by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I’ll admit I’m feeling very pessimistic just now. Climate change, wars, and the state of politics have left me feeling very gloomy about the future. There are so many things to worry about, but I’m going to try to stick to my usual bugbear, the UK media in Scotland which, as ever, does the public a great disservice.

I didn’t write anything about Alex Salmond’s unexpected death. Plenty of others have written far more eloquently than I could ever do, although the mainstream media articles were mostly down to the standard I’d expected. The vitriol directed at him because he wanted Scotland to become a normal, self-governing country looks as if it is going to continue.

There have been some other recent instances of this media bias, with the BBC admitting that some of the reporting and interviews on Good Morning Scotland have not met their required standards of accuracy. Of course, these admissions come long after the interview in question, and are seen or heard by far too many people. The pro-Union stance of the BBC means that their message or misinformation is delivered to the public unfiltered at the time of broadcast. Indeed, the excellent Twitter account MSM Monitor has pointed out that 4 of these instances of failing to meet proper standards involved Good Morning Scotland presenter Laura Maxwell. That’s got to be more than a coincidence.

The BBC’s other tactic is bias by omission. In the past week, I’ve seen three blatant examples of this. First came an announcement by the Scottish Government about a new Benefit for disabled pensioners which is being rolled out in 5 Local Authority areas, with the whole of Scotland expected to be covered by April next year. This was an important public service matter, yet our public service broadcaster seems to have ignored it. I may be wrong, but I found no trace of any report on the BBC.

Then there was the poll commissioned by Alba which shows majority support for Scottish independence. It was reported in The National, but ignored by the rest of the Scottish media. OK, it was only a single poll, but you can bet that a poll showing support for the Union would have been reported.

And Prof John Robertson highlighted the recent news that Scotland’s food and drink exports are considerably higher than you would expect from a country with only 8% of the UK population. Again, tumbleweed from the BBC.

Prof Robertson does excellent work highlighting the bias of the media in general and the BBC in particular on his site, Talking Up Scotland, but far too few people know about this. I was recently talking to some relatives who were convinced that Scotland’s ferry service is dreadful, and they were unaware of the issues surrounding ferry services elsewhere in the world which make Scotland’s ferries look incredibly good in comparison. As with our NHS, nobody claims that the ferry service is perfect but, like the NHS, it is not as bad as the media would have us believe. But whether it is ferries, health or trains, you can be sure that BBC Scotland will be churning out negative stories, some of them exaggerated, and some of them selectively choosing stats from reports, in order to put Scotland down and convince Scots that we are better off being chained to Westminster. It is past time that more people woke up to how Scotland is being exploited. For a nation which we are assured is too wee and too poor to be a normal country, it’s funny how the head of the CBI recently claimed that Scotland’s natural resources could power the economy of the whole UK. Just think about that for a moment. We can power the economy of the whole of the UK, but are too poor to grow our economy if we were a normal, self-governing country. As Mr Spock would say, "That is illogical, Captain". But how many Scots heard about the CBI comment? Far too few because our media doesn’t like spreading stories like that.

Looking ahead, I fear things are going to become even worse. Labour has lived down to the warnings many of us gave about their pre-election lies. They are sticking with some abhorrent Tory policies, and if Donald Trump becomes the next US President, we can expect a wave of fascism to sweep across Europe. I doubt very much that the UK will be able to resist it. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but Scotland is in severe danger of being dragged towards fascism if Westminster succumbs to the Farage effect. Spurred on by the media, I fear the English electorate will make the wrong decision again.

The Scottish electorate has made some serious errors too. Voting No in 2014 was the first major blunder, and voting Labour in this year’s General Election was another. We cannot afford to get it wrong again.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

When Chancellor Rachel Reeves proclaimed that she was cutting the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners, it was explained that this was vital to help plug the £22bn black hole in the UK’s finances which she had inherited from the Tories. She claimed to have no prior knowledge of this enormous deficit despite several commentators and the SNP pointing it out before the election. It also later transpired that she had previously stated that one of her ambitions in life was to cut this Winter Fuel Allowance, so her more recent claims to being forced to make this difficult decision ring very hollow indeed.

Then we have Labour’s refusal to scrap the 2 Child Benefit Cap introduced by the Tories, using pretty much the same excuse about this £22bn black hole. It seems that letting ever more kids fall into poverty is deemed acceptable by the Labour Government.

Last week, though, we heard the remarkable news that the UK Government had magically found £22bn to invest in a Carbon Capture & storage (CCS) scheme in the north of England. This caused some discontent in Scotland where a CCS project has now been denied promised money three times, going all the way back to just after the 2014 IndyRef when we were promised that only voting NO could save this scheme. To be honest, Scots should have realised the futility of believing Westminster promises by now, and there is also the very important point that CCS is viewed by many people as little more than a con trick. The best that can be said about it is that it is a highly controversial scheme, and there is a video produced in Australia which has been doing the rounds on social media highlighting just how ineffective CCS is at capturing anything except Government grants. It is, in fact, an idea promoted by fossil fuel companies which not only persuade Governments to give them billions of pounds, it also allows them to continue making huge profits from fossil fuels which the majority of people know need to be drastically scaled back if we are to save our environment. And, by a huge coincidence, only a few days after the Government spending on CCS was confirmed, BP announced that they had decided to scrap their plans to reduce production of oil by 2030. Perhaps coincidence is not the right word, since it has emerged that the CCS funding was announced after some very strenuous lobbying by the fossil fuel industry. It seems the major oil companies are in favour of anything which lets them keep operating and amassing ever greater profits, even if that thing is viewed by many as a complete waste of time and money. Who could have guessed?

But even if CCS was a viable idea, isn’t it funny that the UK Government can find £22bn to keep their pals in the fossil fuel industry happy, but can’t find £1.5bn to keep pensioners warm in winter. If you think something doesn’t quite add up here, you’d be right. In case you haven’t worked it out yet, these decisions are political ones, not economic ones. The only reason there is a "Black hole" in the finances is because UK Labour are so right wing that they have voluntarily committed themselves to sticking to Tory fiscal policies which were introduced in order to justify Austerity. The truth is that, if you control a Central Bank, you can’t have a black hole in your finances, as many expert commentators have pointed out. In particular, see Richard J Murphy’s many articles on this topic. Deficits actually prove that the Government is putting money into the economy to encourage growth. If the Government wants to eliminate a deficit, it means taking money out of the economy, which usually harms the poorest in society.

Labour promised change, but there is precious little of that in sight. They are continuing to target the most vulnerable in society while pandering to monied interests, and they are using flimsy excuses to justify their choices.

As ever, Scotland really needs to escape this madness.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I was listening to The Newsagents podcast the other day, and I heard Emily Maitlis interviewing someone from the Labour Government. She was asking about the fears of the wealthy business owners who are, as usual, insisting they will abandon the UK if they have to pay more tax. Ms Maitlis referred to these people as "Wealth Creators".

This got me thinking. Just once, I’d love someone to push back on that traditional way of referring to wealthy business owners. That’s because, in my opinion, many of them are not wealth creators but wealth extractors. Yes, they may invest in or own a business which provides employment, but does that employment create wealth? If it does, who does it create wealth for? The ever-widening inequality gap suggests that it is rarely the workers who benefit.

You can look at some examples near you. If you own, say, a retail distribution warehouse employing people to send out goods ordered online, how much to the ordinary workers (as opposed to supervisors or manages) earn? I’m fairly sure it won’t be very much above the legal minimum wage. Indeed, some journalists have claimed that some workplaces don’t even pay that.

Or, say you own a chain of health centres. How much do the ordinary workers there earn? Again, I doubt it will be much above minimum wage.

What about workers in the hospitality sector? Do the servers in your local hotel or restaurant earn more than the minimum wage?

I’m sure readers can think of plenty of other examples. The point is that people trapped in low paid jobs have very little chance of getting on the property ladder. Unless their place of employment offers plenty of opportunity for promotion, and let’s face it, few do, then they are going to be stuck in low paid work for perhaps the whole of their lives. Some will need to have more than one job just to survive because the so-called wealth creators simply don’t pay their employees enough.

It's just as bad with investors, as we’ve seen with the huge dividends paid out to shareholders in various English water companies. Where does the wealth go?

I’m sure there will be some exceptions, but in most cases, I believe that people who own or invest in large businesses do so because they want to extract the wealth rather than share it. Now, I’m not against someone with a good business idea and capable management skills becoming wealthy as a result, but if they are truly to be considered as wealth creators, then surely that wealth should be more evenly distributed.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Change. That is what Labour promised. It was a very effective campaign slogan because nearly everyone was fed up of the Tories and their greed, corruption, xenophobia and austerity-driven policies which targeted the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Quite frankly, Labour didn’t need to do much, so constantly repeating, "Change" struck a chord. Many of us did warn our fellow Scots not to believe them, but we were largely ignored, partly because the SNP has, quite frankly, run out of ideas and competence. Labour’s victory was assured, although partly because other voters wanted rid of the Tories because they felt they weren’t extreme enough.

So what change have Labour delivered? Well, we must remember that the media are very pro-Tory and/or Reform, so any minor thing Labour do wrong will be headline news, but their first few months have revealed that Sir Keir (Knight of the Realm) Starmer really isn’t a very good politician. He seems to have no awareness of public perceptions, and has therefore bungled his way into controversies which could easily have been avoided. Cutting pensioners’ Winter Fuel Allowance while accepting gifts worth thousands of pounds simply is not a good look. The excuse that all MPs accept donations really is not a justification. IN fact, with dark money sloshing around in UK politics, perhaps it is time to ban donations entirely and to have parties funded by public money. Yes, many will cry that this places an additional burden on taxpayers, but when you control a central Bank, you can always find the money. You could even contemplate taxing the super-rich a bit more so that they contribute to the public purse rather than contribute to political parties. No, sorry, nobody in Westminster wants that because it might bring about a level playing field in election campaigns, and that would never do.

Part of Labour’s problem is their insistence on sticking to artificial, self-imposed financial rules which were put in place by the Tories to justify Austerity. And just because Labour don’t call it Austerity doesn’t mean that isn’t what they are delivering. Call it what you like, but cutting public spending to the detriment of your citizens (sorry, subjects), is Austerity.

So far, we’ve seen some vague words from Sir Keir and his Ministers, but only token action on some issues which most people would applaud. But they seem incapable of grasping the big picture and of actually delivering meaningful change. Instead, we’re getting vague promises of re-setting relationships with the EU or of improving the Right to Buy council houses in England. You’d think that, having spent so long in opposition, Labour would have come up with some really eye-catching policies which they would implement quickly. Yet they seem to have focused more on winning the election than on what to do once they were in power. If the most notable thing was to let Rachel Reeves achieve her ambition of forcing pensioners to freeze during winter, then that’s not good politics.

And, speaking of the Winter Fuel Payment, it is laughable that they claim to be doing this in order to save money (which they don’t need to do since they control a central Bank). They are now encouraging pensioners who qualify to apply for Pension Credits. Yet if every pensioner who qualifies does claim, it will actually cost more than the cut to the WFP. In short, it is an ill-thought out policy which has angered the majority of people. If you are not yet a pensioner, you will be some day, and if you see your Government acting like this, then you know they are not on your side. It’s all very well saying that pensions will rise next year, but the problem for many will be surviving to see that. With energy costs about to increase again, Labour ought to be sorting out the energy sector and forcing a reduction in our ridiculously over-priced electricity.

There is then the argument that Labour under Sir Keir Starmer are beholden to monied interests, which is why they are shying away from taxing the super-wealthy and instead targeting the poorest in society. Some investigations by alternative media outlets suggest there is good reason to believe this, but even if it is not true, then it is a bad look for Labour to behave as if it is.

The more I see and hear what sir Keir Starmer says, the more convinced I am that he is little more than a figurehead for a right of centre group whose interests he will protect. Yes, he is, on the face of it, a less venal and cruel character than any of his Tory predecessors, but he does seem politically inept, and I can only see him blundering into more and more controversies.

As ever, Scotland can surely do better than accept being governed by this lot. I know many are disillusioned with the SNP, but the best way to get rid of them is to become a normal, self-governing country and elect a Government we can at least get rid of if they prove as inept as UK Labour. That, many will argue, is the reason the SNP have not pushed for independence. But things are becoming desperate now, and we really need to escape the farce that is Westminster.

The UK media will continue to push the line that Scotland cannot afford to become a normal, self-governing country, but that is nonsense. Only last week, the new Head of the CBI was drooling over Scotland’s wealth of resources which she insisted could be used to boost England’s economy. It is time Scots stopped believing what Unionist politicians tell them. If nothing else, the lies Labour told during the recent UK election campaign should have reminded people that they cannot be trusted to do what is right for Scotland. Change? Some things never change.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I do hope that this rambling piece doesn’t come across the wrong way. I write it not to cock a triumphalist snook at our nearest neighbours and rivals but to highlight once again the fragility of the UK media when it comes to their sense of Britishness and their fear of Scotland becoming a normal country. This fragility is shown in many ways, but one is by omission of information from what should be fairly standard news reports. The reason for this, of course, is to prevent Scots from gaining any pride in their national identity, a goal which the UK media seems to be missing but which they persist in pursuing.

I am talking football here. Many south of the border cannot understand the Anyone But England mentality which is so rife in Scotland. They insist that they support Scotland in international fixtures, although many Scottish football fans find that a little patronising. Our desire for England to lose is based not on ethnic hatred but on sporting rivalry. Which fans want their closest and greatest rivals to succeed? Above all, though, it is the smug superiority of the English media which really riles us up. The problem here is that Scottish football fans are often compelled to listen to English perspectives on games. I am pretty sure that our own commentators can be just as biased as any, but the point is that we don’t often get a chance to hear them since our football is provided through a British, aka English, prism.

At the same time, I don’t think anyone would deny that England have a great many tremendous footballers available for their national team, and it must be admitted that their Premier League is probably the best in the world, with players from all around the globe competing at the highest level.

We all enjoy watching English football. Some of the teams and players are terrific, and the amount of TV coverage allows viewers to watch a great many games. The money this generates has made some English clubs among the wealthiest in the world. As a consequence, it is no wonder that Scotland, with its much lower population and paucity of TV money, fails to compete. Even our best club sides have often struggled in European competitions in recent years.

But now, having set the scene, let’s get to the point of this article. UEFA have just released the figures for the 2023 season, detailing attendances in the top leagues in each country on a per capita basis. Many media outlets reported that Scotland, with a magnificent 18.36 people per 1,000, tops the table for football attendance by a very long way indeed. Portugal were second with 10.23 people per 1,000. That’s a considerable gap.

There are probably several reasons for Scotland’s stunning attendances, some of which will relate to social attitudes, to our history of football being our national sport, and to the relative lack of TV coverage. But our fans are the lifeblood of our game, and it is very pleasing to see such support, although it must be noted that every nation at the top of the list produced a slightly lower figure than the 2022 season when Scotland’s attendance was at over 20 people per 1,000. Still, our attendances, while perhaps not huge in absolute numbers at some individual games, remain very high indeed overall.

However, on reading these reports, I became a little suspicious that there was no mention of England except that one report did say that they came 4^th in the list behind Netherlands. There was no mention of the figure, and I had to go hunting for it. It transpires that the attendance per 1,000 in England was only 6.77, just over a third of the figure achieved in Scotland.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, I do not cite this in order to claim that Scottish fans are somehow superior to those in England. There are many reasons why support in England is lower on a per capita basis than in Scotland. The distances fans need to travel, the huge cost of tickets, the availability of TV coverage, the more diverse ethnic population mix, and the plethora of competing sports facilities will all have something to do with it. This is simply a reflection of how fans consume their football, and there is nothing to gloat about. Yet Scottish fans often seem to turn up at games in spite of the poor facilities, and often a rather poor product on the pitch. Scotland, I’d suggest, could attract even more fans if there was a lot more money in our game.

But the big question is why the UK media in Scotland were so reluctant to reveal the figure in England? That, I think, is the real issue here. We are often provided with comparisons between Scotland and England, but only when Scotland looks worse, even if the statistics in question are massaged to achieve this effect. Yet when Scotland compares favourably, the media goes silent, even on something as relatively trivial as attendances at football matches. Quite honestly, I think that is rather pathetic. Yes, some Scots would undoubtedly crow about it because England are, after all, our greatest football rivals on the international stage, but if the UK cannot cope with some sporting banter, just how fragile is their sense of Britishness? Whether it is fear of Scotland going its own way, or whether it is simply a continuation of the colonial mindset which pressurises journalists into always talking down Scotland, the effect is the same. Our media or, rather, the UK media in Scotland, is not fit for purpose.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I fully understand that not every pensioner needs the Winter Fuel Allowance. Some are lucky enough to have private pensions which allow them to live comfortably. However, thanks to the UK system of ensuring that poorer people remain poor, allied to them having to work longer and longer to qualify for the worst pension in the OECD, the vast majority of pensioners often have very little income. I also know that many of today’s pensioners belong to that lucky generation where they may have inherited significant assets, although assets do not always equate to income.

However, the new Labour Government, in deciding to stick with Tory economic policies, is shooting itself in the foot with its decision to scrap the Winter Fuel Allowance unless pensioners qualify for other social security benefits. Of course, social media has revealed that this is a long-time ambition of Chancellor Rachel Reeves, so her claims that scrapping the payments is vital for the economy ring very hollow, especially when the savings will not be all that significant in the great scheme of things. No, this is a deliberate policy to try to make Labour look tough for the benefit of those who are already wealthy. It is a sad day when Labour attacks the most vulnerable in society simply to appease money markets. Watch out if you are unemployed or disabled, because you’ll be next.

Of course, making the payment universal means that some people will receive money they don’t really need. If you are lucky enough to fall into that bracket, and if you feel strongly enough about this, then why not donate the money to a local food bank or other charity of your choice? Because the reality is that making payments universal works out cheaper in the long run because there is less administration. More importantly, it ensures that nobody misses out on what could be a vital payment at the time of year when they need it most.

Labour’s other claims about pensioners not needing this payment because of recent and future increases in the state pension are also misleading. Because the pension is, as most people know, pathetically inadequate for modern living, and the Labour claims ignore the huge increase in energy costs which we have seen in the UK. This is especially important in Scotland where we pay higher energy bills than most for the privilege of sending our renewable energy to England free of charge, and where the weather is generally several degrees lower than in England.

Naturally, the unionist politicians are pointing the finger at the Scottish Government who really ought to be fighting back more than they are over this issue. There may well be other things the Scottish Government can do, but the simple fact remains that if your pocket money is cut, then you need to reduce your outgoings. The UK Labour Government has, of course, cut the amount the Scottish Government would use to make the Winter Fuel payments in Scotland, but has miraculously found almost exactly the same amount of money to give to the Scottish Office and our new Governor-General to fund other projects which can have a Union flag plastered on them. They’ve also found money to create some memorials to the late queen Elizabeth which show precisely who they are pandering to. It’s not as if the late Queen doesn’t already have plenty of memorials. IN Scotland, for example, there is Queen Elizabeth House in Edinburgh and Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow to name but two. You’ll also find Queen’s Hall and Queen’s College. But even if you believe that yet another memorial is necessary, how can you justify cutting public expenditure on helping to keep people alive? Sadly, this is the British way, because commemorating royalty is always viewed as more important than safeguarding the lives of ordinary citizens. Sorry, we’re subjects, not citizens, a point which the proposal for yet more royal memorials clearly reinforces.

There are, of course, more cuts to come, as Sir Keir (Knight of the realm) Starmer has been constantly reminding us. Yet I’m sure you will find that, while there is no money to help pensioners stay warm, or to scrap the iniquitous two-child benefit cap, there will always be money for UK vanity projects. This winter, I reckon the best use of a Union flag is to use it as a blanket to try to ward off the worst of the cold weather.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Recently, I met up with a relative of mine who has spent their entire lives in England. It was great to catch up and our conversation ranged over a whole load of family topics. We did briefly touch on the subject of Scottish independence although neither the time nor the place was conducive to a proper discussion on that subject. What was interesting, though, was that my relative’s first response was, "But how can you afford to be independent?" This response , so popular with Unionists is one that too many Scots fell for in the 2014 IndyRef, and it is still prevalent in the public perception, particularly, it seems, in England. I should say that my relative is very clued up on UK politics and has a left-leaning view. Yet still they were apparently convinced that Scotland cannot afford to be a normal, self-governing country because we are so reliant on the generosity of our English neighbours.

Now, the answer to the question about affordability can, unfortunately, turn into a bit of a lecture, which can be a turn-off. It can also remain largely unheard if your interlocutor interrupts. This is why the message often doesn’t get across in the media because journalists and interviewers are experts in the interruption as a way to prevent a detailed answer being heard.

As for that answer, the first thing a normal country does is create a central bank and its own currency. Then you can run a deficit to pump money into the economy. Of course, that cannot be random and unchecked, but taxation is the method by which a Government can keep inflation under control. Richard J murphy has written extensively about this system of monetary control, and if you haven’t read his stuff yet, then do yourself a favour and look him up.

As for having a deficit, that is nothing to be afraid of. Most countries run a deficit because that is what keeps an economy growing. The UK has a deficit in excess of £2 trillion, and nobody ever asks how the UK can afford to be an independent state. Incidentally, in trying to search for the amount of the UK national debt, it was interesting how few websites quoted a figure in £, most preferring to disguise it by quoting it as a percentage of GDP which is, in itself, a highly questionable way of measuring an economy’s success or otherwise. But it is worth noting that, after World War 2 had consumed so much of the UK’s finances, the UK Government still managed to create the NHS and embark on a massive housebuilding programme. Of course, that was in the days before Right Wing economists had popularised the "How are you going to pay for that?" mantra so beloved of today’s media. The Government knew it could afford it because it controlled the Bank of England who could provide as much money as it required. There was no thought of comparing a state’s finances to a household budget which has so seriously dumbed down the current level of financial discussions.

So Scotland, with its own currency and central bank could create the money it required to spur its economy into growth, but there is also the issue of how valuable that currency is. It is vital to hold reserves of foreign currency, but that can only be done if there is a demand for the home currency. To ensure that, it is a huge help if a nation possesses some product or services which are in demand worldwide. That way, people need to buy your currency to pay for your exports, or give you an equivalent amount of their own currency.

