Pollokshields Shows How To Achieve Independence 307

Kenmure Street stood outside UK law yesterday, as Westminster legislation on immigration, opposed by the people of Scotland, could not physically be enforced by agents of the state. What the people did was gloriously, joyfully illegal. Its illegality must be embraced, not skated over by politicians worried at the precedent of people power.

Scottish cities have a history of social solidarity, and in my lifetime I remember similar scenes over warrant sales and poll tax, and of course roots of popular resistance in Glasgow can be traced back through Tommy Sheridan, Jimmy Reid and John MacLean. But there is, undeniably, an added element of nationalism here. The handmade banners decrying “Team UK” in Kenmure St and the active presence of the SNP’s Roza Salih in a community leadership role, will both be seen as significant in an event which future historians will rightly view as a socially important step on the road to Independence.

There is a strong understanding that this is English oriented immigration law and English racist attitudes towards immigrants, being imposed on a Scotland which feels very differently. Indeed, the contrast between Kenmure Street, and the Labour electoral collapse in Northern England as their voters turn to more open panderers of anti-immigrant snake oil, could not be stronger. It is a part of why Labour in Scotland is doomed until it embraces Independence.

But Kenmure Street is an example in a much wider way. I have repeatedly explained, in detail, that Scotland has the right to self-determination in international law. which specifically states that right cannot be constrained by the domestic legislation of the state from which you are seceding. Otherwise Latvia would still be Soviet and Slovenia would still be Yugoslav. Westminster legislation and its Supreme Court cannot override Scotland’s right to self-determination. It is an inalienable right.

The UK state will never accept the great loss to its resources that would result from Scottish Independence. Scottish territory, seas, military bases, renewable energy, water, minerals, food products, financial institutions, education, and above all “human capital” to exploit, are all viewed as essential to London.

Keeping Scotland is the most vital of all UK national interests. As I have explained till I am blue in the face, David Cameron only agreed the last referendum because at the time Independence stood around 28% in the polls and the UK state apparatus believed the referendum would destroy and humiliate the very idea of Independence. Instead of which, the astonishing Alex Salmond brought it to the brink of achievement.

Where it has hovered ever since.

That is why there will never be another referendum agreed by Whitehall. Even if Johnson wanted to agree (which he doesn’t), the security services, military and other power structures of the UK Establishment would prevent him.

Nor can Scotland, “legally” in terms of UK law, hold a referendum without agreement. The UK Supreme Court has already explicitly held that Westminster is sovereign, in its ruling that the Sewell Convention has no force in law. If, as she suggests, Nicola Sturgeon leaves it to the courts to decide if a referendum without a S30 is legal, I have no doubt whatsoever – not even 0.000001% uncertainty – that one of two things will happen.

(1) Either the Supreme Court will rule that, under the current Scotland Act, an advisory referendum on a reserved matter is illegal without Westminster agreement;
[I think that would very probably be the ruling; ultra vires expenditure]

(2) Or the Tories will simply amend the Scotland Act to specifically outlaw the referendum, which the UK Supreme Court will certainly uphold because of their established doctrine that sovereignty resides in Westminster.

Either way, one thing is absolutely clear. There will never be a “legal” referendum as legality is defined by London. It is just not going to happen. Independence is going to have to be achieved illegally in terms of UK law, but legally in terms of international law.

How do you do that? I am constantly told this is impossible, that the UK state will act to prevent it happening. Well, we saw the answer in Pollokshields yesterday, and very plainly. The British government cannot enforce its law on the streets of Scotland if the people of Scotland reject that UK law and its enforcers. Yesterday there were riot shields, helmets, long batons, horses, and all the panoply of repression on display, and all of that could not take two men out of the community, against the will of the people.

Pollokshields showed how the people of Scotland will eventually take their own Independence. The “illegal” way in British law. The Gandhi way. The Mandela way. The people’s way. You cannot impose UK law on the people of Scotland.

I can’t tell you exactly how it will happen. Kenmure St crowds may be protecting polling stations, may be protecting the parliament. But happen it will. The people of Scotland will take Independence sooner than people realise. We will not just wait on Boris Johnson or the UK Supreme Court for permission. Come it will for a’that.


Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

307 thoughts on “Pollokshields Shows How To Achieve Independence

1 2 3
  • Tim

    We need to mobilise the same forces to prevent your imprisonment if it comes to that – how can that be done? Anyone got any suggestions?

    • Alice

      I was thinking the same. What about a large crowd forming if the police come to arrest Craig. Surely the police would just back off? I was also thinking that you could extend the same principle to evictions etc. all you need is a large crowd. And by extension no one can ever be arrested or detained by the ‘authorities’ just as long as you can summon a large crowd.

  • Peter


    You cannot play every card and support every option if you are trying to get out of jail free.
    You are not playing monopoly.

    I think you have been stitched up by the state.

    Concentrate on your own needs and I include your family. Stop being the social warrior.


    • craig Post author

      I don’t understand that peculiar advice at all. Why on earth should I stop my normal activities as a journalist and how would that help?

      • Leftworks

        There is an editor on Wikipedia who goes by the pseudonym “NomdeA” (presumably some kind of variant of “nom de plume”) who is very hostile to Craig Murray, and is currently attempting to remove his designation in Wikipedia as a “journalist” and replace it with “blogger”, among other adversarial alterations to his Wikipedia page. “NomdeA” is currently arguing that designation of Craig Murray as a “‘new media’ journalist” in a cited source means that he isn’t a journalist.


        What is most interesting about “NomdeA” is that a considerable proportion of his or her Wikipedia activities (blackguarding analysts of Western propaganda such as Craig Murray, Piers Robinson, Tim Hayward; ferociously gatekeeping the Oliver Kamm page against any editing that casts Mr Kamm in a poor light; editing details of very obscure light entertainment pages, for three examples) are precise parallels of the shenanigans that editor “Philip Cross” used to get up to, before the Arbitration Committee warned him against editing pages where he had a conflict of interest and banned him from editing post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. A detailed examination of “NomdeA”‘s editing history is very instructive.


        Craig Murray has written many times about “Philip Cross”. If “NomdeA” and “Philip Cross” turn out to be the same editor, this may have important implications for the Arbitration Committee’s disciplinary decision regarding “Cross”.

      • Peter Allen

        Hi Craig,
        I’m a bit older than you with a not dissimilar range of medical conditions. I hope you don’t go to prison but be assured that your resilience and solidarity is much appreciated by old crocks like me! We don’t all possess your resourcefulness and skills, but can still draw inspiration from your determination not to let the bastards grind you down…
        All the best

      • Charly

        Craig, do you support equality before the law or not?

