Category: Uncategorized

Claim of Right

“As a nation, the Scots have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.” (Margaret Thatcher)

In 1954, A Royal Commission described the UK as a “multi-national” or “multi-nation” state and acknowledged that it had been one ever since its foundation in 1707. The recognition of the multinational character of the British State and Scotland’s status as a nation within it further acknowledged that “Scotland was a nation that had voluntarily entered into union with England as a partner and not as a dependency”.

Scotland’s right to self-determination:

“That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.” (Westminster Parliament, Wednesday 4 July 2018)

Self-determination has also been codified in the fundamental and universal documents of international systems, such as the Charter of the United Nations in 1945 and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 and becoming an independent country would be an act of self-determination by the people of Scotland.

The precedence of the doctrine of the mandate

Before 2011, the Unionist attitude to independence referendums was that its politicians should not support referendums on policies that they did not back. But their opposition changed after the 2011 General Election when they agreed to the holding of an independence referendum because of the concurrence of Westminster politicians who believed that in winning an overall majority of seats, the SNP had won the right to see that particular promise implemented.

What was significant was that the agreement to hold the independence referendum established precedence through the preference for the belief in the doctrine of the mandate, rather than by the upholding of a constitutional rule. Although not tested at the time the support of the doctrine of the mandate extended to a straightforward declaration of independence if that was the preference of the electorate.

Referendum and Westminster

The Scotland Act does not explicitly reserve the organisation of referendums to the Westminster Parliament, though it does reserve to Westminster “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England”. It can therefore be argued that a referendum on ending that Union is also a matter reserved to Westminster. The potential difficulty was resolved through a political deal, the Edinburgh Agreement of October 2012. The opening lines of the Edinburgh Agreement, stated: “The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.”

Referendum and Scotland

A Scottish independence referendum was reluctantly supported by the British Government even though it could have attempted to block it by legal means. The reason for this is enshrined in Scotland’s right to self-determination that has long been acknowledged, as has its status as a nation within the UK State. a simple “50% plus one” majority would have been enough to launch independence negotiations.

In Scotland’s case, the main obstacle on the road to secession was the composition of the electorate which comprised many thousands of voters not truly Scottish an anomaly that produced a majority that remained unconvinced of the merits of independence. This hurdle would be overcome in any future referendum with the stipulation that residence in Scotland is not an automatic qualification. A Scot is an individual born and wholly resident in Scotland at the date of an election.

Abuse of principled politics offered by the SNP leadership

Nicola Sturgeon stood at the doors of Westminster in 2015 and stated: “The SNP will be the principled opposition in this place to the Conservative government. The SNP has worked long and hard in this election to make Scotland’s voice heard. To have people in Scotland in such overwhelming numbers put their trust in us is fantastic, but also is a big responsibility. We are determined to make Scotland’s voice heard here in Westminster, but we are also determined to be that voice for progressive politics that we promised to be during the election. To stand up to policies from a Conservative government that will damage Scotland and to make common cause with others of like mind from across the UK.” No mention of independence from a Party leader in preference for committing the Party to progressive politics in opposition to a regressive regime. What a nutter!!!

The Tory response was immediate and ruthless- there would be no progressive politicking from Mundell.

Scotland’s only Tory MP and Secretary of State for Scotland, Mundell, proposed 80 technical amendments to the Scotland Bill , stating: “some are amendments in terms of the usual changing of commas and apostrophes and these sort of things. However, the bulk of them relate to technical procedures and a rearranging of previous proposals. In three cases the amendments will reserve additional powers to Westminster. Under clause 43, the Scottish Parliament will not be able to raise levies on postal operators, electricity or gas for the purpose of funding consumer advocacy.”

Scotland Bill: the 3rd reading at Westminster Mundell allocated 6 hours of debate to decide on 253 amendments.

The Scotland Bill was rushed through without adequate discussion before SNP MPs parked their bums on the green benches of the House of Commons ensuring that the legislation would be on the statute books well before the next Holyrood elections. The bill as it stands is a stitch-up and places a fiscal time bomb under Holyrood.

Andrew Dunlop – A Scottish born committed Unionist

Closely associated with the Conservative Party for most of his adult life. He was a special adviser to the Defense Secretary (1986 – 88) and a member of Margaret Thatcher’s Policy Unit (1988 – 1990). The demise of Thatcher brought his budding career to a halt and he moved away from active politics to found and developed his own strategic communications consultancy business. Over 20 years later he sold the business, for a very tidy sum of money, to the Brussels-based Interel Group (lobbyists).

Promoted to the Lords, he is a member of the UK Constitution Committee and an Expert Member of the UK Civilian Stabilization Group.

Retaining contact with Scottish affairs he is currently a Board member of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. A supporter of Boris Johnson he is formulating and implementing Tory government policies for Scotland. In this respect, he revealed his thinking in a speech he made in the course of a debate on the “possible effects of Brexit on the stability of the Union of the parts of the United Kingdom”. He said:

“Attention should be paid to the machinery of intergovernmental relations, which needs to be strengthened. We also need to look at the cross-UK synergies, weakened since devolution, which need to be reinvigorated. We need to pursue a decentralized, pan-UK strategy for re-balancing the economy, driven by city regions across the country. This means moving away from seeing everything through a four-nation prism. Many of the problems confronting Glasgow, for example, are similar to those of Manchester or Birmingham. They provide embryonic structures which can be built upon. There are two years until the next Holyrood elections. Strengthening our union must be an urgent priority whatever our post-Brexit future.”

