D'Artagnan 173 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I think it is for everyone who so wishes to engage in whatever "fight" against perceived "social injustice" and not for one particular sub-section of society. I think you are mistaken if you think everyone who voted No is what I presume to be your definition of a Unionist (feel free to clarify). I think a majority of No votes will have been made for personal reasons involving finances and a fear of the unknown. To be clear, IMO the Yes campaign was too full of bluster and waving of the Saltire but your rhetoric isn't disimilar but waving a different flag. Whilst there will be a period of metaphorical conflict, what this country needs is less division and more attention focused towards real problems, that goes for both sides. ps. I must note that 'division' seems to be a speciality of a certain group you belong to. It's not particularly dificult to work out , pro-Union political parties need to be seen at the very core of tackling the issues which we as a country find unedifying and unacceptable - poverty, in particular child poverty, and the manifestations of that such as foodbanks. In my opinion that kind of social justice presents a far better argument for the continuation of the Union than flag waving. I think its highlighting during the course of this campaign is something all of Scotland, both Yes and No voters, should be considerably proud of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Apparently there were only 6 arrests on Saturday night and no ambulances required or anything like that. Ffs the way it's being portrayed you thought people had been murdered. Someone swore at someone and bottles were thrown from both sides from what i can make out online. However I utterly condemn the threats , shouting, swearing and bad behaviour of any form. That would have been considered a quiet night in Easterhouse back in the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I wasn't there so can only go on what I've read and heard. I've seen one video which shows a lad lash out at a couple of different people. And I saw another video of a couple of angry and aggressive pro-union types shout and bawl at someone just off george square. It does seem to have been a rather unsavoury affair, one which I'm sure we can all condemn. But lets not pretend that this represents the average No voter, any more than the idiots burning the union jack the previous night in george square represent the average yes supporter. Police investigations are continuing, so we may yet hear of more arrests. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 OP - I know lots of Rangers fans who voted yes, including season ticket holders, supporters of the Royal family...including people from all walks of life and backgrounds. Even including some folk who a year ago would never have dreamt of voting against the Union. Obviously I know lots of Bears who voted, "No" too - and again for a wide range of reasons including some who a year ago would have voted "yes". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 (edited) As the author of the statement quoted in that article' date=' perhaps it's pertinent I post what I actually wrote, from the orginal article, and which the Herald chose to be particularly selective with. [i'] The silent majority have spoken. But we must continue to speak, and speak with a sense of passion and renewed confidence in what we truly believe in and seek to uphold. Let it now be the Unionist voice which protects our NHS, fights with unrelenting determination to establish social justice, as well as eradicate poverty and its manifestations from the shores of our United Kingdom. Our voice is on the rise, we must by actions, not words or political sound bites, ensure our Union is defended, by attacking the root causes of social injustice and poverty within our society. Britain expects – let's be the generation who insist without compromise, that our politicians deliver. [/i] The article is still available on my blog. That is a terrible and deliberate misrepresentation of your blog, Zappa (EDIT - my mistake, D'Art's blog, D'oh ) but can you clarify if this bit is true: "On Thursday, the day of the referendum, the Bears group posted an image of Britannia alongside images of Alex Salmond's head on a spike and the severed head of Nicola Sturgeon. " If it is, then 1) that's indefensible and 2) you should take your fine writing elsewhere, imho Edited September 22, 2014 by SteveC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 That is a terrible and deliberate misrepresentation of your blog, Zappa but can you clarify if this bit is ture: It was D'Artagnan's blog article Steve, nothing to do with me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 It's not particularly dificult to work out ' date=' pro-Union political parties need to be seen at the very core of tackling the issues which we as a country find unedifying and unacceptable - poverty, in particular child poverty, and the manifestations of that such as foodbanks. In my opinion that kind of social justice presents a far better argument for the continuation of the Union than flag waving. I think its highlighting during the course of this campaign is something all of Scotland, both Yes and No voters, should be considerably proud of.[/quote'] I'm not very sure about what you are getting at Mr.D or where you are going with this. In fact it seems as if you're very much struggling to follow your initial post up and somehow diverting into an emotive issue (child poverty) to try and have everyone nodding their agreement. Specifically, what pro-Union political parties do you refer to ? ps. If you can, please give me a link to blog so I can read whatever you wrote in full. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 (edited) It was D'Artagnan's blog article Steve, nothing to do with me! Hahaha - apologies, just got the two fine writers mixed up Your post was what he was responding to, of course... He's wasted there too, imo. I do not always share his views but I like reading opposing views when they are put forward with thought and articulacy. Seems the wrong setting for them..... again imho Edited September 22, 2014 by SteveC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I'm not very sure about what you are getting at Mr.D or where you are going with this. In fact it seems as if you're very much struggling to follow your initial post up and somehow diverting into an emotive issue (child poverty) to try and have everyone nodding their agreement. Specifically, what pro-Union political parties do you refer to ? ps. If you can, please give me a link to blog so I can read whatever you wrote in full. Let me assure you, seeing as you seem to be so concerned, that I am not struggling at all. Furthermore rather than "diverting" I am highlighting the type of social injustice and poverty I referred to in the original article. http://immortalrangers.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/2-sides-of-a-coin-2/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 It's not particularly dificult to work out ' date=' pro-Union political parties need to be seen at the very core of tackling the issues which we as a country find unedifying and unacceptable - poverty, in particular child poverty, and the manifestations of that such as foodbanks. In my opinion that kind of social justice presents a far better argument for the continuation of the Union than flag waving. I think its highlighting during the course of this campaign is something all of Scotland, both Yes and No voters, should be considerably proud of.[/quote'] One minute the SNP claimed that Scotland was the 14th wealthiest country in the world, and then in the next it was banging on about poverty. One minute the SNP was talking about the Westminster elite but it offered no opinion on the Brussels elite. One minute it was undermining Westminster as a democracy and yet it wanted to sign up to the EU - an organisation noted for many things - but not its democratic values. Why would an independent Scotland want to join as a nation an organisation that would turn it into a region? It's the elephant in the room - the Scottish National Party is fundamentally anti-English. A simmering centuries-old hatred burns deep within it and colours its every judgement. As you know only too well, it is best avoided. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts