Scottish Independence and the UK State

[AhabsOtherLeg]

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Thought I'd do a quick news round-up of funny/worrying things that have transpired over the past few weeks, and review the state of play as far as recent polling goes.

First off, Ed Miliband laid out his positive case for the Union by telling us we won't be British anymore if we vote Yes in the referendum. Obviously not a student of history or geography, Ed also unwisely broached the untouchable subject that the British ruling classes fear most - English nationalism.

Scots will not be British if they vote for independence, says Miliband

Labour leader in challenge to Scottish Nationalists over consequences of ending political union


Scots will no longer be British if their country votes to leave the United Kingdom, Labour leader Ed Miliband has warned in a keynote speech on national identity.

Miliband insisted that leaving the union would mean that Scottish people would lose their British identity – challenging the argument put forward by the Scottish Nationalists, who have insisted that Scottish people would continue to be British in a geographical sense.

Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National party, has drawn a parallel with the way Swedish or Norwegian people can also consider themselves Scandinavian.

Miliband chose to make his speech between the Queen's diamond jubilee celebrations and the opening of Euro 2012, calling for more debate and pride in being English as part of the multiple national identities that British people can have.

The speech was scheduled to chime with a summer of celebrations in which people around the UK are celebrating under different national flags: the union flag for the jubilee, the Olympics and the Paralympics, and the cross of Saint George for Euro 2012.

It was also a direct challenge to the campaign for Scottish independence led by Salmond, which is gathering momentum north of the border.

Miliband struck at the emotional heart of the debate in telling a questioner: "People can be Scottish and British, it's OK. And if they feel primarily Scottish that's fine too. But if they leave the UK they won't be British any more: it stands to reason."

Damn, I was thinking of going to Spain this year, but if I do I won't be British anymore.

Speaking to an audience at the Royal Festival Hall in London, Miliband said: "While there is romanticism on the left about Welsh identity [and] Scottish identity, English identity has tended to be a closed book of late. People have been nervous that it would undermine the UK, but also because it connected to a nationalism that left people ill at ease."

It leaves the Labour Party ill at ease. Everyone else is fine with it. It's British nationalism that presents real problems in this country - and the funny thing is that Ed Miliband doesn't even realise he's a British nationalist, though he obviously believes that Britishness is the natural state of mankind, that it has primacy (and a certain innate superiority) over the other national identities on these islands.

Obviously he's not a British nationalist in the Nick Griffin sense, but he is one none the less. And he's an idiot as well.

His speech was echoed by senior figures in the Scottish Labour Party, because that's what the Scottish Labour Party does - repeats whatever head office in London and Solihull has decided. There is no party registered with the Electoral Commision under the name Scottish Labour. They are merely a brand, a branch-office of the British party, and the British party is a London party. People are wise to that now.

The No campaign has launched under the leadership of former Chancellor Alastair Darling, stealing a slogan ("Better Together") from the Scottish NHS, and it's song and iconography - weirdly enough - from the Yes campaign. The two songs are near-dentical, and at no point in the No campaign's launch advert did the Union flag or a non-Scottish person appear. It was all Saltires and mountains, like a bad SNP advert, but with added negativity and no rational arguments.

They've been handing out leaflets at train stations saying that an independent Scotland wouldn't have been able to bail out RBS and HBOS on it's own. This is disinfo and they know it. The banks were bailed out by the places they did business in, not by they places they were headquartered - hence the US pouring so much into the RBS bailout, and Fortis being bailed out by the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg despite belonging solely to an independent Belgium. No one ever expected them to be honest though, I suppose.

This is one of the No campaign's official launch videos:



I'm pretty much convinced now that the Tories (who are the main revealed funders of the Labour-led campaign so far) want rid of us. How else do you explain that?

The polls aren't looking too good for my side at the moment, though. 35% in favour of independence, 55% against, 10% undecided, according to the most recent survey. However, the Yeses are two percent up from where they were when the No campaign launched - suggesting that the No campaign is already having the opposite effect to what it's (nominally) supposed to do. If the Yeses keep going up at that rate there's no problem.

In the last referendum on Quebec the Nos started off at a solid 67%, and yet it came down to a near 50/50 split on the day. If the same change happens here, and we can bring over the undecided 10%, there is a real chance.

It helps that David Cameron chose the same day as the launch of the No campaign to announce the biggest welfare cuts and benefits restructuring since... well, since a very long time. No more Housing Benefit to under 25s, no more child benefit after the third child (I'm undecided on if that's actually a bad idea or not - but it sets a bad precedent), no more Incapacity benefit, in fact the strategy is to have no such thing as ill or disabled people anymore at all from what I can tell. Atos will heal them. A4E will train them. G4S and Close Protection UK will employ them. Take up thy bed and work in the Pound Shop (for nothing) shall be the Telegraph's cry. The BBC will talk of "savings" - never of cuts. Osborne wants to bring in regionalised pay and benefits, whereby people in poorer areas recieve less than those in wealthy areas, effectively entrenching the divide between north and south.

The UK will be a (publically funded) private state, where by far the biggest slice of welfare spending goes to corporate bodies headed by known criminals like Molly Prince and Emma Harrison. Plenty of people will say "no thanks" to all of that, and start to see the clear arguments for independence, as the long-term aims of The Atlantic Bridge become ever more apparent over the next two years.

I wish none of this was happening though, even if it might technically help out the Yes campaign. It's not fair on anybody.

[Stephen Morgan]

Salmond's gang have started talking up NATO membership, too. Getting ready for independence. The No Campaign playing a role. Reminds me of "Programmed to Kill", where one of the "serial killers" was up on a robbery charge and his lawyer defended him by trying to prove him guilty of thirteen murders.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Salmond's gang have started talking up NATO membership, too. Getting ready for independence.

Well, yeah, kind of. This bothers me a lot, I must admit. The idea that NATO membership has become a massive disruptive infight within the party or it's main support is a bit overstated though (like all divisions within the SNP and it's support will be overstated over the next few years).

One of my favourite bloggers, Moridura (he happens to be a science fiction writer too, like Oor Jeff) has this to say:

The Party has succeeded, more or less, to defuse certain issues – the monarchy, the currency, social union issues, border issues, EU and UN membership – by a series of small but significant shifts.

