ABANDONING WESTMINSTER – YOURS FOR SCOTLAND (wordpress.com)
I concur wholeheartedly with all the points raised. As a scientist, I’m hopelessly addicted to numbers, so let’s consider some.
Craig Murray not only favours abstentionism, he rejects the concept of “Short money” (in any parliament). The SNP currently receives £1.301m in Short money from the British State. Ostensibly, Short money is provided for “research and policy development“ in reality it covertly purchases loyalty and compliance.
Voters resident in Scotland voted Remain by a 24% margin of victory in 2015 (the margin of victory among autochthonous Scots would be c. 28%). Such a differential in a binary plebiscite is remarkable these days.
This should have been used to leverage some advantage. Robin McAlpine has heard from more than one source in the Civil Service that in advance of her first, post Brexit vote meeting with Nicola Sturgeon, Theresa May had her top Civil Servants prepare a dossier of “compromise positions”. At the opening of the meeting, Sturgeon stamped her wee feet and squeemed “No Brexit”. The potential compromises were removed from the table without ever being examined.
As the old game show host used to say “let’s see what you could have won”.
The bespoke Brexit deal arranged for Northern Ireland has 4 Customs, Ports of Entry. One Port of Entry per 0.475m people.
A combined Northern Ireland / Scotland entity would be entitled (on a pro rata basis) 15.6 Points of Entry.
Northern Ireland would only require 3 (Lane port only handles Scottish ferry traffic) leaving 12 PoE.
Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen & Prestwick airports combined with one rail freight terminal leaves the Solway / Tweed border with 7 potential PoE. We are only concerned here with commercial freight traffic and there ain’t that many HGV suitable crossing points on the border.
Joining Northern Ireland in a Brexit “halfway house” would have had genuine commercial advantages and would have psychologically prepared the “faint hearts” for the hard border that would be necessary for independence (a hard border in such circumstances is no substantive inconvenience at all).
From a Westminster perspective, it could have assisted with their problems with the DUP (although you never can tell with that lot).
An entirely feasible solution and the SNP couldn’t even arrange this. Was Sturgeon’s display of petulance spontaneous or was it calculated? Impossible to say, but I have my suspicions.
We had real leverage then. We are all prisoners of our own personalities to a degree and looking back at Sturgeon’s time as SNP leader she had precisely the opposite character traits to the ones we needed at that particlar time. I do not now believe even for a second Sturgeon thought in terms of what our country or the Scottish people needed. Personal advantage, what can i get away with, what will make me look good clearly dominated Nicola Sturgeon’s thinking. I suspect our opponents tapped in to that years before she took over from Alec Salmond. We were fooled partly because we assumed that she wanted to work for the common good because that is what we assumed everyone would do in that position.
Issues were being discussed throughout Scotland during and after the referendum. Policies and opinions on the kinds of institutions we needed were being weighed and prioritised in the public mind. That debate fed naturally into the thinking of the SNP membership and looked like it was going to result in policies that reflected the punters thinking. Sturgeon and her team systematically dismantled democracy within the SNP in order to block this process.
In times gone by we would have dismissed people with these personality traits as arseholes and they would have stayed on the fringes of institutions and maybe even wider society where their compulsive self interest could do least damage.
This is the era we are in I suppose. The era of the self. Neo liberalism and the self-centred eltisim that inevitably sprung from it. It was resisted in Scotland from Thatchers time right the way though to 2014. I am hopeful that era is coming to a close now but there is no doubt in my mind that Sturgeon opened took down the last barriers to it in Scotland with her promotion of its complementary system of extreme social liberalism.
The woman was a complete erse basically and she was not alone. If we are living though the end of this era it is my hope that people who believe in the Scottish Nation can fill space. This me, me me ideology just runs countries into the ground.
Their are plenty of trained, honest people who want to work for something bigger than themselves out there.
Peter lays bare the lie that continuing to send our elected representatives to Westminster will somehow, sometime lead to the restoration of our Right to Self-determination and an independent Scotland.
