The wrong side of history

I don’t normally blog about newspaper articles that are locked away behind a paywall, but sometimes you need to make an exception. And Tuesday’s article by Melanie Phillips in the Times is such an exception. A copy of the piece liberated from the paywall is here so that everyone can scoff at it for free. It’s possibly the most ludicrous attempt at rewriting history since Rory (I’m Scottish You Know) the Tory sooked up a chunk of BBC licence fees to present a documentary claiming that there was some mythical Middle Land between Scotland and England which proved that Scottish nationhood is artificial and less ancient than its British counterpart. He called it Middle Land, but it had as much bearing on reality as Tolkein’s Middle Earth, only without the dragons or the special effects.

Melanie’s attempt is another excursion into the British nationalist middle earth. Britain, she boldly claims, is the only authentic nation in the battle between the UK and vile Scottish and Irish separatists. The only good thing you can say about it is that at least your licence fee wasn’t wasted in producing it. Of course the real reason that modern Unionists and British nationalists like Melanie are forced to make spurious appeals to ancient history is because there’s precious little shared experience left in the modern UK. Unless it’s a shared experience of the poor and low paid being ripped off while the rich and well connected enrich themselves.

That however, is a shared experience that we’re better off without. It’s a shared experience that we can best challenge with an independent Scotland that provides a better example than the British state. We’ve learned enough by now to know that attempting to reform the British state from within is an exercise in futility, disappointment, and broken dreams. Britain is now hell bent on a xenophobic inward looking narrow nationalism, rejecting the world and basing itself in nostalgia for a lost empire. Scottish independence looks to a future in the 21st century. The British state looks to an empire that it lost in the 20th.

The reality that the likes of Melanie don’t want to face up to is that the many ties of Britishness, all the institutions and organisations which once fostered that sense of Britishness which remains strongest in the oldest generations, have been destroyed by the British state itself and most often by the Tories. Just 50 years ago there were dozens of large state owned organisations, British Coal, British Steel, the Royal Mail, British Leyland and many more, all were owned by the state and helped to create and promote a sense of a shared British experience and identity. They’ve all gone now, sold off and broken up, and as they disappeared they took that fragile sense of a British identity with them. And the reason it was fragile was because it was never strongly rooted in history, no matter how much Melanie tries to rewrite the past.

The core of Melanie’s claim is that before the emergence of Scotland and England as nation states in the early middle ages, there was a British nation which encompassed the whole of the British Isles. It’s a nonsensical claim. She writes
Britain, by contrast, is an authentic unitary nation. It didn’t begin with the union with Scotland but as the British Isles, an island nation defending itself (or not) against invaders from across the seas. Throughout its history, it was beset by attempts at secession by tribes across Hadrian’s Wall and across the Irish Sea.
This is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to rewrite history by a historical illiterate. There was no “island nation”, before the Roman invasion all there was was a collection of Celtic tribes which were politically independent of one another and which allied with one another or went to war with one another as their tribal interests dictated. These tribes did share a broadly similar Celtic culture, and spoke dialects belonging to the same Celtic dialect complex, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they had any sense of themselves as being a single nation.

What Melanie doesn’t tell you is that this Celtic culture and language which was spread across Britain and Ireland was not confined to the British Isles, it was also found across Gaul, across large parts of Iberia, Central Europe, and in tribal groups all the way to Galatia in modern central Turkey. Many of the British tribes possessed territories in Gaul as well as in Britain, and they were closely linked to Gaul by ties of culture, family and language. If the tribes of Britain and Ireland did belong to a single over-arching nation, it was a Celtic nation that encompassed much of Europe. Rather like the EU, come to think of it.

Saying that Britain was beset by “attempts at secession by tribes across Hadrian’s Wall and across the Irish Sea” is utter guff from a historical point of view. These tribes were always independent of those to the south which were conquered by Rome and incorporated into the Roman Empire. The reason the Romans built the wall was not because of secessionist activities from the northern tribes, but because they never successfully conquered the northern tribes in the first place. The Romans never extended their power to Ireland. These tribes remained proudly independent, and by the end of the Roman period a single Gaelic language and culture had spread across Ireland.