On the nuclear issue and on NATO, I believe they are risking alienating a segment of their core support, but appear willing to do so on the realpolitik calculation that those in favour of a nuclear-free Scotland can only have it delivered by independence and the SNP, so have nowhere else to go. They are only partly right on that, in my view.

...I profoundly distrust the people at the head of NATO, their values, their world view, and their judgement. I distrust NATO because, regardless of the policies and the nuclear status of its members, NATO is committed to nuclear weapons, the concept of nuclear deterrence, and the retention of WMDs – Trident - as key strategic weapons.

I reject the argument that says that since a country like Norway can be a member and still maintain a non-nuclear defence and foreign policy stance domestically while retaining its NATO membership, so can Scotland. I think Norway are wrong in this judgment, and that they should not be a member. I think NATO polarises the world into the old East/West cold war mentality, that its current role is ill-defined and ill-thought out, and that any country that remains a member increases the likelihood of nuclear conflict and reduces the chances of nuclear disarmament. I think that most of the members of NATO are in effect pawns of US, UK, French and German foreign policy, and when the chips are down, of US foreign policy.
http://moridura.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/ ... tever.html

I agree with all of that, and the rest of his extremely long blog post too.

Of course (when I think rationally) the most obvious explanation for the SNP's runaway success right now - given that they were monitored by MI5 since their inception, and their meetings were infiltrated too, particularly those of the later 79 Group, and that the Scottish Parliament was specifically designed to keep them out of power - is that they must now surely be as controlled and subverted as every other party in the UK (it's clear Labour were taken over and turned from their proper path quite early on, and the unions too... I don't think they really had to try very hard with the Tories , and the Lib Dems as you've said are the political product of a foreign intelligence service which works hand in glove with our own).

The obvious, glaring possibility is that the whole thing, the Scottish independence drive now occurring, is engineered from above - a sort of colour revolution on behalf of the oil companies who resent George Osborne's recent tax hikes on the industry, or a pre-ordained annulment of the UK put into action by other actors for other reasons.

In the 70s, because of the Yom Kippur war, the US had to "secure it's non-Middle Eastern oil reserves in ways that it had never had to do before." Hence Richard Funkhouser's appearance on the scene as Consul General to Edinburgh. In the 2010s we have similar circumstances - singnificant tensions with Iran, the growing prospect of an all-out war in the region, resulting in a blockade (at the very least) on the strait of Hormuz. Also we have ongoing conflicts in Iran's neighbouring nations which likewise reduce supply. I can see the angles which are potentially at play in all this. North Sea Oil (whether Scottish, English, Norwegian) always accquires greater strategic significance whenever oil from the east looks likely to be choked off by some mad fucker, be he American, Israeli, Arab, or none of the above.

Of course, if the Scottish independence drive was an engineered event, then the most obvious candidate to be the controlled-opposition leader amongst the SNP would be Alex Salmond himself.

A graduate of St. Andrews (the Eton of the North, though he's a stolidly lower-middle-class lad himself - but so is Michael Gove!), an RBS energy economist and banker, and a one-time-only-pseudo-Marxist agitator, who then becomes the leader of a minority party (driving out many of the old independence fundamentalists along the way) before that party adopts centrist economic policies and surges to an unprecedented (and officially impossible) level of popularity in the relatively newly-created Parliament? Yeah, I can see the angles. And we have to remember that these people play the long game. A low-tax (especially corporation tax) Scotland, still in NATO, still nuclear, still a monarchy, still beholden to the US - I can see all this. The currency and the seat on the monetary policy board of the bank of England are non-issues whatever you might be hearing in the press - I can explain why if needed - but I do have to worry about being taken for a ride. We all do, all the time.

I don't believe that's what's happening, btw, but I've thought about it. I'm not going into the whole thing blind.

Anyway, it would change nothing as far as a Yes vote goes, for me. An independent Scotland would at least have the potential to become a non-nuclear, non-NATO, non-predatory state, even if it's birth - like that of all nation-states - was "half-compromised, and half-improvised". The UK can't become any of those things, and has shown no intention to try. It just is what it is.

Reminds me of "Programmed to Kill", where one of the "serial killers" was up on a robbery charge and his lawyer defended him by trying to prove him guilty of thirteen murders.

Charles Ng? I reckon he probably was guilty. Seen some of the recovered video from Wisleyville. It's appalling. Could be faked, and his face never appears in the frame as I recall, but of course there's always that possibility of video-fakery. Glad I wasn't on the jury anyway, because I wouldn;t want to make any kind of real judgement on the flimsy grounds I just have here. Hope I never am on any jury. Thanks for recommending Programmed To Kill to me, though, a long time back. It is painful but essential reading, even if MacGowan often equates corellation with causation.

Post is too long again... If we have any Scottish readers other than Mac and me, who are perhaps in favour of further devolved powers for the Scottish Parliament but not convinced of the case for full independence yet, there was an interesting little bit in the Guardian recently, from the pen of the openly-biased unionist... what in the UK press is often called a "Scotland Correspondent"... Severin Carrell. It is worth bearing in mind.

....according to well-placed figures in the Labour party and the coalition government in Whitehall... if Salmond loses the referendum, they expect to use that defeat to force his resignation as leader of the Scottish National Party and then oust the SNP from power at the next Holyrood elections in 2016. "It's all about beating Salmond. He can't have any gain from this," said one Whitehall source. The referendum "must be an end to independence; knock it on the head once and for all".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... dependence

Holyrood will not gain further powers if there is a No vote, be assured of that, whatever you might be promised over the next two years. Quite the reverse. The Parliament stands a high chance of being stripped of it's powers entirely. We have been here before.

[Stephen Morgan]

Of course NATO members are required by Charter to have the own Gladio groups.

[vanlose kid]

Ohoy, was looking for something else entirely but found these and the site: Bella Caledonia, good writers and all. thought you might like 'em.

Scotch Myths
October 24, 2011



MYTH #1: SCOTLAND WOULD LOSE ITS INFLUENCE UNDER INDEPENDENCE

This myth is about telling Scots that as an independent nation, we would become non-entities on the global stage. No one would care what we think, and our concerns would be brushed to the side as the Big Boys took control. We would just have to shut up and take it. There are two major problems with the supposed truth of this myth: 1. we already hold no influence and 2. it is not influence that these people seek, but unearned authority.