He also raises some of my early memories of ‘post-war Britain’. As with so many children of that time, our fathers fought in WWII and have grandfathers that fought in WWI. In my case, my father returned home from WWII full of pride for what Britain and its empire had achieved and of course passed that pride on to his family.
As with so many of us it was much later that I began to see what lies they had been told and the propaganda to which they had all been subjected. By the time I joined the SNP in 1967, I had begun to see the futility of war but it was only speaking with, and more importantly, listening to, some of the party leaders of that time that I began to realise that war was failure, war was ego, war was ambition, war was greed and most of all, war is profit.
Although I have known for many years that our goal cannot be achieved by sending MPs to Westminster, I thought that I was going to be proved wrong when we came so close in 2014 and then elected 56 MPs of the possible 59, and I was delighted about how wrong I had been. However, Peter spells out the clear missed opportunities that have us doubting the true motives of our elected representatives and that has reinforced my belief that we cannot achieve what Scotland so badly needs by sending MPs to a foreign parliament.
I admit to being late to the ISP and its position but, at present, it is the first party and still the only party that represents my views on sending MPs to Westminster.
I suppose I will never understand why Alex Salmond, Nichola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf swore fealty to a foreign monarch when it is totally incompatible with being the Leader of a political party dedicated to breaking those vows.
The first, penultimate and final paragraphs of the Oath taken by Privy Councillors is particularly galling:
“You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The King’s Majesty as one of His Majesty’s Privy Council.”
“You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the King’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to His Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates.”
“And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to His Majesty.”
That sticks in my craw, as it must to every true supporter of independence. I will be no-one’s ‘faithful and true Servant’ Note the capitalisation of the word ‘servant’ as if it is a position to be filled.
The phrase ‘…assist and defend all jurisdictions…’ includes the monarch’s parliament at Westminster and its administrative body at Holyrood. Can anyone please tell me how that is consistent with being the Leader of a party supposedly seeking to get rid of what they have sworn to uphold?
Unless the SNP and Alba change course, they will be left behind as more and more Scots realise that the message of the ISP is the only workable option. The first, I have given up hope of any change, the second – I still have hopes that the ordinary members of Alba will enforce the changes necessary.
However, both of them will be left behind if they do not begin to support and work with Salvo/Liberation. Salvo is not in competition with any political party and it is possible to work and support each other if their leadership allows that to take place.
Finally, once again thanks to Peter for his excellent prose and analysis.
Hear hear Peter, what a breath of fresh air. See we Scots are not short of our own ideas, it’s jist that folk won’t listen to us. Folk like those masquerading as politicians. What do we know, they think they always ken better than us pair wee folk. Aye right.
I’m now left in the position of having no one to vote for. SNP never again from me and mine. Fool me once etc. Certainly none of the English unionist parties. Why are they even in Holyrood, the don’t care about Scotland. They’re only there to see what can be robbed and try and keep the natives quite. Chase yersel ya bunch o’ chancers. Mind you, I had already made my mind up not to take part in the Westminster general election, complete waste of time. ALBA and ISP don’t usually stand candidates in Dumfries and Galloway, at least not in my ward. Either have to spoil my paper, or not vote at all.
As for Blah blah Blackford, the least said about that clown the better. SNP in the house of lords! Good grief that used to be anathema to them. Onything tae hing oan tae the gravy train eh.
@ Alastair wrote “One thing for me that sticks out is why Alba wont work with the ISP and others such as Salvo, what happened to Scotland United. If one thing Sturgeon has not taught us its not to put your trust in politicians no matter who they are.”
That was actually the main reason for me resigning from ALBA.. Alex was so desperate to work with the Nasty lying SNP, yet slapped down Sara Salyers & Salvo & NEVER mentions ISP. If Scotland is ever to take her Independence, ALL Indy parties should be on the same page working together, not against one another…
ISP stood aside in the 2021 election to give Alex & Alba a clear run at getting seats in HR, maybe as most of us who still believed in and trusted Alex thought at the time, ALBA could even replace the SNP.. I had joined the ISP after leaving the SNP after 53yrs of supporting them.. ISP discussed the ALBA Party in the ISP chat online, so many of us thought ALEX had more chance of removing the SNP or at least gaining more seats for Alba because of ALEX..
