Options for Independence 1387

So what do we do now with Theresa May apparently obdurate on blocking the referendum?

It is important to realise politics are fluid. In a week’s time the situation will not be what it is today. The battle for public opinion is key. The unionist media (ie virtually all of it) are asserting continuously, as a uniform line, that opinion polls say the people of Scotland do not want a second Independence referendum in the timescale Nicola Sturgeon has set out – even though that is not true at all. The serial Tory crooks at You Gove came out with an opinion poll right on cue “showing” that support for Independence is hitting new lows. But I suspect it will not be long before evidence emerges that May’s unattractive diktat has profoundly assisted the Independence cause. That will change the game.

So with a wind of public opinion behind her, what does Sturgeon do if Westminster denies a Scottish Parliament request for a referendum? There are several options:

1) Hold an Advisory Referendum

It appears probable (though not undisputed) that the Scottish government can hold a referendum which is not binding, without Section 30 permission from Westminster. It is hard for Westminster to dismiss the result of an advisory referendum, given that Brexit was only an advisory referendum and May has taken as a matter of faith that it is binding.

But as we saw in Catalonia, a boycott by unionist forces can be quite effective in denying the credibility of a non-binding referendum result. I strongly suspect that would be their attitude to an advisory referendum, and I do not see it as a strong way forward.

2) Call a New Holyrood Election

This is an attractive option in many ways. It would be predicated on the plain statement that a new pro-Independence majority would declare Independence unilaterally. That would be the normal and internationally accepted way for a country to secede – a referendum is very much the exception.

But there are problems with this approach. The first is that it would require a two thirds majority of the Scottish parliament to dissolve it, and the Unionists would in all probability simply block it. Forcing them to do that may be a good move, but doesn’t take us far forward.

The second problem, should parliament dissolve, is the campaign itself. As it would not be a referendum campaign, media coverage would not be balanced on independence, but the unionist parties in effect given three times the coverage of the SNP, assuming the Greens continue to be very poorly treated. But as the “Balance” of the referendum coverage was risible anyway, I am not sure this is so much of a drawback.

More difficult is the uncertainty created by the appalling De Hondt system. There is no doubt that the optimum outcome for Independence would be for every Independence supporter to vote SNP 1 and Green 2. But in practice that will never happen on a significant scale, and what is the best way to utilise your vote to achieve independence is simply not predictable. Risking all on a system so prone to statistical fluke is a problem.

3) Call a National Assembly

In the event that Scotland is being blocked from holding either a referendum or an election, the Scottish Government could move to convene a National Assembly. This might consist of all MPs, MSPs and MEPs and that body could declare Independence. To be clear, that would be a revolutionary act in UK terms, but it is perfectly normal for such an act to be required at the birth of a new state and is no bar to it being accepted in international law as a state through recognition by the United Nations General Assembly.

The argument would run that, having been blocked at every turn from holding a democratic vote either by way of referendum or parliamentary election, the Scottish government had taken the option of convening all representatives democratically elected at the national level – MSPs, MPs and MEPs, and these elected representatives of the Scottish people had made the decision. That is perfectly respectable and entirely analogous to the way many EU members such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Croatia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent.

To return to my original argument, the possibilities depend very much on how public opinion is seen to be trending. May’s calculation appears to be driven firstly by a desire to play to her Brexiteer base in England – which judging by the rabid comments pages across the media is very successful – and secondly by a desire to further polarise Scottish politics to the benefit of the Scottish Tories. She is more than happy for Independence to be decided on a straight SNP vs Tory field. That May thinks she can win such a battle is an example of staggering hubris.

I have been saying in all of my speeches across Scotland in the last year that the game has changed and we have to be prepared for the idea we may have to achieve Independence without the consent or cooperation of the Westminster government. I am happily no longer a radical outlier in this belief.

1,387 thoughts on “Options for Independence

1 2 3 4 5 6 10
  • giyane

    Well how wonderful. Two trolls, or one troll with two heads, pop up together at crack of dawn to certify Craig as mad. Are you by any chance the same ones as the muddy boots ones that entered his flat and left without any boots on. The old Victorian accusations of madness are always accompanied by a waft of vested interests.

    Very rich occupants of Scotland might get caught with their pants down because their very large taxes might get diverted to Scotland rather than the colonial government in Westminster who provide them with their fat salaries and pensions. The Scottish government would instantly receive no revenues from employers and employees death duties road tax , rents , licences, rates investments and loans.

    Scottish land might be re-distributed to local farming instead of being wasted for grouse shooting and southern investment bankers’ weekends. The UK debt looks like a black hole compared to Scotland’s, a debt run up by 30 years of neo-colonial wars against Muslim countries for the benefit of I+++l , nothing to do with the good people of Scotland.

    You’re away with the faeries, my friends, sorry, my bi-capitated friend. I wouldn’t want to be racist against bi-trolls if you get my meaning.

    • fred

      “Scottish land might be re-distributed to local farming instead of being wasted for grouse shooting and southern investment bankers’ weekends.”

      What were you thinking of farming on land where only heather will grow?

        • fred

          The cost of the ferry to Orkney to fetch the polytunnels back every time there’s a strong wind, we frequently get winds over 100 mph, could be prohibitive.

      • Deepgreenpuddock

        Fair point but that still doesn’t answer the problem. The reality is that the heather moorland, a natural feature has been created or extended for the slightly ridiculous sporting purposes of the gentry. I once walked past a grouse shooting party where everyone was clad in what looked like Vivienne Westwood’s take on how the well dressed young blades should be dressed on the heather moors. Yes it was very very odd. It was a pastiche of some sort-a little slice of a fantasy world.
        The land was once used more productively.
        The land use in much of upland Scotland does not bear much inspection. Essentially it is grant mining-using the estates to get access to lucrative subsidies.In other words-these are revenue streams set up only for those well enough placed to take advantage of the arrangement.
        Or pointless sheep with their dangling sharny dags, that do not make sense unless there was a subsidy for them.
        We need reform for sure. But it is a difficult issue. i think there is some mileage in trying to restore the land to something like it might have been. Re-introduction of some larger predator species and regeneration of the woodland. Perhaps restoration of some of the agricultural activity, It is likely to generate far more job opportunities and be much more ethically and environmentally advantageous.
        There are already some brave souls in the highlands having a go and making quite a decent job. We maybe need to favour some of these innovative developments rather than continuing with the recent pattern of large estate, rich people’s vanity expression type of land ownership.

