The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Your "choice of spouse"?

Strewth.

And I thought true love didn't exist...

Well it would be weird if both people didn't choose to be together let alone marry, you have had a significant other before I hope?

In fact no, not weird, it has been known to happen. If I hadn't chosen to be with her and she hadn't chosen to be with me that would be an arranged marriage. I don't know your cultural background but that's not how it's done in my culture.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I've just given you and example of the mother of all opportunities for the SNP to whip up massive anglophobia over a study of the break down of the referendum votes should they be so inclined. To a captive and eager audience of disappointed 1.6 million Scottish resident voters.

Not a peep. I've never seen any of them even mention it. In 2003 the SNP was a fringe party on the edge of Scottish politics which in turn was completely dominated by the Labour party. Today, I'd say the 'pool' of SNP voters to study is vastly larger. Therefore the results are likely to be vastly different in 2016. 2003 does not apply anymore. Pro indy blogs on t'internet do not = SNP.

Anyhow back to the real world and something of relevance. Sturgeon is setting out her red lines. Soft Brexit for the UK, or Soft Brexit for Scotland ( rUK can do what they want ) or independence referendum.

4 hours agohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37993028

Again, I haven't said the SNP "whip it up" as you claim, just that there is a link between anglophobia, voting SNP, Scottish identity politics. They may be people who are already anglophobes, they may see the SNP in a different light to you.

You need to stop referencing just the 2003 study in an effort to discredit it, the publications cite data from 1999 through to 2009, which is far more recent, plus a series of studies over a decade is pretty thorough. The blog post you sent to me (which is hardly a published scientific paper) talks about nationalist feeling, which is different to anglophobic feeling. To put it another way, you can quite easily be an anglophobe and not a Scottish nationalist, and vice versa, I don't doubt that they exist. But the science tells us that there is a link between voting SNP and having anglophobic views.

Did you not read that I wasn't in this case talking about nationalism, civic nationalism or any other contrived derivative of nationalism?

Edit:

I wanted to draw your attention to something you posted in the above quote.

Pro indy blogs on t'internet do not = SNP

This is not what I'm saying, and if you're reading my posts you would know this.

In no way am I saying the political party of the SNP are representative of the independence blogs, or anglophobia itself. However the voters the SNP enjoy support from could well be anglophobes, the presence of anglophobia on the independence blogs and social media platforms points to this, which was my original point. You forced me to search out scientific evidence for this, I found it. The 2003 study concludes it, the 2006 study by Hussain & Miller concludes it and the university press institutions conclude it citing incidents from 1999 - 2009 including from an individual responsible for hate crime with the Lothian police force.

zagubov

elantan wrote: »

I almost completely agree with you, just changed nationalist to individuals and we could be saying the same thing...

I'm aware the majority of nationalism can be dangerous but not civic nationalism ... maybe we should give it another name

Ah, but, elantan, that'll annoy the flat-earthers who think that all nationalism is evil (except UK nationalism). The same way all swans without exception are white I suppose.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Again, I haven't said the SNP "whip it up" as you claim, just that there is a link between anglophobia, voting SNP, Scottish identity politics. They may be people who are already anglophobes, they may see the SNP in a different light to you.

string kindly did on your behalf.

was not the Central issue of what TT has been trying to debate, it was the matter of anti-English sentiment being stirred deliberately up by the SNP and happening on their watch

You need to stop referencing just the 2003 study in an effort to discredit it, the publications cite data from 1999 through to 2009, which is far more recent, plus a series of studies over a decade is pretty thorough. The blog post you sent to me (which is hardly a published scientific paper) talks about nationalist feeling, which is different to anglophobic feeling. To put it another way, you can quite easily be an anglophobe and not a Scottish nationalist, and vice versa, I don't doubt that they exist. But the science tells us that there is a link between voting SNP and having anglophobic views.

Did you not read that I wasn't in this case talking about nationalism, civic nationalism or any other contrived derivative of nationalism?

Edit:

I wanted to draw your attention to something you posted in the above quote.

This is not what I'm saying, and if you're reading my posts you would know this.

In no way am I saying the political party of the SNP are representative of the independence blogs, or anglophobia itself. However the voters the SNP enjoy support from could well be anglophobes, the presence of anglophobia on the independence blogs and social media platforms points to this, which was my original point. You forced me to search out scientific evidence for this, I found it. The 2003 study concludes it, the 2006 study by Hussain & Miller concludes it and the university press institutions conclude it citing incidents from 1999 - 2009 including from an individual responsible for hate crime with the Lothian police force.

I'm not trying to discredit the study. I'm just bored with going over the same ground to be honest. I don't recognise it as my experiences. By far the majority of arrests that took place in the run up to the independence referendum and just afterwards were those on the BetterTogether side in terms of 'incidents'. Look it up for yourself, especially what happened in George Square the night after the vote.

Also this had to be issued by Police Scotland just before the vote.