Scottish and English nationhood both post-date the Roman period. Both nations were formed by the gradual amalgamation, conquest, and merger of different tribes. Scotland and England were nation states by the early middle ages and for hundreds of years both nations were independent states. It’s Britishness which is relatively recent historically. Britishness as a political concept arose from attempts of the English monarchy to exert its control over the entire British Isles, attempts which were bitterly resisted by the non-English parts of the islands.

The modern concept of Britishness dates from no earlier than the Union of Crowns of the 17th century. It was a concept which Ireland and Scotland rejected for generations. Modern Britishness only came into being with the Union of Parliaments of 1707 and the extinguishing of Scottish independence. In theory, English independence was also extinguished by this event, but in reality as the larger and more powerful part of the new British state, the new Britishness became a proxy for English nationalism. That’s how it remains to this day. All Melanie Phillips is doing is attempting a spurious rewriting of history in an attempt to justify the right of English nationalism to rule over the rest of these islands.

But the truth is it doesn’t really matter whose national identity is older. Scottish independence is not about Scotland’s past. It’s about Scotland’s future. It’s about who gets to choose the path that Scotland takes, is it the people of Scotland, both born Scots and those who choose to embrace Scotland, or is it British nationalists like Melanie. She’s on the wrong side of history.

If you’d like me and the dug to come and give a talk to your local group, email me at

Donate to the Dug This blog relies on your support and donations to keep going – I need to make a living, and have bills to pay. Clicking the donate button will allow you to make a payment directly to my Paypal account. You do not need a Paypal account yourself to make a donation. You can donate as little, or as much, as you want. Many thanks.

Donate Button

Or click HERE

If you’d like to make a donation but don’t wish to use Paypal or have problems using the Paypal button, please email me at for details of alternative methods of donation.

frontcovervol3barkingvol2coverSigned copies of the Collected Yaps of the Wee Ginger Dug volumes 1 2 3 & 4 are available by emailing me at Price just £21.90 for two volumes plus P&P. Please state whether you want vols 1 & 2 or 3 & 4. You can also order signed copies of all four volumes for the special price of £40 plus £4 P&P within the UK.

Copies of Barking Up the Right Tree are available from my publisher Vagabond Voices at price just £7.95 plus P&P. The E-book of Barking Up the Right Tree is available for Kindle for just £4. Click here to purchase.

Get your copy of Barking Up the Right Tree Volume 2 by placing an order on the Vagabond Voices website. Just click the following link.

61 comments on “The wrong side of history

  1. […] Source: The wrong side of history […]

  2. craigevans15 says:

    Hi Mr Ginger Dug,

    I’ve just had a look at the Times article: All I can say is that is complete Bol@*ks!

    Keep up the good work.

  3. baronesssamedi says:

    So Asterix would be for indyref 2! The ‘island nation’ thing makes NO sense in those an ancient days – thesea

  4. baronesssamedi says:

    …..The sea was a motorway and almost no barrier to invasion.

    • Marconatrix says:

      Otherwise it might have kept the English from ever coming to this blessed isle, they’d still be somewhere in the Low Countries 😉

  5. LC says:

    Thank you for this, it has (almost) restored my blood pressure to a normal level, after it was sent sky high on reading that nonsense this morning.

  6. Macart says:

    Must be honest. When I first heard of the article this morning, I thought someone was simply chain pulling. But no! The Times REALLY did publish that deranged pile of fantasy history. After the initial shock had worn off and the paramedic had applied the paddles, I found it was near impossible to stop laughing every time I thought of it.