        • michael norton

          Of course, when Scotland has left the E.U. along with the rest of the United Kingdom, there will still be some central U.K. funds to supplant the voided E.U. funds.
          However, should Scotland then choose to flee the U.K.
          that will be the end of subsidy land.
          You’d be standing on your own feet.

          • Deepgreenpuddock

            You miss the point. The subsidies beneft very few people.Most of it goes to support the lifestyles of the absentee owners or perhaps provide tax advantages.
            If Scottish people actually ever stand up and demand proper accountability, the existing beneficiaries will all fall down (and out).

  • Dave

    The UK and US debt is easily dealt with by a “Wealth Tax” and “Social Credit” but the private banking, deep state, fraternity wouldn’t like it nor government ministers who want to be rewarded like Osborne.

    The SNP say the UK government is ‘finding it difficult’ leaving the EU, but a Scottish government would also ‘find it difficult’ leaving the UK and yet the SNP plan is for Scotland to leave the UK at the same time UK is leaving the EU. I’m sure there’s a military term for this sort of tactic.

    • lysias

      A wealth tax is also a way to reduce economic inequality and the disproportionate political power of the rich, which has totally deformed democracy. It is perfectly feasible. Until recently, Germany had a wealth tax. Ancient Athens had the equivalent in its system of liturgies. Thomas Piketty recommended a wealth tax in his recent magnum opus, which was largely about economic inequality.

    • Loony

      Consider this: US public debt is something over $60 trillion. Aggregate US consumer debt is over $3 trillion and US unfunded liabilities come in at just over $100 trillion.

      By way of context the aggregate market capitalization of the S&P 500 is about $21.5 trillion.

      What kind of wealth tax is going to easily deal with this debt? Who has this kind of money? Answer no-one. Rich people own inflated real estate and financial assets. Trying to suck money out of these people in the form of a wealth tax is exactly the same as sucking money out of financial assets and real estate. This has the effect of crashing these markets and suddenly the rich are not so rich – and most certainly cannot liquidate their assets to pay down debt of the magnitude necessary.

      Crashing asset markets has the unwanted side effect of making the debt looking even bigger than it already does. There is no way out of this, other than full spectrum collapse.

      Anyone that looks at the numbers can understand this – maybe that explains why there are ongoing attempts to classify numbers as racist and delusional fools are only too happy to play this game of inanity.

      When this all comes crashing down as it must things are going to get fucking ugly very fast.

        • Dave

          A “Wealth Tax” is painless and is only needed occasionally to restore balance in the economy, because in normal circumstances a sensible tax regime keeps things in order and painless because its a tax on asset value not income!

          This means it only requires a entry in the ledger about changed liabilities that balances the books and this means no need to tax the poor/make cuts and as the asset values are based on the strength of the economy, then by saving the economy with the “Wealth Tax” will protect and increase asset values making it win, win situation. I.e. no need to tax the poor and the rich remain rich. See Greg Philo, Wealth Tax.

          Most debt is due to the legal fraud of private Fractional Reserve Banking that creates un-payable debt that is mostly a phantom that can be cancelled outright with no harm done except to the money lenders. Iceland had the right idea, jail the bankers and make them rather than the people responsible for the financial collapse.

      • lysias

        I have no idea whether and to what extent wealth taxes could wipe out national debts. As I said above, I favor them for different reasons: they would alleviate economic inequality and the resulting disproportionate political power that the rich have.

          • lysias

            And, as Piketty and others complain, the currently reigning neoclasscal economics is just an ideology justifying neoliberal policies. 2008 should have exposed its bankruptcy, but that cannot be allowed to happen. It cannot be refuted by evidence. It is the 21st century equivalent of theology.

        • Loony

          Well you do know – because I have laid out the magnitude of the problem for you. What you have done is chosen to ignore the problem.

          Accelerating economic inequality is the only way to delay this rotten edifice from collapsing. At some point it will collapse and at that point inequality is going to be the least of your worries.

          As for Thomas Picketty being a well regarded economist well Ben Bernanke is also well regarded and he also happens to be largely responsible for the creation of intractable debt problems.

          • michael norton

            Also, Gordon Brown thought he was invincible in magic economics, until the New Labour CRASH that crippled us.
            Some magic.

      • lysias

        Typcally, wealth taxes are a very low percentage of wealth per annum, often less than one percent. What rch person would not have that amount of ready cash?

        • Loony

          How does that help – you are looking at a debt problem north of $160 trillion – and that is just in the US.

          • Dave

            “Social Credit” says the government should posses the incredible power of money creation rather than hand this power to the private Banks. In US money creation is in the hands of the private Federal Reserve, (the globalists)which is why Ron Paul and all those who say “Audit the Reserve” are feared.

            “Social Credit” is similar to “Keynesian”, except Keynes won the argument because he did a deal with the Bankers to keep them in charge of money creation, although the Bank of England is under greater government control than the Federal Reserve.

            Much debt owed is not due to a failure to repay the amount loaned, but a failure to pay the interest that turns it into an un-payable debt, but which could simply be painlessly cancelled as an un-payable usurious debt. Also much debt is because money is loaned into the economy by private banks rather than spent into the economy by the government.

          • Loony

            There are many ways in which things could be organized – but it is necessary to deal with the way that things are organized. Here is Professor Wolff setting out the main scope of the problem


            In reality things are probably much worse than Wolff recognizes (and he is pretty pessimistic). That is because in all likelihood we have crossed the Rubicon with regard to cheap energy, and it is cheap energy that has brought us to where we are today – and now it has gone.

            Wolff recognizes a problem of consciousness – which is in effect the same as the mass delusions that infect western societies. This is not a helpful base from which to face cataclysmic economic challenges.

        • Kempe

          Quite a lot of people are asset rich – cash poor so it could be a problem for some. One concern has to be mission creep. When income tax was first introduced it only applied to the very rich, now look.

          Germany abandoned Wealth Tax in 1996 after it was declared unconstitutional.

          • Dave

            Except taxes make us rich, but should be equitable and spent in a value for money way which can be done with democratic and accountable government.

          • lysias

            What the German Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional was taxing different kinds of property differently, as the German wealth tax did. This was a situation peculiar to Germany, its tax legislation, and the jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court. There is no reason why other countries could not tax all property equally under a wealth tax, or permit under their constitutional structure an unequal taxation of property, if that seems necessary or advisable.

