An Ambassador is evidently not as important as a Scottish First Minister, but there is one interesting similarity. You get to live in a palatial Residence at public expense, and you host numerous social events there, from intimate lunches to grand dinners to receptions for many hundred people. Indeed as a diplomat you do this throughout your career – as an Ambassador, Deputy High Commissioner, First Secretary and even Second Secretary I hosted many scores of such events in my home, and in every case was supported by office and domestic staff who worked under me, both British and local.
The strange thing is that, despite the fact I generally had extremely friendly relationships with those I managed, out of the dozens of women, many young, who assisted me over the years on such occasions, I am absolutely certain that every single one of them would have point blank refused had I asked them upstairs to my bedroom after the event. Some would have refused humorously, some would have told me to F*** Off, some might have suggested I was drunk. But not one would have conceivably said yes. Not office staff, not domestic staff. Not from any of the very different cultures concerned – British, Nigerian, Polish, Ghanaian, Uzbek. And if I had “instructed” any of them to lie down on the bed, the reaction of all of them would certainly have switched from humour to “F… Off”.
Which is as it should be.
The position of a senior British diplomat to a Ghanaian member of their domestic staff is possibly one of even greater power and authority compared to that of a Scottish First Minister to any Scottish government sector employee. Simple authority cannot compel compliance with such obviously unorthodox instruction.
I do however recall an occasion when I invited a young woman, not working for me in any sense, to my hotel bedroom after an event in Lodz, Poland. We both understood what an invitation to a bedroom that late at night meant, and as soon as we closed the door behind us I kissed her, passionately, which she welcomed. I did not ask her permission beforehand, indeed there was no prior verbal exchange at all about the possibility of a physical relationship developing. That is not in the least unusual in human relationships, and I despise the drive to make such matters coldly transactional. In that particular instance, for example, we remain friends 25 years on.
Not one of us would be able effectively to clear our names against allegations made years after the event, of an incident which allegedly occurred with no independent witnesses. As outsiders, we can only refer to our own experience to judge the likelihood of the tale which is told. For reasons explained in the first paragraph, I happen to have experience of the peculiar circumstance of hosting large public events in my own home with the assistance of public sector staff who worked for me. Few of you reading this will have analogous experience, as it is an unusual position to be in.
And I smell horseshit.
In my opinion Nicola is walking a tightrope here. She has no choice but to let this run it’s course, as a woman she must be seen to be neutral, as the leader of the SNP she is duty bound to protect the party, as First Minister she is limited in what she can say.
I have my own reasons for believing in Alex’s innocence in all of this and I only hope that he has a good legal team fighting his corner.
I would love to see a copy of the guidelines that govern the process.
Andrew
The Guidelines are here –
https://beta.gov.scot/publications/handling-of-harassment-complaints-involving-current-or-former-ministers/
Thanks Brian.
Having read the guidelines all I can say is this stinks of a stitch-up. I won’t elaborate as it might give the “tailors” a chance to make adjustments but a good lawyer should be able to see what I mean.
…and the Empire Strikes Back!
As it has with Assange, Sweden, Britain’s and the world’s most dangerous man!
As it has with poor J Corbyn. Crucified, according to Prof Finklestein.
Horseshit alright!
Two women? Leaked to the press when the accused hadn’t see the evidence? Feminist politician trying to censor the Internet? Does smell a bit like what was thrown at Assange…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/25/alex-salmond-accused-touching-womans-bottom-breasts-leaked-sexual/
– Labour MSP Rhoda Grant called for Sturgeon to suspend Salmond from the SNP immediately. “Not to do so will send the wrong message to members in her party and the people of Scotland,” she said
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13110673.Campaigners___We_need_more_controls_to_back_up_Scottish_anti-porn_laws_/
– Highlands and Islands MSP Rhoda Grant, who is pursuing a bill on the criminalisation of the purchase of sex, said pornography, as well as other areas of the sex industry, was linked to “abuse and violence against women”.
“We have to ask if more should be done to make the viewing or downloading of porn from the internet more difficult. I think there should be filters in place to help that process”
Oh, and RT. I’d forgotten they’d both appeared on RT.
Hmmm… This whole matter could drive the wedge deeper between the SNP and Labour. Not good, and to be resisted.
I have to say Ms Grant will be arresting loads of women if she criminalises the downloading of porn. Contrary to feminist prejudice, there are loads of women who enjoy watching porn, especially porn targeting women audiences (which is now being made in significant amounts).
I do hope she criminalises women who sleep with men to climb the corporate ladder, as that is exploitation of talents no man can compete with…..at least not until there is 50% of posts occupied by women who could be shagged for career advancement…..
Craig, seriously, you are absolutely brilliant. It might be the contrarian in me.
Agree with you there, Mr.M. The lovely thing is he is entirely unaware of it.
Jonathan Cook seems to have synthesised my and many peoples realisations over the last 10 years, in what may well be considered a revolutionary Pamphlet of our age. I urge everyone to read and share. Time to choose which side you are on, if you haven’t already. Are you a Truster or Dissenter?
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-08-26/corbyn-trust-deficit/
Sex-crime smears and assassination are among the weapons the ‘corporate elites’ resort to at the end, when they are losing They have even weaponised AS to stop Corbyn.
Dissenter (non -violent) for the record.
Jonathan Cook has precisely located the critical plane of fracture; Trusters and Dissenters. I’m on Dissenter side.
Jonathon Cook makes a good point, but in reality the children of the dissenters are now cynical enough to dissent from them as well. The PTB seem to understand that by stalling the crunch-time for reform the political dissenters will have been replaced by completely un-political minds. The younger generation will not only refuse to help their dissenting parents to bring about reform, partly because divorce broke our close relationship with them, but they also militate against them and defend the Trust parents that supported them.
Neo-liberal sexual freedom is definitely in my opinion the tool of the elites to severe the continuity of the opposition from one generation to the next. Craig bonking and then bragging about it in public means he is still on the side of the Tory establishment. which ruthlessly tries to break the chain of dissent from one generation to the next by liberalising divorce. I am totally against Craig on this point and I always have been.
Yeah yeah Giyane … but which group do you put yourself in? For the record.
Dungroanin
My father was a Truster, but I always thought such a clever man must be keeping something in reserve. Most Trusters in my opinion are just pretending. in the Muslim world there are many who profess Trust, and underneath maintain a smouldering hate. For myself, I believe that hate is a bad place. If you’re going to dissent, you must do it with the absolute conviction that government always lies , all the time. With this assumption I am prepared for anything they can throw at me. Some people talk dissent in order to sell you to the PTB, while others actually help you understand how government operates its lies.