        James Delinpole :

        “Britain, in other words, has a two-tier justice system whose operation depends not on the severity of the crime or the priorities of the public but rather on the political agenda of the state.

        In Scotland, for example, we can see that the state places a very low priority on preventing illegal immigration in general or, indeed, in enforcing the law in any situation which might open the authorities to charges of ‘racism’ or ‘Islamophobia’.

        Note how, instead of supporting the Immigration Officers simply trying to do their job of preventing illegal immigration, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and her henchmen exploited the situation as a stick with which to beat what they usually call the ‘Westminster Government’.”

        I support you because I think the way you are being treated is abominable. Here you are in full agreement with Sturgeon and her appalling mates.

        More from Delingpole :

        ““Hostile Environment”? But if national borders and sovereignty are to have any meaning, of course, you have to make your territory a ‘hostile environment’ for illegal immigrants. Otherwise, they will consider it a ‘friendly environment’ and arrive en masse.

        As for Nicola Sturgeon’s statement — it’s characteristically irresponsible, fatuous, and dangerous. In what insane world should it be considered inappropriate for Immigration Officers to do their job during religious festivals? Sturgeon is just race-baiting (or rather religion-baiting) here and selectively so at that. I cannot imagine for one second that she’d raise similar objections if, say, police tried arresting a Christian during Easter or a Jew during Passover. All she wanted to do is get down with the Islamists and the race-baiters (the scary and sinister Humza Yousaf, say) by invoking ‘Eid’. Which, it turns out, was utterly misguided because neither of the two men being detained were Muslims. They were Sikhs.

        Let’s not forget, too, that these events happened in a city where, only last year, a Sudanese asylum seeker went on a stabbing spree — seriously injuring six people, including a police officer. Apparently, he had been “very hungry” at the hotel he was staying at, courtesy of the UK taxpayer, and threatened others days before the attack. Activists and migrants claimed that other asylum seekers staying at the same hotel had also complained of the ‘culturally inappropriate’ cuisine and limited WiFi, both provided to them for free.

        For the majority of ordinary people in the United Kingdom, I would imagine, incidents like this would be a matter of great concern — something which they believe the police and the government (be it the Scottish one or the national one) should take very seriously.

        But apparently, the police and the state have other ideas. The United Kingdom is descending into chaos, injustice, and lawlessness. This cannot end well.”

        Craig, if you respond to this, could you alert me by email?

        • glenn_nl

          Charly: “Craig, if you respond to this, could you alert me by email?”

          Of course he will! After all, it’s not as if there’s anything pressing going on in Craig’s life right now.

          You, on the other hand, have far more important things to do than check back here in a bit. To a response Craig is apparently obliged to give you, to an argument that somebody else made.


    • Greg Park

      It’s called principled humanity, Pete. If he were to abandon that for self interest he would become a sad husk of a man like George Galloway.

    • Tom Welsh

      If I understand you aright, Peter, you are asking Mr Murray to concede defeat and stop doing the things for which the authorities have been persecuting him.

  • Johny Conspiranoid

    ” Indeed, the contrast between Kenmure Street, and the Labour electoral collapse in Northern England as their voters turn to more open panderers of anti-immigrant snake oil, could not be stronger. “

    I think Labour’s electoral collapse is more to do with dislike of Keir Starmer and his ideas. It is just an assumption that those who did not vote labour were the same voters that voted for panderers of anti-immigrant snake oil.

    • Jay

      Keir has done everything possible to forge a British nationalist, tough on immigrants image. Unfortunately everyone except the media remembers that 5 minutes ago he was the King of Remain.

      • AmyB

        Exactly, Jay. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out how the Tory tabloids will play that during the next GE campaign – daily front page scare stories asserting “Remoaner Starmer In Secret Plot To Rejoin EU”, “Remoaner Starmer In Secret Brussels Talks”, etc etc. The Tories will re-heat all the old Leave/Remain grievances and Starmer will lose badly. Frankly, I expect Labour under Starmer to win even fewer seats than in 2019.

  • East Neuker

    I agree, but don’t underestimate what horrors the UK government will be willing enforce in Scotland in attempts to stop independence. I was in mining communities in Fife during the 80s strike, and saw it first hand. Even that, as Ballymurphy shows, is nowhere near the worst they can do.
    This is not to suggest that we should not try. The alternative of willingly remaining in a fascist uk is

    • craig Post author

      Yes, I don’t claim all confrontations will be won so easily, and I am very well aware how far they will go. But as you say, it has to be done.

  • Brendan Loughlin

    Not sure what you mean by the ‘Mandela way’. As you know Mandela formed the military wing of the ANC (MK) who proceeded to engage in a sustained war against the Apartheid regime in SA. There is no disputing the fact that Mandela believed in the use of physical force to achieve political ends. Many of the MK were trained in the USSR and a large number in particular in Angola by Cuban military personnel. The MK were active across southern Africa and carried out many bombings and shootings in an attempt to achieve it’s political aims. Somehow I don’t see the ‘Mandela way’ starting up in Scotland.

    • craig Post author

      That’s a rather selective account. Violence was certainly not Mandela’s first choice, he sought other options first. He found himself ultimately forced down the route of freedom fighter, that is indeed true.

      • Brendan Loughlin

        I think you’ll find that violence is not always the first choice of those that are being oppressed. There are too many examples around the planet to name them all but the peaceful Civil Rights protests in the North of Ireland in the late ’60s are a good example of how people were literally forced to defend themselves from the extreme violence of the state. I wouldn’t want to see a Bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy Massacre happen on Scottish soil but knowing the British establishment anything is possible. I agree that just as Mandela was forced down the road of becoming a ‘freedom fighter’ so too did many Irish nationalists. Mandela did not shy away from his belief in the use of physical force politics. So if we’re going to talk about the ‘Mandela way’ we have to include his support for a violent military response. Hopefully Scottish nationalists will not have to follow that path.

      • Alice

        Well, as they say: one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist 😉

      • David G

        The consequential question isn’t whether violence is the “first choice” of someone seeking major political change; it’s whether they’re willing to resort to it at last, and if not, why not.

        There are many good reasons for not using violence, from moral, to tactical, to fear of reprisal (which can be dressed up as morality or tactics), but anyone campaigning for national independence should face the problem squarely – at least to themselves, if not out loud. Maybe you have, but that Mandela response is a cop out.

    • TonyN

      “Somehow I don’t see the ‘Mandela way’ starting up in Scotland.”

      Look across the water for an example of how easy it would be.

      • Giyane


        I am under the impression that most Northern Irish people have been good winked by the dirty tricks of the British colonial state into blaming themselves in part for the endless blood shed visited upon them by London.

