Category: Uncategorized

 

 

Establishing an Independent Scotland

Whitehall mandarins, Unionist politicians and their Luddite supporters will tell you it will be a long and torturous process over many years and it must be this way because the relationship Scotland has with the rest of the UK is too complex to untangle in a shorter period.

But if Czechoslovakia could be split up in six months in 1992, why should the process of establishing an independent Scotland be such a hardship?

 

The Velvet Revolution

World War I lasted four years, World War II lasted six. So is it easier to conquer then lose an entire continent than to separate two jurisdictions peacefully?

Czechoslovakia, not only transformed from a socialist republic and a Soviet satellite to liberal democracy, but it also successfully split peacefully into two nations.

The pivotal elections that took place in 1992 saw an even split of voters in both of the constituent parts of Czechoslovakia. Tension arose and the leaders of both constituent regions agreed the federation should be split. An agreement was signed on 26th August 1992.

By 13th November 1992, a law had been enacted as to how the federal assets were going to be divided and twelve days later, an act was passed that set the dissolution date on 31st December 1992.

Complex matters such as the continuity of government, continuity of laws, arrangements for courts and so on were all swiftly determined by December 1992.

A new Czech Constitution was passed on 16th December 1992.

Czechoslovakia was dissolved at midnight on 31 December 1992. 

When the people woke up on 01 January 1993, they had new nationalities.

Within a mere six months, a comprehensive settlement had been agreed and activated.

Immobile assets were distributed to the country where they sat, mobile assets and assets abroad were distributed according to the rough population ratio

Amendments to international treaties signed by Czechoslovakia were negotiated and signed very quickly by both new republics, confirming the continuation of such treaties.

In 1996, the two countries signed a protocol specifying the distribution of duties enshrined by treaties signed as Czechoslovakia.

All of this happened whilst Czechoslovakia and its constituent countries were undergoing a massive economic transformation.

Czechoslovakia was privatizing on an unprecedented scale and at an unprecedented pace.

In a way, it was like Brexit and the UK’s 1980s privatizations combined, only a lot more complicated.

Whereas the 1980s UK privatized two companies a year, the early 1990s Czechoslovakia privatized two companies an hour.

Taken together, these companies’ accounting value was a big share of GDP. The voucher privatization alone (there were other methods of privatization) privatized companies worth one-third of Czechoslovak GDP.

And let us not forget the fact that Czechoslovakia was also a currency union.

The original idea was that the currency would continue after the separation, but the Czechoslovak koruna outlived Czechoslovakia by a mere six weeks.

All of this was taking place at the exact same time the republics were being separated. Where there is a will, there is a way.

 

 

Two things made this possible:

The leaders’ insistence that it must happen fast before organized business interests and/or government could mount a successful defence of the status quo.

Then the fact that the two newly-created governments, for all the tension between them, successfully worked together to apply current or previous arrangements in good faith.

Wherever questions or differences arose, they sought an amicable solution where none of the parties would score a win for their side but rather one where future cooperation would be maintained.

Nobody was proposing divorce bills or ridiculous notions of planes not flying, trucks stuck at the border, licenses not being recognized, or one country continuing to have jurisdiction over the other for the next 100 years.

Time and good faith were of the essence.

If Czechs and Slovaks were able to separate in six months, surely Westminster and Holyrood can find a way to extract one the other in a similar time period?

 

 

John Swinney – The early years

He was born on in Edinburgh on 13 April 1964. He attended the University of Edinburgh, where he graduated with an MA Honours degree in politics in 1986.

Personal life

He married work colleague Lorna in 1991. They had two children. The marriage ended in 1998 (annulled in 2000) after he discovered she was cheating on him with a married school-teacher. She retained the family home and the children and he moved into rented accomodation nearby.

In July 2003, he married BBC journalist Elizabeth Quigley. The wedding was was overshadowed by his decision to have his first marriage annulled by the Roman Catholic authorities. He was a “practising member of the Church of Scotland”, but his wife to be was a Roman Catholic and the only way for them to marry in a Roman Catholic church was for him to obtain an annulment of his first marriage – a declaration that it had no legal existence and any children he might have with his new wife, would be brought up as Catholics.

Employment

Swinney was a research officer for the Scottish Coal Project (1987–1988), a senior management consultant with Development Options (1988–1992), and a strategic planning principal with Scottish Amicable (1992–1997).

Early Party and political Career 1979-1997

He joined the SNP aged only 15 and was an active member of the youth wing, progressing over the years to the post of Assistant National Secretary then, in 1986, at the early age of 22, National Secretary until 1992, when he was promoted to the post of Vice Convenor, then Senior Vice Convenor (Deputy Party Leader) holding the position until 1997. He was elected as Member of Parliament (MP) in 1997, for the Tayside North constituency, and in 1999 he became an MSP for the same area in the Scottish Parliament. He gave up the “dual mandate” as a Westminster MP at the 2001 general election in order reducing his time away from home. He supported Margaret Ewing in her 1990 bid to become SNP leader, but transferred his allegiance to Alex Salmond who won it.

2000 to date: The Holyrood years – MSP Tayside North 1999-2011)-MSP Perthshire North

Alex Salmond resigned the Party leadership in 2000 and Swinney was elected Leader in the ensuing election. His leadership was ineffectual, with the Party losing an MP in 2001 and a disastrous loss of 27 MSPs in 2003 despite all the political advantages being with the party. His role as leader was challenged in 2003, but he was stubborn and held on to office only to be forced to step down following a disappointing 2004 European Parliament election in which the Party lost further ground.

16 Jun 2002: Swinney’s Chief of Staff departs

Stuart Borrowman walked out because of savage in-fighting just eight months after becoming the party’s top official. His decision to quit came as senior members of the party fought a bloody battle for re-selection as candidates for the Holyrood elections. Borrowman was one of Swinney’s vital strategists and was in charge of parliamentary staff and the Holyrood group budget and was the key to building an effective opposition to the Labour-led Executive.

The run-up to the series of Nationalist hustings was a bruising internal battle with spin and smear campaigns being waged against some of the most senior MSPs in the party. Informed sources advised that Party members, fed up with the dithering gradualists wished to appoint fundamentalist candidates and senior MSPs could end up well down the list – endangering their Holyrood seats.

Aug 2003: Swinney’s Leadership challenged

West of Scotland List MSP, Campbell Martin became the first MSP to publicly back Bill Wilson in his leadership challenge and Swinney’s supporters feared his breaking ranks might spark an open revolt amongst the other 27 MSP’s. Speaking to the press Martin exposed deep divisions in the SNP saying his position reflected growing grassroots opposition to Swinney’s lack of commitment to independence. He said:

“The SNP is supposed to be the party of independence but under the current leader we have started to walk away from our core belief. Instead, we have argued to be allowed to form the Scottish Executive and manage devolution within the United Kingdom. I am sure the leadership of the party still believes in independence, it’s just that, to them, it has become an eventual aim that would be nice if it happened but no longer the main priority”.