I’ll take the second point first, because I don’t like following convention. What influence is it that these people talk of? They are, of course, referring to military action, which is made abundantly clear by Moore’s demands that the SNP must explain what an independent Scotland’s defence force would look like, as well as the particularly telling line:

“Scotland deserves to know whether it is going to be part of making the world more secure or simply watching from the sidelines in the future.”

Moore is not interested in “influencing” other countries. When I “influence” someone, I do it through dialogue. I express my take on the situation and try to get the other person round to my way of thinking. That is influence, but it is not what Moore and his ilk want. They wish to “influence” people in the same manner that an armed police officer “influences” you to stand still and hold your hands up (hopefully nowhere near an London underground station turnstile…) It is not influence through discourse; it is compulsion through force.

Unionists like Moore continue to think as if the British Empire still existed. They think that Britain can - and should – tell other countries what to do, and that they have the moral authority to know what is best for everyone (which just so happens to also be best for them – funny that). They know that an independent Scotland would not have the capacity – nor, more importantly, the desire – to boss other nations around and compel them to see the world as unionists do. Rather than being a problem, this is actually one of the refreshing changes that independence would bring.

Secondly, we already hold no influence in the world. How could we? Unionists such as Ruth Davidson tell us that we have influence as part of the “great nation” that is the United Kingdom. But this would only work if the UK’s foreign policy was shaped by Scottish interests. Scotland has no desire to wage war on other countries – we’ll leave the macho appendage-waving contests to other, more primitive-minded nations such as the UK and USA. Unionists of a more pacifist mindset say it is precisely because Scotland doesn’t want to indulge in warmongering that we must remain in the union – as a calming influence. But it’s clear that we don’t hold any sway with the UK government, whose only interest is in keeping up the appearance that the UK is one of the big players on the global stage. If we don’t have any influence within the UK, how on earth could have have any on the global stage?

Saying that Scotland would have no influence on the world implies that small countries have no influence. Perhaps this is true – on their own. But in the 21st century, there is no place for rogue states unilaterally deciding what is best for the rest of the world. Consensus must be built among groups of nations, and Scotland must be allowed to build that consensus with nations that it does not necessarily share borders with; countries that share our ideals rather than our head of state; countries that have no interest in ignoring the UN and making up stories to allow them to remove dictators who no longer do what they are told to do.

As Salmond’s spokesman says in the BBC article, the contribution of smaller countries such as Norway, Denmark and Sweden shows up the lie that smaller countries cannot make a contribution to military action when there is a international consensus. What they can’t do is wage war on other countries by themselves. The idea that this is a bad thing is one of the biggest myths of all, an attitude more suited to the 19th century, much like the union itself.

Scotland’s biggest influence on the world has been through our thinkers. As an independent nation, one which puts education at the forefront of its national values, we can strive towards a second Scottish Enlightenment. That is far more important than having nuclear submarines parked in the Clyde. An independent Scotland would not lose its influence on the world – instead, we would finally rediscover our voice.

*



MYTH #2: Scotland needs to be part of the massive UK economy.

My next myth is about the economy, or more correctly, the size of the economy. Unionists often like to point out that the UK is the 6th biggest economy in the world, telling us that an independent Scotland wouldn’t come anywhere close. The implied point here is that Scotland will be a poorer nation as a result. Well, I’ll be honest, there’s no disupting the fact that the UK is the 6th biggest economy in the world, and that Scotland wouldn’t come close to that. They’ve got us bang to rights. Except that this little myth is based on an entirely false premise because, as Italians will tell you, size doesn’t matter. (Please note: the following uses the IMF’s figures for GDP in 2010.)
It’s true that the UK is the 6th biggest economy in the world. However, it’s also true that China is the 2nd biggest, Brazil the 7th, and India the 9th. I mention these three countries because despite having huge economies, they all have massive levels of poverty. A quick look at the top 15 economies in the world and one thing should stick out like a sore thumb: they’re all massive countries. Perhaps not in terms of landmass in some cases, but all have massive populations.
Look further down the list – Sweden at 22, Norway at 25, Denmark at 31, even Luxembourg at 69. Taking the unionist argument at face value, one could only assume that these countries have vastly inferior living standards to the vastly richer UK. But no one in their right mind would argue such a thing. So what’s wrong with this picture?
The answer, of course, is that the size of a country’s economy tells you almost nothing about that country’s real wealth. Instead, we need to focus on the GDP per Capita – how much a country produces per head. Looking at this table tells a very different story, one which makes far more sense. Look at where those three countries I mentioned stand – Brazil at 56, China at 91, India at a pitiful 133. These nations may have massive economies, but they also have massive populations to spread that wealth around, something which they fail to do adequately. Conversely, we have Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark and Sweden at 1, 2, 6 and 8 respectively. That’s more like it – everyone knows these countries have superior living standards. Of course, these countries have small populations, meaning they can’t possibly generate as much total GDP as the big countries – but it doesn’t matter, because proportionately they’re more wealthy per person.

So where is the UK in this list? It’s sitting at a nothing-to-write-home-about number 22 (wait a second, isn’t that Iceland at number 20? Ireland at 12? So much for Jim Murphy’s “Arc of Insolvency”.) This perhaps explains why unionists are so keen to focus on the overall size of the economy, rather than this more important measurement, as it is somewhat at odds with the idea that the UK is an extraordinary nation that Scotland is fortunate to be a part of. John Swinney has already said that an independent Scotland would be the 6th richest of the OECD countries, with the UK at 16, so it’s safe to assume that an independent Scotland would be higher than 22nd on the IMF GDP per Capita figures. That, to me, sounds like as good an argument as any for voting for independence.
So the next time a unionist tells you that the UK is the 6th biggest economy in the world and that Scotland couldn’t compete with that, try asking them how they compare to other nations in terms of GDP per capita. Alternatively, you could just point out that the next biggest economy after the UK is Italy. You’ll have fun seeing them trying to wriggle out of that one.

*



Myth #3: The majority of Scots want Devolution Max.

I know what you’re thinking – “all the opinion polls say it’s the most popular option” – but it isn’t; not really, anyway, and that’s why it’s a myth. Present people with two options out of the blue, and they’ll go for the one that is closest to the status quo. Present them with three, and they’ll go for the one in the middle. Staunch unionists vote to stay in the union, just as staunch nationalists vote for independence. Everyone else, who doesn’t think that strongly either way, plumps for the middle option. I’m deliberately calling it “the middle option” rather than “devo max”, because it isn’t devo max they’re voting for. How could it? We don’t know what it is yet. Perhaps we never will. But it sounds nice and cuddly, so that’s why people go for it – a bit of change, but not too much.

