Cameron’s “moderate rebels” – Saudi supplied Wahhabi jihadists – have this past 48 hours been bombing civilian areas of Aleppo with yellow phosphorus. The BBC, which went to such extraordinary lengths to fake reports of chemical attacks by Assad, has not reported these genuine chemical attacks at all. Probably because it is too difficult to explain not just why Cameron’s allies are using chemical weapons – and who gave them the chemical weapons – but also why these “friendly” jihadists are attacking Cameron’s other allies, the Kurds, all during a ceasefire.

This video of Robert Stuart is a must see. Let me pin my colours to the mast and say that I am absolutely convinced that the BBC did deliberately and knowingly fake evidence of chemical attacks.

The most egregious BBC propaganda this year has been about the “starvation” of the town of Madaya. The BBC seem to have taken the most glaring example down from YouTube so I can’t embed it. But here on the BBC’s own website you can see the report which claims the Syrian government are deliberately starving civilians in the siege of Madaya. There then appear a string of genuinely heart-rending clips of starving children. The only problem is that none of that footage was shot in Madaya at all, and if you listen very, very carefully you will be able to work out the BBC does not directly affirm that it was. Then we have real comedy at 1 min 30s in, when genuine citizens of Madaya appear to verify their starvation in the shape of four women who are – there is no kind way of saying this – distinctly fat. If double chins are a proof of starvation, then things must be pretty bad.

It is clever propaganda because careful analysis of the text reveals a story very different to the overall picture being deliberately portrayed. Just after the women appear, the reporter slips in that the hardship is caused by hoarding by rebels – i.e. it is actually David Cameron’s moderate forces, not the government, who are causing suffering to the civilians. But you would have to be following very closely and analysing very carefully to pick up on that.

The BBC really has become one of the more outrageous vehicles of government propaganda on the international scene.

There has never been such a fascinating US Presidential race, both I a good way and in a bad way. I would never have believed somebody as genuine and bright as Bernie Sanders could get this close to becoming President. I would never have believed something as florid and off the wall as Donald Trump could become this close to becoming President.

One of the things that makes both Trump and Sanders so entirely different from the mainstream US political class is that neither of them genuflects to Tel Aviv and both of them take the idea that Palestinians have rights too. In fact the only chance of Israeli dominance of US foreign policy appears to rest with Hillary Clinton. She may be Goldman Sachs’ dog in this fight, but she is also Tel Aviv’s.

Unfortunately, despite continuing wins and trouncing Clinton in debate, it seems most unlikely Sanders will get the nomination. Clinton control of party machinery and firm position with those who have made an extremely fat living for themselves personally out of identity politics (sorry heroes of the civil rights movement), should ensure that. Can I commend you to read The Catholic Orangemen of Togo to see how just one ride in a car with Jesse Jackson put me right off him.

It is extraordinary that, with Trump riding a wave of anti-Establishment populism that is undoubtedly a global political phenomenon, the establishment should choose to put up against him the most corrupt, compromised and untrustworthy figure available (except for Henry Kissinger. But don’t worry, he is in there advising her). Hillary is the unacceptable face of unacceptable faces. Her insincerity shines through every word, every gesture, every breath.

With Trump we are left with the hope that he does not actually mean what he says; that his right wing populism and blustering persona is just a brilliant act to get elected. With Hillary we have the stone cold certainty that she does not mean a word she says, that she is triangulating to the left to counter Bernie, and that she has no interest at all except furthering the interests of banks and big corporations.

If I were absolutely forced, under pain of death, to have dinner with either Trump or Clinton, I would choose Trump. Wouldn’t you? Presuming suicide is not an option?

Today is International Women’s Day. It is good to be called to focus on how much remains to be done in achieving equality worldwide on equal pay, equality of opportunity, female education and women’s health issues. The lack of freedom of choice for women in very many societies worldwide remains a major challenge. It is interesting that, despite the lip service paid by the West to the issue, in practice its foreign policy shows that it does not put any genuine weight at all on the issue. The western powers’ closest allies are regimes which are among the worst abusers of women.

