tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26753152509225733982024-03-13T20:47:15.291+00:00Power and its MinionsOutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-20616061715209714392010-09-09T01:11:00.042+01:002010-09-13T01:35:38.013+01:00Radical Times<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/TIgm8TfCLfI/AAAAAAAAANQ/zev8qtIJ03g/s1600/Picture+3.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 192px; height: 200px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/TIgm8TfCLfI/AAAAAAAAANQ/zev8qtIJ03g/s200/Picture+3.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5514700561179618802" border="0" /></a><br />The current debate among Scottish nationalists appears to be about whether or not it might be best for the SNP to lose next year’s Scottish elections, leaving the Labour Party to take the blame for implementing London’s impending budget cuts.<br /><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div>The argument appears to be that if the SNP wins the May 2011 elections, they will be forced to pass on Westminster’s promised budget cuts, and the Scottish press will paint the SNP as willing Vichy partners in the Tory devastation of Scottish society.</div><div><br />So if the SNP were to <span style="font-style: italic;">lose</span> this election, so the argument goes, it wouldn’t really matter. Labour would get the blame for the subsequent cuts, and Scots would remember they were offered an alternative, and avoid making the same mistake in 2015.<br /><br />At first sight, this argument appears to have merit. For a moment I started to believe it myself. After careful consideration, however, I now see there are huge flaws with this strategy. One is that it relies on Scots coming to blame Labour for the Tory cuts, when for four years the Unionist press in Scotland would be singing in perfect harmony that it is not Labour’s fault, but the Tories.<br /><br />But there is a bigger problem. This strategy would lead many in the SNP to conclude that it’s better simply to give up now without a fight, to stop campaigning and take a break.<br /><br />The Labour Party, not to mention the British Establishment, would like nothing better.<br /><br />Consider this: if Labour knows that savage cuts are coming in Scotland, why on earth do they want to win this election so badly? Because they know that an SNP victory will probably mean more SNP seats in Holyrood. Which will be one step nearer a majority, and Scotland will be one step nearer a referendum and independence.<br /><br />But if the SNP were to <span style="font-style: italic;">lose</span>, everything that has been achieved in the past three years will be swept away as if it never happened. A massive opportunity will have been missed. Momentum will be lost. Scottish independence will be taken off the political agenda for four more years, possibly longer.<br /><br />That is what is at stake here. That is why the SNP and its activists must do their utmost to win this election, fighting tooth and nail, down to the wire.<br /><br />Whatever happens, the SNP must hold Holyrood, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Labour must never be allowed into power in Scotland again</span>.<br /><br />The question is, though, how to achieve this? How to fire up the troops, especially with so much self-doubt in the air, after deciding not even to demand a referendum?<br /><br />On the referendum, let me say that Alex Salmond was absolutely right to take it off the table for now.<br /><br />First, this move has caught the Unionist parties off guard. Their printing presses were already set to say ‘Waste Of Money At Such Hard Times’, and ‘Salmond’s Vanity Project All In Vain,’ etc. They thought they knew what was next, and they were wrong.<br /><br />Second, it has made the SNP rank and file wake up. Many were quite happy to sit back for the next eight months and ‘leave it to Alex’. The rigmarole of the voted-down referendum would fire up Scotland to vote the SNP back in. Sure. That’s all it would take. And all the voted down legislation for the past three years has had exactly the same effect. Scots are simply livid about Unionist obstruction on a minimum pricing for alcohol. They are marching in the streets for more borrowing rights for the Scottish Government. Can’t you feel it in the air?<br /><br />Keech.<br /><br />What is called for now is a series of bold, dramatic, game-changing political moves that seize the initiative once more, energizing the SNP activists to make this election about Scottish independence. <span style="font-style: italic;">And then to win it</span>.<br /><br />At very least, the SNP should do the following:<br /><br />1. Stop complaining about the Unionist media in Scotland. Bypass it. Issue press releases, policy statements and interviews exclusively to <a href="http://newsnetscotland.com/">Newsnet Scotland</a> and <a href="http://news.stv.tv/video/">STV</a>. Nurture them as alternatives to the BBC and the Unionist dead tree press. Foreign-based contributions are restricted to political parties, but not to media organisations. Advise your cashed-up non-dom supporters to tip their millions into Newsnet Scotland.<br /><br />2. Start thinking like a radical NGO. NGOs take a hostile and indifferent press for granted. Learn their tactics. Hire creative people with this background to plan media campaigns. Get them to teach your members how to form activist cells. Pull off a breathtaking and ever-building series of spectacular media stunts that exposes the true exploitative nature of the UK presence in Scotland and, by extension, teaches Scots how much better their lives could be in an independent nation.<br /><br />3. Unleash the party activists to start using the tactics of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience">creative disobedience</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence">nonviolent protest</a> against London rule. Turn Scottish independence into a <a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2009/05/scottish-nationalism-as-moral-issue.html">moral issue</a>. Get activists to study and adopt the <a href="http://www.peacemagazine.org/198.htm">creative protest tactics</a> of <a href="http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html">Henry David Thoreau</a>, <a href="http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/Myths.html">Mahatma Gandhi</a> and <a href="http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html">Saul Alinsky</a>. These tactics work. They are unstoppable.<br /><br />4. Label the BBC a foreign news agency and that as such <a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-has-become-of-bbc.html">non-payment of the BBC licence fee</a> will not be prosecuted. Boycotts are a core strategy of nonviolent protest. The people of Scotland will rally to the cause. It will politicise Scots of all backgrounds, especially the unemployed. The courts would be powerless to handle the number of cases. Those that feel guilty can regain the moral high ground by donating their licence fees to charity. Or to Newsnet Scotland. I’m sure it could find a use for £300 million a year.<br /><br />5. Win Glasgow’s heart. Take a leaf from Old Labour’s book: create a powerful emotional bond between the people of Glasgow and the SNP as their protectors. The SNP is the only major political party that is prepared to defend Scotland against London’s cuts. Hold two or three meet-the-people cabinet meetings every year in the heart of Glasgow. Forget persuading the long-term unemployed – they don’t vote. They will gain from Scottish independence by getting jobs, but most won’t thank you for it. It’s the working and middle class who vote New Labour. Talk to them. Recruit for the party amongst their community leaders. <span style="font-style: italic;">And then win Glasgow Council.</span><br /><br />6. Get Scottish teenagers engaged in politics. Get MSPs to visit schools to talk to students like adults. Recruit more students to the party. Get them to help with by-elections. Build a grassroots organisation that grows organically. Play the long game.<br /><br />7. Go on the information offensive. Work with Newsnet Scotland to hit Whitehall and the BBC with a hailstorm of <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/maurice-frankel/roots-of-blairs-hostility-to-freedom-of-information">freedom of information requests</a>. What exactly did the Scotland Office spend its £7.2 million a year on under Jim Murphy? What directives have BBC management given to IT staff on censorship of nationalist comments on BBC blogs? What is the true nature of MI5 Operations in Scotland? Which political activists in Scotland are under surveillance? Publish the findings on Newsnet Scotland.<br /><br />8. Walk away from Westminster. Announce that the SNP will no longer contest Westminster seats. This will resonate powerfully with Scots and will be the first stage of Scotland ending its association with London. Explain why – that Westminster is a waste of time and resources and that the SNP can achieve nothing there, even if they win every single Scottish seat. Leave Westminster to the New Labour piggies as their path to peerage. This handful of Scottish seats is a potent symbol of the slavish incorporation of our political class into a greater political establishment. England has refused to accept it in Europe. Why should we in Britain?<br /><br />9. Fix the message. Ruthlessly, relentlessly and repeatedly push the following positive and negative messages in front of every offered microphone:<br /><br /></div><div><br />A. Independence is the only way to stop the proposed cuts to Scotland's pocket money. The cuts stop the moment we become independent.<br /><br />B. The Tories have no respect for Scotland. They never did. They never will.<br /><br />C. New Labour is not the answer to the Tories. The SNP is the only major party with Scotland’s interests in mind. The SNP = Scotland.<br /><br />D. The Labour Party that gave us the National Health Service is dead. New Labour is the party of Tony Blair, greed, corruption and illegal wars.<br /><br />E. New Labour corruption is killing Glasgow.<br /><br />F. New Labour is a British party, not a Scottish one. New Labour is keeping Scotland in the UK for its own political ends. New Labour is a self-serving UK political party whose only goal is power for power’s sake. Joining the Labour Party is a career move. Most people in it have never had a real job.<br /><br />G. New Labour's policies are the root cause of Britain’s financial woes. New Labour must never be trusted with power again – in London or Edinburgh.<br /><br />H. New Labour <a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2010/05/labour-have-put-scotlands-head-in-tory.html">let in the Tories</a>, walking away from forming a perfectly viable UK government, just to keep out the SNP.<br /><br />I. The UK is having a referendum on its voting system. Wales will get a referendum too. Where is Scotland's referendum? What is London afraid of?<br /><br />J. Norway is our model. Same population size. Same landscape. Same climate. Same economy. Forget Ireland. Forget Iceland. Forget Australia. <span style="font-style: italic;">NORWAY</span>.<br /><br /><br />That's only a start. There is so much more.<br /><br />If for no other reason, these steps will give a good boost for party morale, which will be sorely tested in the times to come. You don’t win wars by ignoring your enemy. We are not children or saints: counter-punches have their place. As does creative attack.<br /><br />The SNP is now fighting for the very soul of Scotland.<br /><br />It’s time to get radical.<br /><br /></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-22697717309031411112010-08-01T06:15:00.017+01:002010-08-12T09:25:23.879+01:00What Has Become of the BBC?A world-renowned news service, second to none. The standard for others to meet in the quality of its analysis and the depth of coverage. Celebrated as the voice of truth and feared by repressive regimes around the world. Justly famed for its impartiality.<br /><br />But all is not as it seems. The BBC, paragon of journalistic virtue, bastion of broadcasting neutrality, has a blind spot.<br /><br />It seems that the BBC doesn’t do positive stories about one of the most successful governments in Europe, a government that has in only three years of power managed to improve the lives of its citizens, avoid expenses scandals, keep within its budgets, all while running a popular minority administration.<br /><br />That place is Scotland.<br /><br />In reality it is far more than a blind spot. That in itself would perhaps be a credible explanation for the traditional <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=556FEKoVd-w">crude parody of Scottish culture</a>, <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/here-is-the-news-scots-viewers-deserve-better-1.840277">lack of proportional investment</a>, and shallow condescension that often passes for BBC reporting on Scotland. This is something new. Something profound has changed in how the BBC operates in Scotland, and people are starting to notice.<br /><br />Blithe conciliatory explanations about a poor understanding by BBC staff of the Scottish devolutionary settlement within the UK are no longer acceptable, believable, or sufficient to explain what is now happening. The BBC’s new style of coverage in Scotland consists of the <a href="http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=381:megrahi-the-media-and-the-myths-part-2-outrage-at-the-bbc&catid=4:speakers&Itemid=3">willful mis-reporting and twisting of stories</a> to protect the British Establishment, clumsy <a href="http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93:the-bbc-a-licence-to-kill-free-speech&catid=1:politics&Itemid=2">Internet censorship</a>, the <a href="http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71:no-inquiry-no-investigation-no-charges&catid=1:politics&Itemid=2">suppression of crucial and important stories</a> central to understanding the nation’s political life, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnQPptuG8uM">scornfully discourteous interviewing of Scotland’s First Minister</a>, and the <a href="http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/2010/04/snp-lost-court-case.html">barring of Scottish Government representative participation</a> in UK election debates for a parliament that is supposed to represent Scotland’s interests.<br /><br />Until the Al Megrahi release a year ago, little of what was happening could have been classified as deliberate censorship or propaganda. Until then, most of the problems were sins of omission, ignorance and interview bias, however blatant. The reality is probably that most BBC employees are essentially decent people with good critical thinking skills but with a blind spot within their own British identities, people who are struggling to understand or accept the geopolitical transformation that is happening right on their doorstep.<br /><br />But a perceptible and strategic shift has indeed occurred. What we are witnessing today has all the hallmarks of a state propaganda machine that would make Chinese Government officials and their IT managers proud. This is no exaggeration. Follow the links.<br /><br />The remarkable thing is why anyone should be surprised. This is what happens when financial rewards for organizations are skewed: quarterly reports lead to quarterly corporate performance; allowing banks to make loans with no matching reserves lets them lend to whatever misguided fools will accept a loan; self-regulation of money markets leads to the lunatics taking over the asylum and derivative financial products that even those selling them cannot understand. That’s what happens at the frayed edges of all incentive schemes. Organisations and people will almost always perform precisely how the financial structure around them demands them to perform. Good intentions and noble market forces be damned.<br /><br />The BBC is no different. The inconvenient truth for Scotland is that the means by which the BBC Trust is funded creates a powerful incentive for its stakeholders to oppose Scottish independence. This is not just about the BBC’s Scottish employees protecting their jobs – if anything, many of these are good people held back from doing their jobs as they would wish. This goes right to the top.<br /><br />The reason is that when Scotland eventually, inevitably, goes its own way, the BBC Trust stands to lose nearly 9% of its <a href="http://www.freakinsweetnews.com/2010/02/27/bbc-budget-cut-what-will-happen-to-family-guy">£3.6billion revenue</a>, or approximately £310million, the total that Scots contribute (on pain of criminalization) to the BBC balance sheet. This is a mighty inducement for BBC management to direct its staff to run interference on anything that even resembles kudos for the nationalist-led Scottish Government whose stated intention is to lead Scotland to independence.<br /><br />This colonial nonsense has to stop.<br /><br />Whoever is responsible, the simplest solution would be for the Scottish Government to demand that the BBC immediately:<br /><br />1. Cease and desist from the suppression of news and to allow its BBC Scotland staff to report stories pertaining to the Scottish political scene in a fair and balanced manner.<br /><br />2. End its censorship of all commentary on BBC news websites and BBC blogs relating to Scottish politics (under the pretence that the comments are offensive).<br /><br /><br />The Scottish Government should let it be known that if this does not happen by a stated date then the BBC will be forced to provide under freedom of information all minutes for the past three years for BBC Scotland management and IT policy meetings, particularly pertaining to news content. As a public body these documents must exist. The sheer volume of information will prevent any attempt at redaction or selective destruction.<br /><br />If they have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear.<br /><br />If the BBC cooperates, so be it. If not, there should be a number of consequences. First, the BBC Trust should be considered to have violated its charter in Scotland and that the Scottish legal system, which retains the ultimate right of appeal in Scottish criminal cases, would henceforth not be prosecuting any cases brought for TV licence non-payment that are appealed.<br /><br />This would, at a stroke, remove Scottish revenues from the BBC balance sheet and eliminate the financial incentive for the disgraceful censorship and news manipulation that is currently being passed off as political news in Scotland. The misinformation, half-truths and censorship would no doubt continue, but at least Scots will not be paying for it.<br /><br />Second, the inter-government standoff would not only create a huge amount of sympathetic publicity in the High Streets of Scotland, something the Scottish Government so badly needs for its successes. Nor would it merely make Scots wake up to what is happening, and perhaps even begin to question what they are hearing.<br /><br />The Scottish Government-endorsed payment boycott would galvanize and politicize ordinary Scots into action, creating a national sentiment and community solidarity around an unlawful and undemocratic situation. The dispute would be constitutional, not criminal. And no law would need to be passed in the Scottish Parliament to initiate it.<br /><br />Thoreau, Gandhi and Martin Luther King all recognised the difference between morality and legality, and the need to break unjust laws peacefully. Civil disobedience was the cornerstone of Indian Independence and the US Civil Rights movement. If laws are all so perfect, why do we have parliaments to change them? Politicians make laws, but if British MPs are so perfect, why were most of them recently found to be intrinsically dishonest? <div><br /></div><div>If the British Government says one thing, but the Scottish Government - for whom the Scottish people are sovereign - says another, which is right?<br /><br />At some point it is inevitable that Scotland will have her own national broadcasting service. Norway, with a slightly smaller population than Scotland, manages fine with a TV licence fee of Kr2,322 (about £249) while Ireland, with its even smaller population, pays only €160, about £133 – each comparable to London’s annual UK propaganda fee of £145.50. So come independence, Scotland will easily fund a perfectly adequate national broadcaster for herself. <div><br /></div><div>Instead of tolerating a corrupted version of someone else’s.<br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-86952694182587401702010-07-03T11:25:00.021+01:002010-07-05T01:42:37.080+01:00‘Significant’ UK Scientific Breakthrough<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/TC8bitiusHI/AAAAAAAAANA/bfQU4AgP-GU/s1600/Picture+7.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 185px; height: 200px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/TC8bitiusHI/AAAAAAAAANA/bfQU4AgP-GU/s200/Picture+7.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5489636753942687858" /></a><br />Reuters - Details are still sketchy, but, in an astonishing scientific breakthrough, it appears that British scientists have finally discovered the gene that actually prevents Scots from governing themselves.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />If confirmed, the project, completed in the final days of the last UK Labour administration, will amount to nothing less than the Holy Grail for those Scots who argue that an independent Scotland would be a violation of the laws of nature. As such it will also be a godsend for those in the UK Labour Party and the Scottish and British media – especially the BBC, the <span style="font-style:italic;">Scotsman</span>, <span style="font-style:italic;">Glasgow Herald</span> and <span style="font-style:italic;">Daily Record</span> – who until now have been forced to argue this without evidence.