The Westminster Government’s underhand decision to emasculate the government of Scotland through the establishment of a UK Government in Scotland presents new challenges for Scots whose ambitions for their country extend to a unilateral withdrawal from the 1707 Treaty of Union and full independence and Scottish supporters of the devolved Scottish Government and its limited powers, to be further reduced from January 2021 when Brexit is complete.

Scottish independence in 2022/2023

The “claim of Right” establishes the way forward for the Scotland’s political representatives and the electorate who are desperate to escape the excesses and brutality of of Westminster rule.

All independence minded Scottish MP’s at Westminster should resign their seats en-bloc and stand for office in the ensuing by-elections seeking a mandate to declare an end to the 1707 Treaty of Union.

Related articles

I published a number of articles from 2014 expressing my concerns about the lack of political leadership in the matters of Scotland’s relationships with Westminster. See below

Scotland is a nation and its people have the right enshrined in law to decide its future not Unionist politicians at Westminster

https://caltonjock.com/2018/02/26/the-1707-treaty-of-union-full-awareness-of-the-facts-of-the-betrayal-of-our-ancestors-by-the-landed-gentry-should-persuade-scots-that-we-should-reclaim-our-right-to-govern-ourselves-the-union-is-tar/

https://caltonjock.com/2016/11/10/the-uk-supreme-court-an-illegal-pseudo-body-tasked-with-ensuring-the-protection-of-westminster-sod-the-scots-and-their-claim-of-right/

https://caltonjock.com/2021/10/16/the-destruction-of-the-independence-of-scots-law-confirmed-by-the-latest-pronouncements-from-the-westminster-supreme-court/

https://caltonjock.com/2021/05/17/another-act-of-attrition-the-jackboot-of-the-uk-supreme-court-brings-scotland-to-heel/

2014: Protecting the Children-the regime’s first attempt at gaining control of children

The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 was an Act of the Scottish Parliament passed on 19 February 2014.

The legislation was part of the SNP Government’s “Getting it right for every child” policy implementation.

The scope of the act made provision for the rights of children and young people.

The provision of services and support for or in relation to children and young people. Children’s hearings, detention in secure accommodation and consultation on certain proposals in relation to schools.

The provisions of the act gained the support of parents, professionals involved in childcare provision, children’s organisations and charitable institutions and implementation of the new measures was scheduled to be implemented from 2015.

But the public became increasingly concerned about the wisdom of a “Named Person” when press coverage revealed the propensity for the abuse of children.

Press Report:

Dayna Dickson-Boath was appointed one of the first Named Persons in Scotland, but is now banned from working with children for the rest of her life. 

She had held a senior position at a secondary school in Moray, but yesterday consented to being struck off by the General Teaching Council for Scotland on the charge that, between 8 August 2014 and 10 September 2014, she “did send, by means of a public electronic communications network, messages to another person that were grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, in that you did converse regarding the sexual abuse of children”.

Dickson-Boath was placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register and ordered to undergo treatment when she was convicted in Elgin Sheriff Court.

A trickle of protests reached tsunami strength at the start of 2015 as concerns were raised about aspects of the legislation which were draconian, poorly drafted and “Big Brother State”.

The SNP government ignored requests for a dialogue and forced the new measures through.

But the public would not be denied and a number of Scots parents and Christian organisations took the SNP government to court in an effort to get parts of the act repealed.

They failed in their efforts and all appeared to be lost. But they gathered strength from increasing support of Scots who had been alerted to what the SNP government was seeking to impose on the nation.

They appealed to the UK Supreme Court.

2016: The Supreme Court Judgement – The Named Person Scheme

In their summary ruling against the introduction of the scheme the Supreme Court judges noted that the appropriateness of the novel new legislation hinged on the government’s assertion of a need to ensure the “wellbeing” of the child.

But “wellbeing” was not defined and reliance on SHANARRI indicators (standing for Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible and Included) were also not defined and were in some cases notably vague.

A unanimous ruling of Supreme Court judges also stated: “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world.

They were also agreed that the idea that parents must comply with any advice given “could well amount to an interference with” Article 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life).

The Court also held that the legislation’s data sharing provisions, which they held were central to the role of the named person, “are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”.

And yet, In his 2016 speech to the Scottish Parliament following receipt of the judgement Swinney insisted that the judgment itself did not require current policy to change.

His message to local authorities and health boards was to continue to develop and deliver the named person service.

Encouraging the disregard of the Supreme Court ruling set a dangerous precedence since in continuing the development of the named person provision, its information gathering and sharing processes the Deputy First Minister encouraged unlawful practice by state bodies.

Dr Jenny Cunningham, a recently retired community paediatrician from Glasgow said that the named person scheme was “illegitimate and illiberal” and argued that an open democracy depended on the principle that “parents ought to be autonomous in relation to their own families”. he continued saying: “The underlying assumption by the SNP government is that adults are unable to identify vulnerable children – so the state has to intervene! This belittles parents. She concluded: “We should strongly resist and argue against this idea that parents are incapable of assessing children’s wellbeing needs and accessing services – parenting is about establishing good relationships with children and establishing parental authority.”

Maggie Mellon, an independent social work consultant said: “It’s important that we understand the rationale and the ideas underpinning the legislation. The SNP government has made it clear it thinks the Supreme Court judgment is purely technical and they’re going to plough on regardless. But there is no duty under the Act to consult or collaborate with parents. It’s just not there. We’ve been treated to flights of complete fancy about the voluntary nature of the scheme. We were told it was in response to parents’ demands – then we were told it was to save children from their parents. A Named Person can’t provide a hot meal, a pair of shoes, a warm home but they can spend time doing SHANARRI somersaults with 300 wellbeing outcome signifiers and 200 risk indicators! It wont work.”

