The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


What’s all this “we”, paleface?

Posted on March 26, 2013 by

Remember how Unionists endlessly cite World War 2 as the definitive example of great British “togetherness”? Turns out they might be over-egging that one a bit. From today’s Scottish Daily Express (print edition only):

paleface

Of course, that was a long time ago. Things are different now.

Print Friendly

    2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 30 07 14 22:22

      A country worth saving? | We'll never be fooled again!

    2. 17 06 16 20:08

      All Unions Are Not Equal | A Wilderness of Peace

    356 to “What’s all this “we”, paleface?”

    1. Macart says:

      Oswald Mosely was perhaps the most famous right wing agitator of the period, but let’s face it the buggers were everywhere. From those and such as those on down in every corner of the British Isles. There always seems to be a niche for some twat with a complex to tub thump about superiority and the way others should know their place. Still its nice to know that we were all in it together eh?

    2. Morag says:

      Mmmmm, I suppose if the alternative was the entire country, Scotland England and the rest, falling, it might have been an unavoidable sacifice.  Maybe the historians will give us an opinion.

    3. The Man in the Jar says:

      There used to be an opinion that the subs should be parked in Central London. Well it looks like you couldn’t afford to park a mini in Central London any more. According to the BBC “London’s top ten boroughs alone are worth more, in real estate terms, than all than all the property of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, added together.” ?
      Having read the article I am surprised. The BBC. Broadcasting a very good reason to leave the union. Someone must have missed the memo.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21934564

    4. Craig says:

      Ehh.

      I pointed this out on the campaign facebook page.
      By the simple geography of these islands, WWII invasion of Scotland before London had fallen would have made little strategic sense. The best way for Germany to take the UK out of the war would have been a full scale invasion of the SE with an aim to knock out central Government and force a surrender. Invading Scotland during that would have only served to tempt forces away from that front and make the job easier. Therefore, this defence plan, brutal though it may be, is probably the sensible option.

      Be mindful also that this defence plan would have been drawn up without what we know now about the Nazi Operation Sealion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion

      The defence and offence plans seem to match well.

    5. Albalha says:

      Interesting they highlight Angus, or am I reading too much into the anti-SNP subtext?

    6. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      Militarily the premise of abandoning Scotland to defend the South is stupid – the Nazis would have had a much harder time fighting their way down through Scotland’s inhospitable, mountainous terrain and poor roads. Blitzkrieg isn’t much use in the Drumochter pass, with all your tank divisions lined up in single file on the A9 like sitting ducks.

      The article just reveals the extent to which Scotland was – and is – seen as completely expendable and essentially worthless by London, and blows the great “shoulder to shoulder against Hitler” propaganda to smithereens. The reality, exposed here, is that Westminster would have dropped us like a hot scone.

    7. The Man in the Jar says:

      @Morag
      I agree. Being ex-military I think that it would be impossible for conventional forces to defend such a large landmass/coastline and defend the south coast of England against invasion at the same time. My guess would be that the British would have formed a line of defence at Haidrians wall it being built on a natural obstacle.
      I would also like to think that the Germans would have found that the Scottish Resistance would have given them a right good run for their money.

    8. Ray says:

      Change “Nazi” to “zombie” in the article and it kinda makes sense…

    9. BillyBigbaws says:

      But… but… Arthur Donaldson!

    10. Doug Daniel says:

      And to think unionists try to paint Arthur Donaldson as a Nazi sympathiser…
       
      It’s that old trick of accusing your opponent of the thing you’re guilty of yourself. Check his wikipedia page out, particularly the anti-Semitic poem he wrote. You don’t even have to look far to see that the fascist movement in the UK (The Right Club, British Union of Fascists, the Nordic League etc) was awash with Tories – interesting parallels with the current rise of UKIP and the normalising of anti-immigrant views. Naturally, the former Nazi-supporting Daily Mail and the likes are right behind them, except instead of promoting anti-semitism, it’s now anti-immigration. All following an economic crisis, where people are looking for easy scapegoats.
       
      It’s depressing how precisely history repeats itself. Let’s hope it doesn’t repeat itself TOO precisely, as I have no desire to find out what it was like to live through a proper war.
       

    11. Macart says:

      @Craig
       
      I’d say that’s a spot on assessment. Any invasion from north to south would have had to fight the length of the isles to get to the power base of the UK. It would have proved far too costly and wasteful an effort offensively or defensively. As you say a brutal choice, but probably a sensible one militarily and clearly a morale killer had it come to light earlier than it did. The thought that senior military and government office considered sacrificing any area of the British isles would have been devastating to the public at the time.

    12. tartanfever says:

      I was half expecting a quote from a German Officer – 
      “Zee Scotlander is too poor – vee shall just be passing through to target our main objective, London.  You are welcome to your little country..’

    13. BillyBigbaws says:

      @albalha,

      They make a point of saying that Captain Ramsay, one of the leading British Nazi sympathisers of the time, was a Unionist MP, so I don’t think there’s a hidden anti-SNP agenda here.

      It reinforces the fact that the biggest ("Tractor" - Ed)s against Britain have always been found among the ranks of the British aristocracy and ruling class (Mosley, Cliveden Set, Cambridge Five, etc.) rather than among Scottish or Welsh nationalist groups, much as unionists would like to believe otherwise.

    14. The Man in the Jar says:

      @Rev. Stu
      I understand what you are saying but my guess would be that they would have landed in the Firth of Forth and Firth of Tay. Then shootie in down the A1. That’s the route the English used to invade Scotland in reverse. (Supply ground troops from the sea etc.) “The Disinherited” Scottish knights (Those who fought with England during the wars of independence) successfully invaded Fife in the 14th century.
      I agree that it would be impossible to carry out Blitzkrieg in the highlands (A9) and southern uplands (M74). However they would have learned a lot of lessons in Norway.

    15. MajorBloodnok says:

      “Ach, und zees Schotlanders vill be no match for der Wehrmacht.  Ve haf only to restrict zehr tradtional diet of shortbread und condensed milk und zey vill be at our mercy, hein?!”
       
      I used to be a speech bubble writer for Commando comics, you know.

    16. Robin T Cox says:

      Could there be any connection between this story and the enigma of Rudolph Hess;s flight to Scotland?

    17. Tasmanian says:

      Did the British govt seriously feel threatened by the prospect of a German invasion? The German invasion fleet was river barges towed by tugs. Britain had >>80<< destroyers and several light cruisers in the Home Seas fleet alone, while the German surface navy was tiny in comparison. (Aircraft were irrelevant; attempts to bomb the German invasion fleet when they were berthed 4-abreast in French ports utterly failed to do significant damage.)

      In the the words of Malik Hendersneuse, that's all stick-chuck though.

    18. Cath says:

      “The reality, exposed here, is that Westminster would have dropped us like a hot scone.”
       
      As they would like a shot if we were actually a drain on resources rather than propping up the ailing UK economy.

    19. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I understand what you are saying but my guess would be that they would have landed in the Firth of Forth and Firth of Tay.”

      Perhaps, but the article seems to suggest them coming from much further north. And as Tasmanian notes, they were staggeringly ill-equipped to land troops anyway. They’d have had a job getting across the Channel in their flat-bottomed barges, the North Sea would have been something else entirely. They’d have done well to get 5% of their invasion force to shore if they aimed for the Firths.

    20. Craig P says:

      If Germany had won the air battle in 1940, the south couldhave been attacked with impunity. Only radar enabled the smaller British forces to always be in the right place at the right time against the Luftwaffe. German spy planes had seen the radar masts go up but thier boffins reckoned they were for long range shore-to-ship telemetry and didn’t consider them strategically important… as for sacrificing peripherals to protect the core, Indians still remember Churchill’s order to divert grain going to a famine inBangladesh to Britain for the war effort, millions of Indians died as a result. 

    21. BillyBigbaws says:

      Tasmanian: “Did the British govt seriously feel threatened by the prospect of a German invasion? The German invasion fleet was river barges towed by tugs.”

      Well, Hitler had just conquered most of Western Europe in about…what…twelve weeks?

      One country after another, many of whom had not believed in the possibility of a successful Nazi invasion, had been pummelled and subjugated in short order.

      If I’d been in charge of the defence of Britain at that time I think I would’ve needed a bucket under my chair, which would have had to be regularly taken and emptied by a junior member of staff.

      It’s hard to overstate just how fearsome the German war machine was in comparison to those of every other European state, and the British weren’t really equipped to fight the war until two years after they’d declared it (as usual).

      There was also the risk, early on, of the Germans getting their hands on the French fleet – hence Chruchill’s controversial order to sink it at harbour.

    22. John Lyons says:

      I look forward to this story being reproduced en masse in 2014 when we start celebrating the start of the first world war.

    23. Doug Daniel says:

      John Lyons – that is an excellent point!

    24. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Well, Hitler had just conquered most of Western Europe in about…what…twelve weeks?”

      He hadn’t had to cross any seas to do so, though. The Wehrmacht was incredibly well-suited to the requirements of the conquests of Poland, Belgium and France. It had absolutely nothing of any practical use when it came to a sea-based invasion. Without complete air superiority they’d have had absolutely no chance.

      The point is that Britain could probably have divided its forces in two by type without much reducing its overall strength. Keep most of the RAF in the south with most of the land forces in the north and the Germans would have been stretched far beyond their limits. The Luftwaffe would have been close to useless over the Highlands – what little of it would have had the range to be there at all.

    25. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:

      On Arthur Donaldson, this was a great article…
       
      The Grand Old Man of Scottish Nationalism
       

    26. dmw42 says:

      O/T apologies. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in a written answer to how many claiments would be affected by the ‘bedroom tax’ yesterday stated that “around 60,000 will be living in Scotland”.
       
      i) I think that he’s some 20,000+ short, and
      ii) around 60,000 is still 60,000 WAY TOO MANY!

    27. The Man in the Jar says:

      A serious invasion would never have worked. We have established that. BUT as a diversionary tactic the Germans would have been daft not to at least cause some kind of a stushie in Scotland. Possibly a couple of small highly mobile forces employing “hit and run” tactics.

    28. pmcrek says:

      Perhaps worth consideration, but losing Scotland would have been a massive psychological blow to the war effort, I could easily see Britain,  especially in the early days of the war, coming to terms with Germany shortly after such an event.
      Frankly, early on, Germany didn’t need to or want to conquer England, all it had to do was punish England so hard it was willing to come to the table early and then he could concentrate on Drang nach Osten.

    29. MajorBloodnok says:

      I think the main reason the Germans gave up on Operation Sealion was that they saw the Walmington-on-Sea Home Guard ranged against them and gave up, concentrating instead on mass producing nun costumes for the various spies they parachuted into England instead.  Talk about alternative histories….

    30. Mister Worf says:

      I don’t speak German, but a quick Google check apparently claims that Germany wouldn’t have invaded Scotland at all back then because we were “Zu winzig, zu arm, zu dumm”.

      Sounds kinda familiar…

    31. Cath says:

      “as a diversionary tactic the Germans would have been daft not to at least cause some kind of a stushie in Scotland.”
       
      Was the British main naval base not in Scapa Flow in Orkney? I believe the first air raid and first British death was on Orkney. Also there were air bases in various places – Montrose was one. So a lot of British power would have been concentrated in Scotland, yet not well defended as most defence was concentrated in the SE, protecting England.
       
      So I’d imagine an invasion or trouble causing in Scotland could have been strategically a good move for Germany.
       
      None of this is really news though, is it? The UK stock of Trident is dumped on Scotland for the same reason. We are expendable, far away from the important London/SE and good for a dumping ground for the most dangerous weapons and sites, without too much need to bother putting resources in, since we’re expendable.

    32. Dennis Smith says:

      Only slightly O/T.  I can’t remember the source but I think this may be a true story.  In mid-1940 an American journalist reported a joke currently circulating in Scotland: “Aye, it’ll be a long war if the English surrender”.  Anyone know a source for this?

    33. Jeannie says:

      Field Marshal Ironside believed that Scotland might have to be sacrificed  as he could not protect Scotland without making the south coast of England and London more vulnerable to Nazi attack.
       
      I kind of understand that in the context of a scene from one of the Star Trek films – might be The Wrath of Khan – in which Spock takes the decision to sacrifice himself, though it means certain death, to protect either the starship or his home planet – (I’ll need to watch it again).  Captain Kirk protests and tries to stop him, but Spock insists on sacrificing himself. Why? Because, he says, “Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.
       
      This is a phrase that has always stuck in my mind with respect to the relationship, generally, between Scotland and England and its implications for political and economic decision-making at Westminster.  In the context of the UK, we in Scotland, despite our rich, natural resources, are always going to be “the few” on account of our smaller population, and those in the south, due to their much larger population, are always going to be “the many”.  To follow Spock’s reasoning, any UK chancellor or military leader is compelled to make decisions aimed at meeting the needs or protecting the security of “the many”, even at great cost to “the few”.  Hence, for example, Scotland’s fisheries are considered an expendable sacrifice if the net effect is to help secure a benefit for the UK as a whole which then meets the needs of the many in the south at a cost only to the few in the north.  Similarly, income from Scotland’s resources such as oil and gas will be used to support the many in the south; infrastructure investment will be aimed at London and the south-east due to their high density population; even the BBC licence fee will be used for the benefit of the many, therefore we get London-centric broadcasting, etc.  Any why?  “Because logic dictates……..that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.
      This, to me, is one of the greatest arguments for independence……we need to vote Yes, so that we, in Scotland, become “the many”, with all the benefits that go with that as to remain “the few” means that our needs and security are always vulnerable to sacrifice.  And that’s not a legacy I want to leave to my children. 
       
      So, Better Together?  As the article asks….What do you mean “we”, Paleface?
       

    34. muttley79 says:

      @Scott
       
      Interesting article about Muirhead and Donaldson.  I have to admit I was taken with the photo in the top left hand corner as well… 😀

    35. Norsewarrior says:

      “we need to vote Yes, so that we, in Scotland, become “the many”, with all the benefits that go with that as to remain “the few” means that our needs and security are always vulnerable to sacrifice”

      But that’s how politics works – the political parties always focus their attention and funding on the areas with the most voters, for obvious reasons.

      At present Scotland is the ‘few’ and England is the ‘many’. After independence, the central belt will be the ‘many’ and places like the Western Isles will be the ‘few’.

    36. Norsewarrior says:

      “I look forward to this story being reproduced en masse in 2014 when we start celebrating the start of the first world war”

      But this story is about the second world war?

    37. Cath says:

      ” After independence, the central belt will be the ‘many’ and places like the Western Isles will be the ‘few’.”
       
      Which is precisely why more devolution is needed, and other areas should have more autonomy. This is not just an issue about Scotland, or the Western Isles but about how the UK is governed generally.
       
      Look at the way Liverpool and the North of England were treated by Thatcher. Badly as Scotland has been treated, I can’t think of any single incident at bad as Hillsborough for sheer demonisation of innocent people by both the media and political elites.
       
      The way the UK government is set up doesn’t work.
      If Westminster wanted to give the islands more sovereignty, home rule, or whatever else the unionists claim to want to give them that is in their power right now, and has been for 300 years. As it has with Scotland more generally, and regions of England. They haven’t, and they won’t. Because it suits those in the south to have as many “fews” as possible to hammer, and as many of their resources to exploit.

    38. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “This is a phrase that has always stuck in my mind with respect to the relationship, generally, between Scotland and England and its implications for political and economic decision-making at Westminster. In the context of the UK, we in Scotland, despite our rich, natural resources, are always going to be “the few” on account of our smaller population, and those in the south, due to their much larger population, are always going to be “the many”. To follow Spock’s reasoning, any UK chancellor or military leader is compelled to make decisions aimed at meeting the needs or protecting the security of “the many”, even at great cost to “the few”. “

      Precisely. That’s an argument I’ve deployed a few times when idiots are whining on about how an independent Scotland would have “no influence” on the Bank of England if we were in a currency union, as if we do now. The BoE takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest number of people, which in practice means England. That’s entirely proper. It would be completely wrong if it chose a course of action that benefitted 5m Scots at the cost of 60m English. Which is why our current “influence” on it isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on because it doesn’t exist.

    39. Norsewarrior says:

      “Which is precisely why more devolution is needed, and other areas should have more autonomy”

      Agreed. I’m with the Scottish Greens on that – they want want to see more power and accountability transferred to local authorities and communities after independence.

      Unfortunately other parties within the independence movement seem to want the exact opposite – more power centralised at Holyrood.

    40. Norsewarrior says:

      “on the Bank of England if we were in a currency union, as if we do now. The BoE takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest number of people, which in practice means England”

      Exactly. The BoE takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest number of people now, and it will continue to do so after independence if we’re in a currency union. 

      Which is why its important that we get our own currency as soon as possible, rather than keeping the pound for “well into the next decade” and remaining economically shackled to rUK.

    41. Cath says:

      Oh it is definitely a troll. Other parties who want powers returned to lower levels are “centralising” while the all-wonderful unionists who want to keep it all in London are all for localism. Through the looking glass idiocy that could only come from the No camp.

    42. scottish_skier says:

      Which is precisely why more devolution is needed
      I agree, being of liberal (social) and democratic leanings, thus an SNP voter (they wave a yellow flag for a reason), I too support decentralisation of powers. With respect to the Highlands and islands being remote; this is why they have the strongest support for the SNP and Liberal Democrats in Scotland historically due to these two parties being liberal democratic (well the LD’s used to be) and supportive of home rule/devolution etc.
      For example, the Western isles voted 65% SNP in 2011; an incredible majority. ~50% of the vote for the SNP (or Lib Dems) in the highlands and islands is widespread. 

    43. Cath says:

      Still, I agree entirely about having our own currency and central bank here in Scotland. I don’t think we should remain with Sterling any longer than it takes to secure independence. It’s very self-sacrificing of the No campaigners down in England to be helping us make this argument rather than arguing for what would be by far in their own best interest, ie Sterling.
       
      For now though, keeping the same currency is fine. If you genuinely believe others setting your interest rates and controlling your monetary policy is bad, then you should absolutely be on the YES side though, since we’re far worse off than that now.

