Friday, 18 February 2011

Scots Wha Hae under Suppression Bred

Scots Wha Hae under Suppression Bred
The cause without its rebels

They say you should never write when you’re angry.

And, even after I’ve chased a startled dog from my study by the sound of a vacuum being thumped around and dust and cigar ash being redistributed to who knows where and care even less I’m still angry, so here goes – and to hell whether reason is drowned by polemic or if anger can drive reason to the heights of enlightenment.

First, in the cause of reason, I have to declare where I stand. As a Scot who has lived most of my life in very acceptable parts of England I still regard myself as a staunch supporter of Scotland’s fight for independence. I brook no argument as to my right to have these views and to advance and argue for them. That said, I neither have truck for the xenophobic tripe of the ‘Wha’s Like Us’ brigade, or its offshoots of sectarianism; or the malaise of apathy adopted by the ‘leave it to our betters; what can we dea aboot it battalions?’  The fact underlining this plea is the one that England, as with every other part of this dystopian and dysfunctional Union, is as badly served by Westminster’s version of democracy on the common people as any other.

To illustrate my point I’ll use a quote from Robert Noonan’s book (Under he nom –de-plume of Robert Tressall) ‘The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.

“Every man who is not helping to bring about a better state of affairs for the future is helping to perpetuate the present misery, and is therefore the enemy of his own children.”
The “enemy of his own children” – that’s a damning indictment against a generation. Especially one where the contest to bring about that better state does not call for the loss of blood or limb, or the carnage of chaos through revolution, but merely the impetus to cast off the slough of apathy and demand the rules of democracy be adhered to by the rights we’re told we already have.

This damnation is doubled, when a door that’s been locked tight for generations has been cracked open and only needs shoulders, backbones and legs to thrust it open to exchange suppression for freedom. But of course it takes a mind to initiate action.

So what’s caused this frenzied Bee to buzz under my bonnet?

Yesterday, we had the results of a Poll conducted in Scotland with reference to the coming Scottish General Election. Amidst cries of jubilation we were told the SNP had forged ahead (which they hadn’t); while the other camps, if they commented at all on the (quite serious for some) fall on the grading of their chances, mumbled about one off’s.

It struck me while reading and trying to sort out the wheat from the diatribes of chaff and the ubiquitous gripes of media bias towards parties or Union by the MSM, I’d seen nor heard nothing on a Scottish version of the leaders’ debates being scheduled for the coming election.

This seemed to me to be a major gap in the campaign armoury for all the parties; an even bigger flaw in the development, construction and distribution of the democratic process and two fingers to Scotland and its people.

So I posted a few comments covering this, and contacted a handful of editors of blogs querying why this fault had never been raised - In truth, on one blog a comment on the issue was raised hours before mine – and I asked, if not – why not? And if it’s down to ‘ifs’, shouldn’t we be raising the roof about it?

Even if we fail to get the TV gurus to rise to the challenge, wouldn’t it add the final nail to the coffin of their supposedly unbiased and professional journalistic attitude to the prattle of deceit spewed out of the mouths of our political masters under the guise of democratic process?

Response – zilch. Moderated off, or ignored.

Which leaves the question – if it’s good enough for Westminster, is it too good for Scotland and the other devolved nations?

After all it couldn’t be down to scheduling – Brown went to the Palace on the 6th April 2010 for an election scheduled for the 6th of May. There’s more than double that time to get the schedule sorted in Scotland.

Even the SNP challenged (and asked for donations to pay for it – I sent enough to probably pay for 30 seconds of their leading QCs time) their exclusion from the Westminster debates. Their challenge failed, but why are they not clamouring for one now on a purely Scottish election, on Scottish issues, in Scottish air time, on Scottish democracy and through channels supported by money from the Scottish people? 

At a time when politics have reduced principles to excrement, have they not got the backbone to stand by theirs? Or has the slime of ‘real politik’ reduced them to the same level of sentient mollusc?

