The Headless UK European Movement 309


Tony Blair may have zero moral sense, but he has great commercial acumen, and there is no doubt he spotted a gap in the market in proposing his own return to British politics. The gap is for a pro-EU political leader who does not accept the EU referendum result as the end of the debate, and will stand against the horrifying tide of racism, both on the streets and coming from the Tory party, that Brexit has unleashed.

Where Blair is deluded is in thinking that he can have any role to play. If you have not watched The Killings of Tony Blair yet, I urge you to do so. Apart from the damning verdict of even the ultra-Establishment Chilcot Report on the Iraq War, Blair’s record ever since in whoring himself out as PR man to any rich dictator has damned him forever in public opinion.

I should set out my stall from the start and say I remain strongly pro EU. I don’t see a 52/48 vote as definitive or closing off debate. I am indeed happy that Brexit is giving a boost to prospects of Scottish Independence, but it cannot be in Scotland’s long term interests to have an isolated, impoverished and xenophobic large neighbour, so I shall continue to argue that Brexit should not happen.

While Corbyn has taken an admirable stand against popular chauvinism, he plainly has no interest in trying to keep the UK in the EU, which is consistent with his long term scepticism. That is fair enough. But it means that the 48% who voted against leaving the EU, and are generally aghast that government is now moving to draw up lists of foreign workers and to get primary schools to check birth certificates, are feeling unrepresented. Blair and super-Blairite Jonathan Freedland have genuinely identified a political vacuum. Their folly lies in imagining that they and their chums might fill it.

Freedland’s disconnection from reality is nowhere more starkly revealed than in naming Nick Clegg as a “serious asset” in a pro-EU campaign. Outside the delusions of the Westminster bubble, Clegg is nearly hated as much as Blair. Clegg and friends took Charlie Kennedy’s large left wing party, and turned it into a small right wing party. It says a great deal that in considering leadership for a continued pro-EU campaign against xenophobia, the anti-Gay pipsqueak Farron is a complete irrelevance.

What Freedland does not understand is that it was hatred of his political bubble chums which caused Brexit in the first place. The official Remain campaign director was Jack Straw’s son Will. Peter Mandelson was Vice-President. The top-down campaign was devoid of popular enthusiasm with an almost total lack of popular engagement and community events. It continually paraded figures like Blair, Cameron, Osborne, Straw, Clegg, Kinnock and others, which gave ordinary people a chance to give those they rightly despise a political kick in the pants by voting against their will. Brexit has been caused by a justified hatred of the UK political class.

That those who caused the disaster see themselves as the answer to it is laughable. I remain hopeful that the English in particular will recover from the wave of jingoism which appears to have swept over them like a plague. But resistance must be organic and arise from the people themselves. I hope to see the emergence of a new, untainted and dynamic generation of young activists. My generation have bequeathed a terrible legacy.


309 thoughts on “The Headless UK European Movement

1 2 3
  • Ba'al Zevul

    While it’s certainly true that we Leavers saw what was promoting Remain and shuddered, some of us also saw what was promoting Leave….and shuddered. Fox, Gove, Farage, Johnson? The two sides of the equation balanced to any number of decimal places. But there, I think, is where the realisation dawned that we certainly didn’t want the old order – which promotes chancers like all the above – and that voting Leave would put a very hostile cat among some supremely complacent pigeons . As it has done.

    I sense that your certainty that Brexit wouldn’t mean Brexit has suffered as a result of May’s pronouncements – whether she means them, God alone knows, but she doesn’t want to lose any more votes to UKIP, and she has good reason to. But I am still at a loss to know why a staunch Scottish Nationalist such as yourself should have such a rooted objection to England’s expressed wish for sovereignty, with or without Scotland. I mean, if Scotland had not participated in the EU referendum, the vote would have been even more positively in favour of leaving…

    • Harry Vimes

      Just a wild stab in the dark guess here but the answer to that question seems somewhat obvious even without recourse to any previous verbal or written utterance from those who seek an independent Scotland from the UK single market Superstate.

      The identification of the Brexit vote with English nationalism within this comment seems on evidence entirely accurate. However, that is not how the Brexit vote is being sold by both the decision makers and the vast majority of those in England and Wales who voted that way. In the paradigm being operated here England and English are inter-changable and conflated entirely with Britain and British. The other equal partner State within the UK single market Superstate is being told very firmly by both the above identified groups that they are not equal partners but part of Greater England and regardless of their vote and their wishes as the otherequal partner State within the UK Superstate they will do not as the English majority do but what they are told.

      In effect the subtext is English Nationalism Good, Scottish Nationalism Bad. In this discourse and narrative it is reasonable, virtuous and democratic for the majority and minority withing England (and in this case Wales) to regain control of their decision making and Sovereignty by leaving what is labeled as the EU Superstate but at the same time it is wholly unreasonable, wicked and undemocratic for anyone within the UK Superstate to wish, never mind act on that wish, to regain control of their decision making and Sovereignty by leaving the UK Superstate.