Then we had a vote via online for us all to give our opinion, Colette did NOT want to stand aside, but she stood by the result of her members, Which was we MUST give him this chance to come back…
It wasn’t until I read Alf Bairds posts on how out numbered we were and would be even more so, year on year, if we kept going the referendum route & especially with the franchise that Alex used,& he said he would use again… I realised ALBA was just Alex’s NU-SNP party from the time he was FM..By the way I rate him as the best FM we have had in this country.. I still have a great deal of respect for Alex as he did well by the people through mitigation of policies introduced by WM that he refused to force on Scotlands people. Tuition, Prescription charges, Bedroom Tax even stopped the fracking WM intended to do, & so many more..
But hearing him stand by that same franchise if he got the chance of another referendum, I thought it was so wrong.. I believe now he is actually thinking of other ways, but I am sure those other ways will still include everyone that has moved here form other parts of the UK..
But the very fact they dismiss Sara and Salvo, Liberation.Scot, SSRG, & absolutely NEVER mention ISP at all. Just didn’t sit with me this time.. Then those NEC Elections, and the way Leanne Tervit was attacked for speaking out. Again just seemed more like the SNP way of doing things, So I resigned my Alba membership. ISP will get my support IF they stand in my region, if Alba stand I shall vote for both, But ISP will be 1st & ALBA gets my second vote..
I will NOT however vote in any GE ever again, But will go to the ballot & spoil my paper using #EndTheUnion as I do not believe in this UNION, so will never vote to send any politician from any so called Indy party to that den of corruption..
Nor will I ever join a Political Party again, but will support via a vote for he best one which in my opinion IS the ISP today..
Peter, your article here ties in very well with Alf Baird’s one on this blog recently regarding the Lords’ deliberations on Scotland’s peerage representation on whether restricting hereditary Scottish lords from attending Westminster would breach the Treaty.
Alf also said on Wings Over Scotland at 1:08 am, 17 January 2024
“Withdrawal of a majority of Scotland’s MP’s from Westminster would mean the UK parliament cannot lawfully legislate for Scotland because representation of Scotland’s MPs is a condition of the Articles of Union.”
To me, that reinforces your position here.
I expanded on Alf’s statement on Wings, and I present an edited version of that expansion here because it also complements and reinforces your position;
The lords’ interpretation was that Scottish representation in the Union’s parliament required to be adequate, but they neglected to examine what that even meant. My take on it is that if the Scots MPs cannot properly promote and defend the interests of their half of the Union from predatory behaviour by England’s MPs within the Union’s parliament, then its representation is inadequate because it is clearly and demonstrably unfit for that purpose. I therefore cannot consider 45 or even 59 to meet any meaningful requirement of adequacy under the current voting system in Westminster.
If the Scots MP numbers drop below the Treaty’s own specification of 45, that can be taken formally as ‘inadequate representation’, and it wouldn’t require the majority of Scots MPs to withdraw in order to cripple Westminster, just withdrawing 15 would leave 44 Scots MPs in the Commons. But a majority withdrawal would vastly reinforce the message, and complete withdrawal even more so. But I just don’t trust that all of our MPs would participate in a complete withdrawal.
I also think if inadequacy of representation for Scotland was confirmed, England’s MPs couldn’t legislate at all, because England’s MPs obviously can’t represent the Union on their own in the first place, and the Union’s parliament isn’t their old English parliament any more either. They simply don’t have the authority to legislate on their own at all, even for English-only matters since they would clearly lack the formal backing of the Union’s two members.
Silence does not give consent, and neither does refusal; only affirmation gives consent!
