Orange March IS Illegal 123


The great Orange March in Edinburgh will be the only occasion on which the No side have managed to gather more than 300 people in one place in the entire campaign.

pm in glasgow uni

The average turnout for David Cameron’s big speeches of the campaign in Glasgow and Perth was under 200 people. On my own recent speaking tour we substantially beat that in Dundee and equalled it in the small town of Insch! Not to mention the 70,000 people who have watched my St Andrews speech online. Gordon Brown’s speaking tours have been strictly ticket only – and a fair number of the invited have declined the opportunity.

Search online as much as you like. There are no substantial No gatherings of any kind, no No flash mobs or mass canvasses. There is no speech for the No campaign that has a fifth of 70,000 views online.

But they do have the Orange Order and their grand March in Edinburgh on the 13 September. This parade of knuckle dragging Neanderthals, many of them off the ferry from Northern Ireland, is the only show of popular enthusiasm for the Union ever to be mustered by Better Together. Unfortunately it is illegal.

As I posted on 11 August, this proposed Orange March is plainly in contravention of the Public Order Act 1936, which bans any demonstrations in uniform for a political object.

Section 1 (i)

Subject as hereinafter provided, any person
who in any public place or at any public meeting wears
uniform signifying his association with any political
organisation or with, the promotion of any political
object shall be guilty of an offence :

Normally, the Orange Order in Scotland are allowed to march on the (dubious) grounds that their object is cultural not political. But on this occasion they are marching as a registered participant with the Electoral Commission in the Referendum campaign, and with the avowed object of promoting a No vote. There is therefore no doubt whatsoever that the march is political and, if in uniform, illegal. Orange Order sources confirm they will be marching in uniform.

The march can be carried out in uniform with the consent of the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State for Scotland. But an assiduous reader of this blog has received confirmation from the Scottish Government that the Orange Order do not have this permission:

Dear xxxx
Thank you for your email. Following a search of our records I can advise that the Scottish Government has neither received nor granted an application from Police Scotland under the Public Order Act 1936 to permit the wearing of political uniforms by members of the Orange Order. As I stated in my previous email, I am unable to provide legal advice interpreting whether or not the Act applies in this situation.
Yours sincerely
Mathew West
Police Powers Unit
Safer Communities Division
Scottish Government

What is at question here is not whether it ought to be illegal to march in uniform for political objects. The fact is that plainly it is illegal. The law is not moribund – it was applied for example against Irish republicans in London in the 1980s.

The real question is whether the law is applied impartially to all, or are those who have the support of the Establishment allowed to break the law flagrantly and massively?


123 thoughts on “Orange March IS Illegal

1 2 3 4 5
  • N_

    @Vronsky – having a government with no control over monetary policy (as under sterlingisation) is something advocated by the right not the left.

  • fred

    “Yes, I get bookies margins, but if the odds reflected the (apparent) reality they would make more money.”

    The odds do reflect the reality.

  • N_

    @Brian – I know people who are voting NO because they are anti-EU because they think that the EU is Catholic-dominated and that the best chance to have a Scotland outside of the EU is to vote for Scotland to stay in Britain. (Personally I am in favour of EU membership and I think the best chance to have a Scotland outside of the EU is to vote YES, but I am not talking about my own views here.)

  • BrianFujisanWabi-sabi

    N

    look… there is some Sectarianism in Scotland… But the thing is..i might disagree with my friends…but we can do so on the same night..then party on.

  • N_

    @Phil

    I get bookies margins, but if the odds reflected the (apparent) reality they would make more money.

    Bookies don’t gamble. They know it’s a mug’s game. They set the odds so as to balance their books. The reality the odds reflect is how much money is on what, at what previous odds.

    If there’s a quick rush, they can lose money, but then they get the publicity about how the bookies have lost money (so if you think you’re clever, start gambling – or continue). It’s like with the stories when there’s been a flood and so many people weren’t insured (so take out insurance now).

  • Al Milliner

    In the event that any of the 70,000 viewers of Craig’s speech and the good people of Macedonia doubt Craig’s figure of 15,000 killed in Sirte by NATO forces, he can quickly dispel their doubts by providing his source here.

