on google related to it. It's a nice little summary.
Audioboxer
Member
True but it was well before the indyref campaign in 2014
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7443884.stm
He danced with the devil and felt a burn. He is at least speaking out about Trump now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIJAWhZhaiA
Of course, read YT comments at your peril.
No.... thanks.
I'll happily state Salmond is no leader, and a bit of a buffoon at times (as well as arrogant), but the guy still stands for many socially progressive policies (often anti-war/anti-bombing too). If your argument is we need Trump over Salmond (not you Protome, aiming that comment vaguely at YT), best to go and actually read up on what both actually advocate for and not just knee-jerk your reactions. At a time when May is over sucking up to Trump as well? I mean I am vastly happier Sturgeon is leading now, 10x more than Salmond, but I'll take Salmond over May any day. Let alone fucking Trump.
To be fair this is a more or less a part of Scottish culture.
There's a rather humorous quote that I can't quite think of off the top of my head about the blame placed on the English for the clearances. On the other hand, though I think this declined over the course of the 20th century. The English tended to blame the Scots as a whole if anything went wrong with anything besides military matters involving even a single Scot.- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked