| …… where its ultimate objective is separation, is much the same as an external aggressor that would invade a country, the only exception is where not even 1 citizen objects to the nationalist objective, only then is it legitimate. Welsh nationalism is little different to any aggressor of the past. In Wales today, the major political players need to divorce themselves from Plaid Cymru, lest they become tainted as political aggressors. … … |
I Agree With Roy Hattersley!
2 hours ago
7 Comments:
How do you 'separate' on an island?
"Political Aggressors', hilarious.
Are you intentional comparing Plaid, SNP, Scottish Socialist Party and the Greens to Hitler?
In your mind, are the Federal Lib Dems a political Genghis Khan?
PS, I've invited you to contribute to scotsvoices.eu, I'd appreciate if you could respond.
Your free to set out your case for greater unity in the Uk but please avoid this silly kind of rhetoric.
"the only exception is where not even 1 citizen objects to the nationalist objective"
Isn't that fascism?
And to think that unionists can't even bring themselves to support a democratic referendum on the issue despite over 30% of the pubic voting for pro-independence parties in Wales & Scotland....
Do you need a mirror?
No Wardog, not fascism.
I think that where an issue of monumental affect is offered to the electorate, if it doesn't carry them all it is defective, in this case, constitutional legislation.
Consider your "aged aunt", the 1, who's feet are firmly in the 1940's, feels that great affinity for the head of state, who are we to destroy her life before her life's end.
Where the 1 is 15%, would we be creating a civil war for want of a better solution, extreme but a valid point for consideration.
Currently I have heard nothing that truly convinces me, that Independence brings added value to the party. Devolution has possibilities.
Can you show me where the people of England, Wales, Scotland & Northern ireland 'signed' up to the unionn, I seemed to have mislaid the link to the 1707 referendum.
Try imagining beynd devolution to full autonomy for each of the 'home nations', we'll always be British as we're all on this island and have been for millennia.
The question is a bout democracy and change.
The queen is well aware of it, the SNP in Scotland are well aware of that affinity that you mention and have set aside the question over the monarchy for a separate discussion.
This is about political power, resources, policies and their application to different nations/regions.
Devolution recognises the difference which makes it startling that Cameron now seems to be railing against 'difference'. I can't see that going down to well with welsh and gaelic speakers, even though his statements are directed at immigrants.
Wouldn't a renewed Scotland, England & Wales / NI sharing a renewed form of union not be a restatement of what the ideal of 'Britain' should be?
Not a centralised beaurocratic nightmare that is unwieldily and uncompromising towards it's constituent parts.
I would have thought that true liberalists would seek a federated solution, this maximising indvidiaul nations and people's responsibility and self determination.
The Tories seem all over the place, on the one hand they are comdeming the European UNION and on the other they are saying that nothing can change with the UK UNION.
Britishness isn't tied to unionism as many believe, there is a third way on this. A new 'britishness' and a renewed 'Britain' that is an equal partnership by devolving fully control over resources and policy, whilst having concordats of agreement between the nations to act in each others best interest.
SM - so if 3 million vote for independence but 1 person says no - that is democratic? I suggest you read the UN Charther on Human Rights.............
Post a Comment