Aug 2018: Plan B to by-pass MSP’s and implement the Named Person Scheme by the Backdoor

The SNP Scottish Government is considering controversial proposals to implement the detested named person scheme “by the back door” even if MSPs refuse to support changes to the law.

Discussion of a so-called “Plan B” is revealed in documents which were only made public, after a Freedom of Information (FoI) request was submitted.

The papers were produced following a meeting of unnamed top level government officials and advisors in February 2018. An annex under the headline “CONTINGENCY” stated: “Contingency plan?

What if the legislation is not passed?” And adds: “Plan B for if Bill fails to make sure parts 4&5 can be implemented without information sharing.” The scheme was riddled with problems and a delay was revealed.

Swinney set up a panel to produce a Code of Practice by September 2018, after Holyrood’s Education and Skills Committee said it would not pass the legislation without one.

But Professor Ian Welsh, chair of the panel, wrote to Mr Swinney to inform him that the panel would not be able to meet this deadline.

Lesley Scott of the TYMES Trust, said: “These worrying documents show the focus is clearly on implementing Named Person Scheme by the back door, regardless of whether the new Bill gets through Parliament.

Clearly, we are now dealing with a Government which is ignoring the UK Supreme Court, has no regard for the elected representatives of the Scottish people and is determined to shun public opinion. They are riding roughshod over the democratic system in pursuit of a flawed, failed and discredited project.”

Lesley asked to be provided with details from three key meetings of the Statutory Guidance Framework Group tasked to review the named person scheme in October and December 2017 and in February 2018.

Subsequently only one set of minutes was released and was useless since the names of all persons in attendance had been redacted. An appeal was submitted to the Information Commissioner’s Office seeking a review of this decision to withold the documentation.

Maggie Mellon, former chair of the Scottish Child Law Centre, said: “The names of all present including the chair are all redacted. So much for open government. There is no way of identifying which agencies are providing wrong advice or whether the persons present represent their colleagues and agencies properly.

Is it now so toxic to be associated with the named person scheme that people are not willing to have their names made known”? Adding: “These are presumably many of the same people who advised the government so badly first time round, that breaching confidentiality is ok even when any concerns fall well below the proper threshold. What is so important about this flawed scheme that it has to be pushed through” ?

Sep 2019: Named Person Scheme Scrapped?

Deputy First Minister John Swinney announced in the Scottish Parliament:

“We will now not underpin in law the mandatory named person scheme for every child. We will withdraw the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill and repeal the relevant legislation. Instead, existing voluntary schemes that provide a point of contact for support will continue, under current legal powers, when councils and health boards wish to provide them and parents wish to use them.”

Summary

The July 2016 UK Supreme Court judgment stated:

“The sharing of personal data between relevant public authorities is central to the role of the named person scheme” and concluded that the information-sharing provisions were incompatible with the rights of children, young persons and parents under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and may in practice result in a disproportionate interference with the article 8 rights of many children, young persons and their parents, through the sharing of private information were “not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”, deeming the legislation “defective” and blocked it from coming into force:

Bizarrely, Swinney responded to the ruling saying:

“I welcome the publication of today’s judgment and the fact that the attempt to scrap the named person service has failed”.

So after nearly three years of battling against the wishes of Scots and an order from the Supreme Court he refused to accept that his mandatory named scheme, with legal powers to grab and share private information could not be imposed without breaching the human rights of children and families. It had to be scrapped.

So, where did we go from there? Swinney, issued his dictate saying:

“Existing schemes that provide a point of contact for support will continue, under current legal powers, where councils and health boards wish to provide them and parents wish to use them.”

So schools are still able to operate a voluntary named person service, but it will have to adhere to current data sharing frameworks. There will no longer be a statutory Named Person service imposed on every child in Scotland.

As the 2016 Supreme Court judgment stated:

“Care should therefore be taken to emphasise the voluntary nature of the advice, information, support and help which is offered”.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0216.html
https://no2np.org/ Comprehensive coverage here

Be careful who you vote for

Voters have short memories when deciding who gets their vote and the criminal incompetence of the Tory government has enhanced the profile of the similarly afflicted Labour Party who are leading the polls in England. In Scotland the political gossip is encouraging talk of the resurgence of Labour albeit of insufficient strength to cause concern to the SNP. But there are voting security concerns centred around the presence, activity and influence on voters of the UK secret services based in Scotland that should be addressed, but isn’t.

Senior Labour Party official Douglas Alexander is a person of note. I posted (see below) two examples of excesses in office instigated by him on behalf of the Labour party at the time he was Secretary of state for Scotland.

Douglas Alexander – Superior Intellect But No Soul – Senior Office Holder In A Labour Party Devoid Of Any Worthwhile Policies

The Jeffrey Epstein Debacle has the Potential to Bring Many Powerful People Down – British MI-6 agent and Labour MP, Douglas Alexander Allegedly Complicit Aiding the Activities of the Republican Party

Douglas Alexander and his involvement in US politics

Yang Enterprises is a CIA front corporation with connections to Jeb Bush and British MI-6 agent Douglas Alexander who is in turn linked to Choicepoint software and the British Galileo satellite. It is alleged they were involved in the blatant theft, hacking and electoral coup d’état of the year 2000 presidential election directed against then Vice President Albert Gore Jr. and the American People.