<br /><br />Called traitors by their own countrymen, these Scottish ‘unionists’ – an assorted rabble of politicians, hack journalists and second rate economists, all with a vested interest in keeping their jobs in the UK political machine – were last night jubilant that they could finally explain why Scots were able to act as British prime ministers, British Empire governors, founding fathers for the United States, New Zealand and Canada, heads of banks and corporations around the world today, and yet be strangely incapable of running their own affairs.<br /><br />A visibly shaken Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland and champion of Scottish independence, was devastated at the news.<br /><blockquote>“It’s a total bombshell. Think of all the years we’ve wasted campaigning for something that was always beyond reach. Of course, we’ll be disbanding the Scottish National Party within a few days. I feel like we’ve let every North British person down. There was just no way we could have known.”</blockquote><br />When asked if he had any specific comment on the findings, Salmond was reflective.<br /><blockquote>“Och, well,” he sighed. “At least this solves the puzzle of what Labour’s Scotland Office was actually doing with its £7.2 million budget. We thought it was trying to prove the existence of alien life, but now we know.”</blockquote><br />An ecstatic ex-Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy last night explained the true significance of the discovery, on a hotline from the wilderness:<br /><blockquote>“It’s what we’ve been saying all along. We’ve finally proved beyond doubt that Scots need exposure to English culture to <span style="font-style:italic;">learn</span> governance, which is England’s gift to the world. Thank God Gordon Brown and I got our English culture from our wives. Without that contact, our genetic makeup would have put us at a serious disadvantage. We’d both be wife-beating alcoholics by now.”</blockquote><br />When asked about Scots’ solid record of leadership over the centuries, Mr. Murphy was defiant:<br /><blockquote>“Yes,” he yelled hoarsely, struggling to be heard over the tundra gale, “but England gave those countries their culture. So indirectly, it’s the English context that Scots needed to succeed, not our genes, which in fact hold us back. It’s only our acquired English culture that allows us to succeed.”</blockquote><br />And the fact that Scotland was an independent nation for over eight centuries before the Union, and as such one of the oldest nations on earth? At this point Mr. Murphy seemed to grow irate.<br /><blockquote>“Look pal, don't give me that medieval pish. We were never a real country. And any real leaders we had all left to settle the Empire. It’s only the genetic dross that’s left.”</blockquote><br />When asked if he included himself in this category, Mr. Murphy abruptly terminated the interview.<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-53310336189405263452010-06-02T14:26:00.013+01:002010-06-07T03:09:45.450+01:00Breaking Down the Scottish Labour Mythology<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/TAZdU5FJOVI/AAAAAAAAAM4/r31GB1DYSNs/s1600/Picture+4.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 156px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/TAZdU5FJOVI/AAAAAAAAAM4/r31GB1DYSNs/s200/Picture+4.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5478168610243950930" /></a><br />During the recent election, the local Labour candidate came to my parents’ door and introduced himself. My father later told me what happened, sounding quietly honoured that someone like an MP would come to his little corner of the world and knock on his front door. <div><br /></div><div>This was how he described the conversation:<br /><blockquote>‘Can I count on your vote in the Election?’<br />‘Oh, aye. We’re Labour folk fae way back.’<br />‘Really?’<br />‘Aye. Mining stock. Baith sides ’o the faimily.’<br />‘Really? Whar fae?”<br />‘Motherwell and Kilmarnock.’<br />‘That’s marvelous. It’s aye nice tae meet people wha ken whar they’re fae. Ken whit ah mean? People wha can mind the auld days.’<br />‘Oh, aye. Different times noo, though.’<br />‘Aye. And there’ll be big changes again if they Tories get back in.’<br />‘Aye, you’re no’ wrang.’<br />‘Will ye be needing a lift tae the polling station?’<br />‘Ach, no. Wur getting oan, but we can still get aboot. A freen's geein us a lift.’<br />‘That’s the spirit! Still soldiering oan, eh? It’s been a real pleasure tae meet ye. Cheerio, now.’<br /></blockquote><br />The hypocrisy of this exchange gave me bile. My father retired a couple of years ago and was disgusted to find that the pension he had contributed to all his life was almost worthless. I tried at the time to explain that it was <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/2806802/The-great-pensions-scandal-Osborne-missing-in-action.html">Gordon Brown’s scrapping of tax relief on pension fund dividends</a> that had destroyed his pension, but to no avail. That was one argument.<br /><br />He often tells me about confrontations with local junkie neds, whose cheek he claims to find amusing, in an I-can-still-take-it, razor gang chic kind of way. He told me the story of the junkie asking for flavoured methadone from a terrified young chemist assistant and was bemused when I didn’t find it hysterical.<br /><br />When pushed, he thinks we need a war to bring back some respect for authority. This is where I try to explain that we’re already in a war, that the lads who are dying in Afghanistan are just normal kids, and that these wasters would not be the type to join up anyway. And besides, what difference would a war make? After all, he hadn’t been a soldier himself – that was not where he had got his values from. That was another argument we had.<br /><br />My mother was sick last year. She got the best of treatment in a hospital about two hours away. He visited her every day for a month, leaving the car for free in the car park, sometimes for hours at a time. I explained this was an SNP idea. ‘Aye but they stole the idea off Labour. And the free tolls on the Forth was just populist nonsense. Just a bunch of bloody Tartan Tories.’ Straight from the <span style="font-style:italic;">Daily Record</span> songsheet.<br /><br />He spent a small fortune on fuel on these trips, and grumbled at the time about the price of petrol. He was getting to the stage where he couldn’t even afford to run his car. The idea that we should be one of the richest countries in the world with cheap petrol is a fantasy he refuses to even contemplate. ‘If Norway is so bloody great, why don’t you bugger off and live there,’ he says.<br /><br />The inconvenient truth for the SNP is that supporting Labour in the West of Scotland is part of Scottish workers’ identity – whether or not they still work. This is what the SNP are up against. The mainstream Scottish media have nurtured this identity for years. They feed Glasgow and the South West a steady stream of Old Firm rivalry, Scotland’s salt of the earth industrial toughness, and myths about her former glorious role in Empire, alongside the same celebrity tat that’s served up around the world. Not to mention any chance they get to make the Scottish Government look either incompetent or useless. And the central westies lap it up.<br /><br />The tragedy is that Scottish working men and women are utterly unaware of the complete disconnect between the Labour Party of old and the slick PR operation of today. My father used to tell me when I was younger that I should get down on my knees and thank Harold Wilson for giving me my free university education, and, while I was at it, Clement Atlee for the NHS. To a certain extent, I agree. But these things were achieved decades ago. New Labour and old Labour are not the same thing.<br /><br />To my father, the idea that the Labour Party has become a self-serving power structure that might actually have a stake in men like him staying poor is incomprehensible. He could never even begin to understand that Labour and the Tories need each other at Westminster, that they are both deeply conservative parties committed to the status quo, and that they must appear to be enemies to create problems for the other to fix up every fifteen years or so. Thirty years of Labour would be just as destructive as thirty years of the Tories. It is an oscillatory system of elected absolute power, periodically delivering up heroes and villains to satisfy everyone, and giving each side a bite of the cherry. Like an old German clock, rolling out different puppets every hour, both waving the British flag.<br /><br />To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how to change my father’s mind about Scottish independence.<br /><br />Perhaps all politics are local after all, and the answer lies in delivering high profile health, social and transport programs that are clearly seen to be SNP policies. If so, continuing the battle to control the councils must remain core SNP policy. Fortunately, this is a war of attrition the SNP is winning.<br /><br />The SNP must also learn to counter the non-stop scare-mongering in the Scottish unionist press, of the type ‘SNP denies plan to hand out free heroine to children.’ This is serious stuff. If Joseph Goebels proved anything it was that in absence of any dissenting voice, any intelligent, literate society starved of real news can be made to believe almost anything. The owners of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Daily Record</span> know this. Scottish Government and SNP press releases on their pretty web sites are simply not getting through. This is a media war that Labour is winning. </div><div><br /></div><div>Something has to give.<br /><br />My father lost his licence this year because of his health, and can no longer drive himself to the fishing. Luckily, he’s well liked and one of the younger lads will often drive him up to his favourite loch when he feels the need to drop a line in the water. He might not get the place to himself anymore, but he’s still catching fish, and it puts a smile on his face.<br /><br />I once asked him how the Scottish Government could help him.<br /><blockquote>'Change the law about Sunday salmon fishing,' he replied. 'The working man has aye been denied fishing for salmon on Sundays, so the toffs dinnae hae their rivers over-fished by the workers.'</blockquote><div><br /></div>Perhaps he is right. This might win a few over. It sounds like a good idea, even though, dare I say, a tad populist. But how would this help lift the people in Glasgow out of poverty? And, just as importantly, how many would be persuaded by this measure to stop voting to stay in poverty? Not too many, I would think.<br /><br />My mother doesn’t answer the door when politicians call. And like me, she’s learnt not to debate politics with my father. She knows he doesn’t like her voting differently to him and that he considers it a wasted vote if she does. She did it one year and told him, and he was furious.<br /><br />Today, as far as my father is aware, she votes Labour too, and there are no arguments on polling day. But my mother and I always have the last laugh.<br /><br />Mum votes SNP.<br /><br /><br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>UPDATE</div><div><a href="http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2001/11/feature/uk0111106f.htm">Unions Review Links With 'New Labour'</a></div><a href="http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=260:union-poll-shows-majority-in-favour-of-independence&catid=1:politics&Itemid=2">Union poll shows majority in favour of independence</a><br /><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-58738762695382970832010-05-16T10:04:00.019+01:002010-08-23T23:26:15.230+01:00Labour Have Put Scotland’s Head in the Tory Noose<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S-_Drj4BtzI/AAAAAAAAAMo/kZjG5jVevDU/s1600/Picture+5.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 314px; height: 320px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S-_Drj4BtzI/AAAAAAAAAMo/kZjG5jVevDU/s320/Picture+5.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5471807225410467634" /></a><br /><br />In a <a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-unionism-treachery.html">former post</a>, I argued the case that we cannot realistically call opponents of Scottish independence ‘traitors’ for two reasons: first, Scotland is not yet an independent state. Second, there are only 5 million of us. Slightly more than Norway, a wee bit less than Denmark. Unless we plan to shoot people to improve the polls, those who disagree with us have to be persuaded, until those in favour of independence are in a healthy majority.<br /><div><br />This means that the case must be made to those Scots, English, French, Chinese, Irish, Poles and Pakistanis living in Scotland that their quality of life would be vastly improved outside the financial and cultural straitjacket of the United Kingdom. To browbeat fence sitters by calling them traitors and fools sounds arrogant, and can only serve to harden attitudes.<br /><br />Recent events, however, have changed my mind about one particular group of Scots. It is now beyond any reasonable doubt that the Scots of the Labour Party are traitors to their own people. I refrain from saying the ‘Scottish Labour Party’, an entity which does not actually exist. I mean the UK Labour Party in Scotland. (1)<br /><br />If the post-Election negotiations proved nothing else, they proved this: that, knowing full well what the Tories will do to Scotland, a <a href="http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2010/05/13/it-could-all-have-been-so-different/">cabal</a> of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-FtFDoZfYA">Scottish</a> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/scotland/8674214.stm"> Labour Party</a> <a href="http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/8975/rifkind_im_sad_depressed_and_angry_with_two_timing_clegg.html">members</a> preferred to let the Tories back into power to wreak havoc on Scottish society, rather than work with the LibDems and Scottish and Welsh nationalists to form a progressive, social democratic alliance. They lined up to shoot down the idea of an anti-Tory alliance live on television. This while the leaders of their party were still in talks with the LibDems on forming a coalition.<br /><br />No concessions on referendums or special powers were asked for by the SNP as a price, yet these Labour Scots slapped away the SNP hand, unwilling even to discuss the possibility of cooperation.<br /><br />The central proposal on the table was to keep the Tories out. Yet it’s now clear for all to see that Labour’s priority was something quite different: to keep the Scottish Nationalists out.<br /><br />So maybe now at last we can put to bed the tired old Labour mantra that the SNP let in Margaret Thatcher in 1979. In 2010, the Scots of the Labour Party – with living memory as a guide for what to expect from the Tories – walked away from a viable alternative UK government and let the Tories back into power. This government would have held a UK majority, just as Labour likes to claim that Unionist parties form a majority of opinion in Holyrood.<br /><br />Think about what this means: that the Labour Party would rather sit out a decade in paid but impotent opposition under a UK Tory Government than give 1 second’s consideration to working with Scottish nationalists.<br /><br />The Labour Party Scottish footsoldiers evidently have stronger attachment to their Westminster salaries, benefits, expenses, titles, privileges and pensions than their own people. Protecting those eking out a living in Scotland in the face of impending Tory cuts is a long way down their list of priorities.<br /><br />So let us lay the blame for everything that now happens to Scotland under this Tory-LibDem regime fairly and squarely at the feet of the Labour Party in Scotland.<br /><br />Thank you, Scots of the Labour Party, for putting Scotland’s head in the Tory noose.</div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />NOTES<br />(1) The London-based British Labour Party is probably in violation of British electoral law by representing their party in Scotland as the Scottish Labour Party, a name that is an invention of Labour’s spin doctors.<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>UPDATE</div><div><br /></div><a href="http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=497:labour-were-relieved-to-let-tories-in&catid=1:politics&Itemid=2">Labour MP admits being 'relieved' when Tories got in</a><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-73685016955565550742010-05-08T03:34:00.037+01:002010-05-11T01:49:01.768+01:00A Good Time for England to Ditch Scotland?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S-Ty6VhDqmI/AAAAAAAAAL8/yUXJrKMESqc/s1600/Picture+2.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 120px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S-Ty6VhDqmI/AAAAAAAAAL8/yUXJrKMESqc/s200/Picture+2.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5468762931556756066" /></a><br />In David Cameron’s mind, the LibDem demands for proportional representation as the price for forming a government must surely be balanced by the knowledge that his refusal to do so would force them into coalition with the Labour Party, who would then be obliged to clean up the financial mess they helped create.<br /><br />This would have a number of consequences. First, Cameron would avoid having to bear any of the inevitable popular backlash against the government that has to make the essential cuts. <div><br /></div><div>Second, the Labour-LibDem coalition would be massively unpopular. Labour would of course seize the chance to stay in power, but its lack of electoral or moral authority would create huge hostility in England against (1) the Labour Party, and (2) Scotland and Wales, both for their Labour MPs, and the SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs needed to prop up the coalition, if only on a vote-by-vote basis.<br /><div><br />Due to the diversity of this coalition it would only be a matter of time before it fell on some pretext or other. It would almost certainly fail to pass a PR bill before its dithering demise - in a two party FPTP system, Labour stands to lose as much as the Tories if a PR bill were to succeed. </div><div><br /></div><div>The subsequent election would return a Conservative government. Whether it had a majority or not is irrelevant. What is important is that this Conservative government would be under intense popular pressure to either pass a PR bill (very unlikely) or do something about Scotland so that England gets the governments it elects. </div><div><br /></div><div>In other words, it would have an English mandate for Scotland to become independent.<br /><br />Cutting Scotland loose would be a relatively simple matter. One way would be for Cameron to instruct the Conservative MSPs in the Scottish Parliament to vote with the SNP Government to pass the proposed referendum on Scottish independence. This would not need the support of his Westminster coalition partner(s). The Scottish Greens are already on board to achieve the numbers. With the Conservatives in power in Westminster (and some orchestrated support from the Scottish media) the referendum would stand a good chance of success. </div><div><br /></div><div>Another way would be to hold a UK-wide referendum on Scottish independence. This would be hard to pass in Westminster via a coalition, but with a narrow Tory majority government would pass easily and be likely to succeed given the anticipated rise in English antagonism to Scotland, and could be pursued if the Scottish attempt failed.</div><div><br /></div><div>Either way, the result would be England waving farewell forever to 50-odd Scottish Labour and LibDem MPs, Scots voting on English issues, and Scottish Prime Ministers.</div><div><br />The Conservatives could then easily form a government without any need for the wishy-washy compromise of a coalition. Strong uncompromising government - the current system of elected dictatorship that routinely shuts out minority voices - would be preserved, and the banks, City and industry would be happy.<br /><br />And David Cameron would be the foundational leader of a newly independent England. An immortal name for schoolchildren to remember in the centuries to come.<br /><br />The real question then, Mr Cameron, is how do you want to be remembered? One of the last leaders of a withered imperial state, clinging on to the bitter end in a cobbled-together series of toothless coalition governments, or the architect of the great English nation reborn?<br /><br />Decisions, decisions…<br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>____________________________________________________</div><div>NOTES:</div><div><br /></div><div>In the recent UK first past the post (FPTP) General Election, without Scotland or Wales, out of a total of 533 seats, the English result would have been:</div><div><br /></div>298 Conservative (last seat to vote on May 27th)<br />191 Labour<br />43 LibDem<br />1 Green<br /><br /><div>A massive Conservative majority of 107 with 56% of the vote.<br /><br /><br />And for England and Wales, without Scotland, out of 572 seats:</div><div>306 Conservative (298+8)<br />217 Labour (191+26)<br />46 LibDem<br />3 Plaid Cymru<br /><br /></div><div>Still a strong Conservative majority of 89 with 53.5% of the vote.<br /><br /><br /></div><div>____________________________________________________</div><div>THE MOMENTUM GROWS:<br /><br /><div>Iain Martin, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/05/08/the-union-between-england-and-scotland-may-soon-be-toast/?mod=rss_WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">Union Between England and Scotland May Soon Be Toast</a>, <span style="font-style:italic;">Wall Street Journal</span>, May 8th, 2010<br /></div><div><br /></div>Minette Marrin, <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article7120643.ece">Cut Scotland loose – then we’ll have a fair voting system</a>, <span style="font-style:italic;">Sunday Times</span>, May 9th, 2010</div><div><br /></div><div>Iain Dale, <a href="http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/05/celtic-fringes-wot-lost-it.html">Celtic Fringes Wot Lost It</a> <span style="font-style:italic;">Iain Dale's Diary</span>, May 9th, 2010</div><div><br /></div><div>Benedict Brogan, <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100038907/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-scotland/">How do you solve a problem like Scotland?</a>, Daily Telegraph, May 10th, 2010</div><div>(Labels Scotland 'a troublesome province', and believes 'England has had its fill of Scottish politicians.'</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/2010/05/10/the-liblabcon-cannot-claim-a-mandate/">The LibLab Con Cannot Claim a Mandate</a>, Campaign for an English Parliament, May 10th, 2010 </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-10964610305080203452010-04-30T05:05:00.038+01:002010-07-28T00:37:28.933+01:00The BBC: Just Another TV Channel After All<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S9pnozUoZyI/AAAAAAAAALs/Y0YDq5vfQ9A/s1600/Picture+9.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 176px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S9pnozUoZyI/AAAAAAAAALs/Y0YDq5vfQ9A/s200/Picture+9.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5465795048436688674" /></a> In light of the BBC court victory over the SNP, in which the BBC was allowed to weasel out of its charter obligations and only be held to the same low standards as commercial TV channels, perhaps it is time for a different tactic.<br /><br /><br /><br />Let’s face it, the SNP’s court action was a good idea, poorly executed. They completely missed the opportunity to present the equivalent of a class action for all UK minority parties to be heard in these crucial debates.<br /><br />Specifically, their <a href="http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/724/Lady_Smith's_judgement_in_the_SNP_Leaders'_debate_case_in_full.html">petition</a> was:<br /><br /><blockquote>"For interdict <span style="font-style:italic;">ad interim</span> against the respondents [i.e. the BBC] broadcasting in Scotland on or before 6 May 2010, by any means, a debate scheduled to be broadcast on 29 April 2010 between the leaders of The Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal democrats that does not feature on equal terms with the said persons a representative of the petitioners."</blockquote><br />With only 7 seats in the UK Parliament, this should never have been just about the SNP. Instead, they should have petitioned:<br /><br /><blockquote>"For interdict <span style="font-style:italic;">ad interim</span> against the respondents broadcasting in the UK …that does not feature on equal terms the leaders of all UK political parties currently represented in the UK Parliament."</blockquote><br />Considering the effect the first debate had on the election prospects of the LibDems, this would have been a fair and democratic demand: there can be absolutely no doubt that the decision to give the LibDems a podium place has utterly transformed the election prospects for Britain’s third party in the coming election.<br /><br />It also gave the lie to the argument that the debate was only between those party leaders who could become PM. On the contrary, the BBC’s decision to include the LibDems was about <span style="font-style:italic;">maintaining the British political status quo</span>. If you look at their policies, conceding the LibDems a share in government is in reality only a small concession by the British establishment at almost no cost. After the election, the new government will appear different but the new actors will still be reading from the same script. <div><br /></div><div>Does anyone truly believe that, with the LibDems in a coalition government, Britain will emerge from this election with proportional representation, scrap Trident and reduce immigration to levels that can be absorbed?<br /><br />Had the SNP petitioned for a fair hearing for minority parties – not just the LibDems and the SNP – then Plaid Cymru, Respect, the the Democratic Unionists would have backed them to the hilt, even contributed to their legal war chest. Granted, it would not have been perfect. It would have given more voice to the so-called regions, but it would also have excluded the Greens, the UKIP and the BNP. But the SNP would have been acting with democracy in mind, not merely with me-too petulance. The case would have been a <span style="font-style:italic;">cause célèbre</span> on every media outlet. </div><div><br /></div><div>A real missed opportunity.<br /><br />But, as we all know, every cloud has a silver lining. One benefit of the court case is that it has made Scots sit up and take stock of how critical the BBC is to the maintenance of the British state. The BBC, in fact, is a perfect example of how the UK works in Scotland – we pay our taxes, but have little say about how they are spent or <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/here-is-the-news-scots-viewers-deserve-better-1.840277">what we get in return</a>. Or, as Sir Tom Farmer puts it, it is <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com:80/news/politics/kwik-fit-boss-calls-for-fiscal-autonomy-1.1023887">taxation without representation</a>.<br /><br />Perhaps then it is time we re-examined why Scots are forced to pay for the BBC, and its one-size-fits-all political programming. Hypothetically, what exactly would happen if, as a result of the savage economic cuts proposed for Scotland by the UK London parties pandering to their English electorates, some of us temporarily find it difficult to pay the TV licence fee, but choose to hold on to our TVs to maintain our vital connections with our local communities?<br /><br />According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licence_fee_enforcement">Wikipedia</a>:<br /><blockquote>“TV Licensing enforces the BBC's statutory obligation to ensure that every address where a television licence is required is correctly licensed, but <span style="font-weight:bold;">its agents have no special rights</span> and, like any other member of the public, rely on an implied right of access to reach the front door.<br /><br />The <span style="font-weight:bold;">occupants of a visited property may deny an agent entry</span> to the premises without cause <span style="font-weight:bold;">and are under no obligation to answer any questions or enter into any conversation</span>. If an agent has evidence that television is being watched or recorded illegally but is denied entry by the occupants so that (s)he cannot verify the suspicion without trespassing, then TV Licensing may apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, but the use of such warrants is rare.<br /><br />The BBC states that a search warrant would never be applied for solely on the basis of non-cooperation with TV Licensing and that in the event of being denied access to unlicensed property will use detection equipment rather than a search warrant.<br /><br />The law allows a fine of up to £1,000 be imposed on those successfully prosecuted. This figure is frequently publicised by TV Licensing to maximise deterrence. In reality, magistrates rarely impose the maximum fines allowed to them by law. During the year 2005-6, the average fine including costs was approximately £153 (slightly more than the cost of a licence)…<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">TV Licensing is managed as a sales operation and its officers are motivated by commission payments</span>. In 2005, a TV Licensing officer was found guilty of false accounting and perverting the course of justice after he deliberately forged the confessions of four people to obtain commission payments.”</blockquote><br /><br />Perhaps the time has come for a general boycott of the BBC licence fee in Scotland. Should it happen, the BBC can of course fund itself in Scotland by advertising.<br /><br />Just like every other TV channel.<br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>UPDATE</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159:the-party&catid=4:speakers&Itemid=3">Newsnet Scotland</a> argues that the BBC is in fact the fifth political party in Scotland.</div><div><br /></div><div>A <a href="http://www.tvlicensing.biz/index.php">petition to abolish the BBC licence fee</a>. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-27425685956213119182010-04-26T03:25:00.016+01:002010-05-08T06:19:09.654+01:00What I Can and Cannot Change<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S-T0N-BBxUI/AAAAAAAAAME/r7RmzPR-5y8/s1600/Picture+1.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 120px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S-T0N-BBxUI/AAAAAAAAAME/r7RmzPR-5y8/s200/Picture+1.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5468764368357410114" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Things I Cannot Change:</span><br /><br />1. The ever-increasing world population.<br /><br />2. The inevitable moral corruption of most politicians after prolonged exposure to political power.<br /><br />3. The rise of China as a world power.<br /><br />4. The relative decline of America as a world power.<br /><br />5. The power that banks have over governments, such that banks are deemed too big to fail but nations, evidently, are not.<br /><br />6. The financial slavery in which the West holds the Third World via the IMF, the World Bank, and by direct and indirect trade tariffs.<br /><br />7. The mind-numbing frequency with which otherwise intelligent, rational, moral people are swayed by powerful vested interests to change their understanding of the reasons behind world events, against all evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />8. The power of the Murdoch press to influence opinions, societies and elections around the world.<br /><br />9. The power of the Israeli government to directly influence American foreign policy by using AIPAC to lobby the US government and senators. This is not an anti-Semitic statement. See points 7 & 8.<br /><br />10. Climate change altering our planet beyond recognition. This is not a radical statement. With Big Oil in mind, see point 7 again.<br /><br /><br /><div><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">What I Do Have Some Power to Change:</span><br /><br />The <a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2010/01/keeping-scotland-colony.html">colonial control</a> of the nation of Scotland by the last remnants of the warmongering imperial state we call the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is known almost universally, and incorrectly, as 'England', a nation itself held fast by the same political machinery. </div><div><br /></div><div>By getting off my backside and making the effort to vote for an independent Scotland in this and EVERY election until independence, I can directly influence this state of affairs. A solid SNP block will stand up for Scotland in London, at least whilst this colonial situation continues.<br /><br />The ultimate goal is of course NO SNP MPs in London, but by doing this I can help push Scotland towards becoming an independent nation, the normal state of affairs around the world. </div><div><br /></div><div>With independence we can stop sending Scottish boys to die needlessly in illegal foreign wars, we get Trident nuclear submarines out of Scottish waters, we say goodbye to London parties telling us how to run our affairs, and we use our oil money to fix the mess Britain has left Scotland in after 303 years of Union.</div><div><br />We then face the above challenges in control of our own destiny. </div><div><br /></div><div>We fix our society by taking control of our own laws, taxes, fisheries, oil, alternative energy resources, environment, media, broadcasting, immigration policy and import tariffs – without asking anyone else’s permission – so that Scotland becomes a freer, fairer and safer place to live and raise a family.</div><div><br /></div><div>Open your eyes, Scotland.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-63651084719361097722010-04-15T01:33:00.016+01:002010-04-20T12:58:22.687+01:00Mixed Reaction to Irish Oil Discovery<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S8Z5sFUDV6I/AAAAAAAAALM/u7mqBGCBu5Q/s1600/Picture+14.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 180px; height: 200px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S8Z5sFUDV6I/AAAAAAAAALM/u7mqBGCBu5Q/s200/Picture+14.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5460185396480792482" /></a><br />News that several massive oil fields have been discovered off the west coast of Ireland has been met by a curiously mixed response from the Irish public, despite conservative estimates the fields may yield a thirty year windfall of up to £12 billion a year in tax revenues alone.<br /><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div>The reaction of the Irish has left many business analysts puzzled, with initial polls indicating that many in Ireland do not feel their country has the ability to exploit the resource.</div><div><br /><blockquote>"Just look at what happened to Scotland,” said a resident of Limerick. “They’re Celts too and look what it's done for them. Nothing! They completely buggered up the whole opportunity. They’ve had oil for over thirty years and there are now parts of Glasgow poorer than the fekkin Gaza Strip! It’s done them no good at all. We’d only do the same. What the hell does Ireland want with oil anyway?”</blockquote><div><br /></div>Others, however, were more bullish in outlook, with a spokesman at the Irish chamber of commerce expressing enthusiasm at news of the discovery:</div><div><br /><blockquote>“All this nonsense about Scotland getting poorer in spite of its oil is just that - nonsense! There are parts of Scotland that have done very well indeed from it, and we can do the same, ” said the source. “Look at the hotels around Aberdeen, for example – they've done a roaring trade and when the big fancy oilmen start arriving, our hotels will do well too. And did I mention our taxi trade? They’ll do a grand job running the big-shot oil execs back and forward to the airport. We might even have to expand the taxi rank at the airport to cope with the extra traffic. And there'll be hundreds of jobs making tea and sandwiches for all the oil fellas. Don’t you worry, we’ll do Ireland proud.”</blockquote><div><br /></div>In the latest development, it is believed a number of B&B, taxi and catering bosses are to fly in from Aberdeen to advise their Galway counterparts on how best to make the most of the forecast business boom.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are also reports that Irish politicians are assembling a committee to approach London for assistance.</div><div><br /><blockquote>“It’s lucky we still have our relationship with England from colonial times,” said an unnamed Irish Government source. “Everybody knows it was only English expertise that allowed Scotland to finally get at its oil. We’re going to have to get the English in early, so we don’t stuff this up like the stupid Scots did. It’s way too big to handle by ourselves.”</blockquote><div><br /></div> A British Government source has confirmed that London has reluctantly accepted the Irish request for assistance.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-39452272506320775382010-01-17T11:24:00.072+00:002010-04-29T06:32:12.854+01:00Keeping Scotland a Colony<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S1LzxmHOGrI/AAAAAAAAAK8/0D3NHPe0hwQ/s1600-h/Picture+6.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 159px; height: 200px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S1LzxmHOGrI/AAAAAAAAAK8/0D3NHPe0hwQ/s200/Picture+6.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5427668534304840370" /></a><br />By any measure, and despite the 2007 victory of a nationalist government in Scotland’s pocket-money-parliament, Scotland continues to be a colony of England.<div> <a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2009/07/scotland-last-jewel-in-crown.html"><br /><br />A former post</a> presents the compelling historical evidence for this claim.<br /><br /><br /><br />What follows is a detailed description of how this colonial system works, divided into (1) the problem itself, and (2) the means of control the British state uses to keep Scotland in this unique constitutional configuration we call the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.</div><div><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Problem</span><br /><br />1. Scottish troops continuing to die in Britain’s wars.<br /><br />2. The continuing recruitment to the British army of <a href="http://news.stv.tv/scotland/143151-rise-in-army-recruitment-despite-ongoing-conflict/">Scottish economic conscripts</a> from some of the most socially deprived areas of Scotland, direct from high streets, schools and colleges.<br /><br />3. The complete lack of control the Scottish Government has on immigration to Scotland, regardless of whether it wishes to increase or decrease it.<br /><br />4. The continuing pillage of <a href="http://www.oilofscotland.org/">Scotland’s oil reserves</a> to prop up the morally and financially bankrupt British State, with <span style="font-style:italic;">not a penny</span> returned to Scotland.<br /><br />5. The prolonging of Glasgow’s social deprivation to maintain a benefit- and Labour-dependent voting core in Scotland. Middle class voters don’t vote Labour. This has been Labour’s policy since it first assumed UK power in its minority administration of 1922, when it also quietly dropped its long held demand for Scottish Home Rule.<br /><br />6. The complete lack of Scottish Government control of thresholds for income tax, corporation tax, VAT, stamp duty and capital gains tax levied within Scotland, all contributing to support the British state. All tax thresholds and levels are set by the UK Govt to suit the economic conditions in the south of England. Should the Scottish Government implement the Calman Commission proposal and vary only the income tax rate in isolation – leaving aside all other taxes – it would have <a href="http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2010/01/guest-post-by-strathturret.html">devastating economic consequences</a>.<br /><br />7. The continued and <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178086/National-security-fears-sparked-Britains-nuclear-submarines-Scotland.html">growing presence</a> of Britain nuclear submarine bases in Scottish lochs, close to major population centres, with no accountability to the Scottish Parliament or people.<br /><br />8. The continued presence of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Royal_Air_Force_stations_in_Scotland">Royal Air Force bases in Scotland</a> with no accountability to the Scottish Parliament or people.<br /><br />9. The continuing imposition of UK customs duties (tariffs) on all goods imported into Scotland. This prevents the Scottish Government from establishing and fostering any domestic industry, the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/09/eu.globaleconomy">standard practice of all industrial nations</a> when establishing their native manufacturing bases - including the UK and US - despite all the free trade rhetoric since achieving economic supremacy. In Scotland's case, the goal will be to create 21st century industries to replace the healthy industrial base that Margaret Thatcher was so successful at destroying.</div><div><br />10. The continuing UK imposition of low alcohol prices on the Scottish population - despite <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/4969675/Alex-Salmonds-cheap-alcohol-crackdown-blocked-by-Opposition.html">attempts by the Scottish Government</a> to combat this practice and its appalling social consequences - to keep Scots who are out of work dull-witted enough to keep voting Labour - the party that promises to keep their unemployment and disability benefits flowing.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">How Colonial Control is Maintained</span><br /><br />1. Routine rendering <span style="font-style:italic;">Top Secret</span> of any <a href="http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccrone_oil_reports.html">UK Cabinet documents</a> or committee precedings that might inform Scots of their situation. <a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=11592">Routine blocking</a> of any freedom of information requests that may expose the entrenched hostility of key British government ministers to Scotland.<br /><br />2. The continued status of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom">UK Supreme Court</a> as the highest court of appeal for Scots civil law.<br /><br />3. The UK’s Anti-Scottish Propaganda Office, commonly known as the Scotland Office, whose £7.2 million budget is used to convince Scots that <a href="http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/13186.html">any economic successes are due to the UK Govt</a>, and to discredit both the Scottish Govt and Parliament. The Scottish Office Minister has consistently refused to account for his time or how he spends his massive budget.