The Love Of Big Brother
We were trying to work out what this reminded us of.
And the answer was in the same place it usually is.
It all checks out. The SNP spend their time grooming your children and trying to make basic parenting a crime. They endorse “gender-affirming care” that sterilises them and will stop them ever having an orgasm as adults. And they want you to stop enjoying almost all of the small things that make life pleasurable.
Even porridge.
(Shortbread is also on the forbidden list, although haggis, in most cases, escapes for now. The Scottish Government IS, however, keen to decriminalise heroin – presumably because unlike most legal recreational substances it’s a highly solitary and anti-social pursuit – so you’ll get in less trouble if you’re caught with some of that in your pocket than if you try to furtively slip your child a Twix or buy a box of Frosties.)
The more traditional, social forms of escape may be severely frowned upon:
But “the intoxication of power”, as Orwell put it, will always be available to the poor downtrodden public. Scottish Labour, the Tories and Reform will always be there to be defeated again. Like knuckle-dragging Celtic and “Rangers” fans who only care about beating their rivals no matter how much of a trainwreck their own club is, there’ll always be time for party’s remaining members to release their frustrations during the Two Minutes’ Hate.
Conference is coming up, after all. They’ll be very excited, but only within supervised, controllable and highly limited parameters. Which will pretty soon be the only form of excitement still allowed in Scotland.
The Nazis did this sort of thing in 1930’s Germany, and look how that ended up. Beware, the SNP is now telling us what to eat!
Yes Chris, and the Nazi’s had a policy for the useless eaters too and it wasn’t nice.
Nutzlose Esser which then was complemented with Lebensunwertes Leben.
That’s what fascist governments do.
Not to be confused with Labour’s Assisted Dying scheme, which is good, beneficial, and above all, kind to everyone involved.
In the UK, we live in a country that has mostly silently aborted over 11 million babies since 1968, most of them perfectly healthy. Most of them because they would have been “inconvenient”.
I don’t think throwing utterly devalued terms like “fascist” or “Nazi” moves the debate on, or fairly allows some actors to be painted black whilst others are whitewashed.
The Nazis rationalised the extermination of classes of innocent people they didn’t want. As did the Reds. We do too.
I can’t and won’t believe the distinctions between the Nazis, Reds and us oh-so-nice-and-cuddly guys matter to those exterminated.
They do things like this, in part, because they need to fill their time doing something. Holyrood, is not a place where policy is developed, debated and legislated on in response to public demand for reasons of public good. It is for banning things, one a week. And that is mair comfortable than paying heid to the concerns of their constituents.
I don’t really buy that line of argument. Matters of personal efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and usefulness all seem like very low priorities for those in Holyrood, most especially the governing SNP.
No, they do it because they like doing this stuff, for its own sake, for misanthropy and for (faulty, moribund) ideology.
There will be an element of that nae doot For example, there is plenty evidence that some in Holyrood and many other parliaments follow the US model of extreme social liberalism fanatically. That doesn’t stop it being a business model. This is an example of that model. Don’t do what the public want and need, ponce around as if stuck in adolescence instead. Their superficial, performative activities described here act to mask their other activities. ‘What can I get away with? How long can I keep getting away with it? Will I be protected when my corruption is uncovered?’ These are the questions politicians now ask themselves. Self interest.
“Holyrood, is not a place where policy is developed, debated and legislated on in response to public demand for reasons of public good. It is for banning things”
Astute point, gm.
Scots should remember that this is a colonial administration designed to ‘to keep the racket going’, it is never a ‘normal’ government looking after the interests of its people.
Fanon tells us that a national party that has been ‘co-opted by colonialism’ soon becomes ‘an instrument of coercion’; and, ‘to make it look busy’ it brings forward ‘laws that mystify the people’.
Mandela confirmed that in such a society ‘the social institutions ‘oppress the people’ rather than serve their needs.
And here we are reminded that ‘the root of colonialism is fascism’ and fascism is always ‘looking for its punishment’ (Cesaire).
There really is no end to your grievance chimpery, is there?
I mean, it couldn’t possibly be that the SNP MSPs are pretty crap by and large and love this kind of shite, without any help nor influence from anyone else, could it…
People like you need to start owning your own shit, instead of endlessly blaming boogeymen third parties.
Holyrood is a colonial administrative device. I agree with that. it is hardly surprising that they steal their wages and more off us under cover of foreign ideology.
@GM
I don’t agree that this constitutes “foreign ideology” – the likes of the SNP have wholeheartedly made it their own, ergo it is de facto “home grown”.
I can well understand feelings of discomfort at such dismaying news, but there we are. The first step in writing any wrongs is to face up to them and take responsibility, rather than blaming others as Alf endlessly and impotently does.
*righting any wrongs, even. (Duh)
“I don’t agree that this constitutes “foreign ideology””
A colonized people are by implication subject to foreign ideology so long as they remain colonized:
For Scots, Anglo Liberal imperialism is a foreign ideology;
For Scots, woke ideology is a foreign ideology;
For Scots, British nationalism is a foreign ideology.
Each of these ideologies result in oppression (i.e. doun-hauden) for Scots.
“A colonised people are by implication subject to foreign ideology so long as they remain colonised”
There you go, Alf, fixed it for you.
But you’re defo missing a trick. Promise people that after Indy we’ll have cheaper booze and ciggies than England, and watch support for Indy soar.
I wonder why it is that your interpretations of the post colonial boys never come up with any policies as good as that one, eh, Alf?
Haha, just my little joke. Your interpretations of the post colonial boys never come up with any policies at all.
“the post colonial boys never come up with any policies”
What they do say is that “what they do with their freedom is a matter only for the colonized” (Memmi), and no longer are the people made subject to whatever London or Paris decides for them.
Decolonization of course permits a liberated people to more fully develop, as we see in Singapore, Malaysia, Dubai, in Ireland and elsewhere. Independence would make a huge difference compared to what Scotland is used to under London rule, such as closure of industries, plunder of resources, lack of investment, and emigration and replacement of its people.
The colonial status quo is never an option to champion, Hatey, you should give it up completely.
“Decolonization of course permits a liberated people to more fully develop”
“The colonial status quo is never an option to champion”
Words of wisdom you shall, of course, be directing at “Mr” Lavrov the next time you see him.
Haha, just another of my little jokes.
“the post colonial boys never come up with any policies”
Perhaps, in your heid, you truly believe you proved me wrong by not coming up with any policies. Again.
“ It is for banning things, one a week.”
=========
Many years ago, The Herald published a letter making that very point. Its writer proposed that Holyrood should be renamed, “The Tally of Bans“ . Events in the past 20 or so years almost done nothing to discredit his contention then or yours now.
Or the broader, Orwellian take of the Rev. above.
The Left.
Never happier than when condemning, banning, outing, othering, curtailing, censoring, deplatforming, criticising, silencing.
People would do well to remember this.
The SNP has no ideas and because of this we are suffering.
You can buy 3 ferries for the price of 1, but such practices are banned in SNP la la land:
link to calmac.co.uk
At last – a professorial post based on fact.
Please keep it up.
Isn’t it one ferry for the price of three in Scotland?
I thought the introduction of these rules matched those already in place in England and Wales from a year ago. The point about minimum alcohol pricing and the legalisation of Heroin is well made.
“I thought the introduction of these rules matched those already in place in England and Wales from a year ago.”
There are four-for-the-price-of-three and “buy any six for £7” offers on booze in my local Sainsbury’s and Morrisons right now.
So everyone can still buy food with high levels of salt or sugar. They just have to pay more.
I asked Google about the state of school meals. Plenty of words like high fibre and sustainable, I even saw broccoli mentioned, but it looked like most meals were baked or fried because slivers of salmon covered in breadcrumbs and fat are nice and cheap.
I get the government is at least trying but changing habits of generations is near quick, simple, or cheap. Let, no make, schools serve breakfast, lunch and early dinner for all years; host after school sports, other activities, help with homework or catch-up lessons. and you’ll change habits in a jiffy, say 20-30 years. It’ll cost a bundle and profits at the junk food companies, supermarkets, and other parasites will be down. Shame.
Utterly fascist in nature and it begs the absolute question as to what right, and by what authority these scum bags operate.
I jest not but would I have as much right to metaphorically kick fuck out of Swinney’s ugly coupon. I mention this not with even a sliver of intention or encouragement to such a concept but what rights do fascists have.
Well maybe next it will be policy of Nutzlose Esser and lebensunwertes Leben. Tried before, and no doubt will be tried again.
But every where you look the rotten cabal is introducing ever more Orwellian impositions on a hapless populace.
They may take my life but not my shortbread. A serious jest but maybe that will wake the populace from their slumber.
Levity aside however, a very serious and timely article from the Rev about where our society is going.
Nutzlose Esser and Lebensunwertes Leben. The next policies for this utterly fascist government.
Tried before, will be tried again!
I think our government is now treating ‘1984’ as an instructional document!
“Utterly fascist in nature”: I don’t think so – I don’t remember allegations that Benito was a nutritionist nut.
But demands for food purity, vegetarianism and so on was a Hitler trademark. So Nazi rather than Fascist. (To which one could add Hitler’s “green” policies as we would call them nowadays: paeons of praise for nature and the great outdoors, hiking, physical fitness etc. Rather like the modern medical trades.)
The thing is, with the minimum price on alcohol and the massive discrepancies in price between England and Scotland, it really affects the poorest by far the most. Those who are dependent on alcohol, and God knows, poverty drives people to it- will be the hardest hit.
They will still buy alcohol before buying food.
The Government knows this.
It’s worth noting that the “Alcohol tax” isn’t a tax. None of the money goes to the public, to alcohol charities etc, it just goes to corporate profits. Businesses have a minimum they can charge. I havent had one drink less due to this policy, but it has cost me much more money.
Words can’t describe how much I detest the SNP. A party constantly trying to make me poorer in a tight economy.
Indeed Jonathan !
I was astonished to see the prices supermarkets in England were charging for whisky last Christmas……A litre bottle for £15 !!
But here in Scotland the SNP won’t allow it to be sold for less than £25 !!
Madness !
Do the supermarkets in Carlisle and Berwick do a roaring trade in the run up to Christmas and New Year?