The entire point of the Union was to prevent both kingdoms from exercising independent self-government; they both agreed to replace that with joint self-government.
The Scots MPs would never be allowed to legislate on their own, so why should England’s be allowed to? The Treaty doesn’t mandate any such ability, and it shouldn’t be assumed.
So; why don’t 45 or even 59 MPs for Scotland meet any meaningful requirement of adequacy under the current voting system in Westminster?
Well that is because Westminster’s voting system is ludicrously inappropriate given the context of the Union’s constitutional structure, where each of the two bodies of MPs represents an entire sovereign kingdom, country, nation, territory and people to the other in the House of Commons for the purposes of negotiating the joint governance of their two territories.
Given that constitutional basis it is obvious that neither of the two representations was ever entitled to any authority over the other in the first place, and the Treaty provides no such authority to either of its two equally sovereign Treaty Principals. The assumption that a simple majority voting system would be used in the new Union parliament was never more than an assumption, because it is nowhere stated in the Treaty nor in either of its two Acts of ratification, and thus was never formally agreed and ratified, and can hold no legal or constitutional standing in the Union.
And of course, it isn’t even remotely democratic; you cannot take two bodies of MPs which represent two entirely different foreign sovereign kingdoms, and where one of those bodies outnumbers the other ten times over, and then just treat them as a single homogenous group in a simple flat majority vote in order to identify a ‘joint’ decision made between them. That is not just democratically inept, it represents a clear and outright denial of the sovereign rights of the smaller body’s kingdom.
Let me spell that out;
Scotland’s MPs are under NO formal obligation to submit to the majority decisions of the MPs of a completely different foreign kingdom.
It is that grossly inappropriate voting system combined with England’s ten-fold MP majority that lets England’s establishment exploit that otherwise irrelevant majority to neutralise the sovereignty of the Scottish half of the Union, giving the English partner free rein to rule what England regards as ‘their’ Union. This constitutes a grave injustice to Scotland, and it must be properly addressed.
There are only two ways to fix this, one is to end the Union, and complete withdrawal can do that, and even a significant withdrawal might do that. The other way is to amend the voting system, if we decided to give the Union one last chance.
Since the voting system is not enforced by the Treaty nor by its ratifying Acts, it can be amended quite simply, and it doesn’t even require changing the numbers of MPs of either kingdom.
All it requires is a simple majority vote from each body to be counted separately to determine how each body voted, delivering an English Yes or No, and a separate Scottish Yes or No for every decision to be made by Parliament. At a stroke it would make the absolute numbers of either body irrelevant, and any matter being debated on could only pass as Union legislation or other decision if both bodies voted Yes by their own separate majorities.
Both England’s and Scotland’s democratic representations would still be respected because theirs MP numbers wouldn’t change, and the sovereignties of both kingdoms would now also be respected because neither body can overrule the other as both partners would now have the same veto of denying their approval for any matter voted on, something they were both entitled to from the very beginning of the Union.
Our MPs must demand this. They must be crystal clear what they intend by these amendments, and that refusal by Westminster’s English establishment will not be accepted, on pain of ending the Union.
If England’s MPs and/or establishment refuse to play ball on this, then as Peter makes clear, Scotland’s MPs MUST abandon Westminster, as the only practical way to deprive it of any vestige of legitimacy of authority over Scotland, as Alf’s earlier assertion establishes, regarding the necessity of our representation to validate it.
Another excellent thought provoking article. I agree with every word. However the Political class are still captured by the concept that power lies with the Politicians. Until we restore power to the People significant progress is impossible. The Political Class produce manifestos, get elected and then do whatever they want. They may need to horse trade with others in their Political Class to push issues through but the views of the citizen is irrelevant to them. Unfortunately Holyrood has turned into a mini UK with the SNP/ Green power block.
Although a founder member of Alba I am moving closer and closer to the ISP. I see real honesty in their stance and a clear respect for the views of the members.