On a lighter note, it is also rather charming that International Women’s Day, designed by Communists as a rather heavy handed propaganda vehicle, morphed through the actions and desires of ordinary human beings into a celebration of romance. Throughout the Eastern Bloc, International Women’s Day became indistinguishable from the Western practices of Valentine’s Day, only with the gifts and flowers and dining taken to even higher levels of corniness. Restaurants throughout the UK will be busy today as couples involving at least one partner from our brilliant new large Eastern European population go out to celebrate. Including us.

Valentine’s Day, incidentally, is banned in Uzbekistan by the nutty President Karimov who views it as another example of “Western decadence”. The ban is actually enforced by Uzbekistan’s all pervasive police state. To take people’s mind off it, 14 February has been declared (entirely fictitiously) to be the birthday of the Emperor Babur and a national day of celebration. Only don’t celebrate by buying flowers or taking your partner out to dinner…

For a smooth transition to Scottish independence, it is essential to negate the hostility of Spain which could derail acceptance by the EU. My two decades of experience in diplomatic negotiations teaches me that the answer to this is finding a ladder for Spain to climb down; some Spanish steps, in fact.

Scotland has to be accepted in the EU, and Spain has to secure a victory in a recognition that this is in no way a precedent for Catalonia. In every diplomatic agreement everybody has to sacrifice something, and I am afraid what Scotland has to sacrifice here is the principle of solidarity with our Catalan friends.

In the event of a Brexit, France and Germany, assisted by the EU Commission, will immediately open channels to Holyrood in order positively to encourage Scotland to go independent and remain within the EU. As part of any agreement, the principle can be enumerated that there is a right for a “region” (sorry, we will have to swallow that transitory description to win the Spanish) to secede and form a new state, in order to remain within the EU when a state in which that region is incorporated is leaving the EU.

Spain will be able to accept this formulation as it sets no precedent for Catalonia, given that Spain is not exiting the EU.

It remains my strong opinion that, in the event of a Brexit, things will move very swiftly to UDI for Scotland. There will be no requirement for a second referendum as Nationalists will have won overwhelmingly in both Westminster and Holyrood elections within a year. As I repeatedly explain, the sole test of a state’s independence is recognition by the UN (and there is no security council veto). With EU support Scotland should be able to achieve international recognition extremely quickly; the UK, thanks to Blair, Brown and Cameron, is very unpopular with the large majority of member states.

At 8.30pm tonight I am going to have a streamed live chat with Independence Live, on various subjects including of course Scottish Independence. It is interesting because they are setting it up using Blab, a programme which enables you to appear and join in the conversation. This is experimental for me. I believe that you may need a twitter account to sign in to blab and join in, but that you should be able just to watch on the Independence Live website without signing in. I am investigating if it will be possible to stream it on this site as well.

If we like the technology, I might use it to host a series of chats on this site, where I sit down with a whisky in hand and ruminate, and you can pop up and join in.

Join the Blab!
This is a livestream, Blab interview. If you would like to jump on and join the panel then follow the link below. You will need your Twitter login details to join panel, or you can just observe. https://blab.im/independence-live-craig-murray-interview

It is nine years since I published in Murder in Samarkand that the security services can listen to you through your mobile telephone, even when it is apparently switched off. You could only prevent this by removing the battery. Shortly thereafter many mobile phone manufacturers started producing sealed phones from which you could not easily remove the battery. That was not especially a result of my publication. But I know for certain that the western security services had cooperated with the mobile phone companies in securing the software backdoor which enabled them to switch on the microphone when the phone appeared to be off. I am therefore inclined to believe the development of phones where it was hard to take the battery out was also encouraged by the security services.

Knowledge of the remote switch on was disseminated more widely after I met Richard Stallman, a hero of mine, and was able to tell him about it. He publicised it to the tech-savvy community. Eventually Edward Snowden released precisely the same information, and the mainstream media finally started reporting it, seven years after I first published it. Now, the security services themselves have admitted to having this capability, rather to the horror of extreme right wing commentators.

