The People’s Front of Judea


by Christian Wright

commonspace delusions of granduer

CommonSpace’s delusions of grandeur.

Angela Haggerty, Editor of CommonSpace, in a Herald article

“But almost 18 months after the vote, that online movement is in grave danger of eating itself”


“Take some of the increasingly bizarre attitudes towards CommonSpace, the online news website I edit. “

Reality check, Angela, few outside the bubble you inhabit have ever heard of CommonSpace, and even fewer care about its fate. You’re really not that important.

“And CommonSpace has done phenomenally well for a team of one editor and just three reporters. We’ve had exclusive stories picked up by national newspapers and our coverage has led to difficult questions for those wielding power in both the UK and Scottish Parliaments.”

In truth you’ve had no substantive effect on political outcomes that affect the lives of ordinary punters whose votes matter.

“It’s peculiar, then, that CommonSpace – along with well-established pro-indy websites like Bella Caledonia – has become the enemy for a fringe of the independence movement best summed up by the wonderful Twitter hashtag #wheeshtforindy.”

An intervention here – you’re a fringe.peoples front of judea splitter

This article is redolent of the hubris of the People’s Front of Judea.

Piece of advice, Angela: get over yourself. Now I understand that folk like Iain MacWhirter may hold you dear, but in terms of the wider political dynamic, you are and will likely remain, an irrelevance.

It is rare to encounter this degree of delusion outside a clinical setting.



by christian wright

thompson hutcheon

That thoroughly disreputable marginal wordsmith and Herald hack, Paul Hutcheon, laughingly titled the the Herald’s “Investigations Editor”  has launched yet another fact-free gratuitous assault on the person of Michelle Thomson in Sunday’s Herald.

Let’s have a look at Mr Hutcheon’s narrative:

SHE is the controversial MP whose curious property deals have provided the SNP with a never-ending run of bad headlines.


Note the language, steering well clear of any possible legal trouble yet injecting enough innuendo to traduce. No mention from Hutcheon that along with the BBC’s Gary Robertson, he has been a major source of those headlines, long on accusation but noticeably short on fact. Like Robertson, Hutcheon is not one to allow the process of official investigation to take its course before pillorying a lady.

Thomson had been ready to appear at the glitzy Scottish Business Awards this month – at which George Clooney is the A-list speaker – but she has now been uninvited over fears her attendance would tarnish the event.

One SNP source joked: “Not even Clooney in ER could resuscitate Michelle Thomson’s political career.”

Ha, ha, ha! A real knee-slapper. “One SNP source joked …”. Here we see the cognitive reach of this dolt. Who was that source Paul? Your granny? A wee ginger dug? You’re not even a competent bullshitter, are you?

However, she was soon caught up in a scandal over her involvement in a series of “back-to-back” property deals involving multiple sales of the same home being pushed through on one day.

Really? And your evidence of her wrongdoing, where is it Paul? Or do you mean there were charges against another and you sought to blacken Thomson’s name . . . just because you could? All Hutcheon has done in article after article is recruit baseless innuendo and invective in the service of character assassination.

Truth is, If you were to place Paul next to a waste of space, I wouldn’t be able to tell one from the other.

This is taking SNP ass-kissing of Unionist jihadi journos to a whole new level


by Christian Wright
In an article in The National George Kerevan, the SNP MP for East Lothian writes:
“… I don’t mean its hardworking Scottish team of Severin Carrell or uber-blogger Libby Brooks”
How much hard work can Severin’s patented cut ‘n’ paste articles of Unionist party press releases be, George?
“They included some of the paper’s grandees, such as Martin Kettle and Jonathan Freedland… was it perhaps the case that the post-referendum political revolution in Scotland had finally persuaded the Guardian that it was actually time its intellectual superstars travelled north of Hadrian’s Wall to find out what was going on?”
Seriously George? Your Yoda-like sagacity leads you to opine that that brace of marginal wordsmiths, Kettle and Freedland are “intellectual superstars”? Doesn’t the evidence of their wares on matters constitutional and Scottish confirm their cognitive reach is more akin to that of lobotomised fruit flies?
This is taking Unionist jihadi journalist ass-kissing to a whole new level.
. . . Or maybe you were just being ironic. For the sake of the Nation and your immortal soul, I hope so.


The true nature of the commentariat


Deserving of further consideration – Peter Bell‘s take in an exceptional BTL comment in response to an article by Kevin Mckenna in Sunday’s Guardian.

Peter A Bell 

McKenna gruniad Bell

“I was greatly cheered reading the headline over Kevin McKenna’s article. I saw the reference to Nicola Sturgeon astutely and gently guiding us to a second independence referendum as suggesting that McKenna had “got it”. The headline spoke of an understanding of Sturgeon’s rhetoric on the subject of that had so woefully eluded other commentators. What followed was a major disappointment.

Where the headline appeared to promise an informed, perceptive analysis, the article itself delivered little more than the shallow, impoverished account that forms the cosy consensus of the mainstream media. Albeit, thankfully, shorn of the more vivid and virulent language of British nationalism.

Where the headline at least hinted at a readiness to challenge that cosy consensus, what we got instead was an unquestioning acceptance of the malicious myths promulgated by the British media. McKenna had the opportunity to distinguish himself by questioning, for example, the calumny about “Scotland’s dysfunctional police force”. Whatever mistakes may have been made, there is absolutely no sense in which Police Scotland might reasonably be described as “dysfunctional”. The perception of failure and crisis in Scotland’s institutions and public services is a creation of the British establishment’s propaganda machine. It is part of the entirely predictable – and frequently predicted – onslaught ensuing from a No vote in the first referendum.

McKenna compounds his failure to scrutinise these assertions of failure and crisis by denying any role for the media in aiding the British establishment’s propaganda campaign. He instead deploys the facile straw man which holds that expressing even mild dubiety about the portrayal of Scotland as a “failed state” is tantamount to an assertion that everything in Scotland is perfect and the SNP beyond criticism.

One always hopes that Kevin McKenna will be above such idiocy. But there is no escaping the fact that the mainstream British media is part of the British establishment. It’s agenda is the British establishment’s agenda. It’s dissent is contrived and controlled.

The bubble in which the media operates is invisible from the inside. Kevin McKenna is, I am quite certain, unaware that he is reflecting a view of Scottish politics that is heavily mediated. And it must be allowed that he sees more of the reality than most journalists. (Or perhaps it’s that he is more prepared to acknowledge that reality.) He sees, for example, that “Sturgeon has, in a short space of time, manipulated her opponents into allowing a free vote for their members when the curtain rises on indyref2”. How many other commentators have seen fit to remark on that? Not many, I suspect. It is not a good fit with the “SNP BAD!” narrative.

But, for all this, McKenna still manages to miss the clear message that Nicola Sturgeon is sending to the entire independence movement in Scotland. He is as one with the majority of his colleagues in proclaiming that Sturgeon’s message was about “lowering the temperature on the prospect of an early referendum”. He fails to recognise that, far from seeking to put the issue of a second referendum on the “back burner”, Sturgeon has just issued a clarion call to independence supporters urging a redoubling of efforts to capture the soft No vote.

More importantly, McKenna is also deaf to Sturgeon’s call for a massive campaign demanding a second referendum. There was a single short sentence in Sturgeon’s speech at the opening of the SNP Conference whose import appears to have been lost on mainstream commentators.

No one has the right to stand in the way of democracy.

To those of us who are “tuned in” to the actuality of Scottish politics, as opposed to the distorting media narrative, This is a clear warning to the British establishment that any attempts to block a second referendum will be vigorously resisted. It is, furthermore, a call to the people of Scotland to begin the task of mounting that resistance.

The cosy consensus of the British media holds that Sturgeon has sidelined the dual issues of independence and a second referendum. On the contrary, she has confirmed that these are the defining issues of Scottish politics as we go into the Holyrood elections. She has not kicked the matter into the long grass, as less acute observers contend. She has deftly passed the ball to the people of Scotland.

Sturgeon has recognised that it is the people of Scotland who will be the driving force in the ongoing fight to restore Scotland’s rightful constitutional status. She has acknowledged that the SNP will play a supporting role – albeit a crucial one as the de facto political arm of the independence movement.”

The Rennie: The SI international unit measure of irrelevance


by Christian Wright (updated)

O.E.D2266 edition The Rennie: The SI international unit measure of irrelevance, named after an obscure, diminutive, 21st Century Scottish politician who became an object of ridicule for jumping up and down in frustration that no one took him seriously.

Example use of: George Foulkes, Baron Foulkes of Cumnock (who gave his name to the annual Guy Foulkes Day festivities when he is burned in effigy, was posthumously diagnosed as terminally irrelevant in 2152, with a score of 873.5 millirennies [873.5 mRen] – any dose above 500mRen on the Rennie Scale is politically fatal).


You’ve got to admire Willie’s chutzpah. rennie the irrelevantThis is the guy who presided over the LibDem’s effective extinction in Scotland. He and his hommies in Holyrood comprise less than 4% of the membership of that legislature. He is given an inordinate amount of ink and broadcast facetime by the MSM relative to his and his party’s political significance.

It’s all practiced bile and flimflam from oor Willie. Melt him down and you’d have 9 stone of brass neck and a half pint of nippy sweetie.


Serving Pablum


By Christian Wright

MacWhirter phones it in

The wizened hack, disillusioned and made cynical by decades in the oldest profession in the world, knocks out 778 words over a liquid lunch. Never mind the quality feel the width.

Today’s Sunday Herald carries an article by Iain MacWhirter, a talented journo who increasingly seems to be just phoning it in.

MacWhirter: ” Ms Sturgeon’s remarks on Twitter, suggesting that Corbyn would only make a Tory government more likely, struck the wrong note.”

Iain seems intent on misrepresenting the facts whenever they do not fit his thesis. What Sturgeon actually said was:

“If Lab can’t quickly show that they have credible chance of winning UK election, many will conclude that Indy only alternative to Tory gov”

That observation holds regardless of the outcome of the Labour Party leadership election.

MacWhirter: “Anecdotally, there is evidence that Labour is gaining members in Scotland from former Yes voters.”

Are you talking about the “study/investigation” by a rabidly anti-independence pro-Union journalist who wrote of three or four examples or something else, Iain? You don’t say.

MacWhirter: “Certainly, if Nicola Sturgeon were to call a snap referendum in the near future, it would be a risky business.”

If there is one thing above all else that Sturgeon seemed to rule-out in her speech last week, it was the possibility of a “snap referendum in the near future”.

MacWhirter: “Nicola Sturgeon isn’t panicking yet and anyway seems in no mood for an early referendum.”

Oh, you noticed.

MacWhirter: “And even if [Corbyn] survives until the 2020 general election, the chances are that he would lose by a huge margin. That would leave the Tories in charge in Westminster, which is generally good news for the SNP.”

But, but . . . You have just told us: “Ms Sturgeon’s remarks on Twitter, suggesting that Corbyn would only make a Tory government more likely, struck the wrong note.”

MacWhirter: “Of course, many people, myself included, feel some real sympathy for Jeremy Corbyn as he is rubbished by the press… Corbyn is simply not a natural leader – he is an accident. A little like Peter Sellers’s brilliant comic construct, Chauncey Gardner, in Being There, Corbyn was the hapless beneficiary of a revolt against establishment politics.”

Yes Iain, the genuine sympathy you feel for corbyn is evinced in your excoriation of him in the next few sentences.

MacWhirter: “Of course, he’s not dead yet. Corbyn’s best hope, looking forward, is that the intemperate criticism directed at him backfires. There has been a rush to judgement.”

Well, those dastardly journos and politicos who are rushing to judgement better have their running shoes on if they are to have a chance of beating you in that race, Iain.

MacWhirter: “Could you imagine any SNP MSPs attacking their leader in the press, refusing to serve in her cabinet, threatening to stage coups?”

Yes we can, if their leader bottled it and failed to enact a winnable referendum out of an overabundance of caution, then lost power in a subsequent Holyrood election to the parties of Union (who would block any referendum regardless of a majority of the electorate favouring independence).

MacWhirter: “Yes, if only Labour could arrange a free transfer, then the Blairites would truly be back in their box, and Labour could look at giving the Tories a serious challenge in 2020. But this is the real world, and unfortunately that just ain’t gonna happen.”

No, it ain’t, and like the rest of this stream of consciousness riff, it is pablum masquerading as dispassionate analysis and acute insight. Readers deserve better.


Boss Kelly’s diagnosis


By Christian Wright

Stuart Campbell over at wings showcases Labourite former Glasgow Lord Provost Boss Kelly’s enormous self-regard, in diagnosing the Scottish electorate’s failure to vote Red Tory in recent elections to be presenting symptoms of underlying mental morbidity.

Of course, as we have documented here, and here, the Union’s men find this diagnosis of a national psychiatric illness comforting in the extreme. The alternative would be to confront their own vacuity on matters politic and Scottish, and we couldn’t have that, could we? [Sometimes the relentless pressure of this cognitive dissonance causes one among their number to snap and enter a dissociative state – a fugue, with the most embarrassing results.]

We need more Labour Party apparatchiks and former apparatchiks to come forward to trumpet this message. It has worked so well to date.

Exquisitely textured hubris of this quality should not be hidden away. Deny Boss Kelly no platform to display it so that he might demonstrate to 60% of the Scottish electorate that he has the requisite vision, and that they are at once delusional and as thick.

michael kelly

Michael Kelly, dispositive evidence that absence of a cerebral cortex is no barrier to advancement in the Labour Party.

Alex Massie still on a jihad


by Christian Wright

Alex Massie, writing in the Spectator, puts much of the SNP’s rise to 62% in the latest TNS Holyrood election poll down to a bandwagon effect.

“People like to support successful teams. That’s why there are far more Chelsea fans now than there were 20 years ago. It’s why, in Scotland, Celtic and (until recently) Rangers carved up the country between them.”

And on the electorate’s view of the SNP government’s performance

“Consider these findings: just 25 percent of voters think the SNP is doing a good job on the economy while 24 percent are disappointed by the party’s economic record (45 percent say its neither good nor bad).

As for the NHS, well, 34 percent of voters are happy with the government’s record, 29 percent are unhappy and 33 percent are neither gruntled nor disgruntles[sic].

Education? Shamefully, 30 percent think the government is doing well while just 19 percent disagree and 40 percent are in the neither well nor poor camp.

On crime and justice the numbers are even less flattering to the nationalists. Just 23 percent of respondents are happy with the government’s performance, 29 percent say the SNP are doing badly in these areas and 40 percent dinnae ken.”

Massie spectator 62 percent

Massie argues that such overwhelming support despite this “awful” performance, demonstrates that the SNP is being given a pass by a befuddled electorate.

Alex is on a Unionist jihad and is blind to the truth as all McHadis are.

You see, according to Alex it’s not he who has it wrong – it’s them! You know the voters. They’re not thinking with their heads, you see. They don’t understand.

With respect to the SNP government’s performance data in key areas, here’s what the voters are saying

Scottish GOVERNMENT is DOING well or not doing badly

Econ – 69%
NHS –   67%
Educ – 70%
Just –  63%

Now that’s the reality and is the main reason for the SNP’s ever rising popularity.

Massie really jumps the shark with the claim that much of the rise can be put down to a bandwagon effect. There is no evidence to support this but then, evidence is not what Massie’s about.

He is a believer in the Union and Conservatism. He’s a fundamentalist. For him Tory Unionism is a religion. His politics are faith based and he exhibits magical thinking seldom encountered outside a clinical setting.

Despite all the evidence that support for the SNP by those who voted NO, stems from the reality that the SNP are extremely competent at governing, the Spectator’s resident McHadi through willful ignorance, remains clueless.


Andrew Rawnsley: The sound of one neuron clapping


by Christian Wright

andrew rawsley

Memo: To Andrew Rawnsley

 in a Guardian article on issue of indyref2 you wrote:


The SNP says that it is “entirely a matter for the people of Scotland to decide”. That isn’t true either unless they are proposing, which they are not, to hold a referendum on whether there should be another referendum.


Andrew, let me help you, and PAY ATTENTION because I’ll be asking questions later.

Whether or not there will be another referendum is up to the people of Scotland. They and they alone will decide that. Capisce?

The timing of the referendum within the tenure of the next Scottish Parliament will be decided by the Scottish Parliament.

Still not got it, huh?

OK . . .

If and only if the SNP manifesto contains a commitment to indyref2, AND the SNP secure another absolute majority at the next Holyrood elections in a proportional voting system, specifically designed to prevent that happening, will there be a second plebiscite.

The mandate to hold another referendum on independence will come from the vote of the people of Scotland in their general election, when they return the SNP for a third term, aware that front and centre marked by a blue flashing light, is the pledge to hold indyref2.

Let me bullet-point it for you Andrew:

1. Mandate for indyref2 comes from the reelection of a majority SNP government whose manifesto includes a commitment to a second referendum during the life of the new parliament

2. The timing of the referendum within the tenure of the new parliament will be a matter for the First Minister and ultimately, Scottish Parliament to decide. A majority will be required to pass enabling legislation. It cannot be actioned by fiat.

3. If and only if the People vote for independence in said referendum will Scotland dissolve its union with England and resume its status as an independent country.

Now Is there any part of that that you do not understand, Andrew?


Andrew Rawnsley:

One of their justifications for this volte-face [on foxhunting vote] was that “hundreds” of the English had begged the SNP’s MPs to use their votes to thwart the government. As excuses go, this was comically hollow. If hundreds of English voters wrote to the SNP demanding that they supported the restoration of capital punishment south of the border, would they oblige them?

Hard not to tire of this hackery. The overriding reason for the SNP intervention on foxhunting was the Unionists disgraceful behaviour during the second reading of the Scotland Bill days before, where they never attended the debate, but tripped out of the bars in their hundreds (arm in arm, Labour and Tory) to vote against SNP amendments. Amended legislation for which the SNP had an unambiguous parliamentary mandate from the Scottish electorate.