In an Independent Scotland I want a Swiss style referendum on major issues such as NATO, EU/EFTA, Monarchy, GRRA, Nuclear Energy, Oil & Gas……etc
In the 21st Century the will of the People could be recorded in seconds putting the People in Control. However the Political Class today are no different from those of 100 years ago. They were elected to represent US but instead want to decide for US.
The first step is to stop playing to Westminster Rules. We have an acceptance at the moment that Westminster can simply say NO to a Referendum and that is the end of the debate…..WHY?
Where is the outrage backed by demands from the People for action. Sadly the People no longer trust our Politicians. They are disconnected from Scots. Tory, Labour and LibDems put Scottish before their name but have no interest in real change for Scots. The SNP and Greens are fixated on shaping our society to their vision. Alba and ISP have yet to gain traction.
We have a log jam that didn’t exist in 2012/14. Who built it? Why did they build it?
It was not Westminster or the Unionist Parties because they hold the same position they did in 2012/14. Only one answer remains….The inner clique of the SNP under Sturgeon decided to pursue regional dominance and control instead of risking it by pursuing Independence.
Now you understand why the SNP will not join the call for a United ticket for the GE. The SNP are the log jam. The D’Hondt formula will give the NUSNP power in Holyrood for quite a while. They are convinced that the vote harvesting of Indy voters will continue.
Party before Nation.
A matter of conscience – Peter A Bell
As has been well reported, SNP has brought this on itself., and on Scotland.
Nicola Sturgeon has to accept most of this blame, as she fooled so many, and yet doing nothing to get us Independence.
And when she suddenly resigned, many felt betrayed, and was compounded by 2 things in particular, the quickly arranged election for the new leader, then the Police investigations, which the anti Scottish Media couldn’t get enough of.
Then we have the ongoing ferries debacle, again much of it being trumpeted by the Media.
However, despite such problems, SNP Government, has actually been doing ok for this country, but the Media don’t like to say too much of that, such as avoiding strikes with Doctors, and helping to end others.
But we don’t seem to get much from SNP to highlight these, nor do we hear anything from this famous but highly secretive SNP “Rebuttal Unit”.
In fact has anyone heard anything from this top secret team, ever???
I mean, here we have Labour supporting the genocidal Israel Government, and now, even to the extent of no longer supporting a Palestine State, but what do we hear thus far from SNP on such outrageous Labour policy? Nothing!
Why is no one from SNP challenging Sawar in Scotland over this?
Indeed, why is MSP Sawar so very silent these days? And Baillie and the rest of them.
Wonder what anyone in Rutherglen who is angry now think of their new MP, or anyone in East Kilbride, tho in the New Town, at least they know that MP won’t be standing again, but turning to Labour isn’t going to be any better.
Why is anyone else who opposes what is going on in Palestine and Gaza not pointing all this out, and condemning Labour outright in Scotland?
Maybe support for Labour would soon go down.
We should certainly hope so, at any rate.
Regards voting intentions for England’s Parliament, well, no one who wants Independence can possibly be so stupid to vote for political groups that have made their opposition to Independence so very clear.
But here, we have a totally anti Scottish Media machine that tries to manipulate as many of the less interested voters as possible and play up any perceived or actual faults with the Scottish Government, while most play down the restrictions on said Government by the Union, especially regards funding arrangements.
We noted that certain outlets online anyway, had nothing to say of the reported billions going to England’s Treasury from Scottish whisky revenues, billions and billions of Scotland’s revenues we will never see a dime of, while in this Union.
And why is there not an absolute uproar being made of the Grangemouth refinery shutdown plans??? Would that be perhaps because it kinda suits the Greens?
Well voting Labour certainly is not gonna help anyone at Grangemouth, that’s for sure!
There is more than plenty for SNP to go big on, and yet, and yet, we get next to nothing, but mere silence!
We are left to wonder just what it is with those who are in power at SNP?
If they continue like this, then voters will indeed abandon them.
It’s almost as if that is the plan.
Tho we would all like to be proved wrong on that.
Well SNP, damn do something to change it all, and now!