      • Ba'al Zevul

        I do see what you’re saying. Though I’m not even trying to speak for a majority of Leavers – several specific motivations obviously exist for wanting out.. Certainly, the English nationalism subtext is not a politically correct one, The only possible escape from centrist, globalist, antinationalist message management is to pretend that the UK is in some way homogenous. You and I know it isn’t. Personally, I say nations exist to defend the common, and often unique, interests of their citizens. T abandon the nation is to abandon the citizen. And while there is an undercurrent here of English nationalism good, I’m not at all sure that Scottish nationalism bad is regarded as a corollary. Whereas, I hoped to resolve in my mind why Craig himself appears to feel that Scottish nationalism is good while what is essentially English nationalism is bad.

        Complicated. Sorry.

        • Harry Vimes

          Ba’al – Here is one take on this pertinent question:

          https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2016/10/08/a-song-of-migration-wearescotland/

          To pick out perhaps the most relevant part:

          “……..Yet others are victims of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which states that your view of the world is shaped by the language you speak. Because English uses the same word nationalist, to refer both to those who seek independence for their country and who reject ethnic nationalism and exclusion, defining citizenship as a matter of choice and self-determination of the self, and those who have an independent country but seek to aggrandise it at others’ expense and who define citizenship in narrow exclusionist terms, they wrongly believe that the two concepts are the same thing. They’re not the same thing at all.

          Scottish nationalism is not nationalism in the second sense, it’s independentism. Scottish nationalism is the radical belief that a country is best governed by those who choose to live in it, that a government of a country should be elected by the people who live in that country. It’s the belief that citizens aren’t just those who were born Scottish, but those who choose to become Scottish. British nationalism is nationalism of the second sort. British nationalism is exclusionary, parochial, and inward looking, harking back to a golden age of an empire that’s long past, an empire that was built on blood and oppression. Scottish Unionists prefer to perpetuate the confusion. It suits their Tory masters………”

          • Ba'al Zevul

            Well countered. But I always suspect dichotomies. Sniffing carefully round that one, I’d say that someone ‘choosing’ to live in a country should not be allowed to transcend the interests of those who already do. That your humane definition of nationalism is essentially globalism by the back door, and no nationalism at all. Also, it’s a recipe for economic migration, further impoverishing already poor nations, and indeed regions, and depriving them of just the kind of aspirational, entrepreneurial, hardworking ™ individuals who are needed back home. (They’re wonderful for our economy. Why aren’t they wonderful for Lithuania’s?)

            And I think you’re being just a little optimistic about the purity of Scottish ‘independentism’. Still, when you leave the UK and fling open your borders to all and sundry, you may want to rethink this.

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boston-how-a-lincolnshire-town-became-the-most-divided-place-in-england-a6838041.html

            Which hints at the irreducible contribution of basic human nature to the problem of someone else’s mob moving into your patch….

          • Harry Vimes

            I’m not sure how to make it any clearer that this was:

            A: One possible take on trying to tease out the differences between inclusive and exclusive nationalisms.

            B: That it was a quote from a section of a blog. The blatant clue being in providing the link.

            Whilst we on agreement on not being big fans of dichotomies to be fair the dichotometic structure, to which I was attempting to explore, was provided by yourself when setting out the parameters of the question, thus:

            …..”And while there is an undercurrent here of English nationalism good, I’m not at all sure that Scottish nationalism bad is regarded as a corollary……”

            For sure there will certainly be English Nationalists who perceive their nationalism to be inclusive rather than blood and soil ‘we are the people’ type nationalism. Having said that it also has to be said that it is perhaps understating the point that finding those who expound that form of nationalism is like one of the seven tasks of Hercules. More often than not one encounters, even when one is not out searching for it, what you accurately refer to as the “not a politically correct one”.

            To respond to the substance of the objection made the blog from which the above quotes were taken does attempt to tackle that issue when it states:

            “……..Being Scottish is a state of mind. It doesn’t matter where you were born. It doesn’t matter where your family comes from. It doesn’t matter what religion you espouse, or none. Scottishness is blind to race. Scottishness doesn’t depend on ethnic origin. We are all Scottish. Scottishness means you live in Scotland, you identify with Scotland, you choose Scottishness. It means you strive to make Scotland a better place for all who live here. Scottishness means you’re part of the journey that this country makes, that you share in its story and you become one of its story tellers. The modern Scottish shennachies who tell tales of Poland, of Africa, of Syria and weave them into the fabric of this land………”

            With perhaps the most pertinent part being – “It means you strive to make Scotland a better place for all who live here.”

