This is my first ever attempt at a podcast. The family think it is hilariously boring, like a TV lecture from the 1950’s. I try to persuade them that being hilariously inept is vital to my charm, but that makes them laugh even more.
It is a day late due to technical incompetence on my part. There are a couple of weird cuts where the kittens knocked the camera over. Consensus here is that next time I should just film the kittens. Nadira has offered to help with my next effort, so maybe things will look up.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
Not bad for a trial run, but you should probably see these as supplementary to your principal commentary. At this stage of the game, migrating to TV or YouTube is foolish. It’s quite easy to strip out the audio and make that available as a radio show.
My $$ says you have dozens of sweaters and it will be months before a single repeat.
Go!
Omar al-Mukhtar of Cyrenaica, Libya speaking about his fight against the Italian colonial forces,
”We are a nation that knows no surrender, we win or we die.”
Craig something very important is happening right now and the voices of free thinkers are being stifled throughout the land. We are now in virtual house arrest by dictatorial people who will see Scotland marginalised and reduced to a vassal state. Their weapon now is fear.
https://londonreal.tv/the-truth-behind-the-coronavirus-pandemic-covid-19-lockdown-the-economic-crash-david-icke/
Craig, I agree that the 2014 was not a gold standard referendum and I could never understand why the SNP were always afraid to point out the cheating carried out by the Britnats. You do, of course, mention the infamous VOW issued by the leaders of the 3 main Britnat parties making up Better Together breaking purdah.
However, I think the following much stronger point could have been made: The Edinburgh Agreement being the legal agreement between Cameron and Salmond for the rules of the referendum was broken by the VOW. The Britnats totally trashed the Edinburgh Agreement but to this day Britnats say independence supporters should respect the result. How did they trash the agreement. Cameron insisted that the Edinburgh Agreement would not have a “Devo Max “option. He insisted that it was to be a straight choice between the status quo ( a no vote ) and independence ( a yes vote ). He broke his own Agreement by changing (with the last minute VOW) a no vote to represent a Devo Max option rather than the status quo. Of course the Britnats then reneged on the VOW promises. You cannot trust the Britnats to keep to any Agreement. Britnats are not just ordinary liars they are treacherous liars. So why would anyone want to repeat this laughable gold standard again.
SNP should go back to putting a mandate for INDEPENDENCE in every manifesto for every election in the future. It is after all the party of independence – isn’t it?
1. Scotland received the return of its parliament, because the UN and Europe stated, the referendum in 1979 was clear and unambiguous, the majority voted for independence.
2. The UN and Europe stated (after 23 years of investigation) :- either give some sort or devolution or its parliament back to the people of Scotland, or risk being thrown out of Europe.
3. Brexit was about the ability of British banks ability to launder the finances of the worlds drug trade, nothing more nothing less.
4. Under English and American auspices, And military presence in Afghanistan now produces 126% of the worlds supply of heroin. We can forget the American oil executives government of afghanistan, in the northern alliance. An over production of heroin, so what if it’s your kids that becomes dealer, under capitalist systems, profit is more important than the rule of law or if your English children live or die. Carry on voting for those that create this bias.
Under the Taliban heroin production was less 2% of the worlds supply.
Just clarifying comments made by Rhys+Jagger
A ‘good news’ story from Scotland today, somewhat O/T but I thought worth sharing:
“10:06 – The Courier reports on a “miracle in Perthshire” this morning, with the story of Daphne Shah, who has recovered from coronavirus in time to celebrate her 99th birthday in July.
Shah, who lives in Dundee, spent four nights in Ninewells hospital over the weekend. Her son Wes told the newspaper that he feared he would never see his mother again after she was admitted by ambulance last Thursday. He praised NHS Scotland staff, saying that Shah received a level of care he’d only expect “if she was the only patient in the hospital”.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/apr/08/uk-coronavirus-london–enough-intensive-care-beds-says-sadiq-khan-live-news-boris-johnson?page=with:block-5e8d93f28f08008f0919f0eb#block-5e8d93f28f08008f0919f0eb
Brilliant podcast. What an excellent idea. I hope you will make many follow up podcasts. We all have so much time on our hands and very little form the MSM of interest. One great exception is Billy Kaye’s 3 part study of the Declaration of Arbroath on BBC Scotland.
Can I also repost Dr Alexander Brodie’s very interesting talk “The Past as Propaganda” where he cites the influence of Duns Scotus on the creation of the Declaration of the Clergy and the Declaration of Arbroath. He casts light on the medieval Scottish concept of the just ruler (as opposed to the great thief, Edward 1st). Still relevant today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdd1NlunAiU
I very much enjoyed hearring the legal arguments which the UK employed over the Kosovan issue and its boomerang implications for arguing against our right to hold a referendum. The SNP leadership is awash with lawyers but seems unwilling (with the obvious exception of Joanna Cherry, QC) to make use of this and other very strong legal points (e.g. Declaration of Arbroath, Claims of Right) in a coherent campaign for independence.