<br /><br />4. British TV broadcasters – including the commercial channels but especially the BBC - <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/here-is-the-news-scots-viewers-deserve-better-1.840277">starving Scotland of investment</a>, leading to a minimization of Scottish content on Scottish television. This could easily be corrected by legislation to define their broadcasting mandates, but will never happen.<br /><br />5. Continuing Unionist control of Scotland’s print media. In spite of their patriotic names, <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/">not</a> <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/">a</a> <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/">single</a> <a href="http://www.sundaypost.com/">print</a> <a href="http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/">media</a> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/">outlet</a> in <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/scottish">Scotland</a> reports the work of the nationalist Scottish Government impartially, let alone favourably. The not-so-subtle purpose of the strong anti-Scottish Govt and anti-Parliament message is to make ordinary Scots conclude that <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2010/01/10/exclusive-anger-as-scottish-parliament-repair-bill-rises-to-2-6m-last-year-86908-21955589/">their own parliament is a failure</a>, and that the UK Parliament is somehow superior, despite overwhelming recent evidence that it is <a href="http://parliament.telegraph.co.uk/mpsexpenses/home">corrupt from top to bottom</a>.<br /><br />6. Conspicuous placement of British military facilities and <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Clyde-firm-wins--85.5983961.jp">contracts</a> in Scotland to create the idea that <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/jobs-loss-at-raf-base-is-hammer-blow-for-area-1.999010">Scottish jobs</a> depend on the continued goodwill and <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/07/02/defence-contract-guarantees-clyde-work-for-15-years-86908-21489650/">patronage</a> of the British military establishment.<br /><br />7. Rich and poor Scots alike all paying £142.50 a year (currently about €160 or US$215) for a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/">British TV licence</a>, going exclusively to the London-centric BBC, which habitually refers to Scots as ‘they’ and ‘them’, and returns less than a third of these funds to Scottish programming. This is effectively a UK poll tax on Scots to pay for their acculturation as Britons, with little return on investment to Scotland.<br /><br />8. The reduction of Scottish funding by the British government in response to economic downturn in England, regardless of <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6982519.ece">how well the Scottish economy is doing</a>. Use of the Scottish media to <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2010/01/04/labour-fury-over-snp-s-260m-housing-budget-cut-plans-86908-21940783/">blame Scottish Govt policy</a> when it passes on these budget cuts to Scotland.<br /><br />9. The <a href="http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/londonolympics2012/Olympics-robs-Scots-of-Lottery.4722417.jp">theft of Scotland's charity funds</a> to pay for London's Olympics infrastructure.<br /><br />10. Continued control of the Scottish electoral system, issuing <a href="http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/news-and-media/news-releases/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-reviews-and-research/glenrothes-election-report-published">whitewash reports</a> of any electoral fraud cases in Scotland that have favourable results for Unionist parties.</div><div><br />11. Periodically wheeling out celebrities and <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6991004.ece">minor sports personalities</a> to state their opposition to independence in an effort to sway Scottish public opinion. British media coercion of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Murray#National_identity">Scottish sports stars</a> to proclaim their Scottish-but-British identity.<br /><br />12. Unionist political parties in the Scottish Parliament regularly combining to vote down key Scottish legislation, despite their supposed ‘ideological differences’ and their parties' <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/01/08082117">subsequent acknowledgement of the legislation's merit</a>. Knowing however the popularity of the nationalist Scottish Govt, they ensure they pass the annual Scottish budget to avoid forcing an election and losing further seats.<br /><br />13. The smirking mockery of Scottish culture by the London-based British media at <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=556FEKoVd-w">every opportunity</a>, the denial that <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/leaders/Scots-fails-to-cross-language.5984789.jp">Scots is a language rather than a dialect</a> (A), and repeated criticism of Gaelic as a language not worth saving, <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5627346.ece">let alone supporting</a>.<br /><br /></div><div>14. Encouragement of religious bigotry by the Unionist establishment in Scotland to keep Scotland divided. Opposition to Scottish nationhood by the <a href="http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/Orange-Order-mobilise-to-defend.5743358.jp">Orange Order</a>. Nearly 200 Orange walks in Scotland every year, with <a href="http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/127037-police-report-finds-rise-in-crime-at-orange-walks/">violence never far away</a>. Sports fans are fed an almost <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/">continual diet of Old Firm rivalry</a> all year round. Many Scottish players and managers consider serving <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/6233237.stm">Celtic and Rangers more important than their country</a>.</div><div><br /><br /><br />The purpose of these methods is to constantly reinforce the idea in the minds of ordinary Scots that Scotland is a dependent region rather than a self-sufficient country, and that we cannot govern ourselves because we are either too small, too poor or too stupid to do so. (B)<br /><br />This in spite of Scots having at various times governed much of the British Empire, acting as founding fathers and early national leaders for nations all over the globe, having been UK Prime Minister on a number of occasions, and today managing major multinational corporations and NGOs around the world.<br /><br /><br /><br />Please feel free to comment if you think I have missed anything.<br /><br /><br /><br />(A) Alex suggested this one.<br />(B) This one came from Doug.<br /><br />See below for the full text of their comments.<br /><br /><br /><br />UPDATE<br /><a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com:80/news/home-news/independent-scotland-should-have-supreme-court-says-report-1.1000719">Independent Scotland should have Supreme Court, says report</a><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Many thanks for all the LINKS TO THIS POST. <div>Here are the ones I know about:</div><div><br /><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2010/01/talking_drink_1.html">BBC Blether With Brian</a><br /><a href="http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2010/01/subrosas-super-seven-blogs_18.html">Subrosa Super's Seven</a><br /><a href="http://www.thebloodisstrong.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=5913">The Blood is Strong</a><br />Joan McAlpine's blog <a href="http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/">Go Lassie Go</a><br /><a href="http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9497">Siol nan Gaidheal</a><br /><a href="http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/young-girls.html">Aangirfan</a><br /><a href="http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2010/01/world-ceilidh.html">Lallands Peat Worrier</a><br /><a href="http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.com/">Bella Caledonia</a><br /><br />Plus whoever posted it on Facebook and StumbledUpon. I have no idea where.<div><br /></div><div>Apologies to anyone I've missed.<br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com43tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-31226141873212470712010-01-11T22:50:00.016+00:002010-01-12T00:30:07.001+00:00From the Mouths of Babes<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S0uvSmeQJaI/AAAAAAAAAK0/J1pLaGwAPnU/s1600-h/Picture+5.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 229px; height: 320px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/S0uvSmeQJaI/AAAAAAAAAK0/J1pLaGwAPnU/s320/Picture+5.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5425622910197835170" /></a><br />With a <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/01/08082117">cross party UK Parliament committee</a> last week recommending that Britain should adopt Scotland’s price control plans to curb alcohol consumption – the same plans recently <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/4969675/Alex-Salmonds-cheap-alcohol-crackdown-blocked-by-Opposition.html">voted down by the same parties</a> in the Scottish Parliament – the Scotland Office today hailed the breakthrough as a brilliant example of how the United Kingdom Union still works.<br /><br /><blockquote>“It’s obvious, when you think about it,” announced Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy. “As everybody knows, Scotland is the only nation in the world lacking the political maturity to govern itself but, like an intelligent child, its parliament does occasionally have good ideas. It makes perfect sense for the legitimate government of Britain to vote down such half-baked legislation in Scotland and to bring it south to the big table and apply to it the intellectual and legal rigour that only the UK legislature can provide.”</blockquote><br /><br />Medical experts lined up to back the move. A spokesman for the Scottish Medical Association confirmed his organization’s support for the proposal:<br /><br /><blockquote>“Without having British legal status, Scots would have ignored the inflated prices imposed by the Scottish legislation, knowing full well the extra money they were paying was not imposed through taxes, but by the crude device of minimum pricing. They would have seen right through it and kept buying booze just as much as before.”</blockquote><br /><br />As Murphy explained last night from his spectacular London office:<br /><br /><blockquote>“Through the Scotland Office, the British government has empowered me to have a watching brief on proposals we routinely vote down in Scotland, in case some of them actually make sense. Westminster has never been shy in adopting good ideas from the regions, and this is the perfect example of how the Scottish devolution settlement makes Britain stronger. By the way, what do you think of the view from my window? Isn’t it super?”</blockquote><br /><br />Nicola Sturgeon, Scottish Minister for Health and Wellbeing, reluctantly agreed with the move:<br /><br /><blockquote>“In spite of what some claim south of the border, this episode has proved how valuable the Scottish Parliament still is to the British Government. We are currently drafting a white paper to present to the Danish, Swedish and Dutch governments to recommend they cease pretending to be real countries with climate summits, Nobel prizes, and international courts of human rights and start drafting legislation that Germany might find useful. It’s such a powerful argument, we’re seriously considering dropping our central policy of independence. I don’t know what we were thinking.”</blockquote><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-39880021611749583472009-12-14T11:34:00.051+00:002010-06-07T03:09:24.612+01:00Salmond’s Worst Nightmare – Independence Without Him<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SyYjnOext-I/AAAAAAAAAKk/XVORUPc-yjM/s1600-h/Picture+19.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 243px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SyYjnOext-I/AAAAAAAAAKk/XVORUPc-yjM/s320/Picture+19.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5415054758768654306" /></a><br /><br />Consider the following scenarios:<br /><br />1. The New Labour project is dead in the water after losing the next UK General Election in 2010. They suffer devastating losses in England and Alex Salmond’s nationalists take around 20 seats at Westminster, give or take, but do not hold the balance of power in a hung parliament.<br /><br />2. Many of the Scots in New Labour’s cabinet lose their parliamentary seats, including London’s Nullipotentiary for <a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2009/07/scotland-last-jewel-in-crown.html">England’s last remaining colony of Scotland</a>, Jim Murphy (above). Ex-PM Gordon Brown resigns from politics.<br /><br />3. With the massive Tory victory, the demand for independence surges by 25 points in the polls. Independence looks certain to succeed. All that stands in the way is an unholy alliance of Unionist parties at Holyrood blocking the referendum. It seems only a matter of time before one of them breaks ranks and allows it to proceed.<br /><br />Which party will it be?<br /><br />4. With the New Labour jackboot now removed from their necks, the Scottish Labour party at Holyrood is soon in open revolt, unafraid of criticizing the former policies of London Labour.<br /><br />5. A Labour ex-First Minister raises the flag of a <span style="font-weight:bold;">New Scottish Party</span>, independent of London Labour, and proclaims his support for old-fashioned socialist values in Scotland. Attacking the record of New Labour, he distances himself from the <a href="http://iraqdossier.com/blairslies">lies</a> told to invade Iraq, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/">politicians fiddling expenses</a> while soldiers face enemy fire with <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/09/nick-clegg-british-troops-afghanistan">inadequate equipment</a>, support from the <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/orange-order-lodges-support-for-labour-to-curb-snp-1.926891">Orange Order</a>, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/5163756/Cross-border-row-rages-over-SNP-blocking-new-nuclear-power-stations.html">nuclear power stations in Scotland</a>, Gordon Brown’s <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3703785/Gordon-Brown-must-blame-himself-not-the-USA.html">culpability</a> for the UK economic crash, subsequent banking <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2009/gb20091026_350922.htm">bonuses</a>, and the idea of <a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2009/09/nuclear-subs-in-scotland.html">Trident on the Clyde</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">All of which resonates strongly around Scotland</span>.<br /><br />6. Scottish trade unions announce that they will fund the New Scottish Party directly, rather than sending their donations through London Labour.<br /><br />7. Seeing this as their only chance of avoiding the political oblivion of their UK counterparts, Scottish Labour MSPs declare their support for the New Scottish Party <span style="font-style:italic;">en masse</span>.<br /><br />8. What is left of New Labour cries foul, only to be ignored by the New Scottish Party.<br /><br />9. The nationalist lead in the polls is wiped out overnight. The New Scottish Party is immediately neck and neck with the SNP, and independence is no longer inevitable.<br /><br />10. The New Scottish Party leader calls Salmond’s bluff and declares his desire for a referendum to settle the matter once and for all. “Independence is a matter for the Scottish people to decide,” he says. “We must respect their democratic will.” Both the Unions and the Scottish media, seeing the chance to kill off independence, immediately back the challenge.<br /><br />11. London Labour protests, and, now seen as a separate party, is again ignored.<br /><br />12. Salmond accepts the challenge and the referendum is on.<br /><br />13. The whole country gets behind it, seeing it as an exercise in democracy that will settle the independence question for a generation. The other Holyrood parties are beside themselves with panic.<br /><br />14. The referendum is held and one of two things happens:<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"> Scenario A: Scotland votes NO to independence</span>. The debate is passionate but the poll is seen as fair, and Salmond’s central policy is shown to be a fizzer. In 2011 the Scottish electorate, recognizing the old fashioned socialist values the New Scottish Party now represents, and the leader's toughness in taking the fight to Salmond, elect the New Scottish Party as the next devolved Scottish government in 2011, with the SNP in opposition.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Result</span>: the members of the New Scottish Party are back in power and Scottish independence is averted.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"> Scenario B: Scotland votes YES to independence</span>. Salmond and his nationalist government negotiate an end to the Union, and Scotland becomes an independent country. The first election in an independent Scotland for over 300 years is called in 2011. Similar to what happened to Churchill after WW2, the Scottish electorate sees Salmond as having done his job and vote him out of power, and the New Scottish Party becomes the first government of Scotland, with the SNP in opposition.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Result</span>: the New Scottish Party is the party of power in a newly independent Scotland. Salmond gains his place in history as the deliverer of independence, but not as the architect of the independent Scottish state. The Tory and LibDem parties are suspected by the electorate of still being part of their UK parent parties and their support is obliterated for opposing the referendum.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">RESULT EITHER WAY: </span>after the Tories are elected in 2010, the best chance Scottish Labour have got of keeping their jobs in Holyrood is to distance themselves from London Labour and to agree to the referendum.<br /><br />OR<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Scenario C: </span> In May 2011, with the Tories having been in power in London for a year, the SNP appears as the only party that has stood up to the them and fought Scotland's corner. Labour's attacks on the Tories have sounded impotent, and have only served to underline what a mess they left for the Tories to sort out. After years of the Unionist parties point-blank refusing to hold the referendum, the May 2011 Holyrood election becomes a <span style="font-style:italic;">de facto</span> referendum on independence, and Labour, the Tories and the LibDems ALL lose A LOT of seats to the SNP. <div><br /></div><div>The SNP is very close to forming a majority government and independence draws even closer.<br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>UPDATE</div><div><a href="http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2001/11/feature/uk0111106f.htm">Unions Review Links With 'New Labour'</a></div><a href="http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=260:union-poll-shows-majority-in-favour-of-independence&catid=1:politics&Itemid=2">Union poll shows majority in favour of independence</a><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-6181080449562763692009-12-10T13:20:00.018+00:002010-02-07T22:56:46.637+00:00UK Invasion of Norway: A Business Case<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SyFaTNj-SpI/AAAAAAAAAKc/Lah6-44_dTI/s1600-h/Picture+21.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 234px; height: 320px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SyFaTNj-SpI/AAAAAAAAAKc/Lah6-44_dTI/s320/Picture+21.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5413707513180605074" /></a>With every passing month it’s becoming ever clearer that Britain is stuffed. Radical solutions are called for.<br /><br />We know that Norway’s Sovereign oil fund currently stands at <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/20/norway-sovereign-wealth-fund">£259,000,000,000</a> pounds, more than enough to cover both Britain’s <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234630/Pre-Budget-report-30-years-wipe-mountain-debt.html">£178 billion budget deficit AND the interest payments on the £1.5 trillion national debt</a>.<br /><br />Let’s look at the business case for invading Norway.<br /><br />The UK could easily defeat Norway’s small navy and army (see photo above for what we are up against). It would keep the soldiers returning from Afghanistan busy. And it would stop <a href="http://scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/Blog/oilfundblog">Scottish nationalists bleating on about Norway</a> being the country they most admire – after the annexation, Norway would then become part of Britain and the Scots can go there any time they like. We would then possess nearly all of the <a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/pdf/theoildrum_5836.pdf">remaining North Sea oil reserves</a>. If we dressed it up as a Union rather than an annexation, we could even adopt Norway’s membership of the EEA and the EFTA as its successor state, allowing the UK to fast-track its exit from the EU.