    The Times has printed some ‘out there’ anti Scottish Government copy recently, but this piece is the creme de la creme of unhinged fleg wavery writ large. They’ve singlehandedly managed to embarrass themselves, the author and insult the intelligence of their regular readership in one fell swoop. (round of applause)

    That’s a triple whammy if ever there was one.

    (still chuckling) 😀

  7. orri says:

    There’s an essential problem in her philosophy.

    In talking about tribes across Hadrian’s Wall she demonstrates the geographical incompetence of some who don’t seem able to comprehend that the border between Scotland and England is further north. What she’s talking about is actually a Britania who no longer rules the waves.

    Obviously you could to take into account the Antonine wall which runs through the central belt. However that was only manned for two separate periods lasting 8 and 7 years. That has as much relevance as the two later occasions where armies controlled from England imposed their rule in Scotland. Edward and Cromwell.

    Again there’s a hint at her mindset in that it’s Scotland that gains the trappings of nationhood and it’s Britain, not the UK, that get’s formed in 1707. Presumably England existed long before Scotland.

    It becomes even clearer when she talks about secession. Technically that’s any leaving of a state so the UK seceding from the EU is a correct description, a smaller EU will still exist afterwards. Her problem is that as the UK consists of the Kingdom of Scotland and the remainder of the Kingdom of England then Scotland can’t actually secede. We can, however, end the UK. Unlike a marriage if we leave then there’s no trial separation it’s over.

    The contradictions in her piece are even more atrocious when it comes to how she talks about NI. There’s also bigoted in her insistence that NI unionists aren’t British. If they aren’t then given she’s dismissed the idea of nationhood for Ireland that means they have no nationality. OK so their some weird UKian rather than simple people without a state.

  8. […] Wee Ginger Dug The wrong side of history […]

  9. jimsayers28 says:

    first thing dictater do is try to change history

  10. […] Source: The wrong side of history […]

  11. deiseach says:

    I come here for the snark, but your point about the destruction of shared institutions is a truly wise one. The ultimate irony is that the unpicking of the fabric that was held together by these institutions was done by those now most hysterical on the value of the Union. As you say, they can’t bring themselves to admit that so are reduced to labelling their opponents as racists. Well done for a fine article.

  12. This sad lady’s hysterical piece of nonsense is proof enough that the English Establishment now concede that Scotland will achieve Self Determination and remain a member of the EU.
    It beggars belief that the Times passed this obvious crud for publication.
    Is the moon really made of green cheese? If the Times says so, it must be.
    Stupid little article.

  13. Jan Cowan says:

    Thanks, Paul. Your article ought to be published in the Times. But I wonder who asked M P to concoct such nonsense.

  14. sethsma says:

    What a load of bollocks. I didn’t bother to read the article but the bits you’ve picked out sound like a fantasy of what should have been, rather than what really was. Sadly no-one in the MSM will bother to contradict her and I can think of a few historians who are probably hysterical with laughter as they read. It’s up there with “The British Empire was a kind and caring entity that did it’s best for the various peoples they ‘looked after’. That too is of course bollocks. Thank you once again for your fantastic writing. It’s so refreshing to read something from a WRITER and not a hack.

  15. […] Source: The wrong side of history […]

  16. M Caldwell Hunter says:

    Just read her article. God I wasted my time studying history. I could just have made it up as she has done. Even the most rabid anglophile would have to laugh at this pathetically bad attempt at perverting history. My advice to the author is to get her hands on some children’s history books. These may give her a better insight into British, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English histories. However that would include research which obviously was not done prior to publication. As for The Thunderer publishing this, I’m sorry their standards have fallen so low

  17. Andy in Germany says:

    We have a strong Celtic heritage in this region of south Germany with burial sites and some very impressive reconstructed houses in a town near here.

    An Austrian friend told me that one feature of the Celts around here is that they accepted people of different backgrounds as Celts: If you lived among them, you were a Celt with the rights and responsibilities of a ‘citizen’. If hat is correct, it seems alot like the Scotland you are trying to create (and I’d like to join…)

  18. Dan Huil says:

    Britnat desperation seems to be entering a new, even more hysterical phase.

