The English dreaming of Peter Hitchens

Peter Hitchens, the conservative contrarian who hates to be called a contrarian, has decided that Brexit isn’t enough to restore greatness to England as it still leaves England encumbered with Scotland and Wales, countries which he appears to see as lesser nations which sap the glory that rightfully belongs to England alone. Hitchens has published a column in the Daily Mail in which he argues that England should give up trying to persuade Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to stay and instead secede from the United Kingdom, leaving the ungrateful Celts to get on with it by themselves. England, he tells us, should leave the UK to embrace “a golden future,” a future which judging by recent behaviour would seem to consist of being stroppy and ripping up treaties which it had itself negotiated, deporting migrants and asylum seekers, bollocks to everyone, and flags everywhere, sticking it to Europe with two world wars and a referendum.

The piece reeks with the exceptionalism and claimed victimhood which are the contradictory twin characteristics of modern right wing English nationalism. Hitchens is at pains to stress that his proposal does not mean that England would declare independence. Hitchens’ England is far too grand and glorious for that, declarations of independence are what lesser dependent nations do. England, he tells us, has never depended on the other nations of these islands. So we must have been imagining how it was Scottish oil revenues that paid for the massive development of the city of London in the 1980s. It was just a dream that Irish labour built the railways or that Welsh coal kept the steam trains running.

The way in which Scotland, Wales and Ireland were bled of resources, talent, and capital in order to help build the modern English economy was just the Celts paying their dues for the privilege of England allowing us to be ruled by that parliament and government which Hitchens tells us is English already and has simply, “given hospitality to others during the long adventure of the Union.” No, he really did write that, presumably in all seriousness. So when the Conservatives foisted their hard-line ideologically motivated Brexit upon Scotland and stripped us all of our rights and privileges as European citizens, they were just being hospitable. Aren’t you glad that Hitchens has cleared that up for us. I’m sure it comes as a huge comfort to those EU citizens resident in Scotland who have had to apply to a cold-hearted Home Office in order to remain in the communities where they have made their homes.

Hitchens says that England would not be declaring independence, his England has always stood gloriously apart, and needing no one, an island nation except for the uncomfortable fact that it has to share an island with ungrateful and lesser neighbours. This is the England of whose empire, Hitchens writes, approvingly quoting the Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana “never since the days of heroic Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master.” He briefly concedes that “no doubt many wicked things were done by our empire”, glossing over the slave trade, the Irish and Bengal famines, the genocide of indigenous Australians, institutional racism, colonial exploitation and appropriation, to name but a few, but still says of England’s Empire “ours was better by far than any that has ever existed.”

What he calls for is not independence, instead he calls it the “Restoration of England” because he implcitly believes that England is being prevented from achieving its full potential and sense of itself by those Celtic nations which hang on to England’s coat tails and hold it back. You see, England is the real victim in this UK, selflessly sacrificing itself for smaller nations which don’t appreciate all that England does for them.

Santayana’s most famous aphorism is : “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Hitchens and other right wing English nationalists cannot or more accurately will not, remember the many sins of the British Empire, its racism, its exploitation, its contempt for “lesser breeds”, its rampant theft and corruption and the abiding sense of entitlement of its white Anglo-Saxon masters. The modern Conservative government repeats the past tragedies as farce.

Hitchens does not think that there need be an English independence referendum. Instead he believes that any party which put English secession in its manifesto for a General Election would win a resounding majority. Note that the English nationalists who insist that Scotland should only be able to hold another independence referendum with the permission of a parliament at Westminster which Hitchens asserts is English already also believe that England should be free to secede from the UK without even consulting the other nations, never mind asking their permission. That is a very telling double standard.

Of course Hitchens is merely being his usual contrarian and attention seeking self in making this proposal, but he does speak for a growing constituency within England. For decades opponents of independence have insisted that Scotland is financially dependent upon England, people in England have absorbed this message too, and naturally wonder if they would not be better off if they ditched what they believe to be the ungrateful financial millstone that is Scotland. An opinion poll in 2019 found that 75% of English Brexit supporters would be willing to “let Scotland go” in order to ensure that Brexit was done.

In 2020 a YouGov poll found that less than half of voters in England, just 46%, thought that Scotland should remain a part of the UK. What this, together with Hitchens kite -flying article, tell us is that a significant part of the English electorate, and particularly Brexit supporting Conservatives, are not strongly motivated to keep Scotland a part of the UK. This means that a Conservative Government could easily position itself as the champion of English interests by agreeing to a Scottish independence referendum, although what is far more likely is that post Brexit English antipathy towards Scotland means that in a future referendum Scotland will be told that no further devolution or “special treatment” is on the table, and the choice for Scotland is either independence or to accept its status as a “region of the UK” with no greater status than Yorkshire or East Anglia.

Personally I feel that one of the greatest advantages of Scottish independence is that it means we would be able to secede from Peter Hitchens and the cancer that is the Daily Mail.

albarevisedMy Gaelic maps of Scotland are still available, a perfect gift for any Gaelic learner or just for anyone who likes maps. The maps cost £15 each plus £7 P&P within the UK. You can order by sending a PayPal payment of £22 to weegingerbook@yahoo.com (Please remember to include the postal address where you want the map sent to).

I am now writing the daily newsletter for The National, published every day from Monday to Friday in the late afternoon.  So if you’d like a daily dose of dug you can subscribe to The National, Scotland’s only pro-independence newspaper, here: Subscriptions from The National

This is your reminder that the purpose of this blog is to promote Scottish independence. If the comment you want to make will not assist with that goal then don’t post it. If you want to mouth off about how much you dislike the SNP leadership there are other forums where you can do that. You’re not welcome to do it here.

You can help to support this blog with a PayPal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button below. If you don’t have a PayPal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.

Donate Button

134 comments on “The English dreaming of Peter Hitchens

  1. raineach says:

    I was once told – lectured really – that Scottish Independence was simply anti-English racism, or in other words that the English were the victims of their own imperialism. You just can’t make that stuff up

  2. Dr Jim says:

    Peter Hitchens is just another English nationalist flying the right wing flag version of the kind of Englishness that agrees with everything Tommy Robinson says if only Tommy Robinson was acceptably posh enough not to be considered an ultra right wing fascist

    In England you’re only a fascist if you happen to be a scruff, if you’re posh however you become a *thinker* or *visionary* and must be taken seriously, it’s why the Tory party is stuffed full of Eton Oxbridge posh boys with zero education or life experience except that of being born to rule and expecting to as is their God given destiny

    For England and St George

    • Drew Anderson says:

      A thinker or a visionary would have considered the implications. Hitchens’ suggestion throws up some interesting questions.

      Ending the union with Scotland is straightforward, it wouldn’t be overly difficult to strike down the Acts of Union.

      But what about Wales and Northern Ireland? Both were part of the Kingdom of England when the Union began; how would they be treated?

      Another question is could a seceding England also claim continuing nation status? No doubt Hitchens believes England can sail off into the sunset with all of the UK’s rights and privileges (including the UN Security Council seat), without any obligations to other parts of the UK. I’m not sure the international community would necessarily see it that way.

  3. Aye. English exceptionalism is truly a sight to behold.

    The brexit exceptionalisms believe they have the god given right to e.g. a trade deal with the USA, and if the latter have the temerity to ask England respects international law + a UN peace deal as a condition of signing one, it’s poor England getting ‘bullied’.

    https://archive.ph/EnjF9

    Row erupts as US accused of trying to ‘bully’ UK over Northern Ireland

    England is really humiliating itself on the world stage right now with this cowardly racist hissy fit stuff. How far the once mighty British empire has fallen. No wonder half of Scots and N. Irish want out. I mean how embarrassing it must be to tell people from other countries you are ok with the likes of Johnson running your country.

    • Dr Jim says:

      Now everybody knows what Scotlands First Minister was discussing with Nancy Pelosi and others and why the Unionists were going nuts over her visit to Washington and why the BBC blacked out her visit

      Chickens and roosting

    • Yes, you’d image the lack of democracy / repression of minority peoples in the UK by England / ‘The British Trump’ ((c) Biden) was discussed, including England attempting to overturn both the NI assembly election (which endorsed the protocol) and the 2021 Scottish election (iref mandate).

      I likewise expect ears were very sympathetic.

  4. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    Paul…great piece…..so on the ball……

    I jumped the gun and quoted Peter Hitchens in my last comment on previous thread so if okay with you I will add it onto this thread and having read your piece added some other comments…….sorry.

    The enigma of a NON Union…..and one that apparently is NOT supported by the likes of Peter Hitchens…..who cannot see the how England , in a (Non) Union is either BETTER or STRONGER together with other nations in this so called (non) Union……But BETTER and STRONGER together is what we are all asked to believe IS the case…….SO……

    If we are , according to Unionists, truly supposedly Better and stronger together then what is it that makes that a fact from a Pro Unionist perspective.

    Scotland (and Wales) are presented by Unionists as THE weak links in the Union when Unionists state we, Scotland and Wales, are NOT economically viable to survive alone as independent countries…..this is always highlighted and focused upon in all of the constitutional debates yet this same assertion or rather assessment is never applied to England.

    So are we then to assume that according to them it is only with the inclusion of England in their (non) Union with us that makes their (non) Union Better and Stronger ?

    If that is their opinion then surely the most logical and financially viable conclusion for England and it’s people would be that they would be both Better and Stronger as an independent country free from the (non) Union they are currently part of (dominating)….and according to THEM a Union where THEY are currently having to subsidise other countries more within that (non) Union than their own country (England)…..thus surely it is to their own detriment to REMAIN in this so called (non) Union.

    YET strangely…the current Tory government (and other Unionist political parties) campaign relentlessly to try to ‘SAVE’ this (non) Union, spend a Hell of a lot of money in trying to ‘SAVE’ it and have even set up a specific Union Unit to focus on the ‘SAVING’ of it …….for whose benefit ?…Not theirs surely given the argument they use in the (non) fact that they constantly present….. as in us supposedly needing THEM more in order to provide us, Scotland and Wales, with economic security as supplied by THEM in a (non) Union ??????