    Many people teetering on the edge of voting Yes in the forthcoming referendum will have absorbed this information without question and decided on the basis of it and the accusation of a BBC cover-up that they want nothing further to do with the UK.

    It obviously wasn’t Craig’s intention to mislead voters at this crucial time in the referendum campaign, so let’s have the source and then we can move on.

  • Ba'al Zevul (With Gaza)

    Good article (nothing sectarian about it)

    https://newmatilda.com/2014/09/04/scotlands-challenge-anglosphere

    Brian Fujisan, yes, the rural West Coast is pretty free of sectarianism (unless you count the all-too-frequent born-again Baptists, of the creationist tendency, whose main crime is their insufferable smugness. You can’t really be sectarian if you don’t even acknowledge the existence of the heretics around you, so the Wee Frees don’t count… But I think it’s still pretty prevalent in the urban Central Belt.

  • Phil

    Fred
    “The odds do reflect the reality.”

    Not sure what you mean. How does 11/4 against reflect 79%?

  • Sam

    For the Orange March, I say give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. Let them march, and the people of Scotland will see them for what they are. I think a law banning marches in uniform is dangerous, and should be scrapped. You could see it would only be a matter of time before a government claims that wearing Guy Fawkes masks constitutes a “uniform”.

  • Phil

    _N
    “They set the odds so as to balance their books. The reality the odds reflect is how much money is on what, at what previous odds.”

    Sure, I understand bookies do not loose but that does not explain the disparity between the bets they have taken (79% yes) and the odds they offer (11/4 against).

  • Al Milliner

    One positive aspect of Scottish independence would be that the BBC weather forecast would no longer begin with the Outer Hebrides. It will have to begin with the Isle of Man instead so as not to appear London-centric but will get to areas where people actually live far quicker than before as Scotland currently takes up about half of the broadcast. On this basis alone I think over half of all English licence-fee payers would support a Yes vote as there are only so many times you can hear about another band of rain moving into the central belt without wanting to turn the telly off.

  • craig Post author

    Phil

    The point is not the number of bets they have taken (74% yes, as you say) but the total amount they have taken. They have taken a lot more money on No than on Yes due to a small number of massive bets placed in the South of England. Whether that is genuine private speculation, or like the push-polling an effort to make the idea of independence appear impossible, is an interesting question.

  • Al Milliner

    “Whether that is genuine private speculation, or like the push-polling an effort to make the idea of independence appear impossible, is an interesting question.”

    Some wealthy businessmen have made large bets that if they win will land them hundreds of thousands tax-free and if they lose barely dent their fortunes. They have made an excellent financial decision as a No vote is almost certain.

    But in keeping with the general paranoia surrounding the Yes campaign, it must, of course, be a conspiracy. So the thinking goes that this can not be genuine private speculation but an attempt at distorting the likelihood of independence. For this to happen the businessmen would have to be controlled by the No campaign in some way – probably with the involvement of secret agencies handing them large amounts of money to bet with so as to make it appear that a Yes vote is a lost cause. It fits exactly with the psyche of most of the blog’s commenters and its author – nothing just happens, it’s always an elaborate conspiracy.

  • Phil

    Craig
    “The point is not the number of bets they have taken (74% yes, as you say) but the total amount they have taken.”

    Calculating by total sterling rather than a simple head count would seem to be a ludicrous method of setting odds for a referendum. 79% of Scots betting yes is an unambiguous indicator they would be mugs to ignore.

    Still don’t think I seen an explanation for 79% creating 11/4 against.

  • Macky

    Al Milliner; “In the event that any of the 70,000 viewers of Craig’s speech and the good people of Macedonia doubt Craig’s figure of 15,000 killed in Sirte by NATO forces, he can quickly dispel their doubts by providing his source here”

    Perhaps you’ve missed this Post here;

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/09/orange-march-is-illegal/#comment-476397

    It seems that the 15,000 figure refers to the reported total number of residents & fighters that will were left besieged in Sirte towards the end; surely a great proportion of these were killed by the massive NATO overkill of bombing runs, and when the anti-Gaddafi forces, who were encircling the town like vultures, knew that the bombing had killed most of the defenders, entered, they carried out a massacre of those who had survived the bombings, (starting with Gaddafi himself of course), just like they did in Tawargha, perhaps even more zealously here as this was Gaddafi’s home town, inhabited mostly by his people, & his supporters. Whichever way you look at it, yes NATO were responsible for the death of those 15,000 people.