I don’t want to go back to the days of writing I hate Mrs Thatcher on the Conservative party HQ in my local town. dissenters do not need to know too much about the full extent of government lies, only to know that it is comprehensive and well beyond the imaginations of ordinary folk. All the dissenter has to know is that the PTB always lie.
I am working on achieving full dissent, but I progress is slow and the mellowness of age, ie fear of blowing up my own cardio-vascular system means I am probably stuck like a rabbit between the glare of the headlights, half trusting, half dissenting.
You see, I even think yours is a trick question. There are as many trolls in the world as flies.
I appreciate your conundrum – it is no different to mine as far as parents and much of the peer group goes – but you know it is not safe driving down the mddle of the road, there may be some idiot coming the other way round the bend also in the middle – ouch 😉
I was not and am not attempting to troll here, it is a generally civilised space, I save that for MSM bots.
You really can’t put yourself on one side or other of the very clearly defined line that Jonathan Cook draws?
Go on … Go on, Go on, Giy ane.
Thanks for the link Dungroanin – a great read.
This is probably stupid of me, but a couple of things caught my attention:
1) There is a storm coming (if not a earthquake)
2) “Out of the darkness” (presumably into the light)
Now I’ve heard these memes elsewhere recently…
Cook’s piece shows brilliant understanding. It clarifies our moment.
My former speil about ‘conspiriology’ and the legitimacy of ‘conspiracy theories’ is another way of saying that I too am ‘a dissenter’- I think it is intellectually responsible to approach narratives from a point of ‘no trust in the power structures’.
David Aaronovich has written one of the best selling attempts to discredit ‘dissenters’ and an approach that fundamentally questions elite narratives as ‘conspiracy theorists’ (perjorative), Voodoo Histories.
He now is out on a limb promoting a tenuous conspiracy theory which , it seems, serves to protect the power of elites (- and not for the first time).
Looking again at Robert Stuart’s work on ‘Saving Syria’s Children’, broadcast five years ago today.
To me the footage is undeniably staged acting which fakes injuries from a non-existent chemical weapon attack. On the BBC.
Try getting anyone to look at it though. Tell them that the BBC are working with The White Helmets faking civilian attrocities in Syria and they will look at you as if you are mentally ill. They will not look at the footage.
Such is the normative power of the ‘conspiracy theorist’ label.
https://twitter.com/cerumol/status/1033620466949345280
But, since the definition of a ‘conspiracy’ is ‘two or more people, working together to commit an unlawful act that may affect a third person or party’ I therefore do not believe the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ to be pejorative; to police and judges, dealing with these matters on a daily basis, it is the main part of their job. I think the same could be said of investigative journalists, too.
@ joeblogs August 27, 2018 at 15:07
‘..I think the same could be said of investigative journalists, too…’
Unfortunately, they are a highly endangered species, almost hunted to extinction….
I agree.
Unfortunately, the term has been weaponised, not least by many on the Left, with the effect that political discourse has been epistemologically dismembered.
The footage you refer to has always appeared to be a completely dramatised, choreographed and amateurish production to me. If it wasn’t trying to push a particular vile agenda, I’d find it very funny. I believe only the most naive could ever consider it to be a real event. Rola Hallam, one of the doctors appeared on the BBC on numerous occasions, unsurprisingly not mentioning her father was a leader of the Syrian exiled ‘opposition’. Hallam and the other doctor in the video were instrumental in creating ‘Hand in hand for Syria’, very dubiously awarded charity status. It was without doubt pro rebel, which should have resulted in it being denied the status.
Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as FORCE is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion.
– David Hume, Of the First Principles of Government
Mog, I get a lot of ridicule and accusations of being a Truster for dissenting from ‘conspiracy theories’ – by which, I’m referring to certain lesser narratives that are unsupported by positive evidence but are supported by an aggressive fan club who never question certain lesser narratives. These fan clubs themselves constitute lesser power structures. Their members believe that they’re opposing “the power structure”, but by their bullying tactics they are nonetheless serving power as opposed to evidence and reason.
Up late cant sleep but your account raised a smile , particularly about the lack of woman beating a path to your door , anyway alcohol atmosphere and surroundings have strange effects on many people , thats probably why most people’s memories of events are pretty hazy the comment of do you know what you did or what you said last night ????? i remember that inquisition very well ha ha .
Anyway a link was posted on Wings re- this complaint procedure doing the rounds just now , if i am following it correctly is says the complained person should have access to the evidence in order they can respond hence an inquiry and not just a one sided complaint with no explanation required from the party complained about .
Then it takes a peculiar turn ,apparently there was an insertion to the 2017 agreed procedures that now specifically includes ministers current and previous , it says the first Minister is allowed to have the final say in respect to current Ministers how the complaint should proceed , this changes when a former Minister is involved , any input from the First Minister is removed and they have no say in how the complaint should proceed , this then falls to the Permanent Secretary they have complete control , and surprise surprise who drafted this clause , well of course it was The Permanent Secretary , draw your own conclusions ,was this an addition to workplace safety , or like much of what Whitehall does long term planed political assassination shrouded in Machiavellian secrecy, they are well acquainted with previous successful exploits and have the people in place to set events in motion when required , This might well be just one part of a much bigger plan , and maybe this is the distraction to avert inquiring minds away from what is really being planned . It would appear Alex Salmond must be removed from taking any active part in resisting forth coming events , he is dangerous and a loose cannon because he is out of office so can say a lot of things he previously could not .
Thanks Robert.
I read Jonathan Cook’s piece and what Robert said, as well as other comments about how people are frequently compromised and it struck me that there is a real debate to be had about the part alcohol (and other substances) plays in our collective lives and interactions. This is not meant to be any kind of moral judgement, nor is it just about people who wield influence. I think it applies to us all. It seems that many people don’t have a clue about what ‘s going on around them and while I’m not saying that people are permanently pissed, it raises the question (for me anyway) about the pervasiveness of alcohol in our lives generally. I repeat this is not about being morally superior, just an observation of the benefits of being able to see straight.
And after reading and listening to the incoherent ramblings of our would be leaders and their minions on radio and actually observing the behaviour of some of them on tv, brings me to the conclusion that the most effective asset for a dissenter is a clear head.
@ Robert Graham August 27, 2018 at 01:53
Yep, could well be Alex Salmond was the specific target of the rule change.