    Gordon Brown has also set up some ‘new’ Think tank ‘Our Scottish Future ‘ (so who is funding THAT I wonder ) to try and save the (non) Union …well we , in Scotland, KNOW what our future will be if we listen to Gordon Brown…..ruled by Tories at WM THAT will be our future….as no one wants either HIM or indeed wants HIS Labour party in power no matter WHO they choose as their leader….in THEIR parliament at WM).

    So what, for them, benefit(s) does England get from being a part of this (non) Union ?

    Peter Hitchens is raising something no Unionist wants raised as in ‘Why England should leave the UK and declare an English secession’….” Declare” he says….once again a sense of entitlement as in we , in Scotland, must ASK but THEY can DECLARE…..secession.

    “ Why then is England seemingly so afraid to go it alone” ?…..

    “ Who, in their opinion, would England need to get permission from should they decide to want independence from the (non) Union “ ?…well No one according to Peter Hitchens apparently….

    “Why , in a so called (non) Union, does Scotland and Wales need permission from England yet according to one Journalist, Hitchens, England only need to DECLARE secession from the (non) Union “?

    Questions Questions Questions…….they, Unionist politicians, will not provide the answers to these questions but clearly at some point MORE people in England might ask (based on Unionists politicians declarations of our, Scotland and Wales, supposed weak input as part of THEIR (non) Union) why are we staying in this (non) Union if THEY get more out of it than us ?

    So please….Keep going Peter Hitchens because through YOUR statement and article in a Unionist newspaper you might just rock the boat that Unionist politicians are trying so desperately to keep steady for THEIR benefit while lying that is is supposedly MORE for OUR countries, Scotland and Wales, benefit to remain within THEIR (non) Union…….plus your superior attitude reeks of English exceptionalism that contradicts the platitudes Pro Union politicians falsely bestow upon us from all Pro Union political parties …… and they are doing it deliberately too….to keep us in their (non) Union.

    BETTER and STRONGER together BUT for whom ? (for Scotland and Wales and indeed currently also for NI tis very much a Rhetorical question and a question that THEY, Unionists, will NOT EVER answer …honestly)……

    Where as Peter Hitchens omits pertinent facts and information in his quest to rewrite history in his quest to glorify England and restore it to a what ?…….well seemingly to a vision that many a fantasist Brexiteer THINK is their rightful place……GREATER than any country and constantly at war (in words ) with others as well as themselves……

    I truly pity the decent people within England who are mindful of what exactly is going on in their country and who loathe the likes of Hitchens and also loathe those who supposedly aspire to ‘Make England Great Again’ and who are willing to surrender all power to a right wing Fascist Tory government………which ultimately will eventually see their own demise…..and the weakness of the political opposition too afraid to speak for fear they should alienate ‘voters’ will be as culpable as the Tories currently overseeing this downward spiral of THEIR (non) Union and indeed an England that dominates it………..the so called silent majority (sane ones) in England really do need to TAKE BACK CONTROL before the lunatics not only take over the asylum….but burn it down as well……..hopefully England is not lost and both sense and order will be restored sooner than later BUT only as an independent nation and also one that will be a good neighbour to an independent Scotland…and hopefully Wales too.

    Sorry for long comment………

  5. Legerwood says:

    If England would be so great on it’s own or in the Union, and Brexit is so wonderful why has Stanley Johnson, father of B Johnson, taken out French citizenship? Happened this week apparently. See The Guardian etc.

  6. Capella says:

    MEGA – Make England Great Again – good luck Peter. It is in fact the very definition of fascism to promote ethnic superiority and hark back to a glorious past.

    We have a theory in the Capella residence that the English have never recovered from being conquered by the Normans in 1066. They became serfs in their own country and still are. The Normans own the stately mansions and have occupied the great offices of state until modern times. Yes they allow some serfs in to their noble demesne if they perform a useful service like stenographer to the 4th Viscount Rothermere.

    Scotland was never conquered by the Normans but we did make the terrible mistake of inviting them in and copying their evil feudal ways.

    • Not-My-Real-Name says:

      Yes Capella….and we may be about to witness a war (of words) about to emerge between British Nationalists in Scotland versus the English Nationalists in England….though in theory there is actually very little that separates them via the rhetoric that they choose to use….as both seem to see England as the superior and rich nation in THEIR (non) Union that subsidises, protects and panders to the other nations……..Scotland and Wales viewed by them as the poor relations and England as the generous benefactor……NI is currently only seen as a obstacle to THEIR Tory Brexit being ….Done.

      That’s why Scotland and Wales cannot have all of the NICE things they could have as some people fight to prevent it…….some people being the so called ‘Proud Scots’….BUT ???

      Have a nice day

      🙂

    • Dr Jim says:

      The thing is *we* didn’t invite them in, Scotland was sold out from under the people with no consultation, because at that time there was no TV no newspapers no internet to tell people what was happening so only those who were in the know could object, and the populace probably wouldn’t even consider such a thing possible as happening because Scotland was never done fighting the English off, so to consider there were folk actually in the position of selling one country (Scotland) to another (England) would be a mind blowingly farcical concept, and that’s always been the problem from the beginning for Scots, how the hell and what kind of folk end up with power enough to *sell* their country

      • Capella says:

        I was thinking of earlier times. Macbeth had Norman soldiers in his service but the traditional way of life didn’t change. Real change came with David 1st who had been influenced at the court of Henry 1st of England.

        The term “Davidian Revolution” is used by many scholars to summarise the changes which took place in Scotland during his reign. These included his foundation of burghs and regional markets, implementation of the ideals of Gregorian Reform, foundation of monasteries, Normanisation of the Scottish government, and the introduction of feudalism through immigrant French and Anglo-French knights.

        Robert the Bruce was a Norman – Robert de Brus.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I_of_Scotland

  7. Brilliant! Peter Hitchens, and the organ for which he ‘writes’, are carbuncles on the ‘thon’ of journalism. It would, however, be wonderful if, just this once, Westminster took his advice!

  8. yesindyref2 says:

    This is tangential as Peter Hitchens appears on my horizon as often as Watford Gap service station these days.

    In places like UK Defence Journal I see posters referring to the National like this (in an article with just 8 comments “Shipbuilding misinformation continues to spread in Scotland”):

    Well, no surprise there as this publication openly supports Scottish independence. It is just a confirmation bias echo chamber for the Nationalists ….ignore…

    Two things catch the eye. Second is “openly supports Scottish independence”. The irony factor of this is about 99%, as the 1% that supports Indy is at least “openly” about it, whereas the other 99% that oppose Independence pretend to be fair, unbiased, impartial and balanced. That would be four lies in a row.

    So what this poster is saying in effect, is that Scottish independence is honest about itself. Well indeed, and the Truth shall set us free.

    Firstly though is indeed that reference to the National and I’ve noticed that in general below the line they’ve become less interested in being anti-SNP or anti-Krankie, in fact some even wonder what the fuss is about, as in this in the same article:

    I don’t know why ship building is such a HUGE issue. Maybe 80 years ago when 10,000s were employed in it but now it’s not really the heart of Glasgow workforce

    Perhaps to people interested in warship building and support contracts, and defence in general, it’s that issue that’s important, not trivial party politics. And perhaps that goes for most other issues in England as well – who cares about Scotland, Northern Ireland, that other place, or the UK – or the Union? That’s just politics. I’m not convinced that the vast majority of people in England actually care one way or another, any more.

  9. WT says:

    Actually, Hitchens is right. Scotland should be free to secede from the UK without even consulting the other nations, never mind asking their permission. So why are we asking them?

    • Dr Jim says:

      Scotland really isn’t asking Englands permission, only their agreement not to interfere during or in the result of Scotlands democracy

    • grizebard says:

      No, it’s not. We’re asking ourselves.

      That’s the crucial point that the holier-than-thou secessionists cannot seem to grasp. If we are to achieve independence in a satisfactory manner so that we can live with each other afterwards, we have to convince most everyone, whether they agree or not, that there is an established settled will for it.

      The alternative is a civil war, and only an unhinged idiot would want that.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      WT – it’s a bit like having £200 in the bank (lucky person), and saying “Why should I take my bank card to an ATM and enter the pin code? It’s my money, why should I ask the bank’s permission? They might refuse the transaction, swallow my card or it could be the wrong pin code. Should I – 1). phone the managing director and tell them to give me my money or else, 2). sue the bank for my money, or 3). get a brick and smash up the ATM hoping to get £200 that way?”

      This gets into a discussion group, with everyone nodding their heads and saying “Yes, it’s your money, why should you follow their rules and ask permission?”

      Meanwhile your wife (or husband / partner) has quietly taken your card, gone down the bank, and hands you your £200 cash.

    • If we are to achieve independence in a satisfactory manner so that we can live with each other afterwards, we have to convince most everyone, whether they agree or not, that there is an established settled will for it.

      Or simply because if the SNP just declared indy without that being the settled will of the people, putting aside the serious international repercussions of such a move, then at the next election, the population would just vote for ‘Rejoin the union’ parties, giving then >50% and so cancelling the earlier UDI.

      The only way to get independence and keep it is for it to be the settled will. Then nothing can stop it, not even the approach used by England/Russia to Irish/Ukrainian independence respectively. Russia is learning now what people will do for independence, just as England learned in Ireland.

  10. JockG says:

    Great article Paul.

    “England has never depended on the other countries in these islands”

    Since this appeared in the Daily Mail let me illustrate how silly such a statement is by reference to something the average Daily Mail reader will recognise. The Battle of Britain.

    The RAF depended on radar, then a new technology invented by Robert Watson-Watt, a Scotsman from Forfar.

    Fighter Command was led by Hugh Dowding (from Dumfries). Of his 4 fighter group commanders, only Trafford Leigh Mallory was English. The others, Keith Park, Quintin Brand and Richard Saul, were from New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland respectively

    The scary thing about people like Hitchens is that he is actually taken seriously.