I learnt that the security services can bug you through your mobile phone, even if it appears to you switched off, in the course of my official duties. I was among those allowed to know, and could tell it with 100% certainty.

I have now been told something new for which I cannot give a 100% guarantee of truth, though I have no reason to doubt the good faith of the person who gave me the information, and I can say for sure they would have the access to know this officially. I am told by a good source that the security services can now activate the microphone, even if the battery has been removed and there is no power source in the phone.

To a non-technological person like me, that sounds impossible. How do you remotely power something? If it is true, will I not need a cable for my television one day? I find the notion fascinating. I have taken on board that removing the battery may not be enough, but would welcome thoughts on the plausibility of this information.

I have not heard anybody, anywhere, argue in public or on the media the case for Scottish Independence for six months (except for me). I have not heard any elected representative of the SNP argue the case for Independence for… well since Autumn 2014.

It is not surprising the increase in the polls of support for Independence has stalled, as nobody is putting the argument. The trouble with leaving the matter aside until support becomes overwhelming, is that if you leave the matter aside support never will become overwhelming.

I am therefore considering standing as an Independent in the Scottish parliamentary elections, purely to put the full-on case for Independence. There are plenty of other people who can argue about the minutiae of the glorified council at the bottom of Holyrood Road. The SNP has explicitly stated it wants the votes of unionists as well as nationalists in this election. I don’t.

I want to give people who want to express their desire immediately to be shot of the corrupt and warmongering British state, a chance to say so unequivocally at the ballot box once again.

This is a question of principle. It is not undertaken with any expectation of being elected. I would stand in North East Scotland on the regional list ballot. The question is, were I to do this, are there people out there who would help me?

Oxfam recently published that 62 people own as much as half the populationof the entire world. The entire pitch of the Clinton campaign is that this is absolutely fine, provided half of them are black and the appropriate proportions from ethnic minorities.

Identity politics have become well and truly established as the antidote to demands for social progress and for an end to the massive growth in wealth inequality. This is essentially an American development, although the idea that the purpose of feminism is for Emma Watson to get $12 million a film has caught on with at least some British people, and is the whole basis of the political stance of the modern all-American Guardian.

Hillary summed up the psychological trick of the faux egalitarianism in a simple sentence:
“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow … will that end racism? Will that end sexism? Will that end discrimination against the LGBT community?”. It is brilliant rhetoric, a masterpiece of sophistry. Of course breaking up the banks will not directly end these other evils. But neither would ending those things end the appalling level of wealth inequality. It comes directly back to my opening question of whether multi-billionaires are OK as long as they are appropriately representative of black, female and LGBT.

The truth of the matter is that almost everybody who campaigns against wealth inequality is also strongly against racial, gender, religious and sexual inequality. But many of those who focus on identity politics not only have no concern for general equality, but are primarily concerned with the ability of themselves and those like them to propel themselves into the ranks of the elite.

One of the worst atrocities of the British Empire occurred well within my own lifetime – the removal of an entire people, the Chagossians, from their homeland. Uprooted and deposited across the seas hundreds of miles away, many died from the physical and psychological effects of this crime against humanity. The thing is, it is still happening. The survivors have clung together as a community, and the British government are still actively preventing their return to their homeland – all to make way for an American military base on Diego Garcia. There is no reason other than simple Imperialism for America to maintain a military base in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

Probably the most breathtaking piece of hypocrisy in modern history was when New Labour proudly announced that they had demarcated the waters around the Chagos Islands as the world’s first total marine conservation area – purely so they could make it impossible for the fishing based island community ever to return.

It is of course another example of the unparalleled talent for hypocrisy of the British state that the same politicians who declare their willingness to fight and die for the right of self-determination of the Falkland Islanders, will defend the deportation of the Chagos Islanders and their continued exclusion from their own islands. Again I would stress that Labour have been at least as guilty as Tories. The entire British state is complicit in this atrocity.

I would urge everybody who reads this immediately to use this link to send a message to your MP. I should welcome feedback through the comments section on any responses received.