I haven’t seen his show on RT – is it any good?
Got to 4:14 before thinking crap Ishmael: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GENCkkXmqoo, in what way could the difference you perceive between yourself and bourgeois like me exist? We’re all threatened but the simplistic definition in the vid ain’t helpful, it’s actually much worse and seriously complex.
Will repost this in the newer thread to make sure you see it, hopefully
ooh, why the different avatar?
On any test, i’m massively an ENTP, but one with a seriously high level of feeling cos of my to die for ENFP Mum. She helped make me clever but taught me about humanity in spades!
Clearly all diplomats and politicians should be required to keep a daily diary d’amour, ensuring all entries are signed off in contemporaneous fashion by any participants/ultimately nonparticipants, to ensure documentary evidence is always at hand to cover subsequent mischievous actions down the line.
Of course, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump might have filled entire encyclopaedias, restricting their day jobs and threatening their marriages, but such must be the trials of public service in future!!
If nothing else, Alan Clark’s diaries would have been even more outrageous!!
And John Kennedy’s! Nixon’s would be pretty boring except for the fling he supposedly had with a Chinese lady in Hong Kong.
@ OAH August 27, 2018 at 13:53
Yes, the legendary JFK 500 (as opposed to the FTSE NASDAQ 500). And the murder of Marilyn Monroe (with which he and his brother were implicated, as she was getting a bit too ‘talkative’). Still, he was better than anyone who followed him, even the ‘Peanut Man’, who came closest.
And I’m sure the ‘Chines Lady’ wasn’t a honey trap! Perhaps she just liked his dashingly handsome looks, or even his moral approach to politics and Human Rights.
@ Rhys Jaggar August 27, 2018 at 03:12
‘..Of course, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump might have filled entire encyclopaedias, restricting their day jobs and threatening their marriages..’
Most assuredly not in the case of the Clintons – they both had very active extracurricular activities, known to both parties.
The type to more than raise the eyebrows at.
I would presume neither innocence nor guilt. However, the process seems designed to assume and deliver a guilty outcome. I’m also deeply uncomfortable with historic claims of sex abuse with the verdict relying on ‘belief’ only. In the absence of any physical evidence, I would be reluctant to find decide anyone’s guilt or otherwise. I can’t understand how the CPS lets such cases through while other cases with actual physical evidence are rejected.
The lack of corroborating evidence, when it is just one person’s word against another’s, is why it has proved difficult for the US authorities to charge Harvey Weinstein and make it stick. I am reserving judgement here. Salmond’s known weakness is gambling not womanising and my personal guess is Salmond wiill say it was a consensual drunken romp but we shall see.
I do wonder if there is some bad blood between Salmond and Leslie Smith as she claims in her statement that there are inaccuracies in his account. I really don’t think his working for RT is the reason. The must be some greater reason why he needs to be removed from the political scene.
We’ll see regarding Weinstein as it looks like his staff covered it up and he paid people off who knew too much. There will be witnesses and emails too. He can afford expensive lawyers and in the US that can easily get you off.
You mean Leslie Evans. And you’re right about the bad blood, I think. And as I said earlier, I assume good blood between her and Sturgeon who appointed her to the highest paying job in the civil service, the first time a woman had been awarded the job, with a salary of £160,000 p.a.
Hatuey
Yes, I read up on her last night after we “talked” here. She speaks a lot about how difficult it is for a woman reaching high office and of interviews where men asked her stupid questions.
The thing I am concerned about is that her office has not commented on these leaks of some very confidential information to a tabloid. I’m going on about this I know but, with so much emphasis on how limited access was to her investigation, her office is immediately implicated in any leak! In her shoes I would have announced a full investigation into the leaks by now! She’s done nothing as far as I am aware.
Jo, assuming you’re female, how would you feel if Nicola Sturgeon gave you one of the most highly paid jobs in the country, a job that had until then only ever been held by a man?
Would you be grateful, agrieved, or just neutral? I think most of us would be somewhere between grateful and neutral, and probably nearer the grateful end of the spectrum.
Read Sturgeon’s statements when the story broke and a few things are apparent. Immediately, she doesn’t say anything supportive towards Salmond. Nothing along the lines of “I worked with him for years and he was great…” Zilch.
She’d also, obviously, had a lot of time to prepare her position on this. From a political standpoint her position is actually too good, I’d say, which gives it away. Salmond is to be treated like everybody else according to the rules, New rules that her own appointee formulated just last year.
Sturgeon is fighting for her job. Her support within the party is falling fast. She could probably have intervened to avoid this Salmond crap ever coming out — from what I can gather it’s of the level you find at most work Christmas parties. She could have said something supportive in her statement. Nothing.
Looking at it like that, she’s basically said “fuckem!”
Hatuey
You haven’t addressed what I said about highly confidential stuff from Evans ‘ investigation ending up in the Daily Record and why she should be looking into that. I’m disappointed.
On Evans getting the job, I’m not that fussed. Why shouldn’t she if she passed the interview? Does it matter that much if the post was previously filled by a man? If I had got the job I would just want to prove myself.
On Nicola’s response last week, what do you think she should have done? To me she looked genuinely distressed. She said openly how close she was to Salmond and how difficult the situation was. She acknowledged him as a mentor and a friend. She also stressed she wasn’t involved in the investigation and had no influence over it.
Someone has posted stuff on this thread which set out under what circumstances Nicola could intervene. In Salmond’s case she wasn’t allowed to.
What I will say is that I am troubled that Nicola is defending Evans. I don’t get that when leaks are flowing out of Evans’ investigation like a river in spate, straight to the Daily Record. Now THAT, Sturgeon can and MUST challenge.
Jo
Yes I did mean Leslie Evans no idea why I typed Smith…..
For those who don’t already know: corroborating evidence is required in Scotland for a guilty verdict. Even if an alleged victim’s witness evidence is wholly accepted, the alleged criminal will walk free unless there is corroborating evidence from another source. This probably means that powerful men get away with more assaults and rapes in Scotland than in other jurisdictions, such as England and Wales.
Corroboration in Scots law.
You don’t have any corroborating evidence to support the case that “powerful men” in positions of power are more likely to get away with rape in Scotland than in England or Wales.