            The court’s decision is no argument against wealth taxes in general.

  • Bhante

    Craig, now is the time to follow through on your recent proposals for the Bella Caledonia website, and create a brand new website along the lines you suggested then, for the following reasons:

    1) If there cannot be complete confidence in the intentions of the Bella Caledonia website, their motives for suddenly announcing closure, and their motives for suddenly announcing continuation, then they cannot be relied upon not to suddenly pull the plug at an inopportune moment, such as in the runup to a referendom.

    2) Given the above, who can really be confident that Bella Caledonia will not be manipulated by the Westminster elite and the MSM? Who can be really confident there is no puppetmaster hidden behind the scenes pulling strings?

    3) With so many issues to be discussed there is a massive market and need for such a forum. With independence rearing its head there will certainly be a plethora of new websites created – some distinctly less competent than others, some distinctly less honest than others, some with more questionable motives and agenda than others. Ergo there has to be a leader of the pack with the best of such qualities.

    4) Situations can change suddenly. Even if you (hypothetically) don’t really see the need for it right now, that need might arise suddenly – yet the website takes time to set up and gather pace. If you are not ready to make a full commitment now you could always set it up straight away “as a precaution in case the need suddenly arises” and start it ticking over, writing a few articles, accepting a few articles for others, and providing a forum for discussion – and in the meantime the chances are it will rapidly take off anyway!

    5) Even though I can see Independence is a large part of what you see as defining yourself, this blog is not the proper forum for an independence platform – firstly because the attraction of (this is my speculation of course) many people to your blog has nothing to do with Scotland (my statement makes no claim to proportion, only to absolute numbers); and secondly because you are the sole poster (comments are a totally different kettle of fish to the main posts) and it is only one viewpoint.

    6) I am sure you would make an excellent job of it!

    7) Well, if the day should come following independence that you decide to run for election … what better platform???

    8) … etc etc …

    Go for it, Craig! Time is of the essence!

    • Habbabkuk

      Why put the job on Craig’s shoulders – why don’t you and a few of your independentist friends on here (“Republicofscotland” ** for example) go ahead and do it?

      Craig would be happy to give you occasional advice, I’m sure.

      Craig has also told us how much it costs him to run this website – I’m sire you and a few of your mates on here could come up with the money.

      The whole thing could be seen as a kind of putting your money, time and effort where your mouth is.

      How about it? 🙂


      ** you could even name your website “Repunlicofscotland” !! – Very catchy and pithy !

    • LMPG

      Considering recent events, everyone is now aware that polls mean very little. Just another lazy unionist soundbite.

    • michael norton

      I am not at all surprized, Fred, their ideas are utterly undeliverable, it is as if a miasma, has enshrouded them,
      akin to that, which was imagined to be the cause of
      The Black Death,
      where 1/3 of the population gasped, their last.

      “Support for Scottish independence is lower than in 2014, according to a new poll conducted in the days after Nicola Sturgeon announced her intention to push for a second referendum. “

      • michael norton

        Like I have been saying, the smart money, is on a General Election, this year.

  • Bhante


    Craig, what would a US withdrawal from the UN mean in practice in geopolitical terms?

    Whilst I can see (at one very simple level) Trump’s complaint about the US coughing up too much of the costs of the UN, it is hard to see that the interests of the US – and especially of the US elite – could be served by leaving the UN. After all, it is often argued that the UN is misused as a plaything of the US and as an extension of US foreign policy, largely payed for by other countries. They get very good dividends in terms of being able to manipulate the UN for their own benefit, to everybody else’s costs. The most profound criticism one could make of the UN is that it is nothing but a US poodle. That, obviously, is why the US ended up taking such a high proportion of its costs upon itself, precisely to achieve that situation.

    Indeed, whilst it would certainly substantially add to the considerable ocean of uncertainty already facing the world at this time, there are some respects in which it surely could be viewed as a good thing for the rest of the world. With no UN to constrain it, the US would become even more of a pariah state – but I don’t see there is much further it could go in that direction anyway. Then, whenever the US does something grossly illegal such as the iraq war, Libya, Syria and Yemen, they use their inordinate power inside the UN to limit the fallout from the international community. Once they are outside, the whole UN can unanimously decide against them and there is not an iota the US can do about it. As a permanent member of the security council they have veto power that is denied virtually every country in the world – they would lose that forever.

    Who could step in to fill the dire funding gap in the UN? Certainly nobody else but China, and China certainly has more than enough financing power available. It would also be an excellent way to get rid of many of those pesky dollars in China’s hands thereby considerably hastening the end of the petrodollar and at much reduced loss to China from its dollar holdings (meaning, by throwing the dollars at the UN the value of the dollar on the exchange markets doesn’t collapse in the same way as it would if China were to sell the dollars for other currencies; I admit I don’t understand the deeper consequencies of this, and whether it would ultimately come down to either an effective continued dollar holding by China or an effective dollar exchange). What an ideal opportunity for China to take over the mantle of supreme world power from the US!

    Then again, maybe Trump never had the slightest thought of leaving the UN, it is all bluff to pressure other countries to pay more subsidy for the US’ privileged position without the US ever giving up any of its power – just like NATO.

    • lysias

      The U.S. will never withdraw from the UN as long as the [email protected]@@@l lobby has as much power as it currently does, and as was recently demonstrated by the exemption of wealthy [email protected]@@@l from the cuts in foreign aid. All that stands in the way of unfriendly UN actions, including mandatory sanctions, is the U.S. veto.

      • Habbabkuk

        The last sentence is nonsense. The UK and France would also use their veto in the Security Council against mandatory sanctions against Israel.


        Note to “Ly**as : you can write “Israel” so don’t pretend you’re trying to avoid censorship by writing “[email protected]@@@l, you fool.

        • Laguerre

          You forget that Emmanuel Valls is no longer Prime Minister of France. Israel no longer has its obedient servant.

          Actually it is of no significance, as the UN would dissolve without the US – that is why the UN was located in NY in the first place, was it not? It would go the way of the League of Nations.

          • Habbabkuk


            “You forget that Emmanuel Valls is no longer Prime Minister of France. Israel no longer has its obedient servant.”

            Don’t be so silly, Laguerre, readers can’t be hoodwinked as easily as your young, ignorant students. There is no way any French President is going to agree UN sanctions against Israel. And, by the way – here you can learn something – foreign policy in France is the province of the President and not the Prime Minister. DUH!