  19. grumpydubai says:

    Well Wee Ginger Dug, I am pleased to see at least you know something of the history of these islands as opposed to this female windbag

  20. bugsbunny says:

    She’s got a very long history of Reactionary views and politics. My dad died in October 1998 and was diagnosed with cancer 19 months prior to that. To be exact the 1st Anniversary of the Dunblane massacre. So that would be 13th March 1997. When he was hale and hearty prior to that, Melanie Philips would regularly appear on Question Time. My dad, an ex miner and a lifelong Labour Supporter when that meant something would groan, “Not that Tory Bastard again”. She’s been doing this for years.

    For what it’s worth, in my opinion, she doesn’t believe a word she has written here. It’s Reactionary shit stirring keech of the highest order and she knows it. The readers of her rag however probably don’t. It’s called the dumbing down of society, even in former respectable broadsheets or even tabloids. They are all now descending into the farce of the Sunday and Daily Sport. you know the types of stories. “World War Two Bomber found on the Moon”. It would be funny if it wasn’t quite so pathetic.

  21. shane fraser says:

    ” The modern concept of Britishness dates from no earlier than the Union of Crowns of the 17th century. It was a concept which Ireland and Scotland rejected for generations.

    REJECTED FOR GENERATIONS and to this day Still Rejected !

  22. Golfnut says:

    Ach, we have lots of British stuff, you know, the great British sewing thingy, great British bake off, er, I’m struggling now.

    • bugsbunny says:

      The Great British Lie, the Great British Pish Talks, the Great British Sectarian divide and rule, the Great British Rip Off. I could go on and on. lol.

  23. bedelsten says:

    Well, that’s us telt then. We are a tribal uprising. I suppose we ought to get back in our box, pull down the lid and go back to sleep.

    But maybis no. Maybis I take offence at being telt “Kingship matters because monarchs unify tribes into a nation” because that is such utter. Remind me, how did monarchs go about this unifying process then; was there, perhaps, some violence involved? Is this another veiled unionist threat of more ‘unifying’ violence?

    But, anyway, if this so, can we not have back the Kingdom of Fife and the Kingdom of Moray, can the Lord of Isles not unify some tribes in the Hebrides and, perhaps, we ought to resurrect the Kingdom of Strathclyde which John Prebble says stretched from the northern banks of the Clyde to the fringes of Wales and whose people had a common tongue and kinship.

    There is more though… ‘the claim to unite Ireland is tenuous since Ireland itself has a tenuous claim to nationhood, having seceded from Britain as the Irish Free State only in 1922.’ And before? Before the Norman invasion of 12th century followed by more than 800 years of direct English rule?

    If one goes back far enough, 6500 years perhaps, what became the island of Britain was connected to the rest of Europe by Doggerland. Pull the plug. Drain the swamp. Flush these yoons away. Bring back Doggerland, if only to walk the wee ginger dog.

  24. Andy in Germany says:

    She contradicts herself within three paragraphs:

    “The Scots developed over time the characteristics of a nation: a distinct language, religion, legal system and so on. The UK was formed in 1707 by the union of two distinct kingdoms, England and Scotland….”

    No… not quite. Try again…

    “…Northern Ireland is different again. The Unionists hate this being said but they are not British. They’re the bit that got tacked on to Great Britain to make the UK.”

    Ah, right on the second attempt: The UK is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Fair’s fair, you made it in the end.

    If you are goint to write pish, at least write consistent pish…

    (This may be the first use of the word ‘Pish’ in south Germany)

  25. BrynnaBob says:

    As an insignificant, tribal Welshman I think her article is a load of ‘tosh’.

    I am however getting to like your Scots word ‘pish’ which equally sums up this dreadful piece of Brit Nat propaganda.

  26. punklin says:

    Thank you, dug, for such an erudite and original analysis of the weaknesses in Ms phillip’s article.