I can’t think of any judicial system that doesn’t put a lot of emphasis on evidence (calling it ‘corroborating evidence’ is unnecessary, all evidence is corroborating). It’s a question of how much emphasis.
no articles mentioning the plight of disabled people in britain over the last ten years – the deliberate murder and destrying of their lives, the impoverishment and denial of services and support – they can just get on with it
A very good analysis of our present situation by Jonathan Cook as it relates to the views of the ‘trusters’ and ‘diissenters’. In the way in which Corbyn is being attacked, read Salmond.
The trust deficit tearing apart our societies
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-08-26/corbyn-trust-deficit/
Jonathan Cook was part of the MSM circus at the Guardian. He got out and is now ‘unembedded’! His views are important and worth reading.
Thanks for directing me to a great site, Sharp Ears; .. Some sanity in a world of Kafka collides with Orwell, Huxley smiling slyly on the side.
As a female close to her three score years and ten I’ve witnessed heaps of VERY predatory women, especially in the office environment.. AND quite a few men falling for the set-up. Lets not be too prescriptive about which sex is the gentle one.
Curious that although Weinstein’s reputation was well known so many woman apparently left their hotel rooms unlocked when he was surely expected to be on the neighbourhood prowl. (An unattractive man who may have remained unchallenged for so long because his movies promoted ‘Swamp Stories’)
Alex Salmond in the cross-hairs because he has a show on RT???
As I posted late last night, it is probably as good a revolutionary Pamphlet as ever written.
It is an urgent piece of writing borne of great insight – just like Craig Murrays.
Everybody should use it as a personal Rorsach test article and choose, Truster or Dissenter?
Morning.
I don’t know. But I do know this VVV, & so I think that’s all I have to relate on this subject, & this blogs ever present related memes.
…”It is the characteristic of privilege and of every privileged position to kill the mind and heart of men. The privileged man, whether politically or economically, is a man depraved in mind and heart. That is a social law which admits of no exception, and is as applicable to entire nations as to classes, corporations, and individuals. It is the law of equality, the supreme condition of liberty and humanity. The principal object of this treatise is precisely to demonstrate this truth in all the manifestations of human life.” Bakunin.
(Aside from the 19th century “man” denomination.)
I don’t think some matter any more than the millions I don’t know embroiled (& ultimately self embroiled in politicians cases, guilty or not) in whatever stuff…This clearly isn’t my scene.
I dunno what’s worse for people, playing the master or servant, but I’m gonna plump for the later & say im guilty & do a wrong getting dragged into it, …again.
“Out of the dozens of women, many young, who assisted me over the years on such occasions, I am absolutely certain that every single one of them would have point blank refused had I asked them upstairs to my bedroom after the event… not one would have conceivably said yes”.
You only think that because you were too decent to ever try. One thing that often strikes me about office sexual harassment or abuse cases is why the victims don’t complain sooner or even in many cases go along with the inappropriate advances and abuse until much later. I’ve no idea if Alex Salmond did whatever he is accused of, although I agree that after so many years the chance of proving whatever did or didn’t happen between two people with no witnesses must be zero. But arguing he can’t have done it because no female would go along with it is like saying somebody couldn’t commit serial wife battery because any woman would leave an abusive husband immediately – it’s clearly not true, as shown by the number of actual victims out there.
David: “arguing he can’t have done it because no female would go along with it…”
Can you show me where Craig or anyone argued that point? No? Didn’t think so.
The second para of Craig’s lead-in post seems to argue precisely that .
It precisely argues nothing of the sort. In fact, it doesn’t argue a anything.
Craig wouldn’t be so daft as to suggest Salmond was innocent at this stage on the basis of his own personal experiences. And anybody that presumes complete innocence on the part of Salmond at this stage would need to have a screw loose.
Anecdotally, Craig’s experiences lend some insight though. And if he is suggesting that it’s hard to believe Salmond would try anything on in a similar position with staffers etc., that’s fine but it doesn’t amount to a declaration that Salmond is innocent.
Personally I find it very easy to imagine that any guy would be capable of trying it on with a woman that he fancied. If we were to be honest, most of us would admit we fantasise about women we know all the time. Throw in a few too many drinks or drugs and, well, it isn’t rocket science…
That isn’t to justify it either, or play it down. It’s just the way it often is.
” And if he is suggesting that it’s hard to believe Salmond would try anything on in a similar position with staffers etc., that’s fine but it doesn’t amount to a declaration that Salmond is innocent.”
To all intents and purposes tht’s exactly what Craig is suggesting.
Moreover, in his previous post, Craig expressed certainty (again using what you call “anecdote”) that the charges against Mr Salmond would eventually tun out to be baseless- thereby declaring Mr Salmond innocent.
Read his posts carefully (Craig can be very subtle at times) and you’ll be convinced.
Lol okay, assume I read it 4 times and that I’m qualified to teach 6 subjects at university level ranging from moral philosophy to modern history, politics, statistic, and even IT. Assume further that I understand what you’re suggesting about subtleties.
But I’m talking about what was said or argued, not what may or may not have been in the mind of Craig Murray.
Why don’t you ask Craig if he is saying Salmond is innocent, he’s right here/there?
Well, if you need it spelling out:
– First the entirely tongue-in-cheek title “A Short Article Not Mentioning Alex Salmond”.
– Then the similarities between Craig’s own experience as Ambassador hosting social events using government staff and the same duties of the Scottish First Minister.
– Exactly the duties in the course of which Alex Salmond, as Scottish First Minister, is now accused of improper conduct with a female staff member.
– And the opinion that it would be entirely impossible for a female member of staff at such an event to behave in exactly the way described in the allegations against Alex Salmond, who this article is absolutely not about, of course.
– Finally the conclusion that something smells like horse excrement.
It’s an argument by implication and analogy, but I think an argument nonetheless, in the philosophical (or Platonic?) sense.
I do think Craig’s other experience of being falsely accused of sexual crimes as a result of being perceived as a threat to power is entirely relevant and I believe him totally on that. And the terrible injustice of being accused but unable to address or even talk about the details of the accusations at the same time as those powers are leaking them to the press. But as Craig often does, he’s gone a step too far above and started pandering to darker forces, which actually undermines his more reasonable and valuable earlier points.
David, you needn’t have bothered trying to explain all that. I’m familiar with the idea that there’s often a lot being said between lines and the various tricks and devices used to convey things without saying them, etc.
When I was at university studying history and international relations I did a lot of work on the use of language. I continue to think that the use of euphemism, juxtaposition, anecdotes, metaphor, and other tricks are central to understanding what’s going on in the world.
But the reason people mask things is important — it’s because they have reservations about saying things outright. In this case Craig was careful and he was right to be.