            “Actually it is of no significance, as the UN would dissolve without the US – that is why the UN was located in NY in the first place, was it not? It would go the way of the League of Nations.”

            Maybe so but how does that observation back up what your mate “Lysias” insinuated? If there were no UN, there could not be any generally observed UN sanctions against Israel, could there. DUH!

        • bevin

          “..the currently reigning neoclasscal economics is just an ideology justifying neoliberal policies. 2008 should have exposed its bankruptcy, but that cannot be allowed to happen. It cannot be refuted by evidence. It is the 21st century equivalent of theology.”

          Lysias, your remarks about the cult of economics are correct. You probably recall the way that Samuelson’s, long the standard, text book explains that it is irrational for the government of a besieged city to to ration food supplies. This was a particularly difficult ideological ‘sell’ to students at the LSE in 1960-most of whom had not only grown up in ‘food rationed’ Britain but were aware that rationing was a a critical part of the policy mixture which allowed most of them, the children of working class families, to aspire to a University education in the first place.
          Generally speaking it took three years of schooling themselves in irrationality to come to understand why Samuelson was ‘right.’ And they had taken the first essential step towards becoming Bachelors in Economic Science and thus economists.

      • Dave

        The UN has been an instrument of US imperialism and there is no disputing the malign influence of the neo-cons, but they would like the US to leave the UN to remove any remaining restraint it offers on US aggression on behalf of Israel. They want full spectrum US dominance, so they can us it, the goys, to destroy any potential, real or imagined, threat to Israel, not US.

        Trump’s call for other countries to contribute more is to make the UN an instrument for peace not war and fits with his aim to Make America Great Again through the promotion of soft power and example, rather than by subjugating the world by force on behalf of the globalists.

  • branches

    Labour at just 14% for Scottish Westminster voting intentions according to Panelbase. Labour also at 14% for Holyrood constituency voting intentions according to Yougov.

    It’s a straight contest between a social democratic, outward looking independent Scotland and uber austerity, xenophobia and depleted democracy with the Tories.

    • Anon1

      Given the economic situation Scotland would find itself in after independence, it would be the Scottish government implementing “uber austerity”.

    • fred

      Do you think the warnings about Corbyn could have been right then?

      There was a lot of encouragement of Scottish Nationalists on this blog to pay their £5 and vote for Corbyn to be leader.

      • bevin

        The best argument the SNP have is the existence of Orange hearted British Nationalist Blairites like you, Fred.

  • michael norton

    Ms. Nicola Sturgeon: Holyrood’s will MUST and WILL PREVAIL

    so she has dropped the SCOTLAND, I take it from that that the will of SCOTLAND is not quite the same as Holyrood,
    very telling.

    Ministry of TRUTH

    • branches

      She’s specifically talking about the Scottish Parliament vote on having a referendum.

      • michael norton

        I have listened to the words from Nicola, your are right, she is attempting to blind-side Scotland just concentrating on Holyrood.

        She is trying to get her will done
        by hook or by crook,
        against the settled will of the people of Scotland, who have already voted to stay in the
        United Kingdom.

        That is not democracy.

        • branches

          She was specifically talking about the Holyrood referendum vote and Theresa May’s refusal of a section 30 order at Westminster.

          • michael norton

            Nicola Sturgeon: Don’t like BREXIT? Move to SCOTLAND!
            (Where would they live, Nicola, you are talking bollocks)

            The SNP leader tells her party conference the will of the Scottish parliament
            “will and must prevail” as she hits out at Saint Theresa May.
            SKY NEWS
            Nicola Sturgeon has insisted to a rapturous crowd at her party’s conference that “there will be an independence referendum”.

            The SNP leader went on to lambast Theresa May, saying that “the Prime minister’s attitude should worry us all” and warned: “Stop putting the interests of the right wing of your party ahead of the interests of the people of our party.”

            In her closing address to the party’s conference in Aberdeen, Ms Sturgeon also invited people in the United Kingdom who did not like BREXIT to come to SCOTLAND.

  • michael norton

    Will the “Terror” put paid to the French Elections?
    Ziyed Ben Belgacem

    Opération Sentinelle

    France is the only country in the European Union that is currently under a State of Emergency?
    France, Belgium, Spain and Germany have had many “Terror” Incidents over the last decade but only France, wallows in the State of Emergency.

    What is the real reason for the State of Emergency?

  • Republicofscotland

    I was never a fan of John Major, another unelected PM, (is it any wonder then that Britain’s in a terrible state, set to become much worse) but in this article he states that those backing a hard Brexit are nothing more than hooligan football fans. I suppose when you look at some of the pro-Brexiteers comments in here, you could easily think they were posted by thugs and hooligans.

    Undemocratic ultras adds Major, and un-British, Major is well placed to give his opinion, and on this occasion I have to agree with his point of view.

    Brexit will be a tragedy for the Brits, HMS Brexitania, will flounder on the Brussels rocks, with only the rich able to commandeer a life boat.

    But there’s still time for Scotland to man a life boat, we should grasp that opportunity, with both hands.


    • branches

      Never agreed with his politics but always regarded Major as one of the more reasonable Tories.

      It’s good that someone from the Establishment is finally breaking ranks and saying how Hard Brexit has been driven by this hooligan fascist element.

      It shows that Major’s old soubriquet of ‘Honest John’ was not undeserved.

      • Republicofscotland

        “Hard Brexit has been driven by this hooligan fascist element.”



        Yes the hooligan element definitely stems from the Brexiteer following. If I recall correctly a young Polish man was murdered, down south not long after the leave vote won.

        Followed by numerous xenphobic comments telling EU citizens, who have lived and worked in England to go home.

        Of course the Tory conference at the time didn’t help either, with their veiled xenophobic one liners to a rousing party faithful.

        • branches


          And of course Craig’s story about the market trader and the courgettes on this blog a few weeks ago.

      • Dave

        Except “honest John” ordered Norman Lamont to keep UK in the Exchange Rate Mechanism that resulted in a self-inflicted recession and when due to events Lamont, to his great joy, took UK out of ERM, Major sacked Lamont to save himself and took credit for the subsequent recovery!

    • Why be ordinary?

      Actually, he did manage to get elected, despite people thinking it impossible

        • bevin

          Plus: he was running against Neil Kinnock, I seem to recall, whose picture has only recently been displaced by Hillary’s in the Larousse definition of ‘unelectable.’

