Positively Independent 112


I am speaking at a conference in Glasgow on Sunday to promote Scottish Independence.

http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com/PDF%20Files/Posivitly%20Independent.pdf

There are many reasons I support Scottish independence (and Welsh independence and Irish reunification). But among those reasons, and the one which I shall be expounding on Sunday, is that the United Kingdom as an entity is fundamentally tied to US military and neo-imperial interests. Neither Robin Cook nor Lib Dems in government have been able to separate the UK from aggressive foreign occupations, ruinous military expenditure, addiction to weapons of mass destruction and a contempt for international law.

The UK must be broken up. I want to see a Scotland that accepts it is a proud and equal nation among other nations, but has no desire to be more than equal, that plays an active part in the UN and in strengthening the framework of international law, does not possess WMDs and which will never attack another country unless it or an ally is physically attacked,

A Scotland like that is acheivable. A UK like that is not. Part of the reason may be that the UK was in truth in itself an imperial construct, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland the first conquered people. Their later absorption into the imperial culture (which still infects unionists) does not alter that truth.


112 thoughts on “Positively Independent

1 2 3 4
  • zooter

    Remind me again what was the nationality(for want of a better description) of the last two priministers and a large section of the cabinet. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

  • zooter11

    And if my memory is correct i think it was a ‘Taff’ who sent my grandfather off to defend Belgium, and being shot for the pleasure.

  • nextus

    It’s tempting to apply the “No *true* Scotsman” fallacy here. Sadly, Brown is virtually paradigmatic.

  • Chartnoski

    @zooter The last three Prime Ministers have been ‘British’. Cameron and Blair are ‘English British’ and Brown is ‘Scottish British’ What do I win?

  • MJ

    “I want to see a Scotland that accepts it is a proud and equal nation among other nations”

    You do not make it clear whether your “independent” Scotland would still be a member of the EU and would join the Euro.

    A nation can only be genuinely independent if it a sovereign nation, ie it can create and control its own currency.

    I beleive a strong, soverign UK is the best protection inhabitants of this island have against the globalists and their agenda. I believe breaking up into three smaller and weaker nations would ultimately disempower us all.

  • mike cobley

    quote – “a proud and equal nation among other nations, but has no desire to be more than equal, that plays an active part in the UN and in strengthening the framework of international law, does not possess WMDs and which will never attack another country unless it or an ally is physically attacked. A Scotland like that is acheivable. A UK like that is not.”

    I disagree profoundly with this, Craig, sorry. Whatever the origins of the UK, it is now an interwoven patchwork of families and communities with common histories, problems and aspirations. That is an absolute truth. And to say that only Scotland could achieve a kind of enlightened state is pretty insulting to people in the other parts of the nation, dont you think? My mother is Scottish but my father is English and I have many English friends – are they somehow less open to reason and compassion than Scottish people? Of course not – the suggestion is ludicrous.

  • Paul

    (OFF-TOPIC)

    * * * * Act Now to Save a Life * * * *

    Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, an Iran woman falsely accused of murdering her husband, is scheduled to be stoned to death *tomorrrow* (3rd Nov).

    There are email addresses you can write to condemning this appalling judgement here (as well as more information):

    http://stopstonningnow.com/wpress/4196

  • Craig E

    Good luck with the convention Craig; can we have you in Edinburgh running the Scottish diplomatic service?

    On another topic, did you see Question Time from Glasgow last week? Mr Dimbleby was all over Nicola Sturgeon to prevent her taking about Scottish matters insisting that this was a UK programme??? Pity he didn’t say that when they were discussing Boris Johnston and London for some time!

  • Parky

    Population for Scotland would put it in the same ball-park as Norway, Finland, Denmark and the Irish Republic. These countries are all pretty much going concerns and so there should be no reason Scotland couldn’t make a go of it on its own.

    It would have to give up the subsidy it receives from Westminster and have no say in matters concerning England, Wales and NI. Maybe the EU would fill in the budget gap in the meantime? If all the carpet-baggers who came south of the border returned to their homeland the population would slightly increase but the intellectual capital to improve the economy would increase more. I wonder if they are prepared to make that sacrifice, afterall the weather in Scotland isn’t as temperate as Southern England although the Scottish people are far more hospitalble in compensation. In general though I think it would be a good idea as I also think having a more federal approach to running the UK in the same way Germany has which means the main resources are not concentrated in the capital. There are however many vested interests to keep things the way they are and short of a major war in this land it is unlikely things will change very much.

  • Davie Park

    Mike Cobley wrote: “And to say that only Scotland could achieve a kind of enlightened state is pretty insulting to people in the other parts of the nation, dont you think?”

    Except, of course, that Craig DID NOT say that.

    If that is a typical example of how you process information, then I think we can dismiss much of what you say.

    The commonality of our aspirations, histories and problems is more than debateable BUT is not the issue at hand.