More proof we are ruled by Authoritarian Communists, as if any further was needed.
I think it’s worth setting out what the Scottish Government’s proposed supermarket rules actually aim to achieve.
Supermarkets have strong commercial incentives to promote high-fat, high-sugar, and ultra-processed foods. These incentives reflect profit margins and consumer habits. Left to the market alone, these products will continue to dominate shelf space, promotions, and impulse-purchase zones.
Public-health policy exists precisely because commercial incentives and population-health incentives don’t naturally align. Governments intervene when the long-term health costs to society exceed the short-term commercial benefits to retailers.
From my perspective, regulating the placement and promotion of high-fat, high-sugar pre-packaged foods is a reasonable public-health measure.
It doesn’t ban products, restrict choice, or prevent anyone from buying what they want. It simply changes the environment in which consumer choices are made — something public-health research has shown to be one of the most effective tools available.
By contrast, surcharges on alcohol may have limited impact on people with addiction issues, because price-based interventions tend to be less effective for folk whose consumption is driven by dependency rather than discretionary choice.
For me, the supermarket rules are a more targeted and evidence-based intervention. They aim to reduce population-level harm by adjusting the commercial environment rather than relying on individual willpower or punitive pricing (apart from alcohol).
Others may disagree, but that’s my understanding of the policy and why I think it has merit.
It’s also important to remember that the new rules propose legal price caps on essential food items such as bread, milk, and eggs, to improve affordability — particularly for lower-income households.
“new rules propose legal price caps on essential food items such as bread, milk, and eggs, to improve affordability”
These are the items already being sold at cost, or even at a loss, because they are the primary reasons for many people going into the shop in the first place.
The profits lie in the non-essentials. The nice to haves. The little treats.
Try buying a really tasty and nutritious loaf of bread. It will set you back 4 or 5 quid. It will be stale within 24 hours because it won’t contain the additives and preservatives in “normal” bread.
Cack-handed tinkering with supermarket pricing will result in pushing the smaller outlets into bankruptcy. The larger supermarkets will have the sales volume to carry loss leaders. The smaller corner shops generally won’t, although I guess the ethnic places will continue to evade tax so may still be in with a fighting chance.
It’s all very well complaining about ultra processed foods, but some at least of that processing is to increase shelf life. Without it, wastage increases. And so do re-stocking rates – more trucks making more frequent journeys – at a time when trucking costs, including fuel, are rising very fast.
Then you have to consider the shop-lifting epidemic. Driven, in part, by rising costs. So only likely to rise even more if numpty politicians hike costs even higher on booze and ciggies and sweets for the kids. Again, these costs get re-distributed onto law-abiding shoppers by increased costs across the board. But the smaller shops struggle to do so and may eventually fold.
I’m surprised we haven’t yet seen the birth of “verified identity” shopping experiences. You apply for a shopping card, and have to prove who you are and where you live. Then, when you go to the shop, you swipe you card at a turnstile to get in.
I’m sure that would more than pay for itself in reduced theft and unrecoverable losses.
The poor and disadvantaged would become even poorer and more disadvantaged, but then isn’t that always the way when the virtue signalling progressives start going “light touch” on the criminal and predatory scum who always pick mostly on ordinary people?
You make some very good points. And you’re right, the picture is more complex and nuanced than it might seem at first glance.
There’s no easy solution, no quick-fix, and government generally gets things very wrong over many iterations before it lands on policies – if it ever does – that might actually work.
My point, though, isn’t about price-tinkering or clumsy attempts by government at social engineering.
My point is simple and highly focused: re-arranging how foodstuffs are displayed in supermarkets and other selected retail outlets – with no price-tinkering (bar alcohol) and no reduction in consumer choice – in an attempt to improve population-health has been proven through various studies to be generally effective.
But, as I say, you make some valid points about the bigger picture and about the negative unintended consequences of ill-considered, poorly designed government intervention which appears to be driven more by blind ideology than by coherent, logical thought.
”… you make some valid points about the bigger picture and about the negative unintended consequences of ill-considered, poorly designed government intervention which appears to be driven more by blind ideology than by coherent, logical thought.”
I think that’s the overriding, germane point here. If, as a government so devoid of talent, nous or ability – everything you vainly try to do amounts to an “inverse Midas touch”, ergo everything instantly turns to shit – a “light touch/do nothing” approach would seem highly appropriate. The very opposite of the interventionist nonsense that we do see.
The thing is though it does seem that people’s diet and lifestyles can be pretty woeful and Scotland has an especially bad rep for this. In the end it is the tax payer that ends up paying for some of that neglect via the NHS and other services that end up trying to mitigate self-inflicted harm.
What to do? Surely, no nothing?
Jonathan Meades made an interesting documentary set in the central belt where many footbal clubs are, and covered people’s attitudes to diet. When talking to people all of whom were terribly fat and looked about 20 years older than they were with life expectancy much lower than most places in the UK, they had this strange attitude that they thought it their ‘right’ to eat chips, burgers and pizza every day and tell vegetables and salad to fuck off back to their middle class kitchens. They knew their lifestyle would lead to their early deaths but their resentment was so strong they preferred that to the idea of listening to the do-gooders and changing their diet. What do you do with that attitude?
“What do you do with that attitude?”
Thank them for their services towards solving the social care crisis. Reward them with cheap as chips chips, etc.
Much like what we should be doing with tobacco and alcohol. Every heavy smoker or drinker who goes happy to their early grave is reducing the burden on the hard pressed taxpayer who would much prefer lower taxes and more take home to spend on herself.
Everybody has an absolute right to choose their own poison and indulge themselves with it, right up to the point at which it kills them.
Outside of the tiny number who might actually know the deceased, it’s no business whatsoever of the rest of society.
Yes but I put ‘right’ in inverted commas for a reason – you don’t need such a right as no-one is stopping you eating what you want in the first place.
What I was getting at is if the state is responsible for looking after our health when we get ill (which is is via the NHS which we pay our taxes to fund), what is the logic of saying they have no responsibility to help people stop getting ill? Prevention is always better than cure.
But it does all depend on what taking that responsibility means. Tax on cigarettes seems fair if it helps fund healthcare (which I think in general terms, it does – I read somewhere the amount of tax revenue generated far outweighs the cost of dealing with smoking-related diseases) but enforced increased alcohol prices does not, it goes to the sellers.
I have long believed that the costs to the NHS of treating the diseases and conditions associated with tobacco abuse, alcohol abuse and unhealthy eating are moderately easy to calculate.
As are the volumes of relevant products sold.
From these figures I believe it to be feasible to calculate and charge appropriate taxes on these products. To be ring-fenced for the NHS for these purposes only (ring fenced being, of course, a dirty term on here, but no matter).
Alas, I’m neither a politician, nor a realist. The temptation to hijack the hypothecation of these taxes to pay for other hobby horses would be irresistible to the politicians.
Much as we see with vehicle excise duty (road tax) and road traffic offense fines, which continue to rise inexorably as road surfaces deteriorate, road markings and signage disappear, and sight lines are obscured by unmanaged vegetation.
“There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”
Orwell wrote this as a warning, not as an instruction manual, yet here we find ourselves, the boot stamping hard on the human face, removing any and all pleasures.
Yes, trademark lefty delight, schadenfreude and faux moral superiority, wielding puritanical, joy-sapping, virtue signalling woke “progressive” policies as though they were weapons. (Which they are, of course).
The UK illegal tobacco market is estimated at £5 billion to £6 billion PA.
With the discrepancies shown above between English and Scottish alcohol prices, I’m not surprised it’s estimated that 13% of UK consumption of alcohol is sourced illegally.
Looks like the entrepreneurial smugglers can soon add a few more items to their stocks.
What are the authorities going to do – jail them? That’s a joke.
What are the smugglers going to do – get regular jobs? That’s turning into a joke too.
It’s a few years now since I read about the people smuggling gangs that import people for the sole purpose of engaging in criminal activity. The people to be trafficked sign up for a free “ticket” on the basis there’s a guaranteed “job” in crime that will enable them to pay off their debts and start to amass their own nest egg.
Scots used to excel at trading and smuggling illegal goods. Perhaps some of us still do. If they exist, I hope they are smart enough to use the cultural defense so favoured by the ethnics.
“Gonna let us off. We don’t see it as a crime. It’s our tradition and culture and it’s wacism if you disagree.”
It seems to me that the SNP is determined to make its self unelectable.
They’ve long been trying, but it never seems to work.
Saw a piece on BMA report that over twenty five percent of our nursing staff are over 55 years of age and that not enough new nurses are being trained to replace and already extant nurse shortage.
Maybe that’s why,the SNP are becoming the food police to do away with the need for nurses. Healthy eating, and excercise, and not drinking too much comes from encoraging people to want to live more healthily. Not about restricive movement of the supermarket deck chairs. I mean, the SNP government have made great strides in allowing drugs to be as ubiquitous as ordering a pizza.
But back to the nurse shortage its not just nurses we are short of. We are desperately short of all manner skilled trained people. A nation of dare I say it, too many empty eaters.
An grim statement to make but why are we so short of skills. Why do we have so many young people Not
in Education Employment or Training ( or NEETs to use tge acronym)
Why also is it that we have huge numbers of people of working age to ill to work and having to rely on state benefits. People do get sick and need help but the numbers are absolutely enormous. But maybe the SNP proposals to restrict and reshuffle the supermarket shelves will cure all our ills.
One thing for sure, Scotland is not working as we can see all around.
I’ll try to get in before Alf and claim that Fanon, Memmi, Cesaire, Elkins and the Jonesy boyo have all the answers.
Big Brother. Doublethink. Thoughtcrime. Newspeak.
A vocabulary for oppression.
As a literary work, 1984 is structurally thin, stylistically plain, and emotionally flat. Orwell wrote it as a political warning, not as a richly crafted novel. Its cultural power is enormous, but its artistic power is limited.
Orwell was a political thinker first, a novelist second. His strengths were political clarity, moral seriousness, and social observation.
His weaknesses were character depth, emotional subtlety, and stylistic richness.
1984 reads more like a political thesis than a fully realised work of fiction.