    • Loony

      Maybe the terrible state of Britain is in part explained by the ignorance of its population.

      Take for example the date of April 9 1992. On that day the UK held a General Election and the Conservative Party presented itself to the electorate under the leadership of one John Major, A total of 335 Conservative MP’s were returned to Westminster pursuant to this election giving the Conservative Party an overall majority of 21.

      Given these facts I was surprised to learn from you that John Major was “another unelected PM”

  • Republicofscotland

    For those of you who are more aware, the Met office has held mock terrorist attacks on the river Thames, in the heart of London.

    I shouldn’t need to remind those who are aware that, the last time a mock “terrorist” attack took place in London, people died on tube trains and a London bus.

    • Dave

      Yes by a remarkable coincidence there were 4 mock terror drills at exactly the same 4 places were the terrorists struck, as explained by Nicholas Kollerstrom’s, Terror on the Tube.

  • michael norton

    An envelope which exploded at the European offices of the International Monetary Fund in Paris on Thursday bore a Greek return address.

    Greece’s public order minister has said the suggestion was that it was sent by an opposition party official.

    Some on here have thought it impossible that Inderef2 might lead to violence.
    S. N. P. want to stay under the big umbrella, Greece does not like E.U.

    • michael norton

      When Scottish people see what the E.U. has done to Greece, why would they want the same done to SNPSCOTLAND?

    • Why be ordinary?

      If they don’t like the EU, why don’t the Greeks just leave? They faked the numbers to pretend to be rich, borrowed huge amounts backed by the fake numbers, let their commercial bank creditors take a haircut in 2010 in return for guarantees to pay the rest back including to countries like Slovakia which are poorer than they are. They are now whining about the deal that their own government signed up to in order to stay in the Euro, because they know that outside it they would be left to their own devices.

      The Scots are a bit more sensible

  • LMPG

    PM plans to use Henry VIII powers – announced by The Telegraph.
    WTF is that?? A return to feudal times??
    You could hardly make this stuff up.

  • 0iksplat

    Bhante, thank you for the heads-up. Trying to pull out of the UN is a grander old Bircher tradition when Republicans get in.


    This would be great if it happened. If the US pulled out of the UN or cut off its funding. the world would immediately get to work and rip out all the atavistic WWII cruft, as they’ve been pushing to do since the 80s: they’ll end veto impunity; ensure independent ICC authority; comply with the charter requirements for an international civil service. After a while the morons in Congress would realize that the Charter makes no provision for withdrawal, and they’re still bound by the decisions of the UN member nations. With slack-jawed bewilderment Congress will get some remedial education in General Comment 26 on Continuity of Obligations and on Vienna Convention Article 56. Maybe, eventually, Congress will wonder why the world is reordering itself without them and they’ll hunt and peck around on their NSA-monitored cromebooks and find out that they were the ones who invented Uniting for Peace.


    Immediate marginalization. Skip all this decline of empire tedium and get to the end stage: an isolated US pariah state kept under firm control by Russian and Chinese nukes. Perpetual Peace.

    • Republicofscotland

      Careful you’ll have the Pax Americana crowd on your case in a minute. ?

    • 0iksplat

      RoS, you’re right, of course. Self-determination drives CIA’s British W.O.G.s crazy. But plainly, just as the USSR expired, now it’s the USA’s turn. The parallels are falling into place:

      (1) Compromise of sovereignty due to failures of reponsibility: in the USSR, Chernobyl and an immizerizing payments imbalance; in the USA, Katrina, countererror derogations of non-derogable rights, and growing public recognition of US government ‘Gladio’ attacks on the domestic civilian population including OKC, Amerithrax, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing.

      (2) Bloc collapse: conflicts between hard and soft-line satellites reflect terminal tensions in the hegemon (civil and political rights broke up the Warsaw Pact; economic and social rights break up the NATO/EC bloc.) Dissolution of the most servile hardline state precipitates collapse – i n the Warsaw Pact, the DDR, in the NATO Pact, the UK.

      (3) Breakup: incipient in the US, but encouraging indications are California’s self-determination on the economic and social rights where the US most clearly lacks capacity, regional secession movements (Texas, Vermont), and native Americans’ exercise of longstanding treaty rights including human rights.

      • Republicofscotland


        California, Cornwall, Catalonia Scotland, the unrest is at a steady flow, of disillusioned people, who make up sections of a nation, or are part of a union.

        These smaller states/regions within countries, feel that they can do a better job of governing themselves, to benefit of the people.

        As for the Great Satan (consecutive US governments) they are the figurehead of the worlds self appointed police force Nato.

  • Habbabkuk

    Since the exit of Scotland from the United Kingdom would affect/have consequences for the entire United Kingdom, should not any future referendum be held in the entire United Kingdom and not only in Scotland?

    • LMPG

      Where obviously with the much larger population in England it could be voted down. Yes, how eminently reasonable and fair-minded of you. Or perhaps not.
      Posts like that make It hard to escape the view that unionists would much prefer a rigged game.
      The reason a second referendum needs to have international supervision.
      The fact that Scotland has this nonsense of having to ask “permission” to have a vote on independence is one of the main reasons that Scotland should be independent.

      • Habbabkuk

        It could be voted down but on the other hand it might not. The good people of England might decide it’s time to devote scarce resources to England rather than subsidising Scotland. I don’t know – and neither do you.

        I note that you haven’t pronounced on the principle I suggested.

        Would you like to do so now?

        • Drew Anderson


          England is not subsidising Scotland! The opposite is the case.

          If you’re that gullible, I could point you in the direction of some business opportunities in Nigeria

        • LMPG

          How do Scotland’s actions affect the rest of the UK? You belittle Scotland’s value in one breath and make it out to be a very important matter for the entire UK in the next.
          What exactly is the “principle” you suggested? Why would people in England require a vote concerning Scottish independence? That’s a matter for the people of Scotland. Considering that Scotland is being “subsidised” to such an extent, and is supposedly such a “drain on the UK” surely the rest of the UK would be happy to be rid of Scotland.
          This is not about who gets to reject whom or about past wrongs – it’s about Scotland having the opportunity to create a greater future for itself free from the baleful and limiting influence of Westminster incompetence. There are lots of people who envy that opportunity.
          The idea of the rest of the UK voting on Scottish independence is ludicrous. When the percentages in “polls” (which mean little, are based on small and unrepresentative samples, and are mainly conducted for mainstream media) show a majority of Scots wanting independence, it’ll happen – anything else would be undemocratic.

