GG's stance on Scottish Independence

[faceless]

George Galloway's talking shite about Scotland

I was really annoyed at last Friday's talkSPORT show. The hackneyed language and offensive comparisons that came out of GG's mouth regarding those who want Scottish independence were sickening.

He said that those who want it are of the 'white heather club' (click HERE for video of the show he refers to). That show stopped being broadcast in 1968, and yet GG's still using it as a reference? That says much more about his lack of awareness of the modern independence movement than it does of his intended wit. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a céilidh, they're a great night out, but to suggest that all people in Scotland who want independence are mock-tartan-tat-clad shortbread-munching idiots who don't have a clue about politics? Baws.

His words were a direct insult to the people who supported the now defunct SSP, including Tommy Sheridan, who fought an election on the basis of wanting to create a Scottish Socialist Republic (they won 6 seats on that basis). That party might not exist any more, but Tommy Sheridan's party 'Solidarity' is still going and it still supports Scottish Independence, so that must mean that GG thinks Sheridan is part of the 'white heather club'. A more laughable idea would be hard to imagine.

He also said that Scotland has basically no distinguishable culture of its own. That we all watch the same tv, read the same books and listen to the same music, meaning we're all the same. No culture of our own? As one of the callers said (thanks to him), that culture (along with the Irish) was crushed by the British state. The language was almost killed off, the clothes made illegal, the people murdered. The Scottish culture now has grown out of those almost dead embers and is very much Scottish rather than British. The fact is that it's George Galloway who doesn't understand the culture and his opinions on it are just ignorant.

As far as I can see GG's agument is based on the idea of Britain having power. But I say bollocks to that. Forward the devolution, forward the evolution. Viva Escocia.

[saf]

I agree inasmuch as I was surprised, disappointed and eventually repelled by the apparent venom. This I think, was spotted by himself (or perhaps by the screeching ear-piece) during the show and he ameliorated his tone somewhat as it progressed. I suspect the birthing of this issue confirms his abandonment of Scotland for some other agenda as a globalist. He has always walked a path that is bounded by rails that he will not deviate from with an Orwellianly rigid comportment. This is his view, and we should celebrate his honesty of thought and word as it is the only way we can agree or disagree in reality.

[faceless]

I don't think it's about a globalist agenda - more likely the old-fashioned idea of 'Great Britain'.

He repeated a lot of what he said in his Daily Record column on Monday. The snide comments about Alex Salmond's physique near the beginning are just adding fuel to the fire. But GG has a reputation of attacking the physical attributes of his opponents - such as calling Hazel Blears "a poison dwarf" and other childish slurs based around her height.

[saf]

I never mentioned any 'globalist agenda', which my post clearly does not mention. He is ibid. a self avowed globalist cf. democracy. I am not sure what you are thinking with regard to a 'globalist agenda' but it sounds like some fishy theory to me, up with which I cannot put.

[faceless]

[major.tom]

saf, your most recent post is confusing since you did mention "agenda as a globalist." I'm not exactly certain what you are attempting to refute.

Back to GG, I recall him mention several times that the world needs fewer countries, not more. He seems to be preaching an ideal in which we all consider ourselves citizens of the world rather than this or that group based on lines drawn on some map.

As an ideal, I can understand this. In the real world, however, I would never argue against any group of people choosing their own course of action so long as it doesn't intentionally or predictably cause real harm to others. If people in Scotland feel that their interests are not served by those in London, who am I (or GG, for that matter; does he even live in Scotland?) to say otherwise?

It's laudable to work toward one's ideals, but one must also deal with the world as it is as much as how one would have it be.

[sparky]

I think George Galloway's position is quite clear. Class trumps nationalism, if you area socialist.

[faceless]

I'm all for the removal of physical borders and the internationalisation of the world, but cultural borders should always be encouraged purely for their own intrinsic value.

I support Scotland being independent within the EU, just like the many other small countries which are sovereign nations. The concept of Great Brtain was, after all, nothing more than as an economic community. It's just well passed its sell-by date now.

[faceless]

[major.tom]

[faceless]

Well said, but I should probably have added that it was an economic community for the wealthy - and most Scots who were wealthy were the "Southern Uplanders" who owned, or worked, the best farming land.

Britain was always something entirely alien to the people of the Highlands (north of Stirling and west of Aberdeen). My family history is from those Southern clans which took part in the destruction, and that's to my shame rather than pride.

[major.tom]

We don't pick our ancestors, so I wouldn't be too hard on yourself faceless. We're only morally responsible for what we do. (You don't live in a castle, by any chance?)

It seems like the history of imperialism is one of Divide & Conquer. Just as in Scotland, India, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, etc., the imperial powers are masters of selecting those small groups who will do their bidding in exchange for titles and personal enrichment at the expense of their countrymen. (I think GG touched on this subject during last week's WBAI episode.)

But that just the opinion of an amateur student of history. I'm eager to learn otherwise from those more directly impacted.

[saf]

I thought I was quite clear; he wants democracy for everyone and everywhere. Thus he is a globalist for democracy. A 'Globalist Agenda' has a very different and meaningless conspiratorial odour. The distinction between what is actually written and the childish technique of similar words formed into a conclusion by some accretionary shortcut is enough for some. One statement makes the 'agenda' democracy (which I wrote and had regurgitated to me), the other makes the agenda 'globalism' which is absolutely not the same thing. The distinction is that Galloway was for democracy in Scotland through a vote that may be complicated and require thought - indeed he argued with and probed the Tory regarding this. In his later Daily Record emission he makes the following statement in leiu of his previous paucity:

[faceless]

If you don't want things 'regurgitated' at you, then you should be more careful about the words you use in the first place.

But anyway, regarding George Galloway - I'm pissed off about his arseholish comments on this matter, but on just about everything else he is on the side of decency and it's rare that anyone talking sense is cut-off. Although it does happen sometimes.

*saf replied, but, as expected, it was a sarcastic and defensive comment fuelled by his dischordant ego. So, he's gone.

[major.tom]