The novel has become a literary cliche in many contexts. Its overuse and misapplication have drained much of its original power, turning it from a precise warning into a generic symbol of “things I don’t like.”
Instead of engaging with, for example, government regulatory mechanisms, Orwell is routinely invoked as a way of saying: “I don’t want to analyse this. I want to condemn it.”
The Orwellian metaphor has become a shortcut to outrage, not a tool for understanding.
When 1984 is used to describe things that have nothing to do with state terror, thought control, or totalitarian epistemology the comparison becomes so broad, so thin, so transparent, that it’s almost meaningless.
It’s like calling every inconvenience “Kafkaesque.” Eventually, the word stops pointing to Kafka and starts pointing to “I’m annoyed.”
1984 was published in 1949 and Hannah Arendt’s “The Origins of Totalitarianism” was published in 1951.
We don’t know for certain whether Arendt read 1984, but it’s likely she was aware of it. She never commented on it, possibly because Orwell’s literary warning lacked the analytical depth she required.
What is certain is that 1984’s cultural overuse has turned it into a cliche, draining much of its original force.
Winston still sits in the Chestnut Tree Cafe, drinking gin, emotionally hollow, accepting Party propaganda without resistance… and knowing in his heart that he loved Big Brother.
Like most online commentators these days you’ve provided a list of assertions without any examples to back up what you say.
You invite comparisons with other literary works though you barely mention any others (mentioning comparative dates of works doesn’t count) and not in any meaningful sense, but using the principle of charity, can you think of any reasons at all why 1984 has been deliberately written the way it is?
I’m not having a go. I just notice that people assert things these days as if voicing an opinion is enough. It’s similar to the way people use ‘refute’ when they mean ‘reject’. As if speaking declaratively – almost ex-cathedra – makes something the case.
Where I would be having a go is your critical comments on the overuse of 1984 in intellectual discourse; that critique is over 50 years old at least and usually when it’s made the writer will bring up Zamyatin’s We as a superior work. The fact that you haven’t mentioned that work is noteworthy in itself.
One other thing, you know that little guy from Fantasy Island, that’s you that is…
More than harsh to pick out Northy for not providing evidence when hardly anybody else does.
If BTL was moderated, we could have serious debate and discussion. But it’s not, so we can’t. Serious posts drown amidst the infantile “prick” and “cant” callers.
Besides, I’m unaware of specific expertise that anybody is bringing to illuminate the discussions, other than Professor Baird, and only when he writes about his discipline – marine engineering.
The rest of us are either making stuff up, or getting our information from the internet. And one thing about the internet is certain. Find just about any opinion that is asserted online, and you will be able to find another refuting it.
Zamyatin who? We need a reference 🙂
Alf Baird.
I watch a number of posts by Barrhead boy as you recommended a week or two ago, which included your self as a guest,
The reason I was never impressed with Barrhead boy as a advocate for independence was his open fear that he wears on his sleeve, which appears to be that independence requires a violent revolution, and often voices that as a barrier.
This is not automatically the case for Scottish independence, if dealing with the issue of the treaty of union Specifically,
As UDI can only come about if we are actually in the 1707 treaty of Union with England. And you and I amongst many others know this is not the Case,
However I understand the process of wanting international recognition to aid the process along in which Salvo and liberation are in the process doing,
But just like any other process there are are additional and alternative processes that the people can peacefully do that can speed up the issue.
Not recognising the devolved government or the SNP in Scotland but from Westminster as legislation and Statues of The parliament of England,
Following the laws of the devolved governance is contrary to the treaty of union,
Of ( One and the same parliament ) , as they are in two opposing Countries and terrotries and kingdoms.
The new laws on food, freedoms, speech, private information etc do not apply to Scotland as the devolved governance itself does not apply to Scotland under the treaty of union.
For if unionists persist that is what binds Scotland to England then there is a article named as unalterable by the Great Britain parliament in England that can
1:
Help provide Salvo and liberation further prove the Scotland Colony theory into reality.
2:
Prevent interference from outside in our laws of Scotland.
3:
Provide a route out of the treaty of union, or / and Force Westminster parliament to show its hand as the duel GB parliament as the acting parliament for Englands Great Britain,
Some may think this route out is nonsense, however the Article that states that,
” Private Rights “is for the evident Utility of the subjects within Scotland,
It does not state that these Subjects are the Subjects of England.nor does it State that this article can be used by any other Country,
When it defines “Scotlands peoples Private Rights ” that would include our private rights to self determination,
Without seeking permission from any other lawful or illegal body out-with the original borders of Scotland.
That is not UDI,
That is following the section and article of the treaty of union that is ….[ unalterable ]…by the Westminster parliament of England and Westminster parliament of GB being one and the same.
So if in a treaty of union, the people of Scotland retain there private rights to self determination without permission as this is already a agreement with any of the parliaments down south.
this would enable Scotlands people to legally Start the process without the SNP or UDI coming into play,
There is nothing unfavourable about the people of Scotland using an article of the treaty of union to apply self determination regards private rights of the people within Scotland to rid themselves of big brother, the SNP or the devolved governance for as long as it is within the original borders of Scotland by the subjects within Scotland from the time date and going forward that the treaty of union was made.
We do not need permission for a article of the treaty of union that is unalterable.
I have argued for non- treaty of union, but if is insisted on as being a reality by Westminster and the UN, then use,
Even if we are not in a Union, James, we have acquiesced for centuries. Acquiescence can, itself, be used to signify acceptance in law even where no formal legal duty exists. In other words, we have been fools to ourselves.
We – or those who were our representatives in 1707 – did agree to the Treaty and the Union on our behalf. The Treaty and its subsequent Acts of Union underpin the UK of GB today. The constant breaching of the Treaty has always been our way out of the Union. These breachings are eminently provable – from the Treaty itself, from the Acts of Union and from Hansard. The truth its that nobody, until recently, in Scotland, has bothered his or her backside about hunting down the evidence and collating the whole into a submission of withdrawal from the Union. The pisspoor response to Crawford and Boyle (before the referendum in 2014) was a disgrace in hindsight, although several first-rate Scottish constitutionalists did refute it entirely, but received a very muted welcome.
It has always been so much easier to simply acquiesce in every kick in the teeth and grin and bear it. SALVO/LIberation have changed a great deal of that acquiescence and I see now that they are holding a tour of Scotland to explain the intricacies. Well done to them! People need to know their own history and constitutional situation. Many people – usually Unionists – insist that we do not have a written constitution. How wrong they are.
Porridge is like oatmeal in Americanese, right? Oatmeal is really good for you. Not heroin-good, but pretty healthful
Cutting heroin with oatmeal is allegedly healthier for the users than some of the other stuff suppliers cut it with.
Does anybody know why dealers and suppliers are usually so disinterested in the health and well being of their customers?
Seems daft to me to kill the geese that keep turning up desperate to hand over their golden eggs.
The one thing that is never, ever mentioned when drugs use is being discussed is personal responsibility and the drive to self-harm. No one can force you to take drugs unless they, literally, inject you without your consent or force tablets down your throat or substances up your nose. Many think it’s cool, but they know it’s not going to do them any good.
There is so much material available to put people off drug-taking – hundreds of deaths – that you have to wonder if there is not a self-harm impulse in many people. I’m not being a smartie pants because I smoked against advice to the contrary, but, eventually, sense prevailed and I stopped. No one made me start, no one made me stop. I drank when I was young, but no longer do and haven’t for many years. I have never taken drugs. Loss of control was always my biggest fear about drinking, and it was the reason I would never have contemplated taking illegal drugs.
In the end, I do believe that there is an impulse towards self-harm with many people who take drugs of any kind – illegal hard drugs, weed, smoking, drinking, pill-popping – because no one who is of sound mind can have escaped the knowledge of the consequences for so many who have taken them. That might also explain why rehab is not always successful and sometimes – often? – unsuccessful. Perhaps it is less the lure of the drugs themselves than the lure of self-harm that is primary, and the drugs are the means to achieve that?
The problem for the Westminster parliament and the parliament of Great Britain is that it can not place a later and English interpretation other what they agreed to in 1706. In what the Scottish parliament wrote as a law that was made unalterable and retained in Scotland in the treaty of union,
Undernoted an article that reflects just how our government agencies are seeking to restrict rights of access to our natural environment.
As the huge Flamingo Land commercial development exposed big commercial interest and rich pickings were very much being pursued. To what extent procurement malfeasance played any part in our Scottish Government’s agencies agenda remains to be investigated.
The recent destruction of SCS case records exposes just how concerned that particular authority is about records and what information and evidence they hold. But that tiger and the even bigger tiger of the exposure of lurking criminality, is something that will be sending a chill down many a senior officials spine.
Anyway, herewith a small contemporary article about actions of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, the extinguishment of ancient rights, and reports about Sid Perrie an retired 75 year teacher come elected board member who was pursued in absentia for raising questions about the conduct of the National Park and Scottish Enterprise.
link to parkswatchscotland.co.uk
And Perrie is not alone in his concerns.
The people in Scotland could organise a vote system on many topics in Scotland for just the people in Scotland under the article of Private Rights for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.
This would eliminate politicians registered in England and else,
where including the SNP,
, businesses outside of Scotland as main offices,
eliminate broadcasting companies not registered in Scotland or residing in Scotland , water companies, land owners whose address is as living outside Scotland would have to give evidence the are permanently biding in Scotland,
Yes unionist would object, but the treaty of union between Scotland and England is real is it not?
The thing I find funny about the sin taxes on alcohol is when they try to justify it for health reasons.
Young people rarely drink alcohol or not at all now. This is a worldwide phenomenon driven by changing social habits and also for health reasons so they look good on social media.
Young people might not drink alcohol but their choice of poison has changed whether it is vapes or more likely illegal drugs like cocaine. It has got to the point now where a bag of cocaine is actually cheaper than a pint of lager.
As to older people who do enjoy alcohol, will these sin taxes actually stop them from cutting down or do will it mean that they divert more of their discretionary income to it rather than spending it on items like going out to a restaurant that supports the wider economy?
The purpose of MUP was to stop people from drinking high strength cider but has it actually worked and wouldn’t a more effective solution was to have a targeted approach by removing licences from corner stores that allows problem drinkers to easily get the alcohol any time of the day and multiple times of days?