So what does Scotland have that other countries might want? Well, North Sea oil is the obvious one. Putting aside the environmental issues, there is still a strong demand for oil, so that’s a start. But it would help if we had some other resources like, say, a surplus of renewable electricity which other neighbouring countries would be desperate to buy, or perhaps a beverage of some sort with a worldwide reputation such as, oh I don’t know, whisky. Or maybe having more fresh water than our neighbours will become valuable in the very near future as climate change has an increasing effect. Or maybe if we had some fish farms which produced a world-famous dish such as salmon. It would even help if some of our universities regularly featured in the world’s top rankings so that, instead of discouraging foreign students because the UK Government panders to the xenophobes in the electorate, we could welcome them here. And on the topic of welcoming visitors, wouldn’t it be great if Scotland had some sort of attraction for foreign tourists? If only we had historic buildings, magnificent scenery and other visitor attractions.

If only we had those resources! What a wealthy nation we could be if we ran our own affairs.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I have written before how a society’s behaviour is influenced by its leaders. Obviously not everyone in a national society follows the example of their political and cultural leaders because human beings are a diverse lot, so there will always be those who dissent. However, those in positions of power and influence can determine trends in behaviour. So it was no great surprise to learn that incidents of assault and harassment against women travelling on trains has increased in recent years. In my view, this is yet another appalling symptom of the same cultural disease which resulted in the recent riots in England and Northern Ireland, and which may yet spring up again in all parts of the UK.

You see, just as the Fascist thugs have been emboldened by years of the media and certain politicians telling them that all their problems stem from immigration, so a growing culture of misogyny, spread by social media influencers and the behaviour of some politicians, has inevitably resulted in some men feeling that adopting an aggressive attitude towards women is acceptable.

Of course, these traits have always been in society because, as mentioned earlier, human beings are a diverse lot. British society has always been inherently racist, although not exclusively so because most nations have an undercurrent of racism. Yet Britons used to regard this behaviour as perfectly normal. In my younger days, it was socially acceptable to tell jokes about the Irish, about the Chinese and about people of colour, or to use terms to describe these people which are nowadays considered offensive. The problem is that, when you grow up in a culture which views these things as normal, it is very easy to adopt the same attitude.

Fortunately, things moved on and most people now understand the problems of such behaviour. Racism was never extinguished, but those who espoused it were generally shunned and had no loud voice in society. Then came social media, and those voices have become louder over the years.

There is no easy solution to this, but those who lead our society need to be prominent in their opposition to such behaviour. But we must also look at long term solutions. I doubt racism, misogyny or discrimination against minority groups such as the disabled will ever be eliminated, but the aim must be to force those views back into the margins of society. There are signs that the majority of people already consider such attitudes unfavourably, and great credit must be given to those who turned out to protest against the fascist rioters, but I believe there is another root cause of many social ills which can and should be addressed.

I speak of poverty. Whether it is rioting, anti-social behaviour, racism, deaths from drug misuse, lower life expectancy, petty crime or physical assault, poverty always seems to lurk in the background. If the number of people living in poverty could be reduced, we’d see a reduction in all sorts of shameful statistics.

The big problem is that global capitalism has made the UK one of the most unequal societies in the world. Whether our politicians have the will or the bravery to tackle this problem is, sadly, doubtful, but some redistribution of wealth is essential if we are to have any chance of tackling poverty. I’m not talking about radical communism here, just a re-balancing of incomes so that the ultra-wealthy lose a bit of their wealth, which they probably won’t notice much anyway, and that those at the poorer end of society are given a decent living wage. Time and again we see statistics which demonstrate that the poorest in society suffer the worst food price increases or energy price increases. The burden always falls on those least able to afford it. It is no wonder that this environment encourages crime, drug abuse, drinking, smoking and, in the worst cases, violence.

It is also demonstrably true that giving more money to the poor improves the economy because, unlike the rich who simply hoard wealth for its own sake, poorer people spend money when they have it. You’d think this would be obvious, but our politicians are so reliant on the mega-rich for support that they dare not make any sweeping changes to the way money is spent.

Tackling poverty is not easy, but it must be something worth trying. The Tories managed to increase it significantly, so it must be possible to reverse that trend. Unfortunately, whether the UK Labour Government has that will and desire seems very doubtful. And even if they do, history tells us that the English electorate will, sooner or later, elect another right wing Government.

There is, as ever, a way for Scotland to make its own way in the world, following a different path, but that, too, requires some genuine political leadership which I fear we are sadly lacking.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I’ve been ranting a bit on social media about the folly of Scottish voters voting for Labour. Yes, I know the SNP have seriously let the Yes movement down and have become embroiled in policies which do not resonate with the bulk of the population, but voting Labour was never going to be the answer. I said this before the UK General Election, and I’ll say it again. Labour are an ultra-Unionist party devoted to keeping Scotland subservient so that they can exploit our resources to bolster their position in England.

As for promises, look no further than Michael Shanks, MP for Rutherglen and now Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security & Net Zero). Prior to being elected, he vowed to vote against the 2 child Cap, insisting that he would oppose Sir Keir Starmer on this policy. Yet what did he do as soon as this issue came to a vote? He toed the line, along with every other Scottish Labour MP. Let that sink in. Your Labour representatives voted to keep children in poverty.

Now, it is true that the Tories have left the UK economy in a mess, but Labour have access to a central bank, so can find money for pretty much anything they want. They are, of course, hamstrung by insisting on sticking to fiscal rules which were invented by the Tories to justify Austerity, but they could still find the money if they wanted to. The fact is that they don’t want to, whatever they may say to the contrary.

As for the suggestion that the Scottish Government should mitigate the effects of the 2 Child Cap, this is absurd when Labour know only too well that the finances of the Scottish Government are severely constrained. It also ignores the impact of the Scottish Child Payment which is already partially offsetting the cruel 2 Child Cap. And it should not be the role of the Scottish Government simply to mitigate Westminster cruelty, although that is what often happens in practice.

Scottish voters should have remembered the lies told by Labour during the 2014 IndyRef. The fact that they have given Labour another chance is baffling, as Labour have already shown that they have no compunction about lying to the Scottish public. I wonder what Michael Shanks MP will do in his new role as Under Secretary for Energy Security? While I’d welcome any move to greatly increase the use of renewable energy in Scotland, we all know that it will be England which sees the benefit of this, and Scots will continue to pay the highest energy bills in Europe despite being an energy rich country. And don’t be beguiled by the claims about the much-vaunted GB Energy. Despite Labour claims, this is unlikely to be an electricity-generating enterprise. It will simply be a supplier. Its creation may reduce bills across the UK, although I’m not convinced by that claim, but I’d be willing to bet a haggis supper that, even if bills across the UK do come down as a direct result of GB Energy, Scots will still be paying more than their counterparts in England.

I will say again that I am extremely glad that the Tories no longer govern the UK, but I am appalled that so many Scots fell for the Labour lie. Anas Sarwar should be questioned intensely by the media about the voting record of his Labour MPs, but he’ll get away with it as usual. But be in no doubt that Scotland’s Labour MPs will always do as their London masters instruct no matter what Anas Sarwar says.

Who knows? Perhaps this will be a good thing for Scotland in the long run. Maybe people will have twigged the Labour position by the time of the next Holyrood election. Not that the SNP currently offer a great alternative, but any pro-Indy party is better than a Unionist one if we want to have any chance of progressing the cause of becoming a normal, self-governing country.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

First of all, let me emphasise that I am really glad the Tories are no longer in power in Westminster. Labour will, I hope, be less corrupt and perhaps a bit less cruel. They’ve made a fairly decent start, but we must not forget that Starmer and his cronies are ardent Unionists with a colonial attitude towards Scotland no matter what they say.

And, despite their much=vaunted King’s Speech, there were a whole load of things missing from it, including their refusal to abolish the 2-child Benefits cap. That really is an outrageous decision, although plenty of other things, like green measures were missing.

Labour’s biggest problem, though, will be their insistence on sticking to the fiscal rules they have inherited from the Tories. As some commentators have pointed out, those rules are self-imposed and are designed to provide an excuse for not doing things. This may keep the money markets happy, but it won’t help undo the damage the Tories have inflicted. By sticking to those rules, Labour are condemning us to more years of austerity no matter how they might dress it up.

Then there is the former pledge to introduce proportional representation into UK elections which has been ditched on the highly spurious grounds that it worked fine this time, and that Labour apparently have no power to change the rules. That is an appalling attitude, but they seem to be afraid of the media backlash if they attempt to introduce an electoral voting system which is fair and balanced. That refusal shows just how much Labour wish to keep the media owners onside. The last thing the media want is a fair electoral system, so Labour’s pledge has been brazenly dropped.

However, my big fear is over the NHS. Labour seem to have forgotten that this wonderful organisation was created after World War 2 when the UK was in desperate financial straits. Yet they used the Bank of England to create the money required to build a health system and also to build many new houses. Sadly, Today’s Labour seem content to bring in more privatisation of the NHS, an as well as using private investment to build new homes. Those approaches are, I’m afraid, the opposite of what England needs. And the reason I’m worried is that Scotland’s NHS budget will be affected if Labour continue with tory policies.

Then there is the announcement of a Council of Nations and Regions. Now, I welcome any measure which will improve relations between Holyrood and Westminster. Let’s face it, they couldn’t be much worse than they were under the Tories, and Labour are making some of the right noises, but I wonder whether this really is the solution. What it will do is place the devolved Governments on the same level as English regions, and that is not a welcome move. All it does is reinforce that London-centric view that Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are mere regions of England. That mindset needs to be resisted, and I hope that the Scottish Government will walk out at the first sign of the Council relegating their status.

As ever, there is an obvious solution to Scotland’s position. Sadly, I see no way of achieving it unless the Scottish Government takes some very drastic action. And, as I’ve said before, I don’t think the current leadership is capable of that.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

So Sir Keir (Knight of the Realm) Starmer wants to reset relationships with the devolved Governments, and has already paid a visit to Scotland. A new approach would certainly be welcome, but it would not be difficult to appear more reasonable than the Tories. However, we should not get too excited. Keir Starmer is a British Nationalist to the core, and while he might be more reasonable than any Tory PM, he is not going to allow Scotland any free rein at all. Even where the Westminster Government does help out, with the Grangemouth oil refinery being high on Starmer’s agenda, you can be sure that the media will be primed to promote any success as being entirely due to Scotland being part of the Union. The fact that a normal, self-governing country could have addressed the issue itself will be completely ignored.

And let us not forget that Lisa Nandy, a newly appointed Minister in the new Cabinet, went on record as saying that anyone supporting Scottish independence should be treated the same way as the Spanish Police treated the Catalans. That doesn’t sound very reasonable to me.

In short, I believe Scotland will be treated better by Labour than we were by the Tories, but only if we do not cause any trouble. Keir Starmer has already asserted that the result of the General Election gives him a mandate to rule Scotland. I suspect it will not be long before those who voted Labour because of dissatisfaction with the SNP will come to regret their choice. British Nationalists will never give us any respect, and Keir Starmer has completely blanked any questions about Scottish independence. He may be offering us a velvet glove, but be in no doubt that the iron fist of Westminster is ready and waiting.

We’ve already seen some examples of how Labour intend to act. Their preference for increased privatisation of the NHS is completely at odds with public sentiment, yet they’ll push it through by spouting nonsense about the need to be fiscally responsible, which they will do by sticking to arbitrary economic constraints set by the Tories.

On top of that, Rachel Reeves, the new Chancellor, has decreed that no new Council houses will be built in England without private investment. I do hope the houses are built, but be in no doubt that the Council tenants will be charged extra to cover the return due to the private investors.