I declare my purpose. I’m convinced the SNP will come out of the debate(s) head and shoulders - if not upper torso – above the unionists. They, when all’s said and done, have to defend a heritage of failure created by decree of the Union.  That even under the frustrations and restriction of governing as a minority, the SNP will advance the cause of independence and democracy in Scotland. But why should this progression be allowed to be thwarted, even influenced, by the dubious attitudes and services provided by a handful of media executives?

Why should these sycophantic jobsworths of the establishment be the rampart that indicts us as the enemy of our own children?

We all know, or should, the arithmetical arguments – 45.6 m electorate UK wide – 41.3 of which is England’s – leaving 4.3m for the rest, of which roughly 2m is Scotland’s. Question is does size matter when the issues involved are solely relevant to a Nation and its democratic process?

Well it does, even when only half a million of that nation consider themselves to be oppressed and can be counted and identified through a process systematically denied to the 41.3 million. Consider the percentages, 25% (12million people) denied the choice of what might best suit them, add in the 15 million who chose not to vote in the Westminster elections, then factor down the 12m to 6m to cover for those who did vote on the basis of the least worse option and that’s democracy buggered before the cheek of a parliamentary arse hits a Westminster seat.

But to me it’s the ratio of people to potential and space that is Scotland’s glory and viability as a Nation. Its opportunity to raise quality without the drags of quantity stifling its demographics, and paradoxically, the quantity of its natural and commercial assets raising the quality of life it can afford its balanced quantity of people.

In short, Scotland is I believe reaching for that cracked open door. If the media , BBC, STV, Sky et al, either by inference, denial or barefaced lie say its better back on the latch, and Scotland chooses to believe them, then you are your children’s enemy and I hope they damn you to hell for your timidity but have the compassion to grant you solace for your blindness.

There you have it – tell me to *iss off if you will. But in the name and the universality of the wee man and his children; get your finger out and bloody do something about it.

John Souter


john.boettcher said...

Great post.

Sums up with my thinking and friends too.

I'm pissed off mightily.

We need to fight. And the SNP need to get their act together too.

I'm a member of said party but feel a hesitancy in the leadership to really go for the jugular.

With no true free press in Scotia, when issues are airbrushed or ignored if they are negative towards Labour (Purcell, Alexander, Murphy, the secretive duplicitous Cabal regarding the release of Al-Mehgrahi etc. etc. etc.) it's time for for action if Scots do not want to live under a government they did not vote for holding all the levers in Westminster.

Sorry, bit of a rant there.

I'm angry.

John Böttcher

RMcGeddon said...

SR. I think people might wake up if they thought it mattered who they voted for. People know it doesn't matter as the main issues are agreed by all parties - more EU, belief in the global warming scam and more immigration.
These 3 issues pretty much determine how life will evolve in Scotland in the next 50 years. Free prescriptions and free roadbridge tolls are welcomed but are a bit like fiddling while Rome burns.
So I'm now apolitical and usually vote for an independent candidate.

JRB said...

With regard to TV debate you ask the question -
“…if it’s good enough for Westminster, is it too good for Scotland…”

That predisposes the fundamental proposition that such televised debates are – ‘Good’.

I would argue that they are not ‘Good’ – far from it.

Such debate merely exaggerates the cult of the individual, the ‘X’ factor if you wish. More akin to a presidential campaign, than to a party political campaign.

Everything becomes devoid of substance, merely a collection of sound-bites.

You close by saying -
“…in the name and the universality of the wee man and his children; get your finger out and bloody do something about it…”

Indeed I shall vote as I see fit, but as for my children who are enfranchised in their own right, they too will vote. But perhaps, not as you or I. That is the wonder of a democracy.

subrosa said...

Rant away John. That's what comments are for. I'm with John and yourself on this matter. Why did the SNP take legal action against being ignored during the GE debates yet make no effort to ensure we have the same debates for our own election?

subrosa said...

Independent candidates are becoming few and far between RM I notice. Unfortunately the bigger parties have the financial clout. That's what is sad about it all.

subrosa said...

In that case John, why did the SNP contest their exclusion from the GE leaders debates? I too gave money towards their case.

Why shouldn't the SNP use their best asset (Eck) in such a manner. We're living in a society where the X Factor is more important than what's happening in the middle east and north Africa.