            And to be candid, that’s how historically this has worked on these islands, even in England. Not always harmoniously in all areas and times, and it takes two to create or organise a conflict. We have had centuries of incomers who have contributed positively even whilst keeping to the core of their own identities. Indeed, moving away from these islands the greatest country in the history of humanity ever was built on that basis – at least so we are constantly informed.

            Of course, if a continuum between one form of nationalism and another is being introduced into the discussion along the lines of a colour chart or a radio spectrum we could be here well after the 18th October cut off date.

          • deepgreenpuddock

            Replying to Ba’al about the hypothetical Lithuanian full of vim and vigour-why are these people not required in their own country?
            Of course they are.
            I live in an area of Scotland which has seen a large influx of East Europeans especially inthe district I live in-a traditional working class industrial area.
            One of the distinctly uncomfortable impressions is that in terms of ‘functioning’ the Eastern Europeans are simply better educated, more reasoning and reasonable, better motivated and more ambitious and don’t indulge in anti-social behaviour. It is very striking that the ‘native’ population is less healthy, less robust, and basically quite a lot thicker.
            One might argue that they are the victims of circumstances but that is only partly true.
            And it is almost certainly true that the immigrants are often more enterprising and more skilled and adaptable in many ways.I went into a travel agent for foreign currency a few years a go and overheard a very acrimonious conversation between the
            local employees- to the effect that there was huge discontent because all the locals had been passed over for the manager’s job, which had gone to a woman from Eastern Europe, who was then serving me. The atmosphere was quite ‘thick and tense ‘ to put it mildly and there had obviously been some kind of dispute and argument. The woman who had been made manager spoke about 4 languages proficiently, was very charming, had a complete command of the process, was extremely efficient and confident and was obviously the best choice for the job.I remember listening and thinking that the choice was really, really simple-no contest.
            So yes I think it is highly likely that this country has been the beneficiary of a self selecting group from Europe and places like Poland and Lithuania have suffered a ‘brain drain’ of many of their best people. That is the other side of this immigration coin-it is a ‘depletion’ of places that probably would be better off with those highly capable people.

            The other factor is that Scotland has, essentially, a stagnant population, and this has been the case for many decades, and the injection of new blood is almost certainly a good thing.
            Scotland is much more suited to immigration than England.

      • Ba'al Zevul

        I assumed that you agreed with the WGD point, for no better reason than your invoking it.

        And the original dichotomy was yours, not mine.

        In effect the subtext is English Nationalism Good, Scottish Nationalism Bad. ,

        and I was contesting its validity. And yes, there is a spectrum of opinion, however inconvenient it might be to admit it. To polarise that opinion is to risk worse things than does acknowledging its variousness, IMO. Eg. Scottishness is Tunnock’s Teacakes, but also Rangers v.Celtic, , illustrating a conspicuous undercurrent of tribalism, as found in most nations.

        You’ve very successfully assimilated immigrants (though what’s arriving at the moment is still a work in progress) and that’s because there haven’t been all that many of them at once, and the money hasn’t yet dried up. I’ll be interested to see how your superior inclusivity holds up under stress, though. You’ve had your independence referendum., and lost. We had our independence-from Europe referendum, and won (for now). Exactly the same dissatisfactions were being expressed by both, and along with a lot of other shit, in both.

    • michael norton

      The US government is concerned it could be implicated in potential war crimes in Yemen because of its support for a Saudi-led coalition air campaign.
      From BBC
      Official documents obtained by Reuters news agency show government lawyers advised the US it might be considered a co-belligerent under international law.

      The Obama administration has continued to authorise weapons sales to Saudi Arabia despite the warnings last year.

      On Saturday, an air strike on a funeral hall in Sanaa killed some 140 people.

      The coalition denied responsibility for the attack

  • Iain Orr

    Craig’s judgements are succinctl and accurate.

    Like him, I voted to stay in the UK; like Jeremy Corbyn, I want to change many features of the EU – both policies and how they are proposed, decided on and implemented to change. But, given present EU structures, such changes could never be achieved through a single national referendum about membership of the EU; even less so by one based on a fake “re-negotiation” designed for party factional reasons, with Cameron’s reckless preparedness to bet his tenancy of No 10 on one of two colours coming up on one spin of the roulette wheel.

    So, what’s needed for long-term fair and tolerant governance to be possible at every level (local, regional, national and international) are changes of government in the UK (and other countries as well). Perhaps a really “hard” Brexit is now the best way forward, following the logic of Ulysses G Grant’s inaugural address of 4 March 1869: “I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringesnt execution.”

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    The American electorate of the third-rate USA should clearly recognized the impossible situation it is in: vote for Clinton, and become yet a fourth-rate state, or vote for Our Adolf and go completely off the charts.

    The Republican and Democratic leadership should make it clear that they will impeach whoever wins, and leave up the fate of the winner to the new Senate instead of trying to save their own skins while the ship of state is sinking.