That Barrhead boy is how Scots come together without violence, because it is legally part of the treaty of union that is….unalterable. And does not require the SNP to be recognised or the devolved governance.
As to the supermarket ban, wouldn’t it be better for the Scottish Government to use resources to teach people how to cook?
This idea that buying these Ultra processed supermarket meals is cheaper than home cooking is nonsense. I cook simple but nutritious meals for myself and I save a packet, not to mention feel healthier for it.
This can be done at school with both as a learning subject and having tasty and serving nutritious free meals to pupils.
Of course this costs money but how much more is saved by not dealing with health issues in later life like obesity and diabetes as well as not dealing with poverty due to parts of the population being driven to it by being dependent on supermarket slop as well as takeaways?
Willie,
The governance who sell Scotland could be made obsolete by using the treaty of union article on private rights.
The land belongs to Scotlands people, as does all Scotlands resources, to be used for the evident utility of the Scots private rights
The idea that these sort of policies are going to make the SNP unelecteable IMHO, doesn’t ring true.
These types of policies are supported by a small section of the population who actively votes and by pursuing these policies, the SNP gain them.
In this era of low voting turnouts where governments are being elected on a small part of the electorate, it is essential for the SNP to court them.
The Treaty of Union is still extant only in the form of the Acts of Union 1706–1707, which remain part of UK statute law (amended but not repealed).
It is not extant as an international treaty between sovereign states.
This is why we see conflicting views: some people use “Treaty” in the historical sense, others in the legal sense — and those two meanings diverged long ago.
The House of Lords source is explicit:
The terms of union are found exclusively in enabling legislation [the Acts of Union], not in a treaty “as that expression is normally understood today.”
This means:
– Scotland and England are not two sovereign states bound by a treaty.
– There is no international withdrawal mechanism.
– The Treaty cannot be “terminated” like a modern treaty.
– It is fully absorbed into UK domestic constitutional law.
This is the key point that often gets muddled in public discourse.
Sorry, Northy, but I don’t think anybody is listening 🙂
I rely totally on my inalienable rights as a Sovereign Scot these days. Whenever I encounter some irksome rule, some bothering regulation, some limiting law, or some demeaning missive, I say “Nae fears, as a Sovereign Scot, that disnae apply to me!”
In my heid at least. 99.9% of the time I then go on to comply anyway. After all, the people trying to enforce these things are only doing their jobs. Just trying to put unhealthy food on the table for their morbidly obese kids.
But knowing I’m exempt, that none of it applies to me as a Sovereign Scot, is reward enough.
BTW, if you’re curious about the 0.1%, every now and again, I don’t properly rinse something before recycling it. After all, use it or lose it. My Scottish Sovereignty must still sometimes be exercised if it is not to wither completely away.
I suspect you’re right, Hatey – few, if any, are listening.
However, It’s good to know that you are listening and perfectly understand your rights as a sovereign Scot and that you can flout recycling rinsing rules with impunity.
And if you ever get the urge to flout some of those foreign rules imposed on us by our colonial oppressor that carry more serious consequences I’ll happily arrange to have the occasional Fortnum and Mason hamper sent directly to your prison cell as a treat.
It’ll make a welcome change, I’m sure, from the high-fat, high-sugar porridge the authorities serve up to those doing porridge in Scotland merely for daring to act on their inalienable rights as sovereign Scots.
Wha’s like us, eh? Damn few and there aw locked up in the jail.
Mair strenth tae yer soverane recyclin’ airm, Hatey. An dinnae let thon Baird git ye doun.
Of course there is still a Treaty, Northcode, and (domestic) Acts cannot overturn or submerge primary legislation – which the Treaty is. That is one of the first things you learn as a constitutional lawyer. You have been listening to the English politicians on this. They are biased.
If treaties do not exist after secondary legislation (Acts) then we could not have left the EU by resiling the treaties – which the UK did. No, the Treaty has NOT been absorbed into domestic law because no international treaty can be absorbed in this way. Legally, it underpins the UK because both Scotland and England were independent, sovereign political and social states when the Treaty was drawn up by the Commissioners. THAT makes it an international treaty, regardless of its age. The UN even has a special court to deal with old treaties.
Yes, prima facie, there is no legal mechanism to overturn the Treaty except, as with all legal agreements, one party to the agreement breaks that agreement. England has done this so many times, you don’t have enough fingers and toes to count them. Acquiescence could count against us, but, again, it has been Unionists who have acquiesced, not independistas – until recently, when the SNP government has been trying to outdo its Unionist predecessors on this issue. However, enough of us exist to challenge any assumption that the whole of Scotland has ever acquiesced as one body.
Queen Anne herself understood that this was a Treaty between two equal partners – the two parts of her sovereign being. She signed off the Treaty as the monarch of Scotland and England separately. Read the workings around the Treaty. She did not even acknowledge that the crown was one because the so-called Union of the Crowns never happened. All that did happen was that the Scottish and English Crowns were invested in the person of the same monarch, not that the two Crowns were ever one Crown.
To think that is to misunderstand, fundamentally, the two constitutions. She was the last of the (acknowledged) Stuart line, and she understood the differences between her northern and southern kingdoms. The Commissioners did their job, too, and the royal signing of the Treaty and the first opening of the UK parliament was attended by ambassadors from all over Europe, something that never happens with domestic affairs as opposed to international affairs.
Quite why so many independistas are so hell-bent on refuting the Treaty, I do not understand, as it may well be our last hope. It should have been our first hope, but there you are. Acquiescence again! Naw, we’re not equal. Naw, we never had a real Treaty. Well, we did and we do. The Treaty could yet save us from civil war and it can certainly help us to retrieve our resources, both terrestrial and maritime. It could also help us to set up a functioning independent Scotland as it lays the foundations for a constitution and rights which, of course, would have to be expanded upon in a modern democracy.
“it has been Unionists who have acquiesced, not independistas”
Naw. If anybody has acquiesced, it’s been the majority.
If anybody wants Indy, it’ll have to be the majority too.
You don’t get to say that only your preferred side, the “independistas”, counts.
Instead of endlessly picking over the ashes of fires dead this past 300+ years, why not start working on ideas, policies and strategies to build that majority for Indy in 2026 and beyond?
And please don’t say Scotland already has that majority. That really is taking the fantasy wishful thinking too far.
H McH: we have had a nationalist government for around 20 years of over 300 years in the Union, so, yes, it has been, largely, Unionists who have collaborated and acquiesced. As far as I recall, having been a nationalist my entire life, I, for one, have never actively acquiesced in anything to which I have had a powerful aversion, but have always been at pains to take a different view.
Yes, it has been the majority because for most of those 300 years, the Unionists have been the majority. Yes, if we want indy, it will have to be a majority or we could go down the armed route and force the issue. Who wants that?
The more I read your answers to any comment I make, H McH, the more I am convinced that you have never read anything of mine. You don’t have to, of course, but why answer something you patently have never read? I have never claimed that only the independistas count. Never. I do offer suggestions, policies, etc., on a regular basis, and have always done so. In all that time, it has been like spitting into the wind.
No, I don’t say Scotland already has that majority, but I do say it would not take too much to tip the balance in our favour. Quite why you believe me to be a fantasist in the realm of independence escapes me. I am a realist and a pragmatist. I have studied that Treaty, studied all the working around it and around Queen Anne’s speeches, read deeply from very eminent constitutional lawyers’ submissions, and, realistically, the Treaty is and always was our best bet for regaining our own resources (in parallel with international law). Yes, we need, in a democracy, which 1707 Scotland and England were not, a majority at the polls. It is at that point that UDI, followed by resiling of the Treaty would come into play, but the breaching of the Treaty alone is enough, if the will was there, to bring down the Union legally.
It is partly that most people do not understand the Treaty in its legal framework, but also partly that few are willing to actually do the work required to understand it and then to argue it, from a Scottish nationalist viewpoint, in a court of law. I do not agree with SALVO that there was no Treaty and, therefore, no Union, but I do salute their determination to take their views around Scotland. I agree with a lot of what they say, but not that there never was a Treaty.
To believe that is to believe that Crawford and Boyle were right, that Scotland was subsumed by a Greater England – which is the peculiarly English viewpoint. I do not believe either that we are a colony although I would concede that we are frequently treated as one. Even if we were to achieve a majority in an election, does anyone seriously believe that England-as-the-UK would not argue on the Treaty? Would not try to beat us down for our assets? Get real.
Taxes,
Is that for the evident utility of the Subjects living within Scotland and private financial rights if we do not have a Scottish treasury in Scotland.
Which by the way is not mentioned as a article in the treaty of union to remove Scotlands treasury.
That one article in the treaty of union covers many topics with regards to the private rights of Scots within Scotland,
Including what food we privately wish to eat in Scotland,
There is some research on the effect of the minimum pricing of alcohol.
Scotland’s minimum pricing policy was supported across all Holyrood parties when first introduced. is that still the case?
The unit price goes up by law I think it is now 65p per unit up from 50p in 2018.
The alcohol problem in Scotland is higher than in E&W.
Minimum pricing of alcohol does have some effect. the link to PHS research is here.
link to publichealthscotland.scot
Long read which I skipped and went to “Conclusions”
I never got further than this:
“Declaration of interests
Public Health Scotland is funded by the Scottish Government. The studies included in this evaluation that were commissioned by Public Health Scotland were funded by the Scottish Government. A number of the studies used as evidence in the evidence synthesis were authored or co-authored by members of the evaluation team, either in their current roles at Public Health Scotland, or at previous roles elsewhere. Public Health Scotland is committed to providing independent and impartial evidence to inform public health policy.”
I was expecting to find some evidence of ScotGov commissioning something pseudo-independent to justify what they intended to do anyway, but perhaps not so blatant.
I enjoy shopping when on holiday in Spain. The choice of one liter tetra-packs of wine for three Euros is wide. All colours are available, at all hours of the day and night. I believe the Spanish may class it as one of their five-a-day.
But then they’re a grown up people, quite prepared to be held individually responsible for their own actions.