Obama did his bit for Cameron by interfering in the 2014 Independence referendum

In a public address Barack Obama said:

“The interest of the US in the Scottish independence referendum issue is to ensure the United Kingdom remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner”.

The day before the referendum he tweeted:

“The UK is an extraordinary partner for America and a force for good in an unstable world. I hope it remains strong, robust, and united.”

An Aberdeen first time voter – Duncan Forbes – wrote to Obama taking him to task over his interference in the referendum

Duncan was incensed by Obama’s ill-advised and inappropriate intervention and wrote to him.

From: Duncan Forbes

To: Political Barack Obama

Hello Mr President.

I write this correspondence both in anger and disbelief. You allowed yourself to be duped by what has transpired to be a Westminster orchestrated BBC criminal partisan piece of bad journalism.

It may even have made you an accessory to a crime.

If I or any other Scotsman had dared to interfere in any U.S. plebiscite, you would be justifiably angered and offended.

If I had suggested that I should be allowed to purchase another country lock stock and barrel for a court accepted £20,000 sterling, to be distributed amongst standing politicians or representatives so as to secure the parliamentary vote in my favour, your country, the community of nations and the U.N. would be up in arms, probably threatening military reprisals and sanctions, etc.

Well, Mr President, that’s exactly what Lord Gillingham of Westminster did.

He paid the Duke of Queensberry that odious sum of money which against the current rate of exchange becomes £240,000. Which when divided equates to less than tuppence a Scot.

Lord Archibald Campbell’s share was £1,100 and Scottish lord Lord Banffshire’s contribution was a derisory £11 and 2 shillings.

A financial transaction all of which was illegal under Scot’s law and morally wrong under any court in the world.

Our national bard “Robert Burns” nailed it in verse several times “sic parcel o rogues in a nation” and “chains and slavery”.

It beggars belief that you, as a black man who has fought like your forefathers to be all you can be, striving for equal rights, race laws, equal opportunities, the million man march, a seat on the bus, and finally the presidency are backing the continued illegal Westminster governance of Scotland.

With the shortest life expectancy in the British isles, the smallest average wage, highest cancer rates, the hardest working race, and the greatest contributor per head to their coffers.

The English cleared millions of Scots off their land and shipped them to the colonies (sounds familiar) and only stopped when the army needed Scottish soldiers to fight their wars in the US!!

Surely you, a black man and President of the US cannot justify your actions supporting England’s regime suppressing and controlling another race for personal gain? Your electorate will have its say on the matter.

So I ask, is this what you want to be in bed with?

Will your wife and kids respect you more or less for this?

How many “Macs” are on your country’s boards?

How much corporate sponsorship will you possibly lose?

As a black man in power, how could you live with yourself?

You have fallen a great distance in my eyes, remember the audit trail and facts as you look in the mirror.

As you kiss your wife and kids good night, will they have the same pride in their eyes when they find out?

Well, will they?

Think about it!

in disgust.

Duncan Forbes

P.S>

I am a descendent of one of the “one hundred” who signed our “declaration of independence” in Arbroath and I defy anyone or anything to tell me to live under Westminster rule.

Scotland would thrive on its own

The views of one of the best economists in the UK in the last 100 years, the late Denis Healey, former Chancellor of the Exchequer in Labour governments 1970-1979 are as relevant today as they were in the past.

He was asked if he supported the cause of those who wished Scotland to become an independent nation once again given that the Scots were overly financially subsidized by England and the oil & gas resources were the property of the UK.

His answer was surprisingly blunt but not widely reported. He said:

“I think England would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil and gas and renewable energy stopped but if the Scots want independence they should have it and England would just need to adjust.

Asked if he expected an independent Scotland would survive, economically. he said:

“Yes, I would think so… and they have the oil, gas and renewable energy”.

Asked about his thoughts about claims that Scotland was being subsidized by England he reminded the questioner that Joel Barnett, (he of the Barnett formula), was his deputy at the Treasury at the time the share of the national income pot Scotland should receive was decided.

He added:

” Scotland pays more than its fair share and these myths are simply perpetuated to cloud the issue by those that are opposed to independence.”

On Scotland keeping the pound, he said:

“I don’t see why Westminster could say the Scots couldn’t share it. Scotland would gain from the arrangement but so would the rest of the UK”.

Women’s rights ignored -a warning to be heeded

The Scottish Green Party joined with the SNP and formed the government at Holyrood. Harvie and Sturgeon will be able to make major advances in their declared social behaviour agendas. Voters evidently choose to ignore the worrying excesses of a number of their favoured policies.

The discredited Yogyakarta principles will be fully implemented and other trans-rights and GRA policies will be forced onto statute by the government without consultation and with the active assistance and support of the all-powerful “Equality Network”.

But a majority of voters are deeply concerned about the Scottish government’s plans to remove women’s rights and the exposure of their families to the regulatory imposition of oppressive social norms

Fortunately, Scottish independence-minded women have the recently formed feminist influenced ALBA to give their support to and it is hoped they will rally to the Party and assist its growth.

Other reading: https://caltonjock.com/2021/04/19/the-okedokees-of-the-snp-greens-lib-dems-are-intent-on-selling-scottish-women-down-the-river/

23 Apr 2019: Green Party Leader accused of being a misogynist

The blog “A Thousand Flowers” posted a derogatory twitter article declaring Joan McAlpine SNP the winner of its weekly wanker accolade for airing her views about the rights of women and transgender people.

Patrick Harvie couldn’t resist commenting and shared it with his followers writing: “If the SNP wants to be a safe and supportive place for trans and gender non conforming people, they have to squarely take on those trying to prevent trans people having the same rights as anyone else“.