“It emerged in July 2016 that NHS England had employed the private firm Capita to carry out ‘list cleansing’ in which patients who had not visited their GP for five years faced being removed from the practice list.”
As is well known, the crooks called “general practitioners” dislike ill people because they take the view that they cost them money.
On the other hand, they dislike people who are in too good health, because that way they can’t get money from pushing drugs to them, which might mean the horror of fewer dimwit luxury holidays in Dubai. So many people are ill in Britain tht five years is considered a suspiciously long time not to have visited a local quack!
“On the other hand, they [ ie GPs ] dislike people who are in too good health, because that way they can’t get money from pushing drugs to them”
Do GPs get money by “pushing drugs” to people or is that just a rant?
If anything, I could imagine that GPs get rewarded in some way for NOT pushing drugs to people (saves the NHS money!)
Oh I don’t know, Big Pharma spends a to of soft dollars entertaining GPs and offering samples to proffer the patients. There is also the press campaign to push for some (usually for females) wonder drug that the Daily Mail feels is being denied by NHS stringency and a Minister must simply overrule NICE. Or then again there are Statins which of course EVERYONE should be taking on subscription (prescription ?) so the Big Pharma can get addicts rather like those dear folks at Purdue Pharma pushing OxyContin until it had epidemic levels of addiction
The question, Paul, was “do GPs get paid to push drugs at people”. Your comment was interesting but doesn’t provide an answer. So it seems that your introductory words are correct (“Oh. I don’t know”). Perhaps the original poster (N-) will clarify.
Thegy get the same treatment from big pharma our Mp’s receive when they heed the siren calls from rich donors to the friends of I….l clique and accept all paid for hols in occupied Palestine.
Big pharmaregularly organises grand corporate events disguised as scientific conferences, dishing out the latest advances in their pill pushing existence, all paid for.
Do GPs get paid money for treating patients, but not for referring them?
I refused a MRI scan recently because the consultant hadn’t told me she wanted me to have one.
I was initially seen by a Professor, and the local consultant didn’t agree with his diagnosis and wanted to prove she was right IMHO.
Never trusted doctors since having my crutch xrayed as a child because of growing pains in my leg, and too many fillings as a child. I softened a little when they sorted out my heart attack using a stent inserted up my arm.
IMHO and experience GPs are NOT crooks. That is yet another slur. What’s in the air at the moment?
You’ll have to ask the likes of Paul Greenwood and N_ , not me.
I’m on the side of the NHS GPs, especially since they got a great deal under Tony Blair’s Labour : lots more moolah for fewer and less unsocial hours!
Precisely, Craig.
People male or female who use that type of power for acquiring sex, also show other traits out with the bedroom
Towards colleague’s .
I came across two like that abroad and made it known
Unfortunately the only thing that happened was, they were sent home.
A result in one way.
Regards
??
.
Is using sex for power the same as using power for sex? Probably uses different parts of the brain. Powerlessness can create sexual feelings because it’s easier to use a known coping mechanism than trying to solve a problem. Trouble is the coping mechanism still doesn’t solve the problem. Now you have two problems first the problem and then the feeling stupid problem.
O/T but of interest to all who wish the Gazans well
As from this morning Israel has re-opened the Erez Crossing on the Israel-Gaza border.
The Erez Crossing is the only land crossing for the movement of people between the Gaza Strip and Israel and the West Bank, as well as third countries when Rafah Crossing is closed (the Rafah Crossing is between Gaza and Egypt and is closed from time to time by Egypt).
This re-opening is in reponse to the suspension by Hamas of various provocatory actions on the Israel-Gaza border.
When the British/English establishment reluctantly signed the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012 they believed the Yes vote could be kept low in the referendum. Thereafter they would quickly move in to dismantle devolution and other Scottish institutions so that another independence referendum could never take place.
Not only did the scale of the Yes vote and the vibrancy of the Yes campaign take them aback. So did the subsequent mass influx of new members to the SNP and the National Party’s 56 out of 59 seats triumph in 2015.
The authoritarian Britnat project to end Scottish nationhood nevertheless went forward and received impetus and strategic opportunity with the Brexit vote in 2016. The Tories quickly realised that Brexit afforded the chance to grab power over Holyrood under a false pretext that all the main returning Brussels powers had to go first to Westminster.
The papers and the BBC obliged the Britnat project by ramping up the false reports and negativity about the Scottish Government to fever pitch.
Scotland faces an almost complete loss of devolved power and the major economic hit of leaving the single market. All to be imposed despite Scots having voted for neither scenario. Another independence referendum has been mandated and will be held.
This is the context in which the allegations against Salmond have been made. Salmond, a man with no track record of womanising or bad behaviour. Bear in mind he first became a very go ahead leader of the SNP as long ago as 1990. That’s a very long time for the forces of anti-independence to scrutinise their enemy. Until now no claims against him. Until we are on the cusp of a second independence referendum which the forces of unionism have little or no chance of winning.
Scotland is fighting against what would be the full imposition of colonial status. With all the misery that would entail for generations. Against that the question of what an ex-politician may or may not have done in a building in Edinburgh several years ago is politically irrelevant, despite all efforts by the media to make it so.
reel guid
I totally agree with what you say, but don’t forget the Tories also want to re-patriate thousands of years of English rights back from the EU in a different form. A massive power-grab on all sides. This is the most important political issue of our time. Corbyn and Salmond scandals are just chairs and obstacles thrown in the path of the pursuers IMHO
Relative guilt or otherwise, the use of ‘had been drinking’ trumps everything. It attributes on the one hand an inability to recall the event correctly, so he actually believes what he is saying when claiming innocence, and for the ‘victim’ if the case is thrown out no lie can be attributed to them.
Okay, that might be the effect but it’s likely drink was involved quite innocently rather than in the contrived way you are suggesting.
Hatuey
Unless it has been administered by a spike, drinking is always a conscious decision with the conscious intention of changing one’s state of mind. Innocent drinking – another of your soap bubbles pops before your eyes.
Okay, it’s a soap bubble to think that some people might drink socially or purely because they like the taste of say malt whisky. They are all intentionally distorting realities so that they can molest people and use alcohol as an excuse. Got it.
What a crackpot you have become.
Incidentally, this is about the 5th time you’ve made an idiot of yourself trying to belittle me. And every time you do it, you come off looking dumberer and I guess that fuels a determination to get me next time… and so on, ad infinitum.
Until next time.
Regards,
Hatuey.