Martin claimed Swinney was losing support of large swathes of the SNP because of the “New Labourisation” of the party and that he had surrounded himself with a clique of MSPs and unelected advisers who were shifting the party to the right. He continued saying:

“The clique that surrounds Swinney believes that if you are not with them, then you are against them and you are fair game to be attacked – even if your “crime” is nothing more than simply disagreeing with them. In the years of his leadership a number of SNP MSPs have complained about their treatment by the clique around the leader”.

3 Sep 2003: Stalking Horse candidate submits nomination papers

Although Dr Bill Wilson stood little chance of winning, it was the hope of Swinney’s critics that a “stalking horse” bid would provoke a serious challenge to a leader whose standing with Party members had been damaged further by the loss of 8 MSP’s in the last election. Critics blamed the losses on the Swinney’s style and his lack of charisma. But Swinney’s dictatorial style of leadership had alienated a number of MSP’s including former MSP, Dorothy-Grace Elder and legendary SNP, figure Margo McDonald both of whom had resigned from the Party. A senior Party activist commented: “This shows the widespread frustration among the grass roots. This was Labour’s worst election performance, but we could not capitalise on it – in fact we lost eight seats. And to add insult to injury, we had John Swinney and others claiming that it was a good campaign.”

10 Sep 2003: Swinney wins leadership battle

In a result marked by a low turnout and many abstentions an unhappy membership confirmed Swinney as Party Leader. Speaking just after the result was announced a relieved Swinney said: “This has been an uncomfortable summer for the SNP. But we have emerged stronger. I have made it clear that I have listened to members concerns and I will continue to listen. But the row between the gradualist side of the party and those who are in favour of an independence referendum, and the fundamentalist wing, who want all or nothing, should now end. The door is shut on these arguments”.

MSP Campbell Martin, the most prominent of Dr Wilson’s supporters, said: “John will be pleased with the result. But he must now look over his shoulder. Bill took almost 20 per cent of the vote which means Swiiney is effectively on probation until next year’s conference. Any danger to his leadership could now surface from people within his own leadership clique, who could now see an opportunity for themselves.”

21 Sep 2003: Swinney talks to other Party leaders about an independence referendum

Swinney hoped the prospect of a referendum would quell rebellion in the Party after he discussed his proposals with the Green Party and other independence supporting MSP’s But Senior SNP figures, who believe victory at the ballot box is all that is needed for independence, say that Swinney’s failure to grasp the nettle of independence by fudging the issue only confused voters. One senior fundamentalist said: “What we want is independence not indecision”.

Swinney commented: “the choice for the SNP now is to follow a route into government and deliver independence through a referendum, or go into the political wilderness as we did in the 1980s, and that wasn’t a nice place for us. I’m prepared to talk to any political Party who supports independence”.

But a senior party figure questioned the wisdom of his plans to build such a coalition, saying: “This smacks of desperation. Swinney wants to reform the party believing a referendum on independence is the way forward. But to announce a week before the leadership vote that he wants to do that along with the Greens and SSP makes us look like a fantasy party. If this is a ploy to silence the fundamentalists it won’t work. All it does is show that we don’t have full confidence in winning a majority in the Scottish Parliament”.

27 Jun 2004: Swinney blames Alex Salmond for his downfall.

Furious Swinney bowed out from the Party leadership with an angry swipe at internal back-stabbing in the SNP. In a veiled attack on the fundamentalists he said: “You know who they are, I know who they are. Let’s make sure they don’t corrode the SNP and thwart our campaign for independence. The small and vocal minority must understand this – our leader is democratically elected and once elected should be supported by every single member.”

The distancing between Swinney and Sturgeon came after Sturgeon and Roseanna Cunningham locked horns over over their ages. Sturgeon, 33, said that she would “relatively have youth on my side”. But Cunningham, 51, fired back that her remarks were “cheeky” and “a tad ageist”. The bitching convinced Swinney to back Cunningham in the leadership contest. He had thought Sturgeon to be his ally but was “raging” to hear that she had been briefing against him. He told friends he blamed Alex Salmond, the man he replaced, for turning Sturgeon and much of the party against him.

He later visited Cunningham at her home and told her he would be backing her bid for the leadership. His support would tip the balance in Cunningham’s favour and she would be almost certain to lead Scotland’s official opposition. A senior Party member said: “As the knives came out, Swinney was astonished to hear Sturgeon was briefing against him. He thought it a poor show after everything he’d done for her. He’s been destroyed by back-stabbing and is convinced Alex Salmond orchestrated a whispering campaign against him. It’s one member one vote and his move will gift 1,000 votes to Roseanna out of the 8,000 up for grabs. That will swing it for her and Sturgeon has only got herself to blame. She was Alex Salmond’s star girl then Swinney took her under his wing when he took over. Now he finds out that she’s been stitching him up at what he thinks is Alex Salmond’s instruction.

2004: Alex Salmond returns to the role of Party leader in the 2004 leadership contest.

2007: The Party went on to win the highest number of seats, (just short of a majority) in the Scottish Parliament in the 2007 election and he was appointed First Minister. As the head of a minority administration, however, he was unable to secure the approval of Scotland’s Parliament for a referendum on independence.

Salmond, who studied economics at the University of St. Andrews and had worked as an economist for the Royal Bank of Scotland Salmond emphasized his priority would be issues such as as sustainable economic growth, fairer taxes, education, and environmental awareness and he quickly implemented a number of popular measures, such as freezing council tax rates. He also maintained a close watch over Swinney whom he appointed Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth. A post in which he served until 2014.

2011: Alex Salmond’s diligence in the previous parliament was rewarded with the Party gaining an overall majority in the 2011 election and in 2012 he signed an agreement with British Prime Minister Cameron to hold an independence referendum in 2014.

In the weeks leading up to the referendum, he inspired the pro-independence cause, steadily eroding a significant lead held by the Unionist Party’s. In August 2014 he emerged as the clear winner of a televised debate with Labour politician Alistair Darling, the leader of “Better Together,” the multiparty campaign committed to preserving Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.

In polls held shortly after the debate, 51 percent of those expressing an opinion favoured independence. This marked the first time since polling on the matter began that the pro-independence camp had registered a lead, and Cameron response was to promise through “the Vow” (published in the Daily Record illegally, within the pugatory period) greater autonomy for Scotland.

On September 18, 2014, Scots went to the polls in unprecedented numbers, with turnout approaching 85 percent, and 55 percent voted to reject independence.

In his concession speech, Salmond declared that Scotland had “decided not, at this stage, to become an independent country,” a statement that raised the possibility of another referendum on the matter at some point in the future.