<br /><br />After the invasion, there would be no need for an extended occupation. The Norwegians are essentially friendly (see picture above again) and intelligence reports confirm they could be kept happy with cheap beer and porn, which, as those of you who have been there will know, are as rare as rocking horse shit. And wasn’t <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling">Quisling</a> a Norwegian? They pretty much invented collaboration.<br /><br />Of course, a pretext for war would be required, perhaps invoking anti-terrorism legislation, like we did for <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1855901,00.html">Iceland</a>. But as the current <a href="http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/faq.aspx">Iraq Enquiry</a> shows, coming up with <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-emails-show-iraq-dossier-uwasu-sexed-up-1643960.html">elaborate excuses for war</a> is still something we Brits do rather well and for which we can all still be justly proud.<br /><br />Unthinkable isn’t it – one European country using another's oil-wealth to dig itself out of debt.<br /><br />Of course, that would never happen.OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-63047912235556825362009-12-07T18:45:00.019+00:002010-06-07T10:06:22.973+01:00Exposing Blogger Identities: The Empire Strikes Back?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Sx1OunTX-NI/AAAAAAAAAJs/NNJYMzYfE6s/s1600-h/Picture+7.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 206px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Sx1OunTX-NI/AAAAAAAAAJs/NNJYMzYfE6s/s320/Picture+7.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5412568889900398802" /></a><br /><br />In this shriveled scrap of empire we call the United Kingdom, there is a fine tradition of the anonymous political missive – Swift, Defoe, Scott, to name but a few. What is interesting is that they all relate to the idea of a greater England. Let’s call it Britain, for argument’s sake.<br /><br />Daniel Defoe, author of <span style="font-style:italic;">Robinson Crusoe</span> (based on the Scot Alexander Selkirk), was the English spy and pamphleteer who came to Scotland to campaign for Union with England in the early 1700s, at great risk to his personal safety. Walter Scott, on the other hand, when not arguing for the continuation of that same Union, fought to save Scotland’s version of English money in the 1820s (that’s why he’s on it). As for Jonathan Swift, well, I defy any adult who knows Irish history to read <span style="font-style:italic;">Gulliver’s Travels</span> and not see Lilliput as a scathing metaphor for English colonial rule: Ireland tied down and crawling with self-important little Englishmen, who all just happen to be six inches long. Brilliant.<br /><br />All three writers used anonymity to protect themselves from retaliation for their political campaigns. When you are taking on a state, you need to be careful. States are remote, faceless powers that cannot be touched. It is only fair to extend the political pamphleteer, novelist, or blogger the same courtesy.<br /><br />Once again, though, it seems as if the genre will no longer be tolerated by the powers that be.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">A War on Nationalist Bloggers?</span><br />With the recent campaign to close down three Scottish nationalist blogs, some may be wondering if the days of anonymous political dissent in Scotland are numbered. The identities of two nationalist bloggers – Subrosa and Montague Burton – were revealed in the same week, while Wardog was harassed at work and home by newspapers.<br /><br />So who is behind this? Is the establishment fighting back?<br /><br />As far as I am concerned, for a political blogger, being told to shut up means you are annoying somebody. And if you are someone with a political axe to grind who enjoys pissing people off, this is about as close as you will get to a pat on the back.<br /><br />So what would happen if <span style="font-style:italic;">my</span> identity were exposed? After my massive ego had dealt with the flattery of it all, next there will be calls from reporters, the paparazzi at the bottom of the garden. I might have to get an agent. Not that revealing my identity would make much difference. If it happens, so be it. My blog hit rate might even soar through a dozen hits a day. The most likely reaction would be a resounding ‘Who?’<br /><br />Let me be clear. Alex Salmond was right to tell nationalist bloggers to cool the four-letter insults. They convince no one. But these attacks had absolutely <span style="font-style:italic;">nothing</span> to do with obscene language. Subrosa didn’t generally say nasty things about anyone, yet someone tried to reveal her identity. Someone didn’t like what she had to say, and tried to shut her up.<br /><br />As for Wardog and Montague, these were solid blogs I enjoyed reading, and will miss. Personally, I prefer not to resort to four-letter name-calling, but others may do as they please. If you don’t like to hear it, don’t visit the site. I occasionally use bad language on my blog (So what? We’re all adults) and I feel it is my right to insult political groups I consider worthy of contempt. If challenged, I will respond with:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Prove to me you are <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> oxygen thieves."</blockquote><br />I have also made the odd poor attempt at satire, which works best when the target is not named but they decide to complain anyway, and to the reply should always be:<br /><br /><blockquote>"What makes you think the drink-sodden moron was you?"</blockquote><br />My blog is a vehicle for my opinions, and what I believe. I happen to believe the British state is technically bankrupt and rotten to its stinking, expenses-fueled, illegal war-waging core. I think that Scotland is in a colonial situation with England, against the wishes of the English people. I believe that most Scots and English are essentially decent people, but that we are ruled by a corrupt, self-serving political class whose continued existence depends on keeping us locked together in an artificial state called the United Kingdom.<br /><br />No one can condemn me for holding these opinions. Or change them. My self-set task is to convince those of a different opinion, and to ridicule those I consider my political enemies.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Why Jim Murphy is Not a C**t</span><br />To simply call someone a c**t, though, is to lose. It convinces no one. In my opinion, it tells your enemies that they are winning, that you are powerless, and is a cry of anger and frustration.<br /><br />Oh, and by the way, Jim Murphy is most definitely NOT a c**t. He is, in my humble opinion, a second rate political lightweight who has never had a proper job in his life and who is facing electoral oblivion at the next General Election. And quite frankly he is shitting himself.<br /><br />C**ts, on the other hand, are pleasing on the eye, exciting to see, serve a productive purpose in society, and regularly put a smile on my face. They are, above all, useful. So, Wardog and Montague, on behalf of c**ts everywhere, I demand a retraction. How dare you sully the reputation of these truly wonderful creations!<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">What is at Stake</span><br />Just as for Swift, Scott and Defoe, the anonymous political writer today has much at stake. For many bloggers, exposure might mean your reputation, your career, even your life. Whether it is the university lecturer losing his job for saying things too vulgar for those poor wee precious students to hear (give me a break), the police officer revealing systemic corruption among the officers around him, or the political dissident criticizing his government, it can be a serious business.<br /><br />Unless you are lucky enough to be a full time sex slave to a rich, horny widow who doesn’t know the first thing about politics and has free broadband, cable and a heated swimming pool. Then you are pretty much in the clear.<br /><br /><blockquote>"Authority, I laugh at you! Ha!"</blockquote><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">No, not you, Sweetie. I’ll be there in a minute.</span><br /><br />The challenge for the government is to stop the political blogger from blogging. If you have already made your identity public voluntarily, they only have to wait for you to say something incompatible with your professional position and then hound your bosses till you are sacked. (Wardog and Monty, we await your return. You served a valuable role.)<br /><br />If you are anonymous, you probably have good reason to be. They first have to reveal your identity, preferably in a way that conceals government involvement, at least in supposedly democratic states. Make it look like a mistake, or the work of a nosey newspaper. (Well done, Rosy, for getting back in the ring. I salute you.)<br /><br />The question to ask is ‘cui bono?’ To whose advantage was the exposure of Subrosa, Montague Burton and the harassment of Wardog? Other bloggers, jealous of their hit-rates? Newspapers, envious of their readership? The Scotland Office, annoyed at not getting blanket coverage of the independence-bad, Union-good message?<br /><br />I’m not making any accusations, but just what exactly do the sixty – count them: SIXTY – people in the Anti-Scottish Office do? That’s nearly half the total number of politicians in Holyrood. And what exactly does Jim Murphy spends his £7.2million budget a year on? When Scotland becomes independent, England will have a consular general in Edinburgh with a secretary and a cappuccino machine if they’re lucky. So what the hell do these SIXTY people do? Their total salaries can’t amount to much more than £2million. Where the hell does the rest go?<br /><br />Can we see the accounts, please, Jim?<br /><br />Exposure works both ways, too. When my rich widow unties me long enough to blog, I can tell exactly when my missives are read by those in Whitehall, Westminster and Holyrood.<br /><br />Take this avid little reader, for instance. You can tell a lot about what’s on someone’s mind by the path they take through the site. Any guesses? And a whole hour on my site, too. I’m flattered. They obviously have a lot of time on their hands.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Sx1O4vdA3XI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/v78_koVxRjg/s1600-h/Picture+6.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 202px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Sx1O4vdA3XI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/v78_koVxRjg/s320/Picture+6.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5412569063887002994" /></a><br />(Green – where they came from, black – what they read, blue – how they left)<br /><br /><br />Make no mistake, I am under no illusions that the minions of the British government don’t know <span style="font-style:italic;">exactly</span> who I am. To be perfectly honest, though, I don’t really care.<br /><br />Speak the truth and let the heavens fall, to twist the words of Thoreau. Let them do their damnedest.<br /><br />As long as I keep my cute little widow happy, I’m not going anywhere.<br /><br />Oops, spoke too soon. Gotta go.<br /><br />Duty calls. Ahem.<br /><br /><br /><br />UPDATE: WATCHING THE WATCHERS<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Sx7Qk_4lPfI/AAAAAAAAAKE/11MUjTCqNKM/s1600-h/Picture+13.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 236px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Sx7Qk_4lPfI/AAAAAAAAAKE/11MUjTCqNKM/s320/Picture+13.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5412993136188538354" /></a>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-54878085039146460562009-11-16T20:54:00.015+00:002009-11-16T21:31:09.430+00:00Did the SNP Throw Glasgow NE?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SwG8KAFCh7I/AAAAAAAAAJU/Kksd1yLVUGc/s1600/Picture+8.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 194px; height: 200px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SwG8KAFCh7I/AAAAAAAAAJU/Kksd1yLVUGc/s200/Picture+8.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5404807907827156914" /></a><br /><br />So now we’ve had two Scottish by-elections in twelve months with suspected electoral fraud. And, if true, both perpetrated by the same party running the government of the United Kingdom.<br /><br /><br /><br />It appears that Glasgow’s Labour-controlled Council <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Byelection-postal-vote-potential-has.5805757.jp">added nearly 2,500 new voters</a> to the electoral role in October alone. In addition, over 6,000 applications for postal votes were received. Postal votes are one of the easiest <a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2009/05/nine-ways-to-steal-election.html"> ways to commit electoral fraud in Britain</a>. <br /><br />It gets worse. From <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Glasgow-North-East-Labour-clinches.5821452.jp">The Scotsman</a></span>:<br /><blockquote>It emerged last night that police were called to two polling stations, St Dennis's and Alexandra Parade, yesterday, after voters arriving to cast their ballot were told their names had already been crossed off. The ballot boxes were handed over to the police, but the disputed ballots were still counted last night. Officials at Glasgow City Council said only three ballot papers were involved. </blockquote><br />If things are as bad as they seem, Glasgow NE may turn out to be another Glenrothes, surely the most single minded act of political will in history. In case you have forgotten: a year ago, and with no assistance from any political party activists whatsoever, the good people of Glenrothes painstakingly filled out nearly 6,000 postal voting forms in the privacy of their own homes before carefully mailing them at their nearest letter box personally. The post office then conscientiously delivered them by normal mail to be counted on election day in the counting room. And, rather than reflecting the same spread of votes for all the parties reflected at the polling stations, every single one of them was for Labour.<br /><br />Imagine that.<br /><br />Humbled by the unanimity of the Glenrothes postal voters’ rejection, the SNP chose not to make a legal challenge at the time, thereby avoiding the accusation of sour grapes.<br /><br />Or it may have been because the marked-up electoral register from the by-election went mysteriously ‘missing’ and, lacking a record of who had actually voted, it would have taken too long to prove what had happened and by which time nobody would have cared. Over a year since the by-election, it has still not been <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/glenrothes-byelection-marked-register-set-to-rise-from-the-dead-16756.html">reconstructed</a>.<br /><br />The point is this: the SNP suspected Labour of massive electoral fraud at Glenrothes, but the hard evidence went missing.<br /><br />Fast forward six months to May this year. The Commons Speaker Michael Martin resigns for expenses irregularities, and Glasgow is due another by-election. Having already proved that they could unseat Labour in Glasgow East in 2008, the SNP could afford to lose it. There was less to be gained from winning such a by-election at all costs, six months out from a UK general election in which Labour are facing annihilation. With Gordon Brown expected to hang on for as long as possible, an SNP victory would not have brought this day one second closer.<br /><br />Think about it. In the coming UK election, the head of Scottish Labour – the present UK Government – will be removed from its shoulders regardless of how many seats the SNP wins at Westminster in May. After the election, UK Labour will be an irrelevance, regardless of how many seats it has on the opposition benches.<br /><br />And regardless of whether London is ‘dancing to a Scottish jig’ or ‘hung by a Scottish rope’ after May 2010 – even if the SNP wins every single Scottish seat in Westminster – Scotland would still be no nearer getting its referendum over the line. In fact, if the SNP starts calling the shots in a hung Tory government, the present constitutional arrangement may well start to look remarkably beneficial for Scotland.<br /><br />Which might make it preferable for many to independence.<br /><br />So, what am I saying? That the SNP deliberately threw the Glasgow NE by-election?<br /><br />No. But they did certainly did not throw everything at it.<br /><br />Until independence, the SNP main game will be the referendum. It needs four things for it to succeed: a Holyrood budget to fund it, the parliament to allow it to happen, a cleaned-up electoral system for a fair run at it and, of course, the political will of the Scottish people to vote for it.<br /><br />When the Glasgow NE By-election was called, SNP was faced with a dilemma: fight Labour tooth and nail for several grueling months for a by-election that changes nothing, or put up a high profile candidate with enough credibility to once more draw out Labour’s suspected electoral fraud machine, which would be mobilised to make damn sure Labour did not lose its second safest seat.<br /><br />The SNP strategists knew Labour would fight dirty. A hard-won by-election would have sapped the SNP of funds with no return on investment other than being one voice louder on Westminster’s opposition benches for the next six months. In the event, Salmond chose to keep his powder dry for the referendum, running a by-the-numbers by-election and saving party funds for when it mattered. David Kerr was the bait and Labour took it.<br /><br />Whole.<br /><br />Kerr should feel no sense of shame or failure for how he performed. He may even be aware of why he was running. He is certainly no fool.<br /><br />In the event, Labour won by 8,111 votes over the SNP’s 4,120. The irony being that electoral fraud – if indeed it was committed – was unnecessary, and Labour might have still won had they chosen to campaign cleanly. Or, at least, by only telling outright lies and utter fabrications about the SNP record in Glasgow.<br /><br />So what was the point of all this?<br /><br />The Scottish Government desperately wants to clean up the Scottish electoral system before the referendum on independence. However long it takes. With the evidence now gathered from possibly the second fraudulent by-election in twelve months, steps can now be taken to neutralise Labour’s suspected electoral fraud machine in Scotland.<br /><br />Unless another marked-up electoral register going missing.<div><br /></div><div><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-5747372063671563992009-11-08T14:00:00.028+00:002010-06-04T02:56:41.598+01:00What Do Others Think of the Scots?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SvbPOZP5t5I/AAAAAAAAAI0/aF0G8_3wMuE/s1600-h/Picture+5.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 138px; height: 200px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SvbPOZP5t5I/AAAAAAAAAI0/aF0G8_3wMuE/s200/Picture+5.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401732649280190354" /></a><br />Recently, I did a post that asked the question ‘<a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-do-people-dislike-english.html">Why to People Dislike the English?</a>’ In the interest of balance I think we should now look at the Scots.<br /><br />What do the people of other countries think of us? Do they like or dislike us? If so, do we bring it on ourselves?<br /><br />Finding out other people’s true opinion of you is never an easy thing. This was recognised by Burns when he wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote>O wad some Power the giftie gie us<br />To see oursels as ithers see us!</blockquote><br />This enquiry was triggered by the <a href="http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4850359,00.html">recent story</a> about the Scottish Government complaining about how Scots are often portrayed in Germany as penny-pinchers, with the rock-bottom price usually described as the <span style="font-style:italic;">Schottenpreis</span>. Personally, I was surprised at the complaint, as I’ve always regarded this marketing device as a reflection of the Lutheran admiration for their Calvinist cousins’ supposed thrifty ways and, as they say, any publicity is good publicity. It is certainly not meant as hostile.<br /><br />I therefore set out to conduct a survey. I should admit up front that my approach was fairly unscientific and consisted mainly of getting people drunk and asking them questions.<br /><br />The first part of my survey is based on what I managed to extract from my English cousin. It should be stressed that he’s a proud Yorkshireman, so he sees England somewhat as an outsider. He was at pains to point out that this is not what he personally thinks, but merely what he understands how many of his countrymen feel, many of whom he considers ‘soft southern bastards’. Regardless, this is what I managed to get out of him after four beers.<br /><br />Apparently, many English men and women see Scots as:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SvbQ78NyGhI/AAAAAAAAAJM/L68FBzKd0Lw/s1600-h/Picture+2.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 152px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SvbQ78NyGhI/AAAAAAAAAJM/L68FBzKd0Lw/s200/Picture+2.