And then there is North Sea Oil. Remember how Better Together assured us it was going to run out by 2019? Well, now it seems that taxing the oil companies is going to help fund Labour’s new UK Wealth Fund. What a surprise! Not. Next time, don’t fall for the lies.

And I must mention electoral reform which is well and truly off the agenda now because Labour seem to think that First Past The Post works. According to Anas Sarwar, Labour’s Scottish Branch Office Manager, they have to work with the system because … well, because that is the system. He apparently hasn’t realised that a Government has the ability to change the system, especially with the stonking majority Labour now have, not to mention the support that switching to Proportional Representation would gain from the Lib Dems, the SNP and greens. Reform would probably like it too, of course, but that’s the price you pay for a properly representative electoral system.

It's only been a few days, and already we are seeing Labour’s credentials as a right of centre party, so Scotland really shouldn’t expect too much. However, if the Scottish Government does not step up, we could see Labour regaining control in Scotland after the next Holyrood elections. Bring on paying for prescriptions, paying for university tuition, and paying for healthcare. Is that really what we want?

What the Scottish Government now needs to do is bring in some really progressive policies which will make life better for all Scots. Tinkering around the edges will not cut it. We need bold, decisive leadership but, as I’ve said before, I am not at all convinced that John Swinney can provide it. Competence in Government would be a nice change, but I’m afraid we need a lot more than that if we are to have any hopes of becoming a normal, self-governing country.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

As a blind football fan, I rely on radio coverage to cover matches which others can watch on TV. I do have a lot of grumbles about radio commentary because, although you can hear some interesting comments and statistics, you also get to hear a lot of nonsense about things which are not related to what is happening on the pitch.

My main gripe today, though, is about the need for Scots to listen to English media reporting of games. Yes, we have Sportsound which will cover games involving Scotland, and there is a weekly TV programme rounding up SPFL fixtures, but if we want to listen to any other game, then we are forced to tune in to an English station. And yes, I include Radio 5 Live in that. They may give a passing nod to Scottish games, but their focus is almost entirely on England. This first became glaringly obvious during the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow where I listened to 5 Live for afternoon events, where the focus was very much on English competitors. When I switched to BBC Scotland who began covering events in the evening, the focus was entirely different.

And on Saturday, after England had scraped through against Switzerland thanks to what was admittedly an excellent set of penalties, I wanted to listen to the last quarter-final involving Netherlands and Turkey.

I tuned in to BBC 5 Live only to hear that they were about to spend the next two hours talking about England’s magnificent performance, and if I wanted to hear commentary on the Netherlands vs Turkey match, I’d need to do that via the BBC website. Now, the BBC website is fully accessible, but it’s not nearly as easy to navigate with a screen reader as the BBC Sounds app, so that was a major disappointment.

I decided that I’d try Talksport as I have the ap on my phone. Again, Talksport 1 was devoting a three-hour programme to discussing England’s magnificent performance. Fortunately, I was able to get the commentary I wanted because it had been relegated to Talksport 2.

Now, I know Scottish sports pundits can be just as biased as broadcasters from any country, but I’d much prefer to have commentary from my own country than be compelled to listen to commentators who support our greatest football rival. You may think that is petty, but imagine you are trying to listen to commentary on an SPFL game your team is playing, but you need to listen to the commentary provided by your opponents. It’s not a great experience, especially if you lose.

What all of this complaining boils down to is that Scotland is short-changed when it comes to media coverage of sport. Other small nations have a plethora of radio stations, but we are stuck with the BBC when it comes to covering major sporting events. If only there was some sort of solution.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

With the dust settling after the UK General Election, there’s quite a lot to reflect on. Labour gained their expected majority although, quite frankly, this has little to do with their policies or politicians; it’s more that everyone was fed up of the Tories.

In Scotland, the hammering taken by the SNP must surely act as a wake up call, although I’m already having doubts about that. No less a person than Nicola Sturgeon went on TV to announce that the cause of independence was gone for the immediate future. In my view, that is an appalling comment for her to make, even if it is probably true. Nicola Sturgeon is still an MSP representing the SNP and you’d expect her to try to spin things a little. She could have said that, despite the results, support for independence remains high and that the SNP will need to garner that support from now on. Instead, she told the UK media what they wanted to hear. It seems she has learned nothing from her time as First Minister when it comes to promoting the cause of Scotland becoming a normal, self-governing country.

Labour’s victory in Scotland will not prove to be a good thing for our country. Sadly, the SNP’s many woes did not help, and the Unionist tactic of confusing voters by mixing up devolved issues with retained issues didn’t help either. But I am convinced that voters will soon see the danger of voting Labour in Scotland because all those new MPs will very quickly step into line behind Keir Starmer and will vote for English policies which may be entirely inappropriate in Scotland. Just watch and see.

As for where the SNP go now, I doubt we will see much change. No matter how competent in office John Swinney might be, he doesn’t have the charisma to push the cause the way it needs to be promoted.

One silver lining is that, with the loss of so many MPs, there are some very capable politicians who could stand in the next Holyrood elections. Between now and then, the SNP really need to be galvanised into action, but it is, I’m afraid, hard to see how they will achieve that after so many years of keeping independence on the back burner. Some might say they didn’t even keep it as warm as that.

Of course, Holyrood provides a chance to elect pro-Indy politicians from a range of parties. The only fly in the ointment there is that, if the SNP suffer the same level of losses in the Constituency vote, then voting SNP 1 & 2 might actually help them. Personally, I’d rather people used their List vote for another pro-Indy party. Let us not forget that the first IndyRef came about not because of Westminster elections but because of an SNP victory at Holyrood. We really need to see that repeated, and I do wish that the SNP and Alba would try to work together as far as they can instead of sniping at each other.

That is for the future, though. Looking at my own Westminster constituency, it has switched to Labour from the SNP. The turnout was a disappointing 58% which seems to be around average for this UK election. However, what really struck me about the results is that Reform got more votes than the Tories, nearly twice as many as the Greens, and nearly 4 times that of Alba. If that isn’t a warning to encourage higher turnouts in future, I don’t know what is. These people walk among us, and they will always vote because that’s what Right Wing extremists do.

Speaking of extremists, I notice that some very prominent Unionists are now Labour MPs. If those voters who switched from the SNP to Labour think they were doing little more than displaying their disillusionment with the SNP, I fear they may live to regret their choice. Labour will do their very best to kill the cause of independence, and we need to hope Holyrood will survive the coming storm of anti-Devolution moves.

All in all, it’s not been a good day for Scotland. But electoral losses due to poor leadership don’t mean the cause is dead, despite some of the gleeful headlines in the UK media. Let’s keep going.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I have rarely been so disinterested in any UK General Election. It is like looking on at another country’s politics, with two extremist British nationalist parties doing their best to appeal to an increasingly right wing electorate. In fact, there are now three such parties, with Nigel Farage’s vanity project of Reform joining the fray. None of this seems to relate to Scotland at all, and none of the politicians seem interested in discussing Scotland or the main cause of the UK’s problems; Brexit.

Tory corruption continues to unravel their pathetic campaign, the media continues to give Farage a platform to spout his fascist-style rhetoric, while Keir Starmer continues to assert his dedication to Tory policies, clearly hoping to win by being the least unpleasant of the Party leaders.

In Scotland, this election is, as usual, about our right to become a normal country. Any loss of seats by the SNP will be loudly proclaimed as killing the cause of independence stone dead, and I see little to provide encouragement on that front. Quite why Yessers would switch to Labour because they are scunnered with the SNP is beyond me. This is a Westminster election, not a Holyrood one, so the SNP will still be in power in Scotland for a while yet. But voting for a British nationalist Party will only provide Westminster with yet more encouragement to dilute Devolution and weaken the Scottish Parliament. Why on earth would any Yesser want that?

Another problem is that the Yes vote may well split, with Alba putting up candidates in many constituencies. Yet, while I think it would give the Yes movement a fillip, I can’t see how they can win any seats since they lack the media exposure given to other Parties. And yet the SNP don’t show many signs of being serious about wanting independence. The rhetoric so far has merely been a repeat of failed policies from the past. And if they do lose seats as expected, you can be sure that the UK media and the new Westminster Government will treat them as an irrelevance.

So I don’t see much of value for Scotland in this election. We are between a rock and a hard place, and I see no good outcome. I know that sounds far too pessimistic, but I am pinning my hopes on the next Holyrood election where I sincerely hope that voters will wake up to the folly of voting SNP 1& 2. The voting system is designed to render List votes ineffective if a Party wins the constituency vote, so we will need to use tactical voting to ensure a majority of pro-Indy Parties. If voters can overcome their tribal disagreements and focus on gaining a super-majority of pro-Indy Parties, that is when we should see the desire for independence shine through. It will be helped by people realising that the almost inevitable Labour Government in Westminster has done nothing for Scotland, and we’ll see all their vague promises come to nothing.

All of this negativity on my part won’t stop me voting, but I’ll admit I fear for the Yes movement unless lots of Yessers decide to stick with the SNP. That doesn’t mean I think the SNP will improve our chances of becoming a normal country, but I think this election is more about standing our ground for a couple of years until we can make a genuine statement in the next Holyrood election.

In the meantime, I’ll keep watching the football and ignore all the ridiculous leaders’ debates.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Rishi Sunak surprised everyone yesterday, including himself. He announced the General Election while standing outside in the pouring rain, apparently not having read the weather forecast. But his announcement also dismayed many Tory MPs who were caught unawares, and it has also created issues for the Tory Party as a whole because they do not yet have candidates nominated for every constituency. It’s almost as if this hapless and hopeless PM hasn’t got a clue what he’s doing. The most charitable view I can put on this is that he has realised he has no chance of winning and has decided to cut and run for California because he has little chance of extracting more personal wealth out of the UK economy.

For Scots, of course, the election presents several issues, not least of which is that, in true Westminster style, Mr Sunak completely ignored the fact that his date of 4^th July lands it in the first week of the school summer holidays in Scotland, so many voters will be away, not to mention that the schools will be closed, so using them as polling stations presents some logistical challenges if staff are away on their holidays. As usual, though, problems for Scotland were completely overlooked because England = UK, so who cares what the Scots think? If that’s not yet another reason to support independence, I don’t know how many more examples people need.

When it comes to voting, we face more issues. This will be the first election in Scotland where voter ID will be required. How many people is this going to disenfranchise? I’d like to think that most voters are aware of the requirements by now and will ensure they have suitable ID, but experience suggests that many will be turned away when they arrive to vote with no ID. As has been demonstrated several times, this new arrangement is a deliberate attempt to prevent young and poor people from voting. Let’s hope it also catches out many elderly Tory voters.

But who are we to vote for? I still struggle to comprehend why anyone who believes that Scotland should become a normal, self-governing country can consider voting for Labour. The ballot papers may call them Scottish Labour but we’ve seen time and time again that it is London Labour who call the shots. Labour are a fanatical Unionist Party, and voting for them will not help Scotland’s case at all.

I wrote in an earlier post that I thought that demonstrating competent government was a sound foundation for building support for independence, but John Swinney will not have time to do anything of the sort, so this present another problem for voters. What is he going to use as his central election policy? The early comments coming from senior SNP politicians are not encouraging, with independence barely being mentioned. That is a dreadful mistake, as was demonstrated in 2017 when voters did not provide the support the SNP needed because of a perceived lack of focus on independence. To repeat that mistake would be folly. The SNP need to put in a good performance in this election even if they do not intend to follow Humza Yousaf’s idea of using it as a de facto referendum. That’s because the English media in Scotland will pronounce independence dead if the SNP perform poorly. The gloating will be insufferable but a worse consequence will be that the Westminster Government will see such a failure as the perfect excuse to exercise yet more control over Scotland. Devolution and the status of the Scottish Parliament are very much at risk whichever Party gets into power in Westminster.