  27. Thomas Valentine says:

    The basis of this Times article is Adolf Hitler’s favorite claim that some countries and people are below the requirements of Nation status. It actually comes from the German nationalist of the mid to late 19th century. In the run up to German unification they claimed that all the little German states were not nationalities but fragments of the German whole. Deutschland Deutschland over all others. As the song says. Meaning One Nation over all.

    More importantly they extended this to other peoples bordering onto this Germany as being unworthy of regarding as true Nations. That Germany should simply expand into these areas and forcibly absorb them into the German nation. They were “Menschen ablegen” waste people. The political concept treated people like the Wends, Danes, Frisians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and about anyone else they included, the same way left over ground between large properties. Hitler went farther saying that any nation state such people tried to form was merely aping the achievements of real nations and they were unstable and incapable of lasting before collapsing into barbarism. Further rationalizations were made that these people should be brought under the guardianship of a true Nation till they were reformed into a part of that nation.

    The roots of this so called logic began in the 18th century but came fully into form after the Napoleonic wars. It under pinned the ideas of all the imperialist countries Britain, France, Russia and Germany. The Berlin Conference 1884 was steeped in this thinking. German and Austrian education was full to the brim with these ideas. You will also be aware that British education had a polite version that was no less arrogant. This is the basis that German National Socialism was grown. What Philips has expressed in her article is pure Fascism without any attempt to hide or veil anything. Just because some one has a Jewish background does not mean they are immune to being poisoned by such ideas. After all the original conference that proposed reclaiming Palestine for European Jews was in the same period as the Berlin Conference. The Jewish people there were also just as European as their Christian neighbors and believed the same ideas had merit. Seventy years later Israel was formed for very different reasons and so Europe could dump it’s Jewish refugee problem. If you are a HARDCORE Zionist type that makes wishy washy people of a Jewish background like me uncomfortable, you still believe this 19th century claptrap.

    Where we are now is an England slipping fast into hardline ultra Nationalism that is quite comfortable printing in their most respectable newspaper, obscene articles like Philips that should be in the pages of White Power Aryan Nation magazines.

  28. Craig P says:

    I am particularly fond of her assertion that Ireland didn’t exist before 1922. By that logic, neither did the UK.

  29. According to Melanie, Britain has always been a single nation. Then how come, the English refer to Newcastle, as being in the North East ?

  30. Sandra Hunter says:

    Wed 8 March – see The Times, Kenny Farquharson’s ‘piece’ today – ‘Who would be the next leader of the SNP?

    Needs an eloquent response suitable for the toady KF.

    • Macart says:

      Yeah, saw a bit about that.

      In his world there’s already been a second referendum and independence has lost. This according to the fragrant Mr F. means the FM should fall on her sword.

      Uh huh!

      Were I Mr F, I wouldn’t be quite so confident that the majority of the people of Scotland are up for further Westminster abuses of their trust, their lives, their rights or their sovereignty.

      Let’s not get mad. Better to simply disabuse Mr Farquharson by altering his dream outcome. 🙂

  31. Clapper57 says:

    Irrespective of what did and did not exist according to Ms P, one can only dream that but for the existence of people like her, life would be so much better and debate would be far more civilised and free of such provocative opinions voiced only to provoke contention and disharmony.

    I am sure at no point before, during or after the writing of this article Ms P did not consider the potential negative response to her contentious piece. If one were cynical one would think she deliberately set out to provoke anger……call me cynical.

    Her piece adds nothing to the constitutional debate and the only purpose I can see in the writing and publishing of this article is to once again promote Britishness and diminish the nations that both she and this paper believe are the problems which could potentially destroy Britannia , wot has been round the block and back again fir like ages ya know.

    This article and recent other BritNat offerings will continue as it is in the unionist DNA to be constantly on the offensive while acting with faux outrage when those of us defend the truth as we know it to be.

