-
You're the one taking the wilfully reductive approach of making the whole argument about the English, contextualising international outlook solely on a 'fuck our neighbours' premise, and ridiculing Ali saying we'd seek closer relations with out northern neighbours when it makes perfect sense and dismissing it as 'parochial' as if being closer to Scandinavia somehow means we'll not be able to pursue relations with other countries, join the EU, etc
Everything you've said has been either disingenuous or inept backpedalling to try and get around your own initial stance, first by changing it to 'some Scots' then making the blanket statement that iScotland's policies are not going to be better because 'Brown and Blair were Scottish' so... ?
Finally, it's now not about you saying that we're telling the rUK to fuck off, but you were questioning Ali's 'debating skill.' It really doesn't come across like that, and again, I fail to see the ad hominem attacks or straw men arguments when, silly me, I've actually addressed what you have written.
-
Ali appears to be asserting that Scottish foreign policy would be different seemingly solely and simply because it is Scottish.
(or made for by a Scottish parliament, in consultation with the Scottish people rather than by London-based politicians for the UK as a whole?)He certainly made no other attempt at explaining his theory (this is your theory now, because you're putting your own spin on it) .
Presumably because it is made by Scotsmen and that will somehow be different (your presumption, again, reducing it to an issue of nationality, rather than political structure and determination, which is decisions taken by an independent entity, that better suit its own interests as opposed to its larger neighbour) .
Again, no idea how he comes to that conclusion (he didn't, you did).
Are you with me so far? I may be mistaken, but as he's offered no other explanation, run with me. (do I need to spell out to you again, you are making it exclusively about 'just because it's Scottish it's going to be different' when it's really about 'it's a decision taken for Scotland's interests, not the UK's, and whether the end result is different or not, it will be our choice for better or worse)
Now he offers one shred of justification for this extraordinary claim. That the alternative to this world-view is that offered by New Labour. That of bombing the middle east on trumped up 'evidence'. (Apparently Ali feels that there's no middle ground, just those two approaches to international politics. (He says nothing of the sort)) So far I'm merely paraphrasing Ali. (no, you're bastardising his words to try and compensate for a total lack of integrity to your argument. )
Now we get to my bit. I think he meant to say (he didn't though, again, reflecting your determination to make it an issue of nationality) 'this Scottish policy good - this English policy bad (do you mean UK?) ' but then he credited New Labour with the bad, 'English' (UK?) policy, and New Labour - indeed the Labour Party as a whole - are not English (finally, the penny drops for you) .
If he wishes to demonstrate that this is good policy because it is Scottish, then Ali could scarcely have picked a worse example of a bad foreign policy than one he himself blames New Labour (i.e Blair and Brown) for; following his logic to its ultimate conclusion is bad because it is Scottish. (Again, you try to make the content of the argument that 'Scots are better')
I am not saying 'Nice to scandinavia bad, Bombing Iraq good' (no, you're saying pursuing relations with Scandinavia is parochial after saying that Scotland would foster these relations over any with the UK) no matter how much you want to believe that.Neither am I saying that independence will be no different (although lets be honest, there is scant reason to believe it will be (you spend all that effort trying to portray yourself as unbiased or objective and then go and write that. tsk). But there is hope, and maybe hope will be enough.)
All I am saying is that in one way his evidence cancels out the very argument it was invoked to support and thus it was bad evidence. We end up back where we all started. Ummmm... your argument is very circular, yes.
Now I may be entirely wrong about everything I interpreted from his article... (everything you interpreted in this article is made from the same short sighted vantage that this is about Scotland vs England, instead of Scots having fully devolved powers from the UK and Westminster over their own affairs. It's risible that you devote so much energy to trying to talk your way around it then conclude with this "Neither am I saying that independence will be no different (although lets be honest, there is scant reason to believe it will be.")
-
I
did
not
say
anything
of
the
sort.I can't work out the acrostic in that one. Is it something in Scots? :)
You are reading a single comment by @bq and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
deleted
Oliver Schick
@bq
@uber_gruber what you are responding to is your own interpretation of what I wrote.
is given the lie by this
Sorry, but nothing I wrote says that or was written in that vein. You're not "just quoting my own words". You're adding to them, and replacing them completely when it suits you, for whatever reason. Perhaps your own personal bias and knee-jerk emotional responses?
Yes of course it is common sense.
It is also parochial. Why? Precisely because they are geographically close, and of a similar size.
It is especially parochial when (and I'm possibly misinterpreting Tariq Ali's implication here) it is done instead of establishing or retaining good relationships with a more general spread of other countries. The EU is parochial. Nato is. The Commonwealth is.
OK, I'm only going to try this once more, and then I am going to give up and leave you to your ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments.
I
did
not
say
anything
of
the
sort.
I said that:
Ali appears to be asserting that Scottish foreign policy would be different seemingly solely and simply because it is Scottish. He certainly made no other attempt at explaining his theory. Presumably because it is made by Scotsmen and that will somehow be different. Again, no idea how he comes to that conclusion. Are you with me so far? I may be mistaken, but as he's offered no other explanation, run with me.
Now he offers one shred of justification for this extraordinary claim. That the alternative to this world-view is that offered by New Labour. That of bombing the middle east on trumped up 'evidence'. (Apparently Ali feels that there's no middle ground, just those two approaches to international politics.) So far I'm merely paraphrasing Ali.
Now we get to my bit. I think he meant to say 'this Scottish policy good - this English policy bad' but then he credited New Labour with the bad, 'English' policy, and New Labour - indeed the Labour Party as a whole - are not English. If he wishes to demonstrate that this is good policy because it is Scottish, then Ali could scarcely have picked a worse example of a bad foreign policy than one he himself blames New Labour (i.e Blair and Brown) for; following his logic to its ultimate conclusion is bad because it is Scottish.
I am not saying 'Nice to scandinavia bad, Bombing Iraq good' no matter how much you want to believe that. Neither am I saying that independence will be no different (although lets be honest, there is scant reason to believe it will be. But there is hope, and maybe hope will be enough.)
All I am saying is that in one way his evidence cancels out the very argument it was invoked to support and thus it was bad evidence. We end up back where we all started.
Now I may be entirely wrong about everything I interpreted from his article, and maybe it was hacked to bits by a sub-editor, but that is what I was commenting on - his poor debating skill - and not the actual substance of his initial claim.