English MPs and the UK Government gave Scotland the middle finger. It became clear that it didn’t matter in the least what the Scottish electorate had voted for, they were going to get the legislation England wanted. It was the exercise of direct Rule from London.

When the amendments to this Scotland Bill were defeated the English MPs actually brayed, then returned to the Commons bars until the next vote. They treated Scots as vassals of a vassal state, that comprises the hinterland of England’s inner empire. That was the background and the impetus for the decision to interfere in the foxhunting issue.

Now I don’t think Rawnsley is being mendacious, I think he is simply clueless, with a cartoon understanding of the Scottish political dynamic borne of indolence and willful ignorance. This of course inevitably leads to his Mickey Mouse analyses that are frankly, laughable.

It never seems to occur to these geniuses to ask themselves why their predictions about the future of the SNP and Scottish nationalism, seldom pan-out. These numpties comprised the brains trust who assured you Blairite Jim Murphy was the guy to sort out the SNP, and that nationalist delight over his appointment as Labour’s branch manager in Scotland, was actually evidence of “separatist” panic and fear.

I mean, FFS.

A matter of public health and disease control


by christian Wright

michael brown

In an article in the Independent, former Conservative MP Michael Brown calls the investigation into the alleged criminal acts of paederasty by the late former Prime Minister, Edward Heath, a witch-hunt.


When the Savile accusations and investigation started I thought it a witch hunt. Unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo used to blacken the memory of someone who had done so much to improve the lives of the sick and disabled.

Boy, was I wrong. Now it’s hard to find an old broadcast of Top of the Pops that isn’t hosted by or that does not otherwise feature, a convicted peodophile or paederast.

It is vital this canker at the heart of the political-glitterati establishment be fully exposed, then excised. No rock under which these crawling things may be hiding should be left unturned. The priority should be the exposure and conviction of the still-living but the dead, at least their reputation, should not escape judgement either.

Perhaps even more important for the health of the polity is the arrest, trial, and conviction, of the enablers without whom these rapists could not have operated. They are accessories before and after the fact, and should be held to be criminal co-conspirators who bear the same guilt and liability as the perpetrators themselves.

Those children (now adults) who suffered these unendurable assaults should as a matter of automatic right, be entitled to substantial punitive damages from the estates of those who directly destroyed their young lives, AND from those who knew of the crimes committed against them but did nothing, or worse, actively participated in a cover-up of the truth.

There should be no nook or cranny deemed off-limits in getting to the truth. This is a can of worms that as a matter of disease control and for the health of society, needs to be cut open and the morbidity that dwelleth therein, eradicated.

Why an SNP manifesto pledge to a second referendum on independence is not optional



by Christian Wright

There are two requirements to deliver independence.
1. A government with the power to action a referendum on independence (a majority in Parliament)

2. A majority voting YES in that referendum.

You need BOTH of these. On their own each is necessary but not sufficient.

If there is no commitment to action a referendum on independence in the manifesto, the SNP government will have no mandate to call one. By omitting a pledge to hold a referendum in their manifesto, the SNP precludes a referendum for at least the life of the next Scottish Parliament, no matter if they form the government or not.

Unless they’re planning to have a referendum-on-holding-a-referendum on independence when the time is right (i.e. when the chances of a majority YES vote are as good as they’re ever going to get). I’m only halfway joking here. There HAS to be a clear commitment to a referendum on independence in the SNP manifesto to effect an unchallengeable mandate.

Everyone knows this. If the SNP meet or exceed their performance of 2011 and form another majority government after nine years of incumbency, it will be a remarkable achievement. The probability that the stars will align to do it a third time in 2021 after fourteen years as the government in a proportional voting system are not good.

Of course the caution demonstrated by Sturgeon is no doubt fueled by private polling showing no clear majority for independence, the latest Ipsos-Mori poll notwithstanding.

Public polling data meta analysis suggests it’s about 50/50. Polls have since the referendum (sans don’t knows) have been bobbling about, exhibiting a Brownian Motion of about two points either way.

What we can say for definite is that there has been at least a sustained 3.5% swing to YES since the referendum.

Then as we’ve noted previously (but worth reiterating here), there’s the larger demographic shift to consider – nature taking its course:

75% of those 65 and over voted NO. That original cohort is of course going to continue to shrink. Their replacements, polls indicate, are far more YES friendly.
What percentage of the population is 65 and over, and what is 85% (the turnout) of that number? That product is considerably greater than the 200,000 + votes that would change NO to YES. In fact, according to the Scottish government the cohort of those 65 and over comprises 17% of the entire population.

So simply waiting  a little while we become the majority by default, anyway. But we need a manifesto commitment to indyref2 so that a majority SNP government has a mandate from the People to implement one

Timing wise, the virtue of a limited-duration official campaign is clear. We know all the arguments. All a long campaign would do would be to help enable Project Fear 3.0. The more time they have to carpet-bomb the electorate the better it will be for them.

We are never going to go into any independence campaign, certain of the outcome. There will always be risks. The greatest risk would be to bottle it, kick it into the long grass till after 2021.

We have a perfect storm right now where the SNP dominates Scottish politics completely, we have the most right wing Tory government in modern history, implementing draconian legislation designed to crush the will of the working class.

We don’t know how things will look in 2021. We must act with a clear pledge to hold a plebiscite sometime in the life on the next parliament (Holyrood).

Herald’s Paul Hutcheon gives hackery a bad name


by Christian Wrightherald hutcheon

Appalling piece of yellow journalism by Paul Hutcheon in today’s Herald. An entirely unsourced narrative claiming SNP candidate selection discrimination, cronyism and backstabbing, against Vincent Waters, the former agent of East Renfrewshire SNP MP, Kirsten Oswald .

The subject of the article, Mr Waters (who was an applicant for selection as an SNP candidate in the forthcoming Holyrood elections), was never interviewed.

There is not a single source cited. The headline (see photo) is misleading hyperbole. The man was a constituency agent and every candidate thanks their agent and their team in their acceptance speech. There is no evidence he was a “mastermind” yet the description appears in the article as well as in the headline.

The ousting of Jim Murphy was anything but “a shock” by polling day, it was expected. His loss was par for the course on the day. In Hutcheon’s article, Oswald is quoted saying:”… [she had an] exceptional team working incredibly hard on my campaign”, adding: “Their support has been immense“.

Nowhere does she call her agent a mastermind or the mastermind. In fact, on the evidence presented, it’s noticeable she doesn’t seem to mention him by name at all.

If no one did use the term why is it used in the headline and in the article? It seems to be there for one reason: to buttress the otherwise airless, confected narrative of  SNP  favouritism and backstabbing.


Why doesn’t Hutcheon include even a single verifiable source? Who is the complainant? No evidence it’s the agent apparently, since Paul did not even speak to him.

Ms. Oswald’s agent in the Westminster parliamentary elections failed to make the cut for selection as an SNP candidate for the 2016 Holyrood elections. That is the only substantive verifiable fact given in the entire article.

There is absolutely nothing that would separate this article by Hutcheon from a piece of fiction.

Nothing new there, then.




by Christian Wright

The magazine,’Tatler’, is targeted towards the British upper-middle class and members of the aristocratic upper class (wiki). Rather good article therein on the issue of impending land reform in Scotland.


“To outsiders, Scotland has always seemed a romantic place. The castles! The reeling! The men in skirts! But… these days Scotland is not only teeming with tufty dukes and earls, but also with smooth Danish fashion tycoons, Tetra Pak heirs, British royals, Egyptian billionaires, French bankers… Half the private land is owned by just 432 people, with 50,000-acre estates rubbing up alongside one another.”

“Those who are most fearful.. are the nobility. Let’s call it Old Scotland… If you’re Old Scotland, then you probably live in a castle… You own 40,000 to 140,000 acres, you probably have a mountain (instead of 4,000 acres of bland home county). You have your own tartan. You are a member of a clan…You also possess somewhat confusingly, an English accent too, because you went to public school.”

“New Scotland is largely made up of foreign money. For several decades, Scottish estates have been slowly bought up by cash from abroad. ‘Although only five or six estates a year come on to the market,’ says Evelyn Channing from Savills’ Edinburgh office. ‘They come for the sport, for the fishing, the shooting, the stalking. And for the privacy. If you own 50,000 acres of land it’s quite hard to be photographed on it.’

Sheikh Mohammed of Dubai has a 62,000-acre estate in West Scotland, just off the tip of Skye. Scotland’s richest man is another Emirati gentleman, Mahdi al-Tajir, who owns the Highland Spring mineral-water company and 15,000 acres just outside Gleneagles. And Mohamed Al Fayed can occasionally be found at his pink castle, Balnagown, 30 miles north of Inverness.”


Dear Tatler,

Of course none of these elites have anything much to do with authentic Scotland or its people. The so-called Old Scotland is just an earlier caste of parasites, being gradually pushed out by new money.

They all have to go, the estates broken-up and the land made accessible to the People and to entrepreneurs and business, who will use it more productively.

The current state of play really is inequitable and an insult to the democratic process. These folks will have to find another country in which to play laird and lord of the manor.

Indyref is over of course, yet remarkably, the demand for 
Scottish self governance has grown dramatically since September 18 2014, to the extent that the SNP swept all before it in the Westminster elections.

The formerly dominant Labour Party and the LibDems experienced extinction-level event on May 7 2015 (Of course in Westminster parliamentary terms, the hated Tories are long buried and turned to stone. The Tories received the lowest proportion of the Scottish vote in their entire history ).

The indyref and the disgraceful behaviour of the Unionist parties, politicians, the state broadcaster (the BBC), and Her Majesty’s press, during that campaign, has radicalised Scots and revolutionised Scottish politics. It is only now dawning on the Establishment the scale and permanence of this sea change.

As it relates to your readership’s interests, the resultant determination to take back our country does not bode well for the cohorts profiled in this article. There will be no confiscation of property, but 400-odd individuals owning half the entire country, while the other 5.3 million are squeezed to the coasts and penned in the Central Belt, is simply not sustainable.

Oh and incidentally, what you quaintly call “New Scotland”? . . . well it has the same problem of illegitimacy as “Old Scotland”, and it has nothing to do with ancient history, and everything to do with building a more equal and just society.

I do understand that you reactionaries among the current stakeholders of these properties don’t like that, but what the people of Scotland are signalling by their support of this radical change, is that they don’t care that you don’t like it.

Find somewhere else to build your exclusive theme parks, we’ve had it with you.

Paul Nuttall’s exploding head


by Christian Wrightpaul nuttalls head
paul nuttall head explodesCourtesy of the Huffington Post I see UKIP obersturmbannführer Paul Nuttall is continuing his overtly racist jihad against Scots whom he clearly regards as untermenschen.

But if we allow this to go unchecked, if we allow the Scottish MPs to be the decision makers on this issue [fox hunting ban repeal], what happens when they take a stance you disagree with? What happens if they disagree with you on Trident, on immigration, on our membership of the EU?”

Yes Paul, SNP’s 56 MP’s can override the wishes of the remaining 591 MPs. That worked well with the SNP’s amendments to the Scotland Bill, every one of which was voted down by a cohort of English MPs many times their number.

Apparently Scotland should have no say on Trident, an instrument of universal death, located some twenty-odd miles from our largest city. Nor should we have a voice on issues of UK immigration, nor on our membership of the EU. Nuttall views Scots as vassals in a vassal state that comprises the hinterland of England’s inner empire.

Paul, Paul! Really, old fruit, you need to relax before your head explodes. Crack open a cold one, fire-up the karaoke, and belt-out a couple of verses of the Horst Wessel Lied – you’ll feel so much better. 


So now what?


by Christian Wright
Update 27/07/2015 . . .
Alex Salmond on Sunday’s Andrew Marr show prepped the country for the coming of indyref2 – likely in the life of the next Scottish Parliament.
Citing the humiliating treatment of the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives at the hands of baying English MPs over the issue of FFA,  masterfully articulates the end of the Union’s usefulness to Scots (in this article in The National), providing an apt segue to an inevitable conclusion and the next logical question:
Given that there is no chance of the will of the Scottish electorate prevailing over the massed ranks of English MPs, our only hope of salvation lies in the dissolution of our union with England. How do we effect that?
Still a lot of talk from Nationalist leaders of the need for a fundamental change in circumstance before another referendum could be considered (witness Salmond on Marr, yesterday). In truth the only “material change” of relevance will be that point where we can be confident a robust majority sentiment in favour of independence will be sustainable through the indyref2 campaign.
The determining factor for the GO/NO-GO decision on indyref2, must be that datum. It and it alone should be the trigger. What that critical mass might be is open to discussion – say 55% for a sustained period? 60%?

(James Kelly makes the point that we cannot wait until a YES vote is an absolute certainty before going for indyref2, for it will never be a certain outcome, and it is unlikely we will again be better placed to action it than within the next few years.


Another imperative is the spectre of Scotland Bill, imposing partial revenue-raising responsibilities on the Scottish government without contentment power to grow the economy.)


The causes of the swing will likely be multifarious and include: frustration with Westminster’s intransigence; a sense of betrayal over the VOW; realisation that in so many crucial matters, we are under direct rule from London; that unionism is de facto, colonial rule, wherein Scots are vassals in a vassal state, that comprises a constituent territory of England’s inner empire.
Then there’s the demographic shift – nature taking its course: 75% of those 65 and over voted NO. That original cohort is of course going to continue to shrink. Their replacements, polls indicate, are far more YES friendly.

What percentage of the population is 65 and over, and what is 85% (the turnout) of that number? That product is considerably greater than the 200,000 + votes that would change NO to YES. In fact, according to the Scottish government the cohort of those 65 and over comprises 17% of the entire population.

So simply waiting awhile we become the majority by default, anyway.

With respect to bread and butter matters of effecting constitutional change:
On the likelihood of another Edinburgh agreement – I think we must prepare for the contingency where Westminster refuses point blank to move Section 30 enabling legislation.
We need insist that in matters constitutional the people of Scotland are sovereign, and independence is a matter for them and them alone. If the Scottish people want a referendum, there will be a referendum. And if in that referendum the People vote for independence, then Scotland will dissolve its union with England.
Based on the Claim of Right (Scotland) 1689 and article 19 of the Treaty of Union and the interpretation of both by Lord Cooper in 1953 in McCormack vs the Lord Advocate, Westminster agreed that:
1. The considered will of the people of Scotland remained paramount as stated in the 1689 Claim of Right and protected for all time by article 19 of the Treaty of Union which protected Scotland’s Laws and constitutional practices.
2. Under the terms of the 1707 Treaty of Union the UK Parliament has no role to play in any changes or alterations to the Treaty of Union (by definition, to include its dissolution) as only the original sovereign signatory parliaments have that power.
We will not seek to secede FROM the UK, we will dissolve it (again, since without Scotland, there is no UK).
The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a legal and political entity formed by the Union of two and only two countries – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales). It was created by a bilateral internationally recognised treaty.
(more on this in Christian Wright: Fiction of the continuing state)
There can be no continuing state of an extinguished voluntary union of two nations. It is on its face a daft proposition.
Consider the tautology: When the Union is dissolved, the Union ceases to be.
So, given the foregoing, try this gedankenexperiment:
The scenario is that provision for a referendum on independence is part of the SNP manifesto for the Scottish Parliamentary Election in 2016. The SNP win the election with an absolute majority.
The Scottish Parliament passes legislation authorising the plebiscite but the Westminster Parliament refuses to move Section 30 enabling legislation. The Government of Scotland being mindful of the express will of the People and their parliament, decide to move forward anyway with a national consultation, a plebiscite, to ascertain the will of the People with respect to resuming our independence.
1. How does Westminster stop the consultation with and the balloting of, the Scottish electorate? No Scottish court will stop it, Police Scotland would not interfere, and the so-called UK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this matter.
2. If subsequently, the People having voted AYE and in the face of continuing UK Government obduracy, the Scottish Parliament enacts legislation dissolving the Treaty (Acts) of Union, thus effecting independence, who’s going to stop them and how?
(Is it even remotely credible we would see Scotland invaded by England and Cameron goosestepping his way to anschluss?)

Some will cite the case of Catalonia and argue NO voters would en masse refuse to participate in the plebiscite and that it’s legitimacy would be further undermined by the non-participation of the Electoral Commission (the less charitable might offer that given their behaviour during indyref1, the EC’s absence could only enhance the legitimacy of indyref2).

But indyref2 would NOT be “just like Catalonia’s”, for we already know from indyref1 what a winning threshold would be, nor could it be seen as illegitimate if just over 200,000 more voters (a 5% swing) vote YES than did in indyref1, regardless of the turnout for NO.

We know with an 85% turnout last time that the practical limits in terms of voter participation for NO had been reached. If it looked remotely likely that number was set to increase, an indyref2 would not even be contemplated for YES would not be 5 to 10 poins ahead at the outset.

If the yes vote exceeds ~1.8 million the integrity of the outcome of an indyref2 vote is beyond reproach regardless of the turnout for “NO” 

(which is not remotely likely to exceed the difference comprising the total participation of indyref1)



by Christian Wright

An abused lord and landowner offers a tear-jerking narrative in the Spectator. The poor bugger has his back to the wall with this SNP-controlled, one-party state of Jockestan.


…[My] grandparents … born in America bought our lodge from the Campbells of Jura … They spent summers on Jura, and occasionally visited in winter. So… now [do] my family…

My childhood was spent… playing cricket on the beach, pulling lobster pots, catching LORD ASTORmackerel, worming for brown trout and catching the odd sea trout with a fly rod in the small spate river. Although my sisters and I occasionally looked with envy to our school friends who went off for exotic holidays on hot beaches, we would never have swapped our Scottish summer holidays.

Following the SNP victory, however,  we worry that we will find ourselves regarded as foreigners… in our own country… Are we estate owners now to be nationalised or made to feel so unwelcome that we have to sell up in a Mugabe-style land grab?