    Hold the front page as this process is on a constant loop however I think their obvious ignorance defines more who they are, than what they are so badly trying to define.

    What really annoys them is that they are unable to provoke more than words from us as ultimately they would love us to retaliate with violence which is hopefully a path none of us will venture down….it is they who have defined the constitutional issue as an ‘us’ and ‘them’ hence the constant onslaught of negativity they subject towards our cause .

    Let us not allow ‘them’ to define ‘us’ via their narrow perspective but instead let us focus on gaining the ultimate prize, that is , our freedom to define ourselves when we gain our independence.

    • Mark Russell says:

      I was surprised that the Scottish government didn’t make ore out of the legislative revelations of the Scotland Act after the Supreme Court deliberations were published. As WGD noted in an earlier post, effectively everything Scotland was promised and told it had, is meaningless. Surely that is a line in the sand in itself?

      I can also understand the reticence from some to embrace the EU. Brussels may not quite be in the same league as Westminster, but it is also hugely inefficient and corrupt and it may not be the best choice for Scotland. Personally I would prefer to see three questions on any future ballot:

      1) Do you wish Scotland to remain as a constituent member of a United Kingdom
      2) Do you wish Scotland to become independent from the UK but remain/reapply within the EU
      3) Do you wish Scotland to become independent from the UK and the EU and remain free to negotiate it’s own trade and sovereign arrangements.

      • Macart says:

        TBF Mark the SC were asked to decide where sovereignty and responsibilities of the UK lay in regards parliaments. The SC having responsibility itself over UK constitutional law was always going to rule for the primacy of the Westminster parliament. The question of where national sovereignties lie is technically a different question altogether and one they have no competence over as far as I gather.

        As for how much the SG could make of the ruling itself and its affront to the UK as a ‘partnership’? How much column space or air time do they ever get in the media? How many in the media see it as a duty to report factually the appalling state of the democratic deficit? I don’t doubt for an instant that given the opportunity, the SG would fill titles and airwaves with the detail were they given the chance. As it is though?

        On the question/s. Possibly, though I personally don’t believe independence is simply about the government of the day’s policy on existing treaties and it would be catastrophic IMV were they to tie one policy issue to an independence referendum. Independence is about the right of future governments to make choices and decisions you mandate them to make. Be it on international treaties, the economy, the constitution or any other thing. Its about do you want to be given the choices, make those decisions, or would you rather someone else did it for you?

        Right now there is only one political union which really binds the hands of the Scottish electorate from any critical decision making process both foreign and domestic. People want the right to make decisions for themselves? Then I believe there is only a single question they need answer.

        Should Scotland be an independent country?

        • Bill Dale says:

          “Should Scotland be an independent country again?”

        • Mark Russell says:

          I’d go for that normally, but the riposte would immediately be, “what then?” Even if the majority voted yes on principle, the next big question is “where do we go now?” Maybe we should trust the electorate with the conundrum now, even though its slightly more complicated – I’m sure there’ll be little appetite for another referendum afterwards.

      • Patience is a Virtue says:

        I agree- many of the points argued by the Lord Advocate invoked directly clauses the Act of Union which prevent actions being undertaken that are not to the betterment of the people (of Scotland)… and by ignoring /overruling these sections -effectively dismissed this as well- and so much then for it being ‘indissoluble’ …..

        The bit of the Supreme Court ruling which did not get much attention in the media and remains it seems conveniently ignored to date, was the ‘intrinsic warning of ignoring ‘conventions’ at your peril’ re. the political harmony of UK ; extract from full ruling below:-

        ‘148. As the Advocate General submitted, by such provisions, the UK Parliament is not seeking to convert the Sewel Convention into a rule which can be interpreted, let alone enforced, by the courts; rather, it is recognising the convention for what it is, namely a political convention, and is effectively declaring that it is a permanent feature of the relevant devolution settlement. That follows from the nature of the content, and is acknowledged by the words (“it is recognised” and “will not normally”), of the relevant subsection.