      • Loony

        You worry far too much – there is very little chance that the English would vote down Scottish independence. So little chance in fact that you can bet the SNP would oppose any English participation in any vote – because they know full well that Scotland would be on its own the day after the vote.

        It is enough to make you wonder what the real objective of the SNP might be – because it most certainly is not Scottish independence.

        • Republicofscotland

          “It is enough to make you wonder what the real objective of the SNP might be – because it most certainly is not Scottish independence.”



          You obviously haven’t got a clue, I’ll help you out a wee bit, the objective is in the name sNp.

          I wished those who comment on the SNP Scottish government, independence, would at least do a wee bit of homework first.

          • Loony

            Sure, just campaign for the English to vote and Scotland will be independent just as fast as the votes can be counted.

            Do not the mistake of confusing political and media elites with the mass of the population.

    • Republicofscotland


      How could the exit of Scotland have signifcant consequences on the rest of Britain?

      Is Scotland not a drain on Britain, heavily subsidised, too wee, too poor, a pariah state that would sink in a sea of debt, and be the Greece of the north?

      I’d have thought that you, along with the press, media, would be pleased to be rid of such a liability.

      • Drew Anderson


        …”How could the exit of Scotland have signifcant consequences on the rest of Britain?”…

        Well, out of 8.3% of the UK population we provide the exchequer with 9.9% of its revenue. They very kindly give us a block grant equal to 9.3% and give the impression they’re doing us a favour. When in fact they’re just doing us.

        ALL of the oil revenue goes to London, despite 96% of UK production we get less than 10% back. We’d still be better off with all revenue going to Edinburgh even if the price dropped to $20 a barrel.

        As for the fisheries, that’s another can of bait.

        • Republicofscotland

          Thank you Drew, for your comment, I’m well aware of Scotland contributions, my comments are sarcasm. ?

          I was trying to draw a well known commentor in here out.

    • Bhante

      The English should also be given the opportunity to secede from Westminster and the city of London, in a separate referendum, but it could well be made on the same day as the Scottish referendum. If England also votes in favour of independence, a high wall should immediately be built around the City of London. Taxes should be levied on all vehicles entering or leaving the City of London, and a tax (20% should be fair, to compensate for cumulated past injustice) on all cross-border financial transactions.

      The Free Republic of England might well like to consider a friendship and cooperation treaty with Independent Scotland.

      • LMPG

        Interesting idea – part of the problem in this country is that so much is London-centric – any new museum, engineering project, major landmark, all London. Compare this with what happens in Germany were government departments are not concentrated in one city but are speed out across the country – a much better approach that spreads public sector job opportunities across the country, and much more inclusive. As things are shaping up, an independent English-speaking Scotland would be a magnet for companies wanting to continue doing business in Europe. Edinburgh could gain substantially with e.g. finance jobs. This is something that would be anathema to unionists – “these Jocks are taking our jobs’. it might be interesting to see what it’s like when the shoe is on the other foot.

        • michael norton

          Is it true that one in five Scots who have a job
          work for the United Kingdom State?

        • Drew Anderson

          The Australian Foreign Minister has said recently that the idea of “Empire 2” isn’t all that desirable. Australia wants access to the EU single market, so she has suggested English speaking Dublin is very attractive for their needs.

    • nevermind

      Why should ignorance and stultification be rewarded, Habby? you are talking nonsense.
      Defence economics will leave Scotland with a massive asset, once the expensive museums piece and lovey of the nation,Trident, has moved south at considerable costs, extra and above that of the 60 billion plus upgrade (outdated already).

      Scotland deep water harbours and facilities are perfect for the newly to be created EU peace and defence force to take advantages of and I’m sure that such an arrangement would propel Scotland up the list of applicants, if not make any applications negligible.

  • Habbabkuk

    Since the dissolution of the Act of Union would have obvious consequences for the Union itself (ie, the Union would be no more), should not any future independence referendum be held in both England/Wales and Scotland – either voting as one entity or then as two entities, both of which would have to agree?

    • Republicofscotland


      Again I say why would Westminster want to hold onto a finanical liability such as Scotland.

      There would be no need for a General Wade, to “crush” rebellious Scots, (as sung in sixth verse of God Save the Queen/King). Why doesn’t England dissolve the union and be rid of a too wee, too poor Scotland, once and for all?

      Why Westminster continues to bend over backwards to thwart Scottish independence is a mystery? Or is it?

      • Rob Royston

        Not just Westminster. In the 2014 vote the majority of Scots voted Yes. It was the non-Scottish vote that carried the No camp to their win.

  • Republicofscotland

    Well Brexit and the Scottish independence referendum, has allowed all the Z-listed ex-politico’s now social pariahs to crawl back out of the woodwork.

    We had Gordon Brown wheeled out like Hannibal Lecter, on his trolley the other day. Brown who has absolutely no power at Westminster, burst into his usual rendition of devolving more powers to Scots, even though his Vow, resulted in watered down Smith Commission powers, but not before EVEL was quickly introduced, no thank Gordon, but we’ll take it from here.

    No we have an old favourite, squeezing into the Brexit booth, in the shape of Tony Blair. Blair says that, if the Tory governments negotiations with the EU 27 fails, then Labour should be the party to offer Brits a second chance to remain in the EU. However if I recall correctly, Labour currently backs Brexit, still it does no harm to say anything to gain public favour, doesn’t it Tony.


    • Habbabkuk

      Tony Blair’s “sortie” has severely embarrassed at least oine of the vociferous regulars on here.

      On the one hand, the Vociferous Regular doesn’t like Mr Blair.

      However, the Vociferous Regular doesn’t like Brexit either.

      So what should the Vociferous Regular say when Mr Blair comes out in favour of possibly reversing Brexit though a second referendum?

      Off you go!

  • Habbabkuk

    Thoughts from “Lysias” on the call by certain republicans in Norther Ireland for a referendum on a united Ireland, please.

    With or without examples from classical antiquity and quotes from “books” currently being read.

    Thanks and look forward to reading him! 🙂

      • Habbabkuk

        Always happy to respond to your comments, RoS, but they have to contain a tad more substance than references to the sixth verse of “God Save the Queen/King” 🙂


        (on the other hand, always happy to educate you : the sixth verse is not usually sung).