There are, of course, many Scots who do not believe that the SNP actually wants independence, but the problem for them is that voting for Alba or ISP or the greens will only dilute the Yes vote because the English media in Scotland see only the SNP as a meaningful measure of support for independence. That’s grossly unfair as well as being wholly inaccurate, but the smaller Parties really have not made any dent in opinion polls and I fear that voting for them will only dilute the Yes vote. I’ll reserve final judgement until I see what the campaigns look like, but I strongly suspect that some Yessers might be forced to hold their noses as they vote SNP. That’s unfair on other pro-indy Parties, but the iniquitous First Past The Post voting system so ingrained in UK thinking means that tactical voting is essential in many constituencies, and the SNP are the best-placed pro-indy Party in most constituencies.

As for those Yessers who genuinely believe that the SNP will not deliver independence, I would say that this General Election is a last chance to let the Party disprove it. If we elect a majority of SNP MPs and they still do nothing, I’d say their chances of winning the next Holyrood election will be seriously diminished. Westminster elections are a farce as far as true democracy is concerned because the system is designed to maintain the status quo, with both leading Parties following pretty much the same policy paths. Holyrood is where we can really demonstrate our desire to become a normal country, and if John Swinney cannot demonstrate the ability to push us further down the road to independence after this UK election, then all bets are off when it comes to the next Holyrood election. That is where the smaller Parties can really step up.

But that’s all in the future. What we need now is some dynamic and bold moves from the SNP. Sadly, past experience suggests we may well be disappointed again. I sincerely hope not, but bold and dynamic are not words which leap to mind when thinking about John Swinney. Please let him prove me wrong.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

So John Swinney is back as leader of the SNP and will no doubt become our new First Minister. I can’t say I’m too excited about this as he was largely ineffectual during his last stint as leader. Still, he’s very experienced although his media presence really doesn’t grab attention or inspire. Perhaps, though, his greater experience will have helped him develop that. I really do hope so. What was disappointing was the lack of focus on gaining independence during his first speech. However, as I said in an earlier blog post, demonstrating competent government is a good place to start. My fear is that, with a General Election looming, he may not have enough time to implement any really eye-catching policy successes. I wish him luck because, although I am not a member of any political party, I recognise that the Yes movement needs a political vehicle to open doors towards becoming a normal, self-governing country, and the SNP, for all its many problems, remains the prime vehicle at the moment.

I genuinely hope that John Swinney can move us closer towards our goal. But then, I really hoped Nicola Sturgeon would do that and I was sadly disappointed. Then I hoped Humza Yousaf might generate the necessary momentum and, again, I was disappointed. It is, as the saying goes, the hope that kills you. But until some other pro-Indy party can gain enough media attention and voter support, the SNP is where our hopes lie. Fingers crossed that we see them take some positive action very soon, because action is what we need, not rhetoric.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

A week certainly is a long time in politics and now we’ve seen the inevitable demise of Humza Yousaf. He inherited a difficult situation which was made worse by the recent charges levelled at the Party’s former Chief Executive, but it must be said that, although he has handled himself well at a personal level, he has never been a dynamic leader who seems intent on progressing the cause of independence at every opportunity. Of course, one way to do this would have been to oversee a series of highly competent policy implementations. On this front, he has signally failed.

I said in a previous blog post that I thought he had little alternative but to end the Bute House Agreement. If he had sat around waiting for the members of the Green Party to decide his fate, he’d have looked extremely weak. Sadly, the way he handled the ending of the Bute House Agreement was never going to do anything except anger the greens, and he or his advisors really ought to have recognised this before delivering the ultimatum. For their part, the greens don’t come out of it well, with some very injudicious comments which clearly stemmed from anger but were hardly the words of dignified politicians. All in all, this ending was a mess on all sides.

In addition, I think it is fair to say that, while most nonTories support environmental issues in principle and often in practice, some of the recent policy bungles have been on issues which were very much part of the Green agenda which was strongly supported by Nicola Sturgeon, leaving Humza Yousaf to inherit some poorly thought out policies. The Gender Reform bill was always highly controversial, and it provided the Westminster Government with an ideal opportunity to flex their constitutional muscles, over-riding the Scottish Parliament’s democratically decided decision. And when you ad in things like support for Freeports, the ongoing ferries problems, the debacle over the Deposit Return Scheme, the mess of the consultation on Highly Protected Marine Areas, you see why so many people have been less than impressed with the performance of the Scottish Government. Sadly, these issues were highlighted by the hostile media and overshadowed the good work done on taking Scotrail back into public ownership, establishing progressive income tax bands, negotiating with unions to prevent strikes in the Health Service, teaching profession and rail network. What Humza Yousaf needed was some really high profile successes in material terms, but these never materialised. Was that down to sheer bad luck, or was his leadership not up to scratch? Everyone will have their own opinions on that.

Sacking the greens left Humza Yousaf in a very difficult position. The arithmetic of the Scottish Parliament is precarious at best, and it was obvious to anyone who was paying attention that the SNP needed either the backing of the Greens or, failing that, Alba’s sole MSP.

I should point out that I am pro-independence but not a member of any political party. I don’t believe political parties should be viewed like football teams where you support them no matter what. However, the Yes movement needs a strong pro-Indy political party to push the move towards becoming a normal, self-governing country. Unfortunately, we no longer seem to have that. What really disappoints me is that it seems that behind the scenes discussions have forced Humza Yousaf to resign because some in his party cannot contemplate any sort of deal with Alba. There are only two conclusions I draw from that. Either some in the SNP have no desire to push hard for independence, or they are so hostile towards Alba that they are willing to sacrifice pushing for independence rather than combine their efforts. I don’t expect them to join in any sort of formal alliance, but where their interests align, all pro-Indy Parties really ought to work towards the same goal. You only need to look back to the Better Together campaign of 2014 to see how our Unionist opponents were more than happy to stand alongside anyone who wanted to preserve the Union, no matter how abhorrent they might otherwise have thought them to be.

So what happens next? Well, it may have already happened by the time you read this. What Scotland needs now is a dynamic, forceful First Minister who focuses on day to day important issues to demonstrate once again that they can provide competent government. With that basic concept established, it is only a short step to persuading voters that we could do even more if we were a normal, self-governing country. Sadly, I’m not convinced that the SNP currently has such a person within its Holyrood ranks.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Inevitably, The Tories and Labour are calling for votes of No Confidence in Humza Yousaf personally and in the Scottish Government. Given the precarious arithmetic of the make-up of the Scottish Parliament, there is every chance that the votes may go against the Scottish Government which could result in its collapse and a new election being called.

I will readily admit that I am frustrated at the lack of progress towards Scotland becoming a normal, self-governing country under the SNP, but I’d still prefer an SNP Government to a Unionist one. The SNP may have bungled several things in recent years, and the scandal of having their former Chief Executive arrested and charged has not helped, but I think many people in Scotland don’t fully appreciate how much better off we are than our neighbours in England. Our trains and hospitals have not been severely affected by strikes, our university tuition and prescriptions remain free and we pay less overall tax than other parts of the UK.

Things are certainly not perfect, but they could become a lot worse if a Unionist coalition gains power.

I don’t think Humza Yousaf had much choice in cancelling the Bute House agreement. He’d have looked ridiculously weak if he’d clung on waiting for the greens to decide his fate. At least he’s had the bravery to bring things to a head. If he stays on as First Minister he must know that, if it comes to an election, he’s going to need new friends. Given the hostility the SNP have displayed towards other pro-Indy parties, he’s going to need to build a lot of bridges. Or he may decide to brazen it out and try to form another minority Government since the polling for Parties like Alba & ISP suggests they won’t make much impression. The only think that might change that is if SNP supporters give their list vote to Alba. I doubt that many will, especially if the SNP sticks to the proven failure of pushing the "SNP 1&2" mantra.

Of course, that assumes that Humza Yousaf survives as leader if his Party is forced out of Government. And if he is replaced, who will pick up the poisoned chalice, and will they alter the course the SNP has been following for the past decade? We need someone who is prepared to push the cause of independence, but I’m not overly confident that is what we will get.

The way things are going, this article will probably be out of date by the time you read it. Events are moving quickly and, as always, the biggest threat to Scotland is the media. Just watch the gloating if either of the No Confidence votes succeed.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

It is no surprise that the Bute House Agreement has ended, but Humza Yousaf has definitely stolen a march on the greens by ending it first. It is a decision which has outraged the greens, and whether the SNP can rely on their support in the future must now be in doubt. Will resentment fuel the decisions of Green MSPs in future?

Some will no doubt be pleased that this arrangement has ended. Some recent policies pushed out by the coalition Government have clearly been brought forward at the behest of the Greens but have not gained much public support. The gender Recognition Act was blocked by the UK Government, and the banning of wood-burning stoves has been widely criticised for its lack of recognition of people’s needs in rural areas. The debacle over Highly Protected Marine Areas was another source of ridicule, and when you add in the well-meaning but botched Deposit Return Scheme, the Greens have not endeared themselves to many voters. Not that the SNP have covered themselves in glory. As the senior Party in the coalition, they really ought to have managed things a lot better.

But what now for the SNP? What if there is a call for a vote of no confidence? Can they survive that? If the greens turn against them, as seems likely, then the Government may fall. The big question is whether Humza Yousaf has taken that into consideration before making his astounding U-turn. Having praised the Bute House Agreement only a few days ago, he has now decided it must be scrapped. Is this the first real sign of him stamping his authority on the Scottish Government, or is it a fatal error of judgement which will result in the collapse of that Government? If the latter, it is hard to see how the SNP could be returned to power in a Holyrood election.

This is a bold but risky decision by Humza Yousaf, but it must be said that he would have looked even weaker if he’d waited for the greens to make the decision for him. He’d have been a really lame duck First Minister if that had happened, a politician reliant on another Party’s decisions. In that sense, he perhaps had no choice, but quite where we go from here is anyone’s guess.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

It is no surprise that the Bute House Agreement has ended, but Humza Yousaf has definitely stolen a march on the greens by ending it first. It is a decision which has outraged the greens, and whether the SNP can rely on their support in the future must now be in doubt. Will resentment fuel the decisions of Green MSPs in future?

Some will no doubt be pleased that this arrangement has ended. Some recent policies pushed out by the coalition Government have clearly been brought forward at the behest of the Greens but have not gained much public support. The gender Recognition Act was blocked by the UK Government, and the banning of wood-burning stoves has been widely criticised for its lack of recognition of people’s needs in rural areas. The debacle over Highly Protected Marine Areas was another source of ridicule, and when you add in the well-meaning but botched Deposit Return Scheme, the Greens have not endeared themselves to many voters. Not that the SNP have covered themselves in glory. As the senior Party in the coalition, they really ought to have managed things a lot better.

But what now for the SNP? What if there is a call for a vote of no confidence? Can they survive that? If the greens turn against them, as seems likely, then the Government may fall. The big question is whether Humza Yousaf has taken that into consideration before making his astounding U-turn. Having praised the Bute House Agreement only a few days ago, he has now decided it must be scrapped. Is this the first real sign of him stamping his authority on the Scottish Government, or is it a fatal error of judgement which will result in the collapse of that Government? If the latter, it is hard to see how the SNP could be returned to power in a Holyrood election.