Is it because we don’t sound Scottish? We should not all have to sound like Rob Roy. If the SNP wants us all to speak with a certain type of Scottish accent, what does that say to the … immigrant community [that] still speak with the accent of their birth? Are they not Scottish?

We worry that the SNP have concentrated power in the few. They brook no dissent… one has to admire the way [Jim Murphy] stood up… against the barracking organised by SNP supporters…

The SNP won nearly all the Westminster seats in Scotland with 50 per cent of the vote… But let them not forget the other 50 per cent who did not vote for them, whose voice still matters.


So, as a kid, the poor bastard was deprived of holidays abroad because of his love of Scotland, and now he worries he’s going to be kicked out of the country, his property confiscated, or that he’ll be forced to sell-up for 10p in the pound. It’s like fucking Zimbabwe!

The SNP hate him and his children for their accent and would compel them to change it, the racist bastards!

They deployed their Brown Shirts against the heroic Jim Murphy, didn’t they? Nazis!!!

Now, though nowhere in the article does he mention it, William Waldorf Astor III, 4th Viscount Astor’s, actual beef is that forthcoming land reform legislation requires surviving siblings be given equal equity in the inherited property, rather than it being claimed in its entirety by the eldest son. Oh, and that modest “lodge” he talked about? . . . It comes with a 500 acre estate attached.

Now, is that a land grab by the Scottish Government? The government will take no land. The new law will insist that the land property, the estate, be fairly shared between the off-spring of the deceased owner, REGARDLESS OF THEIR GENDER OR BIRTH ORDER. What exactly is William Waldorf Astor III’s problem with that? This is 2015, not 1815.

Well of course, he knows he can’t make any reasonable case for harassment and abuse based on the facts, so he concocts this tale of class warfare, state bullying, and ethnic bigotry.

Mugabe-style land grab? Really? Where?

I will say that the 4th Viscount Astor demonstrates remarkable chutzpah in this brazen attempt to mislead. If you could melt that enormously wealthy, bullshitting Hooray Henry down, there would be naught but twelve stone of brass neck and a few trace elements of expensive vintage wine. Neither evidence of residual ethic nor any stain of moral principle would be found.

“But let them not forget the other 50 per cent who did not vote for them, whose voice still matters.”

Looks like Lord Astor wants the reader to believe that the other 50% of the electorate support his continued unjust and soon to be outlawed feudal practices. They don’t.

Willie’s voice will be given the weight it deserves along with the rest of the 1% who between them lord it over half of Scotland.

[Lord Astor’s stepdaughter from his wife’s first marriage, Samantha, is married to Prime Minister David Cameron]


Letter from the Prime Minister


downing st letter head


From  Rt Hon David Cameron

Exercising some of the sharpest minds in Government, Whitehall, and Westminster, is the knotty problem of how best to contain this rampant Scottish Nationalist insurgency . I can tell you now that there is at last, a consensus emerging on a comprehensive Final Solution to the Scottish question.

It is always instructive to look at the world from the other chap’s point of view. Now I know this facility is not immediately apparent in the character of the hotheaded jocks (who are of course possessed of many other wonderful talents). Through no fault of their own, they are burdened by an incapacity for self-governance beyond the regional level. According to one of their own erstwhile leaders, the indigenous Scot is “not genetically programmed” to understand politics.

On the issue of the need to isolate the separatists to protect the Union, let me see if I can put this in context for you, and introduce you to EVIL-Max, an exciting new paradigm tailored to answer in full, the West Lothian question. Consider that there is no malevolence here, everyone is committed to doing what is right for Britain, AND indeed for Scotland (or as Kelvin MacKenzie light-heartedly labels it, Jockestan) .

We are all on the same team, blessed by providence to occupy “this precious stone set in the silver sea“, as our country’s national bard, Mr Shakespeare, so eloquently put it. But I digress . . .

On this whole EVIL-Max thing (I won’t confuse you with the details), all we are saying is that we are to be separate but equal. This is a political compromise with a storied international reputation. One can find precedent for this legal principle enshrined in US Constitutional Law and later endorsed by the Supreme Court of the United States in that celebrated decision, Plessy v. Ferguson.

We are fortunate to have the textbook examples of its actual implementation in two advanced societies whose jurisprudences have much in common with our own. I speak of course of our cousins in the aforementioned United States and in South Africa.

For the first 65 years of the 20th Century this grand experiment bestowed upon America unparalleled economic growth and a disciplined, respectful, society wherein everyone knew their place. As Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I only want what is best for ALL of us, including the indigenous peoples of the North.

If we examine South African society between 1948, when the legal structure of apartheid was introduced, until some time before the evil of insurgent nationalism in the form of the ANC completed its destruction in 1994, we find a golden era of South African prosperity and order, that advantaged all of its peoples.

So successful and attractive a society was constructed, that countless Britons, and indeed many jocks, emigrated there. All we want to do is establish a similar apartheid in this family of nations that comprise the UK, one that will ensure the peace and prosperity of all.

Now, the jocks need not worry. Although they will no longer be allowed to participate in framing the bulk of British legislation (or indeed, any), they will have their own native assembly, where they can hear grievances and pass local laws affecting their indigenous population.

The current fractious arrangement at Holyrood will be ended (I’m sure to the relief of everyone) to be replaced by a body composed of what in South Africa were called “tribal elders”. These greybeards will appoint a chief who will be answerable to their assembly. The British Secretary of State for Autonomous Regions, Lord Dunlop, will have to approve the selection, of course.

The existence of a “Scotland”, never more than a romantic fiction I think we’re all agreed, will cease to be recognised, to be replaced by the Northern Autonomous Region for Indigenous Tribes (clans).

A system of pass books will be established so that migrant workers from the region can travel to Britain to take up employment. However, permanent residence in Britain will not be granted.

We will be the envy of the world. A three centuries old family of nations, separate but equal, whose status is guaranteed by carefully crafted apartheid legislation. Now you can’t say fairer than that.


At Secretary of State Penfold’s request I have decided that you will be allowed to have a casino. I thought I’d relay that wonderful news to you, personally.

cameron signature







by Christian Wright

bemused miliband

It may be that the imperative driving Ed’s statements ruling out any deal of any sort with the SNP last night, had a lot more to do with the returns from internal polls and focus groups in the English marginals, showing fear of the SNP was likely to cost him the election.

UPDATE – New information in today via the editor of Labour Uncut, Atul Hatwal, that in fact the panic may have originated with an illegal count of postal ballots in the english marginals that indicated impending defeat – (Wings has a related article here )

Atul Hatwal: Uncut has learned the real reason for Ed Miliband’s sudden night-time visit to Russell Brand’s Shoreditch home: panic caused by the early tallies of postal ballots being fed back to party HQ, from marginals around the country.

Although the parties are legally not allowed to tally votes at these events, they all do and the constituency teams then dutifully pass their field intelligence back to HQ.

These are not opinion polls results or canvass returns but actual votes, hundreds of thousands of votes, from across Britain. Numbers have been flowing from each marginal to party strategists to give the most accurate picture of the current state of play…

Labour insiders familiar with the latest figures have told Uncut that the picture for Labour in marginal seats, where it is fighting the Tories, is almost uniformly grim…

The tartan scare is working with the fear of McLabour shifting large numbers of wavering Lib Dems and Ukippers into the Tory column.

That would make sense. Dispositive evidence of impending defeat requiring drastic action from Miliband.

Miliband would have to try to soothe the concerns of that electorate at all costs, then deal with any damage done by later reneging on his commitment to eschew the SNP. It looks for all the world like an exercise in back-to-the-wall crisis management.

‘Course we could be entirely wrong about that, and it may be that he really does mean it. But to believe that would mean believing Ed tells the truth, and to be fair, there is little evidence to accuse him of that.

Still, we did channel truthful Ed and had him provide a summary of his plans for Scotland

We just find it unimaginable that a career pol like Miliband would refuse to grasp the golden chalice if it came within reach, under any conceivable circumstance.

A case by case, vote by vote, arrangement with the SNP could offer plausible deniability of any agreement in the eyes of the gullible, but it’s doubtful Labour thought that far when confronted with an existential threat.

The issue would be to stem the hemorrhaging of support in the marginals. Period.He had to do what he had to do. The damage done to his and Labour’s relationship with the Scottish electorate may be irreparable but that was unavoidable collateral damage.

Certainly it will be irreparable if he actually is true to his word and imposes an apartheid on Britain’s largest ethnic minority, by barring their duly elected representatives, the embodiment of their express will, from participation in the legislative process.

He surely can’t be that cosmically dumb.




dictator miliband

All hubris and chutzpah, Ed Miliband on tonight’s Question Time said that he would not form any government reliant on the SNP for support. He made it clear that Scots have a choice to vote Labour or be excluded from the legislative process.

He said a Tory government is preferable to a Labour government tainted by the influence of the SNP, if they are the Scottish people’s chosen representatives.

The effect of this policy will be to disenfranchise the UK’s largest ethnic minority. We take an in-depth look at the thinking underlying Mr Miliband’s statement: THE FINAL SOLUTION TO THE SCOTTISH QUESTION


Breaking news is that he won’t do a deal with Paid either, nor apparently the LibDems. He’s Edda Garbo: “I vont to be alone”. The man seems determined never to be PM.

Severin Carrell pimps LibDem comfort polls to boost tactical voting


by Christian Wright

guardian libdem tact voting

The headline trumpets: “Lib Dems step up Scottish campaign after polling boost”

Severin Carrell, the Guardian’s resident empty suit and Scotland correspondent, offers another cut’n’paste article constructed from a LibDem press release. Apparently Severin’s goal it to try to encourage pro-Union tactical voting.

In Scotland… the party has increased its funding and tactical support after its own polling suggested they could hold the majority of their 11 Scottish seats… 
the party’s pollsters, Survation, found that 46% of Tory voters and 37% of Labour voters would back the Lib Dems if their own candidate had little chance of winning.
The private polling … suggest the party is in the lead in several constituencies. At least five more seats… could be held because of an upsurge in tactical voting by pro-UK party supporters, the party believes.

All these internal LibDem comfort polls . . . then there’s the reality.

Strange Severin failed to include this health warning from Survation in his article, especially since the Guardian is directly named in it. Must have been an unfortunate oversight.

In reference to polls conducted for the Liberal Democrats, which have been described in the Guardian, New Statesman and others as “private polling conducted by Survation”, we would like to clarify that the role of Survation in these polls was that of “field and tab” only.

Survation were not responsible for drafting the questionnaires used, sampling design discussions or analysis of the results. These polls should therefore not properly be described as “Survation polls”. As a consequence, Survation is not responsible for the publication of these polls under BPC rules. Any member of the public with queries regarding the detail or further information about the mentioned polling work should be directed to the Liberal Democrats.



by Christian Wright

nicola helicopter


Ipsos-Mori poll suggests complete wipeout of Unionist parties

Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general pie chartelection (Ipsos-Mori, 22nd-27th April) :

SNP 54%
Labour 20%
Conservatives 17%
Liberal Democrats 5%
Greens 2%





New Daily Record Survation poll results support daily record pollTNS poll findings

SNP 51%, LAB 26%, CON 14%, LD 5% other 4%

In seats this translates to SNP 55, LAB 3, LD 1





May 2015 UK general election

SNP 54% (+2)
Labour 22% (-2)
Conservatives 13% (n/c)
Liberal Democrats 6% (n/c)
Greens 2%  (-1)
UKIP 2% (+1)


New TNS poll numbers translated into seats using elec calc predictor:

SNP 57
LD 1

At the world headquarters in beautiful downtown Auchtermuchty we’re discombobulated to the extent of going all silent-order monastic in party music


Cameron met with Sony Pictures about release date of Outlander


by Christian Wright

outlander email

Prime Minister David Cameron met with Sony Pictures representatives 2 1/2 months before indyref to discuss the impending release in Britain of the Outlander series, according to WIKILEAKS. The series premier broadcast was inexplicably delayed here until after the referendum.

outlander whipping

The Outlander series is set in Scotland in 1743 and it explores among other things the relationships and attitudes of British occupying military forces toward the local population. The picture painted is often one of British repression and brutality borne of visceral contempt for Scots.

It seems there were no limits to which HMG would not go to subvert the referendum campaign while simultaneously the Prime Minister told the Nation independence was entirely a mattter for the Scots.

Eight months before the referendum vote, diplomatic cables had revealed, that Cameron was conspiring with 34 foreign governments to traduce the Scottish Government and to publicly oppose Scottish independence. HMG was also caught planting negative stories in foreign newspapers, implying the Scots were not capable of self governance.

In part the Sony Pictures document reads:

“From a SPE perspective, your meeting with Prime Minister Cameron on Monday will likely focus on our overall investment in the U.K. – with special emphasis on… the importance of OUTLANDER (i.e., particularly vis-à-vis the political issues in the U.K. as Scotland contemplates detachment this Fall).” emphisis added




by Christian Wright

Sturgeon Wins again. YouGov poll confirms Survation poll results

The result they’re not telling you about

YouGov poll on opposition leaders debate Sample Size: 1780 GB Adults Fieldwork: 17th – 18th April 2015

Which leader do you think came across best in the debate? 

Nicola Sturgeon 30%
Ed Miliband 27%
Nigel Farage 17%
Leanne Wood 3%
Natalie Bennett 3%


“Putting aside your own party preference and basing your answer on what you saw or heard during the programme, which one of the 5 leaders do you think performed the ‘best’? :”

Nicola Sturgeon 35.2%
Ed Miliband 29.3%
Nigel Farage 25.5%
Natalie Bennett 5.3%
Leanne Wood 4.7%


Survation poll Scottish sub-sample
Who do you think ‘won’ the debate?
Nicola Sturgeon 67.9%
Ed Miliband 17.4%
Nigel Farage 8.5%
Natalie Bennett 5.2%
Leanne Wood 1.1%




.Sisters are doing it for themselves!.



Well, post poll party for us at the World Headquarters in beautiful downtown Auchtermuchty




The Unionist McHadi’s blind faith


by Christian Wright

Spectator massie snp is church


Alex Massie, one of the Spectator’s house trained pet jocks pontificates in his latest sermon from the pulpit on the nature of the SNP, Scottish nationalism, and Scottish Nationalists:

“… how do you defeat a faith-based party whose voters are animated by quasi-religious zealotry?”

This helps explain why, according to YouGov, 56 per cent of SNP voters believe collapsing oil prices are ‘neither good nor bad’ for Scotland. It helps explain why so many Scottish voters are prepared to buy the idea that Scotland contributes more, per capita, in tax revenue than the UK average while ignoring the inconvenient reality that it also receives much more per capita than it contributes. These too are just numbers.”

Now, this tells us far more about Massie than it does about the Nationalist psyche. Massie, like others of his ilk, is not a journalist, he is a pontificator who deals in truthiness.

The data are indisputable that over the past four plus decades, Scotland’s contribution to the UK has exceeded what it has received back in pocket money by many tens of billions of pounds.

As the Herald noted 

1997: “Mr William Waldegrave, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has been forced to concede figures in Commons questioning in recent months, which show that if Scotland’s share of North Sea revenues had been allocated since 1979, then the net flow in favour of the Treasury from north of the Border ran to £27bn.”

That figure was later corrected to THIRTY ONE BILLION POUNDS

And as recently as 2013 Denis Healey admitted that the Thatcher boom was funded by Scottish oil that alone accounted for 5% of UK GDP in the Eighties. In an interview with Holyrood magazine he said:

“I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher. Thatcher wouldn’t have been able to carry out any of her policies without that additional 5% on GDP from oil.”

Massie again: ‘.. how do you defeat a faith-based party [SNP] whose voters are animated by quasi-religious zealotry?”

This from the Fundamental Unionist who went on a jihad to save us all from the break-up of Britain. Yet when asked repeatedly by we ourselves and many others to articulate his positive substantive case for Scotland remaining in union with England, the extremist McHadi journo couldn’t do it.

For Massie Unionism is an article of faith – full stop. He believes in it . . . well, because he does. He cannot offer a rationale.

Alex Massie should meditate on the fact that the eye sees not itself but by reflection. If he wants to find a swivel-eyed quasi-religious political fanatic fueled by blind faith in a cause, he need look no further than the nearest mirror.



nicola angelThe central questions of this election are not really about FFA or Trident or coalitions or confidence and supply pacts.

No, in this General Election there is only one question: Who can you absolutely rely on to put Scotland and the welfare of its people, before all else?

Despite FrenchGate and a uniformly hostile press, YouGov’s Scotland poll confirms Nicola Sturgeon is the most trusted politician in Scotland by a country mile.


Nicola Scissorhands:  +48
Jim Murphy:  -18
David Cameron:  -25
Ed Miliband:  -46
Nick Clegg:  -54

Jim Murphy has to go


by christian Wright

stv murphy no show

Political career over, reputation in ruins, and no degree. Melt Jim Murphy down and you’d have 13 stone of brassneck and a few trace elements.

No matter what tests you ran on the residual, you’d never find evidence of an ethic or moral scruple.

A bit disingenuous for STV to ask Murphy to clear up the “confusion”. There is no confusion. Miliband, Balls, and, Umunna, have made it perfectly clear that Scotland will face cuts, and that Jim has absolutely no voice in the matter.

That is to say, that contrary to the line we have been fed, Labour in Scotland are not autonomous, and Jim Murphy is a mid-ranking apparatchik with no more power than any other branch manager.

The only questions remaining are:

1. Is it remotely credible that Murphy did not know Scotland would face further cuts after year 2015-2016 (to which the answer is no, it’s not remotely credible), and

2. if he DID know, why did he lie to the Scottish people in the debate, and

3. when will he resign for doing so?

Let’s not beat about the bush here – Jim has been caught telling substantive porkies, and his reputation now lies in ruins. He has been shown the red card by his London bosses and now has to go.



by Christian Wright

creepy jim

Gordon Brewer’s negligence rising to the level of journalistic malfeasance during the BBC’s Sunday politics “debate”, unintentionally served to uncover the clinical controlling aggression of Jim Murphy.