    • The main reason England managed to avoid invasion after ‘the great running away’ (Dunkirk) was the huge moat around it; something France, Poland etc did not have the benefit of.

      That and of course, as you note, all the ‘furriner’ fighter pilots and other servicemen and women that helped defend it, including up to 70k Irish volunteers (including gran) who came to help, welcomed in England with affectionate terms like ‘mick scum’.

      Course if the armies of the 3rd Reich had made it over the channel, the likes of Johnson and chums would have volunteered to form a puppet government and help round up Jews etc, as happened in other European countries.

      —-
      *https://journals.openedition.org/etudesirlandaises/4451?lang=en

      • yesindyref2 says:

        This England hatred of yours really doesn’t help.

        • Eilidh says:

          Skier unfortunately was stating facts in regard to how a fair amount of the Irish. were treated After the war lots of accommodation had signs up saying no blacks,no dogs no Irish.
          Another reason Germany never invaded England was Hitler was dumb enough to turn on his ally Stalin and the USSR and German armies became overstretched due to winter weather and logistics etc. It is blatantly obvious that the current uk Government are verging on fascism and if Hitler had invaded now I wouldn’t be surprised if Johnson and Co did form a puppet government with the Nazis. I am just waiting on him jumping ship to make a covert deal with the world’s current No1 psychopathic fascist Vlad The Horrible Putin. I wouldn’t trust Johnson or any of his government as far as I could throw them

        • That comment sounds awfully unionist yes2! 🙂

          I’m not sure how exactly someone hates a country, but I don’t hate any countries nor even anyone. Not even Boris Johnson or Hitler. Hate is a terrible emotion that is a waste of time to feel. I am certainly not going to let scum consume my emotions by wandering around hating people. I have better things to do than waste precious time on earth doing that. I feel nothing for such people. However, I don’t mince my words when it comes to them.

          My comment related to the Peter Hitchens type myth of England ‘single-handedly defeating the 3rd Reich… managing to bravely defend its green and pleasant land while the ‘French turds’ got gubbed’ etc and ‘collaborated with the Germans’ etc. The reality is that both the British and French armies fought bravely, but got absolutely whipped and had to run away. It was an epic military failure. Luckily for England, it had a gigantic moat around it (us too). There is no doubt about the bravery of individual soldiers, and those in the small boats that want to rescue them, but without the giant moat, there would have been a Vichy type government in England / the UK, and the likes of Gove, Johnson etc would have eagerly served in it. In fact they’d have been sought out by the 3rd Reich for such positions. That’s the type of people we now have in charge of the UK.

          My wife is French as has nothing good to say about the cowards and weasels that collaborated in France. That doesn’t mean she ‘hates France’. How ridiculous.

          And my Gran was subject to awful racist abuse when she volunteered to fight in England. Nobody would give her a room when she first arrived in London. She was told to ‘f-off mick scum’. She was finally taken in by a kind Englishman with a German wife. That was the reality of the time, in a good part because of English propaganda that it was the Irish that were the problem… ‘terrorists’ etc, not English/British imperialists who had, in 1920, thanked Ireland for its 1000’s of WW1 dead, by overturning a vote for independence, then shooting, bombing and raping it’s way across the country, nicely followed up by partitioning.

          So yes, I have disdain for racists, and right-wing Tories, and Imperial England / Britain, not least because it shot at my Irish family within living memory, partitioning their country. Right now they are attempting to overturn another election there, supporting violent terrorists. But of course I do not extend that to everyone in England. Only unionists would suggest that. My most recent visit to England (my daughter played in the Wimbledon juniors last year) was very pleasant, and I didn’t go around hating pavements, bushes etc, our nice airbnb hosts etc.

          The UK government is currently governing my country, which entitles me use very unpleasant language about it if I wish, including about the atrocities it has committed. I won’t be hushed with accusations of ‘hating England’ either; which is an age old unionist trick.

          What next; we tell people in the Caribbean to stop talking about the horrors of the slave trade and becoming republics as it’s because they just ‘hate the English’. 🙂

          • Turner Donaldson says:

            well said, if to support an independent Scotland is to be considered anti English it follows that to oppose an independent Scotland is anti Scottish.

      • Welsh_Siôn says:

        With impeccable timing BBC2 are reshowing the Jihn Mills version of the film of Dunkirk this afternoon (with the token Taffy ‘copping it’ in the opening scene and speaking some Cymraeg before he meets his Maker) and the ‘Welsh’ Tories are having their Annual Conference.

        Apparently the Grand Charlatan addressed a female BBC journo with the immortal words, ‘Help, blodyn’. ( ‘Hello, flower’ ).

        Yes, well.

        • Welsh_Siôn says:

          Help* = Helo

          Shoot the typist, please

        • Statgeek says:

          Well my Great Uncle was in the 51st Highland, and captured after Dunkirk. He and tens of thousands more were not evacuated. Five years in a pow camp and the Long March back in Winter 1944. My grandmother picked him up at the train station. Literally picked him up. That’s how little he weighed. Poor man had digestive issues until his death in the 1970s.

          But they’ll keep singing the glory of it all, and using movies to keep their fantasies going. And they have the cheek to say Braveheart takes artistic license, when most ww2 movies always did.

          • Legerwood says:

            Three of my uncles were in the 51st and were captured at Dunkirk along with quite a few of their pals from their home village. They had all been in the TA and signed up right at the start of the war. Like your great uncle their time as a POW then the Long March left them with lifelong digestive problems.

            • Capella says:

              My father too. He had ulcers and was operated on. Unfortunately the operation itself caused life long problems. It now turns out that ulcers can be caused by bacteria which a dose of antibiotic can cure. Probably that is what affected most of these men in POW camps.

              • Legerwood says:

                Two of my uncles had ulcers. Ops helped a bit but discovery of the bacterial cause of ulcers came too late for them.

      • Hamish100 says:

        SS

        In any war you use the terrain around you to help defend. Be on a hill of an Iron Age fort or a water moat in medieval times. The fact is the North Sea was a great help in WW2.
        If hitler had won we would not be having this conversation.
        I know how annoyed ( my Irish family) were that while Belfast, Bangor etc were in darkness the lights of the republic were still on. Some Irish would have gladly seen the empire defeated, just as some English would have wanted the fascists to win.
        Dunkirk was a defeat for the allied forces. Many died. English, Welsh, Irish, ANZAC’s, French etc.
        Life is never black or white or prod or catholic, atheist or agnostic. I’m glad the Allies won eventually.

        • Of course. Please see my post above. Totally thank god for La Manche. I was just pointing out that the UK was not braver, nor stronger than e.g. the French (the English exceptionalism myth of Tories), just that it had the benefit of a great big moat.

          If the 3rd Reich had manage to invade, they’d be gone by now I’d expect. If you are not wanted, the locals will, eventually, kick you out. I’d imagine that the USA would have continued to arm resistance fighters and these would have waged an ongoing war. Invaders can never sleep easy, always fearing a roadside bomb or sniper on a hill. The war never ends. Financially, it is just not sustainable to occupy a country against the will of its populace.

  11. yesindyref2 says:

    To use the evacuation at Dunkirk, where 61,774 Allied forces were killed, wounded, or captured, including relatives of many of us, as an excuse to attack the English, is a total disgusting disgrace and I’ll have no part in it – neither should you. What a total disrespect to those who died and were wounded, and what a gift to the Unionists.

    Fucking disgusting.

    • davetewart says:

      It’s a film that was raised as the subject, a propaganda film.
      Why the disgust?

    • Heavens you are on full word twisting form tonight yes2! 🙂

      I’m looking above and trying to find examples of anyone attacking the bravery of soldiers involved, and I can’t find anyone doing that. Quite the opposite in fact.

      All that was pointed out was that the UK/England was lucky to have a big moat around it. If not, it would have succumbed to the same fate as France, Poland etc. England/Britain ‘only stood alone’ because of that moat, not because of any Peter Hitchens type imagined exceptionalism, as often perpetuated.

      It is accepted history that the British government created a propaganda myth about the disaster to try and keep spirits up after what was a massive, humiliating military defeat. The poor foot soldiers were totally outgunned / out manoeuvred, and had to run for their lives. They had been sent to face modern German panzers on the backs of horses by the likes of Johnson.

      Most of the French army, and many soldiers from the UK, notably Scotland, were abandoned to spend the rest of the war in German prison camps.

      The fact that the brutal British empire – complete with concentration camps and genocide – had 1/4 of the world trampled beneath its boots at the time, is likewise conveniently omitted. ‘German Reich = unacceptable, British Reich = fine and dandy’. Why was the British army not sent to bravely liberate Kenya from it’s racist, concentration camp building occupiers?

      This is just an honest assessment of events. Not ‘hating the English’ as unionists would claim.

      I only ‘hate’ imperialism / a belief in superiority, no matter which country / people is up to it.

      • davetewart says:

        I had 2 uncles, both in their late teens, were members of the aquddies in the 51st highland division who walked from France to Poland to spend 4+ years at a German ‘Holiday’ camp in Poland.
        They went to their graves still carrying the scars of what they say during the period.
        They called that version of the film a ‘Fairy’ story, yes propaganda.
        Their take was that they moved into Belgium, took part in a defensive retreat and ended up as the screen to let operation Dynamo.
        I can believe them as it took a long time for them to actualy talk about it and then to tell their families to avoid at all costs military service as volunteers, they volunteered to get work..
        They ‘just got by’ even in the 60’s carrying their experiences.

        • Capella says:

          My father too was in the 51st and captured at St Valery. Last order he heard was “every man for himself”. His colleagues were listening to radio from London announce that the last of the British troops had been evacuated at Dunkirk, as they were suffering a hail of artillery from Rommel’s panzer division. He spent 5 years in Nazi POW camps in Bavaria and Poland. His health was certainly ruined by that but also by the callous lack of recognition from the British state who brag about Dunkirk as if it was a great victory but never mention St Valery. Very bitter legacy.