    The very fact of Scotland’s (and Wales’ and Ireland’s) size precludes any ideas of global might. The ‘re-structuring’ of the UK constitutionally would also resolve the post-empire malaise that is the foundation of so much British trouble-making in the world.

    The idea that a UK which is hell-bent on exploitative globalisation (as a junior partner of the US of course) is a force AGAINST globalisation is utterly risible Mike.

    An inter-national community of small, non-aligned nations is, I believe, the most practical way to protect us from ‘imperial model’ globalisation.

  • Paul

    Re Parky

    “in the same way Germany has which means the main resources are not concentrated in the capital” and “and short of a major war in this land” The federalist model in Germany is a direct result of a major war meaning the capital Berlin was not able to function as a “normal” capital. Also the fact of having one city so much greater in size than any others in the UK unlike Germany means London is unlikely to lose its massive influence.

    As a aside wonder if the BBC will ever move to Salford 🙂

  • MJ

    “The idea that a UK which is hell-bent on exploitative globalisation (as a junior partner of the US of course) is a force AGAINST globalisation is utterly risible Mike”.

    I think that was actually me. I agree that the UK is currently leading the rush for globalisation, but that is because the system has been hijacked, not that the system itself is redundant.

    I maintain that a strong sovereign nation is the best way for a population to retain some control over its own destiny and that a sovereign UK is a much better proposition for us all than is four separate entities.

  • Parky

    Re Paul

    Well the BBC is building some wonderful glass and steel edifice on the banks of the Salford Quays which would seem to promise great things. However going on their recent record for producing quality programming, or the lack of it, it will probably turn out to be a white elephant and only benefit the building contractors. If it was given independence then it might fulfill its true potential but given the facist centralised governance of this land this is unlikely to happen.

    In hindsight for Germany having a decentalised structure was the best thing for it and has provided prosperity for more of the population than the decaying centralised model we are burdened with in the UK has.

  • Vronsky

    As a committed Scottish separatist (my preferred term) I won’t bore on about the many advantages to Scotland of ridding itself of the dysfunctional Ruritania that is the UK. To take a slightly different tack, I have always believed that the break-up of the Union would be of at least potential use to the English, if it served to bring about some centuries overdue self-questioning. In fact my own separatism is a response to my conviction that within the Union there is no solution to our (and that ‘our’ means British, not Scottish) problems. So I am a separatist – it is a despairing exit from an insoluble problem.

    I believe that politicians (if we must have them) should be close to the communities they serve, sufficiently close that they can never deceive us that they are anything other than ordinary people. The talk that is frequently heard of great men and brilliant minds is an illusion of distance, and the lensing effect of obsequious media. Large political units make politicians more remote, more grand, less accountable, and more in the hands of faceless paymasters. Small is beautiful, more visible, and less corruptible.

    It is perfectly possible see an opportunity for all – Scots, Irish, Welsh and English – in Scottish secession from the Union and the huge undermining of the political status quo that that would represent. It is surprising that many normally radical or liberal posters here cannot see that, when it is perfectly apparent to the British state. The media (even, or especially, in Scotland) are so rabidly anti-independence that one scarcely needs to make an argument for separation – it is enough to note those whom it terrifies. Mrs Thatcher said that the only vote that matters in Scotland is the SNP vote: she was right, and you must try to understand why.

  • MJ

    “So I am a separatist – it is a despairing exit from an insoluble problem”.

    Vronsky: I’ve always had you down as rationalist, yet you seem more informed by emotion than reason here. If a problem is insoluble, how does separatism offer any solution?

    And just how separatist are you? I ask you the questions I asked Craig: would an independent Scotland remain in the EU? Would it have the Euro as its currency? Do you envisage it joining the likes of Ireland and Greece as a European basketcase, or going it alone as a tiny sovereign nation like Iceland?

    These are important questions requiring tough, rational thought. An ideology of romantic despair doesn’t quite have the vocabulary for that, I would have thought.

  • somebody

    So you are at odds with the leader of your ConDem coalition, the PM Cameron.

    Speaking at the party conference –

    When I say I am prime minister of the United Kingdom, I really mean it.

    “England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland – we’re weaker apart, stronger together, so together is the way we must always stay.”

  • Vronsky

    “I’ve always had you down as rationalist”

    Me too, with you.

    But you use some emotive language, and you have some presumptions. What’s wrong with being a ‘tiny sovereign nation’? Does this remark conceal that English hankering for status and power which is quite puzzling to most Scots (and not Scots alone)? What’s so great about being great? From where we’re sitting, I can tell you it looks unimpressive.

    “If a problem is insoluble, how does separatism offer any solution?”

    It’s a common enough practice to break a big problem into bits and then deal with the bits. You’ve probably sat through that management motivation lecture where they tell you that the way to eat an elephant is a little a time. Well – I’m suggesting we start nibbling.