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401734531272284690" /></a>1. Dour<br />2. Sanctimonious<br />3. Anti-English<br />4. People who drink too much<br />5. Parasitic and ungrateful for English generosity<br />6. Socialistic<br />7. Grasping<br />8. ‘Chippy’, i.e. having a chip on the shoulder (whatever that means)<br />9. Argumentative, as if constantly on the verge of aggression<br />10. Constantly boasting about Scotland’s achievements<br /><br /><br />Having read the opinion pages of the Spectator and Telegraph, this is pretty much what I expected. So I decided to try this on some other friends. These were French, Spanish, Norwegian and Irish. I stressed that the important thing was to say what they thought of Scots in general, not just about me. I should also point out that this survey was carried out in Glasgow, so Edinburgh or Aberdeen folk might give a different result. I asked them to be brutally honest, and to not worry about my feelings. This is not a proper survey, as these were people who had come to Scotland as enthusiastic visitors, and so were already well disposed towards me. Either way, here is the list of how some Europeans see the Scots, in no particular order:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SvbQBbSMMCI/AAAAAAAAAJE/Nyljh3WfjkU/s1600-h/Picture+1.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 105px; height: 200px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SvbQBbSMMCI/AAAAAAAAAJE/Nyljh3WfjkU/s200/Picture+1.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5401733525999988770" /></a>1. Friendly<br />2. Honest, with a strong sense of what’s right and wrong<br />3. Hospitable<br />4. Surprisingly generous, ‘considering what we have heard.’<br />5. Proud, often passionate about their history, which as visitors they find fascinating<br />6. Seem to place a lot of importance on drinking to relax and meet people<br />7. Anti-English<br />8. Like to debate when people might just want to talk<br />9. Direct and plainspoken, sometimes to the point of tactlessness<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Some Observations</span><br />Note the attributes that did not come up in the Euro survey: dour, parasitic, socialistic, grasping, chippy, boastful.<br /><br />Note too the qualities that are not recognised by the English in the Scots: friendly, hospitable, direct and plainspoken, generous.<br /><br />So do we put on a different face for the English? Or do we have more in common with our European neighbours? Or perhaps is there some truth to the idea that every observation is an expression of difference, not of an absolute quality? That an observation can say as much about the observer as the subject? For example, I know a Frenchman who thinks the English are two faced, mainly because their smiles are not necessarily invitations to friendship. The Englishman would see this as French surliness, which is not a far cry from a perception of dourness in the Scots.<br /><br />And note also which of the Euro-observed qualities an Englishman might interpret as something else:<br /><br />A. ‘Honest with a strong sense of what’s right and wrong’: could be easily seen as ‘sanctimonious’ by someone who does not feel they have to demonstrate their honesty, or by someone from a culture where deceit is admired as cunning and guile.<br /><br />B. ‘Like to debate’ could easily be interpreted as ‘argumentative’ by someone more used to the wishy-washy pass-the-tea-vicar conversations on the weather that often pass for conversation in England.<br /><br />C. ‘Proud, often passionate about their history’ might easily be seen as ‘chippy’ if that pride is at variance to the Englishman’s opinion of Scotland as a cultural and historical vacuum with nothing to brag about, and he is tired of having his long-held school-taught prejudices corrected. This reminds me of how, in the pre-Civil Rights America, white Southerners used to describe proud blacks who asserted their equality as ‘uppity’.<br /><br /><br />It makes you wonder whether English attitudes to Scots are based on:<br /><br />- Scotland’s currently perceived parasitic economic situation <span style="font-style:italic;">vis à vis</span> England,<br />- Long held English prejudices constantly stoked by their media (1) and education system, or<br />- How Scots do indeed react sometimes to Englishmen.<br /><br /><br />Note, however, the qualities that came up in both surveys: anti-English and drinking too much. Maybe there’s something to these after all. They do say the first step in getting help is admitting you’ve got a problem.<br /><br />Personally, I consider the anti-English thing as a form of frustrated Scottish national identity, the natural result of four hundred years of being told your culture is inferior to another, and resenting it. (2) If that situation were to end, the sentiment would surely fade with time.<br /><br />What I don’t agree with is the common English assertion, based on a complete ignorance of the subject, that Scottish <span style="font-style:italic;">nationalism</span> is anti-English or xenophobic. If it were, it would not be enjoying its current popularity as a movement. Neither would this explain why so many English people in Scotland support it. Or the English members of the SNP. If anything, the SNP message to Scots seems to be ‘check your anglophobia at the door’.<br /><br />Bring on independence and mutual respect.<br /><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>UPDATE</div><div><br />Dana Linnet: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7139928.ece">This country is spoiling me</a><br />Obama’s woman in Scotland is diplomatic to the core, heaping praise on her new home nation<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Notes<br /><br />(1) I read this just today in the Times: Alex Salmond was ‘brash, self-righteous and a little bit chippy’ in an article about the proposed referendum on Scottish independence. See Gillian Bowditch, ‘Policy dressed in tartan shows a lack of culture,’ <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6907837.ece">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6907837.ece</a> TimesOnline, 8 November 2009<br /><br />(2) This is recognised by historians as a direct result of the Scottish crown moving to England in 1603, and taking the Scottish cultural elite with it.</div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-70974397249590403112009-11-01T01:37:00.046+00:002009-11-01T21:28:29.076+00:00Is Scottish Unionism Treachery?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Suz9UD80jZI/AAAAAAAAAHg/2DA5DqiRIXo/s1600-h/Picture+36.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 138px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Suz9UD80jZI/AAAAAAAAAHg/2DA5DqiRIXo/s200/Picture+36.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5398968574410001810" /></a><br />Treachery has been a reviled and despised quality as long as history and literature have been recorded. In his <span style="font-style:italic;">Inferno</span>, Dante went so far as to reserve the ninth and lowest circle of Hell for traitors.<br /><br /><br /><br />The question is: is the language of treason entirely appropriate in a supposedly healthy debate on Scottish independence, considering that the Scots in the Labour Party are not technically betraying their own country by opposing Scottish nationalism?<br /><br />Nationalists may argue that it is their own people and the nation of Scotland they are betraying, but to the paid-up Labour Unionist, his or her country is the United Kingdom.<br /><br />What about ‘Vichy’ and ‘Quisling’? Are these charges too strong, considering Scotland is not yet an independent country, and not at war? In the online forums of the press, we often hear these words leveled against Labour politicians – those who would aid and abet <a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2009/07/scotland-last-jewel-in-crown.html">London’s continuing colonial control of Scotland</a> for their own personal gain. Personally, I consider Scotland’s <a href="http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2009/10/scotland-uk-coalition-of-unionist.html">SUKCUP</a> press fair game.<br /><br />But do these words alienate undecided voters, rather than persuade? How much does this level of invective hinder rather than help the cause of Scottish independence?<br /><br />To help answer these questions, I thought it would be useful to summarize the different forms of traitorous accusation, putting them in their original historical context, to determine if indeed they are appropriate to Scotland today, or simply over the top.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">1. Judas</span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Suz-UaXi8uI/AAAAAAAAAHw/SFjiNGhzcwQ/s1600-h/Picture+40.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 183px; height: 200px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Suz-UaXi8uI/AAAAAAAAAHw/SFjiNGhzcwQ/s200/Picture+40.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5398969679939302114" /></a><br />Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Romans soldiers for thirty pieces of silver by identifying him with a kiss. He died alone, probably by hanging himself.<br /><br />Not particularly relevant to Scotland, since Unionists are quite open in their allegiances. They do not see themselves as traitors to a country which they deny even exists.<br /><br />Fair enough, I say.<br /><br />In the same vein, Judas betrayed a friend, whereas Unionists are utterly loyal to their London masters. They may be servile colonial lickspittles in the eyes of nationalists, but they are not betraying any friendships by their actions.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">2. Benedict Arnold</span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Su0AzzMKXZI/AAAAAAAAAIY/ws4ef4mFrC4/s1600-h/Picture+39.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 148px; height: 200px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Su0AzzMKXZI/AAAAAAAAAIY/ws4ef4mFrC4/s200/Picture+39.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5398972418201640338" /></a>American Colonial War of Independence (I refuse to call it a revolution). Arnold was a successful general in Washington’s army who switched sides. Still regarded in American history as the embodiment of treachery. Even though he lived out the rest of his life in Britain, he was never entirely trusted by anyone. He had, after all, fought on the other side first. A reformed rebel is still a rebel.<br /><br />And the reason he switched sides? Wait for it…he had been passed over for promotion and ordered to repay expenses.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">3. Fifth Columnists</span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Suz-_KT6kwI/AAAAAAAAAIA/SCXjA7g9XWQ/s1600-h/Picture+44.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 140px; height: 200px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Suz-_KT6kwI/AAAAAAAAAIA/SCXjA7g9XWQ/s200/Picture+44.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5398970414363480834" /></a>Spanish civil war. Not strictly traitors (although they were opposing the elected government in a civil war) but rather an enemy within. In 1936, as four columns of Franco’s fascists approached Madrid, Fascist radio claimed that a ‘fifth column’ of supporters inside the city would help them take it. The campaign failed, and the Spanish government forces held off Franco for three more long years.<br /><br />The term gained currency during WW2 in relation to the Germans living in Britain. Fearing a ‘fifth column’ within, Churchill gave his famous ‘collar the lot’ command and they were rounded up and held on the Isle of Man until the end of the war. The term is often used in Israeli press today to describe Israeli Arabs, whose loyalties lie with the Arabs in the occupied territories.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">4. Quislings</span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Su0BEgj9tEI/AAAAAAAAAIg/2rQ1uLp5sTQ/s1600-h/Picture+30.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 143px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Su0BEgj9tEI/AAAAAAAAAIg/2rQ1uLp5sTQ/s200/Picture+30.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5398972705258976322" /></a>Norway’s greatest ever traitior, Vidkun Quisling, led the Norwegian Nazi Party, and was set up by Germany as Norway’s puppet leader during their occupation. His fate? To be found guilty of high treason and shot as a traitor after the war.<br /><br />His greatest grammatical achievement was to be both nouned and verbed. One can be a <span style="font-style:italic;">Quisling</span>, or one can <span style="font-style:italic;">quisle</span>. This is a verb that should be revived.<br /><br />Incidentally, ‘Quisling’ sounds a lot like <span style="font-style:italic;">usling</span> in Norwegian – a slippery, deceitful, slimy person.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">5. A Vichy Regime</span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Suz_eOvmoyI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/Y4DL42g1zkA/s1600-h/Picture+29.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 140px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Suz_eOvmoyI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/Y4DL42g1zkA/s200/Picture+29.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5398970948129301282" /></a>Also from the Second World War. Still a sore point in French history, and one that excites much scholarly debate. After surrendering in 1940, France agreed to become a client state of Nazi Germany and the central and southern region was left to run its own affairs, unoccupied by German troops, run from the small spa town of Vichy. De Gaulle tried to rally the Resistance from London, but the indisputable fact is that many French collaborated with the Nazis.<br /><br />I got an interesting take on this from one of my French <span style="font-style:italic;">amis</span>: if France had fought tooth and nail for every centimeter of <span style="font-style:italic;">la patrie</span>, all those pretty French villages that we love to visit on our driving holidays would have been destroyed. He believes that surrender was the best policy at the time to save France’s architecture and culture, given the overwhelming odds stacked against it.<br /><br />Cheese eating surrender monkeys, or the pragmatic rationalizers of the military reality at the time?<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Are these terms appropriate?</span><br />From a nationalist perspective, the fifth column idea of an enemy within seems most relevant to the role Unionists play in maintaining Scotland’s position within the Union, but since the relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK are peaceful, it is still too strong.<br /><br />Indeed, none of these terms would therefore seem suitable for the debate on Scotland’s independence, considering (1) Unionists happen to believe in a different identity, and do not see themselves as traitors, and (2) there is no secessionist war between Scotland and the UK.<br /><br />That is why I believe that the most appropriate historical equivalent for our Scottish Unionists friends – be they Scots in the Scottish Office, members of the UK government, or Unionists employed by the Scottish TV and print media to talk down Scotland – is that of a besieged colonial elite in its last days of colonial rule.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Colonial Elite</span><br />No colonial power in history ever ruled without the help of a local elite in the subjugation of its own people. The key to understanding their essential bridging function is that the colonial power cannot do it without them, and that once the colonial relationship is over, they are without exception despised by all sides – by both their own people and by the ex-governing power. They are usually remembered by the ex-colonial power as failed flunkies, and by the newly independent country as former collaborators in their own people’s subjugation.<br /><br />For these reasons, this is the group that always fights hardest for the colonial arrangement and their colonial privileges to continue: they know full well that once independent comes, the game is up. They will become pariahs, despised by all, with no part to play in either the new domestic political scene or in future diplomatic relations between the ex-imperial power and its newly independent former colony. In summary: useless, washed up, redundant.<br /><br />If there is a violent transition to independence (as there was for the United States, Ireland, Algeria and Kenya) they tend to die either at the hands of their countrymen, or like Benedict Arnold in exile as old men in the imperial homeland, trusted by no one, hated by their countrymen from a distance, passing away in obscurity and exile as bitter, friendless, alcoholics, ‘unwept, unhonoured and unsung’.<br /><br />If on the other hand the transition is peaceful (as it was for Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and as it will be for Scotland) former Unionists can quickly become absorbed into the political structure of the newly independent country and play their part. The challenge in forming new states is in incorporating all the former factions into the newly independent political spectrum. They are usually intelligent men and women who have much to offer a fledgling nation.<br /><br />Whether or not they choose to depends a lot on the level of rhetoric used against them in the run up to independence.<br /><br />It also depends on whether the newly independent nation can ever bring itself to trust them, based on how vehemently they opposed independence as Unionists in the colonial regime.<div><br /></div><div><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-28118886727082904352009-10-25T16:59:00.026+00:002010-01-25T21:20:46.589+00:00The Scotland-UK Coalition of Unionist Propagandists (SUKCUP)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SuSER2Dp2-I/AAAAAAAAAHY/uujAEsCZelo/s1600-h/Picture+7.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 185px; height: 200px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SuSER2Dp2-I/AAAAAAAAAHY/uujAEsCZelo/s200/Picture+7.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5396583695600180194" /></a><br /><div>The campaign by the Scotland-UK Coalition of Unionist Propagandists (SUKCUP) to discredit the Scottish Government for its compassionate release of Mohmed Al-Megrahi continues apace.<br /><br />First we had <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/corporate-sme/whisky-firms-await-us-megrahi-impact-1.919752">The Herald</a> telling us that the whisky industry would collapse as a result.<br /><div><br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Then we had Glen Campbell's BBC Scotland coverage of the release <a href="http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1255535246.html">exposed as partisan</a> and rabidly anti-SNP.<br /><br />Imagine the surprise.<br /><br />Continuing the pattern, last week <span style="font-style:italic;">The Scotsman</span> ran with <a href="http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-families39-fury-at-MacAskill39s.5742501.jp">this piece</a> on Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill. Apparently, his criticism of Labour hypocrisy on the matter was somehow deemed to be taunting the families of the Lockerbie dead. <span style="font-style:italic;">The Sun</span> would be proud.<br /><br />Then just yesterday, and plumbing new depths in so-called Scottish journalism, <span style="font-style:italic;">The Scotsman</span> reported that ‘<a href="http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/Megrahi-outlives-six-other-criminals.5763045.jp">Megrahi outlives six other criminals released on compassionate grounds</a>.’<br /><br />Think about what this last one means.<br /><br />Somewhere in <span style="font-style:italic;">The Scotsman</span> offices there is a journalist with a computer spreadsheet listing all the prisoners released on compassionate grounds from Scottish prisons, alongside the number of days since they were released. Each time one of them dies, Al-Megrahi moves up the list and this journalist punches the air and shouts ‘Yes!’, exchanging ecstatic thumbs-up with his boss in the corner.<br /><br />The SUKCUP minions are now praying he lives as long as possible, if only to prove the Scottish government was incompetent in its decision to release him. Preferably not long enough to <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217761/Lockerbie-bomber-Al-Megrahi-renews-campaign-clear-name.html">clear his name</a>, but maybe just till the referendum, when his on-going ability to breathe will no doubt be useful as an argument against independence.<br /><br />This continuing campaign on Al-Megrahi got me wondering. Given all these dire predictions about what would happen to us as a result of the release, just how <span style="font-style:italic;">has</span> the decision affected Scotland?<br /><br />First, and contrary to widespread expectations, it would appear <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> to have led to US carpet-bombing of Scotland with B52s after all.<br /><br />Nor, apart from the FoxNews whack-job <span style="font-style:italic;">minority</span>, has it led to much animosity towards Scotland in the US. In fact Susan Boyle seems to be doing <a href="http://topnews.us/content/24933-susan-boyle-s-success-story-attracts-film-makers">just fine</a>.<br /><br />Nor indeed has it led to a US boycott of Scottish goods. Luckily, no one knows the oil is ours. (Just think how much we would have lost if it were. Whew.) Similarly, our salmon is still in huge demand, and Scotch whisky sales have not plummeted. Considering that the majority of <a href="http://blog.glenfiddich.com/2008/10/31/the-top-10-world-whisky-markets-2007">export whisky sales</a> are to non-US markets – with France our biggest customer and China our fastest growing market – this should come as no surprise.