Hatuey
Responsibility. The person who owns an aggressive dog in order to project their own aggression through the dog. The person who decides to drink in order to disable restraints on the sober mind.
if you have a different personality from mine and you don’t accept my idea of responsibility, please don’t take it as me trying to change you. I very firmly believe what I wrote about alcohol. How does that belittle you?. You’re not going to change my world view by objecting to it or taking umbrage to it.
You always seem to be floating a kind of third way. I’m black and white. I’ve had enough of silly ideas or as Jesus pbuh put it in the Gospels;
New bottles for new wine:
Matthew 9:17
Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will spill, and the wineskins will be ruined. Instead, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
Luke 5:36
He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will tear the new garment as well, and the patch from the new will not match the old.
Giyane, when you assume some sort of moral superiority and define other people’s views as “soap bubbles” that are being popped by you, call me over-sensitive but I take that as an attempt to belittle.
Now, personally I don’t care about that and let me be up front and say that I doubt if I have any feelings invested here to hurt or “pop”. I see quite vulgar contradictions all over the place in what you say, though, and it’s my privilege to take issue with those.
I guess you’re some sort of religious person which is about as vulgar and contradicted as one can be, in my opinion, but let me give just one sample of the sort of childish and confused superiority I’m talking about.
Earlier today in a discussion on the Catholic Church and child abuse, you basically absolved the abusers and blamed the doctrine. Quite staggering in itself but juxtaposition that with your views on Salmond and the role of alcohol where, according to you, alcohol can not be used as an excuse because people know what the effects of alcohol are likely to be before drinking it.
There’s a point at which a person’s grasp of morality is so confused as to become quite dangerous. I think you’re pretty close to that line when you absolve paedophiles because of what you call “bad doctrine” and demand that people who have a drink or two and try their chances with a member of the opposite sex are held fully responsible for their actions.
Pop!
charming
“the use of ‘had been drinking’ trumps everything”
So if a Muslim has been brainwashed by psychosis mind-changing drugs during torture rendition to commit unspeakable crimes against humanity, does that mean they are forgiven and absolved of their crimes, just forgiven?
The message I’m getting from the MSM about Al Qaida and Daesh is the British government wants to rehabilitate them. The “had been drinking” excuse would enable them to keep their proxies in society for using next time. Also send a message that crime pays, i.e. the main Tory doctrine.
See my comment above…
Ah, but in Scotland, we have the new interpretation of “consent” whereby a woman cannot be deemed to have given consent if she’s been drinking. This leaves men open to being charged with rape at a later date, the morning after maybe, when a woman “changes her mind”!
I’m so glad I’m not young. I thought I was being responsible if I took a condom or two with me on a night out. By the sound of things nowadays, you’d need to take a lawyer.
New Labour introduced many schemes to undermine democracy in the name of democracy and this included a new Standards Board regime to enforce the Code of Conduct in which elected politicians could be suspended from office for causing offence or merely harassed and defamed with false complaints.
The problem was it was your political opponents who normally brought complaints and decided whether you were guilty. An outrageous regime because its for the voters to vote you in or out of office and if your transgression is that serious it should be a matter for the police rather than a kangaroo court made up of political opponents.
The new regime led to a flood of complaints and cost and content of the complaints was bringing local government into disrepute which was no doubt the New Labour intention as an excuse to centralise more power to the Executive. When Cameron was elected and due to Liberal pressure in the coalition government the draconian standards board regime was relaxed.
The most high profile example involved Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London who was suspended from office, by 3 members of a ‘standards board’, despite his over a million vote mandate, for insulting a journalist for the Evening Standard who was repeatedly insisting on an interview as Livingstone made his way home from a late night meeting.
So you get elected with the highest vote in Britain, due to the Elected Mayor model, and then can be suspended by whomever they were on an anonymous standards committee for insulting someone. Its seems extreme but no doubt the ‘standards board’ had to suspend him to avoid accusations of “anti-Semitism” because it was a Jewish journalist who had been insulted and the complaint was brought by Board of Deputies of British Jews!
But the point being investigation under the code of conduct isn’t equitable or transparent, it just an opportunity for political opponents to defame opponents without any accountability or comeback. That is, if its a false complaint, the person complaining doesn’t pay any penalty not even a requirement to apologise, whereas if the matter was handled by the police, they could face prosecution for making false statements and wasting police time.
“investigation under the code of conduct isn’t equitable or transparent, it just an opportunity for political opponents to defame opponents without any accountability or comeback.”
I agree that codes of conduct could be used for that purpose but it’s pushing it a bit to imply – as you appear to be doing (the word “just” – that this is their main or sole purpose. Surely you would agree that codes of conduct serve a genuinely useful purpose?
I should also disagree with you when you say that codes of conduct are not equitable or transparent. That is a vast generalisation – some are and some probably aren’t.
I suggest more careful drafting in future, it adds weight to most arguments.
Boxers-stick
Dave just accused the Board of Deputies of stinging a senior Labour politician. Nothing could be clearer than what Dave has written. You should wear long johns to stop drafts in your boxers. Go home. it’s a bank holiday. You have done your bit for the day for Ashkelon
I agree code of conducts are intended to be helpful, but not when enforced by the standards regime introduced by New Labour, and shouldn’t be confused with rules and procedures for conducting business.
This is because the code says you must treat people with respect, fair enough, except its open to abuse because some people can claim to be disrespected by everything you do and say and can bring a complaint. The old regime said the complaint had to be investigated and a decision on your guilt was decided by a panel of your political opponents who had the power to suspend you from office.
What a recipe for vexatious and false complaints which is what happened and the rules have since been relaxed due to liberal influence in the coalition government. Now normally legal officers seek to resolve matters before an investigation and the penalty is seldom more than a requirement to make an apology.
But an investigation can still be used as a branding exercise without the need for evidence or any comeback on those making or investigating the complaint. I.e. its still open to abuse, which is why a misdemeanour should be investigated openly and anything serious referred to the police.
Err, unlike ‘he’s been drinking’ I don’t think ‘brainwashed by psychosis mind-changing drugs’ is a common expression? Unlike car crashes, street violence, rape, suicide et. It’s an effective dog whistle.
charming
These days, there are so many drugs to choose from. Why choose aldehyde to make you feel rotten?
Blair and New Labour (like the Tories before and after) where just implementing the strategies of James Buchanan. Buchanan is the single most important ideological influence on modern US and UK political behaviour.
