Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Mistaken Identity

I must confess that was a bit of a generic response, because although Alex clearly felt he'd said something utterly hilarious, I didn't actually have a clue what he was getting at.  It wasn't until I read through some of the replies that I twigged that the implied punchline was supposed to be "He joined a nationalist party without realising he'd joined an identity politics collective!  Ho ho ho!"  It's a bit like that moment when a Brexiteer who isn't used to talking to actual Scottish people says "You say you're in favour of 'independence' and you want to be run from Brussels?" as if that's some sort of killer argument that we've never been exposed to before, or indeed when a Westminster Tory brings up the possibility of Shetlandic independence and says "Gotcha!  You never thought of that one, did you?"

It's like: guys, were you not listening when we first explained these things to you in 1957?

As you can see, many of the brickbats were coming from my own side, and I do wonder if the "trendies" had properly thought through their line of attack on this occasion.  They'd normally be the first to point out that the Scottish independence movement isn't about nationalism in the traditional sense, but they somehow found themselves arguing the complete opposite of that because it was a convenient way of normalising and legitimising the prominent existence of other forms of identity politics within the SNP.   

I spent an inordinate amount of time yesterday pointing out that people were attempting to put words in my mouth, by treating my "identity politics collective" tweet as if it was somehow an attack on "equalities" or "the protection of minorities".  That is plainly and simply untrue - in fact, I'd go further than that, it's an outrageous slur.  It's self-evidently the case that legal and social equality is achievable without identity politics dominating our lives - indeed arguably the way we'll know that equality has been more or less achieved is if identity politics melts away.  However, there's clearly an ongoing debate about what equality would actually look like for trans people, and being on one side or the other of that debate does not mean someone is opposed to equality, it's just a difference of perception.

Oh but wait - there is "no debate to be had".  Anyone who think there is a debate to be had is a "transphobe".  Isn't that right, Patrick Harvie?  That kind of extremist logic lies behind most of the bogus allegations of transphobia that are chucked around on a daily basis.

47 comments:

  1. Everyone knows, or should know, what "identity politics" refers to in 2021. Anyone who pretends Scottish nationalism falls into that category is either hopelessly clueless or deliberately playing silly buggers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. T'was no brickbat honest guv I was actually on your side James and my question was aimed at magnus. I probably should have used my original/discarded reply which mentioned the original National Party of Scotland

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My comment was not intended to suggest that every single tweet I embedded was a brickbat! I embedded quite a few of my own and none of them were brickbats.

      Delete
  3. Good God almighty. Is this really happening? I despair.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As an observer only, it appears clear that the movement for Scottish independence has been infiltrated by the British state under the guise of, well, anything that will cause division.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert, I've been thinking that for some time.
      The trick is to refuse to go down the routes they want us to.
      I'm hoping the main players in all this realise it too..
      I'm assuming they're cleverer than some of their own more rabid followers and can at least hold it together till after the May elections.
      Houivver, I hae ma doots.

      Delete
  5. What has equality looked like for trans since the passage of GRA 2004 that somehow what is in that act is evil and should be overturned? Because THAT is what is being proposed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Don't over analyse. Vote as your heart dictates. I'm confident enough Scots will get it right.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As an SNP member, independence activist and someone who is LGBT and shocked at the attacks on OutForIndy members, there's a lot of tinfoil hattery from some sections of the SNP recently; we're not secret Brit Nat fifth columnists.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just when you thought the EU couldn't stoop any lower.

    Expert: European leaders endangering their people's health by attacking UK vaccine rollout
    Leaders in Europe are recklessly endangering their own public’s health by using self-serving point-scoring to attack Britain’s coronavirus vaccine rollout, UK health experts have warned.

    Kent Woods, a former chief of both the UK and European Union medicines regulators, told AFP:

    This can only be negative on the vaccine takeup in France, in Germany and others. This is bad for public health. Forget the politics. This is a threat to public health and people in the public eye need to be very cautious in the messages they make.

    The key point to make is that the views coming out from politicians in Europe are in striking contrast to the scientific view reached by the European regulator, which has representation from all 27 EU member states. These are politically driven rather than scientifically driven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The thing is unfortunately not as clear as you're trying to present it. Just today Swiss (so nothing to do with the EU) regulator refused to approve AstraZeneca vaccine at all (as did the US FDA and Canadian regulator earlier in January) and the EU regulator EMA wrote quite clearly in its approval that it doesn't have any proof that it works on over 55s, but can only assume that it will have some effect based on experience with other vaccines. This vaccine had the worst Phase 3 study imaginable - which is still being discussed in the scientific circles.

      Delete
  10. Do you really want to be ruled by these guys..

    On Monday, France’s Europe Minister Clement Beaune said Britain was taking “a lot of risks” with its rollout, highlighting its extended gap of up to 12 weeks between first and second doses.

    However, UK scientists back the government’s plan as a means of inoculating as many high-risk people as possible, and the efficacy of one dose was vindicated by research published yesterday by Oxford University.

    Michael Head, senior research fellow in global health at the University of Southampton, said Macron’s intervention was “extremely unhelpful, ill-founded and inaccurate”.