I'm firmly with John on this matter. The SNP should be pushing very hard to have televised debates.

Do you watch Question Time? If so then you'll know that Scottish leaders debate sessions couldn't be worse than what Dimbleby produces week by week.

subrosa said...

Ooops, sorry John S, I've taken over your post. Forgive me. Now I'll be quiet.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

JRB -I'll answer you first.

The issues you have raised are entirely relevant and I accept them totally.

I never watched any of the debates mainly for similar reasons. However not all do reason, especially so those enamoured by the celebrity cult.

Likewise, our children are for a time at least prisoners to their environment. Surely, within the limited field of politics, we're obliged to make it as honest and productive as possible?

Finally the efficacy of the debates was not the issue I've tried to raise, but the fact of it not being offered or demanded but left to the whim of MSM executives.

Surely a failing of such a large nature needs exposure?

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Rosa you can take over any time -Post away.

It's not the post that is important, its the exposure of the behind the scenes machinations of control that matter.

RMcGeddon said...

" Independent candidates are becoming few and far between RM I notice."
I think that might change SR. I notice that the SNP got the majority of the votes in the recent council election in Angus but didn't get a big enough majority to win outright. The indpendent candidate finally won after looking at 2nd to 5th preferences. I suspect independent candidates will have been heartened by this turn of events.
I agree that the MSM in Scotland is pro labour and won't sanction a dissenting voice but this is also reflected in some of the blogosphere where comments that don't agree with the bloggers views are routinely blocked ( sadly even some on your recommended blog roll SR)

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

RMG - If we could find a hundred people of competence, integrity and commitment Scotland would be well served by its Government.

Half stand for re-election every two years to allow for continuity etc Lobbying only allowed before parliamentary committee and election campaigns funded at a fixed level from the public purse.

Stand on something along those lines and I'll vote for you every Thursday of the week.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

John - thanks for the compliment, glad you enjoyed it.

This was one of those occasions when you wonder whether commitment has a place in politics.

Where the Ah ha! of an idea leads to the Why Not????

Bit of a partisan rant I know; and probably not fair to many of Rosa's readers, but it does have implications throughout the UK.

subrosa said...

RM, if any blogs on my blogroll block dissenting comments, please let me know who they are. I don't support such actions as it completely stifles debate.

I think I've removed around 10 comments in 2 years and that was because of bad language or spam, (with the exception of the spammer(s) who attacked Scottish blogs with drivel some time ago).

RMcGeddon said...

SR. I'd never clype on anyone and at the end of the day it's their blog so their rules. And if I'm not happy then I should get my own blog.

I've been doing a totally unscientific analysis of blogs over the last few months using various monikers ( to avoid getting labelled a particular political persuasion ) and it confirmed what I thought. The blogosphere just follows the MSM in bias and blocking of comments.
In general, I found that right wing or pro independence blogs like yours are totally open to comment and almost anything is permitted, bar foul language or defamation.
Left wing / liberal blogs are strictly controlled and comments only get through if they agree with their ideology. This copies the restrictions at the BBC / Guardian etc and may explain the blinkered thinking of left wingers in society. They never get to hear any dissenting voices so truly believe the rubbish that they speak and hear.

RMcGeddon said...


That sounds good. We should go for it :)

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

RMG - We'll start next Thurday?

pa_broon74 said...

I read all of that and agreed whole heartedly, then I saw who'd written it.

John Souter is a divisive character in some circles, I hope people from those circles can live with the conflicting veiws and continue to vote for the SNP.

I will be but I'll also be gently gritting my teeth.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Pa Broon - care to identify the circles and the divisive and conflicting views?

I support the SNP but that doesn't mean I wont hold them to task.

pa_broon74 said...


I'm getting my Souters mixed up. I was refering to the donation to the SNP from Brian Souter.

I'm positive the author of the piece above is a fine individual (and doesn't make cock ups when commenting on threads as I do.)

In which case I retract my previous comment and state I agree with him whole-heartedly and without reservation.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Pa - forgiven; just don't come to me looking for half a million, you'll be in for a bitter disappointment.