  • K Crosby

    Out of curiosity, who would have repudiated the Scotland referendum (those not in the 55 million denied a vote) if it had been 52% out and 48% in

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      I certainly have not forgotten Clintons body count, as I almost joined it in Portugal and Sweden, like Paul Wilcher did when he was found dead on the toilet back in the mid-1990s.

      And Cathy O’Brien also claimed that Hillary performed oral sex on her mutilated vagina. (Trransformation of America, p. 155)

      Just more reasons for her impeachment if elected.

      • Old Mark

        I assume Rudd is referring (re the ‘300’) to the number of parentless children at the Jungle who claim to have family connections in the UK; if such blood connections are verified by the requisite DNA evidence even an immigration restrictionist like me would have no objection to their being admitted and resettled to the UK, subject to certain conditions (see below).

        However I can foresee housing problems if the blood connections of these parentless children are presently mainly housed in London & SE England- and when the children are admitted the families then seek transfers to larger social housing units in the same, overcrowded areas- possibly 3, 4 or even 5 bedroomed properties, depending on the size of the family they wish to join. These families may well find in these revised circumstances that the benefits they seek, to indemnify their increased housing costs, put them over the benefits cap.- even though the cap is higher in London than in other parts of the country.

        The solution would be that, where these parentless children are admitted , they are admitted only on condition that the family they are joining accepts rehousing in a less expensive area of the country (eg most of Scotland would be ideal for this purpose). This would minimise the cost to the taxpayer via housing benefit, provide Scotland with both the increased population and ethnic enrichment it so lacks, and reduce the risks of a violent backlash from English racists upset at yet another immigrant family ‘jumping the queue’ for a larger house via the ‘family reunion ‘ immigration route.

        As fot the ‘parentless children’ in the Calais jungle who have no proven connection to the UK, then they of course must remain a French responsibility- until, that is, an independent Scotland reinvents the ‘auld alliance’ and enters into its own burden sharing agreement with its new ally.

        • Republicofscotland

          “Scotland with both the increased population and ethnic enrichment it so lacks, and reduce the risks of a violent backlash from English racists upset at yet another immigrant family ‘jumping the queue’ for a larger house via the ‘family reunion ‘ immigration route.”

          ___________

          Oh I’m sure it will take far more drastic action than that, to placate those of that disposition. But Frau May and the goosesteppers recent actions will have given them hope.

          Old Mark, I’m interested to know what makes you think homeless immigrants, who’ve lost everything, due to Westminster’s killing policies in Libya, Iraq and now Syria, are jumping the queue?

          I’m sure you’ll have credible links, to prove your assertions.

          • Old Mark

            Old Mark, I’m interested to know what makes you think homeless immigrants, who’ve lost everything, due to Westminster’s killing policies in Libya, Iraq and now Syria, are jumping the queue?

            RoS-

            I just happen to have over 30 years experience in the social housing sector, and know the nuts and bolts about how these things actually work- what is your expertise in this specific area ?
            So, to recap step by step, for those readers in remedial class-

            1. Since approximately the 1970s the allocation of social housing has ostensibly been based upon ‘housing need’- so if your needs become greater, so does your ‘place in the queue’- irrespective of whether you are a local resident of long standing, or an immigrant/refugee who just obtained the requisite ‘leave to remain’ in the UK last week.

            2. Immigrants/refugees can enhance their ‘housing need’ by getting permission to bring in family members under the ‘family reunion’ immigration route, thereby making their current accommodation unsuitable and/or overcrowded. This is a route to increase your ‘housing priority’ not available to most native English (or for that matter Scottish) people. (Technically, the beneficiaries of such family reunions are meant not to have ‘recourse to public funds’ for the first year or two- however, if the housing application is in the name of the immigrant already settled here (perhaps even by now a possessor of a UK passport) these rules are waived- and sometimes even in cases where the rule could be applied, for reasons of bureaucratic convenience -ie the avoidance of protracted correspondence with the local law centre, or a self appointed SJW, it is waived. Oh and BTW RoS nobody from immigration checks to see if the ‘no recourse to public funds’ rubric is actually applied by the housing authority in such cases. You however seem to think that these authorities are all powerful, and under ‘Frau May’ as you call her, that they go around goosestepping in jackboots, enforcing the immigration rules with great relish and rigour. Only someboby profoundly ignorant of how the system actually works – such as yourself- can extrude such bilge)

            3 It seems very likely that, as these ‘parentless children’ from the Jungle are admitted to join the familiies to which they claim kinship in the UK, the arrival of an extra family member will necessitate a reappraisal of that household’s ‘housing need’ in the way I’ve described in 1 and 2 above. In the process of so doing, native households on the same housing waiting list (or even 2nd generation immigrant households who no longer have close relations abroad, and who can no longer avail themselves of this ploy) are disandvantaged, and, to paraphrase Obama, find themselves nearer the ‘back of the queue’ as a result.