Bilbo,
I was not talking of using the SNP votes or any others politicians votes for that matter,
I was referring to the private Rights of the subjects within Scotland and using that article in the treaty of union to set up a Scottish voting system for the evident utility of Scots within Scotland, it is our private right t have a voting system that works for all of the subjects within the land and Country of Scotland,
[ Its the Scottish peoples private voting rights for the use and evident utility of the subjects within Scotland ]
Not Grt Britain.
£30,000 reached. Game on! Go get em, Stu.
I’m astonished that as far as I am aware, nobody BTL has yet commented on this story:
link to theguardian.com
The UK Labour government is restricting the practice of fire and rehire through the Employment Rights Act 2025, which makes dismissal and re-engagement automatically unfair in most cases when used to alter core contractual terms like pay, hours, and holidays.
Key Details of the Legislation
• Implementation: Set to take effect in January 2027.
O/T: Rev’s crowdfunder has reached the £30,000 target in less than 3 days.
The new target is £400,000. This is the price for trying to make it obvious that the people have no protection from the legal system. The police have to accept what COPFS decides. The Lord Advocate is immune from prosecution.
So an innocent member of the public can have their life ruined for a time, or permanently, if the legal system is against you. E.g. Alex Salmond, Craig Murray, Mark Hirst, the Rev [Dugdale case].
And it’s not only the legal system – it is every public service. The NHS denies that males remain males whatever their wishes/appearance, and treats truth-speakers as an enemy to be ousted. Other employers do the same e.g. M&S. Will Sandie Peggie win her tribunal case against the RCN? I’m not holding my breath.
Craig Murray’s current case in the Scottish law courts is also being stifled by the Scottish judge. And hampered because the Crowdjustice funds have been withheld by Crowdjustice. His lawyers say that they are out of funds for the case. If anyone wants to donate direct to Craig, see his blog for the bank details.
On top of all this, access to the Liberation/Salvo crowdfunder has been interfered with – people are told “crowdfunder is closed” or “page not found”. Salvo suggests that donations be sent direct online to bank account SalvoScot Ltd, sort code 83-22-26, account no. 00779437, reference “crowdfunder”.
How deep are Scotland’s people’s pockets?
Sarah: “Will Sandie Peggie win her tribunal case against the RCN? I’m not holding my breath.”
I’ve been following the case on the Tribunal Tweets blog. My impression is that Sandie Peggie is very likely to win her tribunal claim.
Here’s the link to the blog post. You will have to scroll down to find the Peggie case. It’s a long read, but final submissions should give a fair picture.
link to threadreaderapp.com
Thanks, sam. We need some good news. I was reading some of the tribunal action the other day (can’t remember where) and wasn’t encouraged. Fingers crossed.
I don’t think Murray’s CrowdJustice funds were seized – they were, however, temporarily frozen due to some procedural uncertainty.
They were later released and his legal team did receive the money, I believe.
As ever, folk should verify for themselves.
The mythic version is not the factual one. It’s a narrative that has circulated for a while, even though it’s been debunked multiple times.
Also, the Salvo/LS fundraiser page is still accessible.
The fundraiser is active and sits at £41,322 on 353 donations. But it seems to have stalled at that figure despite almost £20,000 worth of large donations made offline through BACS transfers.
The “page not found” claim is what’s known as a “Perception Artefact”, not a real event.
It’s a classic pattern that often works like this: someone encounters a glitch or hears a rumour or misinterprets a link and the narrative becomes “interference”.
It’s not grounded in the actual behaviour of the platform. Folk can check for themselves by following the link below:
Salvo Crowdfunder Page
Wheesht, Northy, you’re spoiling things for a lot of people.
Craig Murray’s CrowdJustice fundraising campaign was taken down rather than literally seized by the government.
The removal occurred because the US government designated Palestine Action as a global terrorist organisation. Because the UK-based crowdfunding platform CrowdJustice relies on the US payment processor Stripe, it is bound by US sanctions. Stripe confirmed that it cannot process or support any transactions or accounts that benefit or link to Palestine Action, explicitly extending this restriction to funds raised for legal proceedings
Thanks for that clarification. It’s always better to get the real story. So although Murray’s funds weren’t seized US policy effectively shutdown his fundraiser, is my takeaway from your explanation.
Yeah, thanks for clarifying that, x.
Is it possible to just send our money directly to Ir@n instead? Hack off all the middle men, so to speak.
Northcode,
There is one thing for sure I do like debating both sides of the coin.
If the treaty of union is extant in England in westminster parliament then one of those [ unalterable ] articles by the great britain parliament was the articles concerning private rights of the subjects within Scotland,
This is something the Great Britain parliament has cheated and breached the union with between Scotland and England.
You will find it here.
And the same debate and question has to apply as to wether it is extant to Scotland,
As the Treaty of union was never completed,
The flaw lies in that the Scottish parliament was dissolved by the monarch of England on the 28th April in England prior to the treaty coming into force on the 1st May 1707 in Scotland or England.
Northcode.
Whereas the parliament of England was never dissolved but simply transferred under Westminsters triennial act which ended in 1708, so no election took place in Englands Westminster parliament of Great Britain,
into the new rebranded name of GB parliament without a Scottish parliament existing to create a union for the parliament of Great Britain.
So extant in England, but fails to be extant in Scotland.
It is of great importance wether there are two Countries parliaments in a union, in the parliament of Great Britain for it to encompass the territory of Scotland. And England,
Or just England.
Salvo’s facebook post today explains why they suggest that donations to their crowdfunder be made direct to Salvoscot Ltd’s bank account – sort code 83-22-26, account number 00779437, ref “crowdfunder”.
My donation was made direct before Salvo said to do so, because I felt more certain of its safe arrival.
Craig Murray said on his blog on 29th September “Our Crowdjustice crowdfunder was closed down by the card processors as a result of pressure from the USA”. He has said nothing on his blog about those funds now being available.
“The fairest conclusion is that the policy responds to a real problem but remains unproven as a mechanism. It is factual to say Scotland has a food affordability problem. It is factual to say supermarket groups can be profitable while operating on narrow margins. It is factual to say the SNP has proposed statutory price ceilings on essential goods. It is also factual to say that the detail, legality and economic effects of such a cap remain unresolved. The argument is therefore not between compassion and economics. It is between a real social pressure and an intervention whose design has not yet been shown to solve it.”
link to modern.scot
“It is factual to say Scotland has a food affordability problem”
Only to the extent that every other country in the world has a food affordability problem.
It is factual to say that some Scots struggle to afford food. It is factual to say that some non-Scots, who seem to have ended up in Scotland, also struggle to afford food. It is factual to say that some Scots struggle to find parking for their bloated SUVs when they drive to the supermarket for their weekly trolley dash to fill up with unnecessary stuff, a significant proportion of which is eventually binned. Ditto some non-Scots too.
“It is factual to say supermarket groups can be profitable while operating on narrow margins”
It is factual to say that investment funds won’t stay forever locked into under-performing companies. It is factual to say that much investment cash comes from multinational sources and ordinary shareholders who both have much the same interest in or concerns about Scottish “hungry kids” as they have over the ones starving in Darfur.
Not having a go at you, sam, having a go at your quoted article, so try to strangle the petty insults at birth.
The labour party cancelled ‘buy one get one free’ a while back, for items they felt weren’t good for the helpless, low IQ types, as they undoubtedly see us. I’ll be staggered if they cap prices for staples. The supermarkets have been tight with suppliers for years to keep those prices low. Swinney cop[ies England again for some unknown reason. I think he would rather just do nothing but PR and fill his bank account but every now and again he gives some group or other a wee project to do..
Either donations made to Craig Murray’s fundraiser before the US intervention were refunded or they went to his lawyers (unlikely).
It’s possible that any donations made prior to US intervention might have been frozen under US terror law, but it seems more likely that they would just have been refunded.
I believe that Crowdjustice automatically refunds donations if the stated target isn’t reached.
Murray’s is an edge case, though, so special measures might have been put in place to process his fundraiser. I don’t know. I can only speculate.
Also, for those interested, here’s what Salvo says on Facebook:
I suspect it’s ‘user error’ more than anything else.
Correction:
“Crowdjustice automatically refunds donations if the stated target isn’t reached.”
Should read:
“Crowdjustice automatically refunds donations if the stated initial target isn’t reached.”
Stretch targets – the secondary target after the initial target is met – aren’t bound by this rule.
Fourth of October 2026.
Another date historians of the future (assuming they survive) will be writing about long after we are dead.
I recall reading from historians of the past who have interviewed people who were alive in 1939; sometimes recording the surprising viewpoint that the announcement made on third September 1939 was received with a great sense of relief.
Because finally the uncertainty and the prevarication were over. The alternative options were slammed shut. The future was clear. The battle lines had been drawn.
As it was then, so it is now. For Scotland, as well as for the UK.
The end of the end of history has finally reached us. So many of us, by our actions and our inactions worked to bring this about. You sewed, now you shall truly reap.
Enjoy!
O/T: Rev, sorry to spoil your Bath weather report but it has been incredibly warm here in Wester Ross today as well. Over 17C – plus wildlife sightings of gannets diving at a shoal of fish, and attendant guillemots, black-back gulls etc. 🙂
Any idea what the shenanigans to the east are doing to the climate?
I read a report claiming that $200 million worth of oil went up in flames just last night. Surely all that heat must be going somewhere.
I’m hoping they leave some oilfields, tank farms, pipelines and refineries intact until January. If they blow them up then, we will better be able to appreciate the unseasonable warmth.
Many of us won’t be able to afford anything more modest.
Since we are talking of Orwell, he also wrote that:
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
Orwell arguably developed such a view in part from his period in the British ‘Imperial Police’ in Burma which involved years of oppressive rule over indigenous peoples and cultures (whilst stealing the locals oil etc), as well as his family background – his auld man was ‘opium agent’ in the Indian Civil Service and shipped the stuff into China.
The fact remains that all colonized peoples are generally subject to “cultural obliteration” (Fanon) and the Scots actual history and ongoing colonial reality confirms we are no different.
Aye, Alf, and now the Burmese and Chinese excel at oppressively ruling over indigenous peoples and cultures all by themselves.
The Indians less so, although Modi is making some strides towards rectifying that.