So is this me laying down my guns (well, laptop) already? No chance. Independence will win, because we have more passion than those who wish for the status quo, but also because there will be no third option on the referendum. We won’t know this for sure until later though, and this is the genius of the SNP’s campaign. Yes, they’re leaving the door open to people to get an intermediate option on the paper, but it’s also ensuring that the debate doesn’t get polarised too soon between independence versus the union. We would still win if this was the case, but it would be more difficult. However, the next few months (maybe a year or so?) will see civic Scotland debating not if we want change, but how much change we want. The idea of being responsible for both revenue and expenditure, and whatever else devo max will entail, will be planted in the minds of people, and as anyone who has watched Inception as many times as me knows, once that idea is planted in your head, it’s impossible to get out. Therefore, by the time devo max is ruled out of appearing on the referendum, people will be in the mood for change, and there will be only one option offering that – independence.

Now, this isn’t as Machiavellian as it sounds. I’m not saying the SNP are going to go “aha! We were lying all along about putting devo max on the paper!” But as has already been quite well established – and I’m amazed it isn’t pointed out more often – the SNP does not have the authority to deliver devo max. Devo max can only be delivered by the government in Westminster, so the Scottish Government can hold a referendum, get a vote for Devo Max, and then get told to “do one” by Westminster (in which case the SNP will win an even bigger majority in the 2016 election, hold a straight yes/no referendum quickly, and get a resounding “yes” vote, thus delaying independence by a mere two years). This is why the option can only be put on the referendum with the backing of one of the other three parties. But none of them are prepared to do so because they fear a) it is another step on the road to independence and b) Scottish MPs will have so little Scottish matters to vote on that they’ll have to go part-time to avoid the West Lothian question becoming unanswerable within the union. So instead they will ignore it completely, thinking it is the only way to save the union (as well as their jobs and future peerages), completely oblivious to the fact that the union is already dead – it’s just on a life support machine and nationalists, cruel beings that we are, just want to stop putting off the inevitable and pull the plug, for everyone’s sake.

This is even supposing a coherent vision of devo max comes out of the consultation process. Once people start debating what should and shouldn’t be handled by the Scottish Government, it’s going to be pretty difficult to think of anything that should be left at Westminster:

“Defence?”

“Yeah, but what about Trident? Whatever the result of the referendum, the removal of Trident from Scottish waters has to be one of the outcomes.”

“Pensions and benefits?”

“But look at what the Tory-Lib Dem coalition are doing to them, and Labour have just confirmed that they won’t reverse any of their changes. If there’s one thing we need to control, it’s our welfare system.”
“Foreign affairs?”
“Dunno like, Salmond and co have done a far better job of representing Scotland on the world stage than Cameron recently. What about the EU? Can we really afford to leave that in Tory hands?”
“But we can’t devolve that, it would require full independence to get control of that. Hmmm…. Actually, this is looking remarkably like full independence anyway…”

“What about the DVLA?”
(Cue collective *facepalm* from everyone round the negotiating table.)

So the polls that indicate devo max is the most popular choice do not really mean people want devo max – it just means they want some sort of change, they’re just not sure what yet. They know the status quo no longer works, but they’re not sure how to replace it and devo max sounds like a safe alternative. But we have a two and a half year campaign in front of us, a campaign that will finally banish the ridiculous myths being highlighted in Bella (and elsewhere), and with them, banishing the fear of the unknown. We’re already seeing it with unionists backtracking on so many things already (“You can’t have the pound!” “Yes we can.” “Well okay, we can’t actually stop you, but, but, but…”), and it’s only a week and a half since the apostrophe-deficient #itsstarting hashtag turned into the apostrophe-deficient #itsstarted hashtag. In 2014, the “unknown” will be the chances of the UK economy ever recovering, whereas the future under independence will look like a veritable sure thing, to the extent that people will quite literally bet their house on it.

And with this bet, everyone’s a winner.

*



Myths 4 – No Scottish Army
January 26, 2012

By Mike Small

One of the most humorous myths peddled about Scottish independence is that it could not, and should not have a competent military structure. This week Lord Richard Dannatt even suggested that we would struggle to have recruits because it would be too ‘boring’ serving in a Scottish regiment. Presumably he was thinking of the fun enjoyed by Baba Moussa at British Army hands , or the recent case of soldiers in Kabul? Perhaps he was thinking of the collusion in the murder of the human rights lawyer Patrick Finucane, or other exciting times in Ireland?

Whatever he was thinking of, it should be remembered that it’s not actually a prerequisite of a nation to be armed to the teeth. The stark geopolitical consequences of Scottish sovereignty are what motivates these myths and attacks.

The reality is that Scotland was exploited by the military during the Cold War and that situation remains. Cape Wrath is the only ship-to-shore bombardment range in Europe and since the United States Navy was forced to withdraw from a similar range in Puerto Rico in 2003, Cape Wrath can unwittingly claim to be the most important area for naval training in the world, or at least in the Northern Hemisphere. The range also contains the only place in Europe where aircraft can release live one thousand pound bombs. For a country as small as Scotland, it is staggering that it contains:

[list=] All of Britain’s nuclear weapons at Coulport and the strategic nuclear submarine fleet at Faslane

Britain’s biggest Tornado base at Lossiemouth

The largest and most frequently used low flying area in Britain in the north west Highlands

The only open air live depleted uranium weapons test range in Britain at Dundrennan
Britain’s atom bomb store at Coulport in Scotland. Sixteen massive bunkers have been gouged out of the ridge overlooking Loch Long. This building can store more than 100 atom bombs in underground vaults behind airlock doors.[/list]

Just over 50 miles west of the range at Dundrennan, is the QinetiQ owned bombing range and weapons facility at West Freugh in Luce Bay. Activities that take place at the range include a number of bombing activities and short-range weapons trials including the testing of cluster bombs. Cluster bombs are a major armament of the RAF’s Tornado GR4 attack aircraft, 64 of which are based at RAF Lossiemouth, on the east coast of Scotland, making Lossiemouth the largest Tornado base in the UK. Cluster Bombs are munitions that on explosion hurl hundreds of pieces of metal fragments and shrapnel in all directions. Civilian casualties and injuries are a common occurrence when they are used. On the 22 March 2003 at least 50 Iraqi civilians in Basra were killed as a result of an aerial bombardment that included the use of cluster bombs.