I will stress yet again that, in the article, I was seeking to discuss the ethics of an independence supporter voting for British Labour rather than ANY party which at least says it is pro-independence.
But to address your suggestion of a boycott; this only works – or has the possibility of working – if it is kept as simple as possible. Boycott one thing and do it everywhere. Add any more instructions and you’ll start to lose people. Try saying boycott in this constituency and not that constituency and the electorate switches off. The electorate must be thought of as a dumb beast. Individual voters are not dumb. Well, not most of them. But the electorate isn’t a person. It is a mob. And mobs are mindless.
There are other ‘rules’ to creating a successful boycott. As implied by the above, it has to be able to generate mass support, or it won’t even be noticed. (That is kinda stating the obvious. But sometimes the obvious is overlooked if it isn’t stated.) So, it has to be made easy for people. Not just easy to understand in terms of what is being boycotted and where and when and for how long. The thing being boycotted must be something people can easily do without for whatever is the duration of the boycott. Don’t ask people to boycott water, is a good rule.
The impact of a boycott has to be measurable. Or, at least, it must be possible to estimate the effect and put it into numbers or plain language. But, while it must be clear that the boycott has had an impact, that impact must not be destructive. The aim should be to wound the target, but not kill it. a boycott which results in, say, the closure of a business with large-scale lay-offs, is a boycott which has failed.
I didn’t intend to get into a treatise on boycotting. When I start thinking about something, I have a tendency to want to think it all the way through. But I think I’ve made my point. Asking for a boycott here but not there is a complication too far. Asking people to give up their vote might also be asking too much of them. While there is a lot of apathy, there are also a great many people who value the opportunity to participate in the democratic process – so long as it’s not more than once a year. (Sarcasm!) This is why I’ve suggested a campaign to repurpose the ballot by writing #EndTheUnion across it.
If enough people do this, it will register. It will have an impact. It’s for certain nothing else will. This is a Westminster election. The system is devised to ensure that Scotland’s vote isn’t sufficient to disrupt the status quo. The outcome will, as ever, be determined by the few thousand voters in England that the two main British establishment parties are trying to woo. They are both trying to appeal to the same set of voters. Which is why they have become barely distinguishable.
Perhaps worth remembering that colonialism is considered a crime against humanity, according to the UN, which calls for it to end.
There is clearly no ‘Union’ in practice within a colonial society, only a a native group left holding a violated treaty, which tells us that the term ‘unionist’ is a misnomer; what we see are effectively colonial parties run by colonialists whose purpose is to maintain the colonial hoax and economic plunder, i.e. the theft of a peoples territory and resources as well as the destruction of their culture.
A ‘nominal’ national party that becomes part of the colonial ‘racket’ and indeed which ends up ‘managing’ a colonial administration on behalf of the colonizer (i.e. ‘indirect rule’) is clearly now a part of the colonial regime. A vote for any of these entities is therefore a vote for colonialism, i.e. oppression.
Because colonial oppression tends to be obscured this means many of the people do not yet know this reality, they have only a rudimentary understanding of their ‘condition’ and what independence means (i.e. decolonization and liberation). Moreover, as ‘nationalist’ politicians have never undertaken ‘a reasoned study of colonial society’ they are easily drawn closer to colonialism, as we see.
Wings Over Scotland | Full transparency
Geri
27 January, 2024 at 12:02 pm
It’s the Westminster voting system.
They probably set it up like that because they knew there’d be very little yoons voted in given time & they were right. 2007 – just seven year for Salmond to rise.
The Scottish electorate need to understand the system & unlearn the SNP 1& 2 bullshit. It’s not designed for an overall majority so if Scots used their noggin that parly would be a super pro Indy parly.
Sturgeon, the Yoon, locked out that option in 2021. She preferred to work with yoons because yoons wouldn’t push her on independence whereas a super pro Indy parliament would have.