        • grizebard says:

          Sorry to quibble, but the 51st itself was in no way part of the screen to protect Operation Dynamo. This fallacy keeps regularly cropping up on here, it seems. The HD was fighting further south under the command of the French Army as it tried to prevent a breakthrough of its own front lines as it retreated. The British lines of communication south to Le Havre having been severed, the remnants of the division ended up on the coast at St Valery hoping to get lifted by a Royal Navy that never came. (The Navy was ordered to desist, tried fitfully anyway, but failed.)

          • Capella says:

            The 51st were left to fight with the French to ensure the French kept on fighting. This allowed the rest of the Expeditionary force to evacuate at Dunkirk. The were finally abandoned at St Valery. Sir Peter Scott who was Lieutenant Commander on HMS Broke wanted to rescue them but was ordered not to by the British high command. His account was published years later.

            • grizebard says:

              Indeed.

              There’s a very good book by Saul David on the subject, for anyone interested:

              https://sauldavid.co.uk/books/churchills-sacrifice-of-the-highland-division-france-1940

              It starts with the HD’s experience with the French on the Maginot Line during the “phony war”. The Division was selected because it had an extremely high reputation for fighting quality among French commanders and also very good rapport with them, both of which were earned when the Division previously fought under French command in Champagne for a short but intense period during 2nd Marne in 1918.

              • Capella says:

                I agree that that they were held in high regard by their French counterparts. My information comes from my father and his colleagues who were there on the ground. I also have his collection of photos, newspaper cuttings and letters which amplify the story., a story the official British narrative prefers to forget.

              • Capella says:

                Just checked – the Kindle edition is free and download it for £1.99.

      • Very interesting follow up comments.

        However, I must genuinely apologise to Peter Hitchens. It seems I was wrong to associate him with the English/British propaganda myths that surround the war.

        Instead, some might argue that he ‘Hates England’ based on his book on the subject. 🙂

        Apologues for quoting the DM…

        https://archive.ph/JPmqm

        We DIDN’T win the war! Like us all, PETER HITCHENS grew up on stories of Britain’s heroic victory over Hitler… but now, without questioning the bravery of our troops, he’s written a book challenging all we think about WW2

        …Britain simply did not declare war in 1939 to save Europe’s Jews – indeed, our government was indifferent to their plight and blocked one of their main escape routes, to what was then British-ruled Palestine. We also did nothing to help Poland, for whose sake we supposedly declared war….

        …The most popular film in British cinemas of summer 2017 was Dunkirk. But it made no attempt to explain to a new generation why the entire British Army was standing up to its armpits in salt water, being strafed by the German air force, having wrecked, burned or dumped arms and equipment worth billions in today’s money.

        Nobody wants to know. Perhaps it is time they did.

        I now await him being attacked as ‘anti-England’ for what is a far more scathing assessment than my tongue in cheek comment on the propaganda around the disaster of what led to Dunkirk. 😉

  12. Hamish100 says:

    Ot

    I see on bbc web Scotland that Sinn Féin deputy leader Michelle O’Neill met with the FM of Scotland. Click on bbc NI and there is a news blackout of this. Can’t have 2 women leaders one Scot and one Irish having a meeting and speaking in friendly terms. The DUP must be exerting undue influence.

  13. Alex Clark says:

    O/T Nicola Sturgeon has tested positive for Covid and will be working from home next week.

  14. Golfnut says:

    A wee message to Hitchens, ‘ on you go then ‘.

  15. Golfnut says:

    This is a bit worrying, ‘ DWP to get powers of arrest ‘ they hope to save around £690 million by stopping benefit fraud despite the fact there are billions of pounds of unclaimed benefits every year. Chicken feed in comparison to the vanishing £37 billion test and trace farce.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/1081934212006008/permalink/1869747766557978/

  16. Alex Clark says:

    Absolutely nothing to see here, everything totally above board, move along now.

    Sue Gray and Boris Johnson had a private meeting to discuss the handling of the partygate report, Sky News can reveal.

    The pair discussed where Ms Gray believed the Metropolitan Police were with the inquiry, and Whitehall’s understanding of where the police were on interviews.

    The revelation of an undisclosed meeting is likely to trigger surprise given the forthcoming report has repeatedly been described as independent.

    Further details of the meeting are sketchy, with confusion over whether the inclusion of pictures in the report was discussed and who initiated the meeting…

    Confusion eh, I’m sure though it’s all been done totally within the rules and just normal procedures.

    https://news.sky.com/story/sue-gray-and-boris-johnson-had-private-meeting-to-discuss-handling-of-partygate-report-sky-news-understands-12617829

  17. davetewart says:

    No need for redaction as no names will be seen.
    I suspect we might be getting the next ‘cummings’ shortly.

    • grizebard says:

      I say “three cheers” for Peter Hitchens, actually. His outburst is of a characteristically provocative form, but I get the feeling that he is simply exclaiming out loud what a growing number of English people, if not quite thinking, are at least beginning to feel. I have the impression that media folk, for example, are increasingly tending towards the position “why should we bother to accommodate the increasingly-bold demands of Scots if they are going to depart soon anyway?”.

      Furthermore, there are still far too many “British-minded” people among us who casually assume that here in “UKOK” we are somehow all in this together – not least many Labourites who have managed to convince themselves that they are essential to their party taking power again at Westminster – and have not the foggiest notion that southerners see matters very differently. If they think about us at all, it’s increasingly to look down upon us as bothersome ingrates, “English by invite” yet unhappy with their gracious largesse. So I think such outbursts as this by Hitchens are very useful to help the self-deluded here finally come to the realisation that they are not seen as the equals they fondly imagine themselves to be, but actually pathetic “Uncle Tams” whom no-one respects.

      So more full-on public English exceptionalism please! It will set us free, first of all from any lingering delusions.

  18. Tam the Bam says:

    Oh my lord.
    Get this.
    The PM and Sue Gray have met to discuss her imminent report.
    Wots the weather like in Kyiv for a week-end break,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,(beyond caring).

  19. Hamish100 says:

    I see the pretend independista in Escotia states that “
    If only Scotland’s independence movement had a female leader like Sinn Fein. We would be an independent country right now if that was the case.“
    Logic isn’t his best point.
    First Northern Ireland is still part of the U.K.
    The deputy Sinn Féin President is the “presumptive FM” of Northern Ireland not the leader of Sinn Féin. They are different people.
    It looks to me that either way Sinn Féin is happy to work with the SNP leader. Unlike the 2 per centers who carp from the sidelines! We feel their pain.
    https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/63671

    • Tam the Bam says:

      When …………………….you say the ‘pretend independista’ Hamish…I assume youre referring to Alba….and the lass O’Neill.Alba persistently fly the flag about Nicola not being “feisty”
      Personally…I’ve bided mytyime this long….I think I can bide a bit longer.

    • grizebard says:

      “First, Northern Ireland is still part of the U.K.” Yes, that’s already a teensy bit of an own goal for the PIS.

      Second, Michelle O’Neill is not even First Minister yet. She is only FM presumptive, as Hamish rightly observes. And likely to remain so indefinitely, if the DUP + UKGov have their way. Majoritarians both, who unfortunately (for them) no longer have a majority, so democracy is evidently disposable now that it’s failed as a convenient fig leaf. Strike two for that case.

      Third, even if/when Ms O’Neill becomes FM of the British Protectorate in Ireland, she will be obliged to have a DUP deputy as shadow, and nothing like the freedom of action that Nicola Sturgeon has in Scotland. While still welcome as far as it goes, since another fragment peels off the Union’s crumbling facade, it’s not exactly independence either. Strike three. And out. Yet another fumbled PIS-take.

      • Golfnut says:

        Meant to say the other day grisebard, good to see you back.

      • William Davison says:

        Mary Lou McDonald is the President of Sinn Fein so, therefore, the leader of that party. Not sure where this idea comes from that the U.K. government doesn’t want Ms O’Neill to become First Minister, as Johnson was in Northern Ireland this week urging the DUP to go into government and the Secretary of State for NI, Brandon Lewis, was doing likewise. The DUP, having been taken for suckers by Johnson in 2019 aren’t going to be fooled a second time, so I think it will be a long time before the Assembly and Executive are reinstated. Not that anyone will notice as our mandatory coalition form of government is so dysfunctional. I certainly didn’t notice much difference when Sinn Fein last collapsed the institutions on some pretext for 3 years between Jan. 2017 and Jan. 2020.

    • Dr Jim says:

      The FM invited all the NI parties, the DUP declined and so far we haven’t heard what the others want to do

  20. Bob Lamont says:

    The title says it all really “The English dreaming of Peter Hitchens”.
    Hitchens’ piece will chime with many in England precisely because the Daily Mail’s readership have been sold “exceptionalism” and “faux victimhood” for decades.
    Yet beyond all the fluff, what Hitchens is really promoting by way of England secession is a face saving exercise, “You can’t fire me, I quit”, thus saving his plastic Empire from further embarrassment as the Union inevitably disintegrates.

    Yet what was most laughable of all was Hitchens alluding to a united England reborn – He will be acutely aware his “England” is being torn apart by the exact same forces which have essentially destroyed the Union.

  21. deelsdugs says:

    As well as his over-inflated ego of colonial self-importance, perhaps there’s an underlying current that he’s attempting a counter-psychological theme with this for those who could be manipulated with the unsure take on independence and the grand ‘prospects’ of being a region of England-shire…after all, if it’s in the daily fail…bolsters the credence and power of ‘better together’ for any wavering minds. The daily fail is read by many of the older generations in Scotland, some, who experienced ww2, with their older generations in the previous wars. Just my take. There’s always something lurking underneath…

  22. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    Mhairi Black’s speech on the ‘F’ word now been watched by 2.2m……

    I often look at the Twitter accounts of peeps like James O’Brien and Ian Dunt as well as many other similar Twitter accounts from prominent Remainers…..just to see what they ,as Boris Hating peeps, are tweeting about….