    44. Albert Herring says:

      ”After independence, the central belt will be the ‘many’ and places like the Western Isles will be the ‘few’.”
      The Scottish highlands and Islands were deliberately depopulated during the clearances. Prior to that crime against humanity around 50% of the people of Scotland lived north of the highland line.
      If Scotland had had a similar population growth to Denmark since 1900, we would now have a population of over 10 million.
      An important task after independence day will be to reverse the clearances and re-populate the glens. There’s lots of good arable land there, after all, and food production is yet another of our great under-exploited advantages.

    45. Jiggsbro says:

      The BoE takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest number of people now
       
      I’m not sure it does. It takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest amount of money, which can be found in the City of London. The end result is the same for Scotland, but large parts of England also suffer the same inappropriate medicine.

    46. Norsewarrior says:

      “Other parties who want powers returned to lower levels are “centralising” while the all-wonderful unionists who want to keep it all in London are all for localism”

      Who on earth is suggesting or even implying that any unionist parties are for ‘localism’?! As you correctly say, they want to keep the reserved powers at Westminster. 

      However within the independence movement, the Scottish Greens want further decentralisation after independence – with local areas and communities given more autonomy and power – whereas other parties want the new powers we’ll gain centralised at Holyrood.

    47. BillyBigbaws says:

      RevStu: “The BoE takes decisions for the benefit of the greatest number of people, which in practice means England.”
       
      Well… some of England anyway.
       
      “Job losses in the North are a price worth paying to curb inflation in the South” –
      Ex-Governor of the Bank of England, Baron Eddie George, talking about the North-East of England.
       
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/198830.stm
       
      If they really don’t care about the social impact of a London-centric monetary policy on most of England either, then what chance have we got?  This should’ve been taken as a signal for Scotland to jump ship at the time.   The MPC has never really taken our needs into account, and never will, Union or no Union.

    48. Norsewarrior says:

      “An important task after independence day will be to reverse the clearances and re-populate the glens”

      I’m afraid that is unlikely, the worldwide trend is now towards greater urbanisation. 

    49. Albert Herring says:

      @Cath
      I agree we should prop up the pound for a while after independence, but only for a while as it is a sinking ship.

    50. tartanfever says:

      Jeannie – your ‘needs of the many’ scenario – I’m not sure. You say Scotland are the ‘few’ and the ‘south being the many’. That may well be true in terms of  straight population. 
      However, I’d argue that in terms of ‘being ripped off’ virtually the whole of the UK feeds London at their own regional expense, they just won’t admit it to themselves.
      In this scenario it’s the needs of the few over that of the many.
      Same thing could be said about the bankers.

    51. Norsewarrior says:

      “I agree entirely about having our own currency and central bank here in Scotland. I don’t think we should remain with Sterling any longer than it takes to secure independence”

      So you agree that we shouldn’t keep it for “well into the next decade” then?

      I think plans should be put in place now to transition to a Scottish currency as soon as possible – even if they are only back-up plans, they may well be necessary.

    52. Macart says:

      @Cath
       
      Perhaps we’ve underestimated the full impact of McCrone’s report. There is always the danger of an overly hardened currency. Almost impossible to trade in and elevating the value of goods. Maybe being tied to the weaker and devalued pound Sterling isn’t such a bad idea? 😀

    53. Erchie says:

      Even if the invasion point had been the Firth of Forth, and the first German plane shot down I remember being told was over the Firth, abandoning the bridgehead and chokepoint of the Borders would be daft.

      As well as the factories and resources of the Central Belt.

      But good Unionists like Magaret Curran keep pointing to WW2 as one of the great strengths of the Union that bind us together.

      This blows that notion out of the water

    54. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “However, I’d argue that in terms of ‘being ripped off’ virtually the whole of the UK feeds London at their own regional expense”

      This is certainly true.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21934564

    55. AWoLsco says:

      Fellow Scots, open your minds, and cast aside your emotions and fixed, half -baked ideas about WW2 .
      You’ve been sold a pup and have invested so heavily in it, that you refuse to believe you’ve been duped. 99% of you are working on false premises.
      I was duped too, but not completely.
       
      I was born just after the war ended, and as one does when one is young, one just absorbs what is thrown at you…..and that was pretty simple………
      ……….Britain and Empire, as it was then, all good. Germany and Hitler all bad, demonic even.
       
      Then by chance, I got to meet Germans and heard their side of the story, which had a very different slant to it.
      For them, Der Krieg, The War, was all about the East, Russia, and above all the ‘bolsheviks’.
      The West, Scotland, England, France, the Low Countries and Norway was  like a holiday camp in comparison.The Germans really weren’t all that interested or bothered by us….Britain that is.
      Russia was the big one.
       
      Well, that set me off on a trail.
      What was it about Russia that got the Germans so worked up? What really was all this’ bolshevismus’ that the Germans kept harping on about?
      Then it suddenly hits you……..that I know nothing about Russia, yet that was what the war was all about.
       
      Most people think they know about Russia, until you ask them some questions.
      Few would be able to write more than a couple of sentences about it and if they did then their information would be hopelessly out of date and wrong.
      Get on the internet and push your way past the ‘official’ narrative and get into the reports of journalists that were there in the twenties and thirties.
      Scotland was once a big player in Russia in the days of the Tsars. The giant Baltic shipyard, founded by Murdoch McPherson on the banks of the Neva(St Petersburg’s Clyde), is still operating there today.
       
      The Tsars supposedly tyrannised the peasantry who rose up in revolution and overthrew them. Wrong…..hopelessly wrong.
      At the time before the revolution, Russia exported more grain to the rest of the world than  the USA, Canada and  Argentina COMBINED. The standard of living was in fact as high as any in West Europe and the diet and lifestyle infinitely healthier.
      Yet a couple of decades later, after  the revolution, people were starving in their millions all over, what became the USSR, with vast labour camps where people in their millions were ground in to the dust….people like you and me.
      Scots and Russians are very similar in temperament and tastes.
       
      Do some research into Russia and you will end up understanding the Germans,  the Russians and WW2 a lot more clearly.
      one of my scources
      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/signscorpion/signscorpion.htm
      But remember to cross-check so as to confirm what has been written.
      The Russian archives opened(well maybe not all of them) in 1991, so that will make the job easier.
      Oddly enough our Western press don’t seem too keen on harping on about this.
      Once you’ve read the above reference than you’ll understand why.
       
      I have written this because it pains me to see my fellow countrymen, uncharacteristically, floundering about like ignorant dupes, making an exhibition of themselves.
      What happened to those cool, rational heads that could cut through the rubbish, bluster and blethers and get to the heart of a matter, looking facts squarely in the face?
      This does not bode well for an independent Scotland which will require cool, sensible heads combined with a bit of wile and guile, if it is to survive what could be a rather turbulent ride, from time to time.

    56. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      I’ve just read all of that and I have no idea what your point is.

    57. Dcanmore says:

      @Scottish Skier … We must have a more federalised Scotland after independence me thinks.
       
      Talking about quick sacrifices during WW2, Churchill was quite happy to give up the six counties of Ulster if Eire came into the war supporting him. I wonder what our DUP friends thought of that little nugget when they cling onto Queen and Country as if London thinks warmly of them.
       
      Also during WW2 there was a propaganda documentary called ‘This England’ which was shown in cinemas throughout the country and abroad. Showing the plight of the plucky Englanders and their stiff resolve against the Nazis. No mention of the other constituent parts fighting for their lives though! There was such an outcry that it was pulled and retitled This Britain in Scotland, Wales and NI. It’s listed in an old Halliwell’s film guide of mine but I can’t find it anywhere.
       
       

    58. Jiggsbro says:

      I’ve just read all of that and I have no idea what your point is.
       
      The Jooz. Worse than the Nazis, who weren’t bad people really.
      Apparently.

    59. MajorBloodnok says:

      Maybe he thinks we’re the Scottish Government.

    60. Arbroath1320 says:

      For anyone who missed it Channel 4 recently aired a programme called Churchill and the Facist plot. The programme dealt a great deal with the Conservative M.P. Ramsay and his “Right club.”
      http://www.channel4.com/programmes/churchill-and-the-fascist-plot/4od

    61. BillyBigbaws says:

      “The Germans really weren’t all that interested or bothered by us….Britain that is.
      Russia was the big one.”
      I guess that explains the invasion of Poland, France, Norway, Belgium, etc. and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, as well as the Nazi-Soviet Treaty on Friendship and Borders.  Eh, no, wait…
      From the link:
      “Illuminati (Masonic Jewish) banking cartel.”
       
      Oh dear. 
       
       
       

    62. Jeannie says:

      There is really no need for the central belt to become “the many” in an independent Scotland, unless, of course, your creative thinking is limited by the belief that the only option we will have is to replicate the existing structures and mistakes of Westminster. I’m fairly sure, though, that that is not the intention of the Scottish Government.
       
      By using our funds wisely, we could upgrade and improve much of our infrastructure, especially in terms of transport links, energy and IT and  spread out government jobs across the country, to Inverness, Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen (there is already a considerable number of government posts in Glasgow), for example. That way, we can  avoid recreating in the central belt the overheated London economy with its off-the-scale house prices.  Improved transport links and reduced energy costs would also make many of our cities and towns more attractive places for business in the private sector.
       
      We could also allocate extra funds from the crown estates to coastal and island communities and allow them to thrive and create jobs in the way best suited to their needs and their particular environment, thus avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach.
       
      That’s the beauty of a small population and good natural resources – it’s far easier to meet the needs of all of the people and to spread the wealth around.  And we will also have the benefit of hindsight, learning from the mistakes of others so we don’t repeat them.
       
      However, if we stay within the UK, I’m afraid that in terms of resource allocation, we’ll always be “the few” – and why should we settle for that when we can have something much better? And, more importantly,  why should our kids settle for that?  Or our grandkids? Or our old people?
       
      We just need to get cracking now and start dreaming of the Scotland we want to live in.  Let’s not be held back by a lack of imagination.

    63. benarmine says:

      Big decisions are there to be made after independence around land ownership, use, and repopulation. The party that’s prepared to bite the bullet there will be the one that gets my vote.

    64. Erchie says:

      I suppose it was being Jewish that lead Stalin’s mum to send him to Tblisi to train as a Christian Priest in the Georgian Orthodox Church.

      We don’t need this ant-semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion shite

    65. Morag says:

      Norsewarrior said:
      Unfortunately other parties within the independence movement seem to want the exact opposite – more power centralised at Holyrood.
       
      You mistake necessary expediency for a policy principle.  One of the ways Westminster has been trying to undermine the SNP government in Holyrood is to push for “more devolution” to council level.  It’s a way for the unionist parties to exert influence and cause policy trouble, when they are out of power in parliament.  Therefore, the SNP government has had to be careful about how it deals with councils.

      After independence this imperative will no longer be there.  If the SNP continues in government after 2016 there is likely to be a freer hand at council level, because that is essential SNP policy.

    66. AWoLsco says:

      @ Rev S Campbell,
      Please read at least some of the link provided and tell me then which side you would have signed up for  if you were a German in 1939.NSDAP(German National Socialist Worker’s Party) oder(or) Kommunistische Partei ( International Communist Party, sponsored by the USSR)
      That is the point.

    67. Erchie says:

      Well, I had relatives in the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War

      And others exterminated by the Nazis

      Work it out for yourself

    68. Morag says:

      Macart said:
      Perhaps we’ve underestimated the full impact of McCrone’s report. There is always the danger of an overly hardened currency. Almost impossible to trade in and elevating the value of goods. Maybe being tied to the weaker and devalued pound Sterling isn’t such a bad idea?
       
      Much as I’d like to see a Scottish currency in principle, I acknowledge that this is an emotional desire, not a practical one.  Sterling would suffer significantly if it lost the backing of Scottish assets, and it is not in Scotland’s interests for the currency of her largest trading partner to go down the tubes.

      At the same time McCrone deserves to be listened to.  Currency hardening to an embarrassing degree.  We don’t want to be in the situation where nobody can afford to buy the things we want to export, or to come on holiday here. A proper currency union is in the best interests of both nations, and Westminster knows that too.  This “you won’t be allowed to use the pound” is so much bullshit.

    69. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Please read at least some of the link provided and tell me then which side you would have signed up for  if you were a German in 1939.NSDAP(German National Socialist Worker’s Party) oder(or) Kommunistische Partei ( International Communist Party, sponsored by the USSR)
      That is the point.”

      I’m kinda busy. If you’re not going to help me out a bit I just don’t have the time.

    70. Erchie says:

      Stu

      I think he’s saying that Jews are bad and that the Nazis had the right idea.

      It’s not a thesis I can find much sympathy for

    71. Jeannie says:

      @tartanfever
      I would agree.  Spock says that “logic dictates that the needs of the many OUTWEIGH the needs of the few”.  He didn’t mention whether the opposite scenario is therefore illogical, but I wish he’d given it a bit of thought, just the same.

    72. Morag says:

      Norsewarrior said:
      “An important task after independence day will be to reverse the clearances and re-populate the glens”
      I’m afraid that is unlikely, the worldwide trend is now towards greater urbanisation.
       
      Difficult to say.  Scotland isn’t “the world”, and has different imperatives from many countries only now emerging from third-world status.

      If you travel to somewhere like Norway, which wasn’t visited with the “clearances”, you find villages and small towns in geographical positions where we have heaps of stones.  The problem we have, as opposed to the Norwegians, is that while their townships grew organically and were incorporated into service networks as they were established, we’re looking at places without a mains water supply or electricity.  We’re also dealing with a bunch of people who don’t want repopulation, because they want to preserve “the wilderness” – even though it’s an unnatural wilderness.

      I don’t know if it’s possible to establish services and build up viable communities in the deserted landscapes, but I wouldn’t criticise anyone for looking at it as a medium-to-long-term objective.

    73. GH Graham says:

      My wife met Gordon Barclay who did the research behind this article in Luncarty last summer. We have WW2 era anti tank ditches and anti tank defences still clearly visible on our property in Perthshire.
      There was a real concern that an invasion would come and that it would start in Angus or Fife  using the long, flat sandy beaches as a bridge head.
      The Nazis would then have to come south, across the Forth, possibly near Stirling because the Forth was heavily defended at South Queensferry.
      So the idea that England was ready to dump Scotland if the invasion started there is not surprising because the historical evidence confirms where Britain though the invasion might start.
      And using Scotland as just another resource to be used/discarded to the benefit of London/England/British Empire continues to this day; Faslane/Dounrey/Coulpourt/Scapa Flow/Dundreggan/North Sea Oil & gas blah, blah, blah …
      When will the zombies in Scotland waken up & realise that their wee country has been getting shafted these past 800 years.

    74. Doganon says:

      @AWoLsco
       
      When your reference’s critique of Stalin is that he was a five foot one bisexual Jew methinks you’ve lost it…

    75. MajorBloodnok says:

      Funny how people (Unionists) have started to go on about Holyrood wanting to centralise power and favouring the Central Belt. The fact that the current administration’s power base is generally located furth and north of the Central Belt (whereas, for example, Labour’s, such as it is, is highly concentrated in the middle) should shoot that particular fox, I’d think.
       
      And all this guff about giving the Cooncils more freedom, is just another way of trying to take power from the SNP and giving it to Labour in the Councils (and look how they handled all those transportation projects that Transport Scotland had to come in and sort out for them).  No wonder those troughers are squealing – they’ll soon have nowhere to hide.

    76. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      The same story (almost word for word) from last weekend’s Mail On Sunday:

      http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/paleface2.jpg

    77. Cath says:

      “Big decisions are there to be made after independence around land ownership, use, and repopulation. The party that’s prepared to bite the bullet there will be the one that gets my vote.”
       
      The SNP are currently dedicated to independence for Scotland, which is a vital prerequisite for everything that comes after – a new constitution, more local control. economic growth, vastly improved infrastructure. Once we have independence, that will be the point where everyone – within the SNP and beyond – will have the freedom to take all they imagine and make it reality.
       
      That will include many people from the highlands and islands whose passion lies in things like land reform and local control, and who will fight for that. There really isn’t a huge central belt presence in the SNP. Glasgow, for instance, is solid Labour and it’s Glasgow where the unionist control, the media control etc all flows from. That centralisation is very much a product of the union.
       
      And yes, as said before, the unionists are using that power and control, their corrupt networks, sectarianism, talk of partitions and anything else they can find to fight that basic right to independence, which will allow everything else to happen.

    78. Morag says:

      Jeannie said:
      I would agree.  Spock says that “logic dictates that the needs of the many OUTWEIGH the needs of the few”.  He didn’t mention whether the opposite scenario is therefore illogical, but I wish he’d given it a bit of thought, just the same.
       
      Spock logic doesn’t apply here at all.  Spock was actually mis-stating the position.  If he hadn’t done what he did, he was going to die anyway, with everyone else.  He, even seen as “the few”, didn’t have needs different from the “many”.  He just had no way to save himself.  He did have a way to save everyone else.

      Might be appropriate in wartime, if there was no way to save Scotland from invasion, but England could conceivably hang on if it didn’t try, and so offer hope and a base to liberate Scotland later.  I just don’t quite get the feeling that’s what the OP report was talking about.

      In peacetime, as regards political priorities, the “few” always get shafted.  It’s not even a question of, well you are 10% of the whole, so every tenth decision will be taken for your benefit rather than for the 90%.  Every single time, we have to think of the majority.

      They’re not even wrong.  It’s a perfectly justifiable position.  But every time, we lose our industries, and our fishing rights, and our poor are evicted at the hands of a law devised to solve a London problem, and so on.  Every single bloody time.

      And if the Scottish government begs to differ, and chooses to use devolved powers to be different and implement uniquely Scottish policies, we are reviled for having something the English don’t have, like free university places or prescriptions.  Instead of celebrating such differences as a benefit of devolution, we are spat upon.  And when the Scottish government does something Westminster really doesn’t like, like not privatising the NHS or not allowing new nuclear power stations, Westminster starts to figure out how this can be stopped.

      That’s why we need out of this.

    79. Cath says:

      Actually “solid Labour” is an exaggeration. The SNP are penetrating in Glasgow, but it’s still Labour controlled. Places like North Lanarkshire which are central belt are also heavily Labour.

    80. Norsewarrior says:

      “If the SNP continues in government after 2016 there is likely to be a freer hand at council level, because that is essential SNP policy”

      Yes I’m sure Salmond will be more than willing to give up some of his newly-won power to the (partially) Labour-controlled councils. 

