Unionists – An Apology 428


I have been much criticised for referring to Unionists – and No voters are precisely Unionists – as evil or stupid. I have given this much thought, as a number of very well-intentioned people have urged me to apologise. After a great deal of angst, I have decided to offer a heartfelt apology. Not all Unionists are Evil or Stupid. Some are just Cowards. There, I think that covers it.

My analysis runs thus:

Evil

The United Kingdom has become a force for ill in the World. In invading Iraq against the express wishes of the UN Security Council, Blair and Bush did to the United Nations what Hitler and Mussolini did to the League of Nations. The UK was up to its neck in complicity with extraordinary rendition and torture. Its foreign policy is based on resource grabs for the benefit of a few wealthy corporations. Even this year it is in Court still defending the atrocious deportation of the entire population of Diego Garcia to make way for a US airbase, and still preventing their return. It is actively preparing to do the same to the Ascension Islanders. It supports the hideous dictatorship of Bahrain and was implicated in the overthrow of Egypt’s only elected government by the CIA’s General Sisi. It constantly works against the interests of the Palestinians at the UN.

This week the UK has been passing still more laws attacking fundamental liberties in the name of “counter-terrorism” and increasing surveillance. It has an economy dedicated entirely to the interests of very wealthy people in the City of London. Its wealth gap between rich and poor is massive and still growing. The UK has 100 billionaires, and malnourished children, living on a small island. It is dominated by corporations run on a low wage model and has systematically destroyed workers’ rights.

On balance, the government of the UK has become a force for evil in the world. not a force for good. To support it in full knowledge of the above is evil.

Stupid

Given the existence of the tremendous communications possibilities of the internet, and given the wide range of information available above all in Scotland where a new political consciousness has developed, there are few excuses for having been ill-informed in the referendum. The failure to inform oneself, given the resources available, was itself evidence of a lack of gumption.

Some people are Unionists not because they support the policies outlined under Evil, but because they fail to perceive them. This group overlaps heavily with those who do not believe the Labour Party is now a fully paid up neoconservative party subscribing to everything above, and with only a sham concern for social justice. Despite the Red Tories’ open pledges to be tougher on welfare reform and immigration than the Blue Tories, these stupid people believe social progress is possible within the UK under Labour. They also actually believed that The Vow on Devo-Max would be delivered. This group of Unionists are incapable of perceiving evil when they see it, even when it comes certified with membership of the Henry Jackson Society. These people are stupid.

Cowardly

I have added this last group. These are people who did perceive the evil of the UK, and thus weren’t entirely stupid, but were too scared of social change to abandon unionism. A substantial section of the cowards should in fact be grouped under evil, because the cause of their fear was entirely self-centred. They could see the evil the UK does, but cared rather more about their own pension, job, mortgage etc. than they cared about anything else in the world. This combination of selfishness and fear of social change is of course classically Tory. But not all cowards fell into the Tory category. Some were genuinely fearful that things might somehow get even worse for everybody. They would not have boarded the first trains in case their heads were blown off by the 30mph winds.

Conclusion

After four months of constant thought, I cannot think of any hypothetical unionist position which does not fall into one of those categories. I am grateful for the criticism which led me to realise that I had left out the cowards. Some of that criticism came from nationalists who do not like politics to be described in moral terms, and for whom national independence should rouse no more passion than a change in local council boundaries, being a simple question of the best technocratic management of broadly similar political systems. That is a position I wholeheartedly denounce. For me national independence for Scotland is a great ethical choice for good – and against evil.

Fortunately a great many of the stupid are realising their mistake – being slower on the uptake does not stop you getting there eventually. So now there is a definite majority, for Yes. I am pleased about this, and view Independence as absolutely inevitable in the near term. I shall certainly live to see it. I don’t see converting No voters as part of my personal mission in life. The Wizard of Oz could give the Coward a medal and the Stupid a diploma. I shall content myself with being the one who throws water over the Evil.

Finally, for those who cannot get their heads round the purpose, style and conventions of political polemic, plainly you don’t have to be a No voter to be stupid. I have No voters in my family and among very close friends, including some without whose assistance I couldn’t keep this blog going. An attempt to introduce intellectual rigour into political discussion and test positions as part of political debate in no sense equates to personal animosity. As I have repeatedly stated in the context of the hundreds of political issues this blog has debated over ten years, I do not choose my friends by their politics. Otherwise I guess I wouldn’t have any 🙂 !


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

428 thoughts on “Unionists – An Apology

1 5 6 7 8 9 15
  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    Republicofscotland

    “Eye witnesses said the armed terrorists carried their weapons in a professional manner, the eye witnesses also recounted that the terrorists, demeanour was one of a single mindedness, in cool calculated fashion kind of way.