    Funnily enough neither of them, AS YET, have retweeted Mhairi’s speech….BUT other prominent Remainers HAVE……like Femi , Marina Purkiss and others…..(Otto English is another one who has also NOT retweeted her speech)……..

    But LABOUR supporting Ian Dunt HAS retweeted a video of Labour’s Anneliese Dodds’s making a Point of order in HOC which he retweeted about on the SAME day as Mhairi’s speech ( as did James O’Brien)…..of course Ian supports Labour….so sure it is just an oversight by him Lol…..because much of what Mhairi said in her speech is pretty much the same as the things that he, and indeed Mr O’Brien and Otto , harp on about in reference to Boris and THIS Tory government…..DAILY ……

    Now if Lisa Nandy had made that same speech….well sure it would NOT have escaped his or the other two’s attention…..see THEY all three seek, in England, a coalition between (Unionist) parties in elections AGAINST the Tories to stop a Tory getting elected…..ironic is it not when you see what has happened post Council elections where Labour here seem to be actively forming coalitions WITH Tories in Scotland to stop the SNP running some councils…..AND Starmer himself as far Scotland is concerned is as bad as the Tories in supporting Brexit and his refusal to accept democracy in Scotland…..yet they, as Remainers and supposed Democrats, all fail to highlight this….perhaps.as seen as OUR business ( or problem) not THEIR’s and in highlighting these facts it would damage THEIR argument for people to vote Labour in England……to Stop the Tories and challenge Brexit……( though how able to challenge Brexit when Labour say they will “make it work” is perhaps a minor point for these three uber ‘Pro Remainer’ gentlemen).

    Peter Hitchens may, to some, be seen as arrogant and distasteful in what he says and how he has chosen to say it in a Unionist newspaper and indeed he is slated often by the three gentlemen I mentioned above…..but their hypocrisy, arrogance and distasteful selective cheerleading of ‘specific’ politicians….usually Labour…..sees them, as far as Scotland is concerned, not dissimilar to Hitchens in focusing more on England and it’s politics…. while they also either pretend to NOT fully understand or even condone anyone in Scotland seeking independence from THEIR UK……O’Brien occasionally pays lip service to Scottish Independence BUT he would prefer we all just voted for a Starmer led Labour party to oust the Tories at WM……….to help HIS country…as would the other two.

    You see tis not only Pro UK outfits like the BBC, Tory GB News , various other radio/TV Pro UK channels, Unionist political parties and t’other mouthy commentators that we, in Scotland, are up against….there is also those who some consider reasonable and well informed and who are pro EU and anti Tory too…….

    Otto has often quoted in his Twitter account ‘”Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.”…….but also tweeted “Nationalism is an infantile disease. I don’t want more borders. The traits of nationalism repeat themselves with weary predictability. But I can understand the sentiment of Scot based progressives who want to be part of the EU”…….

    See Otto understands “the sentiment of Scots based progressives who want to be part of the EU”……but does he also understand the sentiment of progressive Scots who want to be independent from HIS UK ?….I suspect NOT as he mistakenly, like others assume tis only Brexit that defines the motivation for those of us in Scotland to want to become independent…..strange because I am old enough to remember when we wanted and sought independence BEFORE Brexit was even a ‘Thing’…….

    So looks like , as before, that we are on our own as both opposing sides darn sarf have some people who will NEVER understand us or accept that our cause is just and perhaps that is more to do with ALL of their attitudes from BOTH sides of the political spectrum and not just the assumed BADDIES aka Tories and their various fans via the ‘media’ and dubious characters from so called Think Tanks that are regularly platformed by that same so called ‘media’ channels and press….

    Cheeks from the same….you know what….more that unites them than divides them….as far as Scotland is concerned tis very much so.

    I hope Peter HItchens progresses with his quest for English independence…..because up to now no one from either political side in England seems to want to address the other side of the UK constitutional question as in the obvious Elephant in the room constitutionally…..as in why England has not sought or discussed seriously a campaign for independence from the UK…..and why NOT ?

  23. Dr Jim says:

    There’s really nothing whatsoever wrong with nationalism when the concept is explained properly to people, the trouble is the unpleasant folk who deliberately conflate actual nationalism with the most recent xenophobic nasty nationalism that occurred in Germany in the 1930s because it’s an easy target to use to make their comparisons, it still lives in recent memory so is a tool to use in their argument against democracy

    The trouble with this argument is the 1930s Germany version was pretty much a copy of the British nationalism that sailed around the world conquering imprisoning and killing people en masse in the name of British democratic righteousness from saving the heathen from themselves to educating the uneducated that Britishness was the bestest or you die, then they stole from them

    In the British version folk seem to have easily forgotten what happened to that and the legacy from it now wherever the British Royals turn up for a wee wavy visit of their *subjects* the folk in those parts are now none too friendly, except in the biggest most powerful country in the world who fear nothing from this anymore, America, who threw the British out of their land and now the British pretty much tug the forelock to those folks because trade and money

    American nationalism is absolutely a fine thing, it’s only the nasty nationalists like Trump who tried to politically pervert the goodness out of it to use against the people in his efforts to divide and conquer, back here in the lands of Britain Boris Johnson does exactly the same thing as Trump with his chubby smiley smirky schoolboy slightly confused approach to making folk hate each other, just like his predecessors did in the days of the ruling classes of good old Great Britain the empire and the great white mother

    Good nationalism is aspiration to do and be the best you can be together as a country, the embracing of others along the way, community together
    The only nationalism that’s bad in these islands now is the good old fashioned British version which is not of aspiration and looking upwards and outwards but of deference to ones betters and looking downwards as they pass

    Divide and conquer by any method, the British way to rule, build a Brexit wall between us and the world and redefine the word *sovereignty* and use it out of context to cover up their real intentions

    Nobody ever said anybody’s sovereignty was ever in question before Brexit, they just invented that, pumped it out propaganda style confused the easily confused angry and willing and Bingo you created yourself some xenophobic nationalism, job done

    British nationalism good, everybody else’s bad, trouble with that is we’re not in the middle ages and folk can see the difference, Trump Putin Johnson? same nationalism

    • Not-My-Real-Name says:

      “Good nationalism is aspiration to do and be the best you can be together as a country”

      Exactly Dr Jim….. unlike like some forms of so called nationalism as in those who want to be or who think that they ARE better than all other countries…….an exceptionalism assumed via some supposing they as citizens of that country possess more exceptionally distinctive qualities or have attained MORE superior achievements in the world in comparison to other countries…..a mindset derived via an inherent arrogance and also very much via a radicalised xenophobia…….

      And for some also a huge dose of bloody mindedness (or ignorance) in refusing to recognise others hence why they fail to acknowledge the legitimacy of our goal to be independent from THEIR (non) Union….yet they, British Nationalists, themselves now both accept and embrace their SEPARATION from ANOTHER Union via Brexit……but we, via the media and t’other BritNats, are supposedly the SEPRATISTS !!!

      Hence why as you state “British nationalism good, everybody else’s bad”……’Ah’ they say ‘but that is different’……when it’s really NOT.

  24. Hamish100 says:

    Spot on Dr Jim.

  25. WT says:

    You might want to have a look at this:

    • Aye, the Tories are working towards a dictatorship. No doubt about it.

      • Dr Jim says:

        King Boris? or just plain old sovereign dictator Johnson to end this pretend this bothersome voting by the public democracy facade

    • Not-My-Real-Name says:

      Hi WT

      That was an interesting speech….and amusing that the intervention, assume by a Tory, was WRONG or perhaps as per their habit a LIE.

      When was this speech made…assume recently.

      It is indeed a “battle” as he says (of words) that actually has been used by the SNP in that they have stated tis the people of Scotland who have sovereignty but I think in the context that he explained it with dates etc it came over as perhaps more informed and a factual truth via the historical background he included in his speech on this. ( I may be wrong on this as perhaps the SNP HAVE included further evidence/context BUT with a corrupt media here in Scotland it has NOT been widely publicised).

      Interesting times …….hard to believe Labour in Wales are the same party as their weak colleagues in Scotland who comply and adhere to whatever their HQ requires of them as opposed to the country they are elected in (or acquired a seat in as a List MSP e.g. Anas Sarwar)……Labour here seem to take a more NO Surrender approach in both their politics and choice of council candidates…….and via their political alliances with a Tory party who are actively undermining the parliament they supposedly sit in as politicians to represent …….who ?…well tis obviously NOT us who live in Scotland……..

      Have a nice day

      • Not-My-Real-Name says:

        “That was an interesting speech….and amusing that the intervention, assume by a Tory, was WRONG or perhaps as per their habit a LIE.”

        In the context he was quoting sovereignty via a historical English parliament not the existing UK parliament ….how very Tory of him….another one whose words/actions are dictated more by his masters at HQ and NOT by those people he supposedly represents as a MS in the Welsh parliament….I use the word ‘represents’ very loosely obvs….

      • I get the impression that Welsh Labour are actually Welsh, while Scottish Labour are ‘North British’, at least in terms of leadership.

    • Capella says:

      I think it is quite old, but it was uploaded to Youtube in January 2020. However, still absolutely relevant and an impressive performance from Carwyn Jones who is a QC IIRC.

      • Not-My-Real-Name says:

        Thanks Capella …I forgot that he stood down from the Welsh parliament……mind you it’s STILL very much relevant…

        Have a nice day

        🙂

        • Not-My-Real-Name says:

          “mind you it’s STILL very much relevant”…as you also said in your comment…..

          🙂

        • Welsh_Siôn says:

          You may also recall that Carwyn when he was First Minister (at the time of the National Assembly – not Parliament) had the idea of re-locating the UK’s nukes in Milford Haven (opposite an oil refinery) were Scotland to vote YES to independence in 2014

          His was also the idea for a new Act of Union which respected (aye, right) all the nations of this Disunited Kingdumb – an idea subsequently shamelessly nicked and promoted as her own by Kesia Dudfail when she was Leader of the ‘Caledonian Labour Party’.
          .
          r
          QC Carwyn may be but not much in the way of Quality Control goes on in his mind, I shouldn’t think. Not really expecting Scottish nationalists to be celebrating a ‘Welsh’ Labour Leader …

  26. Hamish100 says:

    Poor IIS – his attacks on the FM are misogynistic probably based on his own inadequacies in achieving zero in life. In fairness supporting a 2% party must be hard after all the hype.
    What is not forgivable is the constant siding with the unionists in attacking the FM. Get over it young boy.
    The FM is the leader of the largest party in Scotland and has won elections supported by the people of Scotland. Whether you like it or not.