    81. Albalha says:

      @jeannie
       
      Re centralising in the central belt so much of it is currently pretty bleak and could do with more investment much like other parts of Scotland.
      As you say it’s about new imaginings, let’s hope it happens.
       
       
       

    82. The Man in the Jar says:

      @AwoLsco
      at12.58pm
      I spent several years stationed in Germany during the 70s. During this time I met numerous Germans. A lot of them had served in WW2 or had family that had.
      Not a single one that I met admitted to fighting the British/Americans. Every last one claimed to have fought the Russians.
      Strange that.

    83. Norsewarrior says:

      “And all this guff about giving the Cooncils more freedom, is just another way of trying to take power from the SNP and giving it to Labour in the Councils”

      So when the independence-supporting Scottish Greens say they want the councils to have more power its because they’re trying to take it from the SNP to give to Labour?! Is that seriously what you’re trying to argue?

    84. Albert Herring says:

      @Morag
      “I don’t know if it’s possible to establish services”
      Many places in the remoter parts of the country even now not yet have mains water, but use local sources of supply such as a nearby loch. Some have been upgraded to mains supply in recent years after operating in this way for many years. I don’t see electricity being a huge problem, and there may be exciting possibilities in the fields of renewables such as wind, local hydro and hybrid technologies. I’m sure there’d be plenty of people currently festering in unemployment in our cities who would jump at the chance to start afresh, given a bit of training and encouragement!
      Also, it doesn’t have to be done all at once.

    85. Macart says:

      @Morag
       
      Very much agree. We want to govern ourselves not cut our noses off to spite our faces. The neighbours are friends, family and trading partners. To me it makes perfect sense to do as little economic harm as possible for all our sakes.

    86. Morag says:

      So, some people want the councils to have more power, others think cooncillors should have as little free choice as possible in the name of everyone’s sanity.

      What bearing does that have on the independence debate?

    87. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Ally McCoist on board
      http://www.facebook.com/traquir

    88. Morag says:

      Albert, I do know what you mean.  There are quite a few houses round here that don’t have mains water – big, posh houses at that.  And I know of at least one holiday let that has nothing – a wind turbine, solar panels, oil or LPG heating and water from a burn.  And it’s lovely.

      However, I think mains water, electricity and a telephone landline are still what people look for in a real settlement, and that operating a real village or small town without them is still not really desirable.  Who knows what the future will bring though.

    89. Norsewarrior says:

      “What bearing does that have on the independence debate?”

      What bearing does an article about what some people apparently planned during WW2 have on it?

    90. Adam Davidson says:

      Someone else may have linked to this but it seems relevant. ‘A second rate country’
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21934564

    91. Norsewarrior says:

      “We want to govern ourselves not cut our noses off to spite our faces”

      But that’s exactly the point – without our own currency and central bank we won’t be able to properly govern ourselves – we’ll still be economically shackled to rUK, with their central bank controlling our currency and interest rates and making decisions for the benefit of London, not Scotland. 

    92. AWoLsco says:

      “Not a single one that I met admitted to fighting the British/Americans. Every last one claimed to have fought the Russians.
      Strange that.”
       
      Yes, strange……but probably true…..and very easy to check up on(I bet you didn’t bother)……provided they don’t lie to you…..which Germans tend not to do, because they aren’t usually very good at lying. They can be economical with the truth however with strangers…..just like anyone else…..until they trust you and see what YOUR angle is.

    93. Morag says:

      Rather a lot, if you think about it.

    94. Arbroath1320 says:

      O/T but for anyone who doesn’t know, it appears we have had a response from Labout to the SNP’s pledge that SNP  controlled councils will NOT evict tenants over the bedroom tax fiasco.
       
      http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/mar/aberdeen-council-evict-bedroom-tax-victims
       
      I wonder how long it will be before other Labour run councils follow suit, not too long I suspect based on the behaviour of past Labour councils.

    95. Cath says:

      “there may be exciting possibilities in the fields of renewables such as wind, local hydro and hybrid technologies.”
       
      Yes, Eigg has an entirely renewables driven electricity supply and much of it has been done, and is maintained by locals. It’s a great place because as soon as you’re there you’re aware of energy use, recycling and not creating rubbish etc, Such a different mind-set to a city.
       
      And yes, re currency you’re right Sterling would be best for both, at least to start with. I just like playing devil’s advocate sometimes with unionists (or pretendy indy-supporting unionist trolls) who are arguing both that we shouldn’t be “separate” and must stay under London rule in everything, but simultaneously that the current plans are “not independent enough” and we should be screwing England totally by junking Sterling as well. Seems like a very dangerous game for Darling et al to be playing.

    96. Erchie says:

      Norsewarrior
      Quite a lot, as WW2 is referred to repeatedly by your fellow Unionists as a Talisman to togetherness that Independence would spoli, conveniently forgetting the Irish, Indian, Canadian, Czechs, Poles, Australians,. French, Americans, West Indian, New Zealanders and the rest of the Commonwealth and Allies involved who feela connection without political Union.

      References t this have been mentioned more than once on this page, you should try and keep up. I know forgetfulness and lack of comphrehension are two tools in the toolbox of trolls, but when it’s on the same page, you just show yourself up

    97. Vronsky says:

      “Every last one claimed to have fought the Russians.”
      Italians say ‘erano tutti partigiani’ – they were all partisan fighters, i.e. in the resistance.  To be fair, they say it with a wink.

    98. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “we’ll still be economically shackled to rUK, with their central bank controlling our currency and interest rates and making decisions for the benefit of London, not Scotland”

      I get weary when people expect a land of milk and honey to magically appear, complete and perfect, in the first 24 hours after independence.

    99. Norsewarrior says:

      “Quite a lot, as WW2 is referred to repeatedly by your fellow Unionists”

      What on earth gives you the warped impression that I’m a ‘unionist’?! My position on independence is blatantly clear – I’m strongly in favour of it and I want a fuller version of it than you SNP fanatics. 

      You really need to get past this deluded belief that anyone who even slightly criticises the SNP is automatically a ‘unionist’ – that belief is damaging our chances of getting indepedence.

      There are plenty of potential independence supporters who, like me, don’t like or support the SNP, and who are likely to be put off voting yes by the attitude of the likes of you that someone can only be a ‘real’ independence supporter if they also back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.

    100. mato21 says:

      I see Ms Baillie thinks you will disappear in a wee wooden boat with the funds Rev Nice of her to be concerned for your welfare
      http://www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/index.php/
       

    101. MajorBloodnok says:

      Norzzzzzzzzzz

    102. Albert Herring says:

      “a land of milk and honey”
      That’s what the UK government thinks! #McCroneReport

    103. Norsewarrior says:

      “I get weary when people expect a land of milk and honey to magically appear, complete and perfect, in the first 24 hours after independence.”

      Where does that quote of mine suggest or imply anything of the sort? 

      I think we should keep the pound for a transition period of a couple of years and then get our own currency and our own central bank – only that will allow us to fully govern ourselves and not remain economically shackled to rUK. 

      Like the Scottish Greens I think that a timetable and plans should be established for this transition to our own currency – rather than nothing being done about it, and us being told that we’ll keep the pound “for well into the next decade”.

    104. Erchie says:

      As someone not in the SNP (or any political party) criticising the SNP is not any kind of button to me.

      It’s your whole “Well I believe we should do this, except everything is going to be shite” schtick that gives you away

      The “you are goin to put me off independence” is another classic.

      If you actually did believe in it you’d know that the YES Campaign for Independence is a broad church of which the SNP is only a part, and post Indy, as with many countries, the political landscape would be different.

      Again, it’s only Unionists who pretend that Indy=SNP

    105. The Man in the Jar says:

      @Arbroath1320
      Re your link. What a disgrace!
      I hope the people of Aberdeen and beyond get to hear all about this.

    106. MajorBloodnok says:

      DNFTT

    107. creag an tuirc says:

      Who is this NOarsewarrior chappie? Because I smell shite.

    108. TYRAN says:

      OT: New Better Together zany road sign poster on social. And they aren’t campaigning for devolution either anyway but status quo, which presumably would be represented by arrows pointing downwards using their own interpretation.

    109. Norsewarrior says:

      “The “you are goin to put me off independence” is another classic”

      Where did I suggest I’d be put off independence? I was talking about others like me – those inclined towards independence but who don’t like or support the SNP.

      “If you actually did believe in it you’d know that the YES Campaign for Independence is a broad church of which the SNP is only a part”?

      No it isn’t, thats one of the main problems with the Yes Campaign, it isn’t a ‘broad church’ in the slightest. 

      Yes it kindly allows other parties and organisations to join it, but EVERY independence policy it promotes is an SNP policy – it doesn’t promote the policies of any other party or organisation.

      For example – it promotes the idea that Scotland will become an EU member and retain the monarchy after independence – those are both SNP policies that are opposed by a number of other independence parties including the Greens and the SSP. 

    110. Norsewarrior says:

      “Who is this NOarsewarrior chappie? Because I smell shite.”
      Get your mummy to change your nappy then.

    111. Macart says:

      @Arb
       
      Jeez Arb they hardly waited till the ink was dry. You’d think they were ‘deliberately’ trying to become about as popular as a fart in a lift.

    112. Norsewarrior says:

      I don’t think anyone who disagree when I say that in order to win the referendum we need to attract a large number of people who aren’t SNP supporters to the cause. 

      That is why it is vital that the Yes Campaign actually becomes in reality what it pretends to be – a broad church of which the SNP is only a part rather than the main dominating controlling force. 

      The Yes Campaign needs to promote the policies of ALL independence-supporting parties – not just SNP policies.

    113. Norsewarrior says:

      I don’t think anyone would disagree when I say that in order to win the referendum we need to attract a large number of people who aren’t SNP supporters to the cause. 

      That is why it is vital that the Yes Campaign actually becomes in reality what it pretends to be – a broad church of which the SNP is only a part rather than the main dominating controlling force. 

      The Yes Campaign needs to promote the policies of ALL independence-supporting parties – not just SNP policies.

    114. Jeannie says:

      @Norsewarrior
      Look, Norsewarrior, most of us, who frequent this blog, as far as I know, support independence.  Some of us support the SNP.  Some of us support some of the SNP’s policies but not all of them. Some of us are members of the SNP.  Some of us support the policies of other parties.  Some of us support other parties entirely.  Some of us are members of other parties. Some of us support no particular party.  Some of us have joined Yes Scotland and are working perfectly cooperatively with people of other parties and people of none.  Our differences are not a problem for us because we all want the same thing at the end of the day – independence. 
       
      But it’s becoming clear that although you may well support independence ,as you say you do, you’re using this site mainly as a forum to slag off the SNP.  If that’s what you want to do, fine…that’s entirely up to you, but there are other sites where you’ll get a warmer welcome using this approach than you have here and where your efforts will no doubt be more appreciated.
       
      Alternatively, keep using this blog, but for god sake tone down the anti-snp rhetoric.  I’ve only got one nerve left and you’re getting on it!
       
       

    115. Cath says:

      If you really want a republic, with a Scots pound, Scots central bank, a referendum on coming out the EU, and/or any other signs of “further independence” than that currently being mooted for transition it’s very simple indeed: vote Yes. A Yes vote allows for  democracy within Scotland to then provide any and all of these things if enough people want them.
       
      A no vote leaves all of the unobtainable, impossible and totally outwith our control.
       
      That’s why I always smell shite with anyone claiming to be Yes, but only if one day one of independence Scotland is radically altered to look exactly how I want it to. That is dictatorship. Independence will happen first, with as little radical change and as smooth a transition as possible – which is common sense. Many people would have preferred the extra step of devo-max or federalism along the way, rather than even more radical change.
       
      The shape Scotland takes after independence will be decided democratically, as every other democracy works. Hence, if you support Yes, support it. Then argue about currency after 2014. There’ll be plenty of time, even between then and independence day if you’re really keen.

    116. Jiggsbro says:

      The Yes Campaign needs to promote the policies of ALL independence-supporting parties
       
      The Yes campaign shouldn’t be promoting any policies. And it certainly shouldn’t be co-opted by Unionist trolls trying to conflate independence and SNP policies. We have the BBC for that.

    117. The Man in the Jar says:

      @creag an tuirc
      Shite!

    118. Erchie says:

      Norsewarrior
      dearie me, you really are sub-par

      You say it explicitly here
      “There are plenty of potential independence supporters who, like me, don’t like or support the SNP, and who are likely to be put off voting yes by the attitude of the likes of you that someone can only be a ‘real’ independence supporter if they also back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.”

    119. Jiggsbro says:

      That’s why I always smell shite with anyone claiming to be Yes, but only if one day one of independence Scotland is radically altered to look exactly how I want it to.
       
      What they usually mean is “Yes to independence, but not this independence. Some other, better, independence, that someone else might propose, some time in the future. So No to independence.”
       
      Which is why Norsewarrior is claiming he isn’t a troll. Because he’s a Billy Goat Gruff.

    120. Norsewarrior says:

      “But it’s becoming clear that although you may well support independence ,as you say you do, you’re using this site mainly as a forum to slag off the SNP”

      What I’m trying to do is to make clear to the people here, who mostly appear to be very dedicated to the SNP, that we need to convince a large number of non-SNP supporters to vote yes if we hope to win the referendum. 

      The way to do this, clearly, is NOT to attack and abuse as a ‘unionist’ or a ‘troll’ anyone who dares to have a different viewpoint from the SNP on what is best for Scotland after independence. 

      I share the view of the (independence-supporting) Scottish Greens that we should transition to our own currency sooner than the SNP plan – and for this I’m being called a ‘unionist’ and a ‘troll’?!

    121. Norsewarrior says:

      “The shape Scotland takes after independence will be decided democratically, as every other democracy works”

      So the people of Scotland will get a referendum on the EU, Nato and currency before we become EU and Nato members and form a currency union will we?

    122. MajorBloodnok says:

      Now then, how could any yes voter be put off voting yes by SNP policies and actions?  Smells like shite to me too.

    123. Norsewarrior says:

      “That’s why I always smell shite with anyone claiming to be Yes, but only if one day one of independence Scotland is radically altered to look exactly how I want it to”

      Well I’m not saying that, so you can’t be referring to me. 

      Regarding currency for example I clearly stated that I’d keep the pound for a transition period while setting up a timetable to eventually transition to our own currency.

    124. MajorBloodnok says:

      Yep, all the obvious symptoms.  Terminal case.  Very sad.  The next of kin will be informed.  Obit in the Scotsman that no-one will see, yes, sad, very sad.

    125. Norsewarrior says:

      “The Yes campaign shouldn’t be promoting any policies”

      Why are they promoting the SNP’s policies then?

    126. Norsewarrior says:

      “What they usually mean is “Yes to independence, but not thisindependence. Some other, better, independence, that someone else might propose, some time in the future. So No to independence.””

      Well again that’s not me – I’ve clearly stated that I intend to vote yes even though I want a fuller version of independence than the SNP are offering.

    127. Norsewarrior says:

      “Now then, how could any yes voter be put off voting yes by SNP policies and actions?”

      I said ‘potential’ yes voter, obviously someone committed to voting yes won’t be put off – but its the potential yes voters we need if we hope to win the referendum. 

      And, as I said, potential yes voters could be put off by the attitude of SNP fanatics like you towards anyone who doesn’t back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.

      Likewise the 40% of Scots who are opposed to the EU could be potentially put off from voting yes by the fact that the SNP plan to make Scotland become an EU member by independence day in 2016 before the next election without giving the people of Scotland any say.

    128. Cath says:

      “So the people of Scotland will get a referendum on the EU, Nato and currency before we become EU and Nato members and form a currency union will we?”
       
      We are ALREADY members of the EU and NATO. Independence itself will not change that – why the hell should it?
       
      However, post independence, yes, we will have all those choices. If people vote for parties offering those policies, that is exactly what we’ll get. Because we will have, as a country and people, the independence to choose it. 

    129. Norsewarrior says:

      “We are ALREADY members of the EU and NATO”

      No we aren’t, Scotland isn’t a member of either the EU or Nato. 

    130. MajorBloodnok says:

      “insert tumbleweed gif here”

    131. Cath says:

      God, trolls are tiresome. And it’s all the same-old, same-old arguments as well. Still, at least they are very obvious.

    132. AWoLsco says:

      The defence of Scotland in the future.
      Obviously a good navy and air force( now more consisting of drones and missiles rather than expensive pilots and fiddly temperamental expensive fighters) is essential…….plus…..A gun in every home issued by a local militia commander to the men in his locale. of his choice, and which he will train( roughly the Swiss model.)
      Those unwilling or unable to serve pay higher taxes.
       
      Civil defence. Who has talked of this?
      If there is one country where you have a chance of surviving a nuclear attack, it is Scotland….but you’ve got to go underground.
      How much food do you have? Have you got a cellar with its own air filter and air and water supply?
      No, like most, you live in cloud -cuckoo land hoping it will never happen.
      The Swiss and the Swedes are more clear -headed on this than we are.
      They are getting on with civil defence. THAT’S the sign that a government really cares………. Putting the safety and security of its citizens first.
      THAT’S why you should go for independence…..to make Scotland secure….and modern. The days of the Thin Red Line at Balaclava are over. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That’s the future.
      DO SOMETHING about it. Demand good civil defence…..and just for once….think about VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME, LABOUR AND ENTHUSIASM for the country that gives you your freedom religion and laws…..to which you owe……EVERYTHING.

    133. Jeannie says:

      You know, Norsewarrior, I’m beginning to think you’re actualy a secret SNP plant, using the old bluff and double-bluff method to confuse people who support other parties and  get them to change their vote to the SNP.
       
      If I could be bothered (which I can’t), I’d go back over your comments since yesterday and count just how many times you’ve mentioned the SNP, thus raising their profile.  The rest of us hardly ever mention them, other than in response to you.  If you’re trying to get readers to notice the SNP, you’re certainly doing that, just not, I suspect, in the negative way you intended. In fact, I suspect your tactics are having the effect of driving any fair-minded person TOWARDS the SNP, not away from them. 
       
      Wings readers are already very well aware that voting for the SNP is a completely separate issue from voting in the referendum.  Please don’t insult their intelligence by feeling you need to point it out to them.  You’ll just piss them off.

