Showing posts with label scots independence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scots independence. Show all posts

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Farage gets Bum's Rush from Edinburgh: "They even hate the union jack."



















Nigel Farage, the anti-European Union United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) leader, found himself in retreat on Thursday evening as dozens of protesters hounded him out of central Edinburgh.

Farage was finally whisked away in a police riot van under a tirade of abuse from a crowd of about 50 young demonstrators – students, anti-racist campaigners and activists in the 'Radical Independence' movement – after being forced to retreat not once, twice or three times, but four times. Farage was first forced out of the Canon's Gait pub on the Royal Mile after the landlord took fright as the demonstrators disrupted his casual press conference with shouts of "racist", "scum" and "homophobe".

Out on the street, as the fingers pointed and taunts escalated, he was rejected by one taxi and turfed out of a second. Then, finally, the harassed and ill-prepared handful of officers were forced to push him back into the Canon's Gait, slamming its front doors shut, as the demonstrators chanted: "Nigel, you're a bawbag, Nigel you're a bawbag, na, na, na, hey!" with gusto.

The etched sign above the Canon Gait's door read: "Enjoy your visit."

With further verses of "Ukip scum, off our streets" echoing in his ears, Farage was bustled into a police van under the glare of television camera lights. After gamely attempting to argue back, trying to hit back at the repeated accusations of racism and homophobia with protests of innocence, Farage finally had to admit his surprise.

"We've never, ever, ever had this kind of response. Is this a kind of anti-English thing? It could be," he said to a reporter. It wasn't. Not entirely. The protesters disagreed. Many said they were there to protest at Ukip's stance on immigration and the political backgrounds of Ukip's motley collection of local council candidates; others were there to protest against his party's obscure economic policies.

There was no violence, no punches thrown, no missiles lobbed. Rachel, a young woman in a wheelchair who had wheeled herself on to the Royal Mile to blockade the second taxi Farage tried to take, said simply: "Ukip are just bullshit."

Some were independence campaigners there to remind him of his nationality: after one, standing just a few feet from Farage, invited the Ukip leader to "shove your union jack up your arse", a flustered Farage said: "Clearly this is anti-British, anti-English. They even hate the union jack."

Farage had arrived at the Canon's Gait in buoyant mood, planning for his long-denied breakthrough into Scottish politics. Compared to the near-25% support in the English local elections, the highest his party has ever polled in Scotland is 5.2% in the 2009 European elections; in many others, Ukip support rests at under 1%.

The latest Ipsos Mori opinion poll, published in early May, found that just two Scots out of 1,001 would vote Ukip. He was hoping for a quiet, convivial briefing – hopefully with pint in hand – with the Scottish political press corps. This was to be the official launch of Ukip's campaign for the Holyrood parliamentary seat of Aberdeen Donside – a seat held very comfortably by the Scottish National party. "We've proved we can get votes in Wales, England and Northern Ireland, We're still untested in Scotland," he said.

"We've not had an opportunity to test Ukip policies with the Scottish people for a very long time." Asked about Ukip's chances, he was optimistic. "I wouldn't be at all surprised if we did quite creditably."

Less than 30 minutes after speaking those words, the MEP for South-East Counties was sitting hunched on the rear seat of a police riot van being driven off at speed, his plans to introduce Otto Inglis, Ukip's ever hopeful candidate for the Scottish parliament byelection on 20 June, forgotten.

Farage calls Scottish activist protesters ‘fascist scum’

UKIP leader Nigel Farage has described protesters who besieged him in an Edinburgh pub as "fascist scum".

Mr Farage had to be escorted from the Canons' Gait pub in a police van after angry confrontations on Thursday.

He told BBC Scotland the incident was deeply racist and displayed a total hatred of the English.

Mr Farage called on Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond to condemn the behaviour. The SNP said the UKIP leader had "lost the plot".

Mr Farage hung up during a telephone interview with the Good Morning Scotland programme on BBC Radio Scotland after being pressed about his lack of knowledge of Scottish politics and the low level of support for his party north of the border.

He later described the interview as "insulting".

Listen to it here and decide for yourself:


First Minister Alex Salmond said that Mr Farage's accusation of a "hate campaign" from the BBC during the radio interview showed it would be a "great mistake" to take "somebody of that mentality with any degree of seriousness".