<br /><br />Not that business should have anything to do with such matters. Those worried about the whisky industry should be more concerned about London-based multinationals closing their Scottish whisky plants. The whole <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8128099.stm">Diageo saga</a> - and many others like it - might have been averted had Scotland been independent and able to offer concrete tax benefits for corporations to remain in Scotland. But I digress.<br /><br />The point is this: not one of the their predictions has come to pass, and yet it continues.<br /><br />So what is going on?<br /><br />If it wasn’t clear before it should be now: the distress the SUKCUP flunkies felt most about Al-Megrahi’s release was not that the Scottish Government made a bad call and released a convicted bomber, nor that it didn’t do as the White House <a href="http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Clinton-tells-MacAskill-to-keep.5557081.jp">demanded</a> and let him rot, not even that it forced UK Labour’s Scottish branch into mental contortions as it condemned what its London masters secretly desired in order to close Tony Blair's <a href="http://news.stv.tv/scotland/120929-justice-secretary-admits-megrahi-oil-link/">dodgy deal in the desert. </a><br /><br />As we knew all along, the true source of their discomfort was the fact that <span style="font-style:italic;">the decision was left to Scotland at all</span>.<br /><br />Once you understand this thinking it all makes sense. You realise that had the decision gone the other way, we would now be getting regular updates on the health of a dying man in Greenock Prison, the Scottish Government would have been portrayed as callous Presbyterians lacking in compassion, but simultaneously labelled as weak for having caved into US pressure to keep him locked up.</div><div><br />That’s the problem with the Scottish Unionist media: they’ve forgotten how to think for themselves. Servitude and obsequious grovelling to London, combined with knee-jerk opposition to everything the Scottish Government does solves every problem.<br /><br />What these gits don’t get is that fewer and fewer people are listening. If the answer to everything is simply ‘it's the nationalist government of Scotland wot did it,’ people anticipate what you’re going to say before you open your mouth, compensate in advance and work it out for themselves.<br /><br />It's not working any more.<br /><br /><br /><br />Coming soon: the Federal UK Coalition of Unionist Patriots.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-82287002469834148812009-10-04T17:46:00.030+01:002009-11-14T11:52:19.000+00:00What the Irish Result Means for Scotland & EnglandWith the YES vote in Ireland and European Union integration back to full steam ahead, we are quite possibly living through the last days of UK sovereignty. Interestingly enough though, during these momentous times many UK nationalists can still be heard to argue that even though the UK <span style="font-style:italic;">should</span> be independent from the EU, that Scotland <span style="font-style:italic;">should not</span> from the UK.<br /><br />The irony of this should not be lost on Scots.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">England’s Future in the EU</span><br />The UK nationalist argument is that on the one hand Scottish nationalism is narrow-minded, parochial and a recent construction of the SNP, but that UK nationalism is ancient and noble and somehow the way things ought to be, despite it being entirely a creation of the years since 1707. The key to understanding this thinking is that most <a href="http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2009/09/eu-superstate-essential-viewing.html">anti-EU UK nationalist arguments</a> are in fact borrowed from Tory ideas of Englishness, and that almost all the UK’s anti-EU groups are also English. Englishmen are in effect trying to intellectualise what is in reality a visceral aversion to their absorption of English national identity into the EU international soup.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SsjRzg3SwVI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/kWS2DKiRvIo/s1600-h/Picture+7.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 166px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SsjRzg3SwVI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/kWS2DKiRvIo/s200/Picture+7.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5388787637074182482" /></a><br /><br /><br />What will the Lisbon Treaty mean for the UK as it stands? If you want an idea of what will happen if Project EU is completed, look no further than Scotland’s history within the UK. The parallels with the UK's coming absorption into the EU collective are striking.<br /><br />For some time before Union happened for Scotland, there was a loose form of union in place (regal Union in 1603). This generated much conflict with England, and serious doubts from both nations about whether to take it further. Then Scotland suffered from a financial disaster that almost bankrupted the country - the fallout of the failed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme#Consequences_of_failure">Darien Expeditions</a> in the late 1690s.<br /><br />Sound familiar?<br /><br />Eventually, after much heated debate and venting of spleens, England offered to compensate Scotland in return for incorporating union. The Scottish common people were utterly against it. Then a massive English campaign of pamphlets and propaganda was launched to get it over the line. <br /><br />Sound familiar?<br /><br />Daniel Defoe was an English agent in Scotland at the time and a key player. England spent big to bribe Scotland's political elites and, in the end, most of those who were against it changed their minds. Scotland was sold out and the Scottish parliament voted itself out of existence.<br /><br />Full incorporating Union was then finally enacted, without a referendum, and against the wishes of the Scottish people. How do we know this was the case? The result was rioting in the streets of several Scottish cities. <br /><br />Scotland’s sovereignty was lost but her national identity persisted stubbornly throughout the Union, during which time her political elites and much of her population threw their weight behind the British Imperial project which, as many Englishmen will admit, was heavily influenced by the Scots. In the 300 years since, Scotland was transformed beyond recognition as hundreds of thousands of Scots scattered themselves across the Empire as soldiers, governors, settlers and merchants. She entered the Union with a fifth of England’s population, and is threatening to leave with barely a tenth.<br /><br />Her people helped found and populate many of the nations that grew out of the Empire. Conversely, most of her land at home is today under foreign ownership. That is the nature of junior partnership in an empire.<br /><br />What does this mean for England? Her population stands today at 51.7 million, barely more than a tenth of the population of Europe. With this in mind, the question on the lips of many Englishmen is this: once we have lost our sovereignty, will our island location be enough to preserve what’s left of England’s national identity in a teaming sea of 499 million Europeans, or is our population destined for dilution and depletion as the English are scattered throughout Europe, and European migrants pour in?<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Scotland and the EU</span><br />In Scotland, many Scots may be sorely tempted to say, “see how you like your own medicine”, but for us the baton change from Westminster to Brussels would be fairly straightforward. It will be something for which 300 years of union with England has prepared us. In reality, we are already part of the EU labour market, while receiving none of the benefits of direct membership. But will full membership of the EU be the best arrangement for an ‘independent’ Scotland?<br /><br />Will it be a case of ‘out of the frying pan, into the fire’?<br /><br />Personally, after independence I would prefer a transition period of about twenty years to get our house in order and enter Europe on our own terms - if ever, instead of joining as an oil-rich-but-penniless escapee from the financial basket case that is Britain today. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_and_the_European_Union">Norway’s</a> associate membership via the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area">EEA</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association">EFTA</a> has allowed it to opt into European programs on its own terms, and – through its massive oil revenues – to build a <a href="http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/norway-sovereign-wealth-fund/962">$400billion sovereign fund</a>, giving it one of the hardest currencies in the world (<a href="http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccrone_oil_reports.html">as the UK Govt predicted 35 years ago would happen in Scotland after independence</a>) instead of propping up the Euro.<br /><br />This is probably the best path for Scotland.<br /><br />Unfortunately, from where we stand I don’t think EEA membership is something that can be sold to a cautious Scottish public, in whose collective mind the act of breaking away from London will be difficult enough, and for whom the idea of Brussels acts as a safety net. In other words, if we want to get Scottish independence over the line, the SNP policy of independence-in-Europe is the most likely way it will succeed.<br /><br />Independence-in-Europe has long been SNP policy, and although I’ve recently had my reservations, I now realise that these will only play into the hands of those who wish to keep Scotland in the UK. Make no mistake: for those Scots unsure of independence, cold feet about the EU will not lead them to choose the alternative model of EEA/EFTA-style of Norwegian nationhood.<br /><br />It will keep us locked in this godforsaken Union.<br /><br />Europe may have its problems but, as the expenses scandal has clearly shown, these issues are dwarfed by the systemic venality of Westminster and Whitehall. And the suggestion of Tony Blair as EU president should be seen for what it is: a distraction. Removing the corrupting influence of London’s tentacles from Scotland should remain our top priority and can only be a Good Thing.<br /><br />If the last few weeks of Irish referendum coverage have taught us anything, it’s that most EU scaremongering in the UK has been by <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/danielhannan/">disaffected English Tories</a> and the <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1076910.ece">English Tory media</a>, watching as the last vestiges of their national identity – dressed up as the UK – disappear.<br /><br />That same UK sovereignty has allowed the British parliament to control Scotland since 1707 and, not to put too fine a point on it, the game is up.<br /><br />So it’s important for Scots not to be taken in by English Tory protests at the loss of UK nationality to the EU. As part of the UK, Scots have no nationality to lose. We already lost that three hundred years ago, and now it's time to take it back.<br /><br />Norway offers us the model, but even direct membership of the EU is more than what we've got now, which is nothing.OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-38650242702427626322009-09-25T17:58:00.021+01:002009-10-01T20:28:26.382+01:00Why Do People Dislike the English?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Srz7DprDVKI/AAAAAAAAAHI/g7oKB-fOzrg/s1600-h/Picture+23.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 147px; height: 200px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Srz7DprDVKI/AAAAAAAAAHI/g7oKB-fOzrg/s200/Picture+23.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5385455294572876962" /></a><br />I like most English people a lot – especially northerners. To be perfectly honest, though, I can understand why many other nations might not. And I think it’s time Englishmen faced up to why this might be.<br /><br />Quite simply, I think you bring it on yourselves.<br /><br /><br />Don’t get me wrong: I have English friends and family who I like very much and consider to be good people. They can be cold fish at times, but are usually ok once they’ve got a drink in them and caught up with the rest of humanity. They accept my patriotism and I accept theirs. They have their history, sports and culture, and we have ours. They like cricket, I prefer golf. Each to his or her own. Most are the salt of the earth and I respect the pride they have in their identity, just as I do for the Dutch, Irish or French.<br /><br />The key is mutual respect.<br /><br />I shall stay in contact with my friends and cousins after Scottish re-independence, and expect Scotland and England to remain close, when the hurly-burly’s done.<br /><br />OK so far? Good.<br /><br />So what prompted my question at the top of this post?<br /><br />A couple of days ago I was waiting for friends in a quiet Scottish pub when I overheard three English students at a nearby table putting down Scotland. They didn’t see me and obviously thought the bar was otherwise empty.<br /><br />Their main grievances were essentially that:<br /><br />1. Scotland’s cheaper university degrees are subsidised by the English taxpayer. [much frowning and nodding agreement]<br /><br />2. They shouldn’t have to listen to a heavy Scottish accent on TV – it’s completely unintelligible anyway and comes from ‘somewhere back in the throat.’ [laughter]<br /><br />3. There is Gaelic content on TV here, and ‘how many people want to see that?’ [more laughter]<br /><br />4. Scottish TV stations did not show an England football game recently. [incredulous outrage]<br /><br />5. Why do immigrants in Scotland choose to speak Scottish? ‘As if they’re not at enough social disadvantage already.’ [wise shaking of the heads all round]<br /><br /><br />These students seemed well-presented and fairly intelligent, so this was not the idle alcoholic ranting of knuckle-dragging lager louts. If I were to categorise them, I would say they were they were the fortunate sons of comfortable, middle class Tory families from the English Midlands. I’d guess they were in first or second year, as they had not yet lost their regional accents (with all their English class associations), one of the principal reasons I believe many English people go to university.<br /><br />Their opinions got me thinking though: how many English students in Scotland feel this way?<br /><br />I should mention that there was a Scot in the group. At first he tried to counter these arguments diplomatically, but eventually he lapsed into silence, presumably because either he could not believe his ears or because he didn’t want to fall out with those he considered his friends.<br /><br />It’s always fascinating to watch the painful transformation of Scottish Unionist into uncompromising patriot, the normal state of affairs in every other country in the world.<br /><br />It’s like watching an epiphany.<br /><br />As the time passed, he began to look increasingly uncomfortable. The look on his face became one of quiet, stony rage. Eventually he made his excuses and stood to go. At the doorway, he paused and looked back one last time, and then with an incredulous shake of the head pushed open the door and left.<br /><br />Yesterday I related this little tale over the phone to my English cousin in Yorkshire, and his reaction was one of ‘you’re kidding’, mixed with cringing embarrassment for the behaviour of his countrymen. Another phrase that sticks in my mind: ‘it’s a bit rich.’<br /><br />So together we compiled this message to all English students in Scotland who agree with the above sentiments:<br /><br />1. You come to our country as guests to exploit our lower cost degrees, then complain that you are subsidising them anyway. In effect, you are complaining that you were forced to come all this way north to claim what is rightfully yours. The idea that maybe England should change its own higher education system back to what it was before New Labour fucked it up doesn’t enter your heads. The words ‘hypocrite’ and ‘ingrate’ spring to mind. And by the way, we're subsidising you. Scotland has not received one penny of oil revenue since the discovery of oil in our waters.<br /><br />2. Why would immigrants to our country <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> try to fit in and sound like they’re from here? Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but the Scottish nation and its tongue are outside your medieval forelock-tugging English social hierarchy.<br /><br />3. Let’s put this into perspective. Having moved to another country, you stick together like flies on shite, then try to change that place to be more like England. And then have the temerity to complain when immigrants from other countries come to England and try to do the same.<br /><br />4. So the telly wasn’t showing an England football game? Boo fucking hoo. Sorry, but you’re in Scotland now, not England. If you want to watch English games on the box, maybe you should have chosen an English university and paid your self-imposed English university fees.<br /><br /><br />English students are more than welcome in Scotland, as you will be after Scottish re-independence. Perhaps by then students like you will have learned how to show a little more respect and gratitude, like our Dutch, French and Irish friends.<br /><br />I’m not holding my breath though. Nor do I wish you to change your behaviour just yet. Because deep down I know that people like you are doing Scotland an invaluable service, converting as you are so many Unionists like your friend to the cause of nationalism and independence.<br /><br />Keep up the great work, boys.OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-29967834455940609782009-09-22T00:26:00.015+01:002009-09-26T09:33:19.279+01:00Nuclear Subs in Scotland<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SrgVWRvP7YI/AAAAAAAAAHA/qcZuCLEVlNw/s1600-h/sub1.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 257px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SrgVWRvP7YI/AAAAAAAAAHA/qcZuCLEVlNw/s320/sub1.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5384076826984312194" /></a><br /><br /><div><br /></div>With the <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/nuclear-plant-put-on-final-warning-after-leak-1.920986">Clyde nuclear spill</a> in the news, it seems that British nuclear facilities in Scotland are under the spotlight once again. This goes for the British nuclear submarine fleet too, especially now since Bob Ainsworth announced in May that <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178086/National-security-fears-sparked-Britains-nuclear-submarines-Scotland.html">the entire fleet would soon be moved to Scotland</a>.<br /><br />So what are the options for the rump-UK government and its nuclear submarine fleet, once Scottish re-independence is achieved?<br /><br />The choices would seem to be:<div><br /></div><div>1. Lock them up, throw the keys in the loch, and leave them in Scotland to rot:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SrgSyS5C_hI/AAAAAAAAAG4/d4HRn71Eft0/s1600-h/Picture+6.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 142px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SrgSyS5C_hI/AAAAAAAAAG4/d4HRn71Eft0/s200/Picture+6.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5384074009795296786" /></a><br /><br />2. <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/subs.aspx">Dismantle them</a> properly and come to terms with the reality of your middle-ranking power status. [Who the hell were you kidding anyway?] This will require drydock facilities:</div><div><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SrgRLnw8xPI/AAAAAAAAAGw/DHg0Qvynzmc/s1600-h/Picture+5.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 132px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SrgRLnw8xPI/AAAAAAAAAGw/DHg0Qvynzmc/s200/Picture+5.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5384072245871953138" /></a><br /><div>3. Negotiate to rent the old deep-water lochs from Scotland for an appropriate fee. The al-Megrahi case clearly showed how much the mighty UK Govt can still force the parochial Scottish Govt's hand on Big Issues. I’m sure for a consideration they can be brought to heel for some kind of mutually beneficial arrangement.<br /><br />4. Let’s face it, the nuclear subs were kept in the west of Scotland to keep any attack/meltdown away from London, to disguise their comings and goings in deep water, and to give them Atlantic-facing harbours. Belfast and Plymouth could play host [if the locals are obliging] but Sunderland and Newcastle are facing the wrong way. Fortunately, you are still fighting the Cold War, so this may not be a problem.<br /><br />5. Rent harborage from Iceland. Oops, hang on. Scratch that.<br /><br /></div></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-41049289428039005422009-09-15T15:30:00.014+01:002009-09-15T23:12:01.370+01:00Are Independence Polls to Be Believed?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Sq-ooTyyWuI/AAAAAAAAAGo/Nm0w6DzLd3s/s1600-h/saltire+thru+unionjack.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 160px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Sq-ooTyyWuI/AAAAAAAAAGo/Nm0w6DzLd3s/s320/saltire+thru+unionjack.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5381705490192554722" /></a><br /><br />In my experience, many Scottish voters are incapable of arguing why they wish to remain British, except to say ‘I just am’: a sentiment I respect, even though I understand their British identity to be a construct.