What does Fanon say about these developments? Surely he must have managed to blame all the post colonial oppression, ethnic cleansing, genocide and killings, on whitey?
“Some big, bad whiteys made us do it, then ran away” perhaps.
Join the dots, Hatey: ‘Imperial Police’?
Explains the runaround the Rev is getting, and a few other things.
So the Burmese Imperial Police “explains the runaround the Rev is getting”?
Only in yer heid, Alf.
I asked you to explain about how the Covids are treating the Tibetans and the Uyghurs right now.
I asked you to explain about how the Burmese are treating the Rohingya right now.
While you’re about it, maybe you could explain why the Indians and Pakistanis felt the need to slaughter something like 2 million of each other and ethnically cleanse maybe 15 million in 1947.
But dinna fash, Alf. I’m not really expecting any response from you, other than perhaps a few quotes from the post colonial boys.
Isn’t it about time you found a post colonial girl to quote? We’re well into the 21st century now.
Alf @8.19pm
Whit ???
The Burmese Imperial Police are giving the rev the runaround ?
Have you told him yet ?
Can we be the only people who have actively acquiesced in our own cultural and historical obliteration, Alf, because that is how it feels? I don’t believe that we are a colony. I believe that we BEHAVE like a colony and are treated like one, which is not the same thing. Full marks to you and SALVO/Liberation for going out to town halls and telling people about their own constitution and the lies we have been so eager to swallow. We have to have that grown-up conversation sometime about our own responsibility. Are we going to cave in yet again and accept the mega data centres for a mess of pottage? Accept the ports that do not serve our country well? The huge pylons, the undersea cables carrying away our energy? All without a cheep? I shudder to think what Wallace and Bruce and all those who actually fought for our future would think of us today. Was all that blood and suffering for nothing because we handed it all away?
I would have thought the mega data centres, the ports, the huge pylons and the undersea cables pose far less of a personal risk to you than the caliphate does, Lorncal.
But I guess you know best.
I’ll only be a second class human. Heck, maybe if I convert, I could make first class.
You’ll never be permitted that opportunity.
Lorncal.
Well said.
Know our history, we are a Colony because we do nothing and avoid conversations on the subject that would aid generations that follow,
Then when we are fed fear like Barrhead boy often shows, nothing will be done, and no new Wallace will rise as he or she lies quaking in poverty and slums. Eating modern rubbish food, confused what gender they are while not being able to walk or roam about in their own Country,
Just about at the door of Orwells1984
“Just about at the door of Orwells1984”
Orwell’s ‘authoritarianism’ is essentially colonialism, which is likewise ‘based on psychology’, and the ‘root of which is fascism’ (Cesaire; Kelley; et al). Postcolonial theorists merely elaborated this fact while English ‘educationalists’ continue to ignore it, for obvious reasons.
As we now know, Scots have been subject to such authoritative and psychological colonial control for mair than three centuries.
For Scots, the belief in a ‘UK Union’ or even the idea of a ‘British’ identity, and much of whatever else ‘authority’ tells us to ‘think’, is rather like believing ‘that the moon is made of cheese’ (Cesaire).
”Orwell’s ‘authoritarianism’ is essentially colonialism”
You don’t say.
Probably a lot easier at this juncture if you can bloody tell us what ISN’T “colonialism”, mate, as according to Sage Baird.
You give scratched records a bad name!
Can we presume that the not Scottish parliament politicians in Scotland would like cheaper drugs and easier access for themselves without being ‘fined’.
Lornical
It is not a case of Scotlands people agreeing to the treaty of union at all, there were enough protests and petitions through out history,
It is also a situation of many Scot that is not a politician being deliberately kept in the information dark through history,
I think the MacCrone report is a excellent example. Along with poll tax in Scotland being used a year ahead of England and Wales.or discovering the borders of our land and sea have been nicked and altered without a ask behind closed doors,
Today ignorance is the problem, wilful ignorance shrugged of as we an do nothing, why try bother learning,
As you say we act like we are a Colony in Scotland, but we are not one, even though we appeal for recognition that we are a Colony,
There is no union between the two Countries parliaments, hence no union between the two monarch of Scotland and the monarch England not even a personal one since the bill of rights that created the monarch the monarch of England.
And no monarch of England has taken the Scottish oath publicly since Queen Anne i believe.
Are you sure that Acceptance now so late in history by tacit agreement would overrule a 1707 international treaty that was objected to repeatedly throughout time and still is in present day Scotland,
If Westminster parliament do not want to appear to the rest of the world as a parliament holding a Colony but actually has a treaty of union with Scotland then devolved parliament in Scotland has to be replaced with a actual Scottish parliament with no Westminster overlord,
It has to be equal as the parliament of England that rests solely on its own since the 1st May 1706 to present day.
Over three hundred years of no Scottish parliament in the Westminster parliament of Englands Great Britain parliament.
As Scotlands parliament was dissolved on the 28th April the year before in England, prior to 1707 the treaty of union legally coming into force in Scotland.
Or as North Code’s terminology puts it, it all hinges on a promise that Scotland made,
My terminology is as follows,
That the 1706 parliament of Westminster did not hold too their promise of a parliamentary union with the 1707 Scotland parliament. nor did they complete the procedure other than theoretically in their heads.
There seems to be utter confusion in Scotland and in England
“There seems to be utter confusion”
Agreed.
Rev, fingers well and truly crossed for the Protected Costs Order. I don’t suppose that there is any idea of when that might be heard?
Its wrong but it happens all the time the cost are used as a weapon even when you’ve got a case you’ll win, in order to get you to simply give up.
That was then and this is now…
I’m bored with all the chuntering surrounding the “Treaty of Union” that goes on in this place. So I took 10 minutes to spell out the facts.
Perhaps this will help folk understand the modern reality of the Treaty of Union – or the Articles of Union as it was called back in 1707.
Let’s first state it in the simplest form:
That’s it.
That’s the whole thing.
Everything else people argue about is noise, myth, or misunderstanding.
Now I’ll break it down cleanly so the logic is watertight.
1. The Articles of Union were only a proposal — not a binding treaty
That’s the part people often miss.
2. The Acts of Union created the new state
There were two separate Acts:
1: Union with Scotland Act 1706 (English Parliament).
2: Union with England Act 1707 (Scottish Parliament).
These Acts:
Once the Acts were passed, the Articles had done their job and the treaty was concluded… hooray!
Welcome to the new asymmetrical power-balanced sovereign state of Britain (later to become the United Kingdom).
3. A treaty cannot survive the extinction of the states that signed it
This is the key point.
A treaty requires two (or more) sovereign states, continuing international personality, and ongoing obligations.
But after 1707:
Therefore:
The treaty cannot continue to exist because the parties to it no longer exist.
This is standard international law.
4. The Articles were fully executed and therefore ceased to function
In treaty law, once a treaty has been fully implemented, fully executed, and replaced by domestic constitutional instruments it ceases to have independent legal effect.
This is exactly what happened three centuries ago.
The Articles (the treaty, if preferred) were:
They – the Articles (Treaty) of Union – are now historical documents, not living instruments.
5. What remains today are the Acts of Union … not the Treaty
The Acts:
The Articles:
They are simply the blueprint that the Acts built from.
6. The clean, final takeaway
That’s the modern constitutional reality.
It’s not contested in legal scholarship.
It’s only contested in the fictional narratives of a mythic-Scotland.
Desperate, put a sock in it NC.
– there is a peculiar kind of mid-wit who takes pleasure in irrelevant pedantry to try and impress others.
Consider a man goes on holiday, he comes home to find his house “tanned”. He calls the cops
– giving his statement he says “I WAS ROBBED”
then the officer tells him – he wasn’t “robbed”.
You see technically the crime is “theft” allied with accompanying crimes of breaking and entering, criminal damage (they pissed on the carpet) and so on.
To be robbed requires the use or threat of violence, and since he was on holiday – it was not a robbery.
This is losing the big picture in fairly nonsensical technicalities
– THERE IS SOME CUNT OUT THERE WITH THE LAPTOPS, THE BIG TV, THE WIFES JEWELLERY AND A PRIZED EXOTIC ROADBIKE
SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND DO EXIST. Ask the fucking English, they will sort you out on that score.
We are either EQUAL PARTNERS IN THE UNION (which the english tell us we are) and we can tear it up, at will -we certainly have cause to, the grievances are too numerous to list easily.
or – we are not. We are in fact – a COLONY; the first colony of what would become the empire. Patient zero.
If you are a colony, then the TOOLS OF DECOLONISATION EXIST AT THE UN, there for you to use; the problem there is perception – colonies are typically “the coloured folks” and many of that type of people see “the white man” as all being one homogeneous group (who oppressed them). But Scots did none of that; no slavery, no colonisation, nothing – some of the criminal unionist elements, yoons all, signed up to that criminal enterprise, others were coerced into it, as “muscle”; NB you get a “pass” for coercion. This also shows the dead end of “white identity” – never use that term to describe yourself – you are a Scot – if you use white then you get blamed for a ton of shit you never did, and get dragged into ridiculous common cause with “other white men” – fucking Farage, fucking Lowe, fucking reform, fucking BNP, tommy robinson etc – all scum – I want nothing to do with the english, they have shat up their own country and should lie in it, convert to islam, kill yourselves, start a war, get nuked – I do not care.
If the treaty is no longer “real”, then Scotland is OCCUPIED BY A FOREIGN POWER and that has various implications in international law, including a right of violent resistance.
Don’t listen to MYSTIFIERS AND TUPPENY PEDANTS. They are there to bamboozle you; the situation is very straightforward – an independence party, campaigning on independence and nothing but, wins a scottish election – by the normal measure, it forms a govt (not 50% of all votes, 66% 75% 2 out of 3, 50% of all voters – you don’t get to move the goalposts) – then calls it, goes to the UN and declares the union over; the nations accept us happily, as they all hate England. England will fume, then do nothing; an indy Scotland will still be in NATO – then they try to screw you in the negotiations – you give them nothing and set a moving date. England is a busted flush, it is about to be conquered by unarmed muslims invading them on leaky zodiacs.
Scots finally have their own country and can now start to put in the hard work to become, in time, as rich as our peers in Ireland and Norway.