Speaking in the referendum debate in the Scottish Parliament First Minister Alex Salmond said: “It is inconceivable that an independent nation of 5.25 million people would tolerate the continued presence of weapons of mass destruction on its soil.” But it is worth remembering that it is not just about Trident, it is about the de-militarisation of Scottish society and the long decontamination that will be needed. This process is likely to be a cultural, psychological one as well as a technical and ecological one. It is about raising new generations of young people with higher aspirations than to join the British Army.

*



Myth No 5 – Back to the Union
June 11, 2012
By Doug Daniel

The Scottish Parliament recently had a debate on Scotland’s future, in which pro-independence MSPs put forward positive and well-reasoned arguments (well, maybe not so much in Kenny Gibson’s case) for independence, and unionists put forward the usual mix of misinformation, scaremongering, bombast about the size and power of the UK, and nonsense about “sharing the risks and rewards” (although Nicola Sturgeon was sure she heard Ruth Davidson say “risks and their wars”, which would have been far more accurate). However, none of these arguments were as ridiculous as the one put forward by Johann Lamont when she said the following words: “Had Scotland been a separate country right now, I believe we would be seriously looking at creating the type of union we currently enjoy”.

No, seriously, those words actually came out of her mouth. Unionists often accuse independence campaigners of using conjecture rather than facts, but rather than sit bemused by the audacity of such a hypocritical accusation, let’s have a look at a few…
First of all, the geography of the world is not static. At the turn of the 19th century, there were 20 independent countries. By 1900, this had more than doubled to 49. Over the next 100 years, that number exploded to 192, and the 21st century has so far seen independence for East Timor, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo and South Sudan, giving us the current tally of 196 countries. (Before you go picking me up on my adding skills – which are flawless – remember that Serbia and Montenegro’s independence led to the dissolution of one state into two, so 192 – 1 + 5 = 196!) Clearly, the world is on a continuous trend towards increasing numbers of smaller nations. You can guarantee that the number of nation states in the world will surpass 200 long before the end of this century, and Scotland is by far the most obvious would-be state to become number 197.

Secondly, this number always increases. That is, no country, once it gets its independence, decides a few years down the line “nah, this is rubbish – let’s go back.” The only exception to this rule that I can think of is East and West Germany, but obviously there were genuinely extenuating circumstances in this case. So East Germany apart, no country has given up its independence since the age of empires came to an end.

A third point – possibly the most important one of all – is that Scotland has never voted on its place in the UK. There was no vote in 1707, and there has not been one since. 2014 will be the first time Scots have had a chance to directly say whether or not they want any aspect of their lives ruled by London. On the two occasions where we have been asked if we would like a Scottish parliament, we have said “YES!”, although we were ignored the first time. Quite simply, Scots have NEVER voted to be ruled by Westminster, but we have a 100% record of saying “YES” to Scottish parliaments.

With all this in mind, it is utterly ridiculous for Johann Lamont to suggest that an independent Scotland would, given the chance, vote to form a union with England. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. This absurd notion is completely at odds with reality, because countries simply don’t vote to lose their independence, and it is totally against the way the world is progressing – it would, in fact, be a totally regressive step.

Think about it. For an independent Scotland to start a union with England, there would need to be a union movement. Now, there are plenty of independence movements throughout the world – Europe alone has many, including Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Britanny and Sandžak - but there are no movements (to my mind, at least) seeking to see their country annexed into a union with a larger neighbour. Indeed, the closest we get is Northern Ireland, but that’s about completing Ireland’s independence from the UK, rather than creating a new artificial union between two historically independent countries.

Even when a country gets into difficulties, no one ever thinks to try and rebuild old empires or unions. You won’t hear African nations asking to be recolonised; Iceland didn’t beg Denmark to take them back in 2008; and Ireland, despite recent difficulties, would not even dream of asking to rejoin the UK. Independence is priceless, and once a country gets it, there are no regrets. Lamont’s ludicrous idea should be treated with the utter contempt it deserves, and only serves to highlight the depths of imbecility we are going to be dealing with over the next two years. Scotland’s independence will come soon, and it will be permanent.

*

[vanlose kid]

ach man, you have to love this. read it out loud.

‘The Winter Coast’ by George Gunn
February 2, 2012

We don’t usually publish poetry on Bella but occasionally something comes into our hands which we can’t not publish. The Winter Coast is one such poem. In this beautiful, timely and epic work Caithness poet George Gunn reflects on a moment, a turning point, where the ground shifts beneath our very feet and everything becomes possible. In our opinion this is a major new work by one of Scotland’s finest poets. It’s a privilege to be able to publish it first here on Bella.




THE WINTER COAST

(for Kevin Williamson on Burns Night 2012)



Six weeks of gales have blown the tide

flat into the bay

a thin white line like shifting ice

separates the sand dunes from the sea

the wind has washed the last green essence

from the January parks

& thoughtful eyes look to the window

to search for blue sky to the West



now calm has collared the neck of the storm

& frost has petrified the fields to grey

the bay is full of sea-smoke

& Hoy is iced behind a cloud

hung & busy at forty five degrees

a thin ship of snow & sunlight

tacking East to Cantick Head



Hoy is an eyebrow hovering over a dream

the fulmars have returned briefly

each one an Atlantic watercolour

to reclaim the biting air

the nations settlement has changed

since late Summer when they left

it is as if millennia under ice

has forced the sedimentary rock

to bow its flagstone head

but now released from this glacial weight

Caithness rises up to meet the sunlight

& is rising still

free from the oppression of the tilting world

so unlike the determination of Nature

& as unending as her storms

arguments congregate on this Winter coast

like shipwrecked rats on emptied islands

they find house-room easily enough

but will not go



today I saw a squad of curlews

beaking their way across a field

where the Two Harolds fought

a rough battle of hacking broadswords

& severed limbs to settle

the blood feud of the Jarl



what can I do here

but look for imaginary lives

those in the past I see

rising up from a desk

after a day of labour

opening a door into another room

or ambling across some acres

to view a potato park progressing

beneath a Northern sky

a grey-blue Summer sky

these shades rise & fall

with the sea-clouds off Dunnet Head

my heart leaps



the countrys future is shaped by such

as these & many other

formless dreams which find their frame

upon the tongues of those who fish & croft

& refuse to weep

when both coast & Winter

conspire to wash flat

the markers of their lives



there are no longer any “fabulous raiders”