        We would have expected UK Parliament to have used other words if it were seeking to convert a convention into a legal rule justiciable by the courts

        149. In the Scotland Act 2016, the recognition of the Sewel Convention occurs alongside the provision in section 1 of that Act. That section, by inserting section 63A into the Scotland Act 1998, makes the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish government a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements, signifies the commitment of the UK Parliament and government to those devolved institutions, and declares that those institutions are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum. This context supports our view that the purpose of the legislative recognition of the convention was to entrench it as a convention

        150. The Lord Advocate and the Counsel General for Wales were correct to acknowledge that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly did not have a legal veto on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. Nor in our view has the Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore, our answer to the second question in para 126 above is that the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly is not a legal requirement before the relevant Act of the UK Parliament is passed

        151. In reaching this conclusion we do not underestimate the importance of constitutional conventions, some of which play a fundamental role in the operation of our constitution.

        The Sewel Convention has an important role in facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. But the policing of its scope and the manner of its operation does not lie within the constitutional remit of the judiciary, which is to protect the rule of law ‘

        As for the ballot paper… certainly … Should Scotland be an independent counrty ? Yes/No
        as the primary question.and can decide on the rest shortly thereafter… you will see who are your friends are then anyway.

        Perhaps after today’s budget if you were to ask ‘Do you think Scotland can do better than the UK’s current £50billion annual interest bill on the UK national debt (in the Trillions) …. as an Independent Country…?

        in context, £2billion (only) being directed to offset/improve social care in England…. with ‘better management’ 25x that is achievable, …. who is in charge at present? who was in charge before that?

        …I certainly do not think the SG need to take any lessons in ‘fiscal management’ from anyone in the next/forthcoming Referendum.

      • David says:

        I voted no the last time but would vote yes this time. This is largely as a result of the EU referendum but not because I am determined to stay in the EU. It was more because of what the result meant. The United Kingdom is going down a route I don’t like and best away from it as far as I am concerned.

        However back to your points one of the reasons I was not convinced by the independence campaign was because it felt too timid. A large part of the SNP approach was vote for independence and nothing will change. We will still have the monarchy, pound, stay in the EU, stay in NATO, etc.

        I would rather see a yes no to Scottish independence vote followed by a series of referendums on the big questions.

        Should we keep the monarchy or become a republic?
        Should we Join the EU, EFTA or stay out?
        Should we join NATO?
        Should we use the pound, euro, dollar or our own currency?

        And so on. Win independence and then show that the people of Scotland will truly get a say on how the country will be made up.

    • Very interesting, Sam. Swan describes our position as a ‘democratic outrage,’

      “Yet Scotland’s position within the UK is intolerable. Under the British constitution, it is irrelevant that 57 of Scotland’s 59 MPs are opposed to Brexit; irrelevant that Scotland voted two to one against Brexit; and irrelevant that Brexit is opposed by the parliament and government of Scotland. Regardless of whether or not there is a majority in favour of outright independence, the status quo reduces democracy in Scotland to a mockery in which neither (Scottish) popular nor (Scottish) parliamentary sovereignty apply.”

      Wilson and Sillars are hauled out to have their senile demented negative tuppence worth.
      We must go now, and go hard.
      As Brexit unfolds, the day will be won.
      I would not be surprised that as the Repeal Act goes through WM, a Review and Reform of Devolved Governments is thrown in for good measure.
      There is the smell of blood in the air. The Brexiteers can taste it.
      Hence this nonsense by Phillips the Zionist that Scotland is not a country. WE are ‘irrelevant’.
      It’s all bubbling up nicely.

      • Macart says:

        I suspect that if they are given the opportunity, the very least UKgov will do is reduce the competence of the Scottish parliament to its intended original purpose.

        A parish council.

        At the very least.