Since it is obvious to many that the SNP leadership has some closet MacFabians happy to park the Indybus up a dead end street, my mind drifts back with some suspicion to the time when a simple SNP majority in a WM was regarded as a perfectly legitimate route to independence (indeed, Margaret Thatcher recommended this when the number of SNP seats was tiny). For some reason this was ditched as a policy but since I wasn’t a member at the time I have no idea why. Do you, Craig, or anyone else, know why this was changed?
I suspect the prospect of a rolling series of WM “lockdowns” over the next year would be a source of relief for some at the top of the party in case the Holyrood elections were used as an independence election, as Craig suggests. Of course, any conference which could enable this policy this would itself be unable to convene and deliberate during a period of Covid-19 emergency.
By the way and for what it’s worth, as one who remembers Ian Grimble’s delivery in his series “Who Are The Scots?”, I found your manner both pleasant and interesting.
Some food for thought?
Mr Craig Murray is a successful Historian, Former Ambassador and Human Rights Activist… Anyone can freely listen to this qualified and thoughtful person – one may agree or otherwise? – I follow Mr Murray and may be seen as a biased person, but I’ll be happy while you decide for yourselves!
Thank you,
Ewen A. Morrison
Thank you thank you thank you this clarification of international law is extremely Important , international law so often is fair and just it makes so much sense that a country wishing to undo itself from the control of another country should not find itself unable to do so because it is held in the grip of laws introduced by its captors for the sole purpose of preventing independence and freedom.
I’m sure wives and husbands across the world would be very very unhappy indeed if their partner was able to introduce a clause into the marriage agreement that prevented them in any circumstances whatsoever from leaving or divorcing their partner a clause holding them in a marriage forever more , that they do not wish to be part of .
Who are the SNP people you talk of who are not interested in Scottish independence ?
We need to know this
So we can elect some other people who do want Scottish independence and are intent on securing it
And how do we know the replacements are not more of the same sort that agree not interested in Scottish independence ?
Solid sounding arguements Craig and personally I am convinced enough – but why then did Europe not recognise Catalan ? I think we need assurance of recognition from other states otherwise our electorate will be afraid they are inviting a Madrid style attack on them.
You look younger on the video than on the photo next to it! 😉
They say that video takes off ten years. 😉
Cubby
” Britnats are not just ordinary liars they are treacherous liars.”
Treacherous against whom or what?
I warmly endorse Capella’s (11.17) linked youtube regarding John Duns Scotus and the Declaration of Arbroath –
https://youtu.be/vdd1NlunAiU
I would also draw attention to the following text by Professor BROADIE (sic) –
‘JOHN DUNS SCOTUS AND THE IDEA OF INDEPENDENCE’ by Alexander Broadie
EXTRACT: “My conclusion is that while Wallace was fighting for Scottish independence, Scotus was developing precisely the intellectual framework that the Scots within a few years would deploy in the chief documents that defined that independence. I also believe it possible that the documents in question were compiled with Scotus in mind. There remains an intriguing thought, which I have not pursued, that Scotus was actively engaged in the development of Scottish thinking on the matter of Scottish independence through discussions that he might have had with Scots whom he met at the great centres where he worked. If such discussions did indeed take place, then my suggestion, made some years ago, that the relation of Scotus to the Wars of Independence was one of theory to practice, is false. Scotus may, after all, have been on the side of practice as well as theory by working to the same end as the Scottish military leaders even although by utterly different means.”
The full article (book chapter) is online here –
https://erenow.net/common/the-wallace-book/5.php
Of related interest is the following youtube audio –
‘”HE THAT ALL OUR COMFORD WAS”: ROBERT THE BRUCE IN SCOTTISH SOURCES BEFORE BARBOUR’S BRUCE’ (Prof Alexander Broadie in conversation with Dr Dauvit Broun)
https://youtu.be/qbyD9TDshFo
Professor Alexander Broadie has also published a variety of books on the Scottish tradition in philosophy, the Scottish Enlightenment, etc
Can’t skim-read a podcast or vlog so never bother with them, personally. Just saying…
An argument based on our own history and our own constitution – that was a tonic, Craig. Thank you.
Clement Klein
Try reading my post again – nice and slowly and if you do not see the answer to your question try reading it again but even slower – very slow.
Totally agree with you on these points:
– Freedom (as a nation) should be worth dying for – as stated in the Arbroath declaration.
– We should stop playing the ‘referendum game’.