        Only when one fully understands who created the violence ,for whose interests and against whose interests, will the victims be free from their colonial overlords. That is why I personally don’t believe that Hamas is the answer to Palestine. Violence never sends a message, unless it is targeted exactly at the colonial oppressors.

        Bus bombs, mosque bombs , market bombs are the tools of the colonisers , confusing the isdsues and playing into their Gladio argument that they are stability and order. On the other hand the bombing of Thatcher in Brighton and 9/11 send a direct message of firm resistance to the colonial leaders .

        Sending the right message to the right people is the only way to win the argument.imho

        • Brendan Loughlin

          Irish Nationalists know fine well where the problems of Ireland emanate and it’s not from the Irish. The invasion and colonisation of Ireland by a foreign power is the root cause of the conflict. As I’ve pointed out to my English friends, what has happened in Ireland was not a civil war but a colonial war. It was not a war between two groups of Irish people who just couldn’t get on with each other. It was not a war between Protestants and Catholics. It was a war of the coloniser from Britain against the native Irish. That said, I do believe that violence should always be the last resort in any dispute, only to be used when all others options have been expended.

          • Giyane

            Brendan Loughlin

            When we English listen to the BBC and its vox pops on Northern Ireland are first brain washed by music and distorted background history and the vox pop is played giving us an illusion that the speakers are completely politically wet behind the ears.

            But when we meet people at work from Northern Ireland , we will always be aware that raising hackles by talking about sensitive issues at work can lose you your job in a second.

            Thus the PTB are able to make their false narrative prevail over what really happened. The MSM use selected vox pops to give the narrative they want and then confirm it with apparently spontaneous opinion in the comments section.

            I think the BBC has had three major programmes on Radio4 about James le Mesurier and the White Helmets in Syria and no doubt they will carry on swearing they are telling the truth until we the public give in and agree.

          • Skye Mull

            That would be the invaders of Ireland from Scotland then. Of course ignoring the earlier colonisation of Scotland by the Irish.

    • Ingwe

      Brendan, Mandela was slow to recognise that violence, never rationally preferred, was necessary. It was the realisation that the privileged white society would only give up its privilege when compelled to do so by the use of force, that led to the ANC forming MK. The question of violence as a necessity was one of the ideological differences between the ANC and the SACP.

      The South African Communist Party had long recognised that political power would never be handed over by polite argument or elections played by the apartheid government’s rules.

      And I don’t see, anywhere in the world, where real power has shifted to the people from a ruling elite, that violence hasn’t been necessary. Any violence is to be regretted and avoided where possible. The state has no compunction about violence whenever it needs to rely on it for its purposes. Just watch what happens if Mr Murray refuses to go to prison if his appeal is unsuccessful.

  • pete

    I am delighted and heartened by the display of principled people power, unlike my namesake above, I thought this had all gone after the protests over the poll tax, I wondered where it had gone and it seems it went north to Scotland. I am also delighted that Craig’s spirits do not seem to have been cowed by the threat of imprisonment and the ugly display of intimidation and hostility against himself by vested interests and toxic feminists.

  • Alf Baird

    Craig is right to signal Kenmure Street as a historic socio-political event in respect of what was essentially Scottish people asserting their sovereignty and their rejection of an oppressor power.

    However, what continues to let the people down is Scotland’s own daeless political leadership. Scottish political majorities supporting independence have now been elected six times! – thrice at Westminster and thrice at Holyrood – yet still they refuse to assert the sovereignty of the Scottish people given to them.

    How many elected nationalist majorities does it take for independence? In most former colonies one would have been enough, and even Mrs Thatcher accepted that reality in regard to Scotland. Time our elected politicians stepped up to the plate.

  • craig Post author

    In case anyone is wondering, I have taken down the last post because it was causing some distress.

    • Jimmy Riddle

      Sorry you have taken it down – it provides very important information about the mentality of Lady Dorrian and the Scottish judiciary.

    • DunGroanin

      That’s reasonable. It is personal information normally only shared with very close family and friends.

      I didn’t really read it fully for these reasons.

      The social service report with the line about not even being suitable for community order said enough about a more onerous prison sentence should be sufficient for any who doubt that you have genuine health issues.

      • Jimmy Riddle

        Yes – of course you are right about this. On the other hand, it expressed the poison of Lady Dorrian in particular and the Scottish judiciary in general much more eloquently than anything else I’ve seen.

        These vicious, arrogant, high handed amoral thugs need to be shown up for what they are.

        Of course, Craig is entitled to his privacy ……

      • Old Lag

        Social Enquiry Reports usually end with your expected level of reoffending. In Mr. Murray’s case I would expect it would be ‘very low’. This again questions the need to dispose of this case by way of eight months imprisonment.

        • Jimmy Riddle

          Old Lag – the offense in this case is very good journalism.

          I expect that Craig Murray will continue with journalism of the highest quality, thus causing more and more offense to those who banged him up. So, the chances of re-offending (i.e. more very good journalism) are like 100 percent.

  • Jm

    ^. Sorry I should’ve been clearer.. I meant their release in yesterday’s action not the longer term authority.

    • craig Post author

      I don’t know it’s an interesting and important question. Seems to be Police Scotland, but they weren’t the detaining authority. Human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar seems to have been involved but I haven’t heard of anything from a court.

      What happens to the men when the publicity passes also interesting.

      There appears to have been some excellent Muslim/Sikh solidarity too.

      • Giyane


        Welcome though Muslim Sikh solidarity against the English may be to you, I fear this is merely cultural and similar to the Brexit xenophobic solidarity you so dislike in England.

        Politics always becomes tribal and ignores the issues. This is the biggest problem with Scottish Nationalism.. Many Scots instinctively distrust tribalism on principle. I agree with them and i disagree with the decision makers in London .

        Tribal solidarity against English police is exactly what the London empire2 merchants want Scots to do, and Palestinians to do against Israelis. Then they can portray the protesters as tribal savagery. Not a good move imho. Rational argument is needed , and the way they deal with that is simply to misconstrue one’s words and call one a fool.

      • Alice

        I was thinking what would happen if it was the police that turned up to arrest/detain these men, would we see a pitched battle with the police? If the police are incapable/unwilling to arrest/detain individuals on the whim of a large crowd wouldn’t that represent a complete breakdown of ‘law and order’?

        • Alice

          And what about Julian Assange? Would the police have backed down in the face of a large crowd outside the Ecuadoran Embassy?

      • Ian

        There’s a good account here of the people involved in stopping this:


        What I find fascinating, and very telling, is Sturgeon (whose constituency this is) trying to play both sides. Oh yes, she loves to occupy the moral high ground on the news bulletins, give Westminster a good kicking, but then lets Police Scotland off the hook, and of course does, to my knowledge, nothing whatsoever to help the refugees or agencies fight back against the appalling Home Office.

