Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
A complicated issue, but it was the best deal that could be got at the time.
Yet another Political poll (For Brits!)
- Thread starter Sixchan
- Start date
Crazy Eddie
Genial drunkard
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2001
- Messages
- 880
Hamlet, I'm begining to feel we're not even discussing the same thing here. You seem to feel that I'm trying to show the SNP as somehow equal to the BNP, which I don't believe and wouldn't try to prove even if I did.
Now if I had any skill at debating, I would have made myself a lot clearer in the first place and not (apparently) raised your blood pressure in the process, and led you to the use of straw-man arguments.
"Meanwhile, you have offered me 0 evidence to support your claim that The SNP are in the same league as the BNP."
Well of course I hadn't, that wasn't my claim in the first place.
"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Crazy Eddie
If a party is percieved to be an extremist one, then more moderate members of the general public are dissuaded from joining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, yes, but what has this got to do with us?"
In fact this is a key point: without widespread support, the more determined political groups will tend towards force to attain their goals - and there are few political parties more determined than ones whose aims are to fight for the rights of their country. The other side of the coin is that if a party has, or gains, more widespread support and becomes a part of the established political scene there will be a greater need for respectability. Old policies that may have been important to the founders will be quietly dropped as being inconvinient to the current leadership's aims. (this dosn't apply to revolutionary parties of course, they want to create their own "establishment")
So what is the point of my bizzare and ethereal point I hear you ask? That two parties that appear very, very different can still, by having similar axioms at their heart - the interests of their own country, culture, whatever - have much in common and are shaped by the same forces. The SNP could look at the BNP and a host of other political groups and say "There but for the grace of god, there go I..."
Now if I had any skill at debating, I would have made myself a lot clearer in the first place and not (apparently) raised your blood pressure in the process, and led you to the use of straw-man arguments.
"Meanwhile, you have offered me 0 evidence to support your claim that The SNP are in the same league as the BNP."
Well of course I hadn't, that wasn't my claim in the first place.
"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Crazy Eddie
If a party is percieved to be an extremist one, then more moderate members of the general public are dissuaded from joining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, yes, but what has this got to do with us?"
In fact this is a key point: without widespread support, the more determined political groups will tend towards force to attain their goals - and there are few political parties more determined than ones whose aims are to fight for the rights of their country. The other side of the coin is that if a party has, or gains, more widespread support and becomes a part of the established political scene there will be a greater need for respectability. Old policies that may have been important to the founders will be quietly dropped as being inconvinient to the current leadership's aims. (this dosn't apply to revolutionary parties of course, they want to create their own "establishment")
So what is the point of my bizzare and ethereal point I hear you ask? That two parties that appear very, very different can still, by having similar axioms at their heart - the interests of their own country, culture, whatever - have much in common and are shaped by the same forces. The SNP could look at the BNP and a host of other political groups and say "There but for the grace of god, there go I..."
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Well your original point was that (as I took it) there was only one type of nationalism, as you have stated at various points, and that somehow Scottish nationalism was excused from being placed on the same level as the BNP by virtue of simple political correctness, and that they were essentially still one and the same. You did, I feel, seem to express this somewhat explicitly at various points.
Hence, are you now saying there is more than one type or degree of nationalism, in contradiction to your earlier postings?
Well, this is rather rudimentary stuff. All political parties will claim this, and are shaped by similar forces within themselves and the country, and indeed, political parties more than anything else evolve over time.
Pardon me if I very cynically say you have climbed down from the mount of your original position somewhat.
Crazy Eddie
Genial drunkard
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2001
- Messages
- 880
Well, to clear up any confusion you still have I'll re-re-state my point. There is only one sort of nationalism. How could there be two quite seperate meanings to that word? BUT: that dosn't mean I think that there is only one degree of nationalism. Thinking in those kind of black/white terms is of course pointless.
And yes, while most parties would, or would claim to have the interests of their fellow countrymen at heart (I'd just call this patriotism) a nationalistic party is based on this precept. It's at the very core of their ideals. It's not just another part of their beliefs, it's their main reason for existing. I of course apologise to you for having to resort to such rudimentary stuff in order that you understand me.
Be cynical if you must. <shrug> I merely felt that the discussion was moving further and further from my original point and becoming quite profitless for both of us. (and, I expect, for everyone else) Far better to step back, and try again, than to continue going round and round in circles without ever understanding the other side of the argument.
And yes, while most parties would, or would claim to have the interests of their fellow countrymen at heart (I'd just call this patriotism) a nationalistic party is based on this precept. It's at the very core of their ideals. It's not just another part of their beliefs, it's their main reason for existing. I of course apologise to you for having to resort to such rudimentary stuff in order that you understand me.
Be cynical if you must. <shrug> I merely felt that the discussion was moving further and further from my original point and becoming quite profitless for both of us. (and, I expect, for everyone else) Far better to step back, and try again, than to continue going round and round in circles without ever understanding the other side of the argument.