“A vote for SNP is a vote for going independent”
is the manifesto for the next (and every) future Scottish election.
It is the only honest approach.
But look at the Brexit referendum – won by such a questionable majority.
I think that there has to be a significant majority for Independence:
55%or 60%; because we would want to go forward with no quibbling over the result.
Quite brave to use a podcast for this; I would (respectfully) suggest:
it would work better if you honed it down to 20 minutes,
and study the presentation – to be less hesitant.
The message is cogent and straightforward, but the listener has to work quite hard to follow.
(You will lose those who are not motivated and the result is preaching to the converted.)
But don’t stop.
Roger+Ewen
April 8, 2020 at 10:57
“126% of the worlds supply of heroin.”
The total world supply = 100%, by definition. However large any part of the total is, it cannot be larger than the total.
With respect, 100% with an over production of 26% …..I’m not including the production levels in Laos, or any other far eastern nation…..but how well do Americans produce this stuff! Ooh… and transport the stuff.
The 26%…. that can creatively be used to produce more addicts…. or taking the price down, so your children, in your schools can have the buying power to buy a wrap of heroin.
Sarcasm is a wonder ability to have while ignoring the facts or repercussions of ones parochial though processes and pettiness.
Never mind our future generations lost and destroyed because of ones “parochial” thought processes.
Aye, you have your sarcasm…..
Roger+Ewen
April 9, 2020 at 06:13
Thank you for your comment.
With respect.
I take note of what you’ve said. My point was that your “126%” was numerically incorrect. This is an arithmetical fact. I recognise you right to challenge it. As far as I can see, you haven’t.
My statement of fact was not sarcastic.
Apart from the above, your comments make sense, and I have no axe to grind with you. Shall we leave it at that?
Peace
Deepgreenpuddock
April 7, 2020 at 19:27
Thank you, Dgp. Your suggestion is both imaginative and flattering, but you may still call me Pooh, for short.
The British state is one of the most reactionary on the face of the planet – citadel of global capital, war pig par excellence, torturer of Assange, you know the rest. Attempting to break it up is by definition a revolutionary act.
So independence-minded Scots need to ask themselves whether that revolutionary goal is likely to be desired, let alone achieved, by a contented coterie who have become part of the well-padded furniture of British politics. People who insist the only legitimate route to independence is for a fresh referendum to be graciously granted by an ultra elitist Old Etonian prime minister under no pressure from a ferociously hostile media.
If the majority answer to that question is yes, I suggest you will remain British subjects to your dying day.
Cubby
I did read your post carefully – several times, but the victims or object of the alleged treachery remained unclear.
So, rather than pissing on this reader, why don’t you explain clearly against whom or what the Britnats are exercising their treachery?
It’s not that you’re usually very sparing with your words, is it.
Clement Klein
Well get someone with some basic intelligence to read it for you and explain it to you. It’s all there.
Oh I see, the reply button isn’t working on this thread. Update gremlins?
Being investigated.
Does this work?
test 3
Rhys+Jaggar
April 8, 2020 at 07:46
You wrote a great post and I’m in agreement with almost all of it.
(Further to my 13:12 comment above)
Alexander Broadie: ‘A HISTORY OF SCOTTISH PHILOSOPHY’ (Edinburgh University Press, 2009/2010 edition). James R. Otteson, Prof of Philosophy in New York, writes in online review (2011) —
“An intriguing aspect of Broadie’s argument is that final claim, namely, that, unlike in other places, philosophical investigations in Scotland actually informed the wider Scottish culture in deep and observable ways, including in its politics, its literature, and its art. […] These two claims combine to support a larger argument that the Scots have been, for many centuries now, an uncommonly philosophical people, and that to understand them one must attend to their philosophical traditions.”
“[…] Of particular interest is the perhaps surprising effect the major figures in Scottish philosophy other than Hume and Smith had on political philosophy and thus on politics in Scotland. Consider again John Mair, who argued that ‘A free people confers authority upon its first king, and his power is dependent on the whole people,’ and that ‘A people may deprive their king and his posterity of all authority’; indeed, he went so far as to claim, ‘For a king has not the same unconditional possession of his kingdom that you have of your coat’.”
“[…] Broadie tells us at the end of his book that in his own education in philosophy at Edinburgh University in the 1960s he ‘was taught almost nothing of the Scottish philosophical tradition’. This is truly remarkable.”
[***CUE WRY GUFFAWS FROM ANY SCOTS PRESENT!!! (FMF)***]
“[…] Scottish philosophy, by contrast, has been rich and sophisticated for some seven centuries – arguably one of the longest periods of relatively sustained investigations of any peoples in the world.”
https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/jsp.2011.0019
Thanks for spelling that out, Craig. I’m sure you’ll follow the advice about sharpening the presentation. I agree with the comments about a written piece being easier to digest, and easier to scan and skip back on when necessary.