That aside, we all make cock-ups - integrity is in the correction.

Keep posting in Newsnet and you can do worse than keeping an eye on Rosa's blog.

subrosa said...

RM it's not clyping in the least. My blogroll is a list of blogs I too read although I get little time to comment these days. I'm against comments being regulated to any degree and if I've blogs on it I'd much prefer not to promote them.

You could email me of course. ;)

Interesting project though. There is only one blog I know which refuses to publish my comments and they're the losers really because I no longer promote them here.

I seldom read the Guardian RM but the other day google coughed up a link to it for a search I'd done. The comments on the subject were horrific and the vitriol to those who disagreed so intense it was frightening.

subrosa said...

Yer a lucky man pa broon - I had you pinned against the wall there and then suddenly noticed your succeeding comment. :)

Maybe I should do a wee post about Brian Soutar's contribution?

pa_broon74 said...

Might be an idea.

My concern re. Brian Souter and his generous offer has its basis in his activities all those years ago with Clause 28.

There have since been mitherings (on BBC Scotland y'd morning) about his generosity and of the SNP Governments' stance on Gay Marriage.

As I understand it, same sex marriages are banned from taking place in places of worship (although the rights you get are much of a muchness.) In England they're looking to chuck that out, but the SNP Government in Scotland are keeping things as they are.

They risk losing the pink vote (eeurgh hate that term) because a) Brian Souter has form and b)it looks bad if the press spin it as BS (haha) gaining blat with politicians for his own views.

From my point of view, I don't care one way or the other on gay marriage, I have no wish to get married in a church or any where else. But it could be spun to look bad for the SNP.

I also understand people may decide to vote for the SNP because they feel gay marriage isn't right so maybe I'm talking rubbish.

Brian Souter did have some seriously misinformed views on the whole gay issue though and I remember being mildly perturbed at the time.

Francis Urquhart said...

My government supports the case for Scottish Independence especially now that Mr Salmond has agreed in principal to buy my Scottish Estate for the First Minister's official residence. After all, I now have Chequers, so don't need two.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Pa Broon to be fair to Soutar - the other one that is- he hasn't tied any stipulations to his backing that we know of. I don't like the whole damn system of business donations, lobbying and party funding; but we can't change that between now and May.

I don't like homophobia either, but the difficulty there is when it collides with genuinely held religious beliefs and this was where Soutar held his line.

Often minorities cry for special treatment in order to emphasise the positiveness in which they'r treated. I don't go along with that, minorities in matters such as their sexuality are entitled to an equality of normality.

pa_broon74 said...

If you could be so good as to ask them to hurry things along, we'd be ever so grateful Francis.

We'll subtract reparations from the final sale price of your estate. Just leave the keys under the mat when you leave.


pa_broon74 said...

Brian Souter's beliefs were misinformed, to me it makes no difference whether he was hiding behind religious beliefs or not, they were/are factually, empirically and proveably incorrect and in the context of clause 28 damaging to a slice of society who had no way to reply. His entire premise (regardless of belief) was erroneous insofar as he believed the repeal of clause 28 would have teachers teaching kids to be 'gay' which was hysterical nonsense.

As it happens, I agree with your point about minorities and special treatment, I don't agree with it either, nor do I agree with the notion that they 'wouldn't need to ask for it if things were fair' which is the justification frequently peddled out.

I've never been on a gay pride march, for young people growing up they do more harm than good. It would be amusing if it wasn't so damaging; all those incredibly camp LGBT people come out and simultaneously enforcing a stereotype that they're trying to destroy.

Its very odd.

Anyway, I digress. (Brian) Souter's line was misinformed, religious or not and in a modern secular society, he needs to wind his neck in. (But thanks for the donation, it's very kind.)


TartanSeer said...

For John,

Both the BBC & STV ARE planning Leaders Debates.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Tartan Seer -good news and very pleased to hear it.

Calum Cushley mentioned there were rumours, but emphasised they were just rumours.