            4 What do YOU think the kin of these ‘parentless children’ will actually do as and when these additional family members arrive at their accommodation in the UK- pray to the tooth fairy for a bigger house, or approach the local housing authority for assistance in the way I’ve described ?

  • michael norton

    The President of the Peoples Socialist Republic of France is off his chump

    Syria conflict: France wants Russia on war crimes charges
    France builds two aircraft carriers for Russia, then the Americans tell France to start hating Russia and not to sell them the aircraft carriers, then France sells the two aircraft carriers to a military dictatorship, Egypt.
    Egypt is in the Saudi led coalition bombing the shit out of Yemen.
    America, U.K. and France are providing the intelligence.
    But Egypt is using its navy to blockade Yemen.

    What have the French to be proud of?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37611151

    Little Francois will not be the president for much longer.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      In America during Hurricane Matthew, the residents took to the streets at the last terrifying moment, or stayed in their homes rather than in public shelters in droves to defy the authorities’ warnings, putting thousands of public servants’ lives at risk.

      It’s a massive narcissistic world.

      Don’t forget about them when criticizing their leaders.

    • Old Mark

      Interesting stuff Fred- but of course as the story is in the Express, RoS Harry Vines and the other assorted ‘cybernats’ who frequent this blog, can poo-pooh it

      • fred

        Facts are facts as which newspaper they are in.

        The SNP did send out those letters so they must have got the names and addresses from somewhere.

        The law on using the extended electoral register are quite clear, it is not made public and the uses it may be put to are limited. Sending out political propaganda is not one of them.

    • Harry Vimes

      “IF they have been using the extended electoral register”

      Aye, and if your auntie had a scrotum she’d be your uncle.

      Unfortunately, in a system in which the rule of law applies and where solid verifiable evidence is the basis in which such law is applied if’s, but’s, maybe’s and speculation just does not cut the mustard. Perhaps this is the case, perhaps it is not. What is certain is that it is always the most empty of vessels [or should that be vassals?] who rush to gleeful judgement on the basis of what’s written in the comics that pass for printed media. It is not as though there is a lack of past available evidence of such sources playing fast and loose with events to twist them towards a particular agenda.

      Yet, amazingly, we still have amongst us individuals and groups who, with a rush of self righteous blood to the head, are ready to leap to conclusions based on nothing more than innuendo, speculation, accusations, suggestions, nods and winks from sources which have too often in the past been found to be at best suspect and at worst downright duplicitous because it suits the world view of those individuals.

      Should, however, a newspaper or someone suggest, hint or put forward as a possibility, that the source might have been obtained via the exercises which have in recent times been taking place at the behest of the Department of Education where pupils and their families have been asked to provide the details of their immigration status or some other plausible possibility, such a narrative would be howled down and labeled with the usual school playground level invective as “lefty” speculation and wishful thinking because that does not suit the narrative such people wish to hear or consider.

      Moving on to the more substantive matter. It says a great deal about the cognitive abilities of any individual when they seemingly are unable to distinguish and differentiate between the purposes of two initiatives and the context in which they occur. The purpose of of Rudd’s approach; as announced at the Conservative Party Conference and which was backed up by Jeremy Hunt in seeking to replace experienced foreign, non UK immigrant doctors in the NHS with new wet behind the ears trainees who would not be allowed to ply their profession elsewhere for a set number of years ; is to compile a list of non UK immigrants in the workforce with the express objective of replacing them with ‘native’ labour as far as practicable.

      The particular purpose/objective of that exercise involving a list of non UK immigrants working here will at some point have a negative effect on those on the list inasmuch as those on any such list of data will correctly and accurately interpret such an initiative, accompanied as it was with gleeful banner headlines and content along the lines of British jobs for British workers, as having the result of them losing that job and having to move out of the UK after easing their replacement into the job at some point in the future. As an aside, its not difficult for anyone with even a single functioning brain cell to figure out that the majority in that position, seeing the writing on the wall and the mood being projected, that they would be better off jumping sooner rather than waiting to be pushed, leaving many employment positions to be filled with inexperienced and not fully trained up ‘native’ workers without the necessary expertise.

      Little wonder the politicians behind such a half baked impractical approach are trying desperately to backtrack to placate the institutions of what is left of UK industry. Forgive anyone with more than a single brain cell for taking any backtracking on that issue with a large pinch of salt. We’ve heard and experienced that bullshit too many times before.

      The purpose/objective of sending out letters to people in this position, in a context where there is not only a great deal of hate filled rhetoric but also actions upon that rhetoric directed against them [as an example, for those who seem to have a psychological vested interest in downplaying this, much of which does not get widely reported into the public domain if at all – such as the hate mail being pushed through the letter boxes of second and third generation Poles in a village not far from where I live; or the Scotsman attacked in Tideswell back in August for wearing a kilt and being in possession of a Scottish accent) is to reassure them that they do have a place in society and that the Government and administration responsible for protecting them take that responsibility seriously, towards all those living in Scotland regardless of their country of origin.