save for the Atlantic storms

who sweep their valkyrie of rain

down over Hoy onto our sandstone lap

no longboats other than tankers & trawlers

drive through this bi-polar fjord

Flotta burns its constitution of North Sea gas

these are the leavings of trades weather



an otter swims through the edges of the tide

on the sorn for sellags & partans

who works at poems like these

like that anymore

in the pay-as-you-go university

of getting on

& having done so

unlike the otter

are permanently gone



Winter peels the skin of Caithness

back to the flagstone bone

on Dunnet sands

the fossil roots of ancient pines

spread out & claw the ebbing tide

like upturned crabs

so close after the two miles deep

pelt of ice retreated

so resin rich & once young

they filled the air with Alpine scent

now they ring millennia

like a swans leg

all this information sinking

into the shell sand

did I swim once otter-like

through these vanished tree-glades?



All this life is woven solid

into the slate-shirt of the land

every footprint & handhold

is locked tight

beside the fossil-fish & the dog-wilks

in there is lodged writing

a worm trace across mud

in the bitumen inked paper of flag

captured in an epic of Devonian seabed



Time is calm but the age is rough

all is hurry panic rage

difference is made to manufacture fear

so the storm grows confident

& tries on the coat of permanence

likes the fit & feel of it

the palms of my hands grow cold



I walk the Winter coast

in search or runes & light

up in the dunes behind me

the marram grass bends back like eyelids

they blink a parabola of three miles

& by the faint light of these flickering runes

I see that nothing is carved

but the sand by the wind

that we are ruled by barbarians

that everything is mocked & denied

to those who cannot forget

by those who cannot remember



they say the Aurora will be out tonight

but we will not see it

not because we are not “North of Norway”

but because the Atlantic clouds sit

like the ghosts of ideas on weeping Morven

its late January & the green glimmer

of the Merry Dancers is inside us

beside Robert Burns & the aspirations

of an “independent people”

drilled out like a row of turnips

in a forgotten field

but Januarys book will close

& the Winter coast will thaw its cheek

in the sap-wind of the coming Spring

for the window is still there

& the eyes still look



look soon Bride will bring Imbolg

& through the dead month

the wolf-month of Faoilleach

she will wave her white wand

the bellies of ewes will swell

& ravens will build their nests

& the shivering cold will search for itself

skylarks will return to the rising house of their song

but enough

the ground is still hard

from the poverty of thought

no light will shine

or flame burn

without organisation

as there is beneath the sky

& beneath the sea

who will go to the door

& invoke the revolution of desire

who will build such a fire

who will test their finger against the cold

for poverty is cold

who will drink

who will eat

& who will capture youth

& is a nation young

when it is so obviously old

for here is the ground

& here the birch trees grow

& we will drink & eat

enough enough

there is never enough

they tell us

for everyone

I say

there is enough

more than enough

as I look across this land

this sea this sky

this coast where dreams fuse

into purpose & to love

& fly with the fulmars to their home

to build the daylight of the heart

& set our rights out

as being only what we give

& with everything to give

we should give it all

& think nothing think nothing think nothing

of the cost

there is no cost

only love



which is our purpose

take the road to light

to the pushing new grass of promise

I heard the fulmar say

as she flew from the Winter coast



(c) GEORGE GUNN

*

[semper occultus]

....if this fella actually pulls it off tomorrow then I've heard Salmond can basically have whatever he wants in return for handing him over to the LTA....

[vanlose kid]

....if this fella actually pulls it off tomorrow then I've heard Salmond can basically have whatever he wants in return for handing him over to the LTA....

that happened a while ago. and it fell through today.



Federer killed him while Cameron was looking on.

*

[Stephen Morgan]

Bwa haha.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

It was rumoured that Andy Murray was going to come out as the first major celebrity face for the No campaign. Alas, this was not to be...



Salmond was there on the day too, in the crowd, I hear he was sitting alongside David Cameron (worryingly enough) but the commentator Sue Barker still managed to announce that Sir Alex Ferguson was the First Minister of Scotland. Hahaha. Nice one.

Vanlose, I love Bella Caledonia and that is a great post, but being obsessed with all this I have been reading it for a few years now, as well as some other great blogs on the subject. My favourites are actually the unionist blogs though, they are consistently funnier, especially the Scottish Labour ones - I recommend Labour Hame for it's mixture of unconcealed butthurt, vile libellous bitterness, and serially misplaced triumphalism - but sometimes the independista writers throw out a great gem as well. Like this one. It's long, but seriously worth reading: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-wrong-lizards/

Early on in the No campaign it was mooted (to howls of laughter) that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown might join the anti-independence cause - and publically!

Ed Milliband still thinks this is a good idea, and says he wants them to take part as the faces of the Better Together movement, as of today. Nationalists remain stunned by their good fortune.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Forgot to post this - it seems we are getting gay marriage:

Gay marriage to be introduced in Scotland

Scotland could become the first part of the UK to introduce gay marriage after the SNP government announced plans to make the change.

Ministers confirmed they would bring forward a bill on the issue, indicating the earliest ceremonies could take place by the start of 2015.

Political leaders, equality organisations and some faith groups welcomed introducing same-sex marriage.

But it was strongly opposed by the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-18981287

This means gay marriage in churches, if the church in question chooses to allow it, not just civil partnerships which we have had for a long time now. It is a big step forward because up until the 2000s Scotland was lagging behind on this - homosexuality was only legalised here in 1981, then we had an embarassing kerfuffle in the nineties over whether it could be mentioned in high school sexual education classes (it really brought the medievalists out of the woodwork), and now we are forging ahead with having it fully equal in every way with straight marriage.

The objections of the Catholic Church, and one archbishop in particular, would be funny if they weren't so shameful, and so ready to use dead people's memories to advance their agenda:

Without prompting, Archbishop Tartaglia raised the issue of the death of Mr Cairns, saying: "If what I have heard is true about the relationship between physical and mental health of gay men, if it is true, then society has been very quiet about it.