The day after the referendum, he announced that he would resign as first minister and SNP leader, a move that became official at the SNP’s national conference in November 2014, when he was replaced by Nicola Sturgeon.

Nov 2014: Sturgeon succeeded Alex Salmond. Swinney retained his job as Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth adding the title Deputy First Minister to his CV.

May 2016: Sturgeon decided to freshen-up her government with the addition of new faces and Swinney, who publicly claimed he had asked for a new challenge, was removed from his comfort zone to the post of Education Secretary where he remained until 2021.

2021: Scottish Elections saw the SNP returned to power. Sturgeon, unhappy with Swinney’s performance in the Education brief, removed him from office to a new post as Covid Recovery Secretary.

Honest John under the cosh 2000-2021 – Notable events Swinney would prefer not to be recorded on his CV. But I will include them anyway.

19 Aug 2011: Scottish Finance Secretary makes a profit at taxpayers’ expense

Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth in the Scottish Government, has made a large profit on his taxpayer-funded apartment. The two-storey terraced property was recently sold for £430,000, after being bought for £355,000 in December 2003, while he was Leader of the SNP. After capital gains tax, his total profit was around £57,000. But between the purchase and the sale, Swinney claimed more than £60,000 of taxpayers’ money to pay for the interest on his RBS mortgage. Swinney is overseeing the implication of the UK chancellor’s austerity spending cuts and a public sector pay freeze, but saw no problem in claiming this huge sum of money from taxpayers. It should not be forgotten that Swinney already earns a six-figure taxpayer-funded salary, which makes his claims and profit another kick in the teeth for hard-working families. The way politicians are able to make a profit from taxpayer-funded homes is a scandal. (taxpayers alliance)

For those seeking sources I gleaned most of the content from Scottish newspapers and other columnists Dependant on response it is my intention to publish Part 2 of this article which will include further events of note.

WOKE and the Tory Party

The Tory Party has not been shouting from the rooftops about its views on WOKE rights which is not surprising since its policies are decided on by the Tory Central Office in England.

The most powerful lobbying group in the Party is the “Cornerstone Group” and its influence and demands will prevail over weaker opposition and be the deciding factor in any policy pertaining to WOKE activists.

2005: The Cornerstone Group Website Launch.

 In his opening address Chairman Edward Leigh MP wrote about the aims and aspirations of the Group:

“We represent traditional Tory themes of nation, family, enterprise and compassion, founded on Judaeo-Christian ethics. We keep the flame burning because we believe that a vigorous discussion about Conservative ideas can be of immense value to our party”

“We applaud David Cameron’s decision to speak up in favour of marriage.”

The Tory Party Cornerstone Group

A large and influential group of Tory MP’s dedicated to maintaining the traditional values which have shaped the British way of life throughout the country’s history.

It believes in the spiritual values which have informed British institutions, its culture and its nations sense of identity for centuries, underpinned by the belief in a strong nation state.

It stands for the Monarchy; traditional marriage; family and community duties; proper pride in the nations distinctive qualities; quality of life over soulless utility; social responsibility over personal selfishness; social justice as a civic duty, not state dependency; compassion for those in need; reducing government waste; lower taxation and deregulation; protection of ancient liberties against politically correct censorship and a commitment to a democratically elected parliament.

It is opposed to gay marriage and is generally fairly homophobic.

Abortion should be banned.

Sexual abstinence should be taught in schools.

Contraceptives should be discouraged.

Immigration should be strictly controlled.

Liberalism  is a disease.

Tory Party Insider Comments:

The group is mono-ethnic, mono-cultural, anti-diversity and anti-homosexual and it commands a major swathe of the parliamentary Tory Party and its membership.

It is a good development. The policies they advocate are very sensible. Those who brush them off as reactionaries betray their own bigotry in a way.

The Group’s views are held by many Northern voters and there are many more who would like to see extra emphasis on some of the Cornerstone principles. Lurching hard to the right wins more voters in the North.

The Cornerstone Group are an important lobbying group who will make sure the Party remains focused on its full policy agenda.

Jan 2016: Ultra right wing Tory Cornerstone founder member Mundell Comes Out the Closet as Gay

Mundell married Lynda Carmichael in 1987. The couple separated in 2010 and divorced in 2012. They have 3 children: Oliver, 28 (elected to Holyrood), Eve 26 and Lewis 25.

He wrote on his personal website:

“it is time to acknowledge in public as well as in private, who I am. I hope that coming out will not change anything about how I am treated.”

In another online post he wrote:

“New Year, new start! I have already set out my political priorities for the year and now I am setting out my personal one: Having taken one of the most important decisions of my life and came out as gay I just want to get on with it, and now, just like that, I have said it. I still cannot rationalise my feelings, but they are not uncommon, particularly in men of my age.” He added:

“Of course, everybody who gets to this point, has have their own journey. I have certainly been on mine, conflicting emotions, of doubts and fears, but ultimately positive and uplifting, with an unstoppable direction of travel. Over time, I have come to understand that, for me, the only way to be truly happy on a personal level is to acknowledge in public as well as in private, who I am.”

Comment: Living a lie is never easy but being a founder member of the Cornerstone Group takes the biscuit.

An American teacher warns about the invasion of WOKE orthodoxy in the education sector

I have been a teacher for nearly two decades. My awareness of WOKE ideology started about five years ago when our schools began to be consumed by “WOKE ideology”.

The schools became obsessed with sophomoric and divisive notions of diversity, equality, and justice; increasingly hostile to freedom of expression; addicted to cancelling anything that offended the WOKE movement and prioritised activism over understanding as the goal of education.

The purpose of this letter is to alert the “sleep-wokers”. A sleep-woker is one who has not taken the WOKE creed to heart, but tacitly complies with the linguistic, pedagogical, political, and moral imperatives of wokeness.

Sleep-wokers go through the motions; they are like religious folk who say prayers without thinking, attend worship services without engaging, and perpetuate dogmas without believing. I was a sleep-woker. In some ways, due to a combination of timidity and tiredness, I still am.

Sleep-woking, like sleepwalking, is very dangerous. While sleep-woking, an English teacher can unwittingly help cancel Chaucer, Keats and Conrad in the name of decolonisation. A biology teacher might find herself obliged to deny important differences between the sexes. A football coach will not be able to cheer on a player after a strong tackle, as strength and physical violence smack of toxic masculinity.

Wokeness has proven to be oppressive and totalitarian rather than inclusive and liberating

Most of my sleep-woking colleagues are good people. Like me, they were lulled into complacency by a WOKE take-over that was slow and subtle.

What’s more, some changes were initially promising and even corrective — of course we should pay more attention to marginalised voices and overlooked narratives, and I am glad that we now do.

To bemoan an expanded curriculum is simple chauvinism. In the end, however, wokeness has proven to be oppressive and totalitarian rather than inclusive and liberating.