This spectacle had the feel of a pack of hyenas on the Serengeti Plain harrying and baiting a brave and dangerous prey. Ruth Davidson certainly managed an eerily authentic laugh.

Hyenas of the serengeti

hyenas against nicola


But it was Murphy playing top dog bully who most bared his teeth and arguably his pathological controlling instinct. To tell the truth, it was kinda creepy.

Can’t quite put my finger on it, but there’s something of the night about Jim.

Watch if you dare




BY Christian Wright

Updated 10 April 2015

Well, presumably with an eye on the no deal with snpEnglish marginals, Labour has now firmly ruled out any deal with the SNP. No siree Bob. Uh-uh. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances.

Sigh. Seriously?

“ED Miliband and Ed Balls arrive in Scotland today to capitalise on Labour’s growing poll momentum by intensifying their economic attack on the SNP and underlining a post-election deal of any kind with Nicola Sturgeon’s Nationalists has now been ruled out.

Two parliaments, two prime ministers, one house. That’s where this bit of machismo leads. 

The response of the SNP should be to say, uh, OK we’ll not bring your government down. We will support you in the initial confidence vote so that you can form a minority government. We will support you in the event of a no confidence vote should one be tabled at any time.

We will support you in matters of defence and foreign affairs (unless you propose something daft, like renewing Trident). We will support you in those votes where Scotland’s vital interests are at stake.

Other than that, in the case of England-only legislation, being mindful of the inequity perceived by other members of this House and the English electorate at large, we will continue our time-honoured practice of abstaining from voting.

The effect of this strategy would be:

1. To have in UK matters, Ed Miliband calling the shots, installed as British Prime Minister in the UK Parliament, propped up by the SNP,

2. In England-only legislation matters, where  the Tories can command a majority, David Cameron, de facto Prime Minister of England in an English parliament.

Two parliaments, two prime ministers, one house. And we all know that a house divided against itself cannot stand. 

My inner Yoda tells me Miliband by the short and curlies Sturgeon has.

The IFS and ProjectFear


by Christian Wright

project fear

Few will be unaware of the current ProjectFear 2.0 drive to convince us of Scotland’s bankruptcy. Usual suspects are trotted out by the usual place men.

In today’s guardian, top contender for our prestigious Empty Suit of the Year award, Severin Carrell, parades the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) – that right wing, Tory-founded, rabidly pro Union, establishment funded, distribution channel posing as an independent thinktank.

The IFS is a notorious propaganda tool of the Unionist plutocracy. This article is in its substance indistinguishable from a Project Fear press release. It isn’t considered-analysis, it isn’t informational, it is propaganda.

The IFS releases a report on how crazy it would be not to continue austerity, and how totally fucked Scotland would be were it to pursue full fiscal autonomy (FFA), even incrementally over a period of years.

This propaganda is then pimped in a lavish article in the staunchly Unionist, anti-Scot Guardian, by their resident cutter-and-paster of anti-SNP invective, the aforementioned Severin Carrell.

In the Herald, Magnus Gardham, that walking sarcophagus of Unionist doom and gloom, fronts yet another study, this time from the “independent group” Fiscal Affairs Scotland (FAS), run by Jo Armstrong ex CS in Labour-run Scottish Government, and John McLaren ex  H.M. Treasury and Scottish Office. Trustee is Robert Black, staunch backer of Johann Lamont’s “something for nothing” culture speech (Remember that? Remember her?).

FAS send the same message as the IFS and the very non-independent nature of neither is revealed by the journos pimping them.

Isn’t it close to the point where this pretendy-journalism’s return on investment hits rock bottom? We know its all part of ProjectFear 2.0, where the players and the material are indistinguishable from the players and the material that brought us Project Fear 1.0.

In the vernacular, its the same old same ol’, pimped by the same cadre of empty suits, faithfully parroting their same master’s voice.

The question is, does anyone pay it any heed, any more?

You know, if after 308 years of this, the most successful union in the history of the whole wide wuruld, Scotland is such an economic basket case that it couldn’t possibly stand on it’s own two feet, isn’t it way past time we threw in the towel and moved on?

No seriously, at what point does this dastardly, Cù-Sìth, doom and gloom, propaganda, blow back and bite its plutocratic masters on their fat assets?

If the system is truly that screwed that Scotland will forever be beholden to the charity of England, why would our benefactors or we wish to continue this failed arrangement?

Have the authors of ProjectFear 1.0 and now ProjectFear 2.0, not provided England the strongest argument for scrapping Barnett?

Why is the British state once again hell bent on denying Scotland control over its finances if their case is genuine?

Shouldn’t they be showing us the door, not trying to frighten us into continuing our status as vassals in the northernmost province of England’s Inner Empire?

I mean, IFS, FAS, !FFA?



In other news.

The YouGov Scotland poll results are in and like many of you we couldn’t resist a bit of a knees-up in a celebration party on the corporate jet on the way to the World Headquarters in beautiful downtown Auchtermuchty




by christian Wright

BBC Scotland now playing hardball. In a transparent attempt to damage the SNP electorally using guilt by association, the state broadcaster has launched an unprecedented attack on nationalists in the heat of a General Election campaign. It claims cybernats have viciously abused its reporters, and that the Corporation fears for their safety. Not one shred of evidence has been offered in support of this incendiary statement

Now, although the statement does not directly mention who they have in mind as perpetrators, every Unionist newspaper and its cadre of extremist britnat journos are in no doubt. While the statement makes no mention of any specific reporter or incident, it will escape the notice of none that there have been accusations of an extraordinary level of abuse directed at BBC Scotland’s James Cook.

BBC Statement

BBC statement cook

“BBC Scotland has called for users of social media to show restraint after journalists covering the general election campaign were subject to online abuse.

Offensive comments were posted on the internet and sent via email about reporters last weekend.

NUJ Scotland said the abuse received was “unacceptable”.

BBC Scotland’s head of programmes and services Donalda Mackinnon, said: …

“But there are times when social media and other online sites have been used to abuse and threaten journalists. This is completely unacceptable and our journalists are entitled to carry out their work without the threat of unwarranted personal attacks online.”

She added: “The safety of our staff is of paramount concern to us and we are doing everything in our power to ensure they can carry out their work helping to inform our audiences on this major story without intimidation or abuse.”

We ourselves have attempted to find evidence of a claimed “extraordinary level of vicious abuse” allegedly directed at James Cook on twitter on the 4th April 2015, without any success. We have asked again and again, those who claim such abuse occurred, including James Cook himself, to direct us to the offending tweets. None have done so.

Once again BBC Scotland is using your money to prosecute their political agenda by this overblown incendiary campaign to blacken online supporters of the SNP and by extension, the party itself.

Nothing the BBC claims with respect to the issue of abuse should be accepted without corroborating documentary evidence. We have seen from the Cook case that statements alleging extraordinary vicious abuse can be and often are, false.


Dear Donalda,


With respect to the specific claims of James Cook, would you provide evidence corroborating his testimony that he was the victim of  an “extraordinary level of vicious abuse” on twitter? I have contacted James a number of times asking if he would provide links or other direction to the abusive tweets. He has not replied. Having inspected his timeline, I can find nothing that could reasonably be characterised as an “extraordinary level of vicious abuse”. 

Indeed, no one who has claimed James was a victim of this “extraordinary level of vicious abuse” has produced a single example of it. If you on behalf of the BBC are going to make such politically incendiary statements in the midst of a General Election campaign, it is incumbent upon you to back them with dispositive evidence.

If you will not, it is difficult to interpret your press release as anything but reckless and partisan interference in the electoral process.

Christian Wright

Journos tribal defence of their own comes before all else


by Christian Wright

Update – Tues 7 April

Have been tweeting journalists who have issued unreserved & certain condemnation of this cruel calumny (a “torrent of vicious abuse”) inflicted on the BBC’s James Cook, asking if they would produce evidence of it. 

None so far have answered the call and alas, Fraser Nelson’s response seems to have been to block me on twitter.

Makes you want to go – “hmm?”

Update – Wed 8 April

Iain MacWhirter in an article posted late April 7 (see below for link) downplays Cook’s reaction as just a “complaint of abuse” when in fact it was more the cry of a severely wounded journo bleeding-out on the Serengeti.


BBC Scotland have launched an unprecedented attack on nationalists in the heat of a General Election campaign, claiming cybernats have viciously abused its reporters, and that the Corporation fears for their safety. Not one shred of evidence has been offered in support of this incendiary statement – our analysis

kiss ass


stop kiss ass

Bit tired of journos tribal defence of their own while ignoring the blockbuster story of a smear perpetrated by government & pimped by Labour

Salmond National

Alex Salmond in The National wrote: “There are, of course, exceptions. People who do not allow their journalism to be compromised. And one of them is James Cook of the BBC. I want the following paragraph to be read and remembered by anyone who thinks that it is a good idea or good politics to tar all journalists with the disgraceful Telegraph brush. emphasis added


Alas Alec, James Cook has not maintained that heroic level of journalistic integrity.

He, like the rest of his cohort, continued to give equal weight and exposure to the content of the memo as to the denials. There was no attempt to regard the debunking of the memo by the ALL the principals as dispositive.

By dint of that, the defamatory and politically damaging memes of the debunked memo continued to be propagated by the MSM.

James, like the rest of the political commentariat, studiously avoided acknowledging the potential blockbuster story, that what we have here is a smear perpetrated by government and pimped by Labour.

When this was put to James on twitter he chose to engage in debate, until tweeting:

“What an extraordinary level of vicious abuse I have received today for simply reporting the news. Is this the country we want folks? Is it?”

I went looking for this “extraordinary level of vicious abuse” in his twitter timeline, but found only pointed questions that went unanswered. I found naught that might reasonably be considered an extraordinary level of vicious abuse.

Of course it is possible I might have missed it somehow, so I tweeted James and asked if he might link or otherwise steer me towards the most egregious exemplars of this extraordinary level of vicious abuse.

I got no response and some time later repeated the request. Two days on and James has still not responded or produced evidence of anything that might reasonably be characterised as an “extraordinary level of vicious abuse”.

Fraser Nelson, over at the Spectator in an article, blasted the scurrilous vicious cybernats for their savaging of James. However, nowhere in that article did he produce any evidence to back his accusations.

I contacted Fraser and asked that he produce some corroborating evidence of this vicious abuse he claimed James had endured. Alas, there was no response. So I tried again, and again I received no response.

Other Journalists (notably Iain Macwhirter) have rushed to the defence of James, condemning those who abused him, yet they apparently made no attempt to verify James’ claims of “extraordinary level of vicious abuse”.

Note that since this posting, in an article in the Herald posted late Tue 7 April 2015, MacWhirter mischaracterises Cook’s tweeted complaint, stating:
‘The internet angry brigade turned their fire on the BBC reporter James Cook … Cook issued his own tweet complaining of being “abused”.’


Well, in fact James’ tweet is better described as a cry of a severely wounded journo bleeding-out on the Serengeti : ‘What an extraordinary level of vicious abuse I have received today for simply reporting the news. Is this the country we want folks? Is it?’


This mischaracterisation lets MacWhirter claim a lower threshold for evidence of abuse, and thus allows him to credibly argue Cook’s complaint was justified.


Again and again, we have seen claims of terrible abuse of journalists and others by vicious cybernats being accepted as gospel by leading Nationalist politicians and opinion-makers, without any attempt to verify their veracity.

Time the leading lights of the Nationalist Movement held the accusers to the same standards of scrutiny as they do the accused.


What did Miliband and Murphy know, and when did they know it?


Christian Wright (@christainwright)

sturgeon article in guardian

Sturgeon in an article in today’s Guardian: … I repeat my challenge to Ed Miliband: if together our parties have the numbers required after 7 May, and regardless of which is the biggest party, will he and Labour join with us in locking David Cameron out of Downing Street?

Well Ed needs to occupy himself with framing an sensible response to this rather than ignoring the dispositive evidence that the dodgy memo was a fraud, and continuing his defamatory statements impugning the reputation of the FM.

It does seem Ed and especially Murphy were out of the gate lightening fast to exploit this frame-up.

Who in the media is going to ask these two chancers if they were briefed on it by HMG’s Scotland Office, before the story was passed on to the empty suit at the T/graph?

Reason this important is that it may make them party to a criminal conspiracy.

What did Miliband and Murphy know, and when did they know it?

Enquiring minds and procurators fiscal wonder.



This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.”


by Christian Wright


guardian hack job frenchgate

“The huge story here is of a smear perpetrated by government and pimped by Labour.

There should be no prevaricating. Call it what it is. An establishment-led assault on democracy, aided and abetted by among others, the publishers of the Guardian, and manifest in Severin Carrell’s disgraceful article published Friday

The time for pretence is over. In respect of this dastardly smear and assault on democracy, the Guardian, rather than championing truth and justice, has been the purveyor of lies and the willing instrument of state repression.”



fraser nelson sturgeon wants cameron

Fraser Nelson with egg all over his face over Sturgeon’s alleged comments to the French Ambassador that appear in a thoroughly debunked Telegraph article by the notorious britnat jihadi, Simon Johnson.

Did Fraser try to confirm this bombshell “revelation” with Sturgeon or the French ambassador? Well, of course not. That would require effort and some journalist nous. Nelson doesn’t do “effort” and he has the journalistic nous of a cold mince pie.

Fraser is a marginal wordsmith and propagandist, not a journalist, and he will pluck any low-hanging fruit no matter how rotten, if it furthers his masters political agenda. In common parlance, he is an empty suit.

Now that the smear has been comprehensively busted, why is it still being presented as gospel on the Spectator website by Nelson, the journal’s editor?
Fraser Nelson 2Fraser? For some reason he’s answering neither my texts nor my emails.

Yoohoo, Fraser! Come out, come out, wherever you are!



Well, Fraser has at last responded to demands that he update this article in light of its debunking:

Nelson: “And in a bid to protect the auld alliance, M Coffinier has backed up Ms Sturgeon’s denial telling the Guardian:

“I have looked at my notes and absolutely no preference has been expressed by anyone regarding the outcome of the election. Which suggests neither Nicola nor my ambassador said anything.”

With his latest addition to this article, Nelson appears to have crossed the line from innuendo to libel. If he has dispositive evidence M Coffinier is lying it would be an absolute defence in a defamation case brought against Fraser and his employer.

Does he possess such evidence? If so, let him produce it. I for one will back him if he does.

If he does not, and his intent is to falsely impugn the reputation of the FM and M Coffinier with the intent of inflicting substantive injury, it would still be wrong and indeed inaccurate, to brand Mr Nelson a rodent . . .

For there are somethings you just can’t get a rat to do.

Christian Wright (@christainwright)

Guardian “disappears” complaints that it enables racism


The Guardian, rather than being a bulwark against racial bigotry, had become an enabler of it.

New hire, Kelvin MacKenzie, in today’s edition, focused on ethnic bigotry: “In recent years, I’ve become aware of how language demeans settled minorities…”

Had to rub my eyes reading this. Here MacKenzie raises hypocrisy and chutzpah to the level of a clinical disorder. Less than 10 days ago this same man was wallowing in anti-Scot bigotry in the very same newspaper .

Kelvin MacKenzie article in the Guardian (this one) on the 15th March, refers to Scotland as “Jockestan” and, “taxpayers of Jockestan (Scotland)”, and “Our chums in Jockestan are subsidised ”

We ourselves wrote a below the line comment in the March 15 Guardian pointing out (best we remember it) that this in the context of the article was racially offensive, and that by definition, MacKenzie, despite his Scots sounding name, was a racist.

Instead of being shunned by “polite society” and the Fourth Estate, he was being feted by them. Such abuse of Scots was now an everyday transaction among the chattering and political classes. That rather than condemn this hate speech, the Guardian was happy to amplify it and promote it in that article.

Their response was to erase the post.

Now today March 24 below the line of MacKenzie’s latest article, the Guardian censors have been in a panic deleting comment after comment from readers pointing out MacKenzie’s hypocrisy and the Guardian’s role as enabler of racist speech and ethnic bigotry.

Indeed, there were so many posts deleted, that after a while, the string of customary notices (1) noting the deletions clearly became an embarrassment, and were themselves deleted to destroy all evidence.

We posted the following comment, only to have evidence of its existence completely erased, too – not even a notice to mark its passing.

“How very sad. The Guardian once a bulwark against racial bigotry has become an enabler of it. Now busy “disappearing” comment after comment exposing it.”

1 Guardian standard removal notice. This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Labour face an extinction-level event on May 7


by Christian Wright

Nottingham University’s Mark Stuart in an article on ballots and bulletsnottspolitics : “Let’s assume David Cameron… look[s] likely to win a small majority in England. Such is the anti-Conservative sentiment in Scotland, the more likely it appears Cameron will win in England, the greater likelihood of the Scots switching from SNP back to Labour as polling day nears.”

That’s what Labour hopes will happen, hence the completely disingenuous “largest party forms the government” trope (rather than the party/parties that can construct a parliamentary majority).

However, that conventional wisdom is not backed by the polling data that indicate voters see the SNP as a bulwark against Labour neo-liberal policies once in government.

Since the SNP will only back a Labour government and will have no truck with the Tories, a vote for the SNP is a vote for a Labour government that will deliver authentic old-Labour policies. No seat won from Labour by the SNP will help Cameron in any way.

The central question in the minds of constituents dominating this election is: “Which candidate do I trust to put Scotland’s interests first before party and before personal enrichment?”

A large percentage of traditional Labour voters who have made the leap to SNP have done so because they see Labour as populated by Tory-lite self-serving careerists masquerading as socialists. Labour in Scotland are not called the Red Tories for nothing.

The London-commentariat consensus that Jim Murphy was the man to lead Labour back to pre-eminence in Scotland, evinced a cartoon understanding of the Scottish political dynamic. The installation of a Blairite New Labour, pro-privatisation, pro-Iraq war, establishment place man, signalled loud and clear to Scots, Labour’s inability to reform itself, or even to understand the nature of its own morbidity.