Twitter users were horrified. A spokeswoman for the Scottish Women’s blog tweeted “Good grief! I’m horrified that Harvie could ever retweet an abusive blog about another politician. Surely this goes against the code of conduct expected from our parliamentarians?” Her comments were echoed by other contributors.

Harvie has form. In a previous Twitter exchange, he questioned the online abuse Joan had received when he said: “there is a serious debate to be had about such “abuse” but we can’t have it if people react with outrage to complaints from anti-trans campaigners but say nothing of the horrific wave of transphobic hostility, prejudice and violence that’s destroying people’s everyday lives”.

To which Joan responded: “My comments were in response to (male to a female) trans activists who called me trash and justified violence against women who disagree with them. And the male leader of the Green Party in Scotland pins his colours firmly to she was asking for it mast.”

Harvie replied: “It’s disappointing that Joan McAlpine and a few others in the SNP have promoted anti-trans rhetoric in recent months, and apparently want to roll back trans people’s equality and human rights. Those attitudes and actions should be challenged, robustly but without abuse.”

Joan said: “Patrick Harvie should be ashamed of trying to justify the online abuse of women and indulging in it himself. Women are concerned their rights to privacy, fairness and dignity and safety are affected by proposals that mean males can legally become women without surgery, medical diagnosis or gatekeeping. It is not “anti-trans” to question this proposal, but doing so has resulted in women being abused or threatened with violence. That Patrick Harvie seems to think they are asking for it is very worrying but bullies will not silence us.”

23 Jun 2019: Harvie stirs the sh*t at the Edinburgh Pride march

I met up with around a dozen like-minded friends aged between 20-and 60. Some were wearing t-shirts proudly proclaiming “we are Lesbians”. We wanted to ensure lesbians would be visible yet despite an outward display of confidence we were alerted to an undercurrent of nervousness between the marchers and ourselves. Our apprehension was based on the negative attitude of other groups who did not approve of relationships that excluded men in our choice of partners. Acceptable? Yes!! but only if we conducted our chosen lifestyle in secret.

But we displayed our banners and sang our songs. Other lesbians came up to us and said they wished they had known we were marching and bemoaned the lack of Lesbian spaces and community in Scotland. They waved their hand-made purple and black placards, courageously yet quietly proclaiming their Lesbian existence and relieved to have the support and solidarity of like-minded people. There was an act of physical aggression against our group when an angry young person grabbed a placard and destroyed it screaming “TERF” but the stewards soon restored order.

But what was chilling and caused fear in our group was the content of speeches from MSPs who addressed the crowd at a pre-march rally, from the top of an open-top bus. In particular, the words of Patrick Harvie, Green MSP, said “I am sorry that this parliament very recently was used as a platform for transphobic hatred and bigotry”. And went on to say he felt compelled to apologise for the undemocratic workings of Parliament, and its decision to put a hold on GRA reform until it had been fully considered and deliberated by a broad range of groups who might be affected and, importantly, the conflation of sex and gender that has infested policy-making in Scotland. His speech whipped the crowd into a frenzy since they had already been warmed up by previous similar speeches. And whilst the promoted theme of the “Pride” was “Be Yourself”, the real focus was not about the right to be loved and to express love without prejudice, it was about “trans-rights” and only that.

Thanks to the spittle infused rhetoric espoused by Harvie our group’s situation was upscaled from hostile to dangerous. We feared for our safety and attack from the mob since immediately after, a number of people started shouting “get the TERFs out” They meant us and we had already been blocked in by some very large people with “Trans” and “Non-Binary” flags draped over their shoulders cancelling out our groups “lesbian visibility” banners.

It later transpired that lesbians had abandoned the march after they had been harassed by “trans-rights” activists who accused them of being bigots for standing up for female rights and forcing politicians to add their support. Lesbians were no longer welcomed at “Pride” marches.

Full story here: https://womansplaceuk.org/2019/06/23/lesbians-at-edinburgh-pride-a-personal-account/



The Scottish Green Party joined with the SNP and formed the government at Holyrood. Harvie Sturgeon will be able to make major advances in their declared social behaviour agendas. Voters evidently choose to ignore the worrying excesses of a number of their favoured policies.

The discredited Yogyakarta principles will be fully implemented and other trans-rights and GRA policies will be forced onto statute by the government without consultation and with the active assistance and support of the all-powerful “Equality Network”.

But a majority of voters are deeply concerned about the Scottish government’s plans to remove women’s rights and the exposure of their families to the regulatory imposition of oppressive social norms

Fortunately, Scottish independence-minded women have the recently formed feminist influenced ALBA to give their support to and it is hoped they will rally to the Party and assist its growth.

Other reading: https://caltonjock.com/2021/04/19/the-okedokees-of-the-snp-greens-lib-dems-are-intent-on-selling-scottish-women-down-the-river/

23 Apr 2019: Green Party Leader accused of being a misogynist

The blog “A Thousand Flowers” posted a derogatory twitter article declaring Joan McAlpine SNP the winner of its weekly wanker accolade for airing her views about the rights of women and transgender people.

Patrick Harvie couldn’t resist commenting and shared it with his followers writing: “If the SNP wants to be a safe and supportive place for trans and gender non conforming people, they have to squarely take on those trying to prevent trans people having the same rights as anyone else“.

Twitter users were horrified. A spokeswoman for the Scottish Women’s blog tweeted “Good grief! I’m horrified that Harvie could ever retweet an abusive blog about another politician. Surely this goes against the code of conduct expected from our parliamentarians?” Her comments were echoed by other contributors.