This is a bold but risky decision by Humza Yousaf, but it must be said that he would have looked even weaker if he’d waited for the greens to make the decision for him. He’d have been a really lame duck First Minister if that had happened, a politician reliant on another Party’s decisions. In that sense, he perhaps had no choice, but quite where we go from here is anyone’s guess.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s latest declaration that he plans to end the perceived culture of sick note workers displays all the hallmarks of classic Tory tactics of both victim blaming and divide & conquer.

As a wealthy man who has no concept of what it is to be poor, he sees workers as expendable assets, and he has no conception of the problems the majority of people face. His Party has overseen a rise in poverty levels, has normalised foodbanks and slashed spending on the Health Service so that waiting lists are at record levels. When you factor in the cost of living crisis created by Liz Truss’s Budget and exacerbated by Brexit, it is no wonder so many people are falling ill, either physically or mentally.

People are suffering, and his solution is to force them to work when they are not fit to cope with the demands his low wage economy places on them. As so often, he is blaming the victims of his own policies for their failings without acknowledging the role he, his predecessors, and their Government have played in creating the problem.

But he knows this will play well with many people. Let’s face it, we’ve all worked with someone who takes a sickline whenever they feel like it. There have always been work-shy people, but even though they are in a minority, Sunak is relying on workers focusing on the people they know like that and so hoping his policy will be supported. Yet what the workers who support this idea don’t realise is that, one day, they might need to take time off due to physical or mental illness, and then they’ll appreciate just how cruel Sunak’s idea is.

There is, of course, the other issue of the much-hyped claims that younger people don’t have much of a work ethic. Anecdotal evidence suggests this might be true, but if it is, then who can blame them? If all you have to look forward to is a lifetime on minimum wage, with no chance of buying your own home, and ending up working for over fifty years with the worst pension in the developed world as a reward, why would you bother putting yourself through physical and mental stress?

As ever, Scotland needs to escape this economic model so beloved of the UK. We need to discover a more humane way of running our society, and to treat people properly.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

There is a Bill making its way through the Westminster Parliament which is receiving very little attention from the media. I’ve tried several online searches and cannot find any recent articles about it. The Bill is titled "Economic Activities of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill" and it really ought to have been in the news because both the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have withheld consent for it to pass. Naturally, the Tory Westminster Government has ignored this and, in direct contravention of the now discredited Sewell Convention, is charging ahead anyway.

The stated purpose of this Bill, another brainchild of the ultra-authoritarian Michael Gove, is to ensure that all public entities within the UK adhere to UK foreign policy. This tramples over the historic right of public bodies such as local Councils, Universities etc to make their own decisions when entering into procurement contracts, and it will also affect the ability of the Scottish Government to make procurement decisions which do not align with the stance of the UK Government. For example, deciding to boycott Israeli suppliers would be illegal if this Bill comes into force.

Now, you might believe that public bodies should be barred from undermining official Government policy, which is a fairly authoritarian view in itself, but the Bill goes a lot further. Not only would the Scottish Government be banned from making any decision to boycott a supplier on moral or ethical grounds, they would not be allowed to express any opinion at all as to why they might want to. Even saying that they would like to boycott a supplier but are prevented from doing so by the Bill would be illegal. Any Government Minister or local Councillor or University official could face criminal charges if they dared to even mention that they disagree with the UK stance.

This is Orwellian to say the least, but it is the next logical step after the Internal Markets Act, and it is designed to stamp out any form of protest by anyone working in the public sector. To say this is authoritarian is an understatement.

Yet you will struggle to find anyone in the mainstream media who is talking about this. There were a few articles in mid-2023, but I’ve been unable to find anything since then. Yet the Bill is progressing, and the Tories are refusing to accept any amendments to it because, in true Tory fashion, they want to stifle any argument and enforce their own extreme views on everyone.

Why is the media not talking about this? I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

It is worth remembering that we were assured that Brexit would not result in a Westminster power grab, yet that is precisely what the Tories are pushing through at every opportunity. Whatever you think about the competence or otherwise of the Scottish Government, the fact is that Westminster is taking steps to prevent it operating as it should. That is an affront to democracy.

The House of Lords may delay this Bill, but the only thing that might stop it is a General Election. Even then, Keir Starmer supports so many Tory policies that he may well pick up this Bill and push it through anyway.

There is only one way Scotland can escape the ever-increasing authoritarianism of the UK. Sadly, it is hard to see how we can achieve our aim of becoming a normal, self-governing country because nobody seems to care about what Westminster is doing to us.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I haven’t posted anything here for a while because I’ve been out of action. A few weeks ago, I had a bad fall and broke my upper arm. Fortunately, it was my left arm, and it seems to be recovering, albeit slowly.

I was fortunate in that there were plenty of people around when it happened, and one of them was a paramedic, so I was quickly diagnosed and made comfortable. My Apple Watch triggered alerts to the Police, Ambulance and my family, so score one for tech aids right there. My wife soon arrived in her car, and off we went to A&E. We were in Dundee at the time, on a visit to some relatives, so it wasn’t our usual hospital. Even so, the staff at Ninewells were magnificent, and we were in and out in under two hours, with most of that time seeming to be taken up with trying to remove my wedding ring from my rapidly swelling finger. The doctor who saw me said that they normally follow up such injuries with an orthopaedics check, and he promised to contact my local Health Board.

This all happened on a Saturday, and on the Monday morning, I received a phone call from my local Health Board advising me that an appointment had been made for me a week later. How efficient was that? To say I was impressed was an understatement.

With a sighted guide, I attended that appointment and the staff were again amazingly efficient. We were out little more than an hour and fifteen minutes later, including an X-Ray and a meeting with a Consultant. The prognosis is good, although I’m told I’ll need some physio appointments later. As things stand, I’m slowly improving although still sore, and even typing this post has taken some effort.

But the main thing is that the NHS is wonderful. I have no complaints at all about the A&E service, and every single member of staff, from porters, receptionists, radiologists, nurses and doctors were all very kind and efficient. This is in stark contrast to the news reports we read in our media, and it is important to remember that they are seeking out stories which show the Scottish NHS and Government in a bad light. Yes, the NHS has problems, and the Tory policy of slashing funding has most certainly had an impact, but NHS Scotland is still pretty wonderful. When I posted about my experience on social media, I had several people reply, all of them telling me that their personal experiences of the NHS were a far cry from the way the Health Service is portrayed in the media.

The NHS is precious, and we must ensure that it is preserved. As ever, the best way to achieve this is for Scotland to become a normal, self-governing country. That is the only way we can ensure that Tory privatisation policies don’t kill off our most vital of public services.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

The UK Home Secretary, James Cleverly, has told people protesting over the genocide in Gaza that they have made their point and should stop protesting because of the cost in Police time to safeguard and monitor the marches. Yesterday, The Newsagents Podcast devoted some time to this topic, and had some interesting interviews with a former senior Police officer and a leading protest organiser. What struck me, though, was that none of the people involved, nor the Home Secretary, seemed to acknowledge that there is a simple way to end the protests. It is for the UK Government to acknowledge the genocide, to stop supplying arms to Israel and to vote for a cease fire in the UN Security Council. Until such time as that happens, protesters really have not made their point because, as so often, the UK Government simply isn’t listening to them whatever James Cleverly may say. For him to use the cost of policing the marches as a valid reason to stop protesting is a typical Tory diversion tactic.

The Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is not helping with his depictions of the protesters as violent extremists intent on harming MPs. Again, this is a tactic to turn the public against the protesters and to pave the way for yet more draconian anti-protest laws.

The right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, and people will keep protesting for as long as the issue they are concerned about is not addressed. That is how protests work, and it is disingenuous of James Cleverly to ignore that basic fact.

Another thought occurred to me while I was listening to the discussion. Much of the Tories’ clampdown on protest marches is based on the level of inconvenience they cause to the public. This can include things like disruption to traffic because of road closures and the noise made by the protesters. However, I recall a couple of events last year which included road closures and significant disruption but which nobody seemed to be too concerned about. The funeral of the late Queen and the coronation of the new King probably created more disruption than any protest march, yet I don’t think a single Tory MP complained about that.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I am no expert on Westminster parliamentary procedures, but from what I can gather, Labour have used, or perhaps misused, those procedures in order to maintain their slavish adherence to the Bain Principle which was established many years ago and which, as outlined by former Labour MP Willie Bain, demands that Labour must never agree with the SNP on any policy. I did wonder how their recent conversion to calling for a cease fire in Gaza could be reconciled with the Bain Principle, but now we know.

Of course, there is a lot more going on here, and the most important issue, that of the thousands of deaths in Gaza, has been rather overshadowed by the farce of Westminster procedural customs. Not that Israel and Hamas would have paid much attention to the UK Government, but a vote calling for a cease fire would at least have symbolically put the UK where it should be on the world stage, even if, under those same customs, the Tory Government is not obliged to pay any attention to the vote either.

It also occurs to me that no political commentators flagged this potential issue prior to the debacle in the House of Commons. The texts of the SNP motion and the proposed amendments by Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories were all available, and all said more or less the same thing but with the emphasis on different aspects of the horror taking place in Gaza. As so often in politics, the arguments were over semantics rather than outcome.

But if, as we now understand, the debate was set aside as an SNP opposition day, why did Labour bother drafting an amendment at all? As has been pointed out, they could easily have proposed their own motion on one of their days for doing so. Instead, they hijacked the SNP motion by allegedly coercing the speaker into breaching the parliamentary rules. Now, I have some sympathy with the Speaker because, on a matter like this, I would have thought that all parties should be able to propose motions for the debate, but it seems that Westminster’s arcane rules mean he should not have allowed this to happen. So we end up with the SNP motion being completely ignored, the SNP walking out, along with some Tories, and Labour congratulating themselves on having got their amendment through while still adhering to the Bain Principle. There are, however, some casualties, albeit not the same as the actual casualties suffering in Gaza. In Westminster, the Speaker’s position now looks almost untenable, while the SNP’s position there must now be in real doubt. Once again, they have experienced being completely dismissed by the Westminster establishment, and many people must now be asking what is the point of them staying there? In terms of advancing Scotland’s right to become a normal, self-governing country, they have achieved nothing in nine years. They may have had some minor successes in things like challenging the unlawful suspension of Parliament, but that was really a solo success by Joanna Cherry, and even then she needed support from other Parties, the House of Lords, and the Good Law Project. But any small successes they have had can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and this latest insult serves as a reminder of just how much contempt Labour has for Scotland. If anything good comes out of this farce, it might just be that more Scots will wake up to the futility of voting for Labour.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Living in Scotland nearly a decade after the IndyRef is a bit like being a losing contestant on the old darts/quiz game show, Bullseye. Or perhaps it is like that but in reverse. Instead of being shown, "Here’s what you could have won!", we are instead very much seeing what we have won, and it isn’t a very inspiring list. Instead of being a normal, self-governing country, with all the benefits and problems that go with that status, we are instead left with a huge list of problems and very few discernible benefits as part of the dysfunctional UK. So, in the spirit of sharing my grim mood, here’s a list of just some of the things being shackled to the UK in a so-called voluntary union have left us with. I know some of them could have happened if we had been a normal country, but being stuck in the UK has made even those bad things a lot worse.

