Speech To Scottish Independence Convention 24


THE United Kingdom is not an entity that deserves to exist because it has lost any moral authority it had.

With these words Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador who exposed torture and murder in Uzbekistan, made his case for the break-up the United Kingdom at the Convention’s February plenary.

Tony Blair’s failure to consider the human cost of war has brought us to where we are today, he said, and the only way to right the situation is to split up the UK.

Someone kindly made note of my speech to the Scottish Independence Convention, which is helpful as I don’t use a text. You can find the gist of what I said here.

http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com/Blog.asp


24 thoughts on “Speech To Scottish Independence Convention

  • tony_opmoc

    Cheney’s confessions yesterday re demanding torture may have some interesting implications for some Scottish and English politicians, which may be why Lord Goldsmith is suddenly trying to cover his back. Maybe he has been talking to Jack Goldsmith who got the push in the US – when he said – “You can’t do that.”

    Scotland is welcome to its independence, providing you take all your bloody politicians back – including Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born in Edinburgh, Scotland on 6 May 1953) and put them on trial for War Crimes Against Humanity under Scottish Law.

    I assume Torture is still illegal in Scotland.

    Tony

  • AJSLondon

    How bizarre!! “The only way to right the situation is to split up the UK.”?

    So you don’t agree with the use of ‘torture’ so the solution is Scottish independence? So if a future Scottis govt does a little bit of slappy face then should Dundee declare independence?

  • Craig

    AJSLondon

    It is more a question that, unlike the UK, an independent Scotland would be most unlikely to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on invading other countries and acquiring massive nuclear weapons systems.

  • mike cobley

    Isn’t it possible that as a country of 5 million, we in Scotland would be easy prey for global investors, speculators and other hyena traders? Greece has a population twice our size and they’re currently getting a ruthless kicking from Goldman Sachs and the other amoral empires of the coin. Independent Scotland? – easy meat!

  • Craig

    Uncle Oddin,

    You evidently don’t realise you are talking to the man who negotiated the UK’s continental shelf boundaries.

    Mike,

    Of course you are absolutely right. When you think about it, is it not astonishing that Swedes, Danes and Norwegians are even still alive?

    Really, Mike, normally you are one of my more level-headed commenters.

  • James Cranch

    Also, the Irish don’t seem spend their days crying into their Guinness about how ludicrous and useless a country of less than ten million people would be.

    I personally think that vulnerability to global financial shenanigans doesn’t really have much to do with the population (at least, the difference between six million and sixty million probably isn’t important). I think it’s rather more about prudent and restrained economic policy.

    For example, Norway have been extremely cautious. They seem concomitantly much less vulnerable to the capricious behaviour of Goldman Sachs than the UK.

    Now, I’ve been told that financial restraint is not a personal quality that’s hard to find among Scottish people…

  • AJSLondon

    “an independent Scotland would be most unlikely to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on invading other countries and acquiring massive nuclear weapons systems.”

    Why? Any evidence at all? Brown is as scottish as you can get and he has no problem….are you suggesting it is the warmongering English that have caused all this??

  • Richard Robinson

    “acquiring massive nuclear weapons systems”

    is it still SNP policy to get rid of the ones currently present ?

  • Vronsky

    “is it still SNP policy to get rid of the ones currently present?”

    Yes, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a bit of horse-trading got done there – at least delaying the decommissioning, perhaps for decades. I’ve heard senior members of the party hint at this. Decommissioning would be a lengthy business anyway.

  • Richard Robinson

    “I’ve heard senior members of the party hint at this. Decommissioning would be a lengthy business anyway.”

    I have no way to guess at the technical issues. But I imagine a certain dragging of feet from the status quo … to put it as minimally. Cat among the pigeons, or what ? How many murky little departments could there be, in how many countries, whose job would include seeing it as a major “security” problem ? How many officials’ head would roll if this disaster wasn’t averted ?

  • Vronsky

    The removal of nuclear weapons and the appropriation of the oil are massive, massive issues – these things will not be achieved simply by wishing. I predict tanks in George Square again.

    tinyurl.com/ygkl8ap

  • Davie Park

    “The removal of nuclear weapons and the appropriation of the oil are massive, massive issues – these things will not be achieved simply by wishing.”

    What about an appeal to international law? We know how seriously Westminster takes their international obligations.

  • Davie Park

    “Brown is as scottish as you can get and he has no problem….are you suggesting it is the warmongering English that have caused all this??”

    AJSLondon. I think you’re badly missing the point. You seem to be blinded by considerations of ethnicity.

    Nobody is suggesting for a moment that Scots are innately more peace-loving than anybody else. However, a small nation of 5 million people is unlikely to be concerned with strutting around the world pretending they are still an imperial power.

    A small nation of Scotland’s size is unlikely to feel a need to be part of the ‘nuclear club’.

    Brown’s problem is not his Scottishness just as Thatcher’s problem was not her Englishness. I’m afraid it’s their Britishness that is the nub of it.

    Both England and Scotland (and Wales) would be far happier places if the union was not a politically incorporating one. Time to move on as friends.

  • Richard Robinson

    “Both England and Scotland (and Wales) would be far happier places if the union was not a politically incorporating one.”

    I’m not sure about England, certainly not in the short term. Most English (at least the ones I’ve talked to) seem to view “nationalism” in a sense similar to the argument about ‘anarchy’ a couple of threads back – BNP-style racism with a hint of Bosnia. Plus a lack of understanding of / interest in the difference between “England” and “Britain” – more than one otherwise-sensible person has explained to me how Scotland shouldn’t become independent because of how bad it would be for England. As one of them myself, mostly, it worries me that this is seen as an argument against it. There would be some strange changes before England became happy with it, I think. But, refusing to deal with that is going to make it more likely rather than less.

  • mike cobley

    Well, I do try to be at least rational, if not always level-headed (polemic is a temptation). But today, we hear that Trump has lodged his application to build BabylonXanadu – sorry, a golfing megaplex near Aberdeen, a clear attempt to subvert a local authority in my view. William Gibson once wrote that the rich are not like us; I would go so far as to say that they are scarcely human, swathed in the unbridled power that truly gargantuan wealth brings and class-conscious in a way that no other subset of humanity is.

    Add to the superrich the transnational corporations and you have the true enemy of humanity. Pointing out how well off Swedes and Norwegians etc are doesn’t negate the gross and vile influence of these empires of the coin. And when I argue against Scottish independence it is not out of some dewy-eyed attachment to the glories of the Empah etc, but out of a hard-headed, practical standpoint. The battle for control of humanity’s fate is now ongoing, and only the strength of democratic governments can prevail against the megacorporations (who have already bought the American political system). When the CEOs of Exxon or News International or Walmart or Proctor & Gamble see such moves to break national territories down into smaller ones, they must surely rub their hands with glee and smile a smile of quiet satisfaction.

  • Richard Robinson

    “William Gibson once wrote that the rich are not like us”

    pedantic digression … Maybe so, but he wasn’t the first. It’s usually credited to F.S. Fitzgerald, isn’t it ?

    I can imagine Gibson making it work for him, though. Which book ?

  • mike cobley

    Ah, now yer asking. I thought it was from Neuromancer, but…might have been from an interview in Science Fiction Eye. And hey – pedantic? Just limning the parameters, is all.

  • john

    Good luck for Scottish Independence. Avoid monarchy and Shylock Usurers–this way the Scottish people may own their country and have honest representation in Parliament.

Comments are closed.