My objection is to the effect of WOKE ideology on education, not to liberal politics. My grievance is that teachers are increasingly under pressure to adopt the WOKE agenda or be ostracised.

I empathise with the difficult situation that top school officials find themselves in. As wokeness takes over culture, schools face enormous pressure to follow suit.

That said, those with the power to stop the degradation of education have a special responsibility to do so, and those of us with less power have a responsibility to remind our superiors of their duty.

Here is some of what wokeness introduces:

Offence in is the Eye of the Offended

Schools are required to teach that if one feels offended, one has been offended. For example, if a student or colleague claims to have been offended by your words or actions, it does not matter if you intended no offence. More troubling is the fact that it does not matter if your words and actions were not those that a rational person should find offensive — you are an offender merely by virtue of the fact that someone claims to have been offended.

Since legal norms follow ethical norms, if schools (and societies) succeed in changing the ethical norms of speech and offence, they will eventually have a basis upon which to change the legal norms.

As soon as they can show that a normal or typical person is offended by certain language or certain ideas, they will be able to argue that a person presenting such language and ideas is failing to abide by the reasonable ethical cultural expectations.

In essence, we are training students how to be offended so that their perceived offence can be used to eliminate anti-woke expression.

Elimination of Non-Woke Student Clubs

Any student group that resists WOKE orthodoxy is forcibly disbanded or prevented from forming with the outcome that free thinking students have trouble officially meeting and inviting speakers.

If a non-woke speaker is invited, the wokes mobilise to deny them a platform and they feel righteous for doing so.

Few free thinking students openly identify as such because they are afraid of repercussions from teachers and other students. Not only is this unfair, but it is also dangerous.

Alienated free thinking students are being pushed away from moderate disagreement towards political extremism.

No Resisting WOKE Slogans

Opposing WOKE slogans or voicing contrary slogans is not tolerated.

Since opposing wokeness is thought to be motivated by hate, voicing opposition to WOKE slogans is tantamount to hate speech.

A student who challenges a WOKE slogan is bullied and harassed by the WOKE majority.

Meanwhile, WOKE slogans and images are hung in school buildings and cannot be removed.

Cultural Appropriation

White or Western students are told not to participate in cultural traditions of non-white, non-Western people — the oppressors cannot participate in the culture of the oppressed.

For example, several white students who wore shirts with African designs were reprimanded and forced to change their clothes. The fact that the shirts were a gift from their teacher, a black African man, made no difference. The students wore the shirts to show affection for their teacher and to honour his gift, but that was still cultural appropriation.

In another instance, a musician was reprimanded for blending a western and non-western musical style into a new artistic expression. The musician was accused of cultural imperialism.

Cancelling Curriculum

Shakespeare, Homer and other canonical authors are being eliminated from the curriculum. In some cases, schools and teachers boast about cancelling these patriarchal racists. Even at schools that do not officially cancel canonical Western texts, the texts are subtly replaced in the name of anti-racism.

The result is that many students move on to university never having read Homer or Shakespeare, though they will have been required to read many texts and attend many lectures on intersectionality and gender identity.

They can speak at length about toxic masculinity and a panoply of so-called phobias, but they would not recognise the terms “iambic pentameter” and “dactylic hexameter”, let alone recognise actual examples of the meter.

Normalising Fallacies

Ad hominem attacks are presented as the cornerstone of critical thinking rather than as a fallacious form of argumentation. Teachers educate students to evaluate texts and arguments by primarily attending to the author’s race, gender, and sexuality.

Mandatory Training

Students attend mandatory training sessions in which experts teach them how to identify and report microaggressions. And since to a student with a hammer everything looks like a nail, the students begin informing on each other and on their teachers.

White teachers are told to attend racial-political re-education workshops in which they strive to overcome their whiteness in the classroom. (It has long been accepted that “whiteness” is a meaningful category.)

Teachers who claim to not be a racist are seen as the worst, most unredeemable kind of racist and labelled heretics who will not admit heresy. Suffering from something called “white fragility”.

Trigger Warnings

Before introducing any new activity teachers are required to compile lists of trigger warnings for it. The warnings which are shared with students alert them to any and all things in the subject that could cause them stress, frustration, anger, or sadness.

Manners and Dress Codes

A side-effect of the WOKE attacks on tradition, authority, and hierarchy has been the revocation of dress codes. So long as their genitals are covered and no profane words are visible, students can and do wear anything they like.

Many students eat meals with headphones in their ears while watching videos on their phones. The less respectful students don’t bother with headphones. “Sir” and “Ma’am” have long since disappeared as too authoritarian and gendered. The terms “master” and “headmaster” cannot be used as master might connote slavery.

Elimination of Objective Assessments

Exams are being eliminated for two reasons: first, because exams are apparently inherently racist, sexist, classist, heteronormative, or otherwise unfair; second, because exams cause students stress, and stress makes students feel bad, and feeling bad negatively impacts their well-being.

Additionally, some students do poorly on exams, and this has the potential to result in a situation that is inequitable.

Pronouns

Schools are increasingly pressured to identify their pronouns.

Failure to identify one’s pronouns is seen as transphobic or cis-centric or both. Students can reassign their own pronouns at will.

If a teacher mistakenly does not use the student’s preferred pronoun, the teacher is accused of misgendering.

Misgendering a serious offence, even a kind of violence.

In Summary

The unchecked advance of wokeness results in two major failures.

First, teachers and students lose the ability to freely read, write and speak as pupils and teachers.

Second, the education provided becomes unrecognisably impoverished.

The second effect is probably the hardest to accept. In place of free-thinking young scholars, the education system churns out generations of woke activists who believe that feelings matter more than facts, that perception is reality, and that it is more important to judge a text than to understand it — where “judging” means anachronistically interpreting the author’s words in light of the most recent WOKE orthodoxy.

Students claim to be proud practitioners of social justice yet they have only an elementary command of grammar and geography.

They struggle to write complete sentences and are unable to locate Turkey on a map.

Some question the need to take maths seriously given that maths is apparently grounded in Western patriarchal rationalism.

Wokeness has been achieved at the expense of education.

Reason has been subordinated to passion.

Plato’s charioteer has been replaced by the horses he was meant to reign in.

To not be woke is to be asleep: unconscious or ignorant of what is really going on.

Perhaps some of you are disturbed by some of the woke excesses at your schools and in your communities, even if, like me, you readily support appeals for greater diversity, genuine inclusion, and a multicultural curriculum.

There are some who instinctively to dismiss the excesses as isolated incidents with sayings like “The pendulum will swing back” or “That will never happen at my school.”

But the pendulum will not swing back because the WOKE movement is not a pendulum; it is a steamroller.

One of the canniest bits of WOKE linguistic manipulation has been appropriation of the term “WOKE” itself.

To not be WOKE is to be asleep: unconscious or ignorant of what is really going on.