Longer queues at borders as a result of Brexit;

Higher food prices;

Higher energy bills;

Lower exports;

Union flags emblazoned on Scottish food produce;

The proliferation and normalisation of food banks;

A Right Wing Government which is clamping down on our right to protest and which wants to remove our Human Rights;

The return of Victorian illnesses such as scabies, scurvy and rickets;

Falling life expectancy;

A rising pension age, with one of the worst pensions in the OECD;

Failing infrastructure due to lack of investment;

A Government which blames pretty much everything on immigrants and which is enacting horrific policies against refugees;

An economy in recession, with higher inflation than most OECD countries;

A Government riddled with corruption which sees Tory donors rewarded with peerages or enormous Government contracts;

Increasing levels of poverty, particularly among children;

One of the very worst rates of wealth inequality in the world;

And, to top it off, we have a media which is almost exclusively hostile to Scotland and which, in spite of all the things mentioned above, insists that we are better off as part of the UK. When you appreciate that bias, you’ll maybe start to see that the media is not serving your best interests.

I came up with that list in just five minutes. No doubt I have missed some other issues. Feel free to join in the chat on social media.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Following Nicola Sturgeon’s appearance at the Covid Enquiry, many articles have been written about her responses to the questioning. Her supporters have applauded her, and her opponents have vilified her, all of which is much to be expected. It is, however, the reaction of the mainstream media which I wish to comment on. For what seems like weeks now, they have been banging on about deleted Whatsapp messages, implying that the Scottish Government must have something to hide. Douglas Ross, an SFA Assistant Referee and sometime politician, has been given plenty of media time to rail against this apparently near-criminal act of deleting messages. Very few in the media seem to have spent much time reporting that Scottish Government practice was to delete messages which were not linked to important decisions, and to only delete messages relevant to decision-making once they had been formally recorded. Compare and contrast with the treatment given to the responses of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak who actually did use Whatsapp in the decision-making process and who came up with frankly unbelievable excuses for those messages vanishing.

I should say that I am not at all in favour of any messages being deleted. By all means use Whatsapp as a convenient and quick way to communicate, especially during a time of social distancing, but those messages should never be deleted. Yet the media have hounded Scottish Government Ministers for openly admitting that messages were deleted in accordance with their (admittedly misguided) rules. Yet when Tories make brazen claims about how their messages mysteriously disappeared, it all seems like a huge joke.

And yet, when you compare what the Governments might have been trying to conceal, it was not the Scottish Government who were setting up dodgy PPE procurement lanes to benefit their friends, nor was it the Scottish Government who ignored scientific advice with their Eat Out To Help Out scheme. What, precisely, do the media think the Scottish Government were trying to hide? I’ve yet to hear any journalist express any opinion on that. Their focus has been on potential secretive decisions, using deletion of messages to throw mud in the hope that some sticks. I do wish they would focus more on clearly bad decisions about moving elderly people out of hospitals into care homes. That was poorly handled at the time, although I think we ought to acknowledge the pressure on hospitals to find beds for the huge influx of people suffering from Covid. It was a No-win situation, but Even so, I’d like to think it could have been handled better because too many people died in extremely distressing circumstances. Still, Nicola Sturgeon deleted her Whatsapp messages, and that makes a better headline.

The latest media furore surrounds claims that the Scottish Government were still thinking about independence for Scotland during the Covid crisis. This seems to be regarded as some sort of heinous act, while the fact that Michael Gove prepared a document stressing the importance of maintaining the Union has been remarked upon but is not seen as political. I’m struggling to spot the difference.

To move away from the Covid Enquiry, Anas Sarwar, Scottish Labour branch Office Manager, seems to have got away very lightly after doing a complete U-turn on his views of a cap on bankers’ bonuses. Having decried the Tory decision to scrap this cap, he now supports his London boss’s decision not to reintroduce such a cap. I can only imagine the media frenzy if a pro-Indy politician did the same thing.

As ever, the main thing we have learned this week is that the UK media in Scotland is not our friend. Some of the things they do and say are ridiculous, but they do and say these things because they know that most people are too busy to pay close attention and will respond emotionally to powerful headlines. Despite this, polls are showing support for becoming a normal, self-governing country remaining strong. Let’s hope that, when the Covid Enquiry does eventually make its report, it highlights the differences in approach of the Scottish and UK Governments, and does so in such a way that leaves no doubt as to which handled a disastrous pandemic better.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

So all meat and dairy products produced and sold within the UK will now bear a label saying "Not for EU". This is part of the latest post-Brexit deal which has been set up to appease the hardline DUP and persuade them to rejoin the Stormont power-sharing Government in Northern Ireland. At this stage, it is not clear whether other goods produced in the UK will need to bear a similar label, but that would seem to be the next logical conclusion given that the UK is determined to lower its standards on just about everything. This world-beating approach won’t be welcome in the EU, so expect to see more and more of these labels proliferate. I dare say they will be emblazoned with the Union Flag just to reinforce the point that those damned foreigners can’t use our stuff because we’re British. Rule Britannia and all that.

But what are the majority of the non-Northern Irish population going to make of this? Considering how ill-informed the UK media keeps most people, how will they react when they see their supermarket food labelled this way? I doubt very much that the majority will simply nod and say, "That’s the appeasement price demanded by the DUP".

Some will no doubt smile and convince themselves that their food is labelled that way to prove how world-beating the UK is, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the reaction of most folk will be to ask, "Why can’t it be sold in the EU? What is wrong with it?". Perhaps some of them might eventually start to realise just what they have lost thanks to Brexit.

After a while, of course, everyone will get used to this, but one thing we can be sure of is that Scottish produce, famed the world over, will be subsumed into this new UK packaging, with all signs of Saltires vanishing. That process has been under way for some time, but just watch it accelerate. We are British, whether we like it or not, and even our food packaging will reinforce that message. The Union Flag will be everywhere, and there is not a thing we can do about it. Well, there is one thing, but we need some political leadership to get us there.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

UK Culture Secretary, Lucy Frazer, was doing the media rounds recently, insisting that viewers perceive bias in the BBC. Naturally, she thinks that is anti-Tory bias, and it is no coincidence that she believes GB News to be fair and impartial. This is the same Lucy Frazer who, in her maiden House of Commons speech, earned laughter and applause by telling her fellow MPs that Oliver Cromwell found a solution to the West Lothian Question by enslaving Scots and sending them to the colonies. What a nice person she must be.

Anyway, in her search for actual evidence of BBC bias, I would point out a few facts which may help her.

To begin with, how many times has Nigel Farage been a guest on BBC Question Time? And how many pro-EU MEPs have ever been on that panel? It’s less than one.

As viewers in Scotland know only too well, there are issues which go beyond perception. For example, it is a fact that BBC Scotland issues more corrections to news items than all the other BBC regional stations combined. It has also been shown that pro-Indy politicians on Good Morning Scotland are interrupted by the interviewer far more often than pro-Union politicians.

There are plenty of other examples, but I think it is sufficient to say that, while perception is important, in Scotland we have actual evidence of bias. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will fit into Lucy Frazer’s skewed view of the media landscape.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Later this week, all across the world, people will be dressing in kilts, drinking whisky and eating haggis to celebrate Burns Day. They will enjoy an evening of celebrating one of Scotland’s best known characters who was a major influence on Scottish Culture. The day after that, they will return to their normal lives, many of them resuming their positions within business or the media, and they will also resume their denigration of Scotland at every opportunity.

I recently had the misfortune to spend some time with a Scottish Rugby fan who regaled me with tales of his trips to away matches in Ireland and Wales, expeditions which he thoroughly enjoyed. He assured me that he always wore a kilt to such events. As you may have guessed, the guy is an ardent Unionist who refuses to believe that Scotland could ever cope as a normal, self-governing country because we are too dependent on England’s largesse.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I really don’t know how to deal with people like that. Argument and facts bounce off them because of their innate conviction that Scotland is, and always will be, too wee and too poor.

I’ve never worn a kilt in my life, but I genuinely feel I am more of a Scot than any of the people who adopt Scottish identity only when it comes to special occasions.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

The news that the handful of the very wealthiest people on the planet have seen huge increases in their personal wealth while the vast majority of humans have become poorer should come as no surprise. Wealth inequality, particularly in places like the UK and USA has always existed, but free market economics has turned it into a much wider split than ever before. Of course, wealth inequality has always existed, and examples can be seen in many ancient civilisations such as Rome, but that is no comfort when you are one of the people who is becoming poorer.

Corporate greed as well as personal hoarding of wealth is a major cause of this. Driven by financial markets to earn ever greater profits or incur the wrath of speculators and investors, businesses have adopted some very ruthless tactics, and much of the burden of providing increased profits has landed on the shoulders of ordinary employees. While company executives award themselves huge salaries and bonuses, most workers have found themselves left behind. So the rich get richer, and the poor become poorer.

The sad thing is that this way of thinking and operating is so embedded in our society that it is difficult to see how we can escape it. It would be simple to pass a law stating that no company executive should earn more than, say, 20 or 30 times the salary of their lowest paid employee, but while this would force companies to increase wages, you can just imagine the howls of outrage from the financial markets as profits took a hit. The alternative would be for the highly paid executives to cut their pay packets, but the culture of greed is so embedded, that seems unlikely in the extreme.

Nations can learn and adopt new habits and customs, especially if they are shown strong leadership and example, but with the UK verging on fascism, such leadership is non-existent. And anyone who does try to go against the orthodoxy that wealth is good is usually silenced by the media. When was the last time you heard Mick Lynch, General Secretary of the RMT Union being interviewed? His calm, reasonable and well-argued points made such an impact on people that the media have clearly decided he should no longer be given a platform to spread his heretical view that workers deserve a decent living.

I wish I had the answer to this, but the only solution I can come up with is the usual one of allowing Scotland to detach itself from the corrupt and venal UK. Whether our own wealthy elite would put up with a more socialist agenda would then be put to the test. I fear there would still be significant wealth inequality, but perhaps it would not be as egregious as the disgusting inequality gap we are currently experiencing. There is, of course, only one way to find out. One thing is for certain, things couldn’t be much worse than they are with us stuck as part of the UK.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

The Post Office Horizon scandal has taken far too long to become a hot political issue. In this regard, I think the comments by Stephen Flynn MP were spot on. The UK Government never does anything to rectify an injustice unless it has no choice. That usually means only when there is public outrage thanks to some media event highlighting the issue. It is sad that it took a TV dramatisation to make the UK Government pay attention, but perhaps some measure of justice will now be seen to take place. Personally, I’m not convinced the Tories will do very much. They will delay compensation payments, and will seek to find a suitable scapegoat. Don’t count on it being former Post Office CEO Paula Vennells. For many in the Tory Party, handing back her CBE will probably be considered a suitable punishment.

There were, of course, plenty of other people involved in this shameful persecution and cover-up, and it is astonishing that so many auditors, IT specialists and managers could not accept that there was a problem with the Horizon software. This smacks either of widespread incompetence or equally widespread complicity in the cover-up. A great many heads should roll, especially those who must have knowingly lied to the Courts. If any such thing does happen, I fear it will take a very long time, but hopefully some of those responsible are feeling very uncomfortable now.

One person who is very exposed is Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey. His lack of action during the time he was responsible for the Post Office was certainly disgraceful, but I expect the Tories to turn on him simply because he will be a convenient scapegoat. Whether any other politicians or Post Office executives will be similarly sought out is, I fear, unlikely.