        She wants to be seen as ‘progressive’, but shrinks from actually doing anything which might be controversial or upset the establishment. While there will be those who say she can’t do anything, why does she relentlessly pose herself and Holyrood as some kind of bulwark against Westminster, at the same time as doing nothing with the (limited) powers she has? What is her role in setting the parameters of Police Scotland’s action, for instance? What can she do with the local authority to resist this farce? Why does she meekly accept the Home Office action, but particularly its provocative timing, at Eid, of this latest outrage?

        Yes, she will stir up a beehive of controversy, outrage and tabloid opinion if she dares to step in and refuse any Scottish authority to co-operate with the Home Office, but why not? Isn’t that the stuff of the independence argument, the willingness to fight for change, and fight for rights, even if it is crossing some hypothetical line of constitutional legality? She is craven, timid and fearful of actually challenging WM, just when she has been telling us of the overwhelming support for her and her lickspittle pretend do-nothing government. She is content to let the Home Office do stuff like this, while affecting a pose of opposition. What is the point of her and Holyrood if it won’t stand up for itself? This is a glorious opportunity for an actual leader to make a stand and do something which is morally right and has a lot of backing. But of course she won’t. She’d much rather waffle on about the rights of a minority, but do nothing about the rights of refugees. She’d much rather spend millions on framing a political rival then spend it on refugees. That is the measure of her solipsistic, narcissistic behaviour and her unwillingness to tackle real problems, in case it might upset her carefully crafted Miss Brodie of Morningside image, all tut tutting from behind the net curtains of her mind.

      • Squeeth

        If they lodge with the Skripals, the porkies won’t be able to find them.

  • tony

    Given that both Scotland and England disbanded their respective parliaments to form a joint Parliament in Westminster I fail to understand how an illegal act under UK law can be legal in international law.

    Of course this is moot , because international law is only recognizable if accepted by the international community.
    If the international community does not recognize an Independent Scotland then International law on the subject is irrelevant.

    • craig Post author

      Indeed that is true. And if the international community does recognise an Independent Scotland, London is irrelevant. That is indeed the test and you have hit the nail on the head.

      • M.J.

        Which countries would recognise an attempt at UDI by Scotland (which I take to be the Scottish cabinet), in a way that would amount to “international recognition”?

        • Alf Baird

          The two main tests for international recognition here are arguably: is independence achieved through democratic means, and; does it conform to international law.

          On the first point, Scotland has since 2011 voted for six successive nationalist majorities (3 @ Holyrood, and 3 @ Westminster), hence there is demonstrably already, and repeatedly, a national parliamentary majority in favour of independence (in addition to over 50% pro independence votes on the List last week, mainly thanks to ALBA); secondly, any sovereign people may withdraw from their own treaty, according to the ICJ.

          Thus, Scotland is already de facto independent. Perhaps someone might mention this to nationalist MSP’s, who for some bizarre reason have once more gone against the decision of the people and yesterday renewed their oath to serve the British state!

        • James

          are you suggesting all those Scots, myself included who live in England were forced to do so.
          Frankly I thank fuck I don’t have to put up with the Nationalistic shite spouted by my countrymen too often. I suggest you take a closer look at the Fisher price government you have just voted for. I wouldn’t trust them to clip my cats claws.

    • Tom Welsh

      It’s really never been said better than in the US Declaration of Independence.

      “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government”.

    • Ron Soak

      The joint question arising from your post tony is what exactly – in practical terms – constitutes the definition of “the international community” and ‘international law’?

      The default assumption of that context being the UN and similar multilateral international bodies based on a multipolar structure and process is not necessarily something which can be taken for granted.

      It is difficult for a week to pass by without witnessing some manifestation of an alternative route, structure and set of processes being assumed, promoted and imposed by the US/UK Axis, it’s Five Eyes allies and Stockholm Syndrome suffering client states. Based on a far narrower definition of who actually constitutes the “International Community” and who, by implication does not.

      Spoiler: In this model the “International Community” consists of anyone following the unipolar Washington Consensus. It does not consist of anyone, anywhere on the planet, who does not slavishly follow that consensus.

      This model also redefines the term ‘International Law.” Substituting it for the term “Rules Based Order.”. The “Rules” being whatever the Washington Consensus and it’s gang determines them to be.

      Whilst it may not have been part of his intention the recent long blog post by Stuart Campbell which reproduced the text from Orwell’s novel 1984 on Oligarchical Collectivism neatly captures what is problematic for this route towards Scottish Independence. As long as the UK remains part of this bloc (Oceania if you like) and this unipolar and selectively applied “rules based international order” model there exists little prospect of achieving such “International recognition” unless the UN multipolar and multilateral model can be made to prevail.

      To be blunt, both models cannot co-exist side by side in practical terms. The UN and many International bodies/institutions is/are constantly ignored , by-passed and/or bullied on a range of issues.

      A practical reality which does not require examples to be listed as most of us can rattle them off in our sleep. If it does not suit the Established self identified Unipolar Consensus – and Scottish Independence certainly won’t suit one easily identifiable member of that self identified and imposed definition of “International Community” which determines what is and is not “International Law” to suit themselves and their “Rules Based Order” then it would seem prudent not to hang ones hat on that particular route as offering a successful pathway to the objective.

      A further contextual observation is also relevant.

      The event in Glasgow yesterday to which Craig refers had the official, at least moral, backing of the SNP and by extension the Scottish Government/largest Party in the Scottish Parliament. This added weight to the actions of those members of the community in terms of achieving, at least for the moment whilst it is in the media spotlight, the objective. Which in this case is preventing their removal from the UK.

      However, it is the case, and likely to remain so, that the SNP/SNPG stubbornly refuses point blank to countance not only any policy but also any discussion – to the point of classifying it as an effective thought crime – beyond seeking a legal means via a Section 30 Order. A means which everyone bar the terminally obtuse knows is never going to be granted.

      In such a context any extra parliamentary action of the kind seen in Glasgow yesterday is more than likely to find the SNP/SNPG on the opposite side of the fence/road to the people on the street compared to its position at yesterday’s event.

      • Alf Baird

        Yes Ron, the hypocrisy of the SNP/Green elite aligning with the people on the street at the same time as our (sixth) national elected majority of ‘nationalist’ MSPs were renewing their oath/affirmation to serve the oppressor!

  • DunGroanin

    Thank **** for that grassroots roar and action .