  • OldMark

    ‘One positive aspect of Scottish independence would be that the BBC weather forecast would no longer begin with the Outer Hebrides. It will have to begin with the Isle of Man instead so as not to appear London-centric but will get to areas where people actually live far quicker than before as Scotland currently takes up about half of the broadcast. On this basis alone I think over half of all English licence-fee payers would support a Yes vote as there are only so many times you can hear about another band of rain moving into the central belt without wanting to turn the telly off.’

    Agree with you there, Milliner. When Scotland breaks away we English might also wish to align our clocks with CET, and ditch GMT.After all, many more of us visit France, Spain , Italy etc. than visit Scotland, so this would mean no more timepiece fiddling when we cross the channel.We’ll have lighter evenings all year, and won’t have to listen anymore to farmers in the West of Scotland complaining that the adoption of CET means it doesn’t get light in Stornoway until nearly 10.30am on the shortest day.

  • DtP

    Geez man, i’m not surprised you got sacked as Uk Ambassador – you should never have got through the vetting with such intolerant views – ‘knuckle dragging neanderthals’ – crikey, you’d have been so useful at the Good Friday Accord that may be you could have got the biscuits.

  • Stringlug

    I take it for granted Mr Milliner will dutifully be tucking into his hat on the morning of the 19th, when Scotland wipes the, no doubt smug, smile from his face.

  • N_

    @Craig

    Having been part of the “Yes” carnival atmosphere, I can assure you there is no major central funding behind it. Folk are regularly digging into their own pockets, as I witnessed.

    I don’t doubt the good faith and good intentions of most YES supporters, however rude I am about their leaders.

    But spending money promoting YES would make very good sense for ‘currency boys’ who want to attack sterling.

  • N_

    Traders on the financial markets know volatility where they see it (it’s obvious enough from Betfair), and they leverage it.

  • Bigalan

    Hi Craig, the O/O have brazenly disobeyed the laws not only in relation to parading in uniform for political reasons, but as they do more regularly, slow down and increase their volume and play their most antagonistic songs outside chapels and in areas with more Catholics. This mob thrive on intimidation – Amazing that they’re saying ‘nil to sectarianism’ in their ranks. They’re banned from marrying Catholics and are kicked out if they disobey sectarian commands from their generals.

  • Chris

    Wishart, Knox and Calvin would have recognised a democratic deficit when they saw it. Representative government either in church or state was what they sought and achieved for us all. They would have recoiled from today’s Orange Order that, in a jingoistic perversion, claims all of our war dead as their own and with a lazy contempt for their fellow citizens, claim themselves to be representative of the people. As a catholic – if I had lived then, I would have been a Covenanter….And if John Knox was voting on the 18th – he would be voting YES.

  • Abe Rene

    The law should be applied impartially. If the law of 1936 is considered out of date, then it should be amended or repealed. I guess the CPS should be asked to consider prosecution.

  • Dale

    http://www.pirc.scotland.gov.uk/
    ^ For complaining about the police.

    Remaining assiduous (:D) the legislation requires consent from “a” Secratary of State. So technically Danny Alexander could sign off on it. Of course, nobody wants to, and after the problems with the OBA, it may well be politically convenient to punt someone from high levels of the police to retirement later should public outcry demand an answer.

    It is *not* the responsibility of the Orange Order to approach a Secretary of State on behalf of their Chief Polis, and indeed, such a representation could not comply with the legislation since the Orange Order cannot decide for their Chief Polis whether permission should be sought at all.

    So, this all makes the Polis look very, very Orange. Even though the Chief Polis may merely not want to aggrieve a political object that calls the UDA friend.

  • Willie Hogg

    The Orange Order was founded to secure civil and religious freedom for protestants and by default others. They supported a protestent monarchy and a political union to secure these freedoms. The monarchy is no longer the power it once was and the Union no longer guarantees that it will be protestant. Why therefore do they not support an independant Scotland with a writen constitution which would guarantees their freedoms?

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.