    • Not-My-Real-Name says:

      Aye and Labour still just the bridesmaids though Hamish Ha Ha…..where as before that…. they were just the flower girls…….as before they were not seen as good enough to be bridesmaids to support the Bride (of JohnsonStein) aka the Union.

      BTW in Union speak in Holyrood parliament if you are a Unionist party then second is first and first is losing if SNP and the only battle you need to win is a battle to be second and NOT third OR God forbid a NON recognised party as in the Lib Dems at Holyrood …..pass it on….

  27. Genuine question, but why do some people loudly argue it’s fine to join an alliance where some members have nuclear weapons (EU, UN, WTO…), but it’s at the same time it’s not fine to join an alliance where some members have nuclear weapons (NATO)?

    What about trading with countries with nuclear weapons? Is that ok? Isn’t that (indirectly) funding nuclear weapons while simply being in NATO does not?

    I certainly don’t see how Scotland not being in NATO in any way helps the world have less nuclear weapons. Stopping trading with nuclear armed countries would be more effect here.

    I am firmly anti-nuclear and not sure about NATO as I don’t like the Hawkish aspects that its shown at times. However, I cannot see how Scotland being in or out can make any difference whatsoever in terms of nuclear non-proliferation. The number of the nukes in the world would be unchanged. In fact Scotland being a member would increase the number of non-nuke members, so making the alliance less nuclear in terms of voices around the table. Scotland’s membership could help nudge the alliance more towards non-proliferation my adding another anti-nuke member.

    The main gripe I have is that someone else’s dirty nukes are parked in my country and I’m forced top pay for them, then get called a subsidy junkie for that. I can’t see how Scotland can stop other countries having nukes (although indy might make it difficult for the rUK), but I can see how it joining top tables of alliances where some members are nuke armed, bringing an anti-nuke voice / vote, could help here.

    • In fact I understand NATO makes decisions by consensus, so surely the more anti-nuke members the better in term of reducing proliferation / the likelihood of nukes being used?

      The main thing for me right now is we should only join if the population wants it. However, an increasingly aggressive, dictatorial England is making me think more about membership when I did not before. England seems to be a real danger to peace and democracy. We may yet need protection from it.

      • UndeadShaun says:

        Being in NATO like, norway, denmark and iceland are means we get support in fielding equipment required to monitor/defend the GIUK gap. But it will likely be renamed the GSK gap after independence.

        And as previously neutral finland and sweden have shown being self reliant and not in a pooled defence alliance is not enough now.

        As for NUKEs argument until recently Austraila banned any ships carrying nukes from being in their waters. New Zealand still has this policy. Both are NATO members.

    • Capella says:

      NATO is a military organisation set up to oppose the USSR which disbanded in 1991. It exists to produce massive profits for American arms manufacturers or the Military Industrial Complex, as Eisenhower called it. For that reason it always requires an enemy and endless war. It propounds a “rules based” order where America makes the rules. This is in direct opposition to the UN where international law governs action.

      Most of NATO’s activities are illegal. Recent examples are: the bombing of Serbia in 1999 with the objective of breaking up Yugoslavia, the bombing and invasion of Iraq on the false pretext they had WMDs, the invasion of Afghanistan in the “war on terror” although the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, and the bombing and almost total destruction of Libya in 2011 (I can’t remember if they even made up an excuse but “regime change” would be the objective).

      Other defence options are possible.

      That is very different to a free trade alliance.

      • UndeadShaun says:

        I think in Serbia that was a hard judgement call to make. Dont do anything and ethnic cleasing continued. Bomb and be criticised for doing so. What can be said is that it was put to a vote to all members of NATO prior to the attack

        I remember at the time the clamour to do something about the situation.
        Bliar said to USA if they didnt get involved he would commit all of UK armed forces and pull troops out of Germany and elsewhere.

        As Finland and Sweden have shown even previously neutral countries see that they need to be part of a defensive alliance in the current environment.

        The USSR may be no more but a nuclear armed russia and its satelite states have shown they are still a threat in the 21st century.

        Anyhoos a descision on NATO can wait until after we win independence. And if necessary have a referendum and let the majority of scotlands people decide. Or have an election whre a party has membership in thier manifesto.

        • Bob Lamont says:

          “Anyhoos a descision on NATO can wait until after we win independence”
          THIS

        • Capella says:

          This is probably not the place to argue the case out. I too drank the Kool Aid in 1999 and thought intervention was justified. It was much later before I realised we were all fooled by media hysteria. People tried to point that out at the time but I tossed principle to the wind when moral panic was whipped up.

          I thought Alex Salmond was spot on when he condemned the bombing as “unpardonable folly”. Years later, at a performance of Black Watch, a recording of his speech was played over the scene of our soldiers in Iraq. Respect is due to a politician who understood what was going on. Lives are far too precious to be thrown away through illegal NATO action in the service of American foreign policy for which none of us gets a vote.

      • grizebard says:

        I responded to this miscellany of arrant nonsense before, yet on you go, repeating the same old distortions and misinformation like a broken record. For example, NATO didn’t “break up Yugoslavia” as you blithely assert, it fissured all of its own accord due to long-suppressed Communist-era centripetal internal tensions that started with the death of Tito and finally erupted with the ending of the Cold War, fuelled not least by an attempt by (later convicted war criminal) Slobodan Milošević to create a “Greater Serbia”, contemptible prototype for what Putin is now trying to repeat on a grander scale with Russia. The facts are all well known and in the public record, so why you keep on indulging yourself in public with manifest fake history like this I just cannot grasp.

        If all you were achieving was destroying your own credibility, I wouldn’t mind in the least, but vigorously pushing an extreme minority fantasy into an entirely unnecessary wedge issue like this is also causing collateral damage to the whole independence movement. The security of an independent Scotland is going to be one of the prime issues of the next referendum, and to have this isolationist nonsense associated in the public mind with the independence movement is positively self-defeating. BT Mk.2 will just lap it up. More stupid extreme minority leftard self-harm just like last time. Have you learnt nothing???

    • Thanks. These are they type of reasons I have historically uncomfortable with NATO, although it’s membership has expanded well beyond the original founders, and most of the countries involved could not be considered hawkish warmongers. The newest applicants have long been quite the opposite – neutrals.

      https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-countries

      But certainly the argument you put forward is a far better one than the ‘It’s a nuclear alliance!’ for the reasons I highlighted. I don’t get that one.

      As for free trade… my point was more that trade is the mechanism by which countries are sanctioned for getting up to no good. It causes them economic damage an limits their ability to carry out hawkish armed expeditions. Russia is feeling the full force of that right now, and the UK will if England continues to try and overthrow (effectively) the NI government, breaking international law and a peace deal. If we trade with a country, we do help fund it’s armament, including nukes. The two cannot be separated. It’s the uncomfortable truth of trading with China, Russia etc.

      Anyway, I do think Scotland needs to be in a defence alliance as a protection against England, especially the way things are going there. Certainly, England is the biggest threat to free democracy in Scotland right now; there’s no question about that. I’m receptive to an EU/EEA pact – something like the auld alliance.

      • Capella says:

        I don’t understand your point. Trade is simply the exchange of goods and services with agreement about standards, safety etc.

        Unilateral sanctions i.e. without UN agreement is illegal. The attempt to destroy another country’s economy is a war crime. We already have a defensive alliance called the United Nations.

        In any case, sanctions don’t appear to work. The ruble is higher in value that it’s been for 4 years, backed as it is now by gold and commodities. If gas and oil is cut off it’s Europe’s economy that will tank. It seems that unelected bureaucrats dictating economic policy to 27 states is more problematic than expected. There’s quite some way to go before all the consequences of the current stupidity has worked out.

      • Thanks, you highlight my point.

        We already have a defensive alliance called the United Nations.

        Sorry, but my comment was based on the concept (and comments / articles elsewhere) that Scotland should not join NATO ‘because it was a nuclear armed alliance’. This made no sense to me for the reasons you specify. We are already part of a range of nuclear armed alliances, including the UN.

        In any case, sanctions don’t appear to work.

        Unfortunately, this is often the case. The little people are hurt and not those causing the problems. But what’s the alternative? Bombs? Invasion?

        It seems that unelected bureaucrats dictating economic policy to 27 states

        This comment suggests you support brexit?

        EU economic policy is decided by the the EU parliament and European Council, ergo, by the voters of the EU. Member states are free to leave if they like as we all saw with Brexit. To call the EU dictatorial is, well, clearly a misrepresentation.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council

        The ‘bureaucrats’ – aka the EU civil service or ‘EU commission’, just carry out the decrees of the parliament and council. They have no law-making powers.

        I imagine if 27 states were actually being ‘dictated to by unelected bureaucrats’ they’d all get up and leave. Like for example what happened to the USSR and what’s now going on in Scotland / NI with respect to the UK union.

        Ultimately, no country in the EU is there against it’s will. Brexit in fact made me more pro-EU by the other members completely staying out if of the whole debate in the UK and letting the British electorate shoot themselves in the foot freely and fairly. 🙂

        • Capella says:

          But what’s the alternative? Bombs? Invasion?

          Negotiation, compromise and treaties enforceable by guarantors.

          • That is my favoured option and as a rule, is most people’s too. Unfortunately, rogue governments like Russia, Belarus and the England don’t always stick to their agreements, and try to overturn elections in other countries etc.

      • Golfnut says:

        The EU, have a member state mutual defence policy.

