An Independent Scotland Faces a Dystopian Future if the DUP is to be believed – But Should Scots Heed Their Advice ? I think not

 

 

 

Arlene Foster DUP Leader

 

 

Arlene Foster – Leader of the DUP in Ulster

“Nationalism is narrow and exclusive whilst Unionism stands for pluralism and multi-culturalism, there is no place in Ulster for intolerance in 2018”.

But in her follow up, she confirmed the “narrow and exclusive” policies of the DUP stating: “The DUP will never agree to the introduction of an Irish language act”.

 

 

 

DUP leader’s understanding of Nationalism and Unionism is at odds with the dictionary

Nationalism is described as:

The aspiration for national independence felt by people under foreign domination.(ambition, aspiration, dream – a cherished desire).

Unionism is described as:

Loyalty to the United Kingdom, especially in support of its sovereignty over Northern Ireland.

 

Border crossings

 

 

 

A wee bit of history – 1910 – Liberal Party government pledged to introduce Home Rule for Ireland

The “Irish Party” pressed the Liberals to pledge support for Home Rule or risk losing Irish support in parliament.

Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith told a Liberal rally that he would pursue a policy:

“which, while explicitly safeguarding the supreme and indefeasible authority of the Imperial Parliament, will set up in Ireland a system of full self-government in regard to purely Irish affairs”.

 

 

 

In the 1910 General Election the results were:

Liberals 274, Tories 272, Irish Nationalists 82, Labour 40.

The Irish Nationalists held the balance of power in a fraught parliament, dominated by the issue of the veto of Home Rule by the House of Lords.

The Liberal government decided to face down the Lords and called another election in December 1910 on the proposal to abolish the veto.

Through the constitutional crisis that followed the Irish Unionists in Ulster stood with their Tory allies, who in turn used their opposition to Home Rule to violently oppose the Liberal Government, thwarting peaceful efforts to achieve Irish independence leading to armed conflict and partition.

 

 

Ulster Unionist fear campaign – 1912 Irish Home Rule proposals

Inveterate opponents of Home Rule, the Ulster Unionists, largely dedicated their time and effort to portraying what self-government would be like, depicting the future in the most rich and vivid terms.

The dystopian images depicting Belfast under an Irish parliament incorporated many of the fears expressed by Unionists.

The postcard “Donegall Place, Belfast, Under Home Rule”, shows one of the landmarks of Ulster Unionism, Belfast City Hall, in a derelict and neglected state.

Self-aggrandising statues of prominent nationalists replaced those of Queen Victoria and the glorious dead of the Boer war, and the bustling city of commerce and industry was depicted as given way to pigs, cows and sheep (conventional Unionist symbols for lazy, southern Irish farming practices).

A similar scene was conveyed in another picture “Belfast Under Home Rule” in which, another symbol of the royal connection with Ireland, the Prince Albert Clock Tower, was being demolished, while a replacement, in the form of a statue of an Irish Nationalist, was being wheeled in.

Again, pasture animals were included to show the backwardness of the new Irish government’s economic policy, while the human cost was conveyed by an overcrowded poorhouse and crowds outside the Protestant Emigration Office. (BBC History)

 

 

Comment: The same tactics were used   in the 2014 Independence Referendum campaign, against Scots by the Better Together fear mongering Tory and Unionist Party disgracefully aided by the unionist supporting Labour and Liberal parties.

 

Paisley Junior MP

 

Advertisements

446 – British soldiers died in Afghanistan – four times the rate of US troops, a statistical disparity which politicians at Westminster have not yet explained – answers demanded

 

 

brownarticle-2270948-1541BC71000005DC-446_308x425Dr-John-Reidmurphy nuc

 

 

Poorly equipped Scottish soldiers deployed to hell on earth, Helmand Province Afghanistan

In April 2006 the Labour government deployed over 3,000 military personnel to Helmand Province, Afghanistan tasked with supporting a US-led force already deployed throughout the country eliminating Taliban militants.

Political and military leaders were briefed, by US intelligence of the dangers with which the force would be confronted but chose to believe that US forces already in the field of war would continue to meet the main challenge of the Taliban.

The “Westminster and Whitehall” mantra was: ” we’ll deal with it if it happens.” The US military command, in Kabul were more than ready to transfer responsibility for policing Helmand Province and the South of Afghanistan to the “Brits”.

John Reid, (start much finish nothing) then Secretary of State for Defence, briefed the world’s press in Kabul that Britain would remain with the Nato joint forces mission for as long as necessary emphasising the importance of preventing the Taliban returning to power.

He said “We’re in Helmand and the South to assist and protect the Afghan people reconstructing their economy and democracy” and, “we would be perfectly happy to leave in three years time without firing one shot.” He then returned to the UK to take up a new job as Foreign Secretary.

the Labour government complacency was quickly dispelled by the shock of cold reality when the ill equipped, poorly armed and inadequately trained young Scottish soldiers came under sustained attack from the Taliban.

The much vaunted “policing” role promoted by Labour Party politicians morphed into a 12 year brutal counter-insurgency campaign resulting in the death and injury of a large number of military personnel. The armed forces of the country were betrayed by successive Westminster governments whose default setting was firmly fixed at: “muddle”

 

bomb_1803897cWAR BASRA

soldiers-1024_226828k_42046918_afghan_kabul_map203x152

 

 

 

 

Casualties of war – 446 British soldiers died in Afghanistan – four times the rate of US troops, a statistical disparity which nobody at Westminster has yet explained

The maximum acceptable level of major combat casualties is 6 deaths per 1000. UK forces suffered 13 deaths per 1000. (The average age of those who died was 22. 31 were teenagers, 200 in their 20s). USA forces suffered 3 deaths per 1000.

3560 soldiers were wounded in action. 29 British soldiers had limbs amputated in 2012-2013. 12 were classified as “significant multiple amputees”.

Of the army veterans who made it home more or less in one piece, suicide was the most common cause of death in 2012.

 

british-army-medic-simon-harmer-with-his-wife-marisa-and-daughter-sophie-image-2-935785425article-1292523-0A57AC00000005DC-368_634x575

blair-brown_2677439b

 

 

 

Britain Sent Troops Into Helmand Province With, “Eyes Shut and Fingers Crossed”

Major General Mackay, Greatly respected, Force Commander in Helmand, (in an interview in the Times), not long after he left the Army said;

“Labour’s “complacent” approach to the Afghan mission had proved “very costly”. The genesis of their approach is born of complacency, the thought that, ‘we can deal with it as and when it happens”. It resulted, I believe, in the upper echelons of the Labour government going into Helmand with their eyes shut and their fingers crossed.

“For those who fought and died or suffered injuries in that period, this proved a very costly means of conducting counter-insurgency. The issue is whether or not our politicians, diplomats, intelligence services, civil servants and senior military have done enough, adapted enough, been innovative enough or courageous enough to make tough, and more often than not, unpalatable choices.”

“My answer to that question is that they have not or have failed to do so too often. Muddling through seemed to be the default setting, along with the protection of individual and collective interests”.