Yeah, Khan just keeps exposing himself as an idiot.We already knew this guy is an idiot.
Yeah, Khan just keeps exposing himself as an idiot.We already knew this guy is an idiot.
It's about time someone in a position of authority called out these bigoted tartan rednecks for what they are.
Be calm and do not insult me please.
I do not think they feel they are a free country since there is a strong movement for them to break this union.
Why they fought all those wars of independence then? And whom they fought, the Welsh?
How can this be any different from any other country Great Britain had occupied?
I know they do not feel enslaved or anything and they enjoy equal rights as citizens of Great Britain but still they have had a referendum vote for them to claim their independence. I believe they voted for no partly because they were assured by the british government that Great Britain will not exit EU.
And after the Brexit vote there seems to be is a tendency towards asking the question again.
So, how can an independence movement, all reasons aside, can be viewed equally or even be compared with groups of people that foster racist ideology? Is there any logic on this?
We already knew this guy is an idiot.
Mr Khan said: "As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end."
I think a lot of people are really missing the point and getting bogged down on semantics.
Racism might be the wrong word to use. But obviously for a very long time the SNP is warped into a very nationalistic thing that is inflammatory and anti English, that is kinda the definition of discrimination.
So yes, the SNP is a party of discrimination against mostly English people. Yes, they welcome other immigrants far more readily than the English, but that doesn't mean the anti English, only pro Scotland attitude, isn't discrimination. You can be open in one way, and be close minded in another way.
The SNP put the Tories in a majority position. Even if a sliver of them had voted Labour we wouldn't be in this mess. A ton of money is given to Scotland to continue running as it is, and all the benefits of the banking system. So many concessions its an enviable place to be. I've said it before, Scotlands nationalism is going to screw them over, just like English nationalism did the UK.
If they leave they will take their place along Portugal, and Greece, only with really shitty weather, and no access to the country next door or London where most of the high paying jobs and culture come out. Good luck with that. On balance Scotland absolutely screwed themselves over by voting SNP in, instead of Labour. It will be the end of their prosperity.
We already knew this guy is an idiot.
Not sure I follow. I don't understand what's idiotic about the position he takes on responsible advertising, with regards to the unhealthy promotion of certain body images aimed at women.
I am often accused
in a very strange way - which I really cannot understand -
of being a Slovene anti-Serb nationalist. When I converse
with members of the so-called Serb democratic opposition,
they say they are in favour of a cosmopolitan democratic
Serbia whose defining quality is citizenship and not national
belonging. OK, I accept this. But this is where the problems
begin, because if you speak with them a little bit longer, you
discover a certain political vision that tries to disguise cul-
tural particularity as democratic universalism. For example,
if you ask them about Slovene autonomy, they will argue that
Slovenia is a small self-enclosed nation and that they, by con-
trast, are in favour of an anti-nationalist democratic society
which is not self-enclosed. But in reality what they are prac-
tising is a kind of two-level nationalism in which they go on
to affirm that the Serbs are the only nation in Yugoslavia that
is so structured that it can sustain this open principle of
modern democratic citizenship.
So we have this double logic. On the one hand they
criticize the Milosevic regime from a democratic standpoint
- claiming that the Serbs are fundamentally democratic and
that Milosevic perverted them - but, on the other, they deny
this democratic potential to other ethnic groups in ex-
Yugoslavia (you Slovenes want to be a state but in reality you
are a primitive Alpine tribe).
And this is often how racism functions today - at this
disguised reflexive level. So we should be very careful when
people emphasize their democratic credentials: do these
same people also allow the Other to have the same creden-
tials?
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.
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?
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.
Isn't a big reason for scotish independence right now that they want to stay in theu EU? Making any comparison to racism there is insane.
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.