All grist to the mill and at least you know I'm not part of the establishment.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Francis de nom-de-plume

A fond farewell - now we only need to get rid of Queeny, tranfer the Scottish parliament to the palace, which should have been done in the first place; then we can hire out the present building for office space and conference centre and claw back some return on it.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Pa -I really don't think people's sexuality is that easily influenced.

Good humour keeps it all in perspective.

pa_broon74 said...

Brian Souter seemed to think it was and evil liberal left-wing teachers were waiting in the wings to 'turn' our innocent youth in to mincing minions of the dark side!

Still, his money spends the same way as anyone elses. Hopefully no one will make anything of it, even although I don't think there is anything to it. He's match funding which is different from a straight forward cash bung.

I can't wait for the leadership debates, it'll be like watching a disaster movie when you know something aweful is going to happen. Need to be careful Gray doesn't profit from the sympathy vote though...


cynicalHighlander said...

The problem with leader debates.

firstly the host presenter and secondly the audience balance/impartiality. We all say we have open minds in a general sense but politics is or can be construed as 'tribal'. I have no faith in the BBC in being impartial in any way as has been shown over the years. Was that latest poll shown on there website? I don't know as I haven't looked at it for months.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Cynical - I know what you mean. I used to think ,in my naivety, the QT was live. Began to wonder after 2007 when it came up to Scotland and Nicola was a voice in a wilderness of unionists, including the audience.

Dimbleby's refusal to visit Scotland for briefings have, if nothing else, shone new light on the time line between recording and transmission.

Perhaps the BBC will hire Paul Daniels for the next series.

subrosa said...

Pa broon, I think you may be misinformed and that's because I don't think you actually read the material our young children were to be taught when Section 2A (as it was in Scotland) came to debate.

I was quite impartial until I happened to come across the material and then I was staunchly against the repealing of the act. I'm happy to say I supported Mr Soutar and I still do to this day. To call him homophobic or a bigot is unjustified in my view because he holds very firm religious beliefs. They're not used as an 'excuse'.

Would you call a muslim who decided to pay for a referendum a homophobe and a bigot in the same circumstances?

The man put his money where his beliefs were and lost, but lost with dignity.

Since this act was repealed schools spend far more time on sex education than any other social subject - ask any teacher.

No stranger's sexuality interests me. It's their business and not mine. I have acquaintances of all hues and the issue never arises precisely because it is nobody's business but their own.

As for his donation, it's a clever one from a clever businessman. 'Meet me £ for £'. Good move.

What scunners me is the amount of people who are prepared to call Mr Soutar a bigot etc yet are happy to accept his donation.

If you do have access to the materials taught in sex lessons to our children (and I haven't seen any for a couple of years) you may just rethink your strong views.

Conan the Librarian™ said...

You were going to pin him to the wall Rosa?

John Brownlie will be sooo jealous;¬)

subrosa said...

Ah didnae say whit wa' Conan. There's mony a wa up here ah'd no' like tae be pinned tae - even by wur Shaun. :)

John Brownlie said...

Completely agree with you, Rosa. What appears to be forgotten about Souter is the £20 million that his charities have raised to address poverty and ill-health in under-developed countries including the "mighty" and "prosperous" UK.

subrosa said...

Yes I should have mentioned that too Brownlie.

I'm sick of people calling Soutar a bigot and was so surprised to see the journalist Kenny Farquharson say so on Twitter the other day.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Calm down folks.

the truth is behind the scenes the three of us are all competing to be the first Presidents of Scotland.

While Connery and Soutar have got the money. I've got the looks and anonymity and the wit to know how much the Scots love the underdog!

subrosa said...

I insist you start a website Crinkly and we'll promote you. :)

Jo G said...

pa broon, to label a person as you have Brian Souter is quite disgusting. He is surely as entitled as anyone to share his views without being labelled a homophobe?

I think its a real worry in our political environment today that if one is not out and out pro-gay issues one runs the risk of being similarly labelled and that it is a very dangerous and appalling approach.

On the Section 28 debacle many very ordinary people - including parents - were concerned by the prospect of FIVE YEAR OLDS being told about all sorts of stuff they were perhaps not ready for. Some parents wanted to have the responsibility of introducing subjects to their children themselves. Nothing homophobic about that.