Angry Pict has a good selection of articles, worth a look; and the basic scam of the union was well explained by Lucy Worsley’s BBC documentary on Queen Anne.
Yes “Confused” – an accurate and concise description description of the formation of Great Britain is “irrelevant pedantry”, whereas your entirely fictional view of international law which enjoys no authority or support from anyone, anywhere who might be able to influence any outcome, well that’s all we need to focus on isn’t it.
In the real world, Article 2 guarantees the territorial integrity and political independence of all member states. Given that Scotland is recognised as an integral part of the U.K. state, it is a serious breach of international law for the UN as a whole or any individual member to take any action to try and facilitate a breakup of any part of the U.K.
That is the sum total of it, and all you need to know on this subject.
” Article 2 guarantees the territorial integrity and political independence of all member states.”
Which only applies if the state concerned complies with the fundamental and inalienable right of peoples to self-determination.
Territorial integrity is therefore conditional, as it is also in relation to ToU conditions whereby violations render it void.
Either way the England-as-UK hoax is up a gum tree.
Which is going to break up first then, Alf? The UK or Orcland?
The right to self-determination is indeed universal and inalienable, but outside of a military occupation or colonialism (neither of which apply in Scotland) the right to self determination is exercised within the framework of an existing state. The right to self determination does not now and has never provided a general right to secession or independence.
As Scotland is recognised as part of the U.K. state, Article 2 provides a legal guarantee of its political independence and territorial integrity, which can only be violated either by a state acting in self defence against us, or a resolution of the security council.
So, Adrian;
“The right to self-determination is indeed universal and inalienable…”
Except for Scotland.
Need the crossword clue again, brains?
James @12:41
James,
Are you REALLY that thick you can’t understand understand what Aidan explained quite clearly ?
Let’s put it this way, if he was any thicker he’d need watering twice a week.
“outside of a military occupation or colonialism (neither of which apply in Scotland)”
Who told you this, colonial history books?
Military occupation applied to Scotland:
link to decolonise.scot
Adrian wouldn’t know a fact if it punched him in the face, chum. Who are you anyway, his carer?
“Their right of self-determination is paramount*, grounded in international law and we will resolutely uphold it.”
England as UK Minister Ed Milliband, 2026.
[*except for readers in Scotland.]
The UK Government feels safe proclaiming the right of self-determination for all, whilst rejecting it for Scotland. Safe, because those elected to assert our rights, having hoovered up our votes, now bend the knee in time-honoured fashion to the Westminster veto.
@Alf – even if we took your somewhat suspect view of a foreign military occupation in the 1700’s (rather than, post-1707, the GB state using soldiers to suppress a rebellion on part of its territory), that is irrelevant for the purposes of considering external self determination now. I doubt that there is any region or country or area of any state anywhere in the world that could not make a similar claim if we go back far enough. Londoners might be particularly aggrieved at the put down of the Boudican revolt in 60-61 AD, for example.
@James – I know you are unwilling or incapable of learning anything that might contradict with your immature and grievance-based worldview, but the right to self determination does not now and has never meant the right to secession or the right to an independent state. A simple google search would provide you with a plethora of high-quality, detailed articles which explain this.
“having hoovered up our votes”
Zat so, James?
More fool you then.
Soubds good but it’s not right…..
In fact it doesn’t even sound good.
Must try harder, “troops”.
Now this is really gets hard because we have two opposing views, the first which I’ve copied below is written by Milena Sterio, professor of law at Cleveland University and a specialist in international law”
“Secession
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not contain a right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates secession in instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed (like in the case of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if the secessionist entity is attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of international law, such as the prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern Cyprus).[12] In other instances of attempted secession, where the relevant people is not oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland, international law is neutral on secession—it does not support a right to secession nor does it prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute is left to the realm of domestic law and to political negotiations between the mother state and the secessionist entity”
link to asil.org
The second is “James” – an obnoxious abusive troll:
“No it isn’t”
Who do we go with when faced with such a conflict?
A: Deffo not the fatberg.
That would make you clowns repetetive, abusive Unionist trolls then, aye?
Unsurprising then,that an eminent Scottish KC, and others much more intelligent than you third-raters would disagree with your whatabootery -sorry- whataboutery.
“Article 1 of the UN ICCPR reads:
“1. All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,” and:
“3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the
administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realisation of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provision of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Scotland appears to fall into that situation where the “UK Government” have assumed “responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust territories”, i.e. since 1707 Scotland has been/is in fact a de-facto colony of England.
So the UK Government, representing one of the states parties to the UN ICCPR in 1976, should be “promoting the realisation of the right of self-determination”, and should be respecting that right, not denying it.”
Then there’s the stolen wealth….[Jappy]
“…in 1968 I was able to closely examine the UK’s “books” for myself in an official capacity, I was shocked to find that the position was exactly the opposite [of what we are told]: that Scotland contributed far more to the UK economy than its other partners. And this, of course, was all before the oil boom.
The alternative future Scotland had been robbed of over the years is illustrated in the UN’s “Human Development Index”. The closest thing to a league table of the world’s best countries, it ranks nations on such factors as generous welfare payments, education, high income and a long life expectancy. In 2013, for the 10th time in the last 12 years, oil-rich Norway topped the list.
A country the size of Scotland with broadly comparable oil resources, Norway had of course wisely created an “oil fund” in 1995, which just five years later had reached a total of £250 billion – enabling the Norwegians to sail through the credit crunch despite having delayed the starting of the fund for 20 years. Since 2000 the value of that fund has more than doubled to £0.51 trillion.”
But poor, poor Scotland isn’t a colony. No siree.
Or as you people would say “naw it isnae” “naw they didnae” “naw ye cannae” etc etc….ad nauseum.
So here’s your crossword clue for the day again, dimbos.
Try your best…get an adult to help if you’re stuck.
A country which has no control over its own borders, resources, broadcast media or defence, and which has to ask permission from the country next door to have a vote on its own future.
6 letters
C_L_NY.
lol 2/10 – managed to copy and paste some relevant material, so let’s look closer: “Scotland appears to fall into that situation where the “UK Government” have assumed “responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust territories”, i.e. since 1707 Scotland has been/is in fact a de-facto colony of England”
Scotland does not “appear” to fall into that situation. There is a defined list of NSGT’s, NSGT’s are designated by the United Nations General Assembly. NSGT status is binary, if a territory is on the list it is an NSGT, and if it is not then it isn’t. Scotland isn’t on the list, therefore isn’t an NSGT.
You do not understand this subject, and you are probably reading things written by other people who also do not understand this subject. There’s a copious amount of freely available, high-quality information available which you could use to at least gain a cursory understanding. Your continuous, obvious and easily verifiable mistakes and outright falsehoods are not excusable.
So, “naw it disnae” then. LOL.
Here’s yin for you and yer Tory bedfellows.
“After £100 billion has finally been wasted on the south east of England’s “HS2” white elephant they will need something new to use Scottish revenues on. Cue the Tories promising a UK version of the ‘Iron Dome’. Since an Iron Dome for the entire UK would be prohibitively expensive, in reality, much like HS2, it’d be scaled back and be purely a protective shield for the South East, or more likely, protection just for London. With the rUK’s other major cities left vulnerable.
The [Don’t buy the] Sun has as its front page: “Iron dome lady”. Referring to the atrocious, arrogant Badenoch. Why is it, so many on the right are still obsessed with imitating Thatcher?
Badenoch says she wants to be just like Thatcher.
“Thatcher’s success was a mirage” the “economic miracle” of Margaret Thatcher’s premiership (1979–1990) was an illusion masked by short-term windfalls and severe structural damage.
Why Thatcher’s economic triumph was overstated:
– The North Sea Oil Windfall: Thatcherism was heavily subsidized by the discovery and exploitation of North Sea oil. Rather than a structural transformation driven by productivity, billions in oil revenues were used to mask the decline of manufacturing and fund the soaring cost of unemployment benefits.
– Modest GDP Growth: Despite the rhetoric of a radical boom, the UK’s average annual GDP growth during the 1980s was 2.2%, which was virtually identical to the widely criticized 1970s.
– Deindustrialization and Unemployment: Her monetarist policies to curb inflation initially triggered a deep recession, causing unemployment to skyrocket to over 3 million (around 12%) in the mid-1980s. She didn’t fix the economy but simply abandoned manufacturing in favour of the financial services sector, leaving deep inequalities between the North and South of the “UK”.
– Social Inequality: The prosperity of the “Thatcher boom” was highly selective. While the deregulation of the City of London (“Big Bang”) enriched the financial elite, child poverty doubled, and societal inequality widened dramatically.
Margaret Thatcher’s government privatized more than 50 major state-owned companies and public utilities between 1979 and 1990, raising over £50 billion.
Major Utilities sold off :
British Telecom (BT): Floated in 1984, marking the first major telecommunications sell-off.
British Gas: Sold in 1986 via the famous “Tell Sid” public share campaign.
Water Authorities: Ten regional water boards in England and Wales were sold off in 1989.
Electricity Industry: The 12 regional electricity boards in England and Wales were privatized in 1990, followed by generation companies like National Power and Powergen.
BT controls the foundational physical network supplying the entire UK industry, and the others are privatised monopolies. Thatcher was utterly atrocious.”
A common tactic of people like yourself, get totally humiliated and defeated on one subject and rather than admit your mistakes or try offer any form of explanation – set of ranting and raving about something else entirely.
If we want to go on about the Thatcher years – let’s have a look at these growth figures:
1983: +4.2%
* 1984: +2.2%
* 1985: +4.1%
* 1986: +3.1%
* 1987: +5.0%
* 1988: +5.7%
* 1989: +2.5%
Just imagine how much we could improve people’s standards of living and invest in public services if we had incredible growth figures like that, which are by the way higher than the 1980’s, and averaged over 4% from ‘83 onwards when Thatcher’s policies had time to take effect.
But that’s one for another day – and not without being blind to the significant lasting cost of Thatchers reforms to the central belt and Glasgow.
Now that you have been out in your place – we won’t be hearing any more from you about “self determination” or NSGT’s we will?
