Well I dunno about everyone else, but there has been a many a facebook update from BUC”F” members on the subject of the SNP’s attempts at Scottish independance being along the lines of “Remember Salmond, we are stronger together than apart”..now for the majority of BUC”F” members, they are in fact Eurosceptic…do you think that is a little bit of a contradiction…again? Pro-unity at home but self-interest abroad
To plagiarise a quote from somewhere (I forget); “We are all nationalists, it’s just a matter of scale”
What was all that jargon you gave me about ‘petty politics’ and point scoring? Seems a bit hollow now does it not? And FYI to compare the ‘Scottish situation’ and our commitment to preserving a centuries old union in the interest of all our people, to our desire to limit the excessive and undemocratic power grabbing of the European Union is just intellectually bankrupt.
The BUCF position is entirely consistent; we are standing up for and attempting to preserve the identity and unity of our island nation(s) whilst resisting undemocratic and unwanted influence from the continent. Both are in the national interest, which after all is what we are here to represent, something the Labour party is failing on and will be punished for spectacularly.
The only thing contradictory here is you getting on your soapbox to me for drawing relevant parallels between blog stats, and your unprovoked and might I add factually inaccurate attack on and publication of ‘private’ facebook dialogue between BUCF members. Petty politics indeed.
Touchy, sorry if it was little joke. And centuries of Union, you do realise though Scotland is only apart of the Union because we bribed and subjegated them into it. And the reason why the EU may seem undemocratic is because people like yourself refuse any further means to democracise it through further reform and integration.
How the union came about is irrelevant, the point is we have a shared history, a shared identity, shared attitudes, shared cultures and a shared sovereign and it is in neither’s interest to break that up. Also aside from the more ‘romanticised’ view of the Union didn’t I see on the news the other night that Scotlands economy would be ranked worse than Romania’s were they to go independent? So from a purely practicaly and clinical point of view there would be little if any economic gain from independence, in fact it would be hugely damaging.
As for the EU I want it to remain true to itself as do most Conservatives and the notion the Conservatives have a natural hatred toward Europe is sensationalist(lest we forget it was the Conservatives who took us IN and successive Conservative governments – including Thatcher – who signed treaty’s that encouraged a stronger union with Europe!).
We have never been opposed to strong working relations with Europe, nor have we been opposed to closer defence pacts or free trade agreements with the Europeans. But the fact is it is morphing in to something altogether different and ‘integration’ is just a polite guise for subjugation. So yes you’re right we do disagree with it and we will stand up against it while it continues along its current path which is entirely at odds with a vast majority of the population of Europe… no matter how many times they force an election until they get their desired result.
(And btw I wasn’t being touchy I was merely stating a fact. Again.
)
Ah, so by fact you mean dogma, lol. Now I’m not saying Scotland should be independant, certainly not now but a “shared history” and a “shared soverign”. Well ok we only have a shared soverign by sheer chance and history, you really think thats relevant, yes we should learn from it, but it doesn’t mean we cant take a different course from tradition.
Mentioning history and if you learn from it you would realise that states have becoming bigger and more centralised (to an extent on the latter). Up until the early modern period europe’s kingdoms had little power over the autonomous towns and cities who also said “Why should we….?” (a recuring and tiresome theme among many a conservative worldwide) when state control became more direct and broght universal progress. Similarly, in the US it is the self-interest of the states that have held back the US on many an occasion. The EU is merely the next stage in this and do you really think humanity can carry on as 300 odd squabling nations?
If the Scots split off from the UK after a Tory government is elected I’m emmigrating
As a member of BUCF I only have one small point to make, Max. I think you’ll find that you spent independEnce incorrectly in your post. What a BULShitter.
Wow, now I’ve looked throug many a old blog comment and probably the BUC”F”‘s favourite thing to do (except to make references to Thatcher) is pick up on spelling and grammar. And yeh, I’m guessing you did it on purpose but in case it wasn’t “spent independEnce”…and “BULShitter”, little harsh don’t you think? All at tops we do is BUC-”F”.
I do fancy a rant every now and then and I think that spelling and grammar is important! There’s no excuse for small inaccuracies like that in my opinion. My opinions regarding the English language also have nothing to do with my political opinions so I don’t know why you imply that they are intimately linked.
Apologies for the bullshitter comment though – that was petty, I agree.
The idea of nationhood is a social construction. Those things which identify us as such are not at all naturally occurring; we have no common identity, ideas, reason, culture or language other than what has been built in the pursuit of imagined unity.* England and the United Kingdom are manufactured products, assembled for the benefit of those who first desired power over them. If it weren’t for the intervention of what we’d now term dictators we wouldn’t share imagined ideas, identity or culture at all. And if initial intervention was acceptable, as would as it would seem to be to you (you term it “tradition”), then subsequent removal of the unification is no less (or possibly more) acceptable. You talk of “subjugation”, but that’s exactly how our country was created. Now you know. But I digress somewhat; in any case, imagined unity is as much use as actual unity.
By being members of the EU we have prescribed to certain principles, which the conservative government you mentioned decided to accept when they joined the union and which our continued membership, which the current Conservative Party advocates, vindicates. We democratically elected officials who took votes and the majority won. If the “vast majority” of the population of Europe didn’t want these things to be done they should/would have voted for representatives who vote “no” on these issues. They did not, so votes of “yes” were passed. That is generally how democracy works – rule by majority and you can’t, at least not in any tenable position, say, just because your particular group doesn’t like what’s been done, that the whole system has to be changed to conform to what you would prefer happened instead (“reform” as the spin goes). In fact, the Conservative position could be said to be more undemocratic than the measures by which the EU draws it’s so called “undemocratic power” as it attempts to usurp what EU democracy has already established.
And unity with Scotland would actually bring advantages to the other parts of the UK as a lot more tax is put into Scotland than is paid by it’s population. So from a purely clinical/cynical point of view money would be saved and they’d be a different country so anything else wouldn’t really be our problem. (Note: clinical/cynical view point not my own).
Oh yes and you got it wrong, the author didn’t actually draw a parallel between “the ‘Scottish situation’ and our (your) commitment to preserving a centuries old union …(etc, etc)” he invited the audience to speculate whether there was such a parallel. A difference. So you were perhaps being overly sensitive (touchy) after all.
* (We also don’t belong to single genetic “race” except in our minds as such, each person, in the beginning being a mixture of many other people born across the world in varying proportions, the first lot mixing with the mixed [awful turn of phase, I apologise]. But that’s an entirely different issue altogether which is why all of this is in brackets).
Well said Oli, summed it up far more academically than I ever could…..lol
hladavies – I’m sorry if memebers of BULS are not up to the current spelling and gramattiCAl standards of buCf. A full written apology will soon be presenteD to yourse-lf to shove up wherever you find appropriATE.
‘publication of ‘private’ facebook dialogue between BUCF members’
Sorry no such thing mate, if it’s on facebook it’s out there in the public realm – as Peter White found out recently (if you read your own blog, I believe this has been written about extensively, therefore proving what you just said is utter piffle).
Chris, calm down. I was merely trying to make light of this discussion. And yes, I do accept your apology even if you can’t spell “members” correctly.
irony.
can’t take a joke.