    It’s not going to encourage the French population to line up in a queue. I assume they’re wrapped up in the recent history of EU-UK politics rather than any real public confidence issues.

    They’ll be picked up by the anti-vaxxer groups who do their utmost to undermine public confidence with social media posts and memes.

    UK experts took issue also with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen who, in defending the EU’s slow rollout, implied yesterday that Britain had cut corners in its vaccines approval process.

    “The waters have got really muddied,” Head argued, after Brussels locked horns with AstraZeneca and the British government over the UK-based company’s vaccine delivery schedule. “We’ve had so much good news on the vaccination front that it would be a shame to spoil it with political posturing.”

    Robert Dingwall, a professor of medical sociology at Nottingham Trent University, said:

    But Dingwall, who has collaborated with French sociologists on research, said sceptics in France would also seize on their own leaders’ words.

    It’s important that people like Macron and Beaune think further ahead when (vaccine) take-up will become very important for the restoration of anything near normal life.

    If France lags, that will have a devastating impact on the French economy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My wife is French and my daughter half so. Are you being racist here?

      But no, I don't think Scotland should be ruled by England or France, but by the people of Scotland.

      Delete
  11. Excellent analysis James. Nothing less than I'd expect from an *SNP intellectual* (see Iain Macwhirter today).

    ReplyDelete
  12. I see unionists are now threatening Cherry. Pretty sinister.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55905895

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry could you highlight were it says anything about unionist in that article? Must of missed it...

      Delete
    2. Huh? It's a BBC article. For them terrorists are just 'loyalists' because they are British unionist.

      But why on earth would unionists not attack cherry?

      At the same time, why on earth would indy supporters attack her?

      I understood she is liked a lot by 'standard' indy supporters and loved by the more 'radical' who think Sturgeon isn't pushing enough.

      If so, she's clearly going to be a unionist target, just like the port staff in N. Ireland.

      If you have a sensible motive for pro-indy 'extremist' attacks on Cherry, I'm keen to hear it.

      Delete
    3. Smearer Skier ( liar since 2014) - calls independence supporters who actually want independence this side of the world ending "radical". Smearer just loves a smear.

      It's not that Sturgeon is not "pushing enough" as you say it's that she is not pushing at all.

      Delete
    4. There is a big difference between political attacks and criminal attacks mentioned in the article.

      Anyhow it may be nothing to do with politics, the attacks that the police are investigating could come from someone with a personal grudge, it could be from someone who has an issue with homosexual women.

      Just as we should not assign guilt to a individual person until they are found guilt we should not assign guilt to a group of people a person has been found guilty and the reasons for his/her crime have been ascertained.

      Its only in places like the China / North Korea were people are singled out for there political views charges made against them without evidence.

      Delete
    5. Huh? I didn't assign blame to a group of people. It's pretty obvious it would be just one or maybe a few individuals and are in all probability anti-Yes. That doesn't assign blame to anyone other than those responsible.

      As for their political leanings... It's like those threatening the EU port workers in N. Ireland. I think it's fairly safe to conclude they are not EU supporters.

      Delete
    6. What's wrong with being radical IfS? Are you now attacking radical people? Why are you insulting radical people? The term isn't pejorative; why are to making it so.

      I'm pretty radical politically and don't see that as a problem.

      Delete
    7. In Scotland a persons views on Indpendence is a protected charticeristic in the same way that race, religion, sexual orientation is. You are not allowed to make an accusation based on someones protected status. So saying:
      I see unionists are now threatening Cherry. Pretty sinister
      Is considered the same as saying:
      I see black people are now threatening Cherry. Pretty sinister
      Or:
      I see Catholics are now threatening Cherry. Pretty sinister.

      In relation to your posts about Northern Ireland, you can say that the people threatening port workers are not EU supporters; however highlighting the fact that you think they are ‘British’ is not allowed as it infringes on a protected characteristic

      Delete
    8. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) says - " I'm pretty radical politically ..."

      Well I guess wanting the Tories to remain in power for another 5 years to increase independence votes like you have said is pretty radical.

      Some of us actually want independence unlike you. You just like posting your crap on this site which being the narcissist you are makes you feel important.

      Delete
    9. It's Tories / No 2014 / Leave 2016 voters that are most supportive of Salmond over Sturgeon.

      https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/xzean1bi82/InternalResults_SalmondSturgeon_210125.pdf

      Delete
    10. however highlighting the fact that you think they are ‘British’ is not allowed as it infringes on a protected characteristic

      That's the biggest load of shite I've ever heard.

      This means the PM breaks the law every time he claims 'Brits' back his policies? Or 'Scots back the union'? I hate the union so by your logic he is illegally attacking me by saying I support the evil union, which is pure codswallop.

      It's clear only sinister if you make threats, like saying 'I'm going to make sure unionists pay for the attacks on Joanna cherry' or at least 'All unionists are murdering bastards, i.e. it is clear I am attacking the whole group.

      When the papers headline 'Rangers supporters attack Celtic supporters in post-match brawl' or the like, it goes without saying that only a group of these are being discussed. Jeez.