      The difference in purpose between the two is not bloody rocket science to work out. Yet, there remain some people who for whatever twisted reasoning wish to reverse the positive and negatives purposes of the two actions. Trying to convince others, in the way they have convinced themselves, that white is black and that black is white. That the announcements of the extremists within the Government [ such as those who put forward the forty policies in 2013 – http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/beyond-satire-tory-rights-alternative-queens-speech ] are empty rhetoric, they do not mean it and they are innocently going to do the opposite; whilst actions taken by the Scottish devolved government in seeking to reassure immigrants within the community in the context of heightened rhetoric and increasing verbal and physical abuse towards immigrants both official and by the mob mentality evident in even places like this blog, is a heinous big brother act with nefarious purposes.

      It is impossible to invent people who are unable, unwilling or a combination of the two to see, let alone acknowledge, the difference in purposes and objectives at work here and who instead seek to reverse the reality. They invent themselves. Like Pavolv’s dogs they salivate over every bullshit headline and titbit which feeds and confirms their own warped paranoia and wishful view of the world and how it should be.

      Quite pathetic really.

      • fred

        The letters were sent, I’ve seen photos on social media.

        They got the addresses of foreign nationals living in Scotland from somewhere.

        If they didn’t use the extended electoral register it means they have compiled their own list.

        If they did use the extended electoral register they committed a criminal offence.

        Do you understand now?

        • Harry Vimes

          “The letters were sent, I’ve seen photos on social media.”

          There is nowhere in my original reply in which a statement or implied hint can be found to the effect that no letters were sent out. That is not just a straw man comment and argument its a complete waste of space and effort trying to deflect an argument which was not put in a deliberate and pathetic attempt to avoid the substantive point made about purpose and objective. In effect it actually underlines and clearly demonstrates the points made about the motives and psychology of what is going on here.

          “They got the addresses of foreign nationals living in Scotland from somewhere.

          If they didn’t use the extended electoral register it means they have compiled their own list.”

          Not quite 9/11 conspiracy theory territory but a spirited attempt nontheless. To put you out of your misery, because clearly you are unable to work it out yourself and have to rely on direction from a comic book passing itself off as a newspaper, its not that difficult to work out. The only section of the immigrant population within Scotland likely to be be affected by the Brexit vote are EU Nationals living in Scotland. Whilst that section of the electorate within Scotland received a vote in the Independence Referendum of September 2014, courtesy of the Scottish Devolved Government, they did not receive a vote in the EU Referendum. In order to ensure that ballot papers sent out to EU nationals in 2014 were not sent out to EU nationals during the EU Referendum it will have been necessary for the administrators acting for the devolved Scottish Government to identify those electors as sending them a ballot paper for the EU Referendum would have been an illegal act. Its not rocket science. All that is required is to try thinking for oneself instead of allowing someone else to do it for you.

          “If they did use the extended electoral register they committed a criminal offence.”

          Only someone incapable of thinking for themselves would allow a comic like the Express to tell them that sending a nice letter to all EU nationals telling them that the Scottish Devolved Government will do everything it can to stop the UK government deporting them and allaying their concerns about their future citizenship following the Brexit result is a hostile act requiring punitive legal sanctions and worthy of having a self righteous curtain twitching orgasm over.

          The question needs to be asked as to why someone, anyone, would get their underwear in a twist and have a problem with a Government reassuring sections of the populace living under its jurisdiction and joining a fabricated witch hunt to portray such an act as wicked and beyond the pale. Purpose. Objective. Its not hard unless one has a particular axe to grind – and its very obvious this is the case here and why it is so.
          Get a grip. You are embarrassing sentient life.

          Do YOU understand now?

          • fred

            I don’t see how I can make it any simpler for you bar only using words of one syllable. If you don’t understand now you never will.

          • Harry Vimes

            Its not difficult.

            Explain why you are having trouble differentiating between the purpose behind Rudd’s idea, backed up by Hunt regarding Doctors [ as Janet and John’ed for you earlier] and a letter sent out by the Devolved Scottish Government trying to reassure EU nationals in Scotland?

            Explain why you think sending out this letter of reassurance is beyond the pale?

            You clearly have a biased agenda and are not willing to be objective on these issues.

          • fred

            It was a list of foreign nationals I was talking about not a list of doctors.

            You are losing the plot do concentrate.

          • Harry Vimes

            Now you are being deliberately obtuse.

            It has already been explained to you on two occasions how it is possible for the Devolved Scottish Government to write a reassuring letter to EU nationals. The question is why do you persist in pretending this faux outrage based on some deluded conspiracy theory.