    Yet these proficient and experienced looking killers, somehow left their ID’s in the getaway car, for all the world to see.

    An astonishing and inept thing to do, if indeed you’re gullible enough to believe that, in the first place.”
    _________________

    You give the example of your wallet, which you claim you’ve only dropped in your car once in your life without noticing.

    Has it escaped your attention that a wallet is somewhat bulkier than an ID card?

    But tut! who I am to question Inspector Ros’s findings?

  • Herbie

    “They conveniently left an ID card in their abandoned getaway car.”

    That’s the norm now. They all do that. Part of the trade craft apparently.

    It’s considered unprofessional not to.

    Because it’s now such a common occurrence, media barely bat an eye.

  • Phil E

    Four months to come up with cowardly as an addition to evil or stupid, looks like Craig has not been trying hard enough to characterise the no voters. How about insane? criminally negligent? contrarian? sceptical? unproven? That took me four minutes and should cover quite a few of the 55%.

    As an Englishman who shares Craig’s views on the UK government, gave up work to avoid paying taxes to it and does not receive any support from the state of any kind I would have cheered for Scotland if they’d voted yes but was fraternally pleased that they decided to vote no.

    I’ve always voted but never elected an MP. This is my country and I have a stake in it despite the evilness of the regime. Am I a coward if I don’t go out and shoot David Cameron? Or should I just shoot my mouth off? What would Craig advise?

  • Republicofscotland

    “It wasn’t even a march – it was staged photocall. Nothing is what it seems”
    ……………………..

    Yes Node thanks for posting the link, I’ve never seen so many mass murderers together, not since I last watched the Nuremberg Trials.

    Like Germany in the EU, Merkel looks to be at the heart of it, in that photo.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    Firstly, the slayings were a false flag (or perhaps just actors and holograms – Inspector RoS hasn’t told us yet?. Hurry up, there!).

    Then the copper who killed himself was murdered as part of the “cover up” (Mary’s ppost on a previous thread refers).

    And now the Paris march was not headed by a number of world leaders (RoS : actors or holograms this time?).

    I am confidently expecting posts to the effect that

    1/. the Paris march never happened – it was holograms because that was cheaper than hiring so many actors;

    2/. the two motorists killed in an accident on the A1 while heading towards Paris today were in fact done to death by the French security forces to prevent them exposing the false flag (or actors/holograms) to the press.

    3/. Charlie Hebdo magazine never existed;

    Have I missed out anything?

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    RepublicOfIdiocy

    “Yes Node thanks for posting the link, I’ve never seen so many mass murderers together, not since I last watched the Nuremberg Trials.”
    ________________

    Do you often watch the Nuremberg trials, RoS?

    That’s interesting – do they inspire your Holocaust-denying thoughts?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Of course WW2 was a false flag as well.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    And those appearing in the Nuremberg trials all actors.

    Every fule no that the leading Nazis had all been smuggled out to the USA in a couple of submarines and given false identities in Florida.

  • Sam

    Craig,

    It’s easy to point out the flaws in a country that exists, and a lot harder for one which doesn’t yet. Your whole argument for independence appears to be based on the assumption that Scotland would be a less evil country. Is there any basis for this assumption in the long term? True, we wouldn’t be able to unilaterally invade any country we like, but I’m not convinced this makes us inherently less evil. More generally, I’m sure you more than most realise that Scottish foreign policy would be a balance between doing what is best for an independent Scotland and what is best for the people of other countries. We can hope that Scotland would respect human rights more but there is no reason why this would definitely be the case.

    The only way I can see the argument being justified is if we assume Scottish people and politicians are inherently more moral than those in the rest of the UK. I don’t think this is the case. Most people in the whole of the UK are not evil and were against the Iraq war but politicians invaded anyway. Then everyone, including Scotland, voted Tony Blair in again. What there suggests an independent Scotland would be any different?

  • Tony M

    Fact is, that most ‘Islamic’ violence is against ‘fellow’ Muslims, and such slaughter comes the with full backing, active encouragement, of the UK, the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Quatar and many more. There is an axis of evil, and we’re It.

    Religion causes or is used by people as an excuse to do evil things. I’m referring of course to Israel’s ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people, the whole Arab world if they can, systematised killing of an entire people, it puts anything the most extremist ‘Muslims’ have ever done, possibly could ever do, in the shade completely, and for which they claim religious justification and consent. Their ‘god’ told them do it. It needs saying, in the wake of events in France, needs saying more often and more loudly than ever:- Don’t ever give in to such intolerance and to rampant Israeli state terrorism. This is the scenario the whole world has dreaded and lives in fear of, a nuclear-armed theocracy, bent on murderous conquest, threatening anyone, anywhere, with retaliation, who dares so much as mention their hypocrisy, their irrefutable guilt and the epic scale of their still ongoing and monstrous crimes against humanity. The question is, world, what are we going to do about it?