Both Labour and the LibDems are facing an extinction-level event at this General Election for a reason. During the referendum they fear bombed us, bullied us, belittled us, lied to us, defamed us worldwide. They sowed the wind, and on May 7 2015, they will reap the whirlwind.



BY Christian Wright

Updated 17 April 2015

Last night’s UK opposition leaders debate, hosted by the BBC, presented us with a moonwalking Miliband who with great solemnity and gravitas declared the would be no coalition with the SNP.

Now it won’t escape readers attention that coalition was never on the table last night having been rejected by the SNP and by Labour some while ago. It was theatre and all about the optics for our Ed.

On April10th we heard from Ed that in addition to no coalition, there would be no confidence and supply deal either. Yet strangely, that critical codicil was never articulated/reiterated in the debate.

Last night’s “Non” was not a rejection by Miliband it was an invitation. Confidence and supply appears to be back on the menu.

Let’s look back and then look forward to consider the imperatives if the SNP holds the balance of power on 8 May.

This earlier update appeared in this blog 10 April.

Well, presumably with an eye on the no deal with snpEnglish marginals, Labour has now firmly ruled out any deal with the SNP. No siree Bob. Uh-uh. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances.

Sigh. Seriously?

“ED Miliband and Ed Balls arrive in Scotland today to capitalise on Labour’s growing poll momentum by intensifying their economic attack on the SNP and underlining a post-election deal of any kind with Nicola Sturgeon’s Nationalists has now been ruled out.

Two parliaments, two prime ministers, one house. That’s where this bit of machismo leads. 

The response of the SNP should be to say, uh, OK we’ll not bring your government down. We will support you in the initial confidence vote so that you can form a minority government. We will support you in the event of a no confidence vote should one be tabled at any time.

We will support you in matters of defence and foreign affairs (unless you propose something daft, like renewing Trident). We will support you in those votes where Scotland’s vital interests are at stake.

Other than that, in the case of English-only legislation, being mindful of the inequity perceived by other members of this House and the English electorate at large, we will continue our time-honoured practice of abstaining from voting.

The effect of this strategy would be:

1. To have in UK matters, Ed Miliband calling the shots, installed as British Prime Minister in the UK Parliament, propped up by the SNP,

2. In EVEL matters, where  the Tories have a majority, David Cameron, de facto Prime Minister of England in an English parliament.

Two parliaments, two prime ministers, one house. And we all know that a house divided against itself cannot stand. 

My inner Yoda tells me Miliband by the short and curlies Sturgeon has.

Promises of new powers was irrelevant to indyref result?



Disquieting number of Unionists have suggested the promises of new powers did not sway enough voters to make a difference to the outcome of the referendum.

Here are some empirical data from a post indyref poll conducted by Lord Ashcroft, the renowned Tory benefactor, and uber Unionist. The survey is of 2,047 people.

27% said their NO vote was primarily predicated on a love of / affinity to the Union.

47% they voted NO because of concerns about the economy, the pound, and jobs et al.

25 percent said it was the promise of new powers for the devolved Scottish Parliament that led them to vote NO

CLEARLY, the promise of new powers was DECISIVE. In the absence of these assurances Scotland would have voted YES.

One other interesting tidbit: 71 percent of 16- to 17-year-olds voted YES, while 73 percent of people over 65 voted NO.

If at first you don’t secede, try, try, try again



by Christian Wright

I suspect the future path of the independence movement lies outside our ability to influence it. Two factors I believe work in our favour – one is nature taking its course. 75% of those 65 and over voted no. That cohort is of course going to shrink considerably over the next few years. Their replacements are far more YES friendly.

What percentage of the population is 65 and over, and what is 85% (the turnout) of that number? That product is considerably greater than the 200,000 + votes that would change NO to YES. In fact, according to the Scottish government the cohort of those 65 and over comprises 17% of the entire population.

So simply waiting awhile we become the majority by default (I know that is a simplistic outlook but bear with me).

The second external process that will determine whether YES rises again is the machinations of Westminster. If WM delivers anything approaching devo max, YES is going nowhere anytime soon. However, Westminster being what it is, it’s highly unlikely they will. They’ve got form here – centuries of it.

Indeed from the gritted teeth pronouncements of a large swathe of Tory MPs AND many labour MPs, it seems our insolence demands payback. It is certain that in their vengeful way, the establishment are resolved that having enticed the Scottish hound back into its kennel, they are going to beat it.

Reneging on the “vows” and the brutal austerity that will bring, will be the core of Scots resentment and alienation. This, coupled to the other factors discussed above, could increase pressure for a second referendum to an irresistible level in surprisingly short order.

We could easily see pro-indy opinion poll numbers in excess of those in Catalonia. It all depends on just how cosmically dumb Westminster is prepared to be. I have enormous confidence in their infinite capacity for stupidity.

The reality is that on Sept 18 just under half the electorate voted for independence, and just over half voted against it. It will take a swing of just over five points to change last Thursday’s majority NO to YES.

Remember, if at first you don’t secede, try, try, try again.

Scotland commits national suicide in front of a live worldwide audience



English Tory AND Labour MP’s vitriolic, quasi-racist statements today on Scotland, make it clear that having enticed the Scottish dog back into its kennel, they are going to beat it.

In his victory speech Alistair Darling brands those who voted YES, dividers, portrays himself as the Great Uniter, and claims an overwhelming mandate he doesn’t have.

Three Amigos already reneging on implementation of parliamentary bill to action extra powers for Scotland

Ballot rigging (bottom of page)


Salmond to stand down as First Minister and leader of the SNPalex salmond resigns

“I have has announced my intention to stand down as SNP Leader at the Party’s Annual Conference in November and then as First Minister when the SNP have elected the next Leader following a membership ballot.
My statement to the nation, made a few moments ago at Bute House, is as follows:

“I am immensely proud of the campaign which Yes Scotland fought and of the 1.6 million voters who rallied to that cause by backing an independent Scotland.

“I am also proud of the 85 per cent turnout in the referendum and the remarkable response of all of the people of Scotland who participated in this great constitutional debate and the manner in which they conducted themselves.

“We now have the opportunity to hold Westminster’s feet to the fire on the “vow” that they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland. This places Scotland in a very strong position.

“I spoke to the Prime Minister today and, although he reiterated his intention to proceed as he has outlined, he would not commit to a second reading vote by 27th March on a Scotland Bill. That was a clear promise laid out by Gordon Brown during the campaign. The Prime Minister says such a vote would be meaningless. I suspect he cannot guarantee the support of his party.

“But today the point is this. The real guardians of progress are not the politicians at Westminster, or even at Holyrood, but the energised activism of tens of thousands of people who I predict will refuse meekly to go back into the political shadows.

“For me right now , therefore there is a decision as to who is best placed to lead this process forward politically.

“I believe that in this new exciting situation, redolent with possibility, Party, Parliament and country would benefit from new leadership.

“Therefore I have told the National Secretary of the SNP that I will not accept nomination to be a candidate for leader at the Annual Conference in Perth on 13th-15th November.

“After the membership ballot I will stand down as First Minister to allow the new leader to be elected by due Parliamentary process.

“Until then I will continue to serve as First Minister. After that I will continue to offer to serve as Member of the Scottish Parliament for Aberdeenshire East.

“It has been the privilege of my life to serve Scotland as First Minister. But as I said often during the referendum campaign this is not about me or the SNP. It is much more important than that.

“The position is this. We lost the referendum vote but can still carry the political initiative. More importantly Scotland can still emerge as the real winner.”





Osborne must accept need for currency union to calm markets


Collapse of the pound is not due to uncertainty, rather it’s predicated upon the certainty that on Scotland’s exit, iEngland will be skint

Dont Panic

by Christian Wright

The run on Sterling is a testament to the robust nature and rude health of an iScotland economy. As pandamonium ensued, in a roused twittersphere we ourselves asked:

panic 2Were Scotland a twitter 1great financial burden about to be lifted from England’s shoulders do you think Sterling would be in a nosedive? “Of course not” was the overwhelming response of #indyref’s informed twitterati.

The pummeling the pound is taking is not due to uncertainty, rather it is the discounting of the currency in the sure and certain knowledge that upon Scotland’s departure, iEngland/rUK will be a poorer state, with not only a greatly reduced GDP, but a greatly diminished per capita GDP.

The financial markets see a future where sterling is not propped-up by Scotland’s petro-dollar assets, and where an iEngland is no longer bankrolled by annual contributions from Scottish combined annual twitter 2revenues which for at least the past 32 years have exceeded expenditures in Scotland.

This collapse of the pound is dispositive evidence that the markets view Scotland as a substantial net asset to the UK, completely debunking the 20 years narrative of Scotland as an economic basket case, and Scots as indolent, feckless subsidy junkies.

Again, as we tweeted all day during the panic selling, to stem this financial collapse, Chancellor Osborne needs to concede that if YES prevails there will indeed be a currency union. He needs to do this, and he needs to do it now.



If NO prevails



by Christian Wright

If it’s a NO thanks to independence in the referendum it won’t be the end of the world, if no prevailsit’ll just feel like it. I will feel emotion again (after therapy) and the first to surface will be a sense of shame that my country bottled it – so far as I know, the only established, recognised nation, to do so in history.

My Scottish cringe which took decades to exorcise will return with a vengeance, only this time it will have legitimate reason to be.

Maybe I’ll affect an Irish accent and folk won’t know I’m from the nation that said NO because it didn’t have the balls to say YES. It refused to take responsibility for it’s own governance.

I’m worried about my wee Scotty dug, Hamish, though. His wee face is so iconically Scottish, I’m going to have to paint his bum and teach him to walk backwards. The wee soul – I’m afraid he’ll get kicked every which way by a disgusted world.


The Scottish NHS faces inevitable decline and eventual extinction after a NO vote



Christian Wright says:


The chairman of Britain’s private healthcare giant Bupa is the latest business leader to back a ‘No’ vote in the looming Scottish independence referendum…

No campaigners will see the backing of Leitch, who has also been deputy chairman of Lloyds Banking Group, as a coup in the final days before the crunch vote on 18 September. Polls suggest there is nothing to split the two sides of the debate, though a significant chunk of voters are undecided.

Unionists assure us our NHS is safe because it is devolved. What they don’t say is that privatisation of the English NHS will erode and death of nhsthen end the Barnett consequentials that fund it. This will leave no alternative but to privatise the Scottish NHS, too – but don’t take my word for it, ask Dr Lucy Reynolds (below).

So next time a supercilious apologist-for-NO sneers that the NHS is devolved and lies it is therefore ring-fenced, slap his argument up & down with a Barnett consequential.

[Photo: Dylan Jeavons political satirist ]



“Dr Lucy Reynolds, research fellow at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Dr Reynolds has studied the background of the NHS in detail, and in the interview she shares her view of the consequences of the NHS reforms and possible privatisation of the NHS explains in detail the mechanics of the imminent imposition of the UK government’s Health and Social Care Act, February 28th, 2013.

Her assessment is that Thatcher’s 1988 NHS privatisation plan is 80% completed and the remaining 20% is now in place and will gradually, over the next few years, move health care in England into the end game of a 100% US system of insurance based health care. This English NHS privatisation inevitably will cut the Scottish block grant via the Barnett funding formula and the knock on effect is a privatised Scottish NHS” [emphasis added]

Read the rest of the article here

Voting YES risks failure . . . . . . . . Voting NO guarantees it


JIM SILLARS AGREES! - In Place of fear II video


“If Scotland votes YES we may be screwed; if Scotland votes NO we surely are”

Says Christian Wright (Newly updated)

Breaking: Proud Scot Tam Dalyell signals Establishment momentum to abolish Scottish Parliament in the event of a NO vote. 

Scotland's FutureWhat are the likely outcomes of the most far-reaching civic decision those who vote in this referendum will ever make in their entire lives?

These good folks, earnest residents and citizens all, have a right to know as much as possible about what the consequences of that action will be.

An informed electorate being the foundation of a robust democracy, it is incumbent upon the principals of both campaigns to do their utmost to ensure voters have access to all of the salient facts before they cast their ballot.

Last year, the Westminster Government published the legal advice it had received on the issue of independence.

In Part IV of that document there is the startling assertion that Scotland is not a country, that it was absorbed by England in 1707, and that upon that date it was in the opinion’s words “extinguished”. It ceased to be.

England however continued on as England, or if you must, the “UK”. Take your pickengland flag 2 Cameron’s lawyers tell us in a bout of learned hand waving , the two titles are synonymous and refer to the same continuing unitary state. 

Curious, since for the previous 308 years Her Majesty’s Government insisted Scotland and England were two countries joined in a partnership of equals. Shurely there musht be shum mishtake?

With respect to the forthcoming plebiscite and remembering the past, the aphorism, ” Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me“, has particular saliency.

Were we to accept the published opinion we must also acknowledge that we are not Scots at all, but northern Englishmen and women. The land formerly known as Scotland is just another historical curiosity which centuries ago, became England’s most northerly region.

Like Braveheart, Her Majesty’s Government avers, Scotland too is a fiction.

Make no mistake, If you vote NO in the referendum you are accepting this and expressly giving London the right to control you, and tax you, and ignore you, and impose a hostile right wing government upon you.

The refusal of the Westminster Government to delineate these consequences of a NO vote evinces their contempt for the people of Scotland and the democratic process.

This leaves us no alternative but to do our sober best to define the NO outcome, since the Unionists refuse to define it themselves.


Consequences of a NO vote

The example of Quebec has shown that there is a real risk of reprisals after a NO vote in a referendum on independence, even if that vote is tight.

Alain Gagnon, of the University of Quebec in Montreal, has stated: “People need to be aware, if you go for a referendum, if you lose it you will have to pay a price. You can’t lose the referendum and not lose something else”.

The Sunday Herald reports Bernard Drainville of Parti Quebecois as saying: ” … I am convinced that the strength of the Scottish indy movement is the key determinant of Scotland’s bargaining power with London.

The fact that there is a strong indy movement gives you the strength to protect your interests, to get the better deal from London … So my advice to Scots would be: don’t miss your chance.

The big advantage that Scotland has is its natural resources, its oil, its financial sector. You can manage, you can do it.”

Now, the Unionist parties have made solemn promises of vague “further powers” that they will grant Scots in the event they choose dependency. Unfortunately, each party has their own set of often contradictory vague proposals. They can’t even agree on a common policy let alone spell out specific powers that will be granted.

And now Boris Johnson, the heir apparent to Cameron and next occupant of No10, has clearly signaled that it is his intent and the intent of that cohort that supports him, to transfer Scotland’s wealth for use in regenerating England. It couldn’t be plainer.

He is intent upon suppressing Scottish aspirations for greater autonomy short of independence. Again, he speaks for a large section of the ruling elite who have till now hidden the full degree of their antipathy toward the ungrateful, whinging jocks.

Boris Johnson who has now formally declared his intention to see the leadership of the Conservative Party believes Scotland gets more than enough out of the UK and that there is no need for further tax-raising powers or any other power to be devolved.

Conversely, he favours English cities being granted their own tax-raising powers.

Boris Johnson: “Ever more things we are giving Scotland….for no reason we are promising the Scots more tax-raising powers. Quite why, I don’t understand. There’s no need to do it.

“What has England ever got out of this devolution process? If you want to have growth in the English cities then you should do what Manchester wants, what Liverpool, Leeds, all of us want — and that’s give us more tax-raising powers.”

He said: “Alex Salmond has been thrashed in these debates, but for no reason we are promising the Scots more tax raising powers. There’s no need.

There you have it straight from the bigot’s mouth.

So what will we lose here if there is a NO vote and Scots choose dependency?

Top of the list of immediate outcomes are further Westminster-actioned cuts, into the foreseeable future, regardless of the party in power there (Tory lite [Labour], or the genuine article, the Conservatives).

There will be we already know, at a minimum, a re-jigging of the Barnett formula leading to a substantial reduction in the block grant (£4 billion), further divesting Scotland of the monies needed to maintain existing services.

The Scottish NHS will be eviscerated due to the effect of privatisation of the English NHS and its draining effect on Barnett consequentials.

And how long can it be after Scots voluntarily give up their right to self determination, before Barnett is scrapped altogether?

The certain cuts in funding will mean:

  1. An end to prescriptions free at the point of service.
  2. The end of at-home services for the elderly.
  3. The end of free tuition for university students.
  4. The end of free bus passes for the over-sixties.

Now that’s bad but it gets worse, a lot worse. The Unionist parties will argue a no vote gives them a mandate to implement the following:

The repatriation of key devolved competencies ( back to Westminster) to neuter Nationalist power (curtailing “SNP mischief-making”) to put an end to the Scottish Question once and for all.

HolyroodA vote NO will mean the effective end of the Scottish Parliament stripped of power and its diminution to a wee pretendy parliament (thus proving Billy Connolly right after all).

Scottish representation in the Westminster Parliament will be reduced to the already scheduled fifty (50) MPs initially, and will continue to decline as Scotland’s population continues to comprise a smaller and smaller portion of the greater English state.

Per the London Government’s published opinion, and the scotching of the theory of “states within a state”, there will be concerted and coordinated efforts to dissolve the instruments and protocols of Scotland’s status as a country within the UK (AKA England), and to recast it in the public’s mind as just other northern region of Britain.

That outcome follows necessarily since our  English Government has given this learned opinion the imprimatur of THE official reference to be consulted when dealing with matters Scottish.

Precedent gives cause for concern that if we remain part of England, and ever again become uppity, Westminster may retaliate with a policy of managed decline of this northern region’s economy a la Geoffrey Howe et Liverpool during the Thatcher regime (the 30-year rule, forced the publication of the minutes of cabinet meetings exposing these troubling narratives) .

A NO vote risks an inevitable and inexorable descent of our culture into obscurity and obsolescence.