      I clearly didn't threaten or insult anyone, merely stated that IMO opinion the attacks on Cherry in all probability were from some union supporters.

      Delete
    11. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) sees unionists everywhere. The guy is paranoid and no doubt checks under his bed every night for a Unionist.

      Delete
    12. You don't say in all probability though did you, you said:
      unionists are now threatening Cherry

      You have obviously decided the a unionist is guilty without evidence to back up your claims - exactly like Brexiters do when they blame foreigners for something without evidence.

      Delete
    13. Hi Adam, it’s all about context. That’s why we have courts - to make a judgement in context.

      I think it’s pretty clear from Scottish Skier’s posts over many years that he is not meaning what you are suggesting he is meaning.

      Abd the key point in both James and Scottish Skier’s posts is that this form of nationalism is the opposite of what we have seen at Westminster. It is about self-determination and democracy, about all those who live here having a right to be here and to determine the government we have through a proportional system that far more accurately reflects the government we actually want. It is not nationalism based on the notion of being superior to others, based on bloodlines, based on thinking of ‘foreigner’ as an enemy rather than as a potential friend and relative. That’s why “at independence your relatives in England will become foreigners” sounds so convincing a threat for British nationalists, but makes no sense to Scottish nationalists, or to the experience of the many of us with relatives and friends in so many other independent countries.

      Delete
  13. As for the topic in hand...Aye James, I think folk can identify freely as whatever the hell the want, and dress/present likewise, but for legal definitions, we need something concrete.

    So, when it comes to iref2, however folks 'identify' matters jack shit. Habitual residency in Scotland = Scottish.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Salmonds submission to the Inquiry on the Judicial Review dated 27/Jan 2021 has now been published on the Committee website.

    This is in addition to his submission on documentation dated 14 Dec 2020.

    He has also prepared a submission on the FM and the Ministerial code which has not been published by the Committee but has been made available to media.

    He may well have submitted other submissions to the Inquiry which have not been published.

    I would recommend you read them and compare them to Sturgeon's lightweight submission but hey you can also just say no thanks I am happy with my head stuck deep in the sand. It's a free country. Your choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anti-SNP stuff being leaked to the unionist media again? Salmond should denounce this unless voters think he / his supporters are involved. Otherwise, it will hurt them in terms of public backing, ruining any chance of a comeback. Scots are already sick of unionists attacking Yes parties without apparent indy supporters joining these. They will also never vote for a 'We hate Sturgeon and want to lynch her' party. They've already got three of these to choose from.

      Incidentally, I see he's hinting at future action against the UK civil service. Good.

      Hasn't said he plans anything against the SNP though as far as I'm aware.

      Delete
    2. SS, I wouldn't want your stalker on a jury. Closed mind. I get the feeling they are going to be disappointed. The rest of us want to see ALL of the evidence and not what a prejudiced mind wants.

      Delete
    3. Unknown, I very much doubt you have read any evidence. Please stay unknown.

      Delete
    4. Smearer Skier ( liar since 2014) - that post shows again that the truth matters little to you.

      Delete
    5. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) says - "Anti SNP stuff being leaked to the Unionist media again? " well THE NATIONAL got Salmonds Submission re the FM referral to the MInisterial Code. So headline is SMEARER SKIER SMEARS THE NATIONAL By calling it Unionist media.

      Delete
    6. The national was just showing Scots what the unionist media were printing.

      Delete
    7. SMEARER SKIER SMEARS THE NATIONAL BY CALLING IT UNIONIST MEDIA

      Delete
    8. Wow - this ‘Independence for Scotland’ person is unbelievably tiring if you bother reading anything they write.

      Like everyone else does I assume, I just scroll rigt on by. Occasionally I’ll read one. ‘Grow up’ sums up my response. Probably followed by a real hope they can find a way to ‘get a life’

      Delete
  15. Nelson Mandela was in the National Congress Party. Was he a racist. National refers to the nation the party functions in. Nationalist refers to an individual and their own beliefs and identity. The two things are not connected.

    The first is a party, the second is a person. The world is made up of nations. The word nation is not racist, nationalistic or any other trope.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Boris Johnson called on 'the nation' to clap for Captain Moore.

    Racist?

    ReplyDelete
  17. The remit of the Inquiry is to investigate the actions of the FM, Scottish government and SPECIAL ADVISERS.

    Only one special adviser Sturgeons Chief of Staff Liz Lloyd has been asked to provide a written submission. This submission was then subsequently shown to have omitted her involvement in a number of areas. Fabiani then wrote to her asking her to clarify why. No reply from Lloyd has been published on the website.

    No special adviser has been asked to attend any of the Committee hearings for questioning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liz Llyod was a close advisor to Salmond 2007-12 (head of media) and a SPAD for him at holyrood 2012-14 right?

      She was certainly very close to Salmond; closer than to Sturgeon.

      Delete
    2. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014)- Lloyd was not Salmonds Chief of Staff. Lloyd is Sturgeons Chief of Staff.

      Just why do you feel the need to lie and misrepresent all the time Smearer Skier?

      Delete