    134. Norsewarrior says:

      A couple of days on this site has really opened my eyes to the disdain and hatred the SNP fanatics have for those of us independence supporters who don’t back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.

      Merely having a different vision to the SNP on an independent Scotland, or suggesting ways in which the SNP’s independence strategy can be improved, is enough to have these people attacking me as a ‘unionist’, a ‘troll’, a ‘prick’, ‘shite’ and a ‘sleekit wee liar’. 

      Clearly they only pay lip service to the notion that independence is a broad church in which all views are welcome – in reality the only welcome view is one which sticks rigidly to the SNP’s and doesn’t dare to even slightly criticise them. 

      I don’t care personally what you people think about me, but what I do care about is the fact that your attitudes and behaviour are damaging to our chances of getting independence.

    135. Yesitis says:

      This has turned into quite a strange thread.

      Norsewarrior – “There are plenty of potential independence supporters who, like me, don’t like or support the SNP, and who are likely to be put off voting yes by the attitude of the likes of you that someone can only be a ‘real’ independence supporter if they also back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.”

      Repeat ad nauseam.
       
       
       
       

    136. Erchie says:

      Classic!

    137. Norsewarrior says:

      “Wings readers are already very well aware that voting for the SNP is a completely separate issue from voting in the referendum.  Please don’t insult their intelligence by feeling you need to point it out to them”

      Where did I say anything about the readers here? I’m talking about the general public – in particular the undecided ones – who don’t have the political interest to read sites such as this. 

      It is crucial that independence, and the Yes Campaign, are shown to be more than just the SNP to such people – and clearly the Yes Campaign only promoting SNP policies and ignoring the views and policies of other parties and organisations isn’t likely to do that. 

    138. The Man in the Jar says:

      @AWoLsco
      Your previous comment on “A gap in the market”
      “@Morag
      I’m just a new boy here. A fellow Scot. Were all supposed to be jolly lads and lassies in this together, aren’t we?
      Thanking you, in advance, for your patience and forbearance.”
      Hypocrite!

    139. Jiggsbro says:

      Well again that’s not me – I’ve clearly stated that I intend to vote yes
       
      Yes, dear. But you’re lying, you see.

    140. Purr says:

      I think if the SNP were to change their position on negotiating membership of the E.U. after independence, to offering a referendum on whether Scotland wants them to negotiate membership of the E.U. the no vote would drop away very quickly, as I do not believe that support for the EU in Scotland is anywhere near as strong as the SNP appears to think it is.
      The better Together are holding up the no vote as people expect the Tories to give them a referendum on the EU membership.

    141. creag an tuirc says:

      @Norsewarrior
      “A couple of days on this site has really opened my eyes to the disdain and hatred the SNP fanatics have for those of us independence supporters who don’t back the SNP with unquestioning devotion.”
      If this were true, you must have just got the interenet yesterday and have only ever visited this site, what’s your opinion of the Britnats, have you ayes been open anywhere by them?

    142. mato21 says:

      Guardian reporting there may be up to 30 posts cut at the Scotsman and SOS
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/26/scotsman-scotland-on-sunday-cut-30-positions?CMP=twt_gu

    143. Norsewarrior says:

      “Yes, dear. But you’re lying, you see.”

      And now we have another one – I’m apparently ‘lying’ when I claim to be an independence supporter! 
      Clearly these SNP fanatics like ‘jiggsbro’ are of the view that you can only be an independence supporter if you back the SNP with unquestioning devotion and that anyone who criticises them, or who suggests a different version of an independent Scotland to the SNP version, is automatically ‘lying’ about being an independence supporter.

      It is this kind of odious fanatical attitude that is damaging our chances of getting independence.

    144. ianbrotherhood says:

      We should all support England in the 2014 World Cup finals – the further they progress the greater the clamour for independence will become.

    145. Norsewarrior says:

      “I think if the SNP were to change their position on negotiating membership of the E.U. after independence, to offering a referendum on whether Scotland wants them to negotiate membership of the E.U. the no vote would drop away very quickly”

      Exactly! Polls suggest that around 40% of Scots are opposed to the EU – if the SNP were to offer us a referendum on EU membership rather than planning to negotiate for Scotland to become an EU member without giving us a choice, then a large number of those Scots would be inclined to vote yes. 

      Of course, because our view on independence strategy differs from the official SNP independence strategy we’ll be branded as ‘liars’ and ‘unionists’ by the denizens of this site.

    146. Dal Riata says:

      Norsewarrior is a classic example of the passive-aggressive troll that frequents blogs such as these. Comes in being reasonably polite, etc., feels him/herself to be ‘accepted’ then becomes more and more argumentative, then offensive, then banned from the site. Goes on to other sites to rubbish the site he/she was banned from. Job done! Pathetic, of course, but therein lies the life of a troll.
      ‘If it walks like a duck…’etc.

    147. Albert Herring says:

      Rev!
      This No-arse is hijacking the website!

    148. MajorBloodnok says:

      Point of order, I’m a Zealot, not a fanatic.
       
      As you were.

    149. Jiggsbro says:

      Clearly these SNP fanatics like ‘jiggsbro’
       
      And yet, curiously, you have even less evidence that I’m an ‘SNP fanatic’ than you claim everyone else has that you’re a troll. Which kind of makes you…a troll. A troll in a heffalump trap, in fact. Enjoy.
       
       

    150. Norsewarrior says:

      “then becomes more and more argumentative, then offensive”

      Apart from the fact that the only offensive behaviour is being directed at me, rather than coming from me.

    151. Norsewarrior says:

      “And yet, curiously, you have even less evidence that I’m an ‘SNP fanatic’ than you claim everyone else has that you’re a troll”

      My evidence that you’re an SNP fanatic is that you think I’m a ‘liar’, a ‘unionist’ and a ‘troll’ simply because I favour a different version of independence to the SNP’s and simply because I’ve been critical of them. 

      You have no other evidence to back up your claims about me, so presumably they are purely based on the fact that I’ve criticised the SNP and don’t support the party – which would make you an SNP fanatic.

    152. Juteman says:

      WoS is obviously being seen as a threat to those who would hide the truth.

    153. Norsewarrior says:

      The Scottish Greens have been very critical of a number of the SNP’s independence policies and strategies, does that make them ‘liars’ and ‘unionists’ too?! 
       
       

    154. scottish_skier says:

      On this subject…
      My best mate is a strong supporter of the SNP but supports the union; does triathlon proudly wearing his union jack shirt and all that. However, he feels increasingly uncomfortable due the demonsiation of the SNP. It’s like you must support a unionist party if you support he union; no exceptions. Almost cult-like with no dissension allowed.
      If you support the SNP you are ‘anti-English’ etc (which, incidentally would mean he hates half himself). Given the polls show a significant chunk of SNP voters do not support independence, I guess he’s not alone. Anyway, this ‘you must support a unionist party/must not support the SNP if you don’t want independence’ is putting him off the union; potentially turning a definite No into a Yes.
      The pro-union campaign is supposed to be inclusive, yet does not accommodate e.g. SNP or Green voters who don’t support independence. This contrasts greatly the YesScotland campaign who have welcomed people of all political hues (e.g. Labour for Independence, Libs for Independence), including some prominent Tories as I understand it.
      I feel the pro-union campaign needs to be more inclusive and reach out to non-unionist/pro-independence party voters lest it put these off voting No in 2014.

    155. tartanfever says:

      Norse – what are you going to do then about the EU ?
      It seems that the SNP at present will not offer a vote on EU membership if Scotland were to become independent, but possibly the Tories in Westminster will in 2016/17 (if they keep to their promise)
      Are you going to vote ‘No’ to independence so that allows you to have a vote on EU membership through Westminster ?

    156. MajorBloodnok says:

      Are the Greens against EU membership then?  I hadn’t heard that.

    157. ianbrotherhood says:

      Jimmy Hill would be a great recruiting sergeant for the Yes campaign – is he still going? I’m sure he would appreciate a gig. It would be tongue-in-cheek, of course (not unlike Specsavers sponsoring the referees) but could be very effective, especially with older age groups, and would give us a chance to bore the young ‘uns endlessly about past World Cup adventures.
      ‘We love Jimmy Hill, he’s a Yes, he’s a Ye-ess!’

    158. Yesitis says:

      @Juteman
      “WoS is obviously being seen as a threat to those who would hide the truth.”
       
      I imagine we are going to see more Norsewarrior types gravitate to WoS as the referendum approaches. You can see already how this thread has been well and truly hijacked.
       

    159. benarmine says:

      Anyone put off voting Yes because of SNP policy needs sitting down and a good talking to, gently. There are lots of them I know for a fact but if we can persuade them I think we’ll win easily. As the polls say people want all their decisions made here. I really think that explains the gap. The world beyond Yes is just so exciting – monarchy, eu, nato, currency – we decide, in a fair, caring democracy. Haud me back.

    160. Norsewarrior says:

      “This contrasts greatly the YesScotland campaign who have welcomed people of all political hues”

      But that’s the problem, while Yes Scotland allows these others to join, it is still promoting nothing but SNP policies – EU membership, the monarchy, etc, despite many of the other parties being opposed to those policies.

      Members of the general public who look at the Yes Scotland website will see it promoting nothing but SNP policies, making them think it is nothing but an SNP mouthpiece. 

      That’s why it needs to actively show that its inclusive of all independence parties and organisations, not just pay lip service to that idea while in reality doing nothing about it.

    161. muttley79 says:

      @norsewarrior
       
      What on earth gives you the warped impression that I’m a ‘unionist’?! My position on independence is blatantly clear – I’m strongly in favour of it and I want a fuller version of it than you SNP fanatics.
       
      Why would an independence supporter be willing to attack the SNP as readily as you are doing?  After all, it was the SNP success in 2011 that is enabling there to be a referendum in the first place.  There is differences between the SNP and other pro-independence parties, such as the SSP, the Scottish Green Party, non aligned supporters and Labour for Independence etc.  However, the referendum is about where the power over Scottish affairs should be concentrated, at Westminster or Holyrood.  That you say we need to have policies for the referendum makes me suspect even more that you a Unionist.

    162. Jiggsbro says:

      You have no other evidence to back up your claims about me, so presumably they are purely based on the fact that I’ve criticised the SNP and don’t support the party – which would make you an SNP fanatic.
       
      Well, yes…if you’d done nothing other than criticise the SNP. But you haven’t, which makes your logic just as suspect as the rest of you. Which makes you a troll, looking for something to bash the SNP – and by association, independence – with.
       
      By the way, people being honest generally stress that they are being honest, not that no one has any evidence that they’re being dishonest. That’s the preferred course of liars who are self-deluded enough to imagine their lies are not transparent.

    163. Jeannie says:

      Of course, because our view on independence strategy differs from the official SNP independence strategy we’ll be branded as ‘liars’ and ‘unionists’ by the denizens of this site.
       
      Hmmm…there are around 44,000 denizens of this site.
      At Saturday’s conference, Alex Salmond  welcomed his 25,000th member to the SNP. According to you, Norseman, there are 44,000 SNP supporters on Wings.  I do believe you’ve single-handedly managed to increase support for the SNP by approximately 19,000 in the course of two days. You’re their best-kept secret.
       
       
       

    164. Kenny Campbell says:

      Germany were not equipped for invasion across the North sea , however some defence plans did exist in Britain as would be expected. I a m not surprised that Scotland would have been left…..its a military fact we didn’t have the forces to cover every eventuality. Only a few months ago we were told that if the Faeroes invaded London would bomb our airports.
       
      Currency wise the rUK and BOE will prefer a currency union with Scotland as well. The demand for GBP will strengthen the pound. If there is less demand there will be pressure on the pound. Currency like everything changes value with demand, if we suddenly reduce demand for GBP by 10% and also have Scotland selling GBP denominated assets for Newcurr(you see what I did there) then its a big downward pressure on the pound.
       
      In these circumstances Scotland would arguably have MORE influence over the BOE policy than today.
       
      As regards WW2, our view of the situation is tainted by history(we won) plus much simplified. There was a lot of anti war resistance before the war due to proximity to WW1 and the rise of the socialist movement. This idea we were all united against the bad Nazi’s is nonsense. The concentration camps were only public knowledge in the UK AFTER the war.
       
       

    165. Norsewarrior says:

      “Norse – what are you going to do then about the EU? It seems that the SNP at present will not offer a vote on EU membership if Scotland were to become independent…Are you going to vote ‘No’ to independence so that allows you to have a vote on EU membership through Westminster?”

      No, I still intend to vote yes. I’m actually in favour of Scotland becoming an EU member myself, I just believe that such a decision is the sovereign right of the Scottish people to make. 

      I also think that offering an EU referendum will give us a better chance of winning the referendum – we know that around 40% of Scots are opposed to the EU and at present they are faced with the choice of possibly having an EU referendum in 2017 if they vote no, or Scotland becoming an EU member without them having a choice if they vote yes. 

    166. scottish_skier says:

      Following on from my earlier post, I had a look at the better together site. It says ‘cross party’ but only seems to involve the three main UK parties. There is no mention of ‘SNP for the Union’ or ‘Greens for the Union’ even though polls suggest a decent proportion of voters of these parties don’t support independence.
      Also, policies advocated by better together such as tuition fees and renewing trident seem to be entirely unionist party orientated. It’s like if you vote for the union you must accept only unionist party policies.
      I can see where my best mate is coming from in now questioning his intent to vote No (he supports no tuition fees and an end to trident etc BTW).

    167. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      Okay, I think it’s time we calmed down a little and stopped calling people names. Norsewarrior, whatever their motivations may be, is perfectly correct in pointing out that it’s possible to be a Yes supporter without being an SNP one. On the other hand, he/she is doing the same thing they’re bemoaning in others, by insisting that Yes is an SNP front, and invited suspicion by coming in initially with an idiotic argument about the SNP being somehow responsible for the Edinburgh trams.

      Nevertheless, let’s see if we can keep this civil, because then we’ll soon see who’s arguing in good faith and who isn’t. Flinging labels around only enables deflection.

    168. AWoLsco says:

      “A secret plan to the nazis take Scotland”
       
      What an utter joke!
      The last thing on the mind of the Germans was an invasion of Scotland.
      Every country the Germans invaded in Western Europe had to be done as a response.
      They weren’t the intiators.
      YOU, the British government were the troublemakers….every time.
      1) Poland
      …. a recently much expanded, artificially expanded creation….most of which was German. The Germans were only taking back what was theirs in the first place. Same with the artificially Versailles created…’Czechoslovakia'( now fittingly defunct)
      2) France. If you don’t want to be invaded…..then don’t invade Germany first.
      3) The Low Countries. Don’t be so low, and if not readily defended, then don’t secretly confer with the enemies of Germany, otherwise she won’t pay much attention to your ‘neutrality’. Same applies to Denmark.
      4)Norway. The British violated Norwegian neutrality first of all by mining its waters to prevent shipment of Swedish iron ore from Narvik.
      The British were all set to invade but Hitler and the Wehrmacht beat them to the punch…..and then when they did try, a British army of 26,000 was seen off, tail firmly between its legs, by 4-5,000Austrian mountain troops and German sailors.
      5) Britain. Britain had a go at invading Germany. they were utterly useless and Hitler obviously allowed the British to escape from Dunkirk in the forlorn hope that they would see sense. But no.
      It was all this backs to the wall guff and ‘standing alone’ nonsense.
      Not content with that, the British idiots begin bombing Germany and then get terribly upset if Germany bombs them back.
      Some mothers do have ’em.

    169. Norsewarrior says:

      “Why would an independence supporter be willing to attack the SNP as readily as you are doing?  After all, it was the SNP success in 2011 that is enabling there to be a referendum in the first place”

      Let me use an analogy. Imagine you support a football club and your manager has enabled you to get to the cup final. He then starts to mess up his tactics and strategies, which you fear is endangering your chances of winning the cup. 

      Are you a better supporter if you continue to back him regardless of what he does, or if you offer him constructive criticism and alternative strategies?

    170. Saporian says:

      Rev
      Please, please, please ban the troll. 

    171. Jiggsbro says:

      Why would an independence supporter be willing to attack the SNP as readily as you are doing?
       
      I’m sure independence supporters are entirely welcome to attack the SNP, if they disagree with them in policy. It’s when the attack is not on policy, but on the ‘fanaticism’ of the SNP, that supposedly allows no dissent or discussion, that it becomes transparently a Unionist troll.

    172. Jiggsbro says:

      Are you a better supporter if you continue to back him regardless of what he does, or if you offer him constructive criticism and alternative strategies?
       
      Which do you imagine you’re doing when you yell abuse at him?

    173. Norsewarrior says:

      “However, the referendum is about where the power over Scottish affairs should be concentrated, at Westminster or Holyrood.  That you say we need to have policies for the referendum makes me suspect even more that you a Unionist”

      But obviously we need to have at least outline policies if we’re going to win the referendum! The average undecided person in the street isn’t going to be convinced by the notion that independence can be anything we want it to be, they are scared of change – they want to know what they’re voting for! 

    174. Cath says:

      ” Anyway, this ‘you must support a unionist party/must not support the SNP if you don’t want independence’ is putting him off the union; potentially turning a definite No into a Yes.”
       
      It works the other way as well. I’ve been both Lib Dem and Labour, and may well have continued to vote Labour for Westminster. However they have now identified themselves with nothing but aggressive unionism, British nationalism and tribal hatred of the party now forming the Scottish government. A Scottish government I happen to think is doing a good job.
       
      That was what pushed me into the SNP last year, and  from No to Yes last year. And they can forget any vote for them at Westminster – they have made it very clear indeed a vote for Labour is nothing at all but a vote of confidence in Westminster and the union. Which is daft, as I really don’t think there are that many people out there who vote Labour purely for the union.

    175. douglas clark says:

      Norsewarrior,
       
      I am a member of the SNP. I joined because I want independence and I saw them as the best way of achieving a referendum and hopefully all of us achieving that objective.
       
      I have no idea whether, after 18th Sept 2014 I will stay with them or not. If we get the constitutional reforms I think are necessary, and the Icelandic model for doing that is very persuasive, every other issue under the sun can be determined in a proper, democratic way.
       