        • Sam, I just caught the Ian Gray vote of no confidence regarding the Scotgov’s management of Education. They defeated the Gov 62:63 on a pointless SNP BAD waste of time space and money motion, yet again. It got me thinking. I assume the GReens backed this pointless little bit of bitchiness. What the fuck is Harvie playing at?
          Not one of the 200,000 children in poverty, or the 500,000 Scots in absolute poverty will benefit from this tawdry piece of ‘parish council’ crap.
          To think Gray gets £1200 a week to pour shit all over the Administration.
          Patrick Harvie knows the score. LA’s are responsible for Education delivery, the ‘giving more powers to local politicians’ he’s always banging on about. If Education is failing, there are 32 highly paid Directors of Education out there who may have some questions to answer.
          MacKay has channelled £170 million direct of headmasters, by passing councils, especially the fat bloated West of Scotland Labour mafia, yet the Greens vote with the Red Blue and Yellow Tories on this pointless motion. Why? to embarrass the SNP? This is not an example of transferring power to where it belongs, Patrick?
          Grow up, Harvie. This is not a game.
          You are either part of the solution, or you join Sillars and Wilson, in undermining the credibility of the Scottish Government just because you can. At the moment you are coming across as part of the problem.
          As for the Red Tories. What a bunch of small minded gravy train losers they are.
          I am sick fed up of watching these fat bloated wasters bad mouthing everything Scottish..for money.
          Referendum 2 cannot come quickly enough.

          • Macart says:

            Couldn’t agree more Jack.

            The vote had nothing to do with a vote of confidence and never did.

            We know that. They know that and I’m sure Mr Harvie knows that. It had nothing to do with holding anyone to account for anything in point of fact. It was merely about inflicting a defeat on the SNP government.

            I like Mr Harvie and appreciate what he’s attempting with the greens, but right now is not the damn time and THAT is all about inexperience. If he’s not careful he’s going to lose sympathy with the electorate and wind up doing himself and his party no good at all.

            *Bangs head on desk*

            • He voted with the Blue Tories who are committing the biggest crime in political history by steadily eroding the incomes and living standards of our poorest citizens, in work, looking for work, disabled, chronically ill, and in low paid work, and their children.
              He is arm in arm with Davidson who is directly accountable to Scottish citizens for robbing the poor, to reward the rich.
              How he justifies it beats me.
              Holyrood is NOT a parish council.
              Blue Tory policies, no longer resisted by Rennie and Dugdale are directly responsible for the crisis in all aspects of civic life Up Here.
              Yet it’s all John Swinney’s fault?
              I repeat, Harvie, what are you at?
              I’m spitting mad at this nonsense from that florid faced failure Gray. He truly should be embarrassed lifting his pay cheque every month.
              £1200 a week? For what?
              Ach, I’m off to overdose on Tunnocks teacakes.

  32. Gavin C Barrie says:

    @ BrynnaBob: I note that you like the word pish. A phrase you may also like, as spoken by our Mhairi Black MP in response to a Tory clone minister – “You’re talkin’ a load a’ shite hen”. When addressing a male substitute prick for hen.

    We have loads of very descriptive sounds, as words – stramash, scunnered, breenge, boorach, dunderheid, drookit. and of course, houghmagandie – so so sensual.

    I’m sure you must have some descriptive words too.

  33. She is saying that Scotland has no right to another indy ref (as we might win this time and she can’t sneer at that). That thought was echoed on QT by the tory, who refused to rule out that Westminster would veto another indyref. Well it is not in their power to gift us our future/ Only we decide that. It is our property all along. Read the new RBS £5 note “It’s a grand thing to get leave to live” – a seditious note! Go on Toryland, I double dare you.

    • David says:

      I hope they do deny a referendum. I then hope that the Holyrood votes to have a referendum without permission. The Yes vote would skyrocket. What could Westminster do? Refuse to accept it? I’d hope they would not be so deranged to send the tanks into George Square so to speak.

Comments are closed.