Harvie has form. In a previous Twitter exchange, he questioned the online abuse Joan had received when he said: “there is a serious debate to be had about such “abuse” but we can’t have it if people react with outrage to complaints from anti-trans campaigners but say nothing of the horrific wave of transphobic hostility, prejudice and violence that’s destroying people’s everyday lives”.

To which Joan responded: “My comments were in response to (male to a female) trans activists who called me trash and justified violence against women who disagree with them. And the male leader of the Green Party in Scotland pins his colours firmly to she was asking for it mast.”

Harvie replied: “It’s disappointing that Joan McAlpine and a few others in the SNP have promoted anti-trans rhetoric in recent months, and apparently want to roll back trans people’s equality and human rights. Those attitudes and actions should be challenged, robustly but without abuse.”

Joan said: “Patrick Harvie should be ashamed of trying to justify the online abuse of women and indulging in it himself. Women are concerned their rights to privacy, fairness and dignity and safety are affected by proposals that mean males can legally become women without surgery, medical diagnosis or gatekeeping. It is not “anti-trans” to question this proposal, but doing so has resulted in women being abused or threatened with violence. That Patrick Harvie seems to think they are asking for it is very worrying but bullies will not silence us.”

23 Jun 2019: Harvie stirs the sh*t at the Edinburgh Pride march

I met up with around a dozen like-minded friends aged between 20-and 60. Some were wearing t-shirts proudly proclaiming “we are Lesbians”. We wanted to ensure lesbians would be visible yet despite an outward display of confidence we were alerted to an undercurrent of nervousness between the marchers and ourselves. Our apprehension was based on the negative attitude of other groups who did not approve of relationships that excluded men in our choice of partners. Acceptable? Yes!! but only if we conducted our chosen lifestyle in secret.

But we displayed our banners and sang our songs. Other lesbians came up to us and said they wished they had known we were marching and bemoaned the lack of Lesbian spaces and community in Scotland. They waved their hand-made purple and black placards, courageously yet quietly proclaiming their Lesbian existence and relieved to have the support and solidarity of like-minded people. There was an act of physical aggression against our group when an angry young person grabbed a placard and destroyed it screaming “TERF” but the stewards soon restored order.

But what was chilling and caused fear in our group was the content of speeches from MSPs who addressed the crowd at a pre-march rally, from the top of an open-top bus. In particular, the words of Patrick Harvie, Green MSP, said “I am sorry that this parliament very recently was used as a platform for transphobic hatred and bigotry”. And went on to say he felt compelled to apologise for the undemocratic workings of Parliament, and its decision to put a hold on GRA reform until it had been fully considered and deliberated by a broad range of groups who might be affected and, importantly, the conflation of sex and gender that has infested policy-making in Scotland. His speech whipped the crowd into a frenzy since they had already been warmed up by previous similar speeches. And whilst the promoted theme of the “Pride” was “Be Yourself”, the real focus was not about the right to be loved and to express love without prejudice, it was about “trans-rights” and only that.

Thanks to the spittle infused rhetoric espoused by Harvie our group’s situation was upscaled from hostile to dangerous. We feared for our safety and attack from the mob since immediately after, a number of people started shouting “get the TERFs out” They meant us and we had already been blocked in by some very large people with “Trans” and “Non-Binary” flags draped over their shoulders cancelling out our groups “lesbian visibility” banners.

It later transpired that lesbians had abandoned the march after they had been harassed by “trans-rights” activists who accused them of being bigots for standing up for female rights and forcing politicians to add their support. Lesbians were no longer welcomed at “Pride” marches.

Full story here: https://womansplaceuk.org/2019/06/23/lesbians-at-edinburgh-pride-a-personal-account/

How strong are family ties? Nicola Sturgeon’s family hail from Sunderland

Nicola Sturgeon’s family has its roots in the North East of England. With this in mind can the region benefit from the SNP and her rise or will it be overtaken by a fresh thrust for independence?

Arthur Street, Ryhope, Sunderland, was home to Sturgeon’s great-grandfather, Englishman and shipwright Joseph Mill.

His daughter, Sturgeon’s Grandmother, Margaret Mill, was born in Sunderland in 1920.

Sturgeon’s Grandfather, Robert Sturgeon, a gardener, was born in Ayrshire in 1920 and relocated to the North of England where he married Sunderland born Margaret Mill in 1943.

Their son Robert Sturgeon, Nicola Sturgeon’s father, was born in Ayrshire in 1948. He married Joan Ferguson b 1952 in Ayrshire on 29 December 1969. Their daughter Nicola was born in Ayrshire on 19 July 1970.

The rise of the SNP left many in the North East and Cumbria questioning the region’s future relationship with Scotland.

“The North East shares a lot in common with Scotland and there’s a common cause to be made with our neighbours,” says Jonathan Blackie, a visiting professor at Northumberland University. “But given the current political situation, it’s difficult to see how we can thrive by working together when there are so many things pulling us apart.” The new political situation that he refers to is the SNP now has 56 MPs at Westminster.

David Cameron has also said he will devolve more powers to the Scottish Parliament as recommended by the Smith Commission, which makes those living on the border nervous.

“Nicola Sturgeon has played a blinder, she’s put Scotland in a position where it can’t get loose,” says Rob Johnston, the chief executive of the Cumbria Chamber of Commerce. “It’s not the number of SNP MPs, it’s the fact that Scotland is now speaking with one voice. “They can attract money and investment north of the border and that presents a real challenge for Cumbria.”