        • Republicofscotland


          Like Theresa May’s EU hand, that was a very weak reply. You bleat on about the union in two comments, but when challenged you run for cover.

          • Sharp Ears

            Why do you ‘feed’ him RoS and others on here? He’s only here for one purpose.

        • bevin

          “.. the sixth verse is not usually sung).”
          Did you suppose that anyone was unaware of that? You must be a private, perhaps even, public school master to revel in such pedantry. And to know so very little of the real world beyond the purview of The Daily Telegraph.

  • Habbabkuk

    There is no reason, in the abstract, to believe that Scottish politics in the event of an independent Scotland would be any more honest, cleaner and more responsive to the man in the street’s concerns than politics in the UK, England or indeed anywhere else.

    And, in practice, one would have thought that the treatment given to Craig by the SNP (I refer to Craig’s attempt, some while back, to become a prospective parliamentary candidate in the SNP interest) would demonstrate that rather convincingly.

    What say those who are both fans of Craig and the SNP? A discreet silence…? 🙂

  • Habbabkuk

    Given what we know about Mr Trump’s and Madame Le Pen’s Russkie connections, is it not a tad worrying to read that Ms Sturgeon also appears to have cultivated some rather dubious Russkie connections (Fred’s post at 15h03 below refers)?

    • Republicofscotland



      Everyone run for cover the Russians are invading with their Shaska’s waving in the air. Or it could one guy campaigning for Scottish independence in Aberdeen.

      Who according to the Express newspaper, spoke personally with the FM, and allegedly said this and that hmm……

      The western hegemony is more obsessed with Russia, than Fred is with the SNP and that’s saying something. ?

      Many people in Scotland don’t see Russia as evil personified, it isn’t, there’s a fabricated relentless campaign orchestrated by western governments against Russia. More and more people are becoming aware of this.

    • Loony

      What do we know about Mr. Trump’s Russian connections? The FBI cannot find any connection at all.

      Did you know that the FBI has a program whereby it pays informants. If you know anything then perhaps you should contact them as, given the high profile of Donald Trump, I would imagine that the FBI have some latitude in terms of the magnitude of financial remuneration it can provide.

    • fred

      Sturgeon is planning on using the threat of letting Russia put military bases in Scotland to get anything she wants if Scotland became independent.

      Nobody is stupid enough to think that if Scotland became independent that would be the end of it are they? The more power she gets the more she will want and she’ll stop at nothing to get it.

      • branches


        There is a place in Ayrshire called Moscow but apart from that you’ve got no evidence for your bizarre assertions.

      • Republicofscotland

        We’ll all be marching in Scotland to the Polyushka Poyle. With our sickles in one hand and our hammers in the other.

        The Great Empress of the North Nicolaous Sturgeonous, will command all she sees and rule the nation Indepenceia with iron fist.

        Oh god it will be armageddon, a full blown apocalyptic scenario, if Scotland gains independence the world will end. ?

        Well that is according to the unionists and media.

  • Muscleguy

    I’m with Wee Ginger Dug, May’s objection wrt timing is that if there is an active Indyref campaign and especially if the polls are creeping in our favour or actually in them then she cannot trade away our fisheries, our oil, our exports or anything else. She will want to do this because there are hardly any electoral drawbacks to Tory electoral unpopularity in Scotland, Fluffy Mundell is expendable as is the Ruth Harrison No Party.

    If in that scenario she tries to trade them away the 27 EU countries are going to say ‘you have no right or guarantee of ownership on those, they are up in the air’.

    So, she will be forced to trade away England’s precious things instead. Those car manufacturers, the City etc. This will be supporter and electorally unpopular in England, the Tory heartlands.

    This is also why we MUST be having such a referendum regardless. Nicola knows all this too. Even if we call a Constitutional Convention we can have a popular support campaign around it.

  • Sharp Ears

    Yet another ball is being kicked into the long grass.

    ‘MoD accused of attempting to cover up claims of abuse at top military boarding school
    17th March 2017

    ‘The Ministry of Defence is accused of colluding with Britain’s most prestigious military boarding school to cover up claims of abuse, The Telegraph can disclose.

    Kent Police has now launched a review into their alleged failure to investigate dozens of criminal allegations at The Duke of York’s Royal Military School, and at least one detective inspector has been disciplined.

    The force has set up a dedicated team to review claims about the school, which is seen as a breeding ground for future army leaders and boasts His Royal Highness, The Duke of Kent, as a patron.

    The boarding school near Dover, which has enjoyed visits from Prince Harry and the British Army’s Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Nicholas Carter, is listed on police records as the location for 38 crime reports over the last two decades.’


    Another stench.

    This is a shocking cover up. Note the arrests of the whistleblower and the concerned mother. Do not hold your breath for any action from Kent Police or the Conservative MP for Wells. After all, the school has the royal seal of approval. See the photo of P. Harry on the link. The ex headmaster was married to Jan Leeming, the BBC newsreader.

    The MP mentioned in the article, James Heappy, Con Wells, where the concerned mother lives, is ex Army and was 10 years in The Rifles where he reached the rank of Major. From his maiden speech in 2015, you learn that he ‘served’ in Basra, Kabul and Sangin. He was also a researcher for Liam Fox before being elected in 2015.

    How many brown skinned people has he killed or had killed in these offensive wars is an interesting question?

    See CM for the Fox, Werritty, Atlantic Bridge story, etc.

    Heappy was financed by Boeing Defence to visit them in Seattle, USA. He has a full social life. Tickets from the BiBiCee for Glastonbury. Tickets for balls and No Balls Balls 🙂 etc. So jolly. £15k from the Tory donors, Bamfords/JCB. Membership of the Sloane Club!! value £1,790 from the Cayzer Trust plus £2,500 from them. and so on.


    • Node

      Thank you for confirming Alex Salmond’s honesty. You and your Telegraph article pretend to believe he denied using the phrase “once in a lifetime” but the link makes clear he acknowledges using the phrase but is disputing whether he was referring to a vote or an opportunity.

      The former First Minister claimed he had not used the phrase “once in a lifetime” in a 2014 television interview to describe the vote and insisted he had instead said it was the “opportunity of a lifetime.”

      However, footage and an official transcript of the interview showed he did use the “once in a lifetime” phrase when asked whether he would pledge not to “bring back another referendum” if the nationalists lost.