<br /><br />Originally a compromise to persuade the Celtic fringes of these Isles that they were not being absorbed by England, (No, Britain would be something new, we were told) ‘I just am’ is a measure of the success of both direct and insidious programs of acculturation: of a constant reinforcement of British national identity via the media, newspapers, Battle of Britain movies, sporting events and air-shows on the one hand, and, on the darker side, of officially sanctioned sectarianism. And, it must be acknowledged, the result of so much Scots blood being shed for the British flag in two world wars. It’s not easy giving up a flag if someone in your family died for it.<br /><br />This must be respected and will only be changed if the British identity becomes devalued, while at the same time the Scottish Government brand is demonstrated to be a viable, credible, inclusive alternative. <div><br /></div><div>Whatever your identity, it must be acknowledged that this is happening.<br /><br />‘I just am’ is certainly a better argument than any of the half-baked economic, historical or legal bullshit I hear from Unionist politicians and the media.<br /><br />‘I just am’ explains why it is pointless to try to argue by reason or logic with relatives who are Scottish Unionists – it only ends in tears.<br /><br />‘I just am’ also explains for me why the few Scots I know who wish to remain part of the UK – non-political types who hate/mistrust the SNP and Alex Salmond for whatever reason – wish to <span style="font-style:italic;">avoid</span> a referendum at any cost: they know it might succeed. They understand perfectly that the avoidance of a referendum is undemocratic, but believe strongly that their fellow Scots are subject to a form of mass delusion from which they must be saved.<br /><br />Which is why I don’t understand the oft-quoted disparity between those who desire independence and those who demand a referendum. These are the latest figures:<br /><br />1. Those who <span style="font-style:italic;">really</span> want Scottish independence – <a href="http://www.snp.org/node/14827">38%</a><br /><br />2. Those who <span style="font-style:italic;">really</span> want a referendum on Scottish independence – <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8125041.stm">60%</a><br /><br /><br />So what on earth is going on?<br /><br /></div><div>If non-political, pro-UK Scots fear a referendum, how do we account for the more than 20% who want one but do not want independence? Is there a colony of deluded Wendy Alexanders out there I haven't met who want to 'bring it on' thinking they will easily win, or do nationalist-leaning Scots consciously change their answers when polled about their voting intentions?<br /><br />The most dramatic example I know of this was the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4650788.stm">Hamas victory in 2006</a>. The polls predicted a Fatah victory, but Hamas supporters had been primed to lie about their voting intentions to pollsters. Result: Hamas were returned as the legitimate government of the Palestinian people in an unforeseen and unopposed victory, and the Israelis and Americans were left stunned.<br /><br />I am not saying this is happening in Scotland, only that there certainly <span style="font-style:italic;">is</span> a tendency for unassertive Scots to deny they are nationalists, especially when asked by an English or a pro-UK Scottish friend, knowing that it causes friction. I know I used to do it. It’s similar to the tendency of Englishmen to watch their words when a Scot is in the room, saying ‘Britain’, ‘British’ and ‘the UK’, etc., when they really mean ‘England’ & ‘English’. (Don’t deny it!) It’s only natural. We watch our words to avoid controversy.<br /><br />My question is, is this a factor in the disparity of the numbers above? Do some Scots instinctively play down their patriotism, so as not to offend their English/Unionist friends? Does this mentality spill over into polls on independence? Is Scottish nationalism much more popular than we are led to believe?<br /><br />And, more importantly, is this what the UK authorities are afraid of?</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>(Many thanks to the Scottish Patient for the appropriated image!)<br /><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-20716486878541987792009-09-11T22:41:00.008+01:002009-09-15T23:19:23.255+01:00English Independence from the EUAccording to the SNP, when Scotland eventually wins her independence back, it will be within the framework of Europe – not a form of nationhood all Scots are keen on. Personally, I prefer Norway’s fringe position in the EEA, only opting into the EU programs that are to its liking. The question is, why not England too? Everyone is talking as if the resulting diminished UK would continue as a member of the EU. But what if it somehow chooses not to take up the offer of automatic successor state membership?<br /><br />Is this even possible?<br /><br />By virtue of Scotland’s foundation membership in the United Kingdom of Great Britain via <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/"> 1707’s Act of Union</a>, if Scotland achieves her re-independence(1) she would not be <span style="font-style:italic;">leaving</span> the Union so much as <span style="font-style:italic;">dissolving</span> it, much like a marriage. Unfortunately for Lesser Britain, the EU would almost certainly ignore this legal inconvenience (much as it did with Ireland’s NO vote) and treat this new state as the effective successor entity to the old UK, insisting that it fulfil its relevant treaty obligations.<br /><br />But what if there was no obvious successor state? What if the rump-UK were to fragment further, each part having its own parliament? What could the EU realistically do if the new nation-states choose not to become EU members?<br /><br />Legally, Scottish re-independence is therefore the easiest route for England to achieve her own re-independence, in her case from the EU. The key is for the creation of an English parliament at the same time as Scotland regains her independence. With a separate representative body to the British parliament, Englishmen could then legitimately claim that England is <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> the UK's successor state. <div><br /></div><div>Then it’s bye-bye Brussels and England will have won back her sovereignty, free of EU laws and foreign interference.<br /><br />Thus, Scotland achieving her re-independence is England’s best way of separating from Brussels and becoming a nation again. A good reason for Englishmen to get behind Scottish independence, and another reason for English and Scottish nationalists to work together.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Notes<br /><br />(1) Re-independence is a more correct term than ‘independence,’ which implies that it is something new. Scotland was an independent country for more than eight centuries, during which time England was successfully conquered twice by both the Danes and the Normans.<br /><br /></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-54004923916820010682009-07-31T23:17:00.027+01:002009-08-09T21:16:11.076+01:00Operation 'Scorched Earth': Progress Report<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SnNtxq8USFI/AAAAAAAAAGg/faUaJKfVmYM/s1600-h/Picture+9.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 144px; height: 200px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/SnNtxq8USFI/AAAAAAAAAGg/faUaJKfVmYM/s200/Picture+9.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5364752281236686930" /></a><br /><br />Another fresh leak from my source in Westminster: this was received in the form of a typed memo, printed off on a blank white sheet of paper with no letterhead. The italics refer to handwritten notes made on the page.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Status of Operation 'Scorched Earth'</span><br />July 31, 2009<br />PRESENT: GB, AD, JM.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Only Lurch and Ali-D could make it. Fat George is too busy making bloody FOI requests! </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Original Action Plan from July, 2007:</span><div><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />1. Starve Scotland of funds, making it look as if the Scottish Govt </span><span style="font-style:italic;">{^Executive}</span> <span style="font-weight:bold;">is picking fights and always asking for more.</span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">STATUS: Ali-D says he is tightening the screws. It might backfire and lead to independence, but ok so far – and what the hell have we got to lose, anyway? Role of subservient Scottish press proving crucial.</span><div><span></span><i>NOTE: Talk to secretary about not using the phrase 'Scottish Govt'.<br /></i><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">2. Work with other Unionist parties to block all Nat legislation in their pathetic minority government. </span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">STATUS: Not working! Bastard Tories, Greens and LibDems won’t play ball, and seem to be making deals with the Nats to pander to their electorates.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">3. Maintain UK policy of keeping the West of Scotland poor, maintaining Labour loyalty from section of population on benefit</span>.<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">DANGER. Strategy seems to be failing – no longer possible with Nats in power. Seem to be getting their message through that Glasgow could be better off without us. Nats’ populist health and transport policies a blatant attempt at giving Scotland better services than England!<br />FURTHER ACTION: Lurch to continue to reveal the cynical nationalist agenda that lies behind the Nats’ economic strategy. If all else fails, see next point.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">4. Keep a tight hold of by-elections in Scotland, using ‘enabling’ machinery to win every by-election, regardless of the result.</span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">STATUS: Screwed up in Glasgow East, but Lurch says Glenrothes proves we’ve got it under control.<br />FURTHER ACTION: Lurch says Nats may be onto our methods, but putting Glasgow North East back to November should give us time to do whatever it takes to ‘take care’ of things.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">5. Use influence to persuade UK Electoral Commission to turn a blind eye to postal vote anomalies in Scottish by-elections.</span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">DONE</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">6. Ignore all demands for transferring control of Scottish elections to the Scottish Govt. </span><span style="font-style:italic;"> {^Executive}</span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">STATUS: WORKING.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">7. Keep the Scottish press churning out our press releases verbatim, with a Labour & Unionist slants on all other news. Impossible in England, but relatively easy in Scotland with fewer outlets and almost no Tory press. </span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">STATUS: NEEDS ATTENTION. Lurch says the blatant Unionist slant in the Scottish press is becoming too obvious. Editors of the Scotsman, Herald and Daily Record are apparently complaining that their unswerving Unionist bias on every subject under the sun is becoming ‘tediously obvious’, alienating traditional readership and causing their circulations to ‘freefall’.<br />FURTHER ACTION: Lurch to have a word with the editors to explore further ways to secretly subsidise them via advertising.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">8. Fund Scottish Unionist bloggers to counter Nat lies about Scotland’s self-sufficiency or any successes of the Scottish Govt</span> {<span style="font-style:italic;">^Executive}</span>.<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">STATUS: NEEDS ATTENTION. Unionist bloggers complaining they aren’t getting any advertising revenue, which is dependent on their sites getting a high number of hits, which are almost non-existent.<br />FURTHER ACTION: Lurch to increase subsidies via ‘consultancy fees,’ and find ways to increase hits without more actual readers.</span><div><b><br /></b></div><div><span style="font-weight:bold;">9. Build infrastructure to allow the UK to take the oil direct to England in case the Nats pull off independenc</span>e.</div><div><span style="font-style:italic;">DONE. </span></div><div><span style="font-style:italic;">Should teach Scotland not to betray Labour, and prove once and for all that Scotland isn’t a viable state – exactly what we said all along</span>!<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">10. Grab Scotland’s lottery money so that their Commonwealth Games in 2014 look like mince compared to England’s</span> {^Britain’s} <span style="font-weight:bold;">Olympic Games in 2012. </span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">DONE.<br />NOTE: tell my secretary again the difference between England & Britain. I'm sick of explaining it to the dozy tart!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">11. Put pressure on Scottish Sportsmen and women to declare their Britishness. Use press, TV and honours to bring them to heel.</span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">STATUS: WORKING: Pretty Boy Hoy and Murray under control. No longer upsetting the English with their Scottish identity.<br />FURTHER ACTION: Some sports apparently already separated. Doesn’t seem to be any rule about which ones we compete in as British. Talk to MCG about possibility of England cricket team competing as 'Britain'.</span><b><br /></b><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">12. Explore ways to get polling companies to issue doctored polls on lack of Scottish desire for independence. </span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">STATUS: BBC seems to have remembered which side their bread is buttered and now pulling their weight. Last poll looked good. Shitting themselves that the Tories will get in and cut them back to just BBC1 and Radio 4! Would serve the back-stabbing bastards right!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">13. Scottish press to persuade Scots they don’t want independence, and that a referendum is a waste of time in such difficult/ bountiful economic times (delete as appropriate). Demoralise ordinary Scots into accepting the status quo.</span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">DANGER: Lurch warns that a general engagement in politics in Scotland is growing, and that the message that the referendum is a waste of time is starting to fall on deaf ears.<br />FURTHER ACTION: Lurch to talk to Fat George about continuing to sow FUD on separation/ isolation/ building barriers /dependency via Scottish press to counter the Nat’s cynical message of re-entering the world community of nations/ removing barriers to dealing with the world directly/ ending oil subsidies to England / Scotland's wealth in natural resources.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">14. Spin news to make Scots believe their economy is dependent on British military contracts</span>.<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">STATUS: NOT SURE IF WORKING. Scottish press playing the game but the Nats are on to us. Lurch recently tried to make it look like he saved a big contract, but Nats successful in showing that Lurch did bugger all. Lurch says Nats got the message through that the Tories could still cancel it.<br />FURTHER ACTION: Lurch to stay on message. Those with defence jobs might still vote Labour from fear of losing them.</span><br /><br /><br /></div><div><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Additional Item</span></div><div><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />15. Respond to Calman Commission findings. </span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">STATUS: Lurch reassures me his fancy footwork to distance us from calamity Calman is working.<br />FURTHER ACTION: Delay response to findings until it is forgotten. Leave the Tories to deal with it, which means it'll never happen. </span><br /><br /></div><div><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Special Note: All meeting actions henceforth to be approved by PM. </span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Still waiting for the Pink Baron to grant me an audience. Said he was too busy with all his committee work for ‘stupid Scotch stuff.’ Have left him four messages. Secretaries Brett and Hans say he’s tied up in an important debriefing. </span></div><div><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Misc Personal Stuff </span></div><div><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />1. Talk to EU about possible presidential role after election/referendum defeat.</span></div><div><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />2. Get CV up to date.</span><br /><br /></div></div></div>OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2675315250922573398.post-66795959343891704942009-07-24T23:48:00.021+01:002009-07-26T09:13:10.839+01:00Dictatus Peterae – Idle Musings of a Megalomaniac<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Smo6ifIGfGI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/AUKWPblB_2Q/s1600-h/Picture+7.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 146px; height: 200px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_f2GjahQfGhg/Smo6ifIGfGI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/AUKWPblB_2Q/s200/Picture+7.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362162670483438690" /></a><br />Newly leaked from my Westminster source is what seems to be a scented page of lilac paper torn from the personal diary of a government minister. The text is in Latin and in the florid, bold hand of one with complete confidence of his power and influence. Labour Party sources have denied its authenticity, while demanding how it came to be in the public domain. <br /><br /><br />A contact at Edinburgh University has offered the following translation:<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">It is hereby decreed:<br /><br />I. That the Labour Party was founded by God alone.<br /><br />II. That Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool alone can with right be called universal.<br /><br />III. That He alone can depose or reinstate ministers and diplomats.<br /><br />IV. That, in a committee His representative, even if a lower grade, is above all other ministers, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.<br /><br />V. That He may depose the absent.<br /><br />VI. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by Him.<br /><br />VII. That for Him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws.<br /><br />VIII. That He alone may use the Prime Ministerial insignia.<br /><br />IX. That of He alone shall all ministers kiss the feet.<br /><br />X. That His name alone shall be spoken in the ministries and committees.<br /><br />XI. That this is the only name in the world.<br /><br />XII. That it may be permitted to Him to depose Prime Ministers.<br /><br />XIII. That He may be permitted to transfer ministers and diplomats if need be.<br /><br />XIV. That He has power to ordain a minister of any portfolio He may wish.<br /><br />XV. That He who is ordained by Him may preside over another ministry, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any minister.<br /><br />XVI. That no election shall be called a general one without His order.<br /><br />XVII. That no law shall be considered passed without His authority.<br /><br />XVIII. That a sentence passed by Him may be retracted by no one; and that He himself, alone of all, may retract it.<br /><br />XIX. That He himself may be judged by no one.<br /><br />XX. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to His holy chair.<br /><br />XXI. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every ministry.<br /><br />XXII. That the Labour Party has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.<br /><br />XXIII. That His Holiness is undoubtedly made a saint by his merits.<br /><br />XXIV. That, by His command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.<br /><br />XXV. That He may depose and reinstate ministers without assembling the cabinet.<br /><br />XXVI. That he who is not at peace with Him shall not be considered for any public office.<br /><br />XXVII. That He may absolve subjects from their fealty to other power-brokers.<br /></span><br /><br /><br /><br />OK, SO WHAT IS THIS?<br /><br />My Edinburgh University contact tells me that this as a corrupted version of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatus_papae"><span style="font-style:italic;">Dictatus Papae</span></a>, a document supposedly written by Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) in 1075. It wasn’t made public at the time, and it has been argued by scholars that rather than just the idle scribblings of a power-hungry pope, it was in fact the church’s wish-list for absolute power. At very least it gives a good idea of just how powerful the medieval Christian Church either saw itself, or planned to become.<br /><br />For those who seek to defend democracy in Britain in the early 21st century, the truly chilling aspect of this discovery is how little has been changed for this journal entry, if indeed it is authentic, which is yet to be verified.OutLanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04981951253443922787noreply@blogger.com11