In the Scottish Independence referendum, 67% of people in Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk voted to maintain the Union, making it an area that many thought the SNP would find hard to breakthrough in the general election. But it did!!! reflecting yet another English political betrayal.

Calum Kerr, SNP,  the constituency MSP said: “I actually think there are many parallels between what I want for the South of Scotland to what people in the North of England want. They want their voices to be heard and they want powers to make a difference to their region. If I can build a distinctive voice for the South of Scotland, people in the North of England should support that, and in fact, work with me because they will also feel the benefits.”

To the south of Calum Kerr’s constituency sits Northumberland, the English county with the highest number of castles, a lasting testament to the fractious historical relationship that the north of England has had with its Scottish neighbours. The differences on the border are no longer territorial, but the rise of the SNP is certainly creating new political and economic tensions. (BBC 2015)

Comment: An article chock full of innocuous innuendo with the implication of its underlying intent only slightly disguised. Will she pursue independence or will her family ties with England dictate her actions?

The act of Union 1707

Ah!! Scottish Utopia!!! promises, promises, promises betrayal, betrayal, betrayal. 1745 Culloden. and the butchery of German Geordie, his son, and the English army.

But you see we Scots were sold out by a few unelected lords who took English bribes and betrayed Scotland

From that time Scotland has been brutally asset-stripped by an avaricious  Westminster government. All roads lead to London!!!

All revenue accrued in the UK is passed to the English Exchequer. Westminster’s financial needs are then allocated after which the Secretary of State for Scotland is handed a budget, top sliced from the Scottish Grant. The residue, (decreasing annually as areas of responsibility are removed from Holyrood) passes to the Scottish government.

No one really knows the full extent of revenue gathered by Scotland. eg Whisky manufactured, blended and bottled in Scotland is transported to England for worldwide distribution. The tax collected is credited to England. £3-5billion annually.

But the annual GERS financial report falsely records Scotland to be in receipt of £ billion’s more from Westminster than it contributes.

This is quoted routinely by Unionists in support of their argument that Scotland is too wee and too poor to survive as a nation. The statement is utter nonsense and has been debunked by many independent financial experts.

Then, if minded to do so – throws Scotland a few scraps to keep them quiet.

New untested ideas about tax collection. Probably unworkable. Introduce new measures in Scotland first The jocks are well indoctrinated to Westminster’s authority.  eg Poll Tax Experiment Yup!!

Industry!! – Order books a bit light!! – Close Scotland down. Relocate companies to England.

Coal mining industry!!! – Bloody minded Jocks and their Unions. Shut it down. Leave the coal in the ground. Purchase cheap dirty coal from Poland and South America.

Car production, Shut it down and transfer it from Linwood and Bathgate to England.

Steel production – Shut it down move production to England then Sell it to India for a pittance

Retain a massively upgraded Trident nuclear weapons and submarine fleet – Yes!!  But voters will not allow nuclear missiles or submarines to be based within 150 miles of population centres in England.  Bugger it – locate them in Glasgow. Scots votes count for nothing at Westminster.

The homing of the nuclear submarine fleet and missile systems in Faslane precludes any major shipping industry on Clyde. Shut it down.

Construction of a few battleships, kit constructed in England, then shipped to Glasgow for assembly will keep the natives happy.

Fighting Johnny Foreigner!! – troops required – Not a problem – Get them from Scotland. The Jocks must pay their way in the Union. In the absence of finance, blood will do.

Shut down their factories –  get the buggers on the dole or offer job security through service in the forces.

Death and lifetime incapacity for many young Scots incurred through injury on active service in many cavalier military actions entered into by Westminster.

Gordon Brown’s answer to the ever-increasing incidence. The Westminster government cannot afford to meet their needs.

Create “Cash for Heros” a charity for injured servicemen – Appoint half a dozen cronies to manage it. All on six-figure salaries. As public awareness recedes it’ll die a natural death.

Charitable housing for wounded – handicapped soldiers – no way, let the Scottish public find the money.

Upgrade the UK infrastructure. A great idea and much needed, but England is allocated the vast bulk of available finance so that a massive programme of works, eg. HS2/3 and numerous other high-cost projects in London and the South East of England can be completed.

Net tax and other revenues to the UK reveal Scotland’s financial contribution to the foregoing works to be many £billions but there are no direct benefits to Scotland. The Westminster government issues assurance that Scotland will be given finance to allow similar works to be completed but not before 2030. Now that’s a kick in the teeth!!!

Scotland – Natives restless – give them a “wee talking shop parliament” but retain power in England. William Hague clarified Scotland’s place in the Union:

“Scotland is not a state. Westminster simply decided to delegate the games to be held in Glasgow, a city of the UK”

“http://home.bt.com/news/oddnews/commonwealth-team-gb-gaffe-by-hague-11363912308295”

Will Scots find the confidence to ask for another independence referendum after being so heavily defeated in 2014??

They appear to have swallowed the Westminster message. Scots are too timid and stupid to try again. Their continued acceptance of abuse heaped upon them by Westminster justifies the statement.

The Jocks are Luddites!!! Witness the Labour Party in Scotland. Returned to power at Westminster for nearly 60 years. They really did vote for donkeys wearing a labour badge and paid the price of suffering rampant corruption.

Moaning Jocks!!!  Promise them jam tomorrow – They’ll believe anything Yup! that’s it, buy the buggers off with a few sweeteners.

30 years of austerity imposed on Scots by an incompetent Westminster government yet 55% choose to remain loyal to the most corrupt Union of sovereign nations ever created. Hell, mend them!!!!