As for James, who says he’ll literally fight for the Union, I’m reminded of the saying about never arguing with an idiot. It’s a waste of time and energy, you can’t really win, and passers-by may not be able to tell the difference. James may well be a puppet as has been suggested, but his opening remark ignored the fact that you clearly proposed making the 2021 election, in effect, a referendum on independence, which should be followed by a parliamentary declaration of independence. Perhaps his mind was elsewhere at that point.
One concern I have is about the way in which the SNP leadership has not focussed on the real situation in international law, as you have outlined and which must have been known to many lawyers (even Tory MSP and Professor of Public Law, Adam Tomkins). We should not expect English politicians to agree with Scotland, or Wales, becoming independent, so it’s up to us, and the rest of the world, first. I was disappointed recently to hear a democratic referendum being described as a “wildcat” event just because the UK parliament might not approve of it. That takes us too close to the infamous Scottish cringe. I wouldn’t be bothered if unionists chose to boycott it, but I can’t see why they would abstain from the chance to vote in favour of their precious union. After all, they have James willing to fight for it.
James, exactly which part of the Britnat machine do you work for…….you had your referendum in 2014 and you lost……you are about ad Scottish as the bbc.
Stuart+Campbell – I’m as Scottish as the rest of the 55 percent who voted for the union.
You lost – and you’ll lose again if there is another referendum.
I can’t understand you people at all. Look at Craig Murray’s next piece about Julian Assange. Aren’t the issues raised there much more important than the independence question? Looking at the neo-con mind-set of Nicola Sturgeon – do you really imagine that Scottish independence will resolve anything at all? If so, how exactly?
The Irish are culturally different – they should have a united Ireland. I see nothing to justify us leaving the union.
James
Please do not deny what you are – a British Nationalist – a Scotland denier.
Cubby – I’m not a nationalist – and hence not a British Nationalist – so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I don’t exactly know what you mean by Scotland denier, but if you mean not wanting rule from Holyrood with neo-con Nicola Sturgeon as Prime Minister then – yes – I’m a Scotland denier!
Could you explain what would be different in an independent Scotland? No, I didn’t think you could. Of course, you wouldn’t be able to blame the English for everything.
James
That is a cracker – “put that in your pipe and smoke it” ???????
British Nationalist and Scotland denier – be proud of what you are.
“No I didn’t think you could” – some comedy turn – were you normally at the Edinburgh fringe about 30 years ago.
No I do not blame the English for everything just Britnat Scotland deniers like you.
It seems to me, Mr Murray, that so much of what we are told about the constitutional situation is simply accepted at face value. We have never even tried to have the Treaty of Union ‘sound’ in law, yet people pontificate on its demise, stating that it has been superseded by the Acts – which, of course, legally and constitutionally, is a pile of reeking ordure. It is this approach that makes me want to scream. The same goes for our history. Och, it doesn’t matter; not was all so long ago. We let the Unionists dominate every discourse with their unfounded and dishonest claptrap. The level of ignorance and/or connivance it takes to maintain the Unionist position is beyond myth itself. The Unionist position is myth built on myth about Scotland’s past, the Declaration, the Union, et al, until we have a pile of Unionist manure that rivals Ben Nevis in it’s claim to be the highest mountain in Scotland. We waste millions on court cases in the domestic courts that a child of five could have explained were impossible to win. The one reason that the proroguing of the Westminster parliament was overturned was because Johnson was acting illegally – that is, illegally by England-as-the-UK’s own constitution, the ‘British’ Constitution, wholly English. So long as Westminster and Whitehall remain within the law itself, no court in the UK, including the Supreme Court, will gainsay anything at all that Westminster decides. That is yet another reason for taking our case entirely out of the domestic arena. Also, England-as-the-UK would probably not invade Scotland while we are engaged in a legal case in the ICJ. I wouldn’t be so sure if we tried to hold a referendum without a S30 Order and second Edinburgh Agreement.
Craig writes: “There are a couple of weird cuts where the kittens knocked the camera over. Consensus here is that next time I should just film the kittens.”
Having read all comments so far, I’m surprised no one has identified the market-oriented, obvious opportunity: Cat videos are Huuuge, kittens HUUUGER! So if Craig hitched his wagon to a kitten he could achieve a direct conduit to the shambling mass of Internet minds and start to open these minds.
Craig could have a Special Guest Kitty each time, then, subtly, include controversial human guests. Spread the word every day in every way. That’s how Craig’s opponents work. But they haven’t harnessed the power of cat videos. Yet.