Ye cannae whack a guid wang oan an oan aboot some cant who’s never coming back (Thatcher) and some dosh we’ll ne’er see agin (North Sea oil revenues).
Let’s all pit oor hauns thegither fir James, in gratitude fir that wee daunder doon memory lane.
“Humiliated and defeated”. LOLZ, aye that’s right, Adrian ya clown. And here’s your wee ubiquitous pal arrived, Adrian. All day, every day.
Buzzing roon yer posts like a fly round shite.
A better man than you lot put together states the obvious;
“Scotland has no control over her own borders or resources, and is currently in the position of having to ask permission from the country next door to have a vote on its own future. There is a word for being in this position.
The price of the ongoing plunder of Scotland is well reflected in a GDP-per-Capita level of less than half that of our best performing neighbouring countries in Western Europe, and well below virtually all the rest. In terms of GDP-per-Capita, Scotland therefore seems a distant and very weak outlier in the region, a unique and unfortunate case; made to look much like a basket-case, even.
Colonialism is of course the reason many Scots continue to live in, or close to poverty in what is a resource rich country. It is also why our infrastructure is poor, our nation is not internationally competitive, and why our public services continue to struggle to meet the needs of the people compared with most neighbouring states.
Colonialism is also the reason millions of Scots were forced to leave Scotland in the past, and why some must still seek opportunities elsewhere, leaving our population much diminished. And, it is the reason so few Scots today can afford to bring up families, with Scotland’s current birth rate the lowest on record as well as the lowest in the UK.
What Scotland’s GDP-per-Capita comparison with other nearby nations really suggests, however, is that, within the “UK Union”, as much as one-half of Scotland’s real wealth is plundered and hence ‘extracted’ from our people every year. This ongoing colonial exploitation of Scotland has made Scots arguably the poorest people in North-West Europe.
GDP-PER-CAPITA BY COUNTRY, 2021/22
Norway – $106,149
Ireland – $104,039
Switzerland – $92,101
Denmark – $60,345
Faroe Islands – $59,699
Greenland – $57,116
Iceland – $56,429
Sweden – $55,873
Netherlands – $50,546
Belgium – $49,843
UK – $47,923
Finland – $46,929
Scotland – $40,325
This analysis merely confirms what postcolonial theory tells us; that the price of colonialism ‘is equivalent to the value of the economic plunder of the territory’ (Fanon). So, what is that ‘price’ of economic plunder for Scots?
Given Scotland’s very extensive resources relative to other countries, and a fairly modest population size, an independent Scotland should be recording a GDP-per-Capita approaching twice the present distorted (i.e. ‘colonial’) level of $40,325. This would place an independent Scotland somewhere in between Denmark and Norway in terms of GDP-per-Capita, i.e. probably well above $70,000, close to double the current level.
This further implies that we may reasonably accurately calculate the financial cost of the UK Union to Scots and to Scotland as being equivalent to between £150-200 billion annually…”
Imagine believing that the mere act of gaining independence (method TBC) you would, overnight, magic up an EXTRA £60,000 per capita GDP for every working age man and woman in Scotland. Because some old guy said so.
As if that wasn’t absurd enough, imagine the current Political Class in Scotland delivering such a feat. I wouldn’t trust most of them to deliver a pizza.
Comedy beyond parody.
Superb copying and pasting there, James. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen better.
Let me know which words, ideas and concepts you don’t understand. I’ll be happy to help.
Take the idea that “colonialism” is responsible for Scotland’s GDP per capita being “half what it should be” for example. Now take the ideas that “colonialism” is behind not only the loss of millions of Scottish emigrants, but our low birth rate too.
Are you seeing yet what the absence of “colonialism” would have done to the GDP per capita value? HINT: Doubled by the absence of “colonialism”, then halved again by the doubling of Scotland’s population.
Or should I deploy the multicoloured sock puppets?
@CC 9:04
You’re misrepresenting what’s being claimed.
It’s for everybody, not just those of working age.
And it’s not just for men and women. It’s for all 30 or so of Scotland’s official genders (exact number subject to review).
It’s not just “some old guy” saying it either. We have James on the copy-and-paste, and “Mr” Lavrov working on our behalf at the UN.
Yup, seems totally legit, Hatey. Silly me. Who could doubt it, given such extensive, compelling evidence, watertight arguments and citation sources. 😀
Bzzzzz….bzzzzz…bzzzzzz
We know as well, CC and Hatey that those figures are wrong for the following reasons:
– the figure for Scotland is quoted in GBP (even though it is labelled as dollars) whereas the other figures are dollar denominated amounts;
– some of the figures are GDP per capita nominal, others are PPP;
– the figures given do not reflect the revision by the ONS in 2022 of the UK’s growth figures.
Aside from those objective, schoolboy errors, quite why you would chose a pandemic year when economies were highly disrupted by the effect of national lockdowns and other similar measures.
When you correct for these mistakes, the supposed colonial deficit disappears, Scotland is a high performing wealthy European country, not as wealth as Norway, around the same as Finland, better than France. The reason these errors haven’t been corrected (other than that the argument disappears) despite being acknowledged by the author, is that this isn’t designed to be a robust evidence-base to make an informed case for independence. It is a grievance-based rabble rouser designed to appeal to frothing at the mouth dullards like James with no capacity for critical thinking or analysis, but plenty of capacity for resentment and abuse. For that purpose, it is perfect.
Says the ‘dullard’ who doesn’t even know where he’s been.
How’s things in “Fifeshire”, Adrian?
I don’t know what you keep going on about with this Fifeshire thing, I can only assume you’re suffering from some paranoid delusion. I do not now nor have I ever lived in Fife or “Fifeshire”.
”Bzzzzz….bzzzzz…bzzzzzz”
One of your, ahem, appliances no doubt…
@Aidan
Yes, absolutely, “laughably half-arsed cherry picking nonsense” doesn’t even begin to cover it.
I mean, it’s all so juvenile and rather pathetic.
You two girls should stop being so coy – just get a room?
James – imagine being a grown adult man and writing something like that in response to losing an argument.
Juvenile is an excellent way to put it. Grow up.
Aw, Adrian, petal; put a sock in it gie’s a’ some peace.
@“James” – if you want some peace and quiet why don’t you log off the library computer and go and rent yourself out a colouring book. You clearly aren’t mature enough to use the internet yet, at least not by yourself.
Very happy indeed to be a white man, Confused.
Equally happy for you to self identify as something inferior.
Long overdue for you to put yourself into the same category every sane, rational reader of your posts will have already assigned you to.
SALVO STONEHAVEN ROADSHOW (26 Sept 2026)
Q&A with SARA SALYERS
link to youtube.com
Professor ROBERT BLACK KC
GENEVA SPEECH (18 Sept 2025)
link to youtube.com
For clarity:
Q: Is Scotland a country?
A: YES
Q: Is England a country?
A: YES
Q: Is Scotland a sovereign state?
A: NO
Q: Is England a sovereign state?
A: NO
Scotland and England are not sovereign states; they are countries within the United Kingdom political union, which is the recognized sovereign entity that represents both countries internationally.
SARA SALYERS: NO KINGDOM NO UNION (3 Oct 2026)
link to youtube.com
People in glass houses…….
link to archive.ph
The cheek of her to complain.
When she’s looking so well, hale and hearty on the very fare she’s complaining about.
EQUALITY WATCHDOG CHIEF DEMOLISHES MYTHS ABOUT SINGLE-SEX GUIDANCE
The Chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has dismissed claims that protecting women’s spaces “erodes” the rights of those who identify as the opposite sex.
Writing in The Times, Mary-Ann Stephenson warned that criticism of the watchdog’s Code of Practice has actually increased “distress” in some, following false claims that it “strips trans people of their rights, bans them from public spaces and requires sex checks at public toilets”.
Instead, she emphasised that the guidance recognises “women’s need for access to single-sex services” while not removing protections from “discrimination, harassment and victimisation”.
WOMEN’S CONCERNS
The Code of Practice, which applies to services, public functions and associations, came into force in August to aid compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling confirming that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex.
The document states that if “a service provider (or a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) admits trans people to a service intended for the opposite sex” then it cannot rely on exceptions to sex discrimination laws and may be acting unlawfully.
Stephenson said: “We must also recognise the distress of women unable to access single-sex facilities. Women who believe that their right to privacy, dignity or safety have not been properly protected deserve to have those concerns taken seriously too.
“Recognising women’s need for access to single-sex services doesn’t require us to dismiss the rights of trans people. And recognising the vulnerability of trans people doesn’t require us to dismiss women’s concerns.”
She emphasised that instead of spreading misinformation, those who disagree with the guidance must “be clear about what change they are proposing, and how this would impact on single and separate-sex spaces”.
DOMESTIC ABUSE
Last month, trans activists heckled a woman petitioning her local council to protect single-sex spaces for victims of domestic abuse.
Former Haringey Councillor Emina Ibrahim had to be escorted from the building for her own safety as protestors directed abuse at her from outside the council chamber.
She related her own experience of being put in temporary accommodation after her mother fled from domestic abuse, saying: “I remember women and girls having to stand guard at bathroom doors for one another, simply to protect our collective dignity.”
The campaigner explained: “Single-sex provision isn’t an incidental feature of VAWG [violence against women and girls] services. For many women, it is an essential part of feeling safe enough to disclose what has happened to them, to rebuild trust, and to begin recovering from trauma.”
(The Christian Institute, 7 Oct 2026)
link to christian.org.uk
“Former Haringey Councillor Emina Ibrahim”
I’m not seeing her as a credible witness or somebody who might automatically be afforded the benefit of the doubt over anything she claims.
“protestors directed abuse at her”
If she and her mother fled from a domestic abuse scenario, it’s quite feasible the protestors weren’t trannies at all.
I’ve no interest in standing up for the sick scourge that is trans. But they’ve made common cause with that other sick scourge, the fundamentalists of the Religion of Peace.
The two groups work in tandem, and the feart pussyfooting around of the media and government enablers ensures the waters remain thoroughly muddied.
Somebody with a name like Ibrahim fleeing domestic abuse has to be careful she doesn’t wind up dead at the hands of her own family, or those of her in laws.
Trannies won’t be her primary concern.