            You want the police to be involved in charging the Devolved Scottish Government with writing to reassure foreign nationals. On what charge pray?

          • Harry Vimes

            Answer the questions.

            – What charge. Good luck with trying to pursue a case based on a letter the purpose of which was to reassure EU foreign nationals that they were welcome in Scotland and by implication the taxes and contributions they make to that society will be reciprocated by at least the Devolved Scottish Government.

            Its called being practical. A quality in which at least a majority of us on these islands pride ourselves on. However, if you feel so strongly about this matter there is nothing to stop you acting on your manufactured pretend faux outrage by taking a case yourself. I’ve already given you three possible suggested options. It would be an entertaining piece of street theater to see you arrested in turn for wasting police time.

            – What sort of mind set seeks to portray an act of reassurance as its exact opposite. This displays a warped and twisted view. Have you considered therapy?

  • michael norton

    WIPEOUT

    Yes, this is the shock news that if there is to be a General Election, following the anointment of Saint Theresa as our unelected Prime minister,
    the Old Labour party under J.C. is likely to face a WIPEOUT of truly historic proportions.

  • michael norton

    SNP this SNP that
    at the most recent General Election of the United Kingdom
    United Kingdom Independence party took 3,881,099 votes
    Scottish National Party took 1,454,436 votes
    Rats Nicola you have been tumbled.

    • Harry Vimes

      What’s it like trying to exist in the context free twilight zone? How does anyone who so clearly operates in a context free void actually survive day to day living without constant round the clock supervision?

      At the 2011 census Scotland registered a population of 5,295,000. England, Wales and Northern Ireland registered a combined population of 57,886,775 at the same census. Whilst there will have been some fluctuations in the five years since then the fact remains that the proportions of the vote between the SNP, which only stood in Scotland, and UKIP which stood in areas with a far larger population mean that the conclusion which is being offered here is the exact opposite of reality.

      It’s called maths. Its been around for a long time. Indeed, they even teach it schools for those who are willing to learn it.

  • Dave

    JC at Cable Street. All very worthy but deeply offensive and racist as even if you think immigration is a good idea the necessary infrastructure and housing should proceed rather than follow the migrants particularly when their numbers are so high.

    I mean a perfectly acceptable “anti-racist” message is to say lets all work together and sort things out before we let anymore in. To say its racist to oppose open door immigration is insane and JC despite his virtues deserves to lose.

  • Old Mark

    DGP @10.06am today

    Excellent post DGP- particularly this bit-

    I went into a travel agent for foreign currency a few years a go and overheard a very acrimonious conversation between the
    local employees- to the effect that there was huge discontent because all the locals had been passed over for the manager’s job, which had gone to a woman from Eastern Europe, who was then serving me. The atmosphere was quite ‘thick and tense ‘ to put it mildly and there had obviously been some kind of dispute and argument. The woman who had been made manager spoke about 4 languages proficiently, was very charming, had a complete command of the process, was extremely efficient and confident and was obviously the best choice for the job.I remember listening and thinking that the choice was really, really simple-no contest.

    Your anecdote about the travel agency rather puts a dampener on the propaganda kicked off here by Craig, and enthusiastically endorsed by RoS and others, that Scotland is more immigrant friendly and ‘inclusive’ than England.

  • michael norton

    Saint Theresa May said “BREXIT MEANS BREXIT”

    Saint Theresa May’s local council pledges £50k for Heathrow legal fight

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-37620926

    The prime minister’s local council has said it will spend £50,000 to challenge Heathrow expansion, if the government gives third runway plans the go-ahead.

    Windsor and Maidenhead Council, in Theresa May’s constituency, teamed up with Hillingdon, Richmond and Wandsworth councils to fight expansion.

    The Cabinet is expected to make a decision on whether to expand Heathrow or Gatwick later this month.

    Overall, the four councils have pledged £200,000 to the legal challenge.

    That should give Saint Theresa food for thought?

  • Dave

    The problem is the governance of the UK, or put another way the mental health of the UK. Losing an arm (Scotland) wont improve UK mental health and presumably could make it worse so keeping Scotland a part of the Union helps rather than hinders mental/governance reform particularly if its assumed Scotland is the sanest part of UK due to Remain vote.

    • michael norton

      ‘Hard Brexit’ or ‘no Brexit’ for Britain – The Donald Tusk
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37650077
      Britain’s only real alternative to a “hard Brexit” is “no Brexit”, European Council President Donald Tusk has said.

      Speaking in Brussels, he warned that the EU would not compromise on its insistence that freedom of movement will be a condition for Britain’s access to the single market.

      O.K. over and out.