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    Sam (19h39)

    One of the best and most realistic posts yet on this set of issues. Thank you.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    “Re my last post, if you can’t be bothered trawling through the ISIS site, here’s someone who’s already spent a considerable amount of time doing so and has compacted the info for you.

    http://rense.com/general96/disentang.html
    _______________

    Another loony website.

    Makes “globalresearch” and “voltairenet” sound almost sane.

  • Republicofscotland

    “Another loony website.

    Makes “globalresearch” and “voltairenet” sound almost sane.”
    ——————–

    Habb.

    Looking back on this thread, you really are all over the place, your cage, has well and truly been rattled.

    And here am I, thinking, that you were a good right wing establishment mouthpiece, in hindsight I was wrong, you couldn’t persuade anyone, they’ll need to swap you out for a someone more convincing.

  • Anon

    Rense? LOL.

    Jeff Rense believes Monica Lewinsky was a Israeli intelligence agent who gave Bill Clinton a blow job so she could blackmail him into scuppering the Palestinian peace process.

    That’s right — he’d fit right in around here!

  • Mick Pork

    Up and down scotland there are candidates being chosen after the hustings procedure.

    In some ways Mr Murray’s actions have been helpful as there has been many times when candidates have been asked what they would do if they lost and were not chosen. This hasn’t been just in respect to ‘will they speak out against the party they wished to represent?’, but even more importantly ‘would they still help campaign for the SNP if they lost?’ Those who will be pounding the pavements, delivering leaflets and canvassing do actually care quite a bit about the level of commitment any candidate (or indeed prospective candidate) has to helping them on the ground, in the town halls and on the streets. Rightly so.

    Make no mistake, there will be nothing easy about trying to overturn some truly gigantic Labour majorities so we need all the help we can get.

    Mr Murray has made a place for himself in speaking out against some of the most egregious and illiberal actions of the British State and it’s allies. He is thought provoking and a much needed voice in that respect.

    However, the fact of the matter is we are talking about a general election in a mere few months where the media will be just as hostile and biased as they were in the first Indyref. So while I appreciate one prospective candidate was upset with the procedure there are dozens if not hundreds who will be informed they have lost and have to deal with it, get over it and get on with the fight.

    That’s the crux of the matter and for those of us who believe in Independence it’s not as if that’s something we haven’t all experienced already after the first Independence Referendum result. Utter despair and a tendency to naval gaze for a few days yes, but then utter determination to keep fighting and remain united in our cause to create a better scotland for everyone.

  • fred

    “The only way I can see the argument being justified is if we assume Scottish people and politicians are inherently more moral than those in the rest of the UK.”

    I think supremicism is the hallmark of nationalism isn’t it?

    In effect Craigs post is telling those who voted yes that they are superior to those who voted no and he knows they will believe him despite the evidence to the contrary. That’s human nature.

    It’s how the people have been manipulated throughout history.

  • Clark

    Fred, your comment is entirely unfair and an unjustified misrepresentation of Craig’s views.. I’ll come back to this.

  • Clark

    Sam, 7:39 pm:

    “The only way I can see the argument being justified is if we assume Scottish people and politicians are inherently more moral than those in the rest of the UK.”

    Test this argument globally:

    “The only way I can see [that any country could be more moral than any other] is if we assume [that] people and politicians [in those better countries] are inherently more moral than those in [the others].”

    Yet some countries do act more morally than others, and with different degrees of morality at different times. Various explanations are possible, but I’d guess that structure and prosperity are the most important factors.

    Habbabkuk, you praised that comment. Did you not see this logical flaw?

  • Clark

    fred- 10:43 pm;

    “In effect Craigs post is telling those who voted yes that they are superior to those who voted no and he knows they will believe him despite the evidence to the contrary.”

    OK, what’s “the evidence to the contrary” please?

  • Tony M

    #!jenesuispashabbaduk

    I agree with Clark’s idea but just can’t think of any examples which have existed in the last hundred years or more in a recognisable form, that do not have deeply shameful episodes, incidents, none of which though really can be taken to reflect on their peoples, but on their politicians and leadership almost exclusively. Countries war-like in their external relations, invariably mistreat their home populations too. The most moral, benign inoffensive countries, will be, to the warriors with their distorted Darwinian theories, seen as weak, fair game, and be attacked, plundered, subjugated. “Talking softly and carrying a big stick” is a good editorial, but the US shouted down everyone and wielded that big stick zealously to bludgeon all straying into and indeed striving to keep well out of their destructive path.

    Appeal to authority.

    Was it not Le Corbusier himself who said, in his famous monolith entitled L’Unité d’Habituation “let he who is without home, cast the first pilotis”?