The constituency area is that of the Outer Hebrides, known also as Na h-Eileanan Siar, and the constituency has the smallest electorate in the United Kingdom, one-fifth of the size of the largest, the Isle of Wight, with the latter also being an island constituency. However, the Isle of Wight is a substantially smaller parliamentary constituency in geographical terms. It has been suggested that Na h-Eileanan an Iar could be combined with the Orkney and Shetland constituency: the resulting combined electorate would still be well below the average constituency quota. Meanwhile, the Scottish Boundary commission in 1980 originally proposed that the seat should be extended to include the Skye and Lochalsh areas, however this was overturned at a public enquiry. Generally, overriding considerations of sheer geographical size, a disparate population and of convenience for the MPs concerned as well as tradition and identity have tended to override the arguments about numerical imbalance. Furthermore, a change in the Boundary Commission's rules in 2000 added rule 3a which forbids Orkney or Shetland being combined with another council area. In 2011, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was introduced, which protected both Na h-Eileanan an Iar and Orkney and Shetland from being added to any other constituency.
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.
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?
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.
I think everyone gets the roots of Scottish Nationalism, and the anti discrimination and pro immigration identities of it are what makes it into conflict with the Tories.
Ummmmm, I think saying there are different types of nationalism is pedantic. Yeah, there is patriotism and nationalism. Sorry, but just sounds like a lot of justification for discrimination from the good guys. I don't see how anyone can see the rhetoric coming out of SNP and not think they are discriminatory against the English.
I do find their obsession with themselves, at the cost of the rest the UK, to be distasteful. Much of SNP is rooted in hatred of English. Yes, they are almost polar opposite in how progressive SNP is to the Tories, but a party rooted in hating another group of people, is unfortunately, discriminatory, even if they are amazing and progressive in many other ways.
The SNP are great, but it does need to be said, not every single thing about them is great, and SNP has long ago become very anti English part, not just Tory, among the core, definitely. That's a very very large part of its identity. Sorry, that is discrimination, no matter how you want to spin it.
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.
His message is to maintain and protect a strong, prosperous United Kingdom.
This may be the biggest load of shite I've ever seen posted on GAF.
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.
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.
Noone voted for this union, or am i mistaken?Yes, I'm not sure what you're getting at here though.
Fair point.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 believe than Indians were rioting in the 20th century and were facing their compatriots.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Oh come on, his statement is rather vague, but it is implied there. So, no, that doesn't contradict the implication. In fact, his statement is so simplistic as to be rather insulting. I suppose it is the usual rather meaningless politico-speak.
Also, I no longer live in London and haven't really been keeping abrest...What has Khan done to make you say the latter? That he is a 'one of the best mayors'?
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.
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.
They can't stay in the EU anyway, so the whole debate is moot.
'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.
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.
I know we've talked about this before. He couldn't really put that clause in there, it's not done anywhere on Earth, including in formally federal countries.
Belgium is a rare 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 create something of a precedent for the courts. Throw in Wales and you're looking at practically 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 semi-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.
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.
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.
Noone voted for this union, or am i mistaken?
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.
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.
I think it's quite relevant to what you are saying here.I am often accused
in a very strange way - which I really cannot understand -
of being a Slovene anti-Serb nationalist. When I converse
with members of the so-called Serb democratic opposition,
they say they are in favour of a cosmopolitan democratic
Serbia whose defining quality is citizenship and not national
belonging. OK, I accept this. But this is where the problems
begin, because if you speak with them a little bit longer, you
discover a certain political vision that tries to disguise cul-
tural particularity as democratic universalism. For example,
if you ask them about Slovene autonomy, they will argue that
Slovenia is a small self-enclosed nation and that they, by con-
trast, are in favour of an anti-nationalist democratic society
which is not self-enclosed. But in reality what they are prac-
tising is a kind of two-level nationalism in which they go on
to affirm that the Serbs are the only nation in Yugoslavia that
is so structured that it can sustain this open principle of
modern democratic citizenship.
So we have this double logic. On the one hand they
criticize the Milosevic regime from a democratic standpoint
- claiming that the Serbs are fundamentally democratic and
that Milosevic perverted them - but, on the other, they deny
this democratic potential to other ethnic groups in ex-
Yugoslavia (you Slovenes want to be a state but in reality you
are a primitive Alpine tribe).
And this is often how racism functions today - at this
disguised reflexive level. So we should be very careful when
people emphasize their democratic credentials: do these
same people also allow the Other to have the same creden-
tials?
'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.
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.
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.
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.
Im so fed up of left wing politicians. We need people like Trump in the UK. You take a look at Alex Salmond, he's a disgusting person both inside and out, fat slob.
Salmond was the one.... blaming the English for every little thing he could,