Many people thought primary school was not the place to introduce such subjects. That is not the definition of homophobia and the vilification of Souter was every bit as disgusting as true homophobia in that a person was targeted, ridiculed, publicly attacked and his views were distorted beyond all recognition for a cause that regularly proves it is only interested in issues affecting a particular group.

It is a dangerous environment where, if one expresses reservations on an issue like, say, Section 28, one is immediately called a homophobe. It is simply not the case that anyone who opposed the abolition of Section 28 falls into that category but it was a tactic adopted by many, including the Labour Party, at the time. Thus we do not engage in politics and debate on such issues: we simply function in an environment of fear and that is what many used to silence opposition to the abolition of Section 28 because once you get that homophobe label you are then systematically destroyed.

It is a disgusting tactic and the gay lobby have used it for years now. Some have admitted that they threatened those in high places, whom they knew to be privately homosexual, that if they did not support their aims they would publicly out them. What do you call that Pa? I call it blackmail. I also say if someone is gay and wishes it to remain private it is their right that it be so and that NO ONE has the right to threaten them.

And you can label me homophobic if you like, you'd be wrong, but I am seriously concerned about the clout the gay lobby now have and by the fact that in the great scheme of things they are now "more equal" than any other group today. That is not healthy.

Their "right" to get access to children for example does not exist in law. No one has the right to adopt. Children are not accessories! And who asks the children what they want? Who asks them if they want to be reared in a gay household? What about their "rights" or don't they have any? Is a child who wants a mum and a dad a homophobe too? Is it anyone's fault that the definition of the word parents means a mother and a father and that those words are gender related? Is it nature's fault that only a male and a female can actually create another human being? Who will be blame for that? How far do you want to take this debate and will you label anyone who points out basic facts as a homophobe, shut them up and then having used the fear of labels to silence them then do whatever you want? You call that democracy? I call it something else entirely.

subrosa said...

I do hope pa broon reads your comment Jo because it echoes many of my thoughts.

He didn't respond to my question when I asked if he'd read a sample of the material the children would be taught during the Section 2a referendum debate, so I doubt he did. In fact I doubt anyone who read the material would have voted yes. It even shocked me and that's takes some effort.

Jo G said...

Subrosa, this whole area really upsets me. I detest any group being singled out for ridicule but it seems to me there is a general acceptance that if an issue involves the gay community people must give support or keep their heads down and their mouths shut.

I actually have some gay friends who feel the same way and who believe that the gay lobby have actually made more enemies through their tactics with the homophobe word and their frequent use of it where it does not apply. It is used as a means of shutting people up. People are afraid of it. One of my friends believes they are actually more resented now than before because they are seen to have more clout than any other group and are basically bullying people into saying nothing.

Its no way to conduct a debate. And when it reaches the stage where even children become part of a package of "rights" it is time to call a halt.

subrosa said...

A couple of my friends feel the same as yours Jo and have distanced themselves from the gay lobby altogether because they are angry - mainly because the fight has been won yet they want more.

They insist they're not 'special' in any way yet governments throw vast amounts of money at projects and charities involving them.

Not only does that anger them it angers me and anyone who believes in live and let live.

It was unfortunate that I didn't see the material I did until a couple of days before Soutar's referendum or I would have had time to inform more folk. As it was I managed to show it to around 50 people in that time and all voted against.

The education authorities tried desperately hard to keep the books under wraps until after the referendum. Copies were unavailable as those who did enquire were told 'nothing had yet been printed'. I knew then that it was all politically motivated.

Jo G said...

Subrosa, what the Gay lobby and the Labour Party did to Soutar, and to those like us who simply wanted common sense shown, should never be forgotten or forgiven. They make me sick. But I am bloody well not afraid of them.

Jo G said...

Subrosa, when I hear Peter Tatchell whining for the age of consent for homosexual boys to be lowered to 14 I want to vomit. Tatchell has his own motives and no mistake.

Related Posts with Thumbnails