      For instance, I have been a republican for longer than I have been a nationalist. Do you think that I wouldn’t want to talk with like minded people after we are free about that sort of thing, with a view to becoming a republic?
       
      First things first please.
       
       

    176. Norsewarrior says:

      “Well, yes…if you’d done nothing other than criticise the SNP. But you haven’t”
      What else have I done apart from offer the SNP constructive criticism and outline the version of independence that I favour over the SNP’s version?

    177. pa_broon says:

      I think I just figured out what Better Together’s next poster sound bite will be: “Not an SNP supporter but voting yes in 2014? Well vote no because THE SNP HATE YOUR GUTS!”
       
      Risible.

    178. Norsewarrior says:

      “Norsewarrior, whatever their motivations may be, is perfectly correct in pointing out that it’s possible to be a Yes supporter without being an SNP one. On the other hand, he/she is doing the same thing they’re bemoaning in others, by insisting that Yes is an SNP front”

      I’m not saying the Yes Campaign is an SNP front, just that it may appear that way to the average undecided member of the public who looks at the Yes Scotland website or hears any of their public announcements, and see that they’re only promoting SNP independence policies to the exclusion of all other party’s policies. 

      As I said, it is crucial that independence is shown to be something that will be of benefit to everyone in Scotland, whatever their political leanings, not just to SNP supporters. 

    179. creag an tuirc says:

      @Norsewarrior
      Here we go, simple question. What has been your debating experiences with the Britnats/Unionists when putting your case forward for Scottish Independence?

    180. Norsewarrior says:

      there are around 44,000 denizens of this site. At Saturday’s conference, Alex Salmond  welcomed his 25,000th member to the SNP. According to you, Norseman, there are 44,000 SNP supporters on Wings”

      Well that’s the way it seems! I’ve had nothing but vitriolic attacks and abuse on this site purely for daring to criticise the SNP’s independence strategy and for disagreeing with their version of independence.

      I’m sure many of the users of this site are like me – moderate independence supporters who don’t back the SNP with unquestioning devotion – but unfortunately the minority who do appear to be SNP fanatics seem to have the louder voice. 

    181. tartanfever says:

      Personally I think Norse warrior has a good point to make over the EU. I think we should have a referendum on how we want to relate to our European neighbours, in,out or trade agreement only.

      Unfortunately it seems that those sensible debates can’t be had because the referendum Yes/No option is completely polarising the population. It’s one or the other. Of course, in the main we have to thank the media for this, especially the BBC who have done their utmost to reduce the debate to a couple of soundbites.

      We all get involved, we get frustrated, angry even,  and that leads to a negative place. It’s one of the reason’s I personally detest facebook and twitter (but realise they do have a role to play in ‘spreading the word’. )
      Time to chill out I think.

    182. Norsewarrior says:

      “Here we go, simple question. What has been your debating experiences with the Britnats/Unionists when putting your case forward for Scottish Independence?”

      Well they generally disagree with it and don’t accept my arguments. Some of them are also abusive.

    183. muttley79 says:

      @norsewarriror
       
      Let me use an analogy. Imagine you support a football club and your manager has enabled you to get to the cup final. He then starts to mess up his tactics and strategies, which you fear is endangering your chances of winning the cup. 
      Are you a better supporter if you continue to back him regardless of what he does, or if you offer him constructive criticism and alternative strategies?
       
      I am not sure why you think things have gone wrong with the Yes campaign.  Why have you decided that they have?  The polls are showing a narrowing of the gap between the No and Yes campaigns.  That would indicate that something is going right.

    184. Norsewarrior says:

      “I’m sure independence supporters are entirely welcome to attack the SNP, if they disagree with them in policy. It’s when the attack is not on policy, but on the ‘fanaticism’ of the SNP, that supposedly allows no dissent or discussion”

      Where did I suggest the SNP themselves are fanatical? I’m suggesting that you and others on here are SNP fanatics – because you attack and abuse anyone who criticises the party or who disagrees with their version of independence, not that the party itself is fanatical. 

    185. scottish_skier says:

      I’m an Independent (Margo M when I was able too living in Lothian and independent at council levels) + SNP voter. May lend my vote to the Greens in the future, possibly a proper Labour party too. Hell, I’d even consider a soft right economic party on my second vote if I felt things were getting too unbalanced in the chamber. Depends on the policies on offer, trust in the party etc. That’s fairly standard I’d have thought.

    186. Norsewarrior says:

      “Personally I think Norse warrior has a good point to make over the EU. I think we should have a referendum on how we want to relate to our European neighbours, in,out or trade agreement only”

      I genuinely don’t understand why the SNP aren’t willing to give us one. 

      As I said, surely promising us a referendum on whether we want Scotland to become an EU member or not is likely to boost the yes vote?! Around 40% of Scots are opposed to the EU – at present if they vote yes they face Scotland becoming an EU member without them having a choice, which may well put off many of them from doing so.

    187. creag an tuirc says:

      @Norsewarrior
      Could you give us a taster of what your arguments for Independence are?

    188. stop the troll says:

      Rev, I’m not one for censorship but the newly resident troll is really tedious and is stopping mature debate on the site.  I know he might just come back with a new nom de guerre but isn’t it worth considering the “block” button?

    189. Norsewarrior says:

      “I am not sure why you think things have gone wrong with the Yes campaign”

      I’m not saying the campaign has ‘gone wrong’, merely that it can and must be better if we are to win the referendum, and that the SNP’s strategy, in some areas, needs to be modified and improved. 

      The two examples that I’ve provided are that the Yes Campaign needs to actively show that independence is for everyone by promoting independence policies from across the spectrum, not just the SNP’s. And that the SNP could offer a referendum on EU membership.

    190. douglas clark says:

      AWoLsco,
       
      You do realise two things I take it?
       
      Firstly 8 out of every 10 German soldiers that were killed in WW2 were killed by the Russians, see here:
       
      http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_02/The-greatest-battle-of-all-time-and-why-it-still-matters-today-for-Americans-and-Russians/
       
      Secondly that Hitler was not a particularily attractive leader.

    191. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “But obviously we need to have at least outline policies if we’re going to win the referendum!”

      No, we don’t. (Whoever “we” is.) The referendum is not about policies. Every time you outline a policy and link it inextricably to independence, you alienate everyone on the other side. Policies are for elections. The referendum is about a principle.

    192. AWoLsco says:

      What if the Germans had invaded Britain?
      Would it really have been a hell on earth?
      Not a bit of it.
       
      The people of the Channel Islands got on fine with the Germans.
      Same with the French. It was a laugh a minute for both the Germans and the French.
      Standards of discipline  in the German army were exceptionally high…..on Hitler’s direct orders. As one old Frenchman wryly remarked to me….”They ran the place better than we did ourselves” I asked him about the Americans. I didn’t catch all he said, but I did distinctly hear the word “Merde”.
      Same with the Norwegians. The factories were humming day and night and the Norwegians were very well paid.
      “We are good Germans during the day and patriotic Norwegians in the evenings”
      …….went the expression of the times.
      Something familiar about that makes a wee bell ring in the mind of this Scotsman.
      Where have I heard something like that before?

    193. Norsewarrior says:

      “Could you give us a taster of what your arguments for Independence are?”

      Certainly. 

      Three of my arguments are that Scotland will have the opportunity to run its own affairs and look after its own finances; that we’ll be more likely to elect a properly left wing government; and that we won’t be dragged into any more illegal wars. 

      What about you?

    194. Kenny Campbell says:

      There are SNP policies I disagree with and I am a member but the main one of independence first is what should take precedence over everything else.
       
      Without independence we limit the possibilities and the choices open to Scotland.

    195. Norsewarrior says:

      “No, we don’t. (Whoever “we” is.) The referendum is not about policies. Every time you outline a policy and link it inextricably to independence, you alienate everyone on the other side”

      Exactly! And that’s what the Yes Campaign are doing by promoting the policy of being EU members and retaining the monarchy. 

      While you’re perfectly correct to say that independence is about principle rather than policy its a very difficult thing to promote a blank principle to the undecided voters we need to attract – they want to have some idea what independence will mean.

      That’s why the Yes Campaign should be suggesting a variety of different possibilities and policies from across the spectrum – in order to give voters some idea of what independence may mean, but also to avoid alienating anti-EU Scots for example by only promoting EU membership as Yes Scotland is currently doing.

    196. scottish_skier says:

      I do think a party which advocated and EU referendum/withdrawal might do reasonably well in an independent Scotland (2016 elections?). However, it probably have to be more left leaning.
      After all, Norway apparently didn’t want to join the EU as the latter was seen as too ‘right-wing’.
      🙂

    197. creag an tuirc says:

      @Norsewarrior
      Self determination, don’t care about any argument/debate. I have faith in the people of Scotland to get us up and running, It’s a shame that generally they don’t have faith in themselves.

    198. Erchie says:

      why do I get the feeling AWoLsco would be happier subjecting me and mine to a touch of Zyklon B

    199. Erchie says:

      Norsewarrior
       
      The YES Campaign are doing no such thing. One party in the YES Campaign has that policy. Other parties in the YES Campaign want to abolish the Monarchy. Others want out of the EU
       
      The YES Campaign as you have been told AD-NAUSEAM is not the SNP, the SNP are only part of the YES campaign
       
      Acknowledge this and we might respect you, continue to conflate the two and you confirm our impression of you
       
      Independence is about becoming independent. What we do after that is up to us, though parties are free to put their own aspirations forward, they are not set in stone, the electorate decide
       

    200. Cath says:

      “That’s why the Yes Campaign should be suggesting a variety of different possibilities and policies from across the spectrum”
       
      We – you (assuming you are a genuine Yes voter), me, all of us here and everyone on the street – ARE the yes campaign. It isn’t a political party, it’s a grassroots movement. So instead of tiresomely going on about “they should do this etc” and seeking to create division, why not simply put forward a positive vision for the future Scotland you want to see? If that includes arguing we should have our own currency and EFTA, that’s fine – you will not be the only one in the Yes campaign arguing that, many do.
       
      If, OTOH you’re a unionist troll, why not just be honest?
       
       

    201. Norsewarrior says:

      “The YES Campaign are doing no such thing. One party in the YES Campaign has that policy. Other parties in the YES Campaign want to abolish the Monarchy. Others want out of the EU”

      I’m afraid they are. As I already said earlier, parties within the Yes Campaign do indeed want to abolish the monarchy and not become EU members, but their views aren’t being promoted by Yes Scotland. 

      The only policies that Yes Scotland is promoting are those of becoming EU members and retaining the monarchy – a quick glance at the website will see that clearly: “An independent Scotland will remain an integral part of the European Union”, “the Queen will remain Head of State in Scotland”.

    202. Norsewarrior says:

      “The YES Campaign as you have been told AD-NAUSEAM is not the SNP, the SNP are only part of the YES campaign”

      The problem is that they are the major dominant controlling part. As I said, the only policies that Yes Scotland promotes on its website and whenever Blair Drummond makes a public comment, are SNP policies. 

      Its website is full of references to what the Scottish Government will do and what they want, with no mention of other parties or their independence policies. 

      To a general member of the public the SNP and the Yes Campaign are effectively one and the same – that’s what needs to change.

    203. Cath says:

      Still, it’s quite touching that the unionists, with no arguments of their own, have had to resort to pretending to be Yes supporters.

    204. Norsewarrior says:

      “why not simply put forward a positive vision for the future Scotland you want to see? If that includes arguing we should have our own currency and EFTA, that’s fine”

      That’s exactly what I have been doing! Unfortunately, because my vision of an independent future Scotland differs from the SNP’s version, you and others have attacked and abused me for expressing it!

    205. AWoLsco says:

      @ Douglas Clark.
       
      “Firstly 8 out of every 10 German soldiers that were killed in WW2 were killed by the Russians, see here:”
       
      Indeed. I made that point earlier….that for the Germans the ‘war’ meant the war in the east and the war in the west was looked on as a bit of a picnic.
       
      “Secondly that Hitler was not a particularily attractive leader.”
       
      I disagree. I visited Berchtesgaden as a youngster and looked out on the same views as Adolf Hitler.
      “This isn’t the sort of place inhabited by evil murderers, but by dreamers, philosophers and thinkers” were my thoughts at the time.
      I have done my research and I think my gut instinct was right.
      He comes out of this  as rather an amiable old buffer, with more than a bit of the Bohemian about him. A bit of a dreamer with a lot of old-fashioned ideas about honour and duty.
      I have to confess that the more I read about him, and especially the accounts of all who came in direct contact with him, then the more intrigued I become.
      Europe’s greatest enigma of modern times.We are talking of him today as though he were still alive. Isn’t that remarkable?
       
       

    206. Chic McGregor says:

      Late to the keyboard today but not through the Troll Haze that most of what I was going to say has been said so this is a bit of a potpourri.
       
      Albert Herring.   I agree with your re-population of the Highlands and I suspect you also mean as I do, in a completely different manner than simply trying to resurrect some romanticised ideal from the past.
      My ‘vision’ is that the new towns which will be required in an independent Scotland (I expect the population to rise rapidly to somewhere around 8-10 million before slowing towards the end of the century) could, in large part, be created so that there is only perhaps 20-30 miles between them all the way round a ‘Highland loop’ which would extend from the Central Belt up the A9 to Inverness, down the Great Glen and West coast route back to West Central.
       
      There are many reasons for doing this. too many to start listing right now.
       
      Re Nazi connection with Angus, only one I could think of was the Queen Mum’s connection to Glamis and her alleged predilection in that respect.  Churchill’s relationship with Angus, or at least Dundee, by the time he made the reported comment was definitely of the hate-hate variety.
       
      WWII – the actual thoughts and strategy of the Germans re Britain I confess I know very little  about.  However, if it were me looking at invading Britain, I think it would depend whether I preferred a long term strategy with more chance of success or a faster but much riskier attempt.
       
      If the former, then Scotland would be attractive.  Yes, Highland terrain would be harder to take, but by the same token, it should be easier to defend a bridgehead were one established.  A very reasonable chance then that they could use that to assemble enough military resource to take the Lowlands.  An ensuing  England defending entrenchment on the Border then would mean it was just a question of time before there was enough military build up in Scotland to invade.

    207. Jiggsbro says:

      “This isn’t the sort of place inhabited by evil murderers, but by dreamers, philosophers and thinkers” were my thoughts at the time.
       
      I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to characterise that as ‘thought’.

    208. Albert Herring says:

      Well I never knew that YesScotland was being led by a safari park!

    209. Training Day says:

      Stu, the attempts to ‘Scotsmanify’ the site are evidently having some success.  Action required.

    210. Cath says:

      “Unfortunately, because my vision of an independent future Scotland differs from the SNP’s version, you and others have attacked and abused me for expressing it!”
       
      Erm, no. We’ve pulled you up for being a deeply tedious troll.
       
      I also support an EU referendum, and possibly EFTA rather than the EU, and tend to argue for a Scots currency rather than Sterling, though mainly to wind up unionists. And oddly, no one here, or indeed within the Yes campaign or SNP has ever so much as raised an eyebrow, far less “attacked” me for it. Being able to take these kind of decisions is the whole point if independence.

    211. Jiggsbro says:

      Well I never knew that YesScotland was being led by a safari park!
       
      That’s why norsewarrior is so upset.
       
      Or would be, if he wasn’t a Unionist troll.

    212. Erchie says:

      Norsewarrior
       
      Last time. As Stu will point out when prodded, the Yes votes is about Independence, that is it. Not SNP, SSP, Green or anyone elses pur vision of what to do with that, but what Scots want and choose to do.
      I’m sorry Stu
      , I reiterate my opinion of him, just as I do of AWoLsco

    213. The Man in the Jar says:

      Now guys regarding Noarsewarrior. he/she is obviously a troll. Who else would spend so much time and effort wasting peoples time dragging an argument round and round for no other reason than to spread dissent and hostility?
      At a quick count he has posted 43 comments on this thread alone. I am sure many of us are fed up with his/her rantings. They are so tedious that I automatically skip over them now. I sugest that we all do the same.

    214. Cath says:

      Good idea, man in the jar. Just like our great leader and safari park Blair Drummond always says, “keep your hands in the car and don’t feed the trolls”.

    215. MajorBloodnok says:

      Apparently Hitler was “an amiable old buffer”.  Who knew?

    216. Norsewarrior says:

      “I also support an EU referendum, and possibly EFTA rather than the EU, and tend to argue for a Scots currency rather than Sterling”

      So why are earth are you attacking and abusing me for expressing support for those things?! 

    217. Norsewarrior says:

      “That’s why norsewarrior is so upset.”

      I’m not upset, I’m just very frustrated that you and others are damaging our chances of getting independence by attacking and abusing anyone who dares to criticise the SNP or whose views on an independent Scotland differ from the SNP’s version.

    218. Dal Riata says:

      Hhmm. Norseman, your passive-aggressiveness is becoming more obvious.
       
       
      For what it’s worth, I don’t believe you are here in good faith, only to troll and cause animosity and disruption. As I stated above, your behaviour is so glaringly obvious and typical of the type of troll I believe you to be that it is difficult to come to any other conclussion. Having had to deal with the likes of you and other trolls with their trademark signs of trolldom on my own and other websites, and witnessed it on many other site forums and comment-enabled sites, after a while you start to get a ‘nose’/feeling/instinct for trolls and you are definitely setting off alarm bells. If proof arrives that you are not a troll, then I will apologise to you wholeheartedly. Until then…
       
      Well done hijacking this thread, by the way, full marks for that!

    219. muttley79 says:

      @AWOLsco
      I disagree. I visited Berchtesgaden as a youngster and looked out on the same views as Adolf Hitler.
      “This isn’t the sort of place inhabited by evil murderers, but by dreamers, philosophers and thinkers” were my thoughts at the time.
      I have done my research and I think my gut instinct was right.
      He comes out of this  as rather an amiable old buffer, with more than a bit of the Bohemian about him. A bit of a dreamer with a lot of old-fashioned ideas about honour and duty.
      I have to confess that the more I read about him, and especially the accounts of all who came in direct contact with him, then the more intrigued I become.
      Europe’s greatest enigma of modern times.We are talking of him today as though he were still alive. Isn’t that remarkable?
       