Mr Salmond added: "We can frankly do without UKIP, who dislike everybody and know absolutely nothing about Scotland."

When asked if he condemned the demonstration against Mr Farage, the first minister said: "If there's been any law-breaking - and that's yet to be established - then obviously we condemn that, as we always do in Scotland, but you've got to get things into context.

"A student demonstration isn't the Dreyfus trial."



UKIP have always been out of touch and patronising towards Scotland as I found when I spoke with a UKIP Euro MP on the radio after the SNP's first election victory in the Scottish parliament (see post below this) - JM.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Radio 5 Live Appearance (2007)


Sunday, May 12, 2013

Scottish Independence Quotes
















Steady Tom, the answers are coming!

Better Together: I would say 'tell me why we're better together, not why we shouldn't be independent'... because we're a pretty stubborn race and if someone keeps telling you you can't do that and you can't do this we might just say, "well, yes we can."
 
Tom Hunter demands answers from Yes and No camps

Good point. Sir Tom is an intelligent man and I am sure he is capable of doing some basic research like the rest of us. Presumably he is trying to clarify matters for the public however he should remember that Westminster are blocking asking some questions of the EU (presumably because they wouldn't like the answers).

Post independence negotiations will ultimately decide all these issues.

I don't know all the answers but my best guess would be as follows:

On Europe we will most likely be in initially (That's the view of a leading adviser to the German Government) but with the option to leave later if we wanted to. EFTA might be a better long term berth if the EU keeps moving towards further unpopular integration however.

On currency Westminster have admitted they could not stop us using the pound. George threatened Scots over the issue but the SNP have made a strong logical case for keeping it, at least in the initial period post independence.

If our economies diverge significantly post independence (as would appear entirely possible) then Scotland might wish to set up our own central bank.

This is not impossible but it is not necessary unless we find that the current British central bank does in fact attempt to interfere in Scotland's economy (as it is independent at the moment from Westminster that seems highly unlikely however we cannot entirely anticipate the actions of EWNI (or should that just be England because I doubt Wales have an interest in making things difficult for Scotland and the Ulster unionists almost always follow the English tory agenda).

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Scotsman claims Americans are against Scots independence


The 'Scotsman' newspaper (perhaps it should be re-named as 'The Britman' or the 'North Briton') the other day found remote ancestors of people who signed the American Declaration of Independence who are saying that Scotland should not also be independent (see link at end).

Firstly, Americans are against hereditary privilege so the idea that the actions of their ancestors gives them a special right to comment on Scotland's independence is wrong. 
Secondly, if anyone wishes to comment on our situation they are welcome to do so but they should at least do some basic research on the subject first!

The illogical arguments presented show a dreadful ignorance of our political situation in Scotland. At the moment the existence of Britain (which is 90% English controlled) stops Scotland having a seat at the United Nations.

Even after devolution (which could and should have been delivered in the 1950's!) the Westminster Government still controls our welfare, tax, defence and foreign policy. In all these areas there are deep political divisions between the Westminster parliament and Scotland.

A union between our country and another ten times our size was never equal and it's not now. In fact the UK acts as an enlarged England which regularly acts against our interests.

The same political control over all her affairs that the United States of America demanded is exactly what Scotland requires now and we need to break the British union to get it.

I would imagine that these American's illustrious ancestors are birling in their grave at this last gasp attempt to save the state they detested and fought against.

Hopefully this will backfire drastically and lots of Scots Americans will give a donation to YesScotland (it's legal if it is under $750 or £500) and they will declare that in fact they are wholeheartedly in favour of Scotland's independence and the break up of Britain!

Please pass this message on to any Scots-American friends who are interested in the future of Scotland.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/declaration-of-independence-wrong-for-scots-1-2912351

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Peter Tatchell reveals Scots independence support



Peter Tatchell
Peter Tatchell: If Tiny Malta can be independent, why not Scotland?















Equality and human rights campaigner and former Labour Westminster candidate Peter Tatchell has called on Scots to vote Yes in the 2014 independence referendum.

The well known gay rights activist and social justice campaigner suggested that an independent Scotland would be “more left wing” than England and could have a “progressive future”.