  28. Dr Jim says:

    Indeed, the notion that any country can just sit back and ignore the existence of nuclear weapons by sticking their fingers in their ears and saying we don’t like them so we’re not going to engage on any level so there, is just childish and stupid
    We have the Green party and silly wee boy bloggers using the nuclear weapon issue in some sort of righteous stance that opposing their being will bring about their demise
    Most of the countries in the world don’t have nuclear weapons that doesn’t mean they favour or oppose them but it also doesn’t exclude them from co operating with others who do, because where do you draw the line in that kind of nitwit argument? do you say I don’t want your cheese exports because you’ve got a weapon I don’t like, because if you *stick to your holier than thou principles* then you’ll never own a car or get on a bus or train use the phone or watch the damn telly, or in many idiots cases scribble nonsense on the internet complaining about the thing that’s used to power stuff in the first place

    You oppose a thing by not supporting or buying a thing and saying so, the rest is in the control of others you attempt to convince of your point of view, and you can’t do that by sticking your fingers in your ears shutting your eyes and claiming the world is bad so I’m no talking to it until they listen to MEEEE , you join up join in and keep making your case

    That’s the adult thing to do

    • If Scotland not joining NATO rids the word of nuclear weapons, I’m absolutely all for it. However, I just can’t see Russia, the USA etc going ‘Oh, Scotland’s not joining? Ok, well, we need to get of nukes now’.

      What I know Scotland can do is get them off our soil and not have to pay for them. That might have the knock on effect of reducing the total UK arsenal if we are not footing 8.4% of the bill, and well, you never know, England might decide it can’t find a place to put them, so give up on them.

  29. andyfromdunning says:

    In addition to your information Paul regarding English opinion letting us go there was also two opinion polls recently. One by Yes Cymru and the other by Business for Scotland. Both polls have near identical results. 49% of English Labour voters and 52% of Conservative voters are happy for Scotland to go.

    My understanding of International law is that should England leave the U.K. it would loose all of the assets, UN seat etc etc. The UK’s status would stay with the remaining part of the U.K. which would be Scotland, Wales and NI.

    Anyone that would separate from the U.K., even England doing a runner is good for me.

  30. WT says:

    Capella I don’t think NATO invaded Iraq. it was an international coalition. I also don’t think NATO invaded Libya it operated a No Fly Zone at the behest of the UN to implement a Security Council Resolution. I am no fan of NATO and it is often a bully in terms of its international interventions – as is the United States itself. Unfortunately, there are lots of bullies out there and that includes the UN. It depends how you look at things, it could be argued that the UN had no right to interfere in Libya at all. One man’s Libya is another man’s Yugoslavia.

    Dr. Jim I don’t have the problem with nuclear weapons that some folk have but perhaps I should. I always thought that nobody would ever use them but I have to admit Putin gave me a bit of a start. People who support the likes of CND have principles, I might not be tied to theirs but its good that they have them even if I don’t agree. As they say, it only takes one strike to start the whole thing off. If we were to go into a nuclear war I think I would rather Scotland not be number one target so getting rid of the stash up here would be a welcome move, but I am pragmatic enough to think we might secure a good negotiated deal on independence if we allow the rUK to keep them here – at a high rent – for a fixed time to allow them to build a base somewhere else.

    However, we have to ask why do we have these weapons anyway? If there was to be a nuclear war between the UK and some other nuclear state which one could the UK beat? USA? Russia? China? North Korea? France? India? Pakistan?
    A couple of ballistic missiles would see our landmass ‘levelled up’.

    With regard to the Carwen Jones video – yes it was a while back but the principle still applies. We all know that Westminster is trying to find ways to make our independence illegal so there will come a time when we have to stop bowing down to our imperial masters.

    • Dr Jim says:

      Of course we don’t want them located in Scotland, nuclear weapons make a country a target, UK ministers have already admitted it, but as to renting Scotland to England while it decides where to put that stuff that would be a not on your life from me on that one, Englands voters object to wind farms to supply them with power, it’s NIMBY land down there so how would be a piece of string getting English voters to love their own bomb?, the only reason nuclear weapons are in Scotland in the first place is because English voters want them, but somewhere else, they just don’t give a monkeys where that is as long as it’s just not in their back yard, plus Scottish votes don’t count in general elections so it’s never really mattered how many of us are killed

      England loves Scotland, they’ve told us that hundreds of times, they just don’t love the people who live here, we’re extremely expendable and very far away from their green and pleasant notion of their land

      Scotland is property and money to England, that’s all any colony has meant to England, poor old Wales can argue their own case but it’s basically the same one as Scotland

    • JoMax says:

      “I always thought that nobody would ever use them”.

      The US used atomic weapons against Japan in 1945. They argued it was justified in order to prevent more unnecessary deaths. This was probably the case, but nevertheless the US is the only state to have used WMDs of this magnitude in any conflict and that should never be forgotten. And we should never forget that the ‘fallout’ circled the world as it did from subsequent further testing.

    • Capella says:

      You could argue that NATO didn’t invade Iraq as it was only the US, UK and Poland in the “coalition of the willing” who were there initially. But the following year the NATO Training Mission – Iraq took over military oversight even though Iraq is not in the North Atlantic.

      The UN resolution 1973 was for a no-fly zone over Libya, not for complete destruction of civilian infrastructure and the murder of the leadership allowing Islamic State to grow and expand throughout North Africa, which is also not in the North Atlantic.

      The UN needs to be developed into a more effective means of safeguarding world peace. NATO can never fulfill that role.

      • Pogmothon says:

        You are correct Libia’s coastline is entirely meditereanian but, I think you will find that the largest part of the land mass that is the African continent is in the northern hemisphere, and at least 35% of that coast line is in the north atlantic.
        I doubt you purposely intended to miss-lead, since this is an assumed geography, but an error none the less.
        For some reason the general public has a mental picture of everything to the south of the meditereanian and or the gulf of Mexico as being in the south or Southern hemisphere.
        Which is obviously not a factual concept.

        • Capella says:

          It may be in the northern hemisphere but it is not in the North Atlantic.
          Russia however is in the North Atlantic and twice asked to join NATO and was refused.

          • Pogmothon says:

            Look at the charts “35% of North Africa’s coast line is in the North Atlantic”.
            That comprises 17 countries I have no idea if any are in Nato but I do know that one of them flags one of the biggest merchant fleets in the world.

            • Pogmothon says:

              Corection
              None are in Nato.

            • Capella says:

              Yes you are right, some of the West African states have a coast on the North Atlantic, none of them in NATO as you say.
              Turkey is nowhere near the North Atlantic but is in NATO.

  31. It’s a sad indictment of the UK that Irish people still need to campaign on their own island for legal protection of their own language. There should be no question or debate about this. And just like Scots / Scots Gaelic belong to both unionist and independence supporter, so does Irish to both unionist and republican in NI.

    It is only British nationalists that deride Irish, Scots and Gaelic (and basically people speaking any other language that isn’t English), trying to use these to divide people.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-61536773

    Irish language: Thousands attend Irish language rally in Belfast

    …A rally was then held outside the building, as campaigners addressed the crowd in both Irish and English from a temporary stage.

    Supporters cheered as they were told that the days of “insults” and discrimination against Irish speakers were over.

    An Dream Dearg spokesperson Conchúr Ó Muadaigh said the event was “the biggest Irish language demonstration of a generation”.

  32. England’s secret service don’t seem to be like in the Bond movies.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61528286

    ‘How the state tried to silence my abusive agent expose’

    No journalist enjoys attempts at censorship. We often face restrictions, but I had never encountered anything like this – a vast list of things the government wanted to ban me saying about an abusive MI5 agent I had spent a long time investigating.

    I received the list during the months-long legal battle between the BBC and the government. I had been investigating a state informant for some time, and when we put the findings to the government, they took us to court. It eventually ran to 54 pages and included a series of arguments about the government’s demands. They wanted to stop our story about the agent who can only be referred to as X.

    The right-wing extremist had used his security service role to terrorise and coerce his British girlfriend, who we are calling Beth. In one incident, which she recorded on her mobile phone, he attacked her with a machete. Evidence we gathered establishes he had also threatened to kill women and children, and was a sexual threat to young girls…

    You wonder if they’ve got similar plans as this for Sturgeon:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42510529

    1987 papers reveal ‘MI5 plot to kill Irish PM Haughey’

    I think Scotland would be a much safer place without them.

  33. Capella says:

    A positive message from Andrew Wilson on the benefits of leaving the UK.

    Scottish independence: Andrew Wilson rejects claims by ‘doomsayers’

    THE predictions by “doomsayers” of a decade of economic pain for Scotland after independence are wrong, the head of the SNP’s Sustainable Growth Commission has said.

    Andrew Wilson said benefits of leaving the UK can be secured “very quickly” and improvements made to living standards early on.

    The former SNP MSP, who chaired the body examining Scotland’s future economic prospects, has also called for an “oil fund” to be set up now with the proceeds invested in accelerating the transition to net zero.

    https://archive.ph/XR5Pr

  34. Capella says:

    And the maximum-non-benefit of remaining in the UK

    Cost of living crisis: Food bank demand soars and donations plunge

    McGeady. One man who came to the food bank last week had not eaten in four days, while others don’t have ovens or hobs and have to heat food up in microwaves. Some are even choosing between heating and eating.
    “We have always seen people who are right at the brink and it seems now that there is so much more tension when you speak to people,” said McGeady. “They have been ground down. People already in poverty when Covid hit were hammered worse. They just got over the end of that and now this.”
    Alhtough the increase in people needing help has been “huge”, the food bank has been hit by a drop in donations.
    “Most of our donations come from the local community but the rising cost of living is affecting our main donors,” McGeady said. “So as well as an increase in client use there is also a decrease in regular donations.”

    https://archive.ph/Eb0pT

  35. I think the ability for any party – particularly a loser like the DUP – to be able to completely stop parliament operating needs to be ended as a priority. If the second biggest doesn’t want to nominate a DFM, the third biggest and so on should be given the opportunity.