All both votes SNP does is allow yoons in & the SNP & Greens to be unaccountable & force through unpopular GRR. (If Alba had been in the cheap seats it’d never have passed) That’s why she bad mouthed Salmond on national telly to make sure that didn’t happen.
Cross party committees are supposed to scrutinise policy through various stages – they’re also asleep at the wheel. That could be argued that’s deliberate – give the SNP enough rope etc, but
ICJ judgement just in –
palestinians are getting themselves deliberately killed to make israel look bad.
this isnt genocide, this is rock n roll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTIsnYPG4lU
nazis on the internets are claiming libel and defamation for being compared to israelis
gawd save benji nyetanhoo
and zionists on the lam
they wasnt being wicked
they was just having fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMqGj3z-5XY
what’s the point of human misery, if someone else can’t have a good old laff at it – as jonny rotten once called it “cheap holiday … ”
I felt unsafe today, so I went out and killed all my neighbours in the street, then blew their houses up via gas explosions. I still feel unsafe, for the survivors could be hiding under the rubble harbouring murderous thoughts against me, for no reason whatsoever.
– I think Biden should send me F16s. It could be the 2% ashkenazi in me – I’ll tell you what happened to me, but never what I did.
my granny was a holocaust denier, so I sent her to a rabbi to learn of their religion, then I sent her to a professor to learn of their history; when she returned I asked her what she thought of the holocaust now? She said she couldn’t believe it happened only once.
but in a strange karmic balance my grandad destroyed 100 german planes in ww2 – worst mechanic the luftwaffe ever hired
when you look at western politicans – their desire to force unpopular policies on their people, to destroy their own nations – you start to think ALL of them might be on the take, or being blackmailed; if you aren’t bought and paid for, you don’t get the gig; the few honest men are easy to spot by the hatred they get.
Alex Salmond really stepped free from from the crowd when he opposed the bombing of Serbia in 1999.
His opponents piled on thinking he had made a huge error.
The public however, including many in England, thought otherwise.
It took Scottish politics onto a new level and fuelled the rise of the SNP.
Is there someone with any commitment and vision about nowadays?
I don’t see anyone.
Covid, climate nonsense, and trannyism are just three clear examples where a committed politician could represent a large number of disenfranchised voters, but, there is no one.
Very strange.
Geri
Ignored says:
28 January, 2024 at 12:36 am
Just googled when NATO first went rogue….
2 things…
Don’t trust Google to find what you’re looking for.
Let me clarify, don’t not trust it, but just don’t assume it’s search engine is particularly ahem, thorough, or telling you everything. Both Google and YouTube have played a big role in skewing the perception of recent world events. Look too at all the jiggerypokery with cyber attacks on so many pro-Indy blogs.
Try Googling Ruskia Today and see where it gets you. A white blackout. Scott Ritter and Douglas MacGregor were also deplatformed at critical times, although they seem to be back on YT. These “silencing” of sources are just examples of Western narratives masquerading as “news”.
I find it all a bit BBC… you might hear something interesting as a headline, but then you need to dig around to get the true story minus the blinkers and agenda filtration.
And 1999? I’d go back further, at least as far back as 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, and also the Bosnian war of 1992-95. NATO’s motives were already dubious back then, as was their cynical attitude towards UN Resolutions.
Point of fact, Vlad (P)utin cited the same UN Charter to intervene militarily in the Don Bas, to save Ruskian Nationals from shelling, as the US and NATO cited to bomb Yugoslavia and eventually recognise Kosovo. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Also, as reported above, it was the bombing of Yugoslavia without appropriate Resolutions which Alex Salmond described as “unpardonable folly”.
Hands up anyone who still believes it actually was a simple act of folly, not a “deeper” NATO / US agenda in the making…
Salmond was an incredible Statesman with good instincts and the courage to stand against the mainstream opinion, and an Independent Scotland would have flourished under his leadership… at least until NATO wanted him gone. Maybe, in part, that’s precisely what did happen. NATO does mean London after all, not just Washington.