To: News Editor
Date: 1 September 2014
Subject: Independence Referendum

In response to the suggestion of absolute carnage in and around polling stations on the 18th Sept Brian Docherty, Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation said;

‘The independence debate has been robust but overwhelmingly good natured and it would prove a disservice to those who have participated in it thus far to suggest that with 17 days to go, Scotland is about to disintegrate into absolute carnage on the back of making the most important decision in the country’s history.

Politicians and supporters of whichever point of view need to be mindful of the potential impact of intemperate, inflammatory and exaggerated language, lest they be seen to seek to create a self fulfilling prophecy‘

This was in response to press reports on 'carnage' from BetterTogether whipping up hysteria about 'carnage' from nasty Yes voters. The police felt they had to intervene so no one was too scared to get to the polling booths. Anglophobia nothing when ordinary people are facing misreporting this type of scale. Seen again now in the wake of a Brexit that isn't coming quick enough for them. But yes, look up who was arrested or charged during the referendum and since, and George Square. Apart from one egg thrower, I think you might be surprised. Last am saying on it as I don't feel the need to justify anything further for the 1000th time here.

The absolute crux of the matter is this :- You were/are Yes or No. English or not didn't/doesn't figure at all into the equation. Sorry. Let's move on to current events.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

string kindly did on your behalf.

I'm not trying to discredit the study. I'm just bored with going over the same ground to be honest. I don't recognise it as my experiences. By far the majority of arrests that took place in the run up to the independence referendum and just afterwards were those on the BetterTogether side in terms of 'incidents'. Look it up for yourself, especially what happened in George Square the night after the vote.

Also this had to be issued by Police Scotland just before the vote.



This was in response to press reports on 'carnage' from BetterTogether whipping up hysteria about 'carnage' from nasty Yes voters. The police felt they had to intervene so no one was too scared to get to the polling booths. Anglophobia nothing when ordinary people are facing misreporting this type of scale. Seen again now in the wake of a Brexit that isn't coming quick enough for them. But yes, look up who was arrested or charged during the referendum and since, and George Square. Apart from one egg thrower, I think you might be surprised. Last am saying on it as I don't feel the need to justify anything further for the 1000th time here.

The absolute crux of the matter is this :- You were/are Yes or No. English or not didn't/doesn't figure at all into the equation. Sorry. Let's move on to current events.

Well in conclusion it doesn't matter if you identify with it or not. Facts are facts, and science is not the media nor is it personal perspective. If you too agree with that last sentence I will assume that as the admission I've been waiting for and leave it at that.

zagubov

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Again, I haven't said the SNP "whip it up" as you claim, just that there is a link between anglophobia, voting SNP, Scottish identity politics. They may be people who are already anglophobes, they may see the SNP in a different light to you.

You need to stop referencing just the 2003 study in an effort to discredit it, the publications cite data from 1999 through to 2009, which is far more recent, plus a series of studies over a decade is pretty thorough. The blog post you sent to me (which is hardly a published scientific paper) talks about nationalist feeling, which is different to anglophobic feeling. To put it another way, you can quite easily be an anglophobe and not a Scottish nationalist, and vice versa, I don't doubt that they exist. But the science tells us that there is a link between voting SNP and having anglophobic views.

Did you not read that I wasn't in this case talking about nationalism, civic nationalism or any other contrived derivative of nationalism?

Edit:

I wanted to draw your attention to something you posted in the above quote.



This is not what I'm saying, and if you're reading my posts you would know this.

In no way am I saying the political party of the SNP are representative of the independence blogs, or anglophobia itself. However the voters the SNP enjoy support from could well be anglophobes, the presence of anglophobia on the independence blogs and social media platforms points to this, which was my original point. You forced me to search out scientific evidence for this, I found it. The 2003 study concludes it, the 2006 study by Hussain & Miller concludes it and the university press institutions conclude it citing incidents from 1999 - 2009 including from an individual responsible for hate crime with the Lothian police force.

I'm afraid these studies conclude nothing of the sort. You've asserted several times there's a potential link between the SNP and anglophobes and none of the studies seem to suggest there is one, let alone prove it (which real science never does).

TrickyTree83

zagubov wrote: »

I'm afraid these studies conclude nothing of the sort. You've asserted several times there's a potential link between the SNP and anglophobes and none of the studies seem to suggest there is one, let alone prove it (which real science never does).

Does large bold font escape your eyes?

You're in danger of looking like an ideologue, I suggest you read my post on the topic again, or better yet the entire studies.

I've just watched QT time tonight, and the word "post-truth" came up. And the panel were talking about returning to facts and evidence, they're right. Those of us who are posting facts and evidence on here get increasingly tired by the inability or refusal to accept evidence that disagrees with other posters own brands of ideology.

If you continually cling to your ideology and don't accept and change your opinions based on reasoning, evidence, facts, then all you have is dogma, ideological dogma. And that's not healthy, that would be considered "post-truth". Especially when you're on here trying to tell me and everyone else who reads your post that some science isn't "real science" because it doesn't prove your own world view or opinions.