Either one is Woke or one is not aware of reality.

Or, as in the words of a WOKE student “if you are not WOKE, it must be because you are uneducated or hateful — or both.

Such is the WOKE reality. (The Critic)

The Discredited 1707 Act of Union

The 1707 “Act of Union” was signed off, against the wishes of Scots, by a corrupt landowning, political elite.

It was heralded by the English as a voluntary joining of the two nations which would become a single United Kingdom. All would be equal.  But that is not what transpired.

The English trap was sprung within weeks of the signing of the treaty when the Sovereign of the two states declared Westminster to be the seat of the newly formed United Kingdom.

England’s green and pleasant land would survive but Scotland would be consigned to the historical rubbish dump.

And historical evidence from that time to the present day supports many thousands of allegations that Westminster politicians have only ever acted in the best interests of England and against the wishes and needs of Scots.

Scots Are Ready for Change: Now::

Conditioned by the brutality of the first and each succeeding Westminster regime over 300+ years, the Scottish view of Westminster is far removed from that of the people of Newcastle or Leeds.

The majority of Scots perceive Westminster to be a parliament that has imposed 313+ years of murderous and dictatorial rule.

They see it as a political regime that has denied them their right to economic and political sovereignty. Westminster is not Scotland’s Parliament and never will be.

Scots, with Brexit forced upon them against their wishes, are now clear in their minds that Unionist politicians will continue to impose their will over Scots regardless of any economic, social or other hardship.

The Scottish nation is of little consequence to the political ambitions of the political elite of Westminster.

Modified Abstentionism

S.N.P. MP’s should no longer routinely participate in any of the political activities at Westminster, including withdrawing MP’s from all joint committees and no attendance to the House of Commons.

MP’s would, in all other respects, continue to actively represent their constituents only engaging where necessary with other political Party’s and their representatives on matters affecting their constituents.

This would ensure no financial detriment to S.N.P. MP’s. but would send a shot across the bows of the Tory dominated parliament and frighten the Labour and Liberal Party’s who would be consigned to the opposition benches forever.

18 Mar 2003: Do not rush to war with Iraq – Alex Salmond – House of Commons

Fundamentally, the debate is not about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction or even oil, though oil is certainly a factor. The debate is about a new world order, with an unrivalled superpower adopting a doctrine of pre-emptive strike, and how we accommodate that and come to terms with that new world order.

Eighteen months ago the United States had an atrocity committed against it and it is still in a trauma. The point was made a few minutes ago, and it is undoubtedly correct. On 12 September 2001, the day after the attack on the twin towers, the United States was at its most powerful.

In its moment of greatest extremity, the United States was at its zenith. In addition to its unrivalled military might, it carried total moral authority throughout the world.

A hundred or more nations signed messages of sympathy, support or solidarity with the extremity that the United States had suffered. Now, 18 months later, that enormous world coalition has been dissipated.

I do not take the position that it was only a gang of four who gathered in the Azores. I accept that there are more countries—or at least countries’ Governments — who are signed up, but the coalition of the willing for the campaign against Iraq is very narrowly based.

Anyone who wants confirmation of that should just count the troops: 300,000 United States and British troops, and I understand that 1,000 Australians have been asked for, and 100 Poles have been offered. That is a very narrowly based coalition indeed.

The Prime Minister believes that the way to accommodate the situation is to accept that the United States will be predominant and that the rest must fall into line. They can try to restrain it, but they will have to fall into line with the views of the United States Administration.

That is a wrong-headed policy, and it is taking people into ridiculous positions.

In his undoubtedly powerful speech today, the Prime Minister argued that the weapons inspection process had never worked. He came close to saying that it had all been a waste of time.

I remember a speech on 2 October at the Labour conference in which another powerful speaker went into enormous detail to show how successful the weapons inspection process had been in the 1990s and how it had led to the destruction of chemical weapons, the chemicals used to make weapons, the armed warheads and the biological weapons facility.

He concluded that, “the inspections were working even when he (Saddam Hussein) was trying to thwart them.”

I watched that speech on television. Many hon. Members were there. The speaker was President Bill Clinton. The television was doing cutaways to Ministers, including the Prime Minister. They were all nodding vigorously last October when President Clinton said that through the 1990s that policy worked and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction than were destroyed, for example, in the Gulf war.

The Prime Minister now seems to be denying what he accepted only last October. We are told that the majority of the Security Council would have voted for the second resolution, if it had not been for the nasty French coming in at the last minute and scuppering the whole process. Let us get real. Have we listened to what other countries were saying?

The Chileans proposed an extension of three weeks, but they were told by the United States that that was not on. In the debate in the General Assembly, country after country expressed their anxieties about not letting the weapons inspectors have a chance to do their work.

They were told that the nasty French—I am not sure whether the Conservative party dislikes the French more than the Liberals, or vice versa were being extremely unreasonable, but the French position, and the Chinese position in order to become acceptable, resolution 1441 had to be amended.

Everything has been consistent in the opposition of countries that are against a rush to military action. Somebody should speak up for the French, because their position has been consistent, as has that of the Russians and the Chinese.

The Chinese, the French and the Russians issued a declaration on the passage of resolution 1441. It sets out exactly how the British and the United States ambassadors agreed that it was not a trigger for war.

The reason that those countries did not want a second resolution was not that it would be a pathway to peace I wonder who dreamed that up in Downing street. The reason was that they saw it as a passport to war, so obviously they opposed a resolution drawn in those terms.

The majority of smaller countries in the Security Council and the General Assembly countries did not want to rush to war because they saw that there remained an alternative to taking military action at this stage of the inspection process.

We are told that the Attorney General has described the war as legal. We could go into the legalities and quote professor after professor who has said the opposite, but one thing is certain: when the Secretary General of the United Nations doubts the authorisation of military action without a second resolution, people can say many things about that action, but they cannot say that it is being taken in the name of the United Nations.

The argument is that it will be a salutary lesson, that a dictator will be taught a lesson and that that will help us in dealing with other dictators.

I suspect that the cost of the action — I do not doubt the military outcome for a second will be so high in a number of ways that it will not provide a platform for an assault on North Korea or Iran, which form the rest of the “axis of evil”.

I do not think that the policy of teaching one dictator a lesson and then moving on to other dictators can work. Most of us know that it will be a breeding ground for a future generation of terrorists. That is not the case because people like Saddam Hussein.

The images that will be shown throughout the Muslim world will not feature him, although, without any question, he will be more attractive as a martyr when he is dead than he has ever been while alive. The images that will be shown are those of the innocents who will undoubtedly die in a conflict that will be a breeding ground for terrorism.

President Clinton’s address to the labour Party Conference in Blackpool October 2002, (6 months before the invasion of Iraq

Sound advice was falsely embraced by Tony Blair and his government who only six months later ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the terrible consequences have been visited upon many nations of the World, (in particular the middle East) ever since.