       
      Your tribute to Hitler is genuinely stomach churning and despicable.  The man has the mass murder of 6 million Jews on his hands.  Hitler’s legacy will always be Auschwitz, Treblinka and all other the other death and labour camps.  His regime was almost certainly the most evil one in history (which is quite a feat).  Hitler’s Germany had literally no place for Jews, social democrats, socialists, disabled people, and many more.  He was no philosopher or bohemian as you call it.  Hitler was a devotee of Clausewitz and total war.  The German invasion and conduct in the Soviet Union was sub-human, and without a shred of humanity.  The orders came from the most senior levels of the Nazi regime.  Hitler bears the most responsibility by far for the Nazi crimes against humanity.  He died as he lived, like a rat.     

    220. rabb says:

      Norsewarrior,
      We are both alike to an extent. I am not an SNP member or an SNP supporter. I like some of their policies but I dislike others.
      I too have raised my concerns about the Yes Scotland campaign but my support for independence is rock solid. My fear is that Yes Scotland are trying to build a brand and let me assure you it takes more than 18 months to build a brand.

      Even as a non politcal member of my local Yes group, I feel we MUST utilise party logos in Yes litterature. I have raised this locally and gained support.

      People identify themselves whether we like it or not with these logos. It’s an emotional reconcilliation that “wur ane” are in support of a Yes vote.
       
      We need to see Labour for indy, Scottish Greens, SSP, SNP, LibDem for indy logos plastered all over the shop alongside the Yes logo. People can identify emotionally with them.
      The public perception of this being an “SNP thing” would be shot down overnight.
       
      Better Together see this as a political battle. It’s not, it’s about winning the hearts and minds of a nation and asking them to choose the brighter path we have found for them and our children.

      Once that’s acheived we can sort out the bells and whistles of Europe, Monarchy etc.
      Thios will be OUR decision!!
       
      Rant over!!!

    221. Norsewarrior says:

      “the Yes votes is about Independence, that is it. Not SNP, SSP, Green or anyone elses pur vision of what to do with that, but what Scots want and choose to do”

      Yes of course it is about the principle of independence, but for the hundredth time – merely presenting ‘independence’ as a blank principle isn’t going to convince the undecided voters we need to win the referendum! 

      If the notion of independence alone was enough for them then they wouldn’t be undecided would they?! 

      They need to have some idea of what independence will mean – and that means presenting possibility policies and idea from across the political spectrum in order to try and entice them to vote yes.

    222. Dal Riata says:

      My post above at 5.22pm should, of course, be directed to @Norsewarrior and not Norseman. Apologies.

    223. pmcrek says:

      Sorry for off topic, but it looks like the Scotsman are letting go 1/4 of their editorial staff. Mixed feelings, while I personally dont like the Scotsman much as a paper, its never good to hear people losing their jobs.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-21943878
       

    224. Cath says:

      “We need to see Labour for indy, Scottish Greens, SSP, SNP, LibDem for indy logos plastered all over the shop alongside the Yes logo. People can identify emotionally with them. The public perception of this being an “SNP thing” would be shot down overnight.”
       
      Dennis Canavan spoke at the SNP conference at the weekend, and received a standing ovation. Two standing ovations, in fact. And that was for a speech all about independence being so much wider than just the SNP and which included “bet you never thought you’d see this day”.
       
      Independence will be won – and it will be – by everyone coming together: SNP, Labour for Indy, the Greens, SSP and folk of no party at all. And once it’s won, after a very short time, people who weren’t won over before will wonder why the hell they weren’t. If it isn’t won, Labour will suffer because their own voters, who they’ve been lying like crazy to, will wake up to the truth too late. Ultimately, I don’t think that will happen, because even for many in Labour, that thought must be too harsh to contemplate.

    225. Aplinal says:

      Norsewarrior
       
      I have read pretty much the same type of comment on the Scottish online papers.  You claim to be a YES supporter then go on to either dis the SNP or espouse unionist policies.  Odd behavior.  I will not engage in a lengthy debate with you as this has been futile in the past.  So I will only make one comment.
       
      This is a vote for ALL of the things you want to be possibly available in Scotland if a Scottish political party puts them to the people, and gets elected into government.  The YES campaign goes out of its way to repeat the mantra ad nauseum that they do NOT speak for any of the political parties.  It is the MEDIA that continually tries to conflate the two things.  I think that you are intelligent (see posts passim) so show that intelligence and enter the debate about INDEPENDENCE and not any particular party’s policies.
       
      Will you vote YES on 18 September 2014?

    226. Cath says:

      “Mixed feelings, while I personally dont like the Scotsman much as a paper, its never good to hear people losing their jobs.”
       
      Yeah, I feel quite sorry for journalists. It’s easy for us to bash people for poor journalism and bias. But if you’re working for BBC Scotland or the Scotsman, and you’re having a certain editorial policy pushed on you, and at the same time they are also wielding a big jobs axe, that must be hell. Can you imagine that? You’re not going to be the one that goes against the boss, are you?
       
      My only real hope is that things like today’s fund raising success for Wings shows there might be a different way, and some of the most talented journalists, ones who perhaps aren’t happy with the editorial lines, might decide there is some way to jump ship and do something different.

    227. Albamac says:

      Isn’t it strange that the terrible twins turned up on the day that Wings readers were celebrating the amazing success of their fundraiser?

      One floods the site with tasty treats for search engines, like the ‘SNP fan*****’ phrase, and the other extols the virtues of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

      I got a good sniff of both, from the start, so, from my point of view, this discussion was dead at the first rush.

      As an ex-soldier, I think I’d have fixed them, flanked them and f***** them, by now.

    228. MajorBloodnok says:

      @Caesar!mac
      I was musing on that remarkable coincidence myself.
       
      For me the whole idea of independence is about: Hope vs Fear and Ideals vs Utility, so all that contrived crap about whether certain policies will make people vote Yes or No is a bit of a red herring (no offence Albert).

    229. Indy_Scot says:

      There is only one thing I can’t stand more than a unionist troll, and that’s a unionist Trojan troll.

    230. AWoLsco says:

      @ muttley 79

      “Your tribute to Hitler is genuinely stomach churning and despicable.”
      I thought it might not meet with the approval of some.
       
      “The man has the mass murder of 6 million Jews on his hands.”
       
      Quite sure about that? What a nice round figure. Still, a bit less than the 66million Christians bumped off thanks to crooks like Ulyanov(lenin), Bronstein(trotsky, Alistair Darling’s darling), and the mighty midget Josy Dugashvilli(Stalin).
       
      “Hitler’s legacy will always be Auschwitz, Treblinka and all other the other death and labour camps. ”
       
      Ah yes, the ones where all the dead have been tele-transported into the heavens.
      No bones, no ashes, no teeth. Teeth are extraordinarily difficult to destroy. I know i’m a vet. If you accuse someone of murder, don’t you think you should make an effort to provide some evidence?….say, for instance, the odd dead body or two?
       
      “His regime was almost certainly the most evil one in history (which is quite a feat).”
       
      Rubbish. I know many who lived through it. For many it was the first and rather a brief spell of prosperity in their largely miserable lives.
      Who in Britain even remotely entertained the idea of owning a car in the thirties, and driving on a motorway?….but German workers did.
       
      “Hitler’s Germany had literally no place for Jews, social democrats, socialists, disabled people, and many more.”
       
      That’s largely true…but your inclusion of the disabled is a trick to get sympathy.
      The disabled and wounded were well looked after….probably better than here.
      No NHS here in those days, laddie. The British were the meanest and stingiest sods under the sun when it came to looking after the wounded and disabled.
       
      “Hitler was a devotee of Clausewitz and total war”
       
      That can’t be true….otherwise there would be few French, Norwegians, Danes etc alive today. My uncle even bombed them and was shot down by a German fighter……but they let him live…..and very fairly he was treated too.
      “The German invasion and conduct in the Soviet Union was sub-human, and without a shred of humanity.”
      ………While the Soviets were paragons of virtue….ho ho……and were not signatories to the Geneva Convention.
       
      “The orders came from the most senior levels of the Nazi regime”
       
      What orders?
       
      “Hitler bears the most responsibility by far for the Nazi crimes against humanity”
       
      No, he doesn’t.
       
      “He died as he lived, like a rat.”
       
      No. He had more guts in his little finger than either you or I have in our entire bodies.
       
       
       
       

    231. ianbrotherhood says:

      What a strange thread altogether…ye’d never guess it’s a full moon tonight.

    232. scottish_skier says:

      What is missing right now above all is what the Tory, Lib and Labour parties are proposing for an independent Scotland. We are starting to see this from Libs for and Labour for independence, but the fact the ‘main’ parties have no post-independence manifestos (nor in the union manifestos for that matter) astounds me. I mean most of the Scottish electorate don’t vote SNP with the big UK three having a similar share of the vote to them.

      I know what the SSP, Greens, Independent candidates visions look like in general, but nothing about what Labour, the Libs and the Tories are offering either with respect to staying in the union or under independence. How on earth am I supposed to consider voting for them if they have no manifestos, not even a rough outline?

      A professional, competent party should have at least a basic manifesto for the union and for independence. That way I can make an informed decision as to whether they might get my vote should Scotland vote no or yes.

      The Herald were talking about this the other day (Ian Bell I believe); i.e. the incompetence and lack of forward planning by the big UK three with respect to policy. Certainly swaying a few folk I know towards yes.

    233. Yesitis says:

      “Isn’t it strange that the terrible twins turned up on the day that Wings readers were celebrating the amazing success of their fundraiser?
      One floods the site with tasty treats for search engines, like the ‘SNP fan*****’ phrase, and the other extols the virtues of Hitler and Nazi Germany.”
      Thanks Caesar!mac. Worth repeating after certain recent posts.

    234. scottish_skier says:

      AWoLsco

      Got to say your posts are wildly off topic. I know the Rev allows a little leeway, but really your stuff is way off and nothing to do with either the article or the general theme of this site. Clogging things up a bit in that respect.

      I’m sure there are few forums/sites that could find your theories interesting. If you want to stick with the UK political slant, try the BNP, National Front or even the EDL as a possible (note these all support the union as opposed to independence though).

    235. Patrick Roden says:

      I am someone who usualy reads every comment on every article on ‘Wings’
      I am also someone who stoped reading the comments in the Scotsman, because they had people who relentlesly commented in the same pointless and arguamentative style as norsewarior.
      I am finding myself being quickly put off reading wings comments because of this persons style of comments.
      I suppose this is his intention, so well done norsewarior, just as the rev has raised the funds to begin to really build this site into something that can do serious damage to the forces of unionism, you are managing to spoil the site with your ‘trolling’

    236. Elizabeth says:

      Wildly O/T
      A tweet from Douglas Fraser:
      Downing St decision on devolving corporation tax for N Ireland put off until after Scottish #indyrefhttp://bbc.in/10L8gof 

    237. Betsy says:

      @albamac,
      Yes it is a most strange and remarkable coincidence. As predictable as it is lacking in subtlety. 

    238. TYRAN says:

      Re: “This Is England”. Trivia – The only recorded instance of a simultaneous title change inside Britain. The film was retitled “Our Heritage” for release in Scotland. (credit: IMDb)

    239. Richie says:

      Nothing I like better after getting home from work than to sit down in front of the computer with a cup of tea and a fag (cigarette) and read Wings. Articles and comments.
      The last couple of days have been spoilt by “Norsewarrior” (horsemanure more like) bleetering on about how he’s not a troll, he supports indy and the green party and hates the SNP. On and on and on and fuckin on!
      OK Norsemanure, I believe you. Happy?
      Now will you please shut the fuck up or fuck the fuck off?

    240. AWoLsco says:

      @ scottish skier
      “Got to say your posts are wildly off topic.”
       
      Then you haven’t read them. They are very much about Scotland and the correct posture to adopt as an independent country….and a lot of that has. of necessity, got to be based on a realistic appreciation of the events of WW2 and after.
       
      .” If you want to stick with the UK political slant, try the BNP, National Front or even the EDL as a possible”
       
      Can’t do that.
      1) The BNP is a unionist party and very left wing. Too left wing for me and i am only interested in Scotland.
      2)The National Front.  Do they still exist? I thought they had disappeared.
      3) The EDL. is of course an English party, heavily infiltrated and financed by jewry and primarily anti- muslim in flavour, hence the covert support by jewry…..to stir up trouble. No devout or even semi-observant Christian has anything to fear from this group. They are highly respectful towards believers….and even fear them.
      They despise the un-Godly….and I respect them for that.
      So ……looks like you’re stuck with me…….and I with you…..until independence.
      Then the fun starts.

    241. McHaggis says:

      Rev, sadly unless one thing changes about this site for which I gladly donated to support, I wont be coming back.
       
      2 threads, over 500 comments… Seen it all before and i just cant be arsed wading through it. Unfortunately, in my view, you seem to have even given it the benefit of a small measure of legitimacy…

    242. benarmine says:

      surely it’s past time a couple of people on here took their meds and turned in?

    243. scottish_skier says:

      @Elizabeth
      Support the union (vote No) and get nothing. Only to be expected.
      Imagine N. Ireland had started doing a lot better and businesses began locating there instead of the SE! They might even start asking for more devolution, horror of horrors.

    244. cath says:

      “One floods the site with tasty treats for search engines, like the ‘SNP fan*****’ phrase, and the other extols the virtues of Hitler and Nazi Germany.”
       
      Probably not a brilliant strategy, given the subject matter of the original post.

    245. scottish_skier says:

      AWoLsco Nope, I read you posts.

      To be honest, I have been working for some time on a theory too. It concerns infiltration of the British establishment by the people of Nibiru (or at least those that were left behind and are waiting for ‘Return Day’). There’s WW2 links too; in fact leads all the way to the White House. Incredible stuff if you knew the truth.

      All the evidence is there if you go looking on the net. I’d give more details, but as it doesn’t affect Scotland (the Nibiru don’t consider the people of Scotland an enemy) or the referendum, I’ll not bother people on here with it.

      And note the Rev will block you if you go off topic too much. Which is fair enough.

    246. McHaggis says:

      Only gonna try this once and its directed at 2 groups of people.
      1 – those who don’t know Norsewarrior
      and
      2 – those that do but decide to engage it anyway
       
      norse/telen/britishandproud/independencen0w/doris and a miriad of other names is a well known but very poort unionist troll. It cannot be reasoned with. PLEASE. Dont think you’re special or different and it will engage sensibly with you. It wont. I and many others have seen what it can do to online forums. PLEASE dont be tempted to rise to its bait, just skp its haverings and move on. Sorry Rev, but I have a LOT of experience with this particularly poorly skilled and loathesome troll and I ask you to trust me on this. Put a warning up above every thread so newbies dont get suckered if you have to.

    247. cath says:

      Also, I know they’ve done a good job of derailing the thread, which is the main purpose of trolls. But they’ve also made themselves look ridiculous and probably damaged the unionist case more than helped it, while regular posters on here have been perfectly polite and kept the hied back.
       
      But I agree, there needs to be some way to make sure what happened to the Scotsman forum doesn’t happen here. Because that tactic is denial of freedom of speech, stifling of debate, and suppression of opinions, and there’s enough of that in the mainstream media.
       
      Still though, how bloody scared must the NO side be running when having the entire media on their side isn’t enough and they have to send very bad trolls to try and disrupt a blog that people have crowd-funded to give us something different? How desperate, and how much of utter losers does that make them look? Really, they should think on that.

    248. ianbrotherhood says:

      Please don’t send them to Quarantine – some of the regulars have been enjoying a decent blether out there, not bothering anyone.

    249. Braco says:

      Muttley,
      I agree. It should also be remembered that over 11 million folk died in the holocaust, 17 million if you include Russian civilians.

      Jews
      5.9 million
      [259]

      Soviet POWs
      2–3 million
      [260]

      Ethnic Poles
      1.8–2 million
      [261][262]

      Romani
      220,000–1,500,000
      [263][264]

      Disabled
      200,000–250,000
      [265]

      Freemasons
      80,000-200,000
      [266][267]

      Slovenes
      20,000–25,000
      [268]

      Homosexuals
      5,000–15,000
      [269]

      Jehovah’s
      Witnesses
      2,500–5,000

    250. McHaggis says:

      Sheeesh… Trolling for dummies.
      stage one – try and achieve an air of respectability, acceptance, approval and above all else, legitimacy when first entering a forum…
      …Job Done…
       
      i’m outa here.

    251. scottish_skier says:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21946916

      Telegraph extends paywall to UK readers

      One less Tory paper for Better Together to link to.

      Poor Alan. Will have a readership of maybe what 5 or something with this?
       

    252. AWoLsco says:

      I have seen ‘norsewarrior’ at work in the columns of the Daily Telegraph.
      He, along with a number of other paid shills(of a certain ethnic and religious sect) work the columns to make sure that no meaningful exchange takes place, while maintaining the appearance of free speech.
      An easy way to identify such people………
      Have they got much to say and do they offer any facts or anything that you haven’t heard before?….or is it all just gossip, sniping, word play and pedantry.

    253. muttley79 says:

      @AWOLsco
       
      I see by your posts that you are a holocaust denier.  You also deny that Hitler bears the major responsibility for the genocide in the Second World War.  If you truly believe what you have just said on this thread then I feel both disgusted at, and pity for you.  That you worship Hitler is an appalling thing.  You seem blind to massive amounts of historical research.  Your deliberate denial of facts is abysmal.

    254. AWoLsco says:

      @ scottish skier.
      The Rev S cCmpbell seems to be very reasonable, at least to me, so far.
      I’m sure he wouldn’t mind if you gave all of us the benefit of a short precis on the mysterious Nibiru that have infiltrated the higher echelons of British society….an alarming situation.
      I think we should be told.

    255. McHaggis says:

      Hi Muttley,
       
      I always find holocaust denial a strange thing, particularly so after visits late last year to auschwitz and birkenau.
       
      you see, with typical German efficiency, they recorded and wrote down EVERYTHING they did and fortunately didnt destroy it all. The evidence of the holocaust was actually recorded by the perpetrators in intimate detail and is there for anyone who cares to avail themselves of the facts.

    256. DMW42 says:

      Just logged on and read some of the posts.
       
      Seems we’ve been infiltrated by two cheeks from the same arse.
       

    257. Marcia says:

      DMW42
      Snap.
       