"Recently in Scotland there was a gay Catholic MP who died at the age of 44 or so and nobody said anything and why his body should just shut down at that age, obviously he could have had a disease which would have killed anyone, but you seem to hear so many stories about this kind of thing.

"But society won't address it."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-18980379

The reason society hasn't addressed it is because the gay Catholic MP died of complications arising from acute pancreatitis. The archbishop thinks you get that from being gay.

Other religious bigots of the Wee Free variety have been carrying on in their usual fashion:

Scottish independence: Self rule would be a ‘provocation of God’ say Wee Frees

An independentScotland would weaken the position of the Christian Church and be a ‘provocation of God’, according to the Free Presbyterians.Rev Allan MacColl, spokesman for the Scottish Free Presbyterians, known as the ‘Wee Frees’ said religion and morality were in a “terrible” state across Britain.

He added: “But present constitutional arrangements guarantee Christian religion in its position at the heart of the nation, and defends the position of the church and the Bible clearly teaches that.

“It is the duty of all nations to recognise the position of Christ church and any move away from that would not only be dangerous for the church, it is dangerous for the people.”

Speaking of the Independence referendum, the Rev MacColl added: “We are very uneasy about any move to secularise, or even change the existing arrangements.”

He said the church could not tell people how to vote in a referendum on independence, but could warn them.

He added that independence would weaken the position of the Christian Church ‘at the heart of the nation’.

Rev McColl also said the Treaty of Union secured the Protestant religion and Presbyterian church and any change “would be a provocation of God”.

Education Minister Alasdair Allan said the SNP had no plans to alter the present role of the established church.

The Wee Frees are generally derided as the "Scottish Taliban". The joke used to be that they wanted to ban people from having sex standing up for fear it might lead to dancing.

In more worrying religious bigot news, both Labour and the Tories are now openly courting the Orange Order, and thereby legitimising it, bringing it into the mainstream political fold - for no other reason than that it is explicitly Unionist and can deliver them block votes against the SNP.



These may look like idiots, and of course they are, but they are dangerous too, and should not be casually flirted with just to win a few local council elections. This is a dangerous game for the Unionist parties to play, and they are not playing it very cleverly either.

Probably need a new post to talk about that, though, and it'll need to be another time.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Okay, how to describe the Orange Order (or Orange Lodge) to people who might not be familiar with it, or at least with it's modern Scottish and Northern Irish forms?

Bear in mind that I may show some bias in this description of it, because the Order occasionally marches under my window while singing about killing me and this has made me dislike the organisation (if not it's individual members) quite a bit.

So imagine, if you will, a three hundred year old Tea Party, with equivalently militaristic Oath Keeper and Minutemen fringes, but also with ties to active Loyalist terror groups and paramilitaries, which is full of increasingly old and bitter people who hold the most reactionary, bigotted, and backward views imaginable, but instead of hating "the Fed", "big government", socialists, liberals, gays, immigrants and anything even slightly progressive, these guys hate the Catholic Church, the Pope, Catholics, Catholic bastards, Papists, fucking Catholics, anyone Irish who isn't a die-hard British Loyalist, and socialists, liberals, gays, immigrants (especially if they came over from Ireland circa two hundred years ago) and anything even slightly progressive...

In a way the Tea Party is just the latest incarnation of the Nativist Know-Nothings in the US, and the aptly-named Know-Nothings (like the Ku Klux Klan) were originally founded by Orangemen, many of them Scottish.

Now imagine this particular group takes about 90% of it's organisational structure (and rituals) from Freemasonry, and regularly marches through the streets dressed in cod-Masonic regalia, singing songs about being "up to their knees in Fenian (Irish Catholic Nationalist) blood", while the police look on mildly and a large part of your community cheers from the sidelines.

Then imagine being a Catholic of Irish descent with Nationalist sympathies in this environment. It can get rather unpleasant, and many times it has.

The Orders' big festival is the 12th of July, when they celebrate the victory of the Protestant King William of Orange over the Catholic King James at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland (1690) a victory which secured the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland and led to the Act of Settlement 1701 in the UK, whereby a Catholic cannot legally take the throne. they like to overlook the fact that King William got a lot of the money for his military campaign from the Vatican.

One of the ways in which they enjoy celebrating the Glorious 12th (seen recently in NI) is by playing a song glorifying the Irish Potato Famine, which rather surprisingly goes to the tune of The Beach Boy's "Sloop John B." (original writer Johnny Cash/Trad arr.)

It goes a little something like this, deliberately playing on sensitivities over the ongoing Catholic Church abuse scandals.

"Now they raped and fondled their kids
That's what those perverts from the dark side did
And they swept it under the carpet
and Large John he hid,
Their evils seeds have been sown
Cause they're not of our own
Well the famine is over
Why don't you go home?

Why don't you go home?
Why don't you go home?
Now your famine is over
Why don't you go home?"

And so on. With a large group of drunk violent idiots singing this it soon becomes no joke.

One of the things they like to do is to stop and play this song in Catholic areas (especially outside Catholic churches) on the 12th, as can be seen here.



Why they are telling Irish people to "go home" when they are actually in Ireland is anyone's guess. No one ever said they were rational.

A leader of the Scottish Grand Lodge pledged in 2001 that the Order would "take up arms" and "become a paramilitary organisation" if Scottish independence is ever achieved, so it's safe to say they are also staunchly Unionist.

The reason I'm going into so much detail on how shit this bunch are is because the Labour Party openly pandered to them in order to win the council elections in Glasgow earlier this year, and it sticks in my craw:

Council chief: City's parade plan is flawed

Published on 9 May 2012

Gerry Braiden

THE leader of Scotland's largest local authority has told the Orange Order his city's policy on parades was "wrong" and that it will be overhauled now Labour is back in power, The Herald can reveal.

Gordon Matheson, leader of Glasgow City Council, was greeted with applause when he told a hustings of around 100 members of the Orange Order that he would "hold his hands up" and admit a groundbreaking approach to reducing marches in the city was flawed.

But last night the head of the organisation representing Scotland's rank-and-file police officers said it would be "perverse" to encourage further parades, while the Orange Order said it now expects Mr Matheson to deliver on his promise.

...
Robert McLean, executive officer of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland, said: "Mr Matheson admitted the policy was wrong and we're now hoping he will review the parades policy.