I know, I know, his legacy gave us Sturgeon, so he wasn’t infallible. But maybe if the Faculty of Advocates had struck her off rather than fudged a deal over her departure from the legal profession, then the World would have been a better place all round.
Ruby @ 10:17 am
“Has it something to do with us being a colony? Is it important for our coliniser that we don’t have any confidence in ourselves.”
Yes, it is well-established in any colonial society “how an elite of usurpers, aware of their mediocrity, establish their privileges. By one means only: debasing the colonized to exalt themselves” (Jean-Paul Sartre).
In this environment the usurper continuously ridicules and destroys the colonized’s history, traditions, languages, culture, beliefs, and limits opportunities for native development (e.g. the cap on Scots university places; high energy and other utility costs; plunder of resources etc).
“The main task of the colonizer is to make any prospect of freedom for the colonized seem impossible” (Albert Memmi).
Mac says on 28 January 2024 at 12:34 pm:
“I have plenty of people and websites I think are talking industrial scale pish, WGD springs to mind, but would I spend anytime there arguing with them… fuck no.”
“So to spend all day on here pouring out the same drivel on a massive scale strongly points to those actors that Craig Murray refers to in his ‘signature’ to his articles.”
I often ponder the same thoughts, Mac. There are those who claim to be indy supporters yet seem to spend a lot of their time sitting on here attacking the beliefs of other indy supporters. Why? And if those beliefs they are attacking are as unpopular as they would have everyone believe then why the need to spend all day every day ridiculing those folk and their beliefs?
One of them even claimed to have a military background so you would have thought they, of all people, would know who the real enemy was, wouldn’t you? And i don’t agree with much of those being attacked but neither do i feel the need to pick on them and/or their beliefs.
I guess i can’t get my head around why someone who claims to be pro-indy prefers to waste their own time disrupting these WOS threads by attacking other indy supporters rather than go and frequent the btl threads of the Unionist online newspapers, where most of the Unionist “activists” loiter. That’s where you get to challenge Unionist policies etc.
To me it looks like those doing it are either one of the following, or a combination of the following:
(1) – Narcissists more interested in grandstanding their own perceived greatness. If i were chocolate i’d eat myself sort of thing.
(2) – They are BritNat Unionists masquerading as pro-indy.
(3) – And following on from No2 above but not necessarily the same thing, they are Unionist Trolls.
Mac also said: “Would not be surprised if there were a few, all having a ‘conversation’ with themselves…”
And you can take that to the bank, Mac. That’s a dead cert. You only need to look back over the last 3 or 4(?) btl threads and you will find the most blatant, laughable effort yet. You see the comment being posted from a username never seen on here before and within no time at all you see one of the usual suspects quickly appear under his usual Monika responding to the “mystery name” An even bigger giveaway is the utter bullshit in that response. Almost as if he’d created the other account to help him promote his own grandstanding greatness. Have to say, i find it as funny as f@ck. A modern political Del Boy. A chancer and conman. LOL!
@ Ruby thanks for the link @ Hatuey 4.31pm I too was unaware that these types of meetings were correct or above board ,unminuted, unrecorded and obviously unwitnessed WHY would any official put themselves in that position and why would the approach be made by underlings, the stench is overwhelming
As has been pointed out it seems very opportunistic that sturgeon just happened to absent herself when the police EVENTUALLY found the time to conduct a search of chez sturrell thereby negating the ability of our wondrous MSM and broadcasters to doorstep her
And all of a sudden after almost 2 years of investigation we have our ever vigilant police force in collusion with the forensic investigative world renowned journalism of the daily redcoat revealing publicly to much acclaim that some signatures MAY have been forged, I wonder whose signatures have maybe been forged, could this be another line of defence ,could maybe wee petey be being set up as the fall guy, or is Colin being set up to take the fall, or is honest John throwing himself on the fire to protect his great love, but we all know who will NOT be fingered ( no pun intended)
No spam or ads, just the latest posts and updates from Scotland's newest pro-independence blog.
.png)