    I was getting worried that the brain dead SNP supporters, who only value style over substance and refused to believe let alone understand the Supermajority tactic that would have changed the world away from the grubby rusty claws of Imperialist slavers exploiters and warmongers. The peoples having bought and supped years of the Sturgeon KoolAid expertly sold by swanky media presstitutes had their brain mushed as much as the DumbedDowntonAbbeyed English, kippered, BrexShitheads.

    I hope WoS’s Stuart Campbell is also reassured that the camel is just mere straws away from being broken.

    The Gandhian experience of throwing off a mighty Empire by the rise of the poorest and the unarmed multitudes to peacefully form themselves into the raging elephant that stomps on the lion packs tails, manes and if necessary body and head to stop their attack.

    Revolutions are achieved and protected by Peoples not just leaders. As every modern European state , South American , SubContinental and African peoples have shown and as the Middle East countries that resist the old slavers do.

    First they Ignore.
    Then they Ridicule.
    Then they Fight.
    – then they lose.

    Which is what has been done to Salmond, Murray and others who have the future of indigenous Scottish peoples above English Aristos and their lickspittle traitors – who have enjoyed centuries of overlordship of their fellow Scots and indeed consider themselves as English as their Aristo overlords.
    Judges included.
    Krusty Warts on the arses included.

  • RSVP

    Isn’t it “funny” how individuals of a certain bent will fight energetically for the “right” of an illegal immigrant to remain in a Western country and yet remain unmoved by the plight the homeless, drug-addled, starving, etc. in their own community. The only explanation for this selective concern seems to be that some are more “deserving” of help than others, an approach perfected by the Israeli State.


    • craig Post author

      Utter nonsense. There is a huge amount of social solidarity in the Glasgow communities that certainly extends to the homeless etc. And on this blog. Stop trying to justify racism.

      • RSVP

        My comment was framed with reference to the “logic” of this blog.

        Illegal immigrants/settlers in the Israeli-occupied territories: bad (because they infringe several of the basic principles of the (Palestinian) nation-state, one being the right to determine who is a citizen/the right to live there). Illegal immigrants in any particular Western country: good (because…ooooh, I don’t know, it’s a f*ck you to centuries of colonialism/imperialism/capitalism which, as all good millennials know, was/is “white”).

        Israel: anyone who criticises our racist policies is an anti-Semite. The woke: anyone who criticises our hypocritical/racist stance on illegal immigrants is…er…a racist.

        The theoretical vacuity that characterises contemporary Western public discourse has causes going back decades, and its manifestation now coincides with great economic and environmental threats to civilisation. Capitalism isn’t going to back off voluntarily but the “Left” are more interested in non-binary toilets and virtue-signalling. Wings Over Scotland isn’t shutting down without reason.

        • J

          “Illegal immigrants/settlers in the Israeli-occupied territories…Illegal immigrants”

          You’re deliberately conflating colonisation/imperialism and colonisers/imperialists with one of the many effects of colonising and imperialism, ie, refugees.

          Question: are you naturally this nakedly bastidious, or does it require an exclusive university education to achieve?

          • RSVP

            All you have done is rehearse my argument, describe my “compare and contrast” as “conflation” and garnish with an ad hominem. Thank you!

            More seriously, if one starts from the position of “nationalism good” then one also has to accept all the ideological baggage that necessarily follows, most pertinently the notion of citizenship. Each nation-state defines who qualifies as a citizen and under what terms non-citizens are allowed to visit/work/settle/whatever. Illegal immigrants then constitute those who feel themselves unbound by/superior to these terms and have nothing whatsoever to do with refugees/asylum-seekers, which fact does not, of course, prevent the unprincipled from conflating the two!

        • Squeeth

          @RSVP you use the term “Illegal immigrant” as if it’s a simple term rather than a rhetorical category and then try to conflate it with zionist antisemite invaders of Palestine. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

    • Jay

      Do any such individuals actually exist outside the imagination of the far right?

    • Republicofscotland


      The Westminster government hasn’t helped the Scottish government reduce drug death numbers by continually refusing to allow Scotland to have drug consumption rooms, rooms which are common place in other countries which have saved lives. Then again Scots lives don’t matter to the PM he’s on record via his poem that calls for the extermination of Scots, we are verminous, as he called it in his poem.

  • Funn3r

    Maybe it’s just me but I have seen zero in the English press about this so I was completely mystified as to what was happening in the photo or why it mattered. After figuring out how to do a search of the Scottish press I have discovered that the locals were protesting the arrest of some people whom government agents were planning to deport. Craig remember it’s called the “worldwide” web for a reason and when writing your stories please try and help out with a bit more detail for us non-Scots who read your blog.

  • Jm

    Craig…back to that important question on who gave the ultimate authority yesterday.

    I wonder if this links to your case slightly and the resultant public outcry across all political lines?Maybe someone gave this authority in light of the, to put it mildly, utterly Draconian action against you….maybe a spot of perception management came into play….such heavy-handedness in the space of a couple of days is NOT a good look for Scotland at all.

    Still, it’d be interesting to find out who gave the final authority yesterday.

  • Vivian O'Blivion

    A glaring omission of Mary Barbour from the inspirational roll of honour.

  • Alan Crocket

    Saving all that Craig says about the Kenmure Street action, his comments about Scotland having to seize independence by extra-legal action are alarmist.
    Before the last referendum, SNP policy, accepted by London, had always been that Scotland would go independent on electing a majority of Scottish MPs for it. Although the modern SNP has insanely tabooed that course and insisted on a referendum, thereby granting a practical veto to London, it is still a perfectly valid, constitutional, legal, and peaceful way of achieving independence, and can easily be made fully democratic by insisting on a majority vote over and above a simple majority of seats.
    Although the SNP, alone in the world, unbelievably have sought to stifle it, there is no indication whatsoever that London has rejected it. All London is doing is preventing a referendum. Indeed the electoral method is the natural and obvious way for Scotland to go independent. Following such a vote, the step to independence can be taken, over London’s head if necessary, by the Scottish MPs abandoning Westminster and constituting themselves as the parliament of a sovereign and independent Scotland.
    Only if that method was prevented would it be justified to resort to extraordinary means. So far, only my party, the demented SNP, seems determined to prevent it – not London.

    • Alf Baird

      I agree Alan. The referendum route to independence is simply colonial deceit and mystification and a needless diversion into an endless tunnel which seeks to obscure and ignore (a) Scottish sovereignty and (b) the fact of what is merely a treaty based alliance entered into by two sovereign entities.

      In addition: “As a matter of law, a referendum is not a required part of the process of becoming independent.” (McCorkindale and McHarg 2020)

      The reality here is that the only people holding Scotland within the UK is the SNP/Green ‘nationalist’ majority which claims to be in favour of independence yet has once again opted to make their oath/affirmation to serve the British state rather than the Scottish people.