Buchanan would be very pleased with what Blair has done and also very pleased that you are blaming him. Making politicians disreputable, having them known to be disreputable, having them retain their elected positions no matter how disreputable, and having them honoured and rewarded no matter what they have done would be a case of job done for Buchanan.
The last thing Buchanan would want to see is a corrupt politician that no-one knows about. And the next last thing that Buchanan would want is to see is a corrupt politician being required to resign.
Corbyn is the first potential PM in generations that is outside Buchanan’s ideological influence (like it or not). So you know who to vote for in the next election!
If you’re interested:
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-economist-behind-the-one-percents-stealth-takeover-of-america
Thanks ADHD – a very valuable piece of the jigsaw, and a reminder that Western society is not blundering into dire straits, but is being meticulously guided.
Yes, its a bit like finding out that a “conspiracy theory” isn’t a “conspiracy theory” because it’s an “open plan and real”.
Someone mentioned (perhaps on the previous thread) something about Mr Alex Salmond being rumoured to have a drink problem. If true, he wouldn’t be the first or last UK politician in that situation.
But what I really wanted to ask was have there been any previous rumours or hints or veiled suggestions that Mr Salmond occasionally behaves in, let’s say. a rather reprehensible manner re relations with the fair sex?
Not, I hasten to add, would that prove anything re the current spat but it would be interesting to know if he has previous or if these allegations come completely out of the blue, so to speak.
If he had, I’d suggest it would have received some mention amidst all the press coverage of this allegation. What do you think?
I think both the gambling and the drink rumours did, in point of fact
Here is something from the Observer back in 2012 (there are probably others you can google):
“First Minister Alex Salmond has defended his decision not to contact police over claims his bank account was hacked by the Observer.
Mr Salmond told the Leveson Inquiry he believed his details were accessed in 1999, a claim the Sunday broadsheet described as unsubstantiated.
A spokesman for the first minister said his view was that it was up to the newspaper to investigate the issue.
No story was published by the Observer relating to the hacking claim.
Mr Salmond’s spokesman also questioned whether there was a connection between the allegation and an unpublished and “baseless” story that the first minister, a horse racing fan, had gambling debts.
On Wednesday, Mr Salmond told the inquiry into press standards that he was informed by a former Observer journalist that the newspaper gained access to his bank account in 1999, when the SNP leader was an MP seeking to win a seat at Holyrood in the first Scottish Parliament election.
An Observer spokesman previously said it had been “unable to find any evidence to substantiate the allegation”.
The first minister’s not ruling out any option for the future
A spokesman for Alex Salmond
When asked why Mr Salmond had not contacted the police over the matter, a spokesman for the first minister said: “His current view is that it’s the responsibility of the newspaper to properly investigate this and to accept that they were engaged in such activities.”
The spokesman later added: “The first minister’s not ruling out any option for the future”.
And when asked what evidence there was that the hacking took place, the spokesman responded: “That’s what he was told by the former Observer journalist.”
The spokesman also made reference to Operation Motorman, a 2003 investigation by the UK Information Commissioner into alleged breaches of data protection law.
‘Total fiction’
It found the Observer had used the services of an investigation agency on 103 occasions.
The spokesman also said a decision by Mr Salmond to report the matter to police may result in the disclosure of his source.
When asked if that source was former Observer columnist Alex Bell, now a Scottish government special adviser, the spokesman said: “I have nothing to add to the remarks that the first minister made yesterday, which is that the information was provided to him by a former Observer journalist, and he will respect the confidentiality of that source.”
The spokesman also recalled getting calls from journalists in the run-up to the 1999 election, “about a story that was going round that the first minister had gambling debts, which may very well be connected to this particular issue that the first minister talked about yesterday, which was always a total and utter fiction”.
“Many Scottish journalists were seeking to write a story about something that was simply untrue, totally baseless,” said the spokesman.
Mr Salmond, the spokesman added, was told of the hacking incident in the “early part of the new decade”.
A spokesman for Guardian News & Media, which runs the Observer newspaper, said Mr Salmond first raised the matter with the editor of the Sunday broadsheet last year.
A Labour spokesman said: “If the first minister has evidence that his bank account details were illegally hacked into, we believe it is incumbent upon him to report the matter to the police.”
I note that on that occasion Mr Salmond chose NOT to launch legal proceedings. Unlike, it seems, with the present spat.
@ Anthony
‘One alleged incident is said to have happened late one evening at the First Minister’s official residence in Edinburgh, Bute House, in December 2013. It said the complainant found herself alone with Salmond, who had been drinking alcohol.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6098367/Alex-Salmond-groped-female-aide-lay-her.html
There have been many rumours about Alex Salmond over the years, including ones of lechery when he’s had a few. Drinks, that is. These have sometimes “received some mention” in the press in innuendo form, for example when he was reported to have given a 17-year-old girl a “lick of his ice lolly“.
I thought that was some sort of euphemism until I looked at the picture…
Apologies, I’ve just seen the post I was thinking about (from Mary Paul); it refers to gambling and not a drink problem. Mea culpa.
Unmarried sex is gambling.
Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust. Buy 1, get 1 free.
And thinking too much about Tel Aviv beach bimbos is lustful.
BTW, did you know that Jonathan Swift was fairly obsessive about sex, arses, shit and so on (George Orwell commented about that in one of his fine essays, I forget the title).
The Sun is getting ready to blame foreigners for the famine.
Denouncing “scare stories”, Brexit secretary Dominic Raab licked his lips and told the newspaper that always backs the winning side
“It’s not possible to have a no deal. There would be a massive outcry. With even a no deal for one week, with no flights to and from the UK, no ships, imagine the economic loss of one week of no economic activity, no personal activity, no financial transactions. That would already be a disaster.”
This is called managing expectations. What do we think goes through the mind of derivatives traders when they hear this? It’s also called preparation for an enormous heist, where British “public officials” will hand multibillion pound boxes of goodies out of the back door.
N_
It has become so obvious that May’s government couldn’t arrange a brewery celebration, we will inevitably have a general election as soon as the lazy so and sos get back from their extended hols.
Their laziness is quite staggering. Did anyone ever find out who was acting as prime minister while Theresa May was off in Switzerland and Italy for three weeks? Agreed that a general election soon is likely.
Why no mention of deceased John McCain, the mist overrated politician on the planet?
“Why no mention of deceased John McCain, the most overrated politician on the planet?”
Probably because he was a warmongering neo-liberal twerp and doesn’t deserve mentioning.