Our legal system, unique education system, and our NHS, of necessity dismissed and rejected by the statists as incongruous anachronisms, predicated on the once-held delusion of our uniqueness as a people and a country.

The unacceptable risk is that the country we love will be permanently subsumed as a neglected and reviled low-opportunity Celtic backwater of a Greater England. Again, this new legal opinion from No.10 gives this scenario menacing credibility.

These are the outcomes that reasonably might follow a NO vote in September 2014 and it will well serve Scots to remember it.




Boris Johnson, born with a silver foot in his mouth, throws Better Together under the bus


Heir apparent to Cameron vetoes further devolution for Scotland


Christian Wright says:

And this from the man who would be King. Folks need take him seriously, for if they vote NO, one day soon he may be their overlord.

As far as the needs and aspirations of the Scottish people are concerned Boris is the next Thatcher in Waiting. That is not hyperbole but a reasoned assessment based on this man’s political philosophy, his bigotry and indifference,  his lack of understanding of the Scottish body politic, and his cosmic miscalculation of the Scottish political dynamic.

His exhibition of anti-Scottish bigotry is a measure of that shared by the rest of his cohort in Westminster and Whitehall. With these revelations he has become the YES campaign’s killer app.

All can be won if that is recognised and competently exploited. ThIs gift should be accepted gratefully and used mercilessly to pummel the BT beast until it stops twitching. This opportunity isn’t rare, it is sui generis. 

But what exactly does Boris Johnson give us? It is the DEMONSTRABLE certainty that while voting YES does risks failure, voting NO will guarantee failure. A Boris Johnson premiership would thrust Scotland into decline as a neglected low-opportunity backwater

Voting YES can now be presented to the risk-averse as the lesser of 2 evils. For that cohort not being swayed by the narrative of the positive-but-risky adventure of YES, the simple meme to inculcate is: YES risks failure but NO guarantees it 

Boris has clearly signaled that it is his intent and the intent of that cohort that supports him, to transfer Scotland’s wealth for use in regenerating England. It couldn’t be plainer.

He is intent upon suppressing Scottish aspirations for greater autonomy short of independence. Again, he speaks for a large section of the ruling elite who have till now hidden the full degree of their antipathy toward the ungrateful, whinging jocks.

boris bulingdon

Boris Johnson who has now formally declared his intention to see the leadership of the Conservative Party believes Scotland gets more than enough out of the UK and that there is no need for further tax-raising powers or any other power to be devolved.

Conversely, he favours English cities being granted their own tax-raising powers.

“Ever more things we are giving Scotland….for no reason we are promising the Scots more tax-raising powers.  Quite why, I don’t understand.  There’s no need to borisdo it.

“What has England ever got out of this devolution process?  If you want to have growth in the English cities then you should do what Manchester wants, what Liverpool, Leeds, all of us want — and that’s give us more tax-raising powers.”

He said: “Alex Salmond has been thrashed in these debates, but for no reason we are promising the Scots more tax raising powers. There’s no need.

Blair Jenkins, Yes Scotland’s chief executive, said: “With Boris Johnson being tipped for the Tory leadership, we’ve been given a sobering insight into the reality of what additional powers will be offered in the event of a No vote.

“It’s little wonder that Alistair Darling struggles to spell out what significant economic levers will be given under Westminster because we now know that there’s a growing group at Westminster waiting to turn the screw on Scotland on 19 September if they’re given the chance.

“It’s becoming clearer by the day that only a Yes vote offers a significant package of powers that we can use to grow the economy and create jobs. Westminster will never have Scotland’s best interests at heart and only independence allows Scotland’s future to be in Scotland’s hands.”

On Sept 18 Scots can gift Cameron & Westminster £2.5 TRILLION of their money to spend on improving London’s infrastructure



Cameron tries to “McCrone Report”evidence of vast new oil field in Scottish waters.

shhh dont tell the jocks

News of “World’s largest oil field” discovered in Scottish waters is being suppressed till Sept 19, claim.

£2.5 TRILLION of Scotland’s wealth said to be at stake as Cameron seeks to oilsuppress news of vast new oil reserves until after the referendum.

Cameron goes to Shetland and offers us £46 per year, while he’s reportedly busy conspiring to steal £2.5 TRILLION from the Scottish people.

Of course, this theft of £2.5 TRILLION of Scotland’s wealth has been condemned by precisely zero Unionists and NO leader of Better Together. 

The term “anti-Scottish” loses all meaning when those responsible for theft of £2.5 TRILLION of Scotland’s treasure are lauded by BT.

Cameron’s Grand Larceny demands a response. Where’s the procurator cameron tofffiscal when you need him?

We are indeed a generous people when more than half of us (Polls say) want to gift a Tory millionaire PM £2.5 TRILLION of our money.

That’s ~half a million pounds for every man woman and child in the nation. The bubble of NO just burst.

Make no mistake, the choice we face on 18 Sept now includes, YES to £2.5 TRILLION or NO to that money, NO to free bus passes, NO to free prescriptions, NO to free university education, and NO to free homecare for the elderly. 

 Many of our people live in poverty. It would be criminal to deny them the remedy within our grasp. 


“World’s Largest Oil Field NOT Found – The Mystery Surrounding the Prime Ministers Shetland Visit”

Published in Oil Industry News on Saturday, 2 August 2014
“Speculation is growing in the Oil Industry that there was more to the UK Prime Ministers recent secret visit to Shetland than has been released. The Facebook page of YES Highlands and Islands has released the following article that has gone viral on-line.”

You may remember the Prime Minister came to visit Shetland under the tightest secrecy ever seen in Shetland last week and the national press knew nothing about it. Nor the local press …

Mr Cameron came to Shetland to say absolutely nothing about anything and allowed the local media 6 minutes of questions. … Which he did not answer.

Now you are all wondering why the PM made a very rushed, and hugely expensive trip to the Shetland Oils, missing his cabinet meeting, and just making it back to Glasgow for the Games …

[H]is haste was nothing to do with wanting to see us. He did make one tiny announcement about energy in which Scots could save £46 per annum but he could have put out a press release from No 10 about that …

As luck would have it, Buster was flying his drone around the West of Shetland oilfields recently when he noticed something strange.

A drilling rig, definitely not on contract to BP, and not near the Clair Field did not suddenly de-man and send all the workers home and they are not on full pay.

Nor did he overhear the rig manager say “Come back in September and don’t speak to any wee ginger cats or your sacked.”

The rig did not discover “sweet oil”, the most highly-prized stuff for turning into petroleum spirit, nor was it in shallower water than the normal 150m some of the other Clair oil is lurking at.

Nor did it find it in quantities so large that “biggest” and “world” could be used in the same sentence.

Mr Cameron did not request the oil companies keep this massive wealth hidden from the Scottish electorate until after the referendum.”

“He would never do that.

Just like Westminster didn’t before the last referendum.

We’re sorry we have absolutely no news for you about the vast oil and gas reserves not found in the Atlantic but when we do hear anything you’ll be the first to know.

We’ll bung a photo up of a drilling rig so you know what they don’t look like when they are not contracted to BP no-where near the Clair Field. (lat. 60.629° long. -2.603°)”


Have Your Say on the Oil and Gas People Facebook Page

View the Yes Highlands and Islands Post with more details



commonwealth games

It appears Gordon Rayner (@gordonrayner) confected this vacuous narrative. Nowhere in it does he provide corroboration, or citation, or even a name.

Shouldn’t the author of this apparently scurrilous fiction furnish some evidence to back his claims? He might then present verifiable examples of Scots booing English track and field athletes.

Well of course he won’t do that because he can’t. Absent corroboration, this article begs to be viewed as a transparent attempt by Gordon Rayner and his employer to foment racial unrest and endanger the peace. As such it clearly falls within the scope of behaviour proscribed by law.

If this story were to contribute to unrest during the games, Rayner and the Telegraph should be held criminally liable.




How the Unionists steal our future by having us deny our past


By Christian Wright (updated)

Since Unionists are forever poking Braveheart in our face as a pejorative, it is time that we took ownership of it and defined it.

Braveheartism: Advocates that Scotland’s past is integral to it’s future. That its history and mythology play a key role in the creation and development of the Scottish identity. That it is legitimate for Scots to take pride in the accomplishments of their forebears, including their struggle against an implacable and powerful foe. That Scotland’s mythology and ancient history are the roots of a continuing development that is manifest in and integral to the character of Scotland’s culture and people today.

Braveheart: A person who subscribes to and espouses Braveheartism.


Making those whom you wish to lord it over feel inferior is an effective instrument of control.

The British State has set aside £50m of taxpayers money to celebrate the centenary ofWestminster the commencement of the Great War in August 2014. Why would anyone celebrate the start of such a bloody war? Among other things, this seems deliberately designed to compete with and overshadow the June 2014 anniversary of Bannockburn in the run-up to the referendum.

While promoting their odd remembrance, the Unionists, particularly the likes of Lord Jim Wallace, Lord Forsyth, and Lord Foulkes, are at pains to ensure we should forget Bannockburn on its 700th anniversary (why else have British Armed Forces day celebrations on this day in Stirling).

“It’s seven hundred years since”, the noble lords will admonish with mocking tone – “for goodness sake, no one cares!” – It’s not relevant – it’s clownish braveheartism, braveheart, BRAVEHEART!!!

. . . . We are told to grow up and get real.







There is method to their madness, and I think those of Nationalist persuasion – most of us – have fallen for it. We are sheepishly apologetic and readily agree to demean and dismiss Bravehearts and Braveheatism. We deny “Ourselves” in doing so.

The Unionist “Braveheart gambit” – seeks to denigrate Scotland’s historical fight for freedom against a belligerent neighbour whilst vigorously promoting Britain’s colonial wars and continental wars.

They would have us forget Bannockburn and how the bravery and guile of brave men helped forge this nation and temper our national character.

I call it the Braveheart Gambit because usually the focus of their derision is
not really the film about the life of William Wallace, but rather Wallace
himself, and the attack on Wallace remains the template upon which all other such attacks are made.

Mythologies are an essential ingredient of the glue than binds a people and creates a national identity. That is why icons of Union and Empire were paraded endlessly by the broadcast media in London’s Olympic pageant of 2012.


Yet simultaneously there has been a concerted effort by the chattering class and the jocktocracy in the Lords, to delegitimise that phenomenon where Scotland is concerned (whilst as noted, promoting the notion shamelessly where Britain is concerned).


None speaks to the heart of our people like the deeds and the persona of Wallace and events like Bannockburn, and no Scot should feel embarrassed to embrace that narrative, so shamefully demeaned and ridiculed by Westminster’s pet jocks and their counterparts in Holyrood.

Whatever you self-identify as, carries with it an encyclopaedia’s-worth of historical and cultural defining referential events. They are the very essence of a polity’s sense of itself. They have been used and abused since the dawn of civilization by the unscrupulous to further their nefarious ends, and by visionaries to build nations.

Scotland has a rich and glorious narrative from which to hew an identity and it is on the cusp of creating a richer one yet. The battles of independence continue to this day and the prize not yet won.

We can acknowledge and embrace our inner braveheart and celebrate it, or spurn it and cringe. But I would ask you to consider who it is that would have us deny and dissolve the glue that binds us, and why they would have you cringe.

It is they who dismiss and delegitimise national aspiration and scorn the enabling and inspiring notion that tomorrow can be better than today. Their vision and message is that this is as good as it gets. Their only plan is to tell us what we can’t do.

The past determines the present, and the present, the future, and ours awaits.

Of course, this does not mean that anyone will make a decision on September 18 solely on the basis of ancient history and mythology, but that we should look to the past for an understanding of how we came to be who we are today, in order that we may more fully contextualize the alternatives that confront us in this referendum, and choose the direction of our tomorrows.

YES growth







Brown calls for the scrapping of Scottish Education



brown clunking fist


When he thought we weren’t looking, THE BIG CLUNKING FIST dropped the mother of all clangers yesterday when he demanded the scrapping of Scotland’s separate education system and for education in Scotland to be integrated into the English education system, controlled by the (English) Education Secretary, Michael Gove.

It would also see Scottish students paying £9000 a year to attend Scottish universities

Former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, a lauded “heavy hitter” of the anti-independence establishment and self-proclaimed North Briton, is seen by many as a maverick, saying what others in Westminster are privately thinking.

During a speech to 1,500 people at Edinburgh University, Mr Brown said: “Around half of Scottish 14 to 17-year-olds do not want to be part of an exclusively Scottish education system but want a UK system where ‘the curriculum and exams are the same for everyone in the UK’.

“Scottish young people’s support for the same educational curriculum and exams across the UK is stronger than any poll would report…”

SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson said Mr Brown’s “bizarre” speech “makes the Yes case for us” because it would mean controversial UK Education Secretary Michael Gove would be in charge of Scottish policy and tuition fees for students.

We ourselves see the dismantling of Scotland’s trappings of statehood as an inevitable consequence of a rejection of independence. The example of Quebec has shown that there is a real risk of reprisals after a NO vote, even if that vote is

Alain Gagnon, of the University of Quebec in Montreal, has stated: “People need to be aware, if you go for a referendum, if you lose it you will have to pay a price. You can’t lose the referendum and not lose something else”.

The Sunday Herald reports Bernard Drainville of Parti Quebecois as saying: ” … I am convinced that the strength of the Scottish indy movement is the key determinant of Scotland’s bargaining power with London.

The fact that there is a strong indy movement gives you the strength to protect your interests, to get the better deal from London … So my advice to Scots would be: don’t miss your chance.

The big advantage that Scotland has is its natural resources, its oil, its financial sector. You can manage, you can do it.”

Christian Wright says:

Per the London Government’s published legal opinion that Scotland was extinguished in 1707 when it was absorbed by England, and the scotching of the theory of “states within a state”, there will be concerted and coordinated efforts to dissolve the instruments and protocols of Scotland’s status as a country within the UK (AKA England), and to recast it in the public’s mind as just other northern region of Britain.


That outcome follows necessarily since our  English Government has given this learned opinion the imprimatur of THE official reference to be consulted when dealing with matters constitutional and Scottish.


Precedent gives cause for concern that if we remain part of England, and ever again become uppity, Westminster may retaliate with a policy of managed decline of this northern region’s economy a la Geoffrey Howe et Liverpool during the Thatcher regime (the 30-year rule, forced the publication of the minutes of cabinet meetings exposing these troubling narratives) .


A NO vote risks an inevitable and inexorable descent of our culture into obscurity and obsolescence.


Our legal system, unique education system, and our NHS, of necessity dismissed and rejected by the statists as incongruous anachronisms, predicated on the once-held delusion of our uniqueness as a people and a country.


The unacceptable risk is that the country we love will be permanently subsumed as a neglected and reviled low-opportunity Celtic backwater of a Greater England.





We’re getting there

Survation poll just out has YES at 54% if Cameron remains PM and 47% if Miliband PM : See here – Keep spreading the word

1 – 

2 –

3 –

Conflation Sums: SNP + Salmond != independence


Scotland’s Sunday Herald today backs SNP and declares itself for separation. Will other papers join them?

12:26 PM – 4 May 2014


There is a difference between backing the SNP and eloquently expressing a firm commitment to the cause of an independent Scotland, as the Sunday Herald has so nobly done.

The conflation of the two is of course a centrepiece of the Unionist media disinformation narrative.

It goes hand-in-glove with their attempt to inculcate the risible notion that the referendum is a vanity project of  Alex Salmond that no Scots, save a few malcontents, ever wanted.

Paul Kavanagh at weegingerdug put it beautifully when he offered that the question the Unionists want voters to read is: “Should Scotland be an alecsammin country?”

The SNP will one day fragment, probably sooner than later, when the glue that binds it’s disparate factions (achieving an independent Scotland) is dissolved.

There is a very real sense in which the policies put forward by the present Scottish Government for a post independence Scotland are irrelevant to the question of independence itself.

In 2016 after Scotland becomes independent, there will be a general election to choose an new government. At that time the People will get the last word on who will rule Scotland.

It may be the SNP if it holds together, or some other party or coalition of parties. The social, economic, and political, direction of iScotland will be determined by that government and subsequent governments carrying out their mandate granted to them by the People.

First Ministers come and go, and “Alex Salmon is mortal”, as Jim Sillars puts it, “but Scotland is immortal”.

Neither the SNP nor Alex Salmond are on the ballot. We need encourage the vital cohort of low information and unengaged voters who will decide this contest, to consider that this is at bottom a simple choice:

Whether to be masters in our own house or lodgers in someone else’s.

Fraser Nelson has already made that choice, we need not follow him there.



scottish  notesConsternation and outraged gripped the Independence campaign as the BBC admitted funnelling at least three quarters of a million pounds (at today’s equivalent value) of public money in kickbacks to the CBI.

cbi since 1980

The revelation came buried in an online BBCNews report  where  

suitcase of pounds

The BBC had previously stated it had been secretly a member of the CBI “for at least ten years“.

We ourselves contacted the BBC and asked why the had given this original statement of “at least ten years”,  when they knew it to be grossly misleading, and why they had kept from licence holders for decades, the pertinent fact that they were bankrolling a partisan political organisation in violation of their charter.

We still await an answer from the state funded broadcaster.

The BBC throughout this referendum campaign has given generous ink and airtime to CBI claims of Scotland’s inability to govern itself and the cataclysmic consequences if it dare try.

Not once during any of those reports, which many found indistinguishable from a Better Together Campaign press release, did the BBC disclose its intimate financial and institutional relationship with the politically partisan CBI.50 pounds

The CBI recently registered as an activist agency in the anti-independence campaign before it hemorrhaged members who considered its partisan political activities inconsistent with its avowed role as representatives of their interests.

The BBC however, remains a member and has refused to resign, saying only that it would temporarily suspend its membership when it was legally compelled to do so from May 30 2014.

Questions have arisen challenging the legality of the BBC’s operation, with commentators suggesting that the Corporation’s behaviour evinces criminal wrongdoing.