    Only an active, participatory democracy, with a highly evolved and evolving constitution can keep politicians and policy on the straight and narrow. Even the Levellers annual parliaments, would have better ensured that, than what we have now at Westminster, even with universal suffrage. We thought, we hoped and I believe we still can build a better country, and that is worth trying for. To suggest that the present system, Westminster etc. is somehow perfected, inviolable, as good as it can get is an absurd as well as a depressing thought, nor is it as rotten as it could get, but not far off. Of course we can do better, much better, each of the countries of the British Isles, we could not do worse. Still this is not a union of equals but Scotland is effectively a colony, a possession. England, London, the Centre, is not cured of this crazed religion of Empire, it has had a relapse in 2014, the old mania has returned worse than ever, the quacks in attendance despairing.

    #IamAnInnocentDroneVictim

  • Tony M

    For any example anyone might give someone is sure to say “ah but didn’t King Knuckledragger IV in 1492 have lots of owls trapped and had their feathers made into brooms” or similar.

  • Duncan McFarlane

    While i’d prefer independence to staying in the UK, it’s pretty blinkered and stupid to pretend there are no economic risks to independence. When Ireland became independent there were capital controls on most countries and fairly strict regulation of banking and the finance sector in general. Today there is almost complete deregulation, meaning that during the process of becoming independent and in the decade or so after it Scotland could be vulnerable to currency speculators etc – whether in a currency union with the remaining UK or with its own currency.

    I believe we could still be better off in the long run independent, not having a government run mostly for the benefit of the City of London Square Mile and the rest of the financial sector, but we might still suffer in the short term.

    For people who are just on middle income, struggling on the edge of poverty, or already in poverty and e.g have children to keep housed and fed, when we’re only just coming out of recession, you are asking a lot of some of them to say basically “fuck the risk to keeping my kids housed and fed – i’ll vote Yes for the greater good”. Seems arrogant and highly judgemental to me.

    Now there are big risks to staying in the UK too. The financial crisis and recession happened because the UK government has deregulated everything and could happen again because they’ve failed to re-regulate it properly. But pointing those kind of things out would be a better way to persuade people to back independence than insulting people by calling them “evil”, “stupid” or “cowardly”.

    Can you think of any instance where anyone just throwing insults at you ever persuaded you that they were right and you were wrong? Because i can’t think of any. And while my own record of getting elected is no better than your own, you might want to consider whether insulting people or making a rational case for something is e.g the better way to get candidacies with political parties, or the better way of getting more people to vote for you. I know from reading your books and seeing you speaking at hustings that you’re extremely knowledgeable and more than capable of putting a case eloquently and effectively, which is why it’s disappointing to see you just throwing insults instead.

  • Duncan McFarlane

    And No voters are not necessarily unionists in the sense of having a strong belief that the union is a good thing. Many of them are just people who weren’t persuaded that the risks of independence outweighed the risks of staying in the union. I disagree with them on that, but it doesn’t make them all raving British nationalists, or stupid, evil or cowardly.

  • giyane

    Duncan McFarlane

    ” The financial crisis and recession happened because the UK government has deregulated everything ”

    I can’t believe the naivete of that statement. The financial crisis happened because unlike France and Germany where banking remained more traditional Westminster was taken over by a powerful Jewish banking lobby and they bankrupted the UK in 2 ways.

    Firstly they hijacked Parliament to vote for illegal and unaffordable wars which only benefitted the greed, racism and bloodlust of Israel and secondly they stole the peopkle’s capital under the camouflage of highly leveraged financial deals, swapping empty promises for hard cash.

    Putting the two Zionist crimes together you can see that the cash heist has been used for the international war crimes against sovereign countries. That fact in itself further points the finger to the complicity of the USUK “anglo-zionists” in interfering with independent sovereign countries illegally INCOGNITO, because the financial resources of the world are being used by the hidden perpetrators of war crimes in a manner which is prohibited to nations.

    So don’t, please, fanny on about insulting language and concern about the extremely evil supporters of union with bank-robbing war-criminals who show no signs of stopping their bank-robbing or war crimes activities. Rather the bank-robbing war-criminals are busy cranking up their control over society through blatant false-flag incidents such as Paris and Boston to increase the amount of spying and criminalising those who raise objections to their criminal actions.

    We now know we in the West are more spied on than the old KJB Soviet Union. We will wake up soon and wish we were run by a decent regime like Bahrain.

    It’s farts like you, and your deeply conservative myopia that are allowing these far-worse-than-Hitlers to perpetrate their far-worse-than-Fascist crimes.

  • giyane

    I say farts intentionally because you appear to be morally unconscious on your own bottled-up methane.

1 5 6 7 8 9 15

Comments are closed.