      Speaking to the BBC’s Andrew Marr on the Sunday before the September 2014 vote, Mr Salmond said: “In my view this is a once in a generation – perhaps even a once in a lifetime – opportunity.”

      …. in other words, he said the referendum might be a once in a lifetime opportunity, not that it was a once in a lifetime vote.

      • Republicofscotland


        You must be Russian sleeper cell, the same as everyone else in Scotland who wants independence.

        Right now Sturgeon the Great, the great, great, great, great niece of Catherine the Great is secretly planning the Russian invasion of Scotland.

        Comrade here is our new national anthem. ?


      • fred

        When I go to meet my maker there are two things I’ll ask him to explain to me, one regards Einstein’s theory of relativity and the other Nationalist logic.

        The first question I expect he’ll manage to answer.

        • Habbabkuk

          I hope that won’t be for quite a while yet, Fred, but it is true that you – like the other contributors (except Anon1) – are at least middle-aged and probably considerably older.

          Alas! Why are there no people younger than middle-aged commenting on here in support of Craig’s many and diverse iconoclastic views??

        • Alcyone

          “When a pretty girl sits on your lap for an hour, it seems like a minute. When you sit on a hot stove for a minute it seems like an hour.” Einstein.

          Btw I texted her, your maker, your other question in advance. She wants to know: What is a ‘nation’?
          ( http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nation )

          Also, btw, Einstein is sitting on her lap. It’s called Infinity.

      • fred

        “…. in other words, he said the referendum might be a once in a lifetime opportunity, not that it was a once in a lifetime vote.”

        So you agree he said once in a lifetime opportunity.

        Here he says he didn’t say that, he claims he said opportunity of a lifetime.


        • michael norton

          Salmond is a slippery customer.
          The pair of them are guilty as sin
          of deceiving the voters.

          • fred

            But they manage to brainwash the cult members into thinking they tell the truth and get them to hate Westminster for telling lies.

  • Habbabkuk

    “Since the exit of Scotland from the United Kingdom would affect/have consequences for the entire United Kingdom, should not any future referendum be held in the entire United Kingdom and not only in Scotland?”

    Come on, RoS, let’s have a serious answer to the above question. No diverting or twisting and turning now!

    The floor is yours.

    • Iain Stewart

      While we await RoS, Habbakuk, could you confirm that the wish of a large majority Scottish voters wanting to leave their present condition of dependence (cosseted or not) should be overturned by a majority of English voters saying no?
      1) If not then what is the point of your modest proposal?
      2) If so then do you foresee any problems?

      • Iain Stewart

        Apologies for spelling your nom de guerre incorrectly. As you will appreciate, we old codgers sometimes fail to see the missing B in “dumber” or T in “Barnett”. 🙂

      • Loony

        Fortune favors the brave as they say.

        I am fairly confident that you could strike a deal whereby the whole of UK votes on Scottish Independence. If Scotland votes in favor and everyone else against then the votes of people not domiciled in Scotland are discounted and Scotland becomes independent.

        If Scotland decides against independence and everyone else votes in favor then Scotland becomes independent.

        Under this scenario then Scotland is all but guaranteed to become independent. It has the additional advantage of disenfranchising non Nationalist Scots – and as we know from this blog they are stupid. Who cares about the opinions of stupid people.

        Just as the English have freed themselves from the EU yoke so can they free Scotland from the English yoke. All you have to do is ask – you do net even need to ask nicely.

      • Habbabkuk

        It is certainly arguable that a matter concerning the entire United Kingdom – which Scottish independence obviously does – should be decided by the voters of the entire United Kingdom.

        Why should you find that objectionable?

        • Muscleguy

          So why were not only the whole of the rest of the EU but also EU citizens living in the UK denied a vote in the Brexit referendum?

          You are in effect saying the Brexit referendum was illegitimate because Estonia and Malta didn’t get a say in the matter.

          You seem to be worse than May and Fallon.

          • nevermind

            well said muscle guy, he’ll mutter anything he can to wind anyone up. I say it again, if Scotland is not offered a place in the negotiations and nobody wants to talk to them or Northern Ireland’s ministers and MP’s, then why not walk away from Mrs. Brexfast?
            That there is no diplomacy with Ireland’s EU ministers and or any cooperation between the three only supports those currently saying that ‘nobody supports Independence’.

            Moving one’s jaw is not action, so the sooner the SNP explores the various options mentioned by Craig and others, the better.

    • Drew Anderson

      Since the exit of the UK will have consequences for the entire single market, why not suggest a a referendum across the EU, EFTA and Switzerland.

      Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

  • michael norton

    Syrian security forces are engaged in fierce clashes with rebels on the eastern outskirts of the capital Damascus, residents say.

    Artillery shells and rockets landed inside the heart of the city as part of a surprise rebel attack, they say.

    The insurgents detonated two suicide car bombs in Jobar district before trying to storm government defence lines, observers said.

    The military responded to the attack with air strikes.

    Syrian state media says secret tunnels were also used to launch the assault in Jobar.

    Ministry of Truth

    I wonder who is putting these “people” up to this?
    Americans, Saudi, Turks, Jordanians?

  • john young

    I am sure that I read somewhere that out of something like 122 nations seeking independence only 3 held referendums?.

  • Alcyone

    I can’t believe all you vagrants. There was this genius (who gave birth to Rock ‘n Roll 60 years ago), and then there’s you. Music is the language of the Gods, and then there’s you. It flowed through his veins, and then there’s you. 85,000 people have heard this in the last 24hrs, and then there’s you. Fortunately, they are many and we are few.

    Chuck Berry – Rest In Peace (1926-2017) (AVO Sessions Switzerland 2007)

    • fred

      This was the first time I saw Chuck Berry live, the London Rock and Roll Show in 1972.


      I’ve seen him live a few times since, I have the intro to Johnny B Goode as ringtone on my mobile, he wasn’t just the best he was genius and performing live right to the end.

      • Alcyone

        Thanks Fred. Kinda makes you a normal kind of bloke, around here.

        What this guy did, he invented the fucking thing!

        Do you use Spotify? ( Anybody who doesn’t, isn’t really living. Cue the infected gite-owner lost in France. )

        • RobG

          It makes you feel all squishy, doesn’t it; with no mention of course that Chuck Berry grew-up in apartheid America, where both JFK and Martin Luther were assassinated by the state.

          They were assassinated because they opposed war.

1 2 3 4 5 6 10

Comments are closed.