Mr Tatchell is well known for his direct style of campaigning and is also famous for when he stood as a Labour candidate in a bitterly fought by-election in Bermondsey, south London in the 1980s, when it is claimed he was subjected to an anti-gay campaign.

Mr Tatchell claimed that an independent Scotland could follow the example of nations that had won their independence in recent decades.

He said: “If I were Scottish, I would support independence. Lots of small breakaway states, like Slovenia, have been success stories. Scotland has historically been more left wing than England. Independence would give the Scots people the opportunity to chart their own progressive future. If tiny Malta can have self-rule, why not Scotland?”

Saturday, March 09, 2013

Useful Scottish Independence Quotes - Please pass on!
















Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Dirty Tricks as Charles Portrait Declared a Fake?



Gallery admits portrait isn't Bonnie Prince Charlie

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland/Gallery-admits---portrait.5910975.jp

This story in the Britman raises some doubts in my mind. Let's be clear that Charles was a pivotal figure in British and Scottish history and the present British state have an interest in besmirching his memory by any means possible.

Suggesting his most famous portrait is false and thereby restricting imagery to depictions of him as a little boy helps in legitimising their current puppet on the British throne.

According to the original aticle itself:

http://www.dnhdesign.com/BAJwebsite/BAJ-BG-HenryIX.pdf

The La Tour pastel of Charles was exhibited in the Paris Salon of 1748, as ‘Prince Edouard’.
After Charles was forcibly ejected from Paris in December 1748, the pastel remained in the possession of his banker, Waters, until at least March 1752, when Charles requested it
be ‘packed up carefully by La Tour himself ’.


So we are to believe that a portrait which was attributed as Charles while he was still alive and formed part of his estate is less reliable than a copy which was later attributed as being his brother, probably based on it's likeness to the picture of Charles himself?

This doesn't seem too likely to me. The same article claims that other portraits of Henry should be discounted as they seem to look like someone else!

Perhaps the establishment prefer pictures which show Charlie as a foppish boy rather than as a grown man as it makes it easier to bury his memory.

Charles had a legitimate claim to the throne of Scotland and immediately declared Scotland independent when he took power, prior to his ultimate defeat. Shortly afterwards the British parliament decided to declare that both the Scottish county of Berwick and the whole country of Wales were now part of England. A verse was also added to the British national anthem (God Save the King) boasting of crushing rebellious Scots.

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.


The current monarch is controlled by the British parliament (from the second family drafted in for the purpose) and has no legitimate claim to the Scots throne whatsoever.

Who cares? No-one, perhaps, however the Queen remains the head of the British Government and with the House of Lords and Commons makes up the triumvirate of British rule.

The House of Commons is banned for any republican (ergo it is not properly democratic) and the House of Lords is made up of appointed lackeys.

The first past the post system ensures that two almost identical sets of political chancers maintain a corrupt system between them that should have been reformed centuries ago but never will be. This is the reason why they were able to deny Scotland devolution for a century (despite numerous votes by Scots MP's in the British parliament) and was the basis of their abusive rule of Ireland which they annexed in an act of international banditry with a ridiculous 'Union' in 1801 .

Britain obviously detests the memory of the Prince and various papers have repeated this assertion that the picture might be the Prince's brother so often that the National Portrait Galery has obviously decided that it can't be bothered defending it as an original portrait.

This same picture has been used in most biographies of the Prince however and by casting doubt on its origins based on some pretty controversial theorising it appears that doubt can be easily cast over all research on him.

If the Gallery has concern for its reputation (it may well see all publicity as good publicity, who knows?) it will mention that there are some contentious theories about the picture however most reputable sources believe it to be exactly what it purports to be, an original picture of Charles Edward Stuart.

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Bonnie Prince Charlie was in Scotland's corner



Over the years there have been many letters to the Scotsman claiming that the Jacobite rebellion had no connection whatsoever to the struggle for Scottish independence. The facts are however that Charles Stuart and his followers fought under the Saltire while his opponents fought under the Union Jack.

Charlie is also remembered for uttering the memorable phrase "I hereby declare the union between Scotland and England dissolved."