They allege that the BBC has diverted public money for use in promoting the anti-independence cause, that this revelation is dispositive of that, and that those responsible should face prosecution.

Put succinctly:

Taxpayer £ > BBC > CBI > Better Together Campaign = election fraud & criminal conspiracy > handcuffs > jail






The Hypocrisy of the anti-independence pols and their running dogs in Her Majesty’s Press, has reached new levels with the teeth-gnashing contempt shown for the First Minister and his sin of articulating a thoughtful realpolitik assessment of Putin in GQ magazine.

This was an interview given BEFORE Putin goosestepped his way to anschluss with Crimea.

Let’s take the behaviour of Jackson Carlaw MSP as proxy for the wall of self-hYPOCRITE OF THE MONTHserving carnival barking we have had to endure for the past few days from the Union’s frontmen.

Jackson, in the view of we ourselves, is deserving of the highest honour we can bestow on a dissembling pol.

Now to provide some context, Jackson is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, and he’s never actually won an election or anything.

Rather he has been the beneficiary of welfare in the form of the Holyrood assisted places scheme, that allows hopeless dullards to pick up a fat salary and a nice pension for coming in fourth in a poll.

No one can say Carlaw, erstwhile car salesman of 25 years standing, lacks ethical standards or moral rectitude.

When there were moves afoot by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birdseagle to make the Golden Eagle a symbol of Scotland, Saunch Unionist and Tory Carlaw was outraged, comparing that ancient icon of Alba to a symbol of Nazi Germany and Roman imperialism.

There can be no doubt that those citizen victims of the austerity package  implemented by his boss, were cheered to know Jackson was on point looking after their vital interests.

So is it any surprise he was shocked, shocked, when Alex Salmond brought seasoned nuance to an evaluation of some of the major players on the world stage, one of whom was Vladimir Putin?

Even saying the dictators name gives Jackson the vapours.

Here’s what he had to say as reported in the Huffington Post:

 “Putin is keen on suppressing the media and political opposition, so it’s no wonder Alex Salmond admires him.

“This is quite an embarrassing ramble from the First Minister, who is desperate to be seen as some kind of equal to global leaders.

“It also makes a mockery of the Scottish Government’s faux outrage over the Crimea situation. The people of Scotland will see through this most recent sucking up offensive.”

“[S]ucking up offensive”, hmm . . .

So it’s quite clear what Jackson thinks of Vladimir and Salmond.

It is a puzzle then, that we ourselves can find no statement of his condemning his ultimate boss, the Capo di tutti capi, David Cameron, for conspiring with and “sucking up” to, the very same Vladimir, to put a knife in Scotland by openly questioning Scots competence to run their own affairs.

Cameron was all over Putin like a cheap suit looking for a favour from a foreign dictator to act against the interests of 5 million British citizens he is sworn and honour bound to protect and serve.

How could this sin of omission from the righteous Jackson Carlaw MSP possibly be?

Well, its hard not to conclude that Mr Carlaw is other than a hypocritical, mendacious, gasbag. An opportunist who’s interested in the optics of an event, and how he can distort them to serve his own nefarious needs.

We ourselves have great pleasure then to present to JACKSON CARLAW MSP the award of


herald putin cameron

Cameron pleads with Putin to fix indy vote while Robertson invites Stalin’s heir to join NATO



The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, has been caught cameron begs putinconspiring with the dictator of Russia to ensure Scotland never gets to have a fair vote.

President Putin, the Hammer of the Ukraine, recently annexed the Crimea. Now it appears Cameron has begged his help in ensuring Scotland remains annexed to England. Birds of a feather.

As we ourselves have previously revealed, Embassy cables have demonstrated that an unbelievable 34 nations were pressured by Cameron to oppose Scottish independence.

herald putin cameron

In the specific case of enlisting the help of the Russian dictator, there is additional corroboration. According to the Herald:

“The Tass report, by one of the agency’s correspondents, hit the Russian putin and cameronlanguage news wires on Hogmanay.

Its opening paragraph reads: “Great Britain is extremely interested in the support of Russia, as holder of the G8 presidency, in two vital areas in 2014: the Afghan pull-out and the Scottish independence referendum.”

In the traditional style of a Russian news wire report, this assertion was then attributed to a “representative” in the Prime Minister’s office who was speaking anonymously.

The journalist then added a direct quote from the unnamed source talking of “two main issues whose resolution requires international formats, albeit of different modalities”.

The Cameron Government insider then, according to the report, added: “Those are the withdrawal of combat units from Afghanistan by the end of the 2014 and September’s referendum on Scottish independence.”


Robertson invites Russia to Join NATO. Putin’s OK Robertson assures us

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, George Robertson is inviting the heir to Stalin to join NATO! I don’t blame you for being sceptical so here’s yer actual video of George’s big wet one to Vlad. And this link to the original source NATO interview.

“We stand for values, stand for liberal values, and that has to include Russia, whether under the present or a future leadership, because the previous leadership, when Mr Putin was first president, believed in exactly that objective. And that’s what we’ve got to aim for.” George Robertson

Why you shouldn’t drop acid before delivering a policy speech at Brookings



George Robertson the former UK Secretary of State for Defence, and former Secretary General of NATO, in a speech to the Brookings Institution in Washington DC, made some bizarre statements about the consequences of Scottish independence upon the World Order.robertson and generals

His extreme language has been roundly condemned here in Britain, even by Unionist pols and some in the MSM.

Over at the Spectator, in an article on the Robertson speech, Alex Massie has done his level best to wordsmith his way around the obvious uncomfortable truth of Robertson’s intervention to make it palatable, at least to the credulous and the unwary.

He has sought to mitigate Robertson’s carnival barking insanity, finding the sentiment if not the actual articulation of the former NATO Secretary General’s thesis, reasonable and eminently defensible.

alex massie

He is wrong in that assessment and in asserting that Britain and not Scotland was the subject of Lord George’s remarks (an absolute requirement if his argument was to have any semblance of credibility).

W’ur doomed, DOOMED!

Robertson’s take is that Scotland is the core without which Britain cannot be an essential foundation for stability in the world; a necessary guarantor of Western influence, and indeed, Western civilisation. [Of course without Scotland there is no Britain in the legal and political sense, so let’s call it what is really is – England (incorporating Wales)]

Robertson then, is asserting that Scotland is the keystone of civilisation (something every Scot knows instinctively).

For if England is reliant upon it to be effective and to do good works, and the wider world’s destiny is directly tied to England’s prowess, then it is the case that the subject of Robertson’s thesis is Scotland.

Remove it from the equation, Robertson tells us, and England will collapse in on itself and be ground to powder.

The wuruld is doomed

The European Union will erupt, Spain will splinter, Belgium will bifurcate, and nation shall no longer speak unto nation. The influence of the West will wane until it is forever extinguished.

Oh the humanity!

Western culture will be eviscerated at the instant Scottish independence is formally declared. And Lord George tells us, as Scotland goes, so goes the wuruld.

The Global Economy will be as a dried prune – its precious bodily fluids sucked out of it.

Yes indeed, that would be the same precious bodily fluids cited by US General Jack D. Ripper in Dr Strangelove, and there is something disturbingly Ripperesque about Robertson’s intervention.General ripper

In this speech to Brookings he has raised camp and hyperbole to the level of a clinical disorder.

I’m seriously worried about George.



 It’s the BBC Stupid! – Part II

Update 24/04/2014: Tellingly, the BBC still hasn’t resigned from the anti-independence campaign propaganda mouthpiece institution, the CBI . . . birds of a feather.



In the first part on state-sponsored political propaganda, THE BBC IS CORUPT, we looked at the nature of BBC bias with respect to independence. We determined that:

  • The BBC has power because it is believed
  • The best and most effective propaganda is that not recognised as propaganda by its victims.

We examined how BBC rabidly pro-Unionist propaganda is disseminated. and explored the implications of the ingrained belief among critical low-information voters in particular, that the BBC is an impartial, scrupulously fair deliverer of news, and provider of quality analyses on matters politic.

We determined it should be a priority of the Independence Movement to disabuse the electorate of that notion.

In March of last year we witnessed the tried and tested toxic mix of BBC disinformation and distraction employed to promote fear, uncertainty, and doubt, among the electorate.

The then newly released GERS report which evinced sound management of the public purse by the Scottish Government and described the robust nature of the Scottish economy as a whole, was reinterpreted by BBC Scotland’s propagandists to mean Scotland’s economy is dangerously lopsided, with an alarming reliance on North Sea oil and gas  revenues.

This GERS report, viewers were told, exposes the nation’s structural fiscal vulnerabilities, and does not augur well for the prospects of Scotland as independent state.

The purpose of this article is not to argue that case (that is more than competently done here and here), but to address the pressing matter of what can be done to defend against these assaults on the truth by this irredeemably corrupt instrument of the Unionist state.


It was argued in part I, that we cannot hope to unstick the Beeb and force change in its institutional position on independence in the next six months, but we CAN go far to ameliorating its toxic influence on the outcome of the plebiscite, by hammering home the message of its political corruption.

The issue of the BBC as the premier producer and disseminator of anti-independence propaganda must become a priority of the Nationalist campaign for the next half-year, deserving of significant attention and apportionment of adequate resources to counter it.

The latest screaming headlines of shock and horror from the Beeb over Standard Life’s anodyne statement concerning plans to accommodate future uncertainties  surrounding the independence referendum is just the latest example (they have since toned down the volume a bit from the original).

Nowhere in that report or Douglas Fraser’s analysis is there mention of Standard Life’s close ties to extremist Unionist groups or to the Westminster Government.

Former ambassador and human rights campaigner, Craig Murray, lays bare the fibrous nature of big business’s intimate relationship to rabid Unionism in his blog. He presents a deeply troubling narrative of inappropriate and compromising relationships between Her Majesty’s Government, the Tory Party, and Standard Life’s executives.

Now you’d think a stench so redolent of collusion and intrigue would be irresistible to any journalist worthy of the name, warranting earnest investigation.  Alas we see no evidence of that in the behaviour of Douglas Fraser nor any other employee of the BBC.

It is very hard indeed to distinguish between the output of the BBC in matters pertaining to independence and the press releases of the NO campaign.

Dr John Robertson of the University of the West of Scotland has produced a seminal peer-reviewed study on the pervasiveness of bias in the BBC, which dismantled the state broadcaster’s claim to impartiality in matters politic.

Several web-based journals but practically no organ of the Fourth Estate covered this devastating indictment of the Corporation. That sad statistic is a measure of the degree of corruption daily evident in the MSN’s coverage of this referendum. A scandal never addressed by that media and seldom referenced by the campaign’s principals.


When will the leadership of this independence movement tackle the elephant in the room (media bias), and the 800lb gorilla that rides menacingly atop it (the BBC)?

The issue of the media’s extreme partisanship should be addressed in every interview and debate. The BBC cannot maintain credibility without the tacit cooperation and complicity of Nationalists. We are accepting of the inequity, so why should they bother to change their behaviour?.

Why are we providing the Beeb with a veneer of impartiality?

Why are we still agreeing to participate in debates and interviews where Nationalist representatives are outnumbered three or four to one?

Why do we remain mute when interviewers are demonstrably hostile to the nationalist side, yet throw the Unionist representatives softballs?

For goodness sake, when are the Nationalist political elite in Holyrood and Morningside responsible for the management of this campaign going to seriously address this issue?


There should be zero tolerance of procedural inequity in the BBC.  

If the broadcaster’s institutional bias is raised in a respectful but firm manner by the interviewee/participant in a BBC interview/talk-show/televised debate, the BBC will have no choice but to air that criticism, and address it, since is has become a major component of the debate.

What is the state broadcaster going to do – stop inviting representatives of the YES campaign onto programs about the campaign? Of course not – at least not if they want to preserve a semblance of credibility.

Among the first things the YES campaign should do is issue a statement that the Campaign policy shall be to refuse interviews or debates where the NO campaign representatives and/or other Unionist proxies, outnumber the representatives of the YES campaign. That kind of ganging-up is getting old.

There must be an insistence on fairness and transparency in the structuring and application of the rules and procedures governing interviews and debates. That can be formalized and codified in a memorandum of understanding.

Now the BBC’s Question Time producers among others have argued that their panels discuss a range of topics and that therefore any gross inequity with respect to representation on the topic of independence is a mere bagatelle – a local matter of little import. What arrogant nonsense.

During that period when the QT panel (or any other BBC panel) discusses issues of Scottish independence, there should be parity in representation. Why is it that the YES side or the SNP are seemingly always the ones outnumbered?

It should be emphasized that this is not a party political election campaign, but a plebiscite, with a binary outcome, and there there can be but two and only two sides equally represented in any interview or debate.

Every BBC invitation refused because of a demonstrable procedural  inequity can and should become an issue.

The Scottish Government and surrogates culled from the Good and the Great of whatever political hue, who believe in equality of access to the market place of ideas, should be prevailed upon to call for a public inquiry, citing BBC violations of its charter and apparent criminal wrong-doing in the misuse of public monies and contraventions of election law. This should be augmented by promotion of a groundswell of popular support for the same (we could astroturf this but that would likely be unnecessary given the genuine indignation felt by many).

The goal is not to hold an inquiry but to make it an issue in the public space, so that the focus on BBC bias is legitimized in the voter’s mind and becomes a real factor in the debate.


Now many Nationalists have voiced concern that seriously raising the issue of media propaganda in this way distracts from the positive message of independence.

What positive message? We are not getting much in the way of messages positive or otherwise out to the people who matter – but the opposition are.

We need achieve two goals.

  • Minimize the effectiveness the propaganda by denying the BBC the fiction of its impartiality.
  • Curtail its current unrestrained Unionist bias by openly calling them to account when they seriously transgress, and to do so in real time if possible.


What we must guard against though, is appearing to be whinging. This should be presented as an issue of fairness in the dissemination of information about the most important decision to confront the people of Scotland, not in 300 years, but in the entire history of the nation since its founding. The people had no say in the 1707 treaty nor in the associated enabling acts of parliaments – this will be their first (and quite possibly their last) chance to decide if they will be masters in their own house.

Now you would think a choice of that import would require absolute impartiality on the part of the BBC to be SEEN to be done.

There should be no reasonable doubt in anyone’s mind, but that the BBC is in compliance with both the word and the spirit of its charter as it is required to be.

The BBC itself should show zero tolerance of manifest bias in the conduct of its reporters, its producers, and its presenters.

We all have biases, but there is no excuse for indulging personal political prejudice when you are supposed to be impartially reporting the news, interviewing the principals in the campaign, or offering considered analyses.

The BBC has gotten away with murder in respect of its antipathy toward the SNP and Salmond, and its utter disdain of the inalienable right of people of Scotland to decide their own destiny.

Enough is enough. It is time to act!

Share this:



The Union’s chief propagandists – It’s the BBC Stupid! – Part 1



by Christian Wright (updated)

The media are a real impediment to a fair debate on the issues germane to independence, and they are a very real danger to a successful outcome in the referendum.

By far the biggest threat comes from the BBC. The state broadcasting network has tremendous power to influence opinion in Scotland.

The BBC has systematically diverted resources and public money to further its Unionist political agenda in violation law and its corporate charter.

It has offered as news, propaganda designed to advance the case of the NO campaign and to brief against the interests of the YES campaign.

In its reaction to criticism the BBC’s management has displayed sickening arrogance and a preening self regard, amply demonstrated in their treatment of the highly respected academic, Dr John Robertson and his peer reviewed study that offered dispositive evidence of the Corporation’s deceit and corrupt practices.

Their attempt to bully and silence the academic rather than address the substantive issues in his report, suggests the beeb may be irredeemable.

Will it require perp-walking its executives out of Pacific Quay in handcuffs to bring the Corporation to Jesus over its wrong-doing? Enquiring minds and procurators fiscal wonder.

The evidence is overwhelming that the intent is to fix the outcome of the referendum by systematically and maliciously undermining the electoral process.

Its power to do so is derived from the public’s perception that it’s news and analyses are fair and impartial, and that it’s output is a truthful representation of the facts.

Succinctly: The BBC has power because it is believed.

It should be a priority of the Independence Movement to disabuse the electorate of that notion.

The best and most effective propaganda is propaganda that is not recognised as propaganda by its victims.This sort of customer conditioning is worth its weight in gold.

How much do you think hours of daily free pro-unionist television advertising will be worth over the next six months, augmented by a daily diet of SNP-bashing in the national press?

What needs to be prioritized is not offering counterpoint to every dingbat charge the opposition dreams up, or challenging false or misleading data it presents, but neutralizing the effectiveness of the conduit through which the lies and “inaccuracies” are disseminated.

We have no megaphone loud enough to be well heard over the din of the daily diet of “Salmond Accused!” propaganda articles in the Scotsman and Herald, or the latest invented fracas caused by the mistreatment of a news story by the Beeb.

One of the most egregious examples of malfeasance was the invention of a Labour victory at the last local elections. This was a tour de force in the black art of fooling all of the people some of the time.



In that election the SNP surpassed Labour, the Tories, and the Liberals,  increased their representation in Glasgow, gaining the greatest number of seats country-wide of any party, and winning the popular vote.

This was a sui generis event in the annals of British politics, where a party five years in government, beat the opposition in a midterm election, taking seats from all parties and won the popular vote.

Compare this with the performance of the Tories and LibDems south of the border, were the Labour opposition made significant gains overall against the Coalition.

Yet incredibly, the BBC and the print press spun this as a crushing victory for Labour and a humiliating defeat for the SNP.

This through-the-looking-glass analysis was predicated on the notion that since Labour had held onto Glasgow with a reduced majority, they had somehow triumphed over the SNP.

By way of corroboration, a fist-pumping, and apparently victorious Labour, were depicted in a celebratory photo and accompanying video and articles of their “comeback”.



Johann Lamont Scottish Labour

What that photo actually captures is the Labour leaders realization that after a near death experience, they are still alive.