Thanks Garth for correcting my hasty post, and adding the conclusion to an earlier one which was delated.
We are never going to get out of having poor history, and bad political leaders if we cannot tell truths about them.
@Trowbridge,
You are quite correct, I am all for a “warts and all” summing up of McCain, he was yet another warmongering neocon, and the World is a slightly better place for his signing off.
Hello Trowbridge my good friend. I mentioned him anonymously as a friend of Daesh. I think I might say more after his body has been interred into the ground.
Garth
There were a couple of mentions in fact, on the previous thread. One was by Sharp Ears if memory serves.
Overrated? Not by anyone outside the US. His death has been reported here but no eulogies.
As I recall, Thatcher went along with what Reagan. Lehman and McCain were doing.
She is a leader when it comes to overrated, deceased politicians.
I have just watched Katty Kay of the BBC going on about McCakn.
Ok, a few neocons perhaps.
The planet feels lighter already.
Fishing? I’ll give you a tickle.
Seen the photo of McCain with his Isis generals?
How about where he admits they are good people and he talks to them all the time?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vItuKKuz_7Y
Rejoice, rejoice again as soon as Kissinger pops his clogs, The complete and utter Hunts been to lick his arse.
Just ask Caitlin Johnson for the full take down of the asshole McCain.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone
Alerted to the attached article by a satirical take on it by Private eye.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/03/etonians-shunned-modern-cabinet-will-new-talent-come/
The article is beyond satire, better to simply reproduce it.
This nonsense was killed off in Scotland in the 1980’s when the prat in charge of Weir Pumps wrote a letter to the Glasgow Herald bemoaning the decline of private schools in Glasgow and asking “where will my future managers come from?”
Citizens of England, if you are still entertaining such thoughts in 2018 then you are irredeemably lost.
At least Eton cannot be blamed for Thatcher. The Etonians have certainly become a sad lot now, though in the past they take pride in Pitt the Elder and Gladstone. Should mention Anglo-Scot Henry Brougham was never PM, and was educated at home.
I strongly believe that Alex Salmond is innocent and this is a set up. As a female, I wouldn’t have waited 5yrs to report it. It’s a coincidence that came out when the BBC BIAS haf to make a public apology to SNP and that Scotland is getting ready for indy2.
Add a few more smears while some on here are on the job.. We have had sex pest. Adulterer. Alcoholic. How about paedophile? Liar? Russian agent? Oh sorry – we have already had that.
I fully agree that smearing people, whether directly or by implication, is nasty and that smearers are nasty people. But one can take some comfort from the fact that Mr Salmond has not been smeared because of his friends and relatives.
Of far greater importance to ALL of us than any of the foregoing is the present condition of Sellafield.
Inside the most dangerous parts of Sellafield
Sellafield is one of the most contaminated industrial sites in Europe. Crumbling, near-derelict buildings are home to decades worth of accumulated radioactive waste – a toxic legacy from the early years of the nuclear age.
Now its operators are in a race against time to make the most dangerous areas safe. Here’s a look at the technology being used in the clean-up operation.
27 Aug 2018
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-45295373/inside-the-most-dangerous-parts-of-sellafield
So nice of the BBC to inform us.
There has already been a fire when Sellafield was Windscale which released radioactivity. Land in sight of Sellafield on which animals are grazing is contaminated as are the nearby beaches.
Killer ‘hot particle’: Sellafield coast ‘like Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones’
20th March 2017
https://theecologist.org/2017/mar/20/killer-hot-particle-sellafield-coast-chernobyl-and-fukushima-exclusion-zones
Very recently, a worked at Sellafield has been exposed to plutonium.
Sellafield in court on health and safety charges – after worker allegedly exposed to plutonium http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Sellafield-in-court-on-health-and-safety-charges-after-worker-allegedly-exposed-to-plutonium-d3c69c00-5fdf-42f5-b0a5-18e230d43e1b-ds
The lawyers are probably doing very well out of the above case at Carlisle County Court.
.
“The lawyers are probably doing very well out of the above case at Carlisle County Court.”
Lawyers are certainly expensive these days. But could any rational person seriously argue that court trials should be conducted without them?
.
Nobody is suggesting they should. A classic non-sequitur.
Thanks Craig- horseshit sums it up.
I wonder whether the person who leaked the existence of the investigation into Mr Alex Salmond’s alleged sexual misconduct couldn’t be considered a….whistle-blower ?
And, as such, worthy of praise rather than censure…?
The word “alleged” answers your question, Charles.
I don’t think so, George. A whistle-blower publicises something and that something remains an allegation until it’s been investigated. If found to be untrue, it remains an allegation; if found to be true it ceases to be an allegation and assumes the quality of a fact.
If we stay in the UK Scotland will lose freedom of movement and trading rights in 27 other European countries. Scotland will lose control of Holyrood which will be controlled by Westminster, pending outright abolition. ‘Take Back Control’ is the Brexiteer Britnat slogan. The reality is Scotland is about to lose almost all control.
The Scottish Parliament was not reconvened in 1999 in order to be forcibly shut down after 20 years by odious ultra English nationalists with their sad and deluded dreams of restoring might.
The really ridiculous thing is the British Empire never actually was an empire. Not in the manner of the Roman one. It was only ever a semi-empire with the emphasis on trading concessions backed up by the power of the Royal Navy. Much of the semi-empire’s success was in South America where there never were British colonies apart from small ones on the north coast. Politically it was strewn with crimes and wrongdoings by British officials, but economically it was rational and advantageous to the imperial – or rather semi-imperial – power. Brexit Britain is a politically unrealistic hope of restoring greatness, and unlike the semi-empire of old it is economically disastrous.
Scotland never was a fairly treated partner in the union. But now we’ll be something far worse. A colony without respect or rights. The bullying the people of Scotland will be subjected to on different levels will increase in nastiness as the British economy sinks lower and lower, just as a drunken master with power over others gets more and more sadistic as his affairs get more and more into a mess.
There is no debate left about whether Scotland benefits from being in the union. The union doesn’t exist anymore. A union implies rights for partners. It’s now a straight and stark choice between subjection and freedom.
And if Scotland remains in the EU it will lose the power to control the freedom of movement of labour and to trade in the manner it wishes with whomsoever it wishes.
There’s always more than one side to any argument, reeler.
That’s like saying don’t leave the sinking ship for the lifeboat because the lifeboat’s seats might not be perfectly comfy.
Or because the lifeboat is an even more dangerous place to be than the sinking ship.