      It proves that the old saying ‘there is more out than in’ is correct.

    258. muttley79 says:

      @McHaggis
       
      I do not understand Holocaust deniers full stop.  They make my skin crawl.  They really a vile bunch.  They just will not look at all the evidence and accept it. 

    259. Baheid says:

      @DMW42
       
      Yep, the type of arse that when the sun shines they believe you can see the Golden Dawn shining high.

    260. Castle Rock says:

      McHaggis, Cath and others have a valid point.
       
      Either the trolls are ignored or the comments turn into the madness that is The Scotsman.
       
      Don’t let the trolls spoil the site – they’re not in the slightest bit original, amusing or bright

    261. Marcia says:

      muttley79
       
      Your comment reminds me of the time when I lived in London and one of my friend’s mother joined us for a garden party. (The family fled Czechoslavakia in 1968).  I asked him why his Mother has a tattoo on her arm? He made me feel awful when he told me it was it was the number given on arrival at Auschwitz when she was selected for work. The rest of her family were murdered on arrival. She would not have the tattoo removed. I felt really awful that day. I visited the camp in 1991 when I was in Poland, it has a horrible atmosphere.

    262. Erchie says:

      You see this Jewish conspiracy AwolSco is putting about. I’m seeing precious little benefit to me. It’s a fairly crap conspiracy that doesn’t take care of its own.
       
      AWolSco, you are an anti-Semitic prick

    263. albaman says:

      Rev,
      I see that your success in exceeding your financial target has attracted some
      unsavoury   characters, obviously the “word” has got around, can we expect more of
      them?.

    264. douglas clark says:

      I am with Muttley79.
       
      The classic dismantling of AWOLsco’s type of denial is the case David Irving prosecuted against Deborah Lipstadt for libel. He lost completely:
       
      From Wiki:
       
      “The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist, who “associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism“,[5] and that he had “for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”.
       
      It is somewhat of a shame that the families of people that were exterminated by this horrid man have to put up with this sort of nonsense:
       
      He comes out of this  as rather an amiable old buffer, with more than a bit of the Bohemian about him. A bit of a dreamer with a lot of old-fashioned ideas about honour and duty.”
       
       

    265. mato21 says:

      For anyone who is interested remember Radio Free Scotland is on tonight at 9pm

    266. scottish_skier says:

      Erchie: It’s a fairly crap conspiracy 

      Aye, I think my Nibiru one is far more compelling. Also not bigoted; the Nibiru and their supporters are nice folks.

      And as for the ‘Tories want rid of Scotland‘ one. That’s a dead cert.

      😉

      (Like how they just demonstrated with N. Ireland how there will be no jam tomorrow – good stuff Dave).

    267. Dcanmore says:

      AWoLsco is apparently a white supremacist and Nordicist (19thC Nordic theory of ideological racial supremacy which formed the base for Nazi Aryanism), based in Reading. He has tens of thousands of comments on the web with many accounts in his name suspended. All with the same theme to break up blogs and threads. Norsewarrior may be  the same person or a ‘colleague’. They are infiltrators and no doubt their mission is to sour a blog so it seems it is racist ‘with evidence’ to new viewers.
       
      He likes to reside in comfortable surroundings such as this:
      http://www.topix.com/forum/world/norway
      which has threads such as ‘Is Anders Breivik a hero?’ and ‘White genocide in Norway’.
       
      Here is a post by AWoLsco on that website:
      A lot of people are unaware that there are actually two (principal) countries in the UK, Scotland to the north and England to the south. England is only mildly racist, but Scotland is intensely racist and extremely violent. The people in the cities drink vast amounts of alcohol and enjoy violence, even with each other, but naturally any foreigners, even whitish Europeans are considered fair game. More than a few have been killed. The Scots are as bad as the Russians and became very annoyed when they heard that the Russian youth were perceived as more violent,and are taking steps to regain the title of most violent nation in Europe. I just mention this in case any are thinking of immigration to Scotland. If I were you, I would make alternative arrangements. The food is awful. The people are innately hostile and the climate, with its long, gloomy, grey,wet winters and perpetually overcast skies is depressing and induces melancholia which is linked to violence. The low light levels are a health hazard for those with dark skin,leading to vitamin D deficiency, ricketts and osteomalacia. For those reasons all immigrants to Britain are strongly advised to stick to Southern England where light levels are higher and the natives are much less hostile.
       

    268. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      Crivvens above. I go out for ONE little celebratory drink-up and look what happens.

      AWoLsco is gone. Holocaust denial and use of words like “Jewry” is a straight red, no warnings. I haven’t caught up on all the comments yet, so other action may be pending.

    269. Holebender says:

      Either that fucking Nazi leaves this site (voluntarily or otherwise) or I do.

      Oops… looks like the rev is ahead of me. Well done Stu.

    270. tartanfever says:

      Well if you don’t want to get more upset Rev, don’t look at the Scotland score.

    271. muttley79 says:

      @Rev Stu
       
      Did you enjoy your drink?  It got a bit heated on here…

    272. Cyborg-nat says:

      O T and rather sad but not unexpected. BBC news reports the possible loss of 20 to 30 Journalist jobs at The Scotsman.Some waffle about changing society given as a reason but naturally no mention of the their political stance.
      Ironic in view of Rev’s well earned  success.

    273. Yesitis says:

      On this good day, Rev Stu, it is such a disappointment to have to deal with threads polluted with such nastiness. You have done the right thing, though, and I salute you (in a nice, gentle way).
      I`m typing this just as Serbia scored their second goal *sigh*

    274. benarmine says:

      that’s a relief, hope you a good outing.

    275. BillyBigbaws says:

      AWoLsco said: “3) The Low Countries. Don’t be so low”

      Bwhahahaha. Sound military advice there from our new resident admirer of Hitler.

    276. BillyBigbaws says:

      Ah, glad to see he’s banned.  Was starting to get a bit worried there.  Even the very first comment (or at least the link it contained) was already some way over the line in my view.

    277. muttley79 says:

      @Braco
       
      Just saw your post.  Yes, you are completely correct.  The Nazis murdered political opponents, the disabled, homosexuals among others.  They also terrorised the Soviet population in a truly horrendous manner during Operation Barbarossa.  Poland suffered massively as well. 

    278. Morag says:

      A year ago, it was cosy here without Grahamski and AM1 and the rest of them.  If there is a “rest of them”, I’m not that convinced.  Back then, I thought, they won’t leave WoS alone forever.  RevStu has such an open comments policy, will it survive when they arrive?

      Right now, Grahamski is starting to look tolerable.

      I wonder if the holocaust denier posts can be removed in their entirety, even to their own dedicated Quarantine if not deleted.  I feel dirty now.

    279. Castle Rock says:

      We might be currently crap at football but we’re World Champions at the curling.
       
      Surprised WoS or Newsnet never covered the story, it was barely mentioned on the BBC or in the Scottish press.

    280. velofello says:

      Well glad he/she is gone. Its nice to be nice but sometimes…..Well done Rev.

    281. Jeannie says:

      oh..thank god he’s gone.  So glad to know the Rev was just out for a drink.  I just couldn’t figure out how that guy was allowed to continue. What a sick individual. 
       
      I wouldn’t be at all sad to see the back of Norsewarrior as well but I did engage with him so I can’t really complain when some of my own comments kept him going.  Next time one of them appears….ahm jist no playin wi them.

    282. ianbrotherhood says:

      What’s happened to Grahamski anyway? Oh, forgot, it’s a full moon. He’ll be all hairy and toothy, running about the hills looking for sheep, pausing occasionally to howl ‘We’re Better Together!’

    283. Albert Herring says:

      @MajorBloodnok
      That would by my colour choice.

    284. MajorBloodnok says:

      I salute you sir!

    285. Dcanmore says:

      Apologies for my previous post, but I had to expose AWoLsco, took me about an hour to search him out across the web, his first post made no sense at all so I smelled shite. He posts on an industrial scale, quite amazing in a nauseating way. There is a real possibility that Norsewarrior maybe the same person or a ‘friend’ of AWoLsco. They have an agenda and it’s nasty, so please be wary of any newbies that start with Hitler, racism, BNP et al. They could be planting key words.

    286. Hermione says:

      Well, if you will put up nutty threads based on bonkers press articles based on a single, somewhat batty letter from Gen. Ironside (who was relieved two weeks after sending it, and was also a Scot) then don’t be surprised if you attract nutcases.
       
      If Ironside really did think, on 5 July 1940, that the Germans were coming across the North Sea to Scotland and Ireland, he was in a minority of one.

    287. MajorBloodnok says:

      Is this a relay race?

    288. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Churchill shared these views, the book claims.”

    289. Jeannie says:

      For God Sake IGNORE!

    290. ianbrotherhood says:

      FFS, it’s like one of those arcade games where the grotesque heids keep popping up…who’s got the mallet?

    291. scottish_skier says:

      I wonder what Daily Express readers thought of the article.

    292. Morag says:

      It’s whack-a-mole!

      Hopefully they’ll get tired.

    293. Jeannie says:

      This Care in the Community thing just isn’t working out, is it?

    294. Baheid says:

      MajorBloodnok says:
      Is this a relay race ?
       
      Excellent 🙂

    295. scottish_skier says:

      Incidentally, a quick look at the Scottish Daily Express online and according to the front page current weather it’s 1 °C and slightly overcast.

      In London.

      Not sure how that’s particularly useful for the commute tomorrow.

    296. Norsewarrior says:

      “There is a real possibility that Norsewarrior maybe the same person or a ‘friend’ of AWoLsco. They have an agenda and it’s nasty, so please be wary of any newbies that start with Hitler, racism, BNP et al”

      How dare you even attempt to associate me with that revolting individual. I have NEVER made any mention whatsoever of Hitler, racism, the BNP or Jews. 

      If that is what this site is about – attacking and abusing and making revolting false insinuations about anyone who doesn’t rabidly follow the SNP party line then I want absolutely no further part in it. 

      This rev seems like a reasonable individual and there are certainly a number of others who’ve agreed with my points and engaged in rational debate with me, but there are far too many here very quick to attack and abuse me simply for having the audacity to have a different vision for independence to the SNP’s version and to dare to disagree with some of their independence strategy.
      I am actually almost physically sickened that an individual who supposedly shares my aim of independence would stoop so low as to suggest I’m a holocaust denier simply because I don’t support the SNP.

    297. ianbrotherhood says:

      @scottish_skier-
      Come on man, don’t be ungracious – those people down there in the Square Mile are working their fingers to the bone for our benefit, and that’s what this thread’s all about isn’t it? The greater good an aw that…
      BTW, you deserve a prize for the most apt (aptest?) gravatar/comment combo thus far.

    298. Hermione says:

      Campbell says:
       
      “Churchill shared these views, the book claims.”
       
      The book may or may not so claim – first I’ve ever heard of it, and I’ve read a lot about this.
       
      How about some professional journalism on this? What was the correlation of forces in the North Sea between the Royal Navy and the Kriegsmarine in July 1940? Isn’t it true that Germany basically didn’t have a serviceable navy at this point, following the losses in the Norway campaign? How was a German army to cross the North Sea – by growing wings and flapping them?
       
      Sorry, you’ve been taken in by a combination of a lazy Express journo, a bonkers author and a batty comment from an over-the-hill and about-to-be-relieved general. Still, you got the headline you wanted.
       
      Shame about the nutter invasion.
       

    299. Chic McGregor says:

      What do we do when he/she/they/it comes back under a different guise?
      Would it be possible to have a ‘report to moderator’ button, preferably with an ‘ignore future posts option’? i.e. a degree of self-moderation.

    300. Dcanmore says:

      @Ron 6.05pm
      @TYRAN 6.59pm
       
      Yeah that’s it, thanks! I knew it existed but couldn’t find it.

    301. ewen says:

      I thought I’d blundered onto the hootsmon site seeing Doris up to the usual dirty tricks. As for awolsco……trying to give the impression we are all Nazis, how primitive.I wonder how much Darling pays them as they are never offline. 

    302. scottish_skier says:

      Ultimately the story matters little. Interesting enough though historically; makes sense to the casual reader.

      Daily Express subscribers will have been the main audience. Whether it makes them think much about it or not, who knows.

      I understand the DE is a more conservative ‘god queen and empire paper’ traditionally, so could ruffle a few feathers I suppose.

    303. Amanayeman says:

      Stop feeding the trolls
      Stop feeding the trolls
      Stop feeding the trolls
      STOP FUCKING FEEDING THE TROLLS 

    304. Jeannie says:

      Anyone else losing the will to live?

    305. Bill C says:

      @Dcanmore- “He posts on an industrial scale, quite amazing in a nauseating way. There is a real possibility that Norsewarrior maybe the same person or a ‘friend’ of AWoLsco. They have an agenda and it’s nasty, so please be wary of any newbies that start with Hitler, racism, BNP et al. They could be planting key words.”
      Firstly can I personally thank you for exposing this creep. He and his ‘pals’ were attempting to disrupt this site and that is why I appealed last night to the dozens of genuine YES posters on here not to react and reply to their posts. I would make two points: 1. It is no coincidence that this attempted disruption took place just as the Rev’s appeal for funds to go full time was reaching a successful outcome. 2. It does not take Einstein to recognise that this was an orchestrated attack on the most successful independence site on the web. I and others on here have warned of ‘dirty tricks’ this was such an event. This is only the beginning, as the gap between YES and No closes so the desperation of the unionists will increase.

    306. ianbrotherhood says:

      I’m offering Evens on a second red-card being shown before the night’s out.
      Hermione’s already got a verbal for referring to Rev as ‘Campbell’, so  s/he’s a possible, and Norsewarrior’s getting awful het-up, emboldening all of a sudden, so may be about to let rip…
      And then we’ve got to consider who’s doing the final leg of Major Bloodnok’s suggested relay…?
      Wow. Blood and snotters everywhere…33k in the pot…what a day. I had intended to watch the ‘highlights’ of the Scotland game (because I don’t yet know the final score (don’t…just don’t) but this is more interesting, so I’ll crack another can.
      Bottoms up!

    307. Norsewarrior says:

      Don’t worry all those begging for me to be banned – I’m leaving, I want no further part in a site where someone can abused, attacked and linked to a holocaust denier simply for the ‘crime’ of not being an SNP supporter.

      I’ll leave you to your cosy wee complacent love-in, I’m going to find a site which is open to independence visions that differ from the SNP’s version and that is able to accept suggestions and ideas that may improve our chances of getting independence, even if they involve constructive criticism of the SNP and/or Yes Scotland.

      I’m extremely grateful that the vast majority of those within the independence movement don’t share the views and behaviour of those who’ve attacked and abused me on this site, because if they did we would have no chance of getting independence. 

    308. douglas clark says:

      Rev Stu,
       
      Thanks for dealing with that. It is tedious enough having to deal with Unionists, but holocaust deniers….
       
      I am obliged to DCanmore for his research into that individual.
       
      I agree with morag this is not the place for it, if indeed there is any place for it.
       
      Your original article here is a fascinating example of thousands of ‘might have beens’. What is interesting, to me at least, is that rumours of ‘accomodation’ with Germany appeared to stretch quite high into the establishment. What we now brand as appeasement would have been seen as realpolitic back then. It ought to be remembered that Churchill was a bit of a maverick. That he was right just added to their angst.
       
      It is a tad annoying that he is a less than loveable character, but that wasn’t what we needed back then.
       
      In any event, what we do know about Germany’s plans was that they intended to invade on a broad front through the South Coast of England – operation Sealion. It never happened because the Luftwaffe couldn’t establish air superiority. We owe a hell of a lot to the few. Who included Poles, Americans and people from Eire.
      Some of us conveniently forget that, much as we forget the attempt at the protection of Clydebank by O.R.P. PIORUN, a Polish ship – when Clydebank was being bombed to oblivion by the Luftwaffe.
      It is perhaps worth noting that the UK had, for want of a better word, already ‘protected’ both Iceland and the Faroes against German militarism. By, err, invading them. For the absence of doubt, I agree with both of these actions.
       
      The North Sea would have been an incredibly hostile environment for an invasion force. It would have been possible to land some troops, but the logistics of supporting them, I’m not so sure about.
      Anyway, thanks for sparking a few old neurons that haven’t seen the light of day in a long, long time.
       
      Final comment about your moderation policy, etc. The really bad guys in better together really love pretending that The Scottish National Party is in some way the bastard child of the National Socialists. We are not, I am not, and it is the equivalent of the blood libel. I should be obliged if you deleted any of that the moment you spotted it.
       
      Well done on meeting your target and I hope you go from strength to strength. 

    309. Jeannie says:

      O/T Just noticed that if you take the new Tory logo and draw Ruth Davidson’s hair around the top and sides of it, it looks just like her.

    310. Dcanmore says:

      ^^^ predictable … don’t bite anyone!

    311. The Man in the Jar says:

      Dcanmore I think you could be correct. Looking at norsewariors comment at 10.22 his “outrage” kind of makes me believe that they are somehow in concert. If one gets the boot the other makes a big song and dance about it. Just normal troll activity.
      I would suggest that if possible a system could be looked at where if say for example 20 known readers. Known readers being readers that have posted a comment within say 2 months. Wrote to Stu via the contact thread or a seperate “complaints” section. Then the troll in question would be bared. This would not be censorship by Rev. Stu but by the readership. Just a thought.

    312. Breastplate says:

      Major, that made me laugh out loud and wake the baby. Tut tut.

    313. Norsewarrior says:

      “Looking at norsewariors comment at 10.22 his “outrage” kind of makes me believe that they are somehow in concert. If one gets the boot the other makes a big song and dance about it”

      You are absolutely repulsive. I was NOT making a ‘song and dance’ about that that holocaust denier being banned – I quite clearly described him as ‘revolting’ – what I was angry about was some disgusting individual attempting to link me to the holocaust denier simply because my views on independence differ from the SNP’s – as any right minded individual would be similarly disgusted. 

      This site makes clear that there is a hardcore of SNP fanatics who simply won’t accept any differing views on independence or any criticism of the party, even if its constructive criticism designed to improve our chances of getting independence.
      After what I’ve seen on this site over the past 2 days I now regard the likes of you as even more of a roadblock to independence than the unionists – any right-minded individual would be utterly revolted by your behaviour.
       