We also know that the line about crushing "rebellious Scots" was added to the British National anthem shortly after the Jacobite rebellion and the same year England's parliament suddenly decided that it now owned both Berwick and Wales!

No doubt there were some who called themselves Scots who welcomed the actions of the British Army at Culloden and the butchery and oppression (wearing Tartan was banned for 36 years!) that followed their victory but then again we know that today there are still those who put their own country last.

That does not mean they can re-write history however. Yes, Charles Stuart was interested in his father's English throne as well as the Scots one but he was also determined to restore Scottish independence.

It was on that basis that our Gaelic ancesters followed him and it is why he retains an affectionate niche in Scots history. Charlie might have failed but at least he was on the 'right side'. That's more than the 'Scotsman' can say today!

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Calman shows the limitations of British rule

Letter to the Editor
The Scotsman

11/06/2009

Sir,

So Sir Kenneth Calman's unionist commission has decided the future of
devolution. Rather than have a 3p rate that no-one wants to use, instead
we will get a 10p rate that no-one wants to use. What a visionary man
Sir Kenneth must be!

As we all know Calman's commission was set up by the unionist parties to
preserve the status quo. That is exactly what this proposal is intended
to achieve.

Is this is the best deal Britain can offer Scotland? If so it shows the
limitations of a continued union between three and a quarter countries
with very different political positions.

We Scots will eventually have a choice on the one logical option that
Calman has desperately tried to avoid. That choice is the normal
national and international powers of independence.

Calman's commission has proven that there is not one iota of national
pride or genuine Scottish interest in any of the British parties.

While this won't come as any shock to anyone, it will not stop the
ongoing rise of the SNP who are much clearer about the country whose
interests they represent.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

SNP plan for independence is the only chance to avoid Tory Government

Letter to the Editor
The Herald

11/06/2009

Sir,

I note that in today's edition of the Herald, when reporting on the SNP
and Plaid Cymru's call to dissolve the UK parliament, that your reporter
claims that Labour's Peter Hain "scored a direct hit" on the SNP's Pete
Wishart when he claimed the real SNP agenda was to get a Tory
government.

You report: Mr Wishart said the last thing Scotland wanted was a
Conservative government. "Is he then saying he prefers a Labour
government?" asked Mr Hain.

If this represents a 'direct hit' it is on the logic of your paper's
pro-union position not on the policies or position of the SNP.

The SNP support independence for Scotland. Labour support the Union. It
is very clear from the English local elections and the European
elections that Labour cannot possibly win against The Conservatives in
England.

We are therefore looking at the almost certain prospect of a UK
Conservative Government, even if they actually have a minority of
support.

This is partly because Labour has upheld the discredited First Past the
Post system but mainly because they have wasted their entire term in
Government by pandering to the rich rather than supporting their 'ain
folk'.

Independence offers an opportunity to escape right wing Government from
England whether by the Labour or Conservative party. Mr Hain is a
hypocrite and his party is dead in the water.

This new situation is something your paper might want to wake up to if
it wishes to remain relevant to the people of Scotland.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Neither Labour nor Tories really want reform

David Cameron is simply not credible as reform champion

Dear Sir,

So David Cameron thinks that suddenly we will believe he intends
genuine political reform? I'm sorry, but the Conservatives have been
on the wrong side of any political reform for their entire history as a
political party. The clue is in their name.

Mr Cameron may think that simply because he has proved more popular
than his immediate incompetent predecessors as Tory leader he has
acquired 'street cred' with the public but he is very wrong.

What has actually happened is that our political establishment and most
of the media have swung behind this Tony Blairite clone as the logical
continuation of a right wing consensus which has throttled reformist
politics during the Labour years.

Cameron doesn't want to change anything significant. Yes, some
slight changes at the edges might be vaguely considered but the big
questions have already been ruled out.

Labour and Conservatives have nothing to choose between them. Both
have MP's who have been guilty of fiddling their expenses and both share
the same right wing agenda. Both support the pointless Trident II and both
believe that being the puppet of America makes Britain great.

In my opinion four basic points are required to begin genuine reform of
Westminster:

1) Embracing genuine electoral reform. The first past the post system
inevitably leads to untouchable, unreachable, unpopular Government.