Rabbie Burns got it right when he wrote that  “a parcel of rogues” sold Scotland out 300 years ago

The next referendum will provide another chance for Scots to get rid of Westminster politicians and their sycophantic useless Peers of the realm.

The fate of Scotland should be in Scottish hands not the grubby paws of a bunch of rich toffs, lords and even richer barons at Westminster. Feathering their own nests, selling the nation into bondage.

In 2014 the Unionists said they loved Scotland and implored Scots to remain in the Union and the European Community. And we did.

The betrayal of the Unionist vow, to devolve to Scotland full fiscal authority and many other areas of governance was not long coming.

Only 3 months on from the referendum the Unionists thumbed their noses at Scotland and devolved little of any significance. Rubbing salt into the wounds they even attempted to con Scotland out of finance that rightfully belonged in Holyrood.

The Unionists paid the price for their devious tactics at the next General Election when they were nearly wiped out in Scotland.

Scottish politicians who were returned to Westminster in 2015 genuinely tried to function effectively, but in a repeat of the well-rehearsed abuse meted out to Irish politicians by the Unionists at the turn of the twentieth century they failed to land any effective blows, culminating in a short-lived protest when they walked out of the Commons in frustration.

Berwick the forgotten town – ripped from Scotland by the bloody hands of Edward Longshanks and the occupation armies of his successors

With Westminster being almost 350 miles away from Berwick-upon-Tweed, its residents do not feel connected to English politics. With bagpipes playing and Scottish flags fluttering in the wind, you could be forgiven for thinking you were in Scotland.

But this is Berwick-upon-Tweed, part of Northumberland – the most northern town in England and just two-and-a-half miles from the Scottish border.

It has a turbulent history – passing between English and Scottish hands at least 13 times, starting with King Edward 1st who slaughtered and/or destroyed just about everyone and everything in the town, (children, adults, livestock and grain) for having the temerity to pledge their allegiance to Scotland. The killing, raping and plundering went on for weeks and the streets of Berwick ran red with the blood of innocent Scots.

With the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh just over an hour away by road, and Westminster more than six hours by car, do the people feel more Scottish than English?

 Well, the answer was provided by the people of Berwick in 2008 when ITV carried out an unofficial referendum to find out if residents would prefer their town to be part of Scotland.

The poll saw 1,182 voters in favour of becoming part of Scotland and 775 in favour of staying in England.

 
The Scottish Parliament convened again in 1999, for the first time since 1707 following a devolution referendum and our kinfolk in Berwick watched on with aching hearts longing to be part of Scotland once more.

A local interviewed at the time of the ITV referendum said “As devolution cut its teeth and aged, I think Berwick people became aware of the differences perhaps more than anyone else in England because [Scotland] is so close and they can see what’s happening just over the border,”

The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, defenders of Berwick and freemen of the town recently marched through Berwick after returning from Afghanistan.

Locals turned out in force to welcome their Scottish boys home and many interviewed were adamant Berwick should be returned to Scotland.

Berwick resident Eileen Buchanan felt the town was too detached from what was happening at Westminster. “They do nothing for us at this end of the country,” she said. “Nothing. This is like the back of beyond as far as London is concerned.”

Marion Bates, born and raised in Berwick, waved a Scottish flag as she watched the parade with her husband Trevor Bates, who was born in Scotland. When asked if she felt her hometown should be part of Scotland, she said “Berwick is just a lost town. “My youngest son came out of the Army two years ago and there are no jobs. There is nothing for him.” Mr Bates added: “From Parliament in London to Newcastle, that’s where it stops.”

Part-time student Jonathan Bain, 34, said “When you look at Berwick’s history, it’s no surprise that the town is divided.”

 
A Brief Recap of Berwick’s History

In Anglo-Saxon times, Berwick-upon-Tweed was part of the Kingdom of Northumbria – an area stretching between York and Edinburgh. In 1018, following a battle between the Scots and the Northumbrians, it became part of Scotland. Its importance as a Scottish town grew and, by the Middle Ages, it was the richest port in the country.

In 1296, England’s King Edward I captured Berwick-upon-Tweed, beginning a period of warfare between the two nations which saw the town change hands 13 times. The last time it changed hands by force was in 1482 when it came under English control.

But although occupied the town remained independent from England with documents referring to it as being a protectorate of England but not part of it.

In 1885, it became part of the county of Northumberland for administrative purposes but was not formally made part of England until 1974.

Eminent historian Derek Sharman said the people of Berwick feel they are independent of England when he stated: “It’s been a ping pong ball for centuries.”

A long-serving Berwick historian and tour guide offered the view that: “it’s an on-the-edge place to live. Residents’ loyalty is divided. There is a consensus that Berwickers are first independent then Scottish or English dependent on genealogy factors.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8640148.stm

                                                                     

North Sea oil Will Last For 100 Years

Scottish waters will continue to provide oil for another 100 years, twice as long as previous estimates, according to industry analysts.

Dr Richard Pike, a former oil industry consultant and now the chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said: “Rather than only getting 20 to 30 billion barrels we are probably looking at more than twice that amount.”

His analysis is supported by petroleum experts who believe there are some 300 fields off the coast of Britain still to be explored and tapped properly.

Dr Pike claims that the industry knows the true figures but refuses to release them because of commercial secrecy.

A spokesman for UK Oil and Gas, the offshore industry’s trade association, said: “The current estimates are that there are around 25 billion barrels left.” they’re lying.

Another good read

http://oilofscotland.org/scottish_north_sea_oil.html