    314. Morag says:

      TMITJ. Chill.  Leave it to Stu.  He’s definitely fit for them and I suspect his patience is getting a little frayed at the edges right now.

    315. ianbrotherhood says:

      Isn’t there something absolutely heartbreaking about someone called ‘Norsewarrior’ playing the victim-card?
      You’re meant to die in battle – no Valhalla for you pal. You’ll have to come back as a nematode, or worse, someone in Blair’s Cabinet.
      Toodleoothenoo!

    316. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Sorry, you’ve been taken in by a combination of a lazy Express journo”

      And Mail On Sunday journo.

    317. scottish_skier says:

      Must say I’ve seen some impressive feigned indignation this evening.
      I wonder how much practice contributes. Can it be improved by working at it?

    318. Dcanmore says:

      Some white noise on here, anybody else ‘getting it’ lol!

    319. douglas clark says:

      The moniker ‘Norsewarrior’ could be entirely innocent or it could be yet another BNP troll. Norse mythology is incredibly popular amongst the brain dead higher echelons of the BNP, as I recall.
       
      Perhaps Norsewarrior can allay my concerns?
       
      I suspect he thinks, rather than she thinks, that he is being incredibly clever.

    320. ianbrotherhood says:

      @Norsewarrior-
      These long goodbyes are horrible!
      Just go!
      Don’t look back! Please don’t look back!
      I’ll kiss the window when you’re in…if you get a window seat…
       

    321. Baheid says:

      O/T Ruthie on newsnicht now.
      Digging one  enormous hole. 🙂

    322. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:

       
      “If that is what this site is about – attacking and abusing and making revolting false insinuations about anyone who doesn’t rabidly follow the SNP party line then I want absolutely no further part in it.”
       
      Nice try pal. This site does not “attack, abuse or making revolting false insinuations about anyone”. But well done for a good attempt to tar the site with that tag.
       
      Your comments thus far have not been posted in an attempt to engage in debate but rather to stimulate discord. As for your reputation as a troll, lets have your own words back that up.
       
      When discussing Student Fees you defended the Union by stating:
       
      “the SNP Government will still be the government even if there’s a no vote – why would they introduce tuition fees?”
       
      Which completely misses one of the main arguments for independence… namely that our funding is being cut from Westminster and forcing these changes upon us.
       
      It also fails to note that saying you can hide behind an SNP government indefinitely is not a very good argument to stay in the UK. Why would we need a shield against Westminster if Westminster was no longer involved?
       
      Not the sort of arguments or thinking of an independence supporter, who would have an idea of both of these things.
       
      You tried to conflate the Edinburgh Trams fiasco with poor governance and noted that:
       
      “The fiasco – with vastly increased costs and time to complete – has occurred under the SNP’s stewardship at both national and local (until 2011) level”
       
      Which misses the point that it was a cynical ploy to kill an SNP budget and prevent them making a difference to the lives of people in Scotland, and that John Swinney said from the very beginning “not a penny more than £500m” and stuck to that commitment. The thrust of your argument was clear… you were conflating our current government with incompetence in an attempt to put people off independence.
       
      When called out on lying on the figures you quoted, you immediately demanded an apology for the ‘slur’ rather than engage or defend the stats you posted.
       
      When another poster pointed out a very pertinent point about cuts to services and funding you chastised them as negative and scaremongering in order to shut down debate on that topic… a topic that is very damaging to the ‘NO’ campaign.
       
      You then tried to put people off visiting this site with a thinly disguised ploy to fool new viewers:
       
      “I really hope those many Scots who are tempted by independence but who don’t support or like the SNP don’t visit this site, given the obnoxious abuse I received earlier for daring to criticise the party.”
       
      In which you refer both to ‘independence supporters’ and ‘the party’ (SNP) as being one and the same… they are not and no independence supporter thinks they are. But that was beautifully followed up with an appeal to non-snp voters (Green, LibDems, SSP, Labour and even conservatives) not to take part in the Yes campaign because its just an SNP front:
       
      “Although the SNP fantics give lip service to the notion that independence is for everyone regardless of the party they support, the reality is revealed whenever anyone dares to criticise their beloved party – they are immediately denounced as a ‘troll’ and a ‘sleekit wee liar’ and not a real independence supporter”
       
      Again, you do not provide evidence for your claim… it is merely an attempt to put off people from a wider audience engaging.
       
      But this was merely the introduction to your next wheeze…
       
      “The history of referendums tells us that the status quo vote always grows the closer they get – so we really need to be leading right now, or at least building up momentum towards a win.”
       
      Which is intended to induce gloom… “oh no… we’re not 10 points ahead 18 months from the referendum… were doomed I tells ya!”
       
      Before adding:
       
      “we really need to be leading right now, or at least building up momentum towards a win. The only way we can do that is if the SNP release the white paper as soon as possible – November will probably be too late”
       
      Which parroted calls from Unionist politicians to bring forward the release of the paper. Scots can read and understand a document in a FULL year…
       
      Then you moved onto the “its not real independence they’re proposing anyway so why bother” routine:
       
      “The reality is that the version of independence I favour is far more full and real than the SNP’s watered down, diluted version”
       
      Loved this addition… surprised you didn’t wet yourself laughing when you typed it though:
       
      “People should just openly argue in favour of their respective camps without any trolling or fakery or abuse or attacks.”
       
      You then spent the rest of that thread trying to sow discord, calling people fanatics, odious or worse while flatly denying you had any ulterior motives (right down to backing up your claim that the SNP were responsible for the Trams because they were elected in 2007…)
       
      That was 1 thread.
       
      If you think it goes un-noticed, you’re wrong.
       
      The reason you are allowed to continue on (at least for a while) is that your antics damage YOUR side, not ours.
       
       

    323. The Man in the Jar says:

      Noarsewarior at 10.57
      As predicted.
      Cheerie!

    324. Yesitis says:

      @Morag
      “TMITJ. Chill.  Leave it to Stu.  He’s definitely fit for them and I suspect his patience is getting a little frayed at the edges right now”
      We won`t always agree, but I agree with you 100% here.

    325. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      Right.

      I’ve read most of the comment backlog now, and it seems to me that based solely on what’s been posted on this site, Norsewarrior has been the victim of something of a witch-hunt. He/she’s perfectly entitled to dislike the SNP but support independence, and I’ve seen no evidence to suggest anything else going on. This is a pro-independence blog, not an SNP one.

      People are far too prone to making unsupported allegations (eg “Grahamski is Eric Joyce”), and unless they ARE supported in some way I’m going to get increasingly cranky about it in future.

      Norsewarrior is not an innocent party – the username is unhelpful and the stupid opening posts blaming the SNP for the Edinburgh trams were asking for trouble to a degree that certainly bordered on trolling – but frankly since then they seem to me more sinned against than sinning. Unless I’ve missed something, I see no justification whatever for linking them to the Holocaust denier.

      Let’s be clear about something: I’ll judge when someone is behaving unacceptably here. Persistent deliberate disruption will be dealt with, as it has been in the past. But leave the moderation to me – either engage someone in debate if they appear to be posting in good faith, or ignore them if they don’t.

      This thread has only taken a tiny bit of the shine off an amazing day. Let’s have this be as bad as it gets, okay?

      The thread will be closed to further comments at midnight. If anyone has anything to say before then, you have 47 minutes.

    326. Norsewarrior says:

      You can call me a ‘unionist’ and a ‘troll’ and whatever else you like simply because I criticise the SNP, I really don’t care.

      But don’t ever dare to try to insinuate that I’m a holocaust denier by linking me to that revolting individual who was banned. 

      Not that its anyone’s business, but my grandparents experienced first hand the evils of nazism, before they came to Scotland in the 1950s for a new life. They were proud to call themselves Scottish and I’m equally proud to be a Scot with Polish roots. 

      I am actually almost physically sickened that anyone could attempt to tar me with the brush of being a holocaust denier simply because I don’t agree with the SNP’s version of independence. 

      I won’t be giving this site any more of my time. 

      Rev – if you’re reading this I’d strongly advise you to deal with some of the individuals who frequent this site, if their attitudes and revolting behaviour are commonplace.

    327. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      Hermione says:

      Campbell says:”

      And while we’re here, that’s officially your last ever warning.

    328. muttley79 says:

      @Baheid
       
      What did Davidson say on Newsnight?
       
      Scott/Sneekyboy:  Quality demolition of norsewarrior.

    329. The Man in the Jar says:

      @Morag
      I know naughty, but I could not resist. Worked a treat!

    330. crisiscult says:

      ever since I discovered what a troll is, probably back in 2005, I’ve wondered why people bother feeding them. I guess people who are defending independence or this website are worried about the ‘don’t know’ voters being put off by the comments. I may be wrong on the theory that the majority of people don’t read the comments. 
      I’ve personally recommended this site to several undecideds and know that 3 have definitely read it. I asked them if they read the comments and they said no; just a few of the stories. The good news was that they were really interested and impressed.
      I read the comments, but only skimming over for interesting links usually. This is one of the few times I’ve read through most of the comments. 

    331. Morag says:

      Stu, I couldn’t face watching Ruthie on Newsnicht (I’m still getting over a bad cold), but I wouldn’t mind hearing other people’s take on it.  If you’re wisely going to close this over-long thread, could we have a new one to lay into Action-woman?

    332. mrbfaethedee says:

      lol @ newsnicht
      Alex Massie’s tie looks like it’s been taken hostage by the rest of his wardrobe.
      David Torrance’s heid looks like it’s been taken hostage by his (bond-like) wardrobe.

    333. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Stu, I couldn’t face watching Ruthie on Newsnicht (I’m still getting over a bad cold), but I wouldn’t mind hearing other people’s take on it. If you’re wisely going to close this over-long thread, could we have a new one to lay into Action-woman?”

      I plan a post on Davidson’s Damascene conversion tomorrow morning.

    334. douglas clark says:

      Rev Stu,
       
      Have you read what Scott had to say @ 11:06?
       
      I have serious doubts about the sincerity of Norsewarrior. OK, who am I and who is he?
       
      It is OK to say you are pro independence. Apparently we both are.
       
      It is not however OK to caveat that. His opinion is not my hostage to fortune and neither should it be for your good readers.
       
      This (some would say deliberately) spoiled an otherwise very happy day for me.
       
      We can, err, ‘cloudsource’? for better journalism.

    335. Bill C says:

      @Rev Stu – “But leave the moderation to me – either engage someone in debate if they appear to be posting in good faith, or ignore them if they don’t. ”

      Amen to that!

    336. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:

      @Douglas Clark
       
      He’s not honest about his motivations but he is right, there is no proof that he holds any anti-semitic or any other distasteful belief and so is right to be annoyed at that (and seek an apology from the person who made the accusation – not this site).
       
      The argumentative posting is annoying but he hasn’t really crossed over from annoying to nuisance yet and its the Rev’s call as to when that’s happened.

    337. Bill C says:

      Re. Ruth Davidson – Watched her on Scotland Tonight and Newsnicht, all over the place, must be taking lessons from Gary Caldwell!

    338. The Man in the Jar says:

      In view of Rev. Stu`s comment I will take this opportunity to apologise to Rev. Stu and to Norsewarior for any unnecessary upset that I may have caused.
      However Norsewarior can you please tell me why do you spend your time going over and over the same old arguments. I thought that I had kind of got your point by about your 30th comment on the same thread. And why the repeated comments venting your hatred for the SNP I think we all understood that pretty early on in your comments. I think that your comments went beyond what most people would consider appropriate and that makes me suspicious of your motives. Go on prove me wrong. For the record I am not and never have been a member of the SNP.

    339. Morag says:

      I simply know that I have read every single thing posted by Norsewarrior before, in the Scotsman comments threads, where the names at the head of the posts were Tellen1 and Independence Now – among other things.  The verbal construction and passive-aggressive standpoint are absolutely unmistakeable.  And he is extremely disruptive to debate.

      He’s been quite good at it this time, after an initial re-group when he came on a bit strong, but I simply do not believe there is more than one of this person despite the multiple user names.  I agree with RevStu that there have been unfair and unjustified accusations of sockpuppetry against other posters here, but this is not one of them in my opinion.

    340. Baheid says:

      @muttley79 says:
       
      Oh heaps min, 
      Brewer pointed out that the more devo was not her idea really, and was only catching up with Cameron her leader, who had suggested this a year ago.
      Ruthie then explained that C was not the leader of the Scottish cons,she is, and she as leader is in charge of policy making.
       
      You’ll need to watch it, the body language, the nervous giggles/laughter, generally drivel.
      I think she has just put herself under enormous pressure.
      It looks to me that she has decided, own her own, this is the way to go.
      Actually I’ll have to watch it again it’s complete and utter mince.

    341. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “The verbal construction and passive-aggressive standpoint are absolutely unmistakeable. And he is extremely disruptive to debate.”

      I will, be assured, be keeping a close watch. But everyone gets the benefit of the doubt here until they prove otherwise. If I judged people on previous behaviour elsewhere, Grahamski would never have seen the light of day. But we’re better than him, and as such not scared of letting the opposition be heard. If they choose to use that fair hearing to damn themselves with cheap trollery in lieu of a reasoned argument, that’s their call.

    342. Morag says:

      Fair enough.  I was only highlighting that this newbie is indeed a known (and expected) quantity.  I trust your judgement as much as anyone’s, taking it from there.

    343. tartanpigsy says:

      Thank f**k I was late for this one.
       
      Own goal of the race so far (to the disinterested).
       
      I’ll leave before getting involved.

    344. Indy_Scot says:

      If it looks like a spade and sounds like a spade, then it’s a spade.

    345. Morag says:

      In some cases, it’s a bloody shovel.

    346. douglas clark says:

      Scott Minto,

      I am probably your greatest fan, but this, err, no:
       
      You say:
       
      He’s not honest about his motivations but he is right, there is no proof that he holds any anti-semetic or any other distasteful belief and so is right to be annoyed at that (and seek an apology from the person who made the accusation – not this site).
       
      The argumentative posting is annoying but he hasn’t really crossed over from annoying to nuisance yet and its the Rev’s call as to when that’s happened.
       
      Sure. I have never associated him with that piece of scum. I never would.
       
      However I would like Norsewarrior to answer my post:
       
      The moniker ‘Norsewarrior’ could be entirely innocent or it could be yet another BNP troll. Norse mythology is incredibly popular amongst the brain dead higher echelons of the BNP, as I recall.
       
      Perhaps Norsewarrior can allay my concerns?
       
      I suspect he thinks, rather than she thinks, that he is being incredibly clever.”
       
      Apart from my, I think, legitimate questions about his moniker, I have never argued that he is in the same league as the other chap.
       
      I would point out that you are rolling back somewhat from your post of 11:06pm.
       
      I quote you:
       
      “You then spent the rest of that thread trying to sow discord, calling people fanatics, odious or worse while flatly denying you had any ulterior motives (right down to backing up your claim that the SNP were responsible for the Trams because they were elected in 2007…)”
       
      Eh!
       
      You are now allowing a troll to divide a strong community, for what benefit?
       
      Just saying.
       
       

    347. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If it looks like a spade and sounds like a spade, then it’s a spade.”

      If it’s a spade, it’ll dig a hole soon enough.

    348. molly says:

      I’m confused, Ruthie was talking about Scotland raising more revenue .Why or how do we raise more revenue when it would get sent to Westminster anyway ? 
      How would Scotland benefit ?

    349. Morag says:

      RevStu said:
      I plan a post on Davidson’s Damascene conversion tomorrow morning.
       
      Oh good, so we don’t have to spend all morning talking about bloody football.

      Tell you what – after 1978, it’s a damn good thing we’re not in that accursed final in 2014.

    350. Gordon Barclay says:

      Stuart has kindly re-opened the comments page to allow me to point out that the Daily Express article, above, and the Mail on Sunday article on which it is based, are untrue. I wrote the book and did the research, and the construction put on it by the journalists is completely misleading.

      There was no plan to abandon or somehow sacrifice Scotland, but that ‘factoid’ has reappeared many times in the months since, used as crude justification for a ‘Yes’ vote.

      I have written an article exploring the birth and development of this ‘factoid’. http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=12675&article=www.thinkscotland.org

    351. David Mitchell says:

      Talk about resurrecting an old thread ( sorry)
      I read a book many years ago which was on the history of the SS during WW2. There was a statement made in it that Hitler did not intend to invade Scotland but only England.
      The Nazis included Scotland with Denmark, Norway and Ireland as part of the “Nordic Race”.
      That Scotland would have had autonomy but with a Governor General overseeing parliament.
      The term “Battle of Britain ” is an English propaganda term to show unity.
      Unfortunately I have never sourced this comment so it’s just hearsay ( or anecdotal?)

    352. Dan says:

      My goodness. I can’t believe any English top brass with their head screwed on would have tolerated such a plan for a moment. They might as well have signed surrender on the spot and save a few thousand casualties.

      No worries about a few blond blue-eyed Aryan officers tossing the bradwurst in the Highlands and Islands, but how could anyone in England have connived at a Nazi takeover of Strathclyde and Borders?

      Just think of the likely chain of events:

      (1) Speer and Goering commandeer all Scotland’s heavy industrial might to stockpiling armaments that don’t even need much transport to be amassed on the Tweed.

      (2) Very soon, a false flag incident as pretext to seize the Newcastle coalfields, both boosting German arms production and seriously hurting English Midlands production.

      (3) Constant air harrying of northern industrial towns, easier than of Coventry from the continent as RAF coverage and resistance minimal.

      (4) Eventually the English war machine is too weak to restore RAF losses. Now is the time for Goering to replay the Battle of Britain, this time from two powerful fronts, and this time winning decisively.

      (5) German land and air forces move far south of the border, taking over what’s left of the industrial towns’ production and also getting in comfortable range of English south-coast naval yards. Two-pincered bombardment from Continent and Midlands disables the Royal Navy enough to assure subsequent success of Operation Sealion.

      (6) Needless to say, with all Britain conquered the US have no platform to enter the European war, and would in any case be impossible to convince of it anyway. Possibly the Soviet Union could win it in the end anyway, but that end would be years and millions more lives further off. Or if the Soviets failed, it’s the Fatherland scenario. Bye bye Euro-Jewry.

      All because of a few demented English nationalists? Wow, just wow.



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top