    This would not end the power-sharing aspect as it would remain open. A party would need to unilaterally refuse to take part which is up to them. If they formed the opposition, then all well and good. If they abstained from the assembly completely, then they take no salary as e.g. Sinn Fein MPs for Westminster. Either way, the parliament still functions.

    https://archive.ph/ZqUzy

    DUP chief dismisses Irish, US calls to drop veto on power-sharing

    Irish premier calls Jeffrey Donaldson’s refusal to let the Northern Ireland Assembly function ‘unheard of in the democratic world.’

    British nationalist hatred for democracy cannot be allowed to win.

    • William Davison says:

      The Irish Premier must have a very short memory as it’s only a short time ago that Sinn Fein collapsed the Assembly and Executive for 3 years, ostensibly over the Renewable Heating Initiative fiasco. This was somewhat strange as Michele O’Neill as Agriculture minister had sent out her officials to promote the said scheme to farmers. So to say the current impasse is “unprecedented in the democratic world” is to put it bluntly, er bollocks.

      • Hamish100 says:

        Also the Unionists chose to ignore the agreement of the Irish language as part of the GF agreement which they signed up to.

        • Hamish100 says:

          And of course the current debacle is due to the DUP discovering Brexit doesn’t work despite the bribes from May and there is no border in the Irish Sea Johnson. Who also ignored the Democratic wishes of 62% of Scotland and Northern Ireland. England and unionism dictates.

    • Huh?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive_scandal#Collapse_of_Stormont

      On 16 January 2017, a plenary session of the Northern Ireland Assembly was held to re-nominate a deputy First Minister. Sinn Féin’s Health Minister Michelle O’Neill said before the Assembly session that “we are not interested in trying to get into negotiations now – what we need is fundamental change. We believe the public need to have their say.

      The Speaker called on the DUP and Sinn Féin to nominate a First Minister and deputy First Minister. Lord Morrow nominated Foster again for First Minister, a nomination which she accepted. Sinn Féin’s nominating officer for the order of business was O’Neill, who refused to nominate a deputy First Minister. As the vacancies for the office were not filled after 7 days, the Northern Ireland Executive collapsed at 5pm on 16 January 2017.

      Responsibility and power for Northern Ireland transferred to James Brokenshire in his capacity as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 16 January 2017. Brokenshire made an announcement after the 7 day deadline passed and officially called a snap election for 2 March 2017.

      Sinn Fein stepped down to trigger an election in response to a unionist scandal. That is total respect for democracy and voters. The wanted to put the matter in the hands of voters.

      That’s just a we bit different to blocking the formation of an executive because because you got whipped in an election, yet you want to force a policy (end the protocol) on them which they just overwhelmingly (58.3%) rejected. This is trying to overturn the will of voters, not put decisions in their hands.

      And of course, what happened next was this…

      The Northern Ireland Assembly election was held on 2 March 2017 across Northern Ireland. The election was the first election to feature a reduction in seats from 108 to 90 MLAs. The DUP and the UUP both suffered electoral losses as the DUP returned with 28 MLAs and the UUP with 10 MLAs, down from 38 and 16 respectively. Sinn Féin returned 27 MLAs and the SDLP returned 12 MLAs. Alliance maintained their 8 MLAs.

      The election was the first election in the history of Northern Ireland that unionism lost its majority. The 2017 election witnessed a 9.8% increase in turnout throughout Northern Ireland as it stood at 64.78%.

      Yup. The people spoke, and for the first time in the history of the province, voted in majority against unionism.

      As a result, unionism started to become rather reluctant to form governments and turned to chat about direct rule. And here we are.

    • I’d day what Sinn Fein did in 2017 – namely saying they had no confidence in the government, stepping down and triggering an election – is very common in the democratic world.

  36. Welsh_Siôn says:

    Meanwhile, there’s been a Douglavention:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/21/quash-talk-of-a-labour-deal-with-snp-now-veteran-election-team-urges-starmer

    Quash talk of a Labour deal with SNP now, veteran election team urges Starmer

    Tory attacks depicting the party in the pocket of Scots nationalists ‘must be halted before they lose us support’

    ________

    Keir Starmer’s team is being urged to refute any Conservative claims that Labour will be propped up in government by the SNP after the next general election, by drawing up early and clear “red lines” against any deals with the Scottish party.

    A number of senior figures from Labour’s 2015 election campaign – during which the Conservatives repeatedly claimed that Ed Miliband, the party leader at the time, would be dependent on the SNP – are urging their leadership to neutralise this tactic well before the next election.

    […}

    Douglas Alexander, who was chair of general election strategy in 2015 and lost his seat to the SNP, was among those to call for early action.

    “Labour is in a stronger place to set out its position in relation to the SNP than it was in 2015. The SNP have long lost the momentum they enjoyed in the months following the 2014 independence referendum.”

    […]

    • Alex Clark says:

      “The SNP have long lost the momentum…”

      Douglas Alexander appears to have totally forgotten there was an election in 2019 where the SNP gained 7 seats from the Tories and 6 seats from Labour in Scotland.

      It looks like the wishful thinking of the hard of listening who believe that by just saying it often enough then maybe it can become true.

      • Not-My-Real-Name says:

        Is that another honeymoon period over……

        It is indeed wishful thinking but also a very unsubtle tactic in trying to manipulate voters into believing it’s a fact…..”Where lies prevail truth will become the enemy”…..

        And here was me thinking it was the Labour who had LOST Momentum (movement)….since ousting Corbyn…..

        • Dr Jim says:

          The yearly dream for the British unionist, the SNP are a busted flush, Uh Huh right, they’ve been in power for 15 whole years and they still haven’t fixed the problems it took Labour and Tories 300 years between them to create

      • Welsh_Siôn says:

        Douglas Alexander appears to have totally forgotten there was an election in 2019 where the SNP gained 7 seats from the Tories and 6 seats from Labour in Scotland.

        ________

        Has there not been a Holyrood election and local elections subsequently – all showing increases in support for my party, the SNP?

        Which cave has Dougie been living in for the past few months?

        (With apologies to all true troglodytes, everywhere.)

  37. davetewart says:

    Aye Dr Jim,
    Same as the Nationalised railway coverage.
    Hard to believe the SNP hasn’t made the trains diverless and automated in the 3 months they had since privitisation, quietly forgetting that the railway tracks are controlled by westmonster.
    The trains are cast offs from other areas.
    The airlines have staff working part time to save expense by flying aircraft at low utilisation, i.e. reduced services as the aircraft can’t fly themselves, yet.

  38. US message to rogue state Brengland.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-61538242

    NI Protocol: US has ‘unwavering’ support of Good Friday Agreement

    US congressman Richard Neal has said the US will be “as unwavering as is necessary” in its support of the Good Friday Agreement.

    It comes amid heightened tensions over the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    Mr Neal is leading a congressional delegation visiting the UK and Ireland.

    He met with Liz Truss on Saturday and urged the UK to have “good faith” talks with the EU to find solutions to the protocol.

    On a visit to County Kerry in the Republic of Ireland on Sunday, Mr Neal described the United States as a “guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement”.

    “The Good Friday Agreement has worked, and it’s worked quite well,” he said.

    “We don’t want to see it disturbed.”

    Mr Neal said he believed any issues around the Northern Ireland Protocol can be negotiated.

    “That was the clear message from Brussels, they’re ready to negotiate,” he said.

    “A clear message that we offered to the UK: if they want to negotiate and you say you want to negotiate, there should be negotiation.”

  39. gullaneno4 says:

    Re England going it alone.
    What currency would they use ?

  40. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    I see DRoss has written another #SNPBAD article in (No)Newspaper where in the article he states “The majority of Scots are SICK of the constitutional GROUNDHOG DAY and just want to MOVE ON”

    (I added upper case for emphasis)

    I assume he is basing that (false) assumption on what the many plants who form part of the audience in anti Scottish programmes BBC QT ,when in Scotland , and it’s tribute act Debate Night state every time when independence raised as a question ( state as per the script they ALL seem to quote from) ……as opposed to the actual elections in Scotland and their results….where the majority of Scots seem to want to MOVE ON from politicians like DRoss and his party winning a majority of seats for THEIR Union…..all elections in Scotland are a GROUNDHOG DAY for Dross….which he himself wants to MOVE ON from…..as majority of Scots seem SICK of him and his party….and he knows it…..but he just MOVES ON as he ignores what majority of SCOTS really really want and focuses yet again on the noisy minority who support the (non) Union…..

    Funnily enough the actual REAL GROUNDHOG DAY he (and we) encounter is yet ANOTHER Tory scandal involving ANOTHER Tory politician PLUS a PM also involved in many a scandal too….and these are OTHER things DRoss would like all Scots to MOVE ON from…..

    “MOVE ON” seems to be something that all Tories like to say both here and darn sarf….as in please do not focus on these things we have done so badly or where our politicians (and PM) are involved in a scandal or where corrupt practices seem to have been adopted by us ….instead we want you to all MOVE ON and focus on …..well anything but us……indeed why not focus on what OUR media (who support us) are highlighting in order to enable you to MOVE ON from the reality of the here and now and focus instead on the fantasy of the alternate version of the truth …Tory one ……as promoted by us and our press…. (unofficial offices).

    Dross should MOVE ON from politics as he seems so very out of touch, out of his depth and if he had any actual political acumen he would also realise that the MAJORITY of SCOTS are SICK of politicians like him who quote the same old same old GROUNDHOG DAY false assertions about what Scots really feel about the CONSTITUTIONAL question….as in a question that HIS party are seemingly now too afraid to address via another referendum on independence being held……….and only when that question asked again will Scots then decide to MOVE ON from his Union when they vote for Independence…..via a MAJORITY…..now that will make DRoss really SICK…..and should hopefully see him, and his colleagues, MOVE ON and completely away from politics in Scotland….for good hopefully.

    #ToryBad ( all colours of)…………..

    • Not-My-Real-Name says:

      Added onto wrong thread added so have now onto new one out today…..with additional comments….Sorry not meaning to be a pest or idiot….but will own it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s