"We do not tell our members who to vote for but as a unionist organisation they should be supporting a unionist candidate."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/po ... d.17535913

After Labour's quite surprising victory in Glasgow (the Lodge may be dumb, but it votes as a block, and despite it's inbuilt Tory instincts they know there is no point in voting Tory here, so the Labour candidate became their obvious second choice) the Order were rewarded with public money to help them celebrate the Queen's Diamond Jubillee.

City funds Orange events

Published on 2 June 2012

Gerry Braiden

SCOTLAND'S largest council is funding Orange Order street parties to celebrate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, sparking demands the authority ensures the events are "inclusive" and claims that local communities have not been consulted.

A party centred on an Orange Hall in Pollokshields in Glasgow's south side and organised by the local lodge has received £1500 in public cash. Another based at an Orange Hall in Springburn has been given £890 of city council cash.

A total of £1500 was requested for a party on Monday organised by the Govan District 42 Orange Lodge. A decision will be taken next week by the council, after the party.

Thousands of pounds of road-closure costs have also been written off by the council's Labour leadership as a Jubilee gesture of goodwill.

However, one resident close to the Pollokshields Lodge said no-one in the community was consulted about the event. The resident, who asked not be named, said: "We've only found out because some businesses have heard the Orange Order members discussing it. Then we had flyers stuck to our doors.

"There is no-one I know in this street wanting this. Who is going to attend if it's not residents? It will be the friends of the people who run the Orange Hall. When I spoke with the council they told me they'd investigate after the event. That's not much use."

The news comes as it emerges changes to Glasgow's parades policy, promised by council leader Gordon Matheson, could see restrictions on music outside places of worship altered.

Pretty clear sops to the bigots here, allowing them to perform their tunes outside Catholic churches, in return for their support in the elections. Presumably Labour's Gordon Mattheson has fulfilled his pre-election promises to them now.

The Scottish Tories (who are at present to all intents and purposes in alliance with Labour) have been having similar thought processes about the Orange Order, but have been more open and upfront about it. This is from the embarassingly-named Tory Hoose, the Scots Tory blog with a readership of nearly 1 dozen people (including me).

The Orange Vote

Today being the 322nd anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne brings one to think of the Loyal Orange Institution of Scotland and its relationship with the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

It can be said that Orangemen and woman have contributed to Conservative and Unionist successes in the past – for example it could be argued that when seven out of fifteen seats were won in Glasgow in 1955, this was certainly down to the influence of the Order. Subsequently, with both the Order being marginalised in wider society (as well as the Party) it does not hold the position and influence it once had. Indeed when the Order recently expressed that it is ‘dismayed by the dismal failure of our national church, the Church of Scotland, to exert influential leadership in matters of faith and morality’ – a sentiment that a large number of bodies would agree with – the Church of Scotland merely dismissed the Order as being ‘out of date and out of touch’ without acknowledging the severe issues the Church faces or any credibility that the Order may hold. The concern here for the Conservatives is that for many in the Order, Labour has become the Unionist party of choice as it has more power in terms of votes cast to attempt to keep the SNP out and I dare say that the Anglo-Irish agreement still leaves another bitter taste from the 1980’s

It is true that many members and sympathisers of the Order still continue to support the Party, but should we do more to reach out? The Orange Order claims that it stands for ‘civil and religious freedom’ and for the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and I believe that this echoes core Conservative beliefs too. Given that Orangemen and women are members of a mainstream organisation and are found in a variety of churches in our country, perhaps this is another area where the Party can try and re-engage its ever declining core vote.
http://www.toryhoose.com/2012/07/the-orange-vote/

This was published on... the 12th of July. Stay classy, Conservative Party.

Anyway, I realise this is a minority-interest thread and that a small part of a person's heart necessarily dies when they read the phrase "Scottish local council elections", but I had to get it off my chest.

The tl;dr version would be that support for the Union is a valid political position held by many normal and good people (there are even good people in the Orange Lodge, just like there are probably good people in the Tea Party, and Labour, and even the Tories) but Unionists who actually go out of their way to proclaim their Unionism tend to be a bunch of wankers.

Obviously, though, I am biased in this regard.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Quite a fascinating insight here into the security and safety arrangements (or lack of them) at Faslane Naval Base. Since the 1980s there have been over 40 leaks of untreated radioactive waste into the loch, none of which were measured and most of which were never reported to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. The Ministry of Defence is well accustomed to treating the people of this country, and it's institutions, with utter contempt (this extends to the whole of the UK) but even I was surprised by the level of it shown in this clip.



Faslane is just under 30 miles from Scotland's most populous city.

Makes me wonder about the radioactive particles which have been turning up on the beach at Dalgety Bay. The MoD says the radioactivity comes from radium-painted WW2 aircraft navigation panels which were buried in the area after the war. I never believed that story, and I really don't believe it now. Let's face it, we've been an illegal waste dump for decades.* There are plenty of other examples, including the only live-fire range for depleted uranium shells in the UK being very deliberately sited here, but time is short.





Worryingly enough the Coalition now plan to privatize the security at Faslane. Who will get the job? Aegis? ArmorGroup? G4S maybe?


* I have been told (so take this strictly fwiw, as an anonymous internet guy talking about something he was told by another anonymous guy who I can't really say much about... in a pub) that the US is illegally dumping nuclear waste in Afghanistan in the very caves they once helped construct for their tame Mujahideen, having seized the opportunity of a lifetime to get rid of their huge and problematic waste stocks in an area where, let's be honest, the international community gives no fucks whatsoever about what happens to the people. I know not if't be true, but it would certainly be in keeping with the standard method of storing/dumping nuclear materials - ie. to do it in an area where there is little political opposition because the populace has no voice and is not informed of the actions being taken or the risks associated with them, cf. Trafigura and others' toxic dumping in Africa and around it's coasts.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Just dropping off some of my new propaganda videos. They bear a relation to the video in the OP, but are in my view much better editted, and have some updated information and film. Anyone who is interested in the cause of Scottish Independence and hasn't yet died of boredom as a result of the debate should watch them.

It's all broken up into shorter and more detailed sections now, the beginnings of each part might be familiar at first but it then goes into more detail:

OIL:


SPOOKS (the role of the UK security sevices):


NUKES (nuclear weapons in scotland, and how shite they are):