      Fowk cannae ser twa maisters!

  • J

    Beautiful to behold. Also, shows how to counter the common English refrain that the Scottish Nationalist movement is petty, narrow and racist. Resisting English laws will prove the lie to more and more English, whose tacit and expressed support for Independence is growing.

    • Stevie Boy

      Taking his tweet out of context makes it appear to be racist rather than anti-racist which is what it was.
      It’s ironic that Patel is such an arrogant, bullying racist given her background. But then again her admiration for the arrogant, bullying, racist zionists of Israel gives an insight into her perverted viewpoint and evil personality.

  • M.J.

    What happened in Pollokshields is an argument for Scotland to have independence and its own policy regarding the treatment of immigrants and refugees. I regret that encouraging populism in England by Tory politicians has led to the “hostile environment” policy as well as Brexit, and now this.

    • Da Wurd

      What does this have to do with hostile environment though? According to the BBC they were asked to go to immigration centre and didn’t, so officials were sent to collect them.

      • M.J.

        I’m sure the officials were very friendly and non-threatening. I wonder why the crowd got so hostile? The sight of chains they were putting the men in? Strange people, the Scots. Maybe I should join them, circumstances permitting!

  • Wally Jumblatt

    If some mischief-maker thought they could tempt you into opining on ‘law-breaking’ whilst you are trying to appeal or reduce a prison sentence, by setting up what really appears to be staged event in Glasgow, then it appears to have worked.

    Who knew this was going down, who decided to flood the area with midget policemen, how quick were the cameras there, who were these Muslim Sikhs(?) where the did Pashtuns appear from, how long have these guys been in the neighbourhood.
    I think there’s a story in there, and it is not much to do with what was reported yesterday

    • Alice

      Yes, why weren’t the TSG (Territorial Support Group) in attendance? Those police who are built like a brick-house and look as if they have just come back from an army ‘tour of duty’ because they probably have.

  • willyrobinson

    With Wings going down, Alba getting no seats and Craig getting locked up (meaning JL’s legal team missing a witness in Spain) it’s really been an extraordinarily good week for the cunts. Finally some good news…

  • Da Wurd

    So is the problem with the deportation primarily that it’s not done by Scots law?

    • M.J.

      The problem may be that Scots can’t pass Scots law on the matter at all. As for English law, I look forward to voting for a party that decides to put an end to hostile environments against refugees, EU youngsters or anyone else. OK, convicted gang-rapists could be an exception.

  • Cubby

    Any Britnats think that the deportation action by the Home Office taking place in Sturgeon’s constituency at the same time as the new Scottish parliament swearing in was taking place was just a coincidence?

    • Alice

      “I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence.”

      — V

  • ET


    In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.

    Having organised and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary organisation, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and through her open military organisations, the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, having patiently perfected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment and supported by her exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe, but relying in the first on her own strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory.

    We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades in arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations.

    The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

    Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the establishment of a permanent National Government, representative of the whole people of Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women, the Provisional Government, hereby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic in trust for the people.

    We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God, Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity, or rapine. In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline, and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called.

    Signed on behalf of the Provisional Government:


    P. H. PEARSE


    I just thought I’d chuck this in here as it seems to fit the mood of this post 😀

    • M.J.

      Well, let’s see how it sounds with a few changes. I’ve left a few blanks in:


      In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Scotland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.

      Having organised and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary organisation, the Scottish (), and through her open military organisation, the Scottish () , having patiently perfected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment and supported by her exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe, but relying in the first on her own strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory.

      We declare the right of the people of Scotland to the ownership of Scotland and to the unfettered control of Scottish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Scottish people. In every generation the Scottish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; ( ) times during the past ( ) hundred years they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Scottish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades in arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations.

      The Scottish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Scotsman and Scotswoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

      Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the establishment of a permanent National Government, representative of the whole people of Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women, the Provisional Government, hereby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic in trust for the people.

      We place the cause of the Scottish Republic under the protection of the Most High God, Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity, or rapine. In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline, and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called.

      Signed on behalf of the Provisional Government:
      Mr X
      Ms Y
      Citizen Z
      Netizen W

      People’s Front of Alba
      Alba People’s Front
      Alba Popular Front

      and all sympathisers thereof.

      I dunno, it doesn’t turn me on, but then I’m not a Irish or Scottish nationalist.

      • M.J.

        Whoops, typos – “Scotland” instead of “Ireland” and “Scottish” for “Irish” in a few places. Feel free to edit.

        • ET

          As it happens M.J. the “Proclaimation” as it is referred to was unveiled at the time of the Easter Rising in 1916 in Ireland. That rising was initially a PR disaster with the locals spitting on the participants as they were marched off to gaol. The Irish were described as smug, contented and loyal (to the crown) at the time. What changed the tone was the clumsy British response (not the first or last time that happened) in executing the main leaders and particularly the execution of James Connolly, who was anyway near death, unable to stand and was executed by firing squad whilst sat in a chair. The mood changed and the rest is history as they say.
          Connolly was born in Edinburgh to Irish parents and was very involved in the socialist labour movements in Scotland and Ireland and indeed elsewhere.

          • M.J.

            Thanks, I knew vaguely about an “Easter rising” in 1916, but not about this. I see a parallel with Amritsar: the massacre hardened opinion, so that the Indian Congress would no longer compromise. It had to be full independence (which took another generation, world war, and change of government including Churchill’s departure).

            Connolly’s story in particular should cause discomfort because of possible modern parallels.

        • M.J.

          Tell Priti P. I’m sure she’ll be enthusiastic the sharks – I mean, British Justice and Due Process.

      • Colin Smith

        After massive inconvience to hundreds of people and significant extra expense.

        It is not racist to be against uncontrolled immigation or applying legal conditions and priorities to it, rather than primarily open to those with the sharpest elbows, willing to break the most laws and tell the most lies.

        It is particularly unappealing when it is the middle class who do not suffer the worst consequences of the illegality, the pressure on services and wages who always come to the front of defending it.

        • ET

          The problem Colin is that the argument that there is any pressure on services or wages has been debunked so many times by any objective scurtiny of the data. If anything the data shows that overall immigrants contribute more in taxes than is spent on services etc for them.

          • Jim

            If depends on your own personal siltation. If you own your own home, have private healthcare and send your kids to private school of course it doesn’t affect you – and why should it?

        • M.J.

          The degree to which immigration should be controlled is a matter for democatic decision. But is it authentically democratic to impose measures from the centre that offend local communities? If they have embraced certain individuals, perhaps the government should keep its hands off. Deporting serious criminals is not what I am talking about.

