Jump to content
Pat's Guide to Glasgow West End
Sign in to follow this  
Pat

Khan's put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Recommended Posts

Pat    0

Sadiq Khan toned down some of the remarks he made at the Labour conference, which basically branded those for Scottish Independence as racist.

'The London mayor amended a controversial speech to Scottish Labour’s spring conference asserting there “was no difference” between those who wanted to divide Scottish and English people and the divisions sought by racist or religious bigots.'

It was a bit ill advised of the London mayor to put forward these insults. There were three reasons I moved in the direction of supporting an Independent Scotland and those were, the fact that the SNP were moving the country in a much more socially just direction as the UK continued to further deepen the gulf between the rich and the poor. Secondly, as the grassroots cause for Independence grew it was clear that the elite, who controlled the media and the politicians in power presented an ever more biased view regarding why Scotland was incapable of becoming an Independent country. If more accurate information had not been available via social media and once a week on in the Sunday Herald, the one and only UK newspaper in favour of Indy, the massive grass roots Indy movement would not have happened.

Something else, which relates to Khan's claims, and which made me support Independence, was the make-up of much of the support for the Union, which was tied closely to groups such as Britain First and the BNP.  Ironically, among the latter elements you are much more likely to find the characteristics, such as xenophobia, that Khan has assigned to Indy supporters.

Having said that I recognise that many pro-union supporters are decent people with good values and their own reasons for voting No and feeling that we are Better Together.   I think many of them will also feel quite alarmed at Khan's insults.  His views are very simplistic.  Of course, by it's very nature a desire for Independence means division, but from his theoretical stance – the many, many countries that have broken away from the UK would have done so, not because of their aspirations for self-determination but because they were racist? 

This would include: Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, USA, Canada, The Maldives, Malta, India, Ghana, Botswana, Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Cyprus, Tanzania, Malawi, Kenya, Pakistan, Burma, Egypt, Iraq, South Africa and many more.  Some of them, of course, went through violent wars en route to independence but I doubt any of them were subjected to the many slurs that are consistently poured upon the Scots.

I have no idea how Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, felt qualified to add to the insults.  I can only take it that he's a fan of the Daily Record and the Daily Mail.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat    0

This is what you're up against. A quote from Daily Record:

"Khan also compares Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP to politicians like Donald Trump who seek to fuel division."

There you have it folks. Right up the Record's street. What a fool Mr Khan was to be taken in by them playing to his ego: "Khan, the most powerful elected Labour politician in Britain."
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His speech was written by Anus Sarwar....that's all you need to know.

 

Mr Khan tweeted on 14th August last year his congratulations to Pakistan and India for their forthcoming Independence day celebrations.  It goes without saying that the irony has been pointed out to him 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat    0

Watched Sunday Politics with Andrew Neil reading out what Khan had said in the Record and Kezia Dugdale repeating 'he did not say that'.  Maybe she didn't say what she writes in her Record column either?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rory    0

I watched the big twitter storm last night. He seems to have tried to soften what he had said. He has made a bit of a mess accusing almost half of Scots of being racist because they would like to have an independent country. Scotland is not the country opposed to migrants and stopping refugee children from entering. I do not think these are actions that Khan agrees with but I am clear that Nicola Sturgeon does not send out a racist message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat    0

The SNP, to my mind are the most socially just party. You just have to watch Holyrood, which thankfully conducts itself in a much more grown up manner than Westminster.  I don't think they are perfect, disagree with a number of things, but they are more interested in equality and caring for the most vulnerable than the Tories and also Labour. I also admire Patrick Harvie of the Greens and Leanne Wood, Plaid Cymru. 

And I agree with you, rory, Nicola Sturgeon doesn't send out a racist anti-migrant message.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billy Bragg nailed it in 2014

'Some on the left seem to think voting against the Westminster status quo is an act of class betrayal. This is plainly not true

For me, the most frustrating aspect of the debate on Scottish independence has been the failure of the English left to recognise that there is more than one type of nationalism. People who can explain in minute detail the many forms of socialism on offer at any demo or conference seem incapable of differentiating when it comes to nationalists.

Confronted by someone recently who claimed to believe that there was no difference between the Scottish National party and the British National party, I can’t help wondering if this is wilful – like the Daily Mail’s insistence that anyone who wants to see a fairer society must be a Stalinist.

In the past months, I have found myself arguing with comrades who don’t understand how someone who wrote new lyrics to The Internationale can possibly be in favour of an independent Scotland. You’re betraying the working class of Britain they tell me. What about international solidarity?

It baffles me as to why they should feel that voting against the Westminster status quo is an act of class betrayal. People who marched for CND in the 1980s are now telling me I am wrong to support a decision that may force the UK to give up its nuclear weapons.

It seems to be a very English viewpoint.

In Scotland, Wales and Ireland nationalism is the name given to the campaign for self-determination. James Connolly gave his life for the nationalist cause; John MacLean, perhaps the greatest leftwinger that Scotland has produced, was in favour of independence and campaigned for a Scottish parliament.

Both recognised that the British state was highly resistant to reform, and that the interests of working people were best served by breaking with the United Kingdom.

England’s dominant role has meant that it has never felt the urge to be free of the British state. As a result, the nationalism that has emerged there has been ethnic, seeking to unite the indigenous population against the perceived threat of outsiders. And for all of us in Europe, ethnic nationalism casts a long shadow.

Given that dark legacy, it is unsurprising that many on the left have a knee-jerk reaction whenever they hear the word nationalism. However, close inspection of the respective manifestoes of the SNP and the BNP should give pause for thought.

The ethnic nationalism of the BNP is there for all to see – a plan for a society that excludes people on grounds of race. The programme of the SNP takes a diametrically opposite position – an inclusive society based on where you are, not where you’re from.

This is civic nationalism – the idea that all citizens should be engaged in the process of deciding where society is headed, not just getting their hands on the tiller once every four or five years. It utilises the n-word because democracy on a national level offers the best opportunity for fundamental change.

However, civic nationalism isn’t the ideology of the modern SNP, it’s the fertile ground that it grew out of, via the Scottish Constitutional Convention – an alliance of community activists, politicians and civic leaders that came together in the 1980s to campaign for a Scottish parliament.'

.......

Support for Scottish self-determination might not fit neatly into any leftwing pigeon hole, but it does chime with an older progressive tradition that runs deep in English history – a dogged determination to hold the over-mighty to account. If, during the constitutional settlement that will follow the referendum, we in England can rediscover our Roundhead tradition, we might yet counter our historic weakness for ethnic nationalism with an outpouring of civic engagement that creates a fairer society for all.

Read the full feature: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/scottish-nationalism-british-westminster-class?CMP=share_btn_fb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×