      We are going for HARD BREXIT

    • michael norton

      http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/15/mps-lodge-protest-bbc-new-research-confirms-anti-brexit-bias/
      Listeners to BBC Radio 4 are two and a half times more likely to hear the opinions of a pro-EU speaker than from anti-EU guests despite Britain’s recent vote to leave the EU, research has found. MPs on both sides of the house written to BBC bosses in protest, saying the figure points to clear bias within the Corporation.

      Recent research by think tank News Watch, which analysed a group of 31 Radio 4 programmes and Features re-released by the channel in an i-Player series entitled “The Brexit Collection” found clear indications of bias within the eleven and a half hours of programming.

      News Watch’s report noted: “There were no attempts in any programme to explore the benefits of leaving the EU, but conversely, Brexit came under sustained negative attack.

      “This was reflected in the balance of contributions and comment contained within the items. Analysis by News-watch shows that only 23 percent of contributors in the programmes as a whole spoke in favour of Brexit, against 58 percent in favour of Remain and 19 percent who gave a neutral or factual commentary.”

      Of the programmes, which were originally broadcast over a number of years, the report found that “nine programmes and six features, amounting to 5 hours 20 minutes of programming, were strongly anti-Brexit, contained unchallenged predictions that civil unrest and rioting were now on the horizon and cast the ‘out’ vote in negative terms, inferring that the result had been a consequence of racism and xenophobia.

      • michael norton

        If I was Islamaphobic Theresa May, I cut through the BBC with a sythe,
        clear out all the remoaners.

          • michael norton

            “REMOANER” politicians and business leaders have been challenged to decide whether they are
            “for Britain or against Britain” and get behind Frau Theresa May’s HARD BREXIT “negotiations”.
            http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/721310/Remoaners-told-decide-for-Britain-against-Britain
            The challenge follows the “unholy alliance” of Scottish Nationalists and European bosses emerging this week making it clear they want to harm Britain in revenge for the historic Leave vote.

            It comes as Theresa May has reaffirmed her commitment to getting Britain out of Europe and rejecting claims by European Council President Donald Tusk that she will decide to Remain.

            Well, Dave Cameron very kindly had arranged a Referendum for the good voters of the UNITED KINGDOM.

            The result was for BREXIT.
            Dave did the descent thing and withdrew his services from the public sphere.
            Frau Theresa took over and is now going for HARD BREXIT.

            What’s not to like?

          • michael norton

            Scottish Ukip MEP David Coburn said: “In the end everything comes down to choices. Do you choose to line up with the majority of the British people, to work hard to make Britain the freest, happiest, and most successful economy in the Western world, post BREXIT, or do you side with the unholy alliance of the SNP, the Eurocracy, vested interests and the self-shaming elite who cannot help but try to make their pre-referendum scare stories come true?
            The referendum result is a reality. We will leave the EU. The only honourable question now is how to make Brexit work for the whole kingdom and to make it work”.

            Well said that Scottish person.

  • michael norton

    The United Kingdom to end up with “EXTREME BREXIT” as there may not be time for negotiations
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/721623/Britain-extreme-Brexit-no-time-for-negotiations-European-Union
    Frau Theresa May has pledge to trigger Article 50 negotiations by the end of next March,
    beginning the formal process of leaving the European Union.

    But senior ministers have warned talks could still be going on in 2019 as the move “has never been tried” before.
    Under E.U. rules, the United Kingdom would be forced to adopt World Trade Organisation rules and crash out of the E.U.bloc if the talks are not concluded within two years.

    Tariffs would then have to be imposed on the United Kingdom making trade deals with the E.U. much more costly.
    Some ministers have warned this is likely to happen because of the “very complicated” nature of leaving the E.U.
    which they claim would make negotiations go on for well over two years.
    They claim this would be the “HARDEST” possible BREXIT, with no access to the single market or trade deals.

    However others claim this would be the best scenario for the United Kingdom, as Britain would then be “totally in control of its destiny”.

    Although single market access would be forfeited, the U.K. would not have to given in to E.U. demands over immigration and freedom of movement. A senior ministerial source said: “The Prime Minister Frau Theresa may has said she will trigger Article 50 by March next year. But it is possible that two years won’t be long enough to get this done. We hope it will be. But these negotiations are very complicated and this has never been tried.

    “If it doesn’t succeed, we go back to WTO rules. This is seen by some people as some kind of disaster but that is not the case.
    Britain will succeed if that happens.”

    At the Tory party conference, Frau Theresa May assured voters she would negotiate for the best deal for Britain – including keeping strict control of immigration laws.
    She said: “We have voted to leave the hated European Union and become a fully independent, sovereign country.
    We will do what independent, sovereign countries do.

    “We will decide for ourselves how we control immigration. And we will be free to pass our own laws.”

    She also told the conference UK laws “will be made not in Brussels but in Westminster”, adding: “BREXIT MEANS BREXIT and we are going to make a success of it.”
    A HARD BREXIT with HARD BORDERS.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.