          Another point : consider the individuals who because of desperation attempt the illegal crossing of the Channel. It reminds me of our own crossing of the Big River which we will all do and be without even a stitch of clothing afterwards, 100% dependent on Providence. Might our lot afterwards have any relationship to our outlook towards refugees on earth? What do you think?

          • Jim

            So it depends on your social skills and how well you are able to ingratiate yourself into a local community? What about (illegal) immigrants who lack the requisite skills? Perhaps they are shy, are awkward in interacting with strangers, have difficulty in forming relationships? Maybe they are not just ‘likeable’ people. Should we just deport them?

          • M.J.

            I meant integrate rather than ingratiate. That is something shy people can do also, albeit more slowly. As for sociopaths – they would have to go through PP’s mill anyway. The test should be ‘Does the community they’re living in want them, so that they would protest if the Home Office decided to deport them?’

            Maybe we need citizens’ assemblies on the issue of immigration control and the treatment of refugees!

        • Jimmy Riddle

          I disagree. The immigration laws do provide an intelligence test. Those who are smart enough to break the laws without getting caught are resourceful people and are therefore probably those whom we want most of all.

          I have lived and worked in several different countries and I never had a problem. I’d very much like to see the UK extending the same courtesy to those wanting to come to the UK as I have received in a variety of different countries.

          The `hostile environment’ set up by Theresa May is somewhat sick. It also lacks class and makes her look like a Glasgow bruiser.

    • Bayard

      Perhaps the passengers just didn’t want to share a plane with a convicted rapist. Would you? Perhaps the Home office shouldn’t use ordinary passenger air services to deport people.

    • Bayard

      “Be careful about encouraging people to break the law.”

      Where’s your evidence that Craig was involved in this?

    • josh R


      With reference to pointing out that the Somalian fella was a convicted gang rapist, I find that a bit of a trope’y distraction, although admittedly not factually inaccurate (as far as I know). It feels reflective of an argument that is nauseatingly and all too typically made by those who would, consciously or not, be complicit in legitimising this “hostile environment”.

      These isolated, abhorrent & emotive instances dominate the MS narrative disproportionately, it becomes an ‘excuse’ or caveat to weasel out of upholding the Common Law of human decency, or the international treaties on Refugees. It is also a sad distraction or diversion from recognising & nurturing the positive contribution migration makes to Life on Earth.

      Hate to sound harsh,,,,but there it is 🙂

      I goggled the story about Yaqub Ahmed and didn’t get much further than a dozen or 2 of MSM articles shouting “rapist”, “gang rapist”, “do gooders”, blah blah blah.
      I don’t know how long he was in the country, if he had family here, what his official ‘status’ had been. All I read is that he had a ‘guilty’ verdict for a heinous crime & had served some time.

      (seem to have noticed that goggling anything lately just brings up a swamp of MSM references, couple of ads & not much else. Anyone else noticed a tightening of the algoRyddims lately?)

      Would be interesting, in a hypothetical sense, to wonder how much of that tabloid space would have been given over to Yaqub & the flight protest if he’d not been so ‘unpalatable’?

      Was he a settled asylee? did he arrive with his folks years ago, when he was still a kid? Had he seen or experienced something of the uglier side of Somalia during it’s more tumultuous years? Was he a particularly troubled man, aside from whatever revolved around his getting convicted? Did he get in with a dodgy crowd? Was he just a nasty idiot?
      Or not?

      I don’t know any of that, never met the fella, probably none of my business.
      All I’m ‘told’ is “rapist, rapist, rapist”.
      All I ‘know’ is that he is a human being just like me, so that’s my starting point.

      If I’m caught doing something illegal, stupid or even something unforgivable & reprehensible, I’ll do Time.
      If need be, I might have remorse, I’ll be allowed & encouraged to rehabilitate, I might even be a better person for all that,,,,,,, or I might not.
      But I won’t be shuttled off to another part of the world that the Gov’t has already recognised is dangerous for me (a rare enough admission & concession in the first place), a country that I may have little to no knowledge about, separated from my parents, children, friends & community – thereby ending my life, as it was, & my future, as it might have been.

      So why then does the human I went to school with, the human I worked with, the human who put me up when I had no home, the friend and brother/sister who has spent the best part of their life volunteering for or working in our communities, who was (against all the odds the system stacked against them) granted ‘permission’ to make a life for themselves on our island, why are they suddenly so disposable if they happen to err?

      What? we want your tax payments, contribution to society, friendliness, new ideas & enthusiasm, strong community spirit & cultural diversity, your school/work ethic, your Talent, your ‘highly educated’ classes, your successes & gold medals, your architectural marvels & your Young,,,,,,but we don’t want your human fallibility or frailty, we don’t want evidence of traumas accrued abroad, we don’t want your mistakes or imperfections.
      “Any of that & you can just fk off”

      In one of the rags linked on the internet, there was a quote by a Home Office spokesperson:
      ‘Those who abuse our hospitality by committing crimes in the UK should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them and we have removed more than 43,000 foreign offenders since 2010.’

      “Hospitality” – Really?? refuge, asylum & leave to remain are hospitality?
      Or is it safety, the freedom to live a life & an international, let alone Humanitarian, obligation & privilege?

      “Committing crimes” – is that ‘any’ crimes? in our increasingly criminalised world, under an increasingly compromised & flawed justice system?
      Driving without a license? caught with a bag of weed? causing a policeman “distress” by protesting in his/her face?

      “foreign” – Who exactly is ‘foreign’? Someone who’s just arrived & applied to stay and/or work? Someone whose parents brought them over as a child 10 years ago but has yet to receive a decision? Someone who arrived 30 years ago when migrants weren’t the ‘enemy’ (relatively speaking!), got married, had a family & a career but never did their paperwork? Someone who arrived 60+ years ago when the “Motherland” was crying out for help rebuilding, but never needed a passport so never bothered getting one?

      Easy words for an HO spokesperson to say, easy rhetoric to intone & easy political ‘brownie points’ to score amongst a populace fed an overwhelming deluge of tripe where every reference to ‘migrant’ is accompanied by some facile demagoguery, some ‘trigger’ to hate or fear, managing to ‘nail’ a certain perception into the consciousness of people who may never have had a chance to experience for themselves what kind of person a migrant might or might not happen to be (clue – they’re human, sometimes doing good, sometimes not).