The smiles and joy are not those of victory, but of relief. They had lost seats in Glasgow, failed to beat the five-year incumbent governing party, and had failed to stem that party’s advance.

This was the first time in modern British political history that this had happened.

Even the most ineffectual, incompetent, useless, opposition parties in British political history had done, not just better, but much better than this shower. Yet they are presented to the public as victors.

The BBC and other media provided contrast to fit their wholly false narrative with this  misleading atypical photo of the SNP campaign on election night.

Let’s call this what it is – it is lying pure and simple. It is manipulation of an election result to mislead citizens into believing the opposite of the truth.

On Newsnicht, next evening, Lamont and Davidson were seemingly giddy, with the knowledge of the SNP “defeat”, and the interviewer (I think it was Glen Campbell) was sneeringly dismissive of the SNP representative’s claim that the data clearly indicated a victory for his party by every substantive measure.

As suggested earlier, you wouldn’t know it, but Labour actually lost seats in Glasgow compaired to the number of seats they won in the previous council election. But that  is how you determine performance election to election, right?

Wrong. Inexplicably, with respect to the Scottish local elections, the BBC decided that performance in terms of gains and losses should be determined by who held the seat the day prior to the election.

Why is this important? Well you see, in the run-up to the election, Labour in Glasgow was fragmenting, and the internal divisions over who got what job,  caused a number of Labour councilors to throw their rattles out of the pram, resign from the party, and stand as independent Labour at the election.

The BBC by measuring gains and losses based on who held the seat the day before the election (something they had never done before in Scotland – ever) rather than who won the seat at the previous council elections, allowed them to report as Labour gains, those “Independent” seats in staunch Labour wards that they were always going to retain and never going to lose, in a month of Sundays.

It was actually stated that by the BBC that Labour had “won back Glasgow”, but the obvious question is, won it back from whom?

The answer is they won it back from themselves. That’s how cosmically dumb and pernicious the BBC argument is in justifying this twisting of the facts and defiling of the truth.

Have a look at that master of condescension, David Dimbleby, doing does what he does best – being economical with the truth and grossly misleading. Watch out for him using the foregoing canard to inflate the number of Labour “gains”.

Near the end Norman Smith lies through his back teeth about who won the most seats in the election. He did so to suport the rest of his thesis of a resurgent Labour in Scotland, which was the meme du jour of the BBC and the print press.

He also tries to conflate the council election results with the referendum – somehow, someway, with hand-waving fuzzy logic.

Consider his  language too – Labour didn’t hold or retain or keep Glasgow (the customary and usual nomenclature), no, in Smiths doublespeak,  they won Glasgow.


In the Beeb’s Orwellian view, when you lose that is a victory, and when you win, as the SNP did, that’s a defeat. Doubleplusgood, BBC, doubleplusgood!


The Big Lie culminated in the infamous FMQ Great Labour Kabuki Dance, where the whole of their Holyrood parliamentary contingent cheered and back-slapped for all they were worth as their leader, Lamont, rose to speak (much of the impact of this is lost by the BBC’s narrator drowning it out).

They understood that in politics perception is the reality . . . at least it is for a while.

Public perception of who are the winners and who are the losers is formed in that critical period right after an election, when the numbers are in and the assembled political cognoscenti of press and television tell us what to think.

The average citizen ignoring most of all of this but inculcating some of it, got the impression that Labour had given the SNP “a helluva beating”.

In the end truth will out, the data are the data, and the reality finally prevailed, but by then it was too late.

For any corrections to have meaningful influence, the serried ranks of the Great Unwashed have to be paying attention, and trust me, come the weekend after the Thursday election, they wont be.

It is in my view, somewhere near useless that the news media correct their “unfortunate errors” sometime after this critical incubatory period – no one is listening. More exactly, no one who counts is listening.

So, pretty much no matter what one tries to do, say beyond 48 hours post election, will provide you meager returns. You’re just pissing against the wind.


The need is to be proactive in countering the effectiveness of the messaging.

There is a crying need for a coordinated and concerted effort to undermine the risible notion of BBC impartiality, by drawing the attention of the electorate to its malfeasance, again and again, and again, until it is inculcated into the public consciousness.

It is clear now that this is the strategy of the opposition with respect to the First Minister. Bring down Salmond, and you decapitate the independence movement.

While each attack in itself presents no existential threat, the constant stream of attacks, day after, week, after month, after year, will take its toll and serve to destroy the First Minister’s credibility and blacken his reputation (or so they believe).

The opposition cannot possibly hope to achieve this without the complicity of the press and broadcast media, united in common cause.

The 800lb gorilla of that unholy alliance is the state broadcasting system – the BBC.

We cannot hope to unstick the Beeb and force change in its institutional position on independence, but we can go far to ameliorating its toxic influence on the outcome of the plebiscite on independence, by hammering home the message of its political corruption.

The next treatment of this subject offers suggestions on how that might be achieved: 

The Fiction of the Continuing State


uk coat of arms


Grand Larceny and the fiction of the continuing state

By Christian Wright

Legal OpinionPart IV of the legal opinion published by HMG last year claims Scotland was “extinguished” when it was absorbed by England in 1707, and that the dispositive evidence to the contrary of the Articles of Union can be discounted.

With the best will in the world, this part of the document appears to be risible.

It is the work of two eminent lawyers James Crawford, and Alan Boyle who were tasked to provide legal advocacy and the imprimatur of learned consideration, for a line of argument that does not withstand even the most cursory examination.

Is is unclear how it could pass the scrutiny of any impartial jurist. It is beyond understanding that the Scottish Government has ceded this ground without any apparent resistance.

If you peruse Part IV of the UK Government’s Legal Opinion of 2013 (link above), HMG went to extraordinary lengths to argue England is the continuator state.

HMG asserts that iScotland will be a brand new state and as such not heir to the assets of the UK. They do hold however, that Scotland is heir to the liabilities of the UK. This is surely a case study in having your cake and eating it too.

HMG had no alternative but to argue that case if it is to be reasonably sure of retaining its vanity permanent seat on the UN Security Council, have minimum difficulties in retaining its opt-outs within the EU, and to continue the fiction of a UK marching on “move along, nothing to see here” as a major power.

The fly in the ointment is that they simply cannot afford another £100 billion+ debt on the books as their state is simultaneously diminished, losing close to 10% of its GDP, 90% of its oil and gas reserves and revenues, and a third of its landmass.

That is why they have adopted this convoluted and improbable argument that Scotland was “extinguished” when it was incorporated into England in 1707, that England continued, and that the titles “UK” and “England” are synonymous, describing the same continuing unitary state.

They argue that therefore Scotland is part of the territory of the continuator state of England/UK, a part which will secede from the mother country of which it has been a province for the past 307 years. iScotland will then be a newly born state with no right to the assets of the UK but liable for it debts.

However, the Articles of Union of 1707 do seem to offer dispositive evidence to the contrary. Consider this statement from Article IX:

‘… the Parliament of Great-Britain, to be raised in that Part of the united Kingdom, now called England …’

Now, doesn’t that single statement kill HMG’s case stone dead? What it is saying is that England is part of the UK, not that it is the UK or that it has absorbed Scotland, which by deduction must be the other part of the UK and therefore not part of England. That is to say, the statement tells us they are both component parts of a binary union. N’est-ce pas?

Is spelling the obvious out like that getting too tedious? Well OK, that is but one example of the evidence leading inexorably to the conclusion that HMG’s position is bunk.

Now HMG in its legal opinion, discounts the relevance of the Treaty (acts) of Union of 1707. We’re not here to argue their case, but to challenge it. The treaty and enabling acts of parliaments that created the UK are not relevant?

Now, that case might be made but it is very thin gruel indeed, and the argument being offered here is that there is at least one other narrative that is far more robust.

Alright, so can we construct that more reasonable and convincing case?

Well let’s see . . .

Articles of Union

The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a legal and political entity formed by the Union of two and only two countries – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales). It was created by a bilateral internationally recognised treaty.

It is the case that upon dissolution of the Treaty of Union, its associated enabling acts of parliaments, and any subsequent contingent intra-state treaties and agreements derived therefrom, the United Kingdom of Great Britain will cease to be.

As you might expect, two and only two successor states will emerge from its discarded husk – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. There can be no continuing state of an extinguished voluntary union of two nations. It is on its face a daft proposition.

Consider the tautology: When the Union is dissolved, the Union ceases to be.

Scotland as a successor state, just like England, would retain EU membership, though there would have to be negotiations with both successor states and the EU to regularise their new status.

Each will inherit the rights and responsibilities of any inter-state treaties entered into collectively on their behalf by the (by then) defunct United Kingdom.

Each successor state will be heir to their share of the accrued assets of the United Kingdom, and responsible for their share of the liabilities incurred by the United Kingdom during the tenure of their union.

A below the line contributor here (Per Erik) considered this obvious analogue to the situation and to HMG’s line of argument:

“It’s basically a divorce… It’s like saying, after you leave our marriage, I will keep and sustain the entire marriage by myself, and you who leave will be a new born baby with no assets whatsoever, but you will still have to pay the mortgage on our house… Makes sense… If you’re a bit crazy…”

Or if your are a Chancellor of the Exchequer enamoured of larceny and other felonious doings,


The Scottish Government’s incomprehensible response

The Scottish Government has habitually talked about secession and leaving the UK. It has ceded the point that the UK will continue to exist after Scotland leaves.

In doing so it has agreed with the assertions of London that England/UK will be the Continuator State, and conceded that Scotland is not a successor state

As noted, the only way for Scotland and England to be free of one another is by the dissolution of the union that binds them together. That requires that the signatories of that union reemerge as successor states.

You either have two successor states, each heir to the assets and liabilities of their former union,


a single continuing state, heir to all of the assets and liabilities of the former union, AND a completely new state, heir to neither the assets nor the liabilities of the former union.

This is self evident, yet the Government of Scotland, charged with the responsibility of representing the interests of the People, has singularly failed to usefully challenge the outrageous assertion that Scotland does not exist, that the territory describing the realm of Scotland is today and has been for the past 307 years, an integral part of England, and that consequently, we are all Englishmen and women.

The Union Government by adopting the findings of this opinion, has officially denied Scots their homeland, their claim to nationhood, even their very existence as a people.

HMG has explicitly rejected the people of Scotland’s claim to their fair share of the accrued fruits of their labours over the past three centuries, manifest in the current aggregate wealth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

This wealth exists in the form of the Union’s treasure, its institutions, its treaties with foreign states, and its commercial agreements with global business.

The official position of HMG as previously stated, is that Scotland will be a brand new nation, that will have no claim to the assets of the Union, but will be liable for its portion of the liabilities of the Union to the tune of at least £100,000,000,000 (£100 billion).

Oh, and they also want to charge Scots for the huge cost of relocating England’s strategic nuclear arsenal currently ensconced in Faslane. You’ve got to admire London’s chutzpah.

Let us be clear about this: The Government of England/UK is signaling its intent to commit larceny on a monumental scale against the Scottish people, and it is doing so without any apparent conscience or embarrassment, in broad daylight, in front of the eyes of the entire world.

Where’s the outrage?

Cameron plants negative stories about indy in Spanish press


Shocking new revelations in the cablegate scandal

By Christian Wright

You remember the article from a week ago on UK diplomatic cables which revealed the UK Government was pressuring foreign powers to make negative statements about the Scottish Government’s policies on independence? [Update – And more information on Cameron being caught red handed conspiring with Putin the Invader to knife Scotland and fix referendum]

Well turns out that not content with pressuring nations to trash the Scottish Government and nobble indy, new information has come to light that the British Embassy in Madrid has been doing the same thing with the Spanish press.

The Spanish paper Tenerife News published a letter (see below) from our man in Madrid, pressuring the paper to publish a Home Office sourced brief about the “challenges” Scotland would face if it left the Union

The paper, printed in full the preface, from which it could be inferred that our embassy’s black-ops agents (well, what would you call them) were going  around Spain’s newspaper one by one, leaning on them to publish our Government’s brief on the risks of Scotland leaving the UK.

The preface to the brief offered that the paper,  “… explores the challenges which an independent Scottish could face in assuming control of its borders and considers the difficult choices that the people in Scotland would have to face on issues such as citizenship and nationality.”

It continued, “It will be a choice between the continuity and security of being part of the UK or the uncertainty and risk of leaving it.”

So clearly, even after being rumbled last week, Cameron and his Bullingdon wide boys, are still doing the dirty on a grand scale. We know now were all those uniformly negative analyses in the foreign press originate. They are lifted straight from anti-Scottish briefs like this.

Could this possibly be the very same avuncular, pasty-faced, Cameron who just last Friday told the world how much he loved and respected us, who only three short days ago told us the referendum was strictly a matter for the Scots to decide, who with gravitas and moment of purpose assured us there would be no interference from him?

Surely there must be some mistake? Couldn’t be! No siree, Bob, not our David. Uh-uh!

We ourselves doubt the man has any intimacy with the truth.. He’s all chutzpah and brass neck.

The full letter from our government is reproduced below for your perusal.

The question for the Scottish electorate remains: How do you trust a proven liar?

[Newly added – the Sunday Herald’s take – click here]

The letter below is from our man in Madrid, Simon Montague to spanish newspapers

Dear Editor

Given the likely interest among your British resident audiences – whether Scottish or otherwise – I am forwarding a press release issued by the Home Office today. You can find it at – it is also reproduced below. I hope you find it interesting.

The paper looks at the implications for borders and citizenship if people in Scotland were to vote for independence. It explores the challenges which an independent Scottish state could face in assuming control of its borders and considers the difficult choices that the people in Scotland would have to face on issues such as citizenship and nationality. It will be a choice between the continuity and security of being part of the UK or the uncertainty and risk of leaving it.

The press release is as follows:

“Common UK citizenship and the unrestricted movement of people and goods between Scotland and other parts of the UK have been crucial in enabling the integration of communities and businesses, the government’s latest Scotland analysis paper concludes.

The Home Office paper, ‘Scotland analysis: Borders and citizenship’, is the tenth in the UK government’s analysis series. It examines the challenges an independent Scotland could face in taking control of its borders, and sets out the difficult choices about citizenship that a yes vote would mean for people in Scotland.

Minister for Immigration Mark Harper said: “The principles addressed in this paper are fundamental to how we define ourselves: our nationality, the border that protects us and the passport we use to travel the world.

“There are no easy answers to the question of what could happen if Scotland goes it alone. There would be a new international border and – however close our coope-ration – that could mean more bureaucracy and extra controls for people travelling to visit family, go on holiday or do business.

“It would also be an unprecedented experiment with nationality and identity that would reverse centuries of common UK citizenship. It would affect not just millions of people today but also generations to come.”

The paper stresses that management of the UK’s external border is complex, expensive and relies on a fully integrated system across the UK. Currently, all activity to manage, control and secure the UK’s border, and every penny spent, benefits each UK citizen wherever they live or work.

However, should Scotland vote for independence, the current boundary between Scotland and the rest of the UK would become an international border between two separate countries.

The analysis also considers the implications of independence for citizenship. If Scotland became an independent state, its new government would decide who would be able to become, or be required to become, a Scottish citizen. This decision would have profound implications affec-ting not only those who vote in the referendum but also their children and grandchildren.

 Simon Montague Director of Communications British Embassy Madrid

Embassy cables reveal 34 nations pressured by UK to oppose Scottish independence


passport_photo_biggerChristian Wright says: No one who would pressure 34 foreign powers to defame us and demean us should ever be in a position to rule over us.”


Update: Obama’s anodyne “endorsement” of the British Union on June 6 was scripted according to the Financial Times Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent 

“Those remarks from Obama on Scotland were not spontaneous. Came after an informal request from No 10.”

We Ourselves have additionally been told that the question that prompted the reply, was asked by a BBC journalist at the specific request of the Prime Minister’s Office.

And this just in from SKYNEWS by way of secondary corroboration skynews

“A US government source claims the president’s remarks on Scottish independence followed a direct request from the UK government.”

Diplomatic cables reveal the extent of the British Government’s collusion with foreign powers to damage the Scottish Government, undermine international confidence in Scotland’s economy, and to usurp the democratic process of the referendum on independence.34 govts pressured

The lid’s been blown clean off the UK Government’s anti-Scotland covert operation, and exposed the utter hypocrisy and mendacity of David Cameron.

Official diplomatic cables prove conclusively that even as Cameron told the country the choice was up to the Scottish people and that he would play no part in it, he was pressuring other nations leaders, including Russia’s Putin, to make statements that would undermine the case for Scotland’s ability to sustain itself, and to promote the meme of Scots dependence on the Union.

The diplomatic cables reveal the Devolution Unit, meant to assist the Scottish Government’s transactions with foreign governments, is functioning as a hostile covert agency of Cameron’s government.

‘The Devolution Unit, created by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in 2012 to deliver abroad the “utmost co-operation”, now appears to be at the heart of Westminster’s anti-independence drive, amassing hostile reactions from overseas”, says the Sunday Herald.

“… [T]he FCO has contacted the governments of China, Russia, the US, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the 28 EU nations about the Scottish referendum in a global search for allies who might oppose independence.

One recent cable showed UK embassies being ordered to forward a Westminster paper critical of independence “to their host governments and other local contacts” and then feed their comments back to the Devolution Unit “ASAP”.’

The most damaging aspect of these revelations is the extent to which Cameron, his ministers and the civil service he controls, have perpetrated one bare-faced lie after another. Lied to the Scottish people, lied to the Scottish Government, lied to parliaments in both London and Edinburgh.

This whole orchestrated fiction of non-interference has been shattered, and the depth of Unionist subterfuge, secret deals and collusion, has been thoroughly exposed to public scrutiny.

Now, given Mr Cameron’s penchant for lying at the drop of a hat, what other intrigues to subvert the electoral process remain to be discovered?

What other dirty tricks have he and his government yet to pull? Just how far are they prepared to go to usurp the democratic process they are sworn and legally bound to uphold?

The question for the Scottish electorate is: How do you trust a proven liar?