I despair for [STRIKE]this country[/STRIKE] the human race sometimes.

TrickyTree83

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

@Shakethedisease

You thanked that?!

You thanked "it's not real science!".

You thanked "it says nothing of the sort!".

You thanked "none of the studies seem to suggest a link!".

You thanked a post that can only be described by any reasonable and rational individual as delusional.

Damn, if you both genuinely think that then you've both clearly been outed as limited thinkers if you're unable to read the studies, accept the evidence and form your opinions based on evidence.

I don't know why you don't understand that it's OK to be wrong sometimes, and that admitting you're wrong sometimes increases your credibility.

TrickyTree83

Lets try one more time.

Do you @zagubov and @Shakethedisease agree that the English text in the quotes below which can be found in the scientific publications that do exist and hence are real, from institutions such as Oxford University, Edinburgh University, Glasgow University (I know theres no link, google the study, Glasgow reference them too) and two paper publication websites?

@zagubov - again it's highlighted in bold and it's very large so it can't really be missed.

Scotland
See also: Scottish national identity and Category:England–Scotland relations
In a 2003 survey of 500 English people living in Scotland, one quarter said that they had been harassed or discriminated against by the Scots.[3]

A 2005 study by Hussain and Millar of the Department of Politics at the University of Glasgow examined the prevalence of Anglophobia in relation to Islamophobia in Scotland. One finding of the report suggested that national "phobias" have common roots independent of the nations they are directed toward. The study states that:

Scottish identity comes close to rivalling low levels of education as an influence towards Anglophobia. Beyond that, having an English friend reduces Anglophobia by about as much as having a Muslim friend reduces Islamophobia. And lack of knowledge about Islam probably indicates a broader rejection of the ‘other’, for it has as much impact on Anglophobia as on Islamophobia.[4]
The study goes on to say: (of the English living in Scotland) "Few of the English (only 16 percent) see conflict between Scots and English as even 'fairly serious'". Hussain and Millar's study found that Anglophobia was slightly less prevalent than Islamophobia, but that unlike Islamophobia, Anglophobia correlated with a strong sense of Scottish identity.

In 1999 an Inspector and race relations officer with Lothian and Borders Police said that a correlation had been noticed between the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and anti-English incidents.[5] However, Hussain and Millar's research suggested that Anglophobia had fallen slightly since the introduction of devolution.

In 2009 a woman originally from England was assaulted in an allegedly anti-English racially motivated attack.[6] Similar cases have been connected with major football matches and tournaments, particularly international tournaments where the English and Scottish football teams often compete with each other.[7][8][9] A spate of anti-English attacks occurred in 2006 during the football World Cup,[10] in one incident a 7 year old boy wearing an England shirt was punched in the head in an Edinburgh park.[11]

http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Anglophobia#Scotland

Questions in the 2003 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey were used to compare Islamophobia with four other Scottish phobias: sectarianism (primarily anti-Catholic), and phobias about Europe, Asylum seekers, and ‘the auld enemy’(England). Social factors affected all phobias the same way, but political factors discriminated. Conservative voters scored low on Anglophobia but high on every other phobia; SNP voters scored high on Anglophobia but not on other phobias. This suggested that Anglophobia itself displaced Islamophobia by providing another target, and that England itself helped reduce within-Scotland phobias by providing Scots with a common, external and very significant ‘other’. Scotland is too small, too peripheral, and too insignificant to play a corresponding role in displacing phobias within England. However, by stimulating English nationalism without providing a truly significant ‘other’, Scottish nationalism may actually increase Islamophobia in England, but not in Scotland.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199280711.001.0001/acprof-9780199280711-chapter-4

Hussain and Miller (2006) have produced a rigorous
analysis of this data and reported higher levels of Islamophobia than
Anglophobia amongst the Scottish pubic in general. Yet interestingly their
analysis finds that having a strong sense of Scottish identity and being an SNP
voter are both associated with high levels of Anglophobia.

http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/scot.2014.0006

Deny it this time and I'm afraid I'm going to have to officially consider you both talk absolute balls. I won't let this get lost in posts so readers skimming over the last page think you've a legitimate point, especially when I was told I was the one talking "tosh".

zagubov

I am afraid that politics has been post-truth for quite some time. I also find that social science rarely supplies the kind of compelling evidence that natural sciences do.

I'm afraid that these writers either gave case studies from which generalisations can't be healthily made, or they tried to confect spurious connections for correlations. I don't despair (well certainly not about you) -you've described your viewpoint in quite measured ways and you have a good grasp of how modest the claims of these writers are.

But they're not making any kind of a link between the SNP and anglophobes.

There isn't (AFAIK) a link between catholicism and prostate or breast cancer. But if you found out that the Vatican was the country with the highest rate in the world for prostate cancer and Alzheimers but the lowest for breast cancer and chicken pox, and concluded that catholicism protects against one but encourages the other, you'd be reading too much into the facts.
Correlation isn't causation and links don't always imply what we think they do.