Bush and Blair are now retired and earning financial fortunes from speeches, advisory activities in support of many governments around the world and other business. Indeed Blair and his wife are multi-millionaires.

But thousands of our young men and women serving in the armed forces have been killed in action or returned to their families maimed through physical and or mental injury. The rest of their lives to be lived out handicapped and in permanent pain as will the many thousands of families who lost their sons and daughters.

Why did Blair not listen to President Clinton and Alex Salmond. The last 18 years future could have been so different.

The debate: http://www.warmwell.com/iraqwardebate03.html

The video: http://www.c-span.org/video/?172964-1/foreign-policy-issues

18 Mar 2003: Do not rush to war with Iraq – Alex Salmond – House of Commons

Fundamentally, the debate is not about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction or even oil, though oil is certainly a factor. The debate is about a new world order, with an unrivalled superpower adopting a doctrine of pre-emptive strike, and how we accommodate that and come to terms with that new world order.

Eighteen months ago the United States had an atrocity committed against it and it is still in a trauma. The point was made a few minutes ago, and it is undoubtedly correct. On 12 September 2001, the day after the attack on the twin towers, the United States was at its most powerful.

In its moment of greatest extremity, the United States was at its zenith. In addition to its unrivalled military might, it carried total moral authority throughout the world.

A hundred or more nations signed messages of sympathy, support or solidarity with the extremity that the United States had suffered. Now, 18 months later, that enormous world coalition has been dissipated.

I do not take the position that it was only a gang of four who gathered in the Azores. I accept that there are more countries—or at least countries’ Governments — who are signed up, but the coalition of the willing for the campaign against Iraq is very narrowly based.

Anyone who wants confirmation of that should just count the troops: 300,000 United States and British troops, and I understand that 1,000 Australians have been asked for, and 100 Poles have been offered. That is a very narrowly based coalition indeed.

The Prime Minister believes that the way to accommodate the situation is to accept that the United States will be predominant and that the rest must fall into line. They can try to restrain it, but they will have to fall into line with the views of the United States Administration.

That is a wrong-headed policy, and it is taking people into ridiculous positions.

In his undoubtedly powerful speech today, the Prime Minister argued that the weapons inspection process had never worked. He came close to saying that it had all been a waste of time.

I remember a speech on 2 October at the Labour conference in which another powerful speaker went into enormous detail to show how successful the weapons inspection process had been in the 1990s and how it had led to the destruction of chemical weapons, the chemicals used to make weapons, the armed warheads and the biological weapons facility.

He concluded that, “the inspections were working even when he (Saddam Hussein) was trying to thwart them.”

I watched that speech on television. Many hon. Members were there. The speaker was President Bill Clinton. The television was doing cutaways to Ministers, including the Prime Minister. They were all nodding vigorously last October when President Clinton said that through the 1990s that policy worked and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction than were destroyed, for example, in the Gulf war.

The Prime Minister now seems to be denying what he accepted only last October. We are told that the majority of the Security Council would have voted for the second resolution, if it had not been for the nasty French coming in at the last minute and scuppering the whole process. Let us get real. Have we listened to what other countries were saying?

The Chileans proposed an extension of three weeks, but they were told by the United States that that was not on. In the debate in the General Assembly, country after country expressed their anxieties about not letting the weapons inspectors have a chance to do their work.

They were told that the nasty French—I am not sure whether the Conservative party dislikes the French more than the Liberals, or vice versa were being extremely unreasonable, but the French position, and the Chinese position in order to become acceptable, resolution 1441 had to be amended.

Everything has been consistent in the opposition of countries that are against a rush to military action. Somebody should speak up for the French, because their position has been consistent, as has that of the Russians and the Chinese.

The Chinese, the French and the Russians issued a declaration on the passage of resolution 1441. It sets out exactly how the British and the United States ambassadors agreed that it was not a trigger for war.

The reason that those countries did not want a second resolution was not that it would be a pathway to peace I wonder who dreamed that up in Downing street. The reason was that they saw it as a passport to war, so obviously they opposed a resolution drawn in those terms.

The majority of smaller countries in the Security Council and the General Assembly countries did not want to rush to war because they saw that there remained an alternative to taking military action at this stage of the inspection process.

We are told that the Attorney General has described the war as legal. We could go into the legalities and quote professor after professor who has said the opposite, but one thing is certain: when the Secretary General of the United Nations doubts the authorisation of military action without a second resolution, people can say many things about that action, but they cannot say that it is being taken in the name of the United Nations.

The argument is that it will be a salutary lesson, that a dictator will be taught a lesson and that that will help us in dealing with other dictators.

I suspect that the cost of the action — I do not doubt the military outcome for a second will be so high in a number of ways that it will not provide a platform for an assault on North Korea or Iran, which form the rest of the “axis of evil”.

I do not think that the policy of teaching one dictator a lesson and then moving on to other dictators can work. Most of us know that it will be a breeding ground for a future generation of terrorists. That is not the case because people like Saddam Hussein.

The images that will be shown throughout the Muslim world will not feature him, although, without any question, he will be more attractive as a martyr when he is dead than he has ever been while alive. The images that will be shown are those of the innocents who will undoubtedly die in a conflict that will be a breeding ground for terrorism.

President Clinton’s address to the labour Party Conference in Blackpool October 2002, (6 months before the invasion of Iraq

Sound advice was falsely embraced by Tony Blair and his government who only six months later ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the terrible consequences have been visited upon many nations of the World, (in particular the middle East) ever since.

Bush and Blair are now retired and earning financial fortunes from speeches, advisory activities in support of many governments around the world and other business. Indeed Blair and his wife are multi-millionaires.

But thousands of our young men and women serving in the armed forces have been killed in action or returned to their families maimed through physical and or mental injury. The rest of their lives to be lived out handicapped and in permanent pain as will the many thousands of families who lost their sons and daughters.

Why did Blair not listen to President Clinton and Alex Salmond. The last 18 years future could have been so different.

The debate: http://www.warmwell.com/iraqwardebate03.html

The video: http://www.c-span.org/video/?172964-1/foreign-policy-issues

Douglas Garven Alexander

He was born in Glasgow in 1967 and grew up in Bishopton, where his father was the local Minister. Aged fourteen he joined the Labour Party. In 1984, at the age of 17, he studied a for 2 years at an international college in Vancouver, Canada before returning to Scotland to study Politics and Modern History at Edinburgh University. After graduating he worked for Gordon Brown for a year, as a SPAD.

He joined the British American Project (BAP) an exclusive American financed neo-liberal political network and is also a senior member of the left leaning Fabian Society, a secretive organisation driven by the ideology of the supremacy of the “British State” over any other political formation.