    My general point is that separatism is usually portayed as the Scots looking after themselves, and de’il tak the hindmost, whereas as I see it as making a start on a particular aspect of a general problem rather than doing nothing at all. It’s very far from romantic despair – ruthless pragmatism, more like.

    On degree of independence, EU, NATO, etc. etc. – Scotland would make it’s choices, just like any normal nation. What’s up with that?

  • Anonymous

    Stop press! Shock news coming in … Craig Murray at odds with David Cameron! Also showing signs of dissent with former FCO colleagues!

    ,…..

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    The huge deficit and it’s urgency is part of Cameron’s plan to convince Holyrood otherwise. My figures are old but Scotland takes about £40 billion of the UK spend so independence certainly would mean substantial tax increases. That is the rub.

    A referendum? yes of course, but even that is getting past it’s sell-by-date. No I prefer the union and the Scots grand contribution to bettering Britain.

    I wish it were otherwise because in that context, small *is* beautiful. Meanwhile I wait patiently for the state to implode as ‘shoulder to shoulder’ eventually becomes a polite hand-shake and the ‘war of terror’ reverts to the ‘war on want’… – the ‘awakening’ has begun – time for Anglo-Saxons to prepare their own ‘Tea-party’ headed-up by people of Craig’s calibre and reasoning.

  • MJ

    “But you use some emotive language, and you have some presumptions”.

    Correct. It’s an emotional business. At heart I am English, not British. The whole UK deal does nothing for me at an emotional level.

    “What’s wrong with being a ‘tiny sovereign nation’?”

    In principle, nothing. The practical problem with it, as has been highlighted in the past couple of years with the case of Iceland, is that unless your currency has a certain ‘critical mass’ you can get gobbled up overnight if you don’t watch out. Even so, it’s still better than being part of currency you cannot control. Iceland is recovering, in large part through devaluing the krona by 75%. Ireland and Greece can’t do that and I bet they wish they could.

    “Does this remark conceal that English hankering for status and power”

    Nah. It’s my survival instinct.

  • Vronsky

    “No I prefer the union and the Scots grand contribution to bettering Britain.”

    If the Union lasts, the Scots ‘grand contribution’ will be more dross like Brown, Reid and Darling. Please tell me you don’t want that.

  • Alfred

    Parky said “[An independent Scotland] would have to give up the subsidy it receives from Westminster and have no say in matters concerning England, Wales and NI. Maybe the EU would fill in the budget gap in the meantime?”

    An independent Scotland dependent on the EU. LOL

    Craig said “the United Kingdom as an entity is fundamentally tied to US military and neo-imperial interests…”

    And the EU is not. LOL

    “I want to see a Scotland that accepts it is a proud and equal nation among other nations, but has no desire to be more than equal…”

    Who one wonders might they try to be more than equal to, the Isle of Man? Fair Isle?

    [a Scotland] that … will never attack another country unless it or an ally is physically attacked,”

    You mean like the UK/US, you know, they attacked us on 9/11.

    “Part of the reason may be that the UK was in truth in itself an imperial construct, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland the first conquered people.”

    Good grief, Craig, now you’re talking total rubbish. The Scots, like the Welsh and the English, were conquered by the Normans, but they soon regained their independence. Later, they joined with England under a Godawful Scotch monarchy with great enthusiasm — the Act of Union, remember — motivated by a lust for the spoils of empire.

    Anyhow, if Scotland goes, expect the highlands to separate from Scotland. I am sure none of us want to be ruled by those Edinburgh bastards.

    Oh, and by the way, when Scotland separates, will you continue to live and earn your keep in England?

  • Roderick Russell

    Craig’s argument for a break-up of the UK based on its “contempt for international law” is to me very compelling.

    Born and brought up in Scotland, I also have close connections with England and would view a break-up of the UK with sadness. I did my degree in England, I qualified as a Chartered Accountant in Manchester, and my mother was English from Norfolk. Yet in recent years I have watched the London Elites take-over the democracy, burden the country with a debt that is too large to be serviceable (as part of their bank bailouts), yet avoid paying a fair share of taxes through laws that favour the very rich (offshore trusts, etc), not to mention my own experiences at the hands of the UK’s elites (intimidation, harassment, threats) and MI5/6 ?” click on my signature to view. The London elites are hugely damaging the country as they pursue their own selfish interests no matter what. They override Rule of Law with impunity and are contemptuous of it. Since these elites cannot be reformed, all four countries would benefit from a break-up and still have a unity through the EU.

    Based on my own experiences it is very clear that the United kingdom is no longer a country where civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law flourish. So I too would support an independent Scotland.

  • MJ

    Anyway, I don’t know what Craig’s on about really. If it wasn’t for the UK he wouldn’t be able to claim that he was a son of the land, born and bred Englishman when he was standing for parliament, and a haggis-tossing, caber-munching Scotsman the rest of the time.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.