      Behind these words & policies are a litany of abuses, hitting quotas by attacking easy targets & deploying egregious tactics – snatching kids from class so that parents can be nabbed when they collect them (I’m pretty sure they stopped doing this many moons ago, but they did do it & for far too long); faxes to solicitors after business hours to notify a change of status, followed by a surprise dawn raid before offices open up again, 20 minutes to pack a bag, no telephone calls allowed, brutal & sudden home invasion & extraction, from school, job, church/mosque/temple, social circle, before being dumped somewhere else, far, far away, within 24 hours; indefinite detention for men, women, children & babies, in cheap ass private prisons employing cheap ass uniforms, swinging their keys to the cages & dictating their every move, with a cheeky fondle or a vicious word here & there; private prisons that do not even have to adhere to basic standards of care guaranteed to children in our ‘real’ world; administrative hiccups whereby humans are ‘processed’ for exclusion before legal considerations have been given, etc. etc. etc. etc.
      Let alone just having that miserable feeling of being ‘unwelcome’.

      But the politicos get to bang their drum & the MSM echoes their beat (or is it the other way round?), they flip the narrative with some shocking “fear the darkies!” messaging, followed by some soothing “we’re looking after you, mate” platitudes & before you know it, not-so-Great Britain has been behaving miserably for decades……..
      but as Pollockshields asserted, we’re not daft, we’re not oblivious,
      perhaps we’re overly patient & hopeful, disinclined to act socio/psychopathically (unlike those we challenge),
      but eventually “enough is enough” & something as simple as standing in a street, sharing sandwiches & a thermos of tea can throw a spanner in the works.

      Arendt’s “banality of evil” could easily be applied to the Immigration & Nationality Directorate & its cheerleaders; to the ‘pretend’ courts that adjudicate on immigration; the legislative hoops & obstacles that comprise our “hostile environment”; the endless labelling of people & their actions according to the colour of their passport; and to the lives & livelihoods lost or merely decimated as a result, the ‘collateral damage’ of flawed policy & cruel indifference, happening out of sight & out of mind, in a cage on a repurposed military base, in the cage of an anonymous “Business Unit”, the caged back of a Polis van or ultimately shackled to some dopey rent-a-cop twat in Economy class en route to some foreign airport terminal.

      To let slide the ill treatment of other humans based on what the toads in Whitehall say, or the fascistic sabre rattling of the MSM and those reliable pockets of intolerable intolerance on our island, makes us complicit, whether advertently or inadvertently.

      The only migration problem is emigration driven by desperation, everything else is merely a symptom.

      There is a shameful irony in being, as a nation, complicit in the factors that drive that desperation, be it bombs & banking, historical plunder, malign interventions & creative cartography, or modern day geo-politiking, debt slavery & tax evasion, & then having the effrontery to complain about the entirely predictable repercussions of those policies.
      Cake and eat it, anybody?

      If you’re kept awake at night by sensational reports of that statistical minority of migrants who seem to have been getting up to no good, leave it to the police to deal with.
      If the Polis have got enough bodies to infiltrate, spy on & impregnate every tree hugger in the land, if they can run around doing 3 or 4 hundred interviews to see if Alex pinched someone’s arse, if they can encircle & besiege the Ecuadorian embassy for 8 (?) years, if they can give training courses in the head-chopping capital of the world,,,,,, I think they’ve got the time & wherewithal to deal with whatever non-indigenous ne’er-do-wells there might be, just like they deal with the indigenous ne’er-do-wells.

      “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” Gandhi.

      I think those Pollokshields folk ‘measure up’ quite well & provide a fitting bar to which we can ascertain our own ‘measure’, our own commitment to justice, equality & freedom, our own Humanity.

      • Robbie

        Klaus Schwabb has tweeted that we will all have to be a be a ‘lot more tolerant and welcoming of refugees in the near future’. The WEF (World Economic Forum) who he heads has also said that this will mean welcoming them into our very homes 🙂 Personally, I think this would be a fantastic idea 🙂 What’s your take on this, Josh R?

        • Josh R

          On a few occasions I’ve shared my home with folk who had migrated, as have quite a few people I know.
          I’ve also had folk who had migrated open their home to me on a couple of occasions too.
          Not everybody’s cup of tea but it’s just normal for me & many people I know and many more people I’ve never known.
          Reminds me of the non-story in France at the turn of the century, whereby French families were giving shelter to people being hunted by Immigration goons. Apparently, it stirred memories of the folk during WWII who were Jewish and were similarly offered sanctuary, by some.

          But Klaus is just a c#nt & I imagine what he’s getting at is that him & his ilk are just going to keep fkng things up & have no intention of alleviating suffering or offering anything close to a humanitarian solution (they’re not qualified) as they continue to pillage the natural & social world. So he’s happy to keep externalising the costs of his misadventure onto the “happily dispossessed “.

  • Uwontbegrinningsoon

    Mr Murray

    Proton pump inhibitors never helped me and 40 ml of anti acid liquid, in my experience, won’t do much. That is a quarter to a fifth of what I take. There might be issues with salt level in the amount I use plus your specific health issues. But I have been taking these doses for years and maybe once a month at most I might still get acid waking me up. Much better than every night. Doctors do their best, but they don’t know everything.

    • Kempe

      I was prescribed proton pump inhibitors (Lansoprazole) for what the doctor thought was a reaction to the anti-inflammatory drugs I was taking. They worked OK but I wasn’t happy about taking more medication or the claimed long term side effects. I was eventually able to ween myself off them by some not very drastic changes in diet, particularly the amount of tea I was drinking. Cutting down on the alcohol, particularly if you’re partial to a ‘nightcap’, also helps enormously.

  • Republicofscotland

    Yes I was thinking that myself, I was rooting the public in Kenmure street, I’m sick of England’s Home office removing folk from Scotland, many folk came to Scotland over the last decade opened up businesses and employed local people only for the the likes of James Brokenshire to remove them.

    Ask yourself why England has around 50 million people and Scotland has 5 million people, we allow a foreign country’s government to say who stays and who doesn’t in Scotland, and all our parliaments MSPs also need to swear an oath to a foreign monarch. If only the Kenmure street demo stirred Scots into acting in a more dissenting manner towards Westminster. I also agree Scottish independence won’t be given via a referendum, it will need to be taken, Westminster’s laws aren’t immutable they weren’t handed down to Westminster by the hand of God.

  • Alice

    Why doesn’t this happen on regular demos when the police arrest protestors?

  • David G

    There was an article about this incident at RT; otherwise, like commenter Funn3r above, I wouldn’t have had any idea of what was being written about here.

    Anyway, I think you will find that extralegal self-help that serves the neoliberal order, such as promoting unrestricted migration, has a far easier time succeeding than actions taken contrary to that order, such as fighting for workers’ rights or against imperial impositions like wars and coups.

    Scottish secession seems to me sort of a wash in that sense, so you can expect a middling level of resistance. It will be harder to achieve than the gender agenda, but easier than nuclear disarmament.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.