Mentored by Gordon Brown and guided by Tony Blair his rise to the top echlon of the Labour Party was spectacular. In 2006 he was promoted to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Transport and Scotland.

The 2007 Scottish General Election

The “New Labour” Government was in crisis. Blair, in defiance of the wishes of the public had taken the country to war in support of an American invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq and had added to the debacle by aiding an American invasion of Afghanistan. Both decisions proved to be costly military and political disasters. And there was the “Cash for access” scandal involving the New Labour leadership.

The setbacks in popularity alerted Blair and Brown to the possibility of a humiliating SNP victory in Scotland and something needed to be done fast to avert a political disaster which might lead to a bid for Scottish independence from a resurgent SNP under the inspiring leadership of Alex Salmond whose appointment had galvanised his moribund Party.

Alex Salmond, alert to the trickery of “New Labour” petitioned Westminster seeking a transfer of the organisation of Scottish General Elections to the authority of the Scottish Government. His request was refused. Westminster retained the right to organise Scottish General Elections and Douglas Alexander, the part-time Secretary of State for Scotland would, in addition to leading Labour’s campaign in Scotland, also take charge of the organisation of the process.

Alexander moved fast and in a reversal of previous successful arrangements he decided on the use of two separate ballot papers for constituency and regional lists. Further complicating matters he decided that Local Council Elections would be held at the same time as the parliamentary election and that all election selections would be printed on one ballot paper.

Alec Salmond, Civil servants and an independent marketing firm all warned that the use of such ballot forms would lead to voter confusion and a higher-than-average number of rejected votes. But their concerns were ignored. Even when faced with public critisim Alexander and his governing, (Labour) party insisted the changes were extremely popular.

In the election the Scottish National Party (SNP) emerged as the largest party with 47 seats, closely followed by the incumbent Scottish Labour Party with 46 seats. The Scottish Conservatives won 17 seats, the Scottish Liberal Democrats 16 seats, the Scottish Greens 2 seats and one Independent (Margo MacDonald) was also elected.

Alexander was praised by Labour Party mandarins since he had almost, “saved the day” for Labour. But the elections had been tainted by a chaotic voting process in which in excess of 146,000 votes had been declared void. The largest in electoral history. 17 MSP’s were elected to Parliament with majority’s lower than the number of spoiled ballots in their constituency.

There was a public outcry and, “Returning Officers” formally voiced their discontent. Alexander, the accountable person for the elections, said there would be a statutory review of the election under the auspices of the Labour Party dominated “Electoral Commission”.

The Scottish Electorate was outraged and demanded an independent inquiry which was at first denied but public pressure forced Blair to concede and an inquiry was commissioned.

At the end of an extensive, lengthy inquiry, an official report submitted by, Ron Gould, (a senior Canadian election official), heavily censured Alexander and the Labour Party stating that ministers in the Labour Scottish Government and at Westminster together with Alexander’s political, “self-interested” moves, (as the Labour Party in Scotland’s election supremo), had abused their, “offices of state” making decisions about the election on “party political interest grounds”, with voters treated as an “after-thought.”

18 Sep 2014: Scottish Independence Referendum

Scot’s failed to heed the warning from 2007 and allowed the “Electoral Commission” free rein over the rules governing the 2014 Independence Referendum and were denied by another flawed process which had been loaded against a “Yes” vote. The Scottish Government must exercise complete control (overseen by international observers) of any future future referendum.

22 Sep 2014: Independence Referendum

Alexander, in a major speech, in Manchester, to the Labour Conference thanked the many English students and Labour Party fifth columnists that had invaded Scotland in the course of the referendum in support of the “Better Together” fear campaign. He said:

“Conference, we gather here in Manchester just days after a defining decision for the United Kingdom. The referendum campaign in Scotland was about more than party politics. It was about who we are, what we believe and what we hope for as one nation. And when, as Scottish supporters of the Union, we sent out the call to our friends and comrades in the Labour Party in England you answered that call. By coming to campaign alongside us, you demonstrated solidarity in action”.

Comment: The referendum was supposed to be about Scot’s deciding the future of their country. The bussing of many thousands of English born labour supporters was yet another example of the Unionist party’s philosophy of, “bugger the rules and rights win at any cost”.

Sep 2010: Alex Salmond claims 100% green electricity in Scotland is ‘achievable’ by 2025

In the post-devolution period, and particularly since the election of the first Scottish National Party Scottish Government in 2007, there existed an uneasy relationship between Holyrood and Westminster over energy, which was reserved (with limited exceptions for the limited promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency) to the UK Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998.

In 2010 Alex Salmond, addressing the International Low Carbon Investment Conference in Edinburgh doubled the Scottish Government’s target for generating “green” electricity from 50% to 100% by 2025. And claimed Scotland with the proper financial investment could actually generate all of its electricity and more – currently about 6.8GW – from green sources by that year. And Scotland’s energy resources, in particular North Sea oil and its renewable energy potential, became significant elements in the case for Scottish independence during the 2014 independence referendum.

The referendum confirmed the retention of the “union” but mindful of the on-going aspirations of Scots for independence Westminster’s goal became to ensure England and Wales would be self sufficient in energy provision (no reliance on Scotland) and this brought about the decision to focus production on nuclear.

Proving the case for this was relatively easy. Staticians did the business and the media persuaded the gullible electorate in England and Wales that nuclear would be cheaper than Scotland’s more costly wind and wave energy and contracts were signed off with foreign based companies.

Since then the projected costs of building nuclear plants in sufficient numbers has increased many fold bringing about a need for the provision of massive amounts of new finance from the Treasury. Any financial “bail-out” of the nuclear debacle will be sourced from the capped “energy” pot and this is to the detriment of Scotland.

Echoing the foregoing and gathering pace since the 2014 referendum, there has been a spate of UK government decisions on energy, such as the withdrawal of funding for carbon capture and storage development, the closure of the Longannet coal-fired power station and the withdrawal of subsidies for renewable energy. All of which have, whether by accident or design, undermined Scotland’s “energy independence” in advance of any second independence referendum.

The 2016 Act reflects the ebb and flow of this cross-border constitutional dynamic and the provision for energy is piecemeal and lacking substance suggesting that the wings of the Scottish Government’s energy policy are being clipped by Westminster: the Empire is striking back.

The foregoing is a summary of the content of a (must read) article “ENERGY AND THE SCOTLAND ACT 2016” written by Gavin Little – Professor of law, Stirling University

Petition from the people of Fife to the Scottish Parliament 9 January 1701

To his Grace his majesties High Commissioner (James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry) and the right honourable Earls and representatives of parliament, we submit this humble address and petition of the people of Fife.

That now after so long and expensive wars, attended with unheard scarcity and many other calamities, instead of enjoying the blessings of a happy peace, incentives for trade and manufacturing, providing employment for the poor and easing the burdens of state support.