2) Abolish or elect the House of Lords

3) force MP's to drop all outside interests as soon as they enter parliament

4) Remove the oath that stops honest republicans from entering the British
parliament.

David Cameron wants none of these, nor does his rival Gordon Brown, so
where's the difference?

Scotland can do better and we would do with independence.

If we can't reform Westminster we can remove it's influence.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

and shorter version:

Neither Labour nor Tories really want reform

Sir,

Like a modern Wolfie 'Citizen' Smith David Cameron thinks all he needs to do is raise his fist and shout 'Power to the People!' and we will all believe he wants to reform parliament.

I'm sorry, but the Conservatives have been on the wrong side of any political reform for their entire history as a political party. The clue is in their name!

Labour and Conservatives have nothing to choose between them. Both have MP's who have been guilty of fiddling their expenses and both share the same right wing agenda. Both support the pointless Trident II and both believe that being the puppet of America makes Britain great.

In my opinion four basic points are required to begin genuine reform of Westminster:

1) Embracing genuine electoral reform. The first past the post system inevitably leads to untouchable, unreachable, unpopular Government.

2) Abolish or elect the House of Lords

3) force MP's to drop all outside interests as soon as they enter parliament

4) Remove the oath that stops honest republicans from entering the British parliament.

David Cameron wants none of these, nor does his rival Gordon Brown, so where's the difference?
We in Scotland can do better and we would do with independence.

If we can't reform Westminster we can remove it's influence.

JOE MIDDLETON

Monday, May 25, 2009

GERRY HASSAN SIMPLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SNP

I think what is coming across from this article [review of Break up of Britain book here] is that Mr Hassan does not understand the SNP and his past allegiance to Labour has left him with an irrational hatred and fear of all nationalism.

I also don’t recognise the description provided of the book ‘Eclipse of Scottish Culture’. This in fact argued that Nairn was to an extent viewing Scotland unfairly through a British/Marxist prism of understanding while still agreeing with his ultimate conclusions that the British state deserved to break up!

The SNP are a principled left of centre party. In UK terms they and Plaid Cymru are considerably to the left of Labour as indeed are Sinn Fein.

Isobel Lindsay (who has been a member of both Labour and SNP) in the current issue of Scottish left review analyses the SNP programme in office and comes to this overall conclusion.

The few right wing twitches which she does identify are very few and far between. The position on the 48 hour week (not advocating the cut off in working hours) is unfortunate and is a fair example.

If this issue was discussed at a party conference however I have little doubt it would be adjusted the other way and I suggest that insufficient internal debate have allowed the SNP's MEP's to take such a stance.

Finishing off an uncompleted motorway is not a betrayal of leftist values however but a logical end to a half done job! The reduction in rates for business is an attempt to equalise an area where Scots business had been paying a traditionally higher rate. It has been party policy for ten years to do this so it is not a change in direction.

Overall the SNP as a minority Government have did the best they can despite a unionist opposition which has worked together when required.

Labour in London denied them funds with a lower than normal block grant and Labour, Tories and Lib Dems all banded together to force through the expensive Edinburgh trams project. This has left the SNP vulnerable to attacks that they have not fulfilled their entire manifesto by those same parties who deliberately denied them the funds to do so!

Nonetheless they did remove Tuition fees and have taken what progressive measures they can within a restricted budget.

I am looking forward to reading the full book but certainly the chapters I have read have been a valid and indeed important contribution to the ongoing debate. Kev's concentration on the culture of nationalism is I think a lot more important and relevant than any person within the current British establishment would like to admit.

It is a cultural fight and onslaught we face with a constant stream of British flag waving entertainment (much of it trivial but the underlying jingoism is there) and a deliberate campaign to ignore Gaelic and our other national language, Scots.

Those who have championed the Scots language like Kelman and Welsh have therefore engaged Britain at a level where it is most vulnerable and the cultural connection is extremely important to understanding the state we are in today. It is also crucial to providing the confidence to vote us out of it.

Monday, March 09, 2009

Diomhair - Excellent Gaelic documentary about British attempts to undermine Scots independence


I have just watched the excellent BBC Alba documentary Diomhair (Secret). This programme goes into great detail about British efforts to undermine the Scottish independence and home rule movements.
Well worth watching and available here.