We still find not only great discouragements to trade, increased numbers of poor and a lack of money sufficient to pay a standing army. But above all what we are deeply aware of is the violation of the sovereignty, freedom, and independence of Scotland which our predecessors so nobly defended with their blood.

And the encroachments by English and Spanish forces upon which seem to us to be the cause of the great losses which the African and Indian companies have sustained in their Caledonian colony settled in Darien.

Losses contrary to their human rights and the law of nations, and which we perceive to be of national concern affecting the hearts of every true-hearted Scot.

May it, therefore, please your grace and right honourable Earls and peers of the Scottish parliament to give serious consideration to asserting the Kingdom’s freedom, sovereignty, and independence.

Strengthen and support the people in Darien in their right to their settlement in Caledonia, make good their losses, assist them in their efforts so much that they are able to succeed for the honour and wealth of Scotland.

Introduce measures designed to provide a better future for the poor, encouraging Scottish manufacturers to invest in Scotland restraining the practice of transferring money to England.

Reduce the size of the occupying army bringing forward ways, other than force, of ensuring the security of peace and support of the government and the future and liberty of the Kingdom.

Signed 9 January 1701

Mr George Arnott of Grange

W. Anstruther,

Robert Forbes of Riris,

David Leslie, master of Lundors,

James Fairfull of Kilduncan,

John Preston, baronet,

David Corstorphine, portioner in Kingsbarns,

George Sinclair, baronet,

Henry Balfour of Denbre,

Alexander Bridge, portioner in Kingsbarns,

James Preston of Denbre,

Andrew Baillie of Parbroath,

T. Bruce of Blairhall,

Robert Herriot of Ramorny
J. Browne of Bogward,

Patrick Ross of Hilcairnie,

Robert Scott of Spencirfeild,

John Wemyss of Winthank,

David Lindsay of Kirkforther,

Thomas Weems of Fingask,

Henry Wardlaw of Pitravie,

D. Clephane of Carslogie,

William Henderson of Fordell,

R. Douglas of Glenbervie, baronet,

James Lindsay of Kavill,

James Holburne of Menstrie,

Archibald Makgill of Kemboke,

Robert Ged of Baldrige,

Captain Alexander Bruce of Petothe,

James Bennett of Graing,

W. Trent of Pitcullo,

John Stanhous of Southfod,

G. Paterson of Dinmuire,

Mr Duncan Whyte of Cruiks,

John Imrie of Crowie,

John Forrester of Carberrie,

George Hay of Mortoune,

John Dewar of Lafodie,

John Cuninghame of Banden,

H. Wardlaw of Luskar,

John Malcolm of Inverteill,

David Wardlaw of Craighouse,

James Law of Burntoune,

P. Seton of Lathrisk,

R. Balfour of Balbirne,

John Balfour of Fernie,

J. Balfour of Collachy,

J. Kinnier of Kinnier,

Michael Malcolm of Balbeadie,

J. Malcolm of Foxtoun,

Mr David Dewar of Balgonie,

John Crawford of Montquhne,

Boswell of Glenistoune,

J. Arnott of Woodmile,

J. Skene of Wester Bogie,

Russell of Balmalkim,

Rachie of Ballmedisyd,

James Walker of Daftmill,

John Aitoun of that ilk,

George Arnott of Woodmill,

Michaell Balfour, (the younger) baronet,

John Barclay of Colernie,

Charles Cheape,(the younger)of Rossie,

D. Anderson of Ferriebanck,

Alexander Spens of Beriholl,

David Orme of Amriecruik,

James Maxuell of Lekebank,

Patrick Forbes of Lumquhat,

Alexander Thomson of Yerdland,

James Nicolson, porshoner in Strakes,

Robert Maxwell of Brounbrae,

Walter Scot of Eadniehead,

Alexander Weymes, portoner of Ballow,

Alexander Nairne of St Foord,

A. Bruce of Earlishall,

Robert Lentron of Kincaple,

Philip Hamilton of Kilbracmonth,

James Martine of Clearmonth,

A. Balfour of Northbank,

John Bethune of Craigfudie,

William Jack of Possil,

James Scott of Dron,

John Pattullo of Balhoussie,

John Wemys of Lathockar,

Alexander Nairne of Friertoun,

D. Boiswell of Dovan,

W. Imrie of Flass,
T. Nairne of Craigtoune,

James Robertsone, portioner of Grange,

James Linsay of Balkirst,

P. Anstruther of Anstruther,

James Robertsone of Newbiging,

Robert Anstruther of Balcaske,

Alexander Aytoune of Inchdarnie,

John Leslie of Eastquarter,

John Watson of Dunekeir,

J Beatsone of Kilrie,

J. Alexander of Skeddoway,

James Betsone of Glesmonth,

Patrick Murray of Pittloche,

John Skene of Hallyards,

P. Greig of Ballingrie,

William Aytown Douglas of Kinglesy,

W. Arnott of Achmur,

Robert Douglas of Strahenry,

Arnott of Arnott, Archibald, portinor of Drumard,

Robert Bogie of Lennestoun,

William Dudingstone of St Foord,

James Archibald, portioner of Balbrikie,

John Carstairs of Kinneucher,

Col. Arthur of Ballon,

Henry Stephenson of Ballmoolde,

Alexander Monniepennie of Pitmillie,

William Lyell, portioner of Kingsbarns,

Robert Ged (the younger) of Baldrig,

William Wemyss of Cuttlehill,

John Aytoune of Kinnaldy,

Henry Wardlaw, portioner of Luskar,

Andreas Smith (the younger) of Food,

John Morres of Coldensbeath,

James Stenhouse of South Food,

John Stevenson of Stevenson Bath,

Andrew Smith of Food,

William Halkerstone of Halkerstons Beat,

John Dewar of Beath,

Laurence Walls of Mosyde,

J. Balfour of Baith,

Hendrie Belfrag of Coltstown,

Thomas Mwdie of Lassoddie,

David Douglas of Gellits,

John Aitken of Thorntoune Milln,

James Halkett of Pitfirren,

David Black of Cocklaw,

James Moutray of Rescobie,

David Aitken of Windag,

Michaell Balfour of Forrett,

J. Balcanquall of that ilk,

W. Aitoun, younger, of Aitoun,

J. Colqwhown of Corstowne,

William Schaw of Gospertie,

George Lundy of Drum,

G. Birrell, portioner of Kineskwood,

Mungo Law of Pitlouk,

William Arnot, portioner of Kinaskwood,

John Arnot of Chapell,

James Hoy Leslills of Riggs, 

Thomas Craige of Lamonths Law,

D. Balfour of Kinloch.

Comment: Three hundred and twenty one years later the content of this petition still holds relevance today.

I was asked recently why I wished to live in a Scotland independent of Westminster governance. My answer: Because I am a Scot.!!!  That’s it, folks, my heart dictates my actions.