But this dreadful matter is not the only sign of everything that is wrong in the Corporate world in the UK. Company executives seem to think they can do as they like, taking all the rewards they can grab, while treating their employees abominably. The announcement by Brewdog that it would no longer pay new employees the real living wage was horrible enough, but now the media are reporting that the CEO enjoyed a luxury holiday in the Maldives shortly before Christmas. This is emblematic of the way bosses behave in the current UK, and there will be plenty of similar episodes for as long as the culture of corporate greed continues. I will admit that I know nothing about the finances of Brewdog, but I am fairly confident that, if they were seeking to reduce costs - a perfectly understandable and standard thing in business - I doubt very much that they looked at reducing the executive pay and bonus awards. Instead, like most businesses, they will have looked at employee pay as the main target of cuts.

The UK is among the worst in the world for pay inequality, and this leads to the wealthy bosses becoming entirely detached from the problems their employees face. I do hope Brewdog will reconsider, because it really does not look good if you publicly announce that you don’t intend to pay your workers the very minimum they need to live on. But even if they do backtrack, other companies will soon come out with similar ideas. We need an entire culture change in the corporate world, but there is no way we will get it in the UK. If only there was a solution to that.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Tax is an emotive topic. UK subjects have been conditioned to view taxation as a bad thing, and this message is repeated ad nauseam by UK politicians and media so often that few people even think twice about it. Oddly, many UK subjects are astonished at higher levels of living standards when they visit other European nations which have adopted a High Pay, High Tax economy. Because the UK has become a Low Pay, allegedly Low Tax economy, our public services, pensions and other benefits lag far behind the vast majority of our European neighbours.

Naturally, the UK Government uses taxation for political purposes, and it has been able to target the Scottish Government thanks to its clever ploy of allowing Scots power over Income Tax. This is the tax that most people are most aware of, so any change the Scottish Government makes leaves it open to attack.

When Income Tax was first devolved, I recall writing that if the Scottish Government reduced tax rates, they would be accused of allowing Scots to pay less tax while still relying on English beneficence paid via the subsidy England allegedly pays to Scotland. This Subsidy Myth is, of course, nonsense, but facts rarely bother the Unionists when it comes to Scotland. And, of course, if the Scottish Government raises taxes, they will be accused of turning Scotland into the highest taxed part of the UK. Which is, to nobody’s real surprise, precisely what Rishi Sunak has done, ignoring the fact that recent media analysis after Jeremy Hunt’s latest Budget pointed out that the overall tax burden on UK subjects is higher than it has ever been.

But the Tories are crowing about low taxes for everyone except those poor rich people in Scotland who will be asked to pay a little more to help fund public services. And, sadly, many will fall for this spin, completely unaware that public services in England are far worse than they are in Scotland, and that taxpayers in England pay far more in Council Tax than most Scots, as well as paying for NHS prescriptions, university education, etc. There are a lot of ways governments raise money from taxes, yet Income Tax is the big focus because that’s the one the Tories have devolved to Scotland precisely because they can use it as a political weapon.

This whole thing is a farce, but many people will fall for the rhetoric. As for the wealthier people who are asked to pay a bit more, some will object because people who already have a lot often want more, but I’d like to think that the majority of Scots would not object to paying a little more if it meant maintaining public services. Then again, Project Fear terrified many Scots in the IndyRef campaign by announcing that Scots would be £10 a week worse off if we became a normal, self-governing country, so perhaps that same fear will inflict anyone affected by a small rise in the higher rate tax bands in Scotland. As an aside, though, it is worth noting that recent financial analysis suggested that everyone in the UK is £1,500 per year worse off after Brexit and the Tories’ shambolic disaster Budget under Liz Truss. That £10 per week looks like a real bargain now, but don’t expect anyone in the media to point that out.

As ever, we come back to the fundamental point that Scotland would be far better off as a normal, self-governing country. Then our Government would have control over all taxation, not just the high-profile Income Tax. If they used those powers wisely, Scotland might have a chance of eventually developing into a High Pay, High Tax society, with everyone benefitting from all that entails. It could take several decades, but a future in which everyone could enjoy a decent pension and good levels of social security is surely something worth aiming for.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Every parent knows that teenagers can be difficult to keep in line. You can try bribery or threats, but sometimes nothing seems to work.

What has this got to do with politics? Readers, I present to you the UK Government which is treating Scotland as if our nation was just like an unruly teenager. The latest spat really does show just how pathetically inadequate the UK is, with a furore over whether Scotland’s First Minister is allowed to speak to other delegates at the Cop28 climate conference without a nanny to supervise him. They really do worry that other nations will realise that Scotland is more than a region of England. Their own insecurity makes this a fearful prospect for them, and they will resort to any petty reaction as they struggle to control Holyrood.

We’ve had the bribes in the shape of so-called Levelling Up money which, to the surprise of nobody at all, seems to go mostly to Tory constituencies, and now we’ve had threats and accusations from Sir Dave Cameron and Minister of State for Keeping Scotland Under Control, Alister Jack.

As usual with the Tories, they are getting all worked up about not very much at all as they strive to show the world how much in control they are. Instead, I suspect that this absurd episode has only served to show other international leaders just how much Scotland needs to break away from the dysfunctional UK. And I do hope that, without his UK minders being there to keep him right, Humza Yousaf drops more than a few hints about the UK’s infantile behaviour.

Above all, I do hope that, like most teenagers, Scotland can escape the controlling shackles of Westminster and become a fully-fledged adult nation on the world stage.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

X / Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Reading the political news often makes me think that I live in a different reality to our politicians and journalists.

To begin with, I will admit that it is quite funny seeing Anas Sarwar desperately attempt to disassociate himself from the pro-Tory remarks being made by Sir Keir Starmer. Mr Sarwar deserves some credit for this, but he seems to have forgotten the earlier pronouncement by Sir Keir that what he says, Anas Sarwar says. In other words, Anas Sarwar will soon be put back in his box He might try to salvage some political kudos by making statements which are at odds with official London Labour policy, but that won’t alter the reality that he will need to toe the line when push comes to shove..

I also had a wee chuckle when I read an article on City AM insisting that Brexit wasn’t as bad as Remainers had predicted. This is apparently because the UK’s GDP has held up quite well in comparison to other EU countries. Now, this may be correct, but the article signally failed to mention other things like the far worse inflation which probably makes the GDP significantly worse in real terms. It also ignored the collapsing social services, the spiralling cost of living - mostly fuelled by energy prices, soaring levels of poverty, and did not mention that many of the checks and tariffs required as a result of Brexit have not yet been implemented because of the damage they will do to the UK economy.

On top of that, the social aspect of the abolition of Freedom of Movement will really start to be noticed when UK subjects require visas to go on holiday. Our young people have been denied so many opportunities by Brexit, and just because the UK’s GDP has slightly increased cannot disguise the huge harm Brexit has done to our society.

If Scots want to escape this madness, there is a solution. All we need is the political leadership to help us realise the goal.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I had the misfortune to hear a propaganda promotion on the radio the other day. An actor with a strong Scottish accent was gleefully telling us about the benefits of the UK Government’s Levelling UP agenda, mentioning how money was being pumped into Scotland. Naturally, the puff piece did not mention that the money is significantly less than we used to obtain from the EU, nor did it mention that the funds are going predominantly to Tory constituencies. But that’s how propaganda works, and with control of our media in the hands of the Union, I’m sure a great many of the uninformed and / or gullible will believe this nonsense.

As for Levelling UP, it is another Tory trick to fool people into believing they care about anything except themselves and their wealthy donors. Home Secretary James Cleverly gave the game away when he showed his utter contempt for a northern constituency where the MP was asking why so many children in his area were in poverty. Mr Cleverly muttered that it was because the place was a sh*thole, thus summing up in one contemptuous expression precisely what the Tories actually think about the vast majority of the places and people they are supposed to be governing. Poverty arises from political choices, and it is clear that the Tories simply don’t care about poor people.

Like so many things, Levelling Up will do very little to help Scotland, and it certainly won’t replace the money we have lost access to by being dragged out of the EU against our will.

As ever, it is long past time that we left this toxic Union.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Tory Government Ministers really do talk a lot of nonsense. Of course, they know that they can get away with telling brazen lies because that principle was established by Boris Johnson a few years ago. But I do wonder whether some of them actually believe what they are saying. For example, in giving evidence to the Covid Enquiry, Kemi Badenoch asserted that the Tories do not have a cure for poverty, and that they would have used it if they could.

I’m not sure whether she was being disingenuous, or whether she really is that ignorant, but this is patent nonsense because there is a very simple cure for poverty. It is to give people more money. But the UK has been transformed into a low wage economy, paying the worst state pensions in the OECD, and with a social security benefits system which is recognised by the UN as being dangerously inadequate.

And a recent report has even suggested that the huge scale of wealth inequality in the UK costs the economy billions of pounds each year. From being one of the most equal societies in the 1970s, the UK is now one of the most unequal. It is not that there isn’t enough money, it is that far too much of that money is in the hands of a very few people.

The Tories may bang on about the economy, and it is clear from the evidence given to the Covid Enquiry that many top Tories believe the economy is more important than people’s lives, but I doubt they will do anything to alter the inequality situation even if it would improve the economy. That’s because it would harm their own interests.

And don’t count on Labour changing things. Even if they decide to abandon the Tory policies they are adopting with such readiness, they won’t have long enough to alter the situation very much. Such societal change takes decades, and we know from history that the English electorate will vote the Tories back into power before too long.

It is way past time that Scotland escaped this madness.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I will admit I was very surprised to learn that Alex Salmond has decided to sue the Scottish Government. Since there is now a legal case under way, I’m not going to comment on that aspect, but I am wondering about his motivation.

Clearly, an experienced politician like Alex Salmond is not going to begin any court action unless he feels he has a good chance of winning, but I do wonder why he has taken this action now. It certainly flies in the face of his appeals for all pro-Indy Parties to work together, but perhaps he has decided that, since all of his requests have been rebuffed, he has nothing to lose.

I’d venture to say that the rest of us have a great deal to lose because this is only going to split the Yes movement even further. And if Alex Salmond plans to effectively bring down the Scottish Government with the aim of replacing the SNP with Alba as the primary Party of independence, then it is going to take a long time because the case won’t be heard for several months at least. By that time, we may already have been through the next UK General Election.

Or perhaps Mr Salmond is playing a long game, having already decided that the SNP’s plan for turning Scotland into a normal, self-governing country is doomed to failure, and he is positioning his own Party to step into the breach that such failure will bring.

Whatever his thinking, I’m afraid this isn’t doing the Yes movement a great deal of good at the moment. And if Alex Salmond really is trying to bring Alba to the fore by bashing the already struggling SNP, then he will have another fight on his hands. That’s because the UK media in Scotland may be happy to promote his action against the SNP, but the moment he begins to look as if he might have a chance of persuading the Scottish electorate to switch allegiance (which is a major task in its own right), the media will turn on him just as they have done before.

As ever, all we can do is look on, scratching our heads and wondering where we go from here.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I posted on social media about the comments made by Tory MP John Glen who is calling for some sort of means testing on Pensioner’s Winter Fuel payments. Mr Glen argues, with some justification, that some pensioners do not need this extra cash, and he would rather see it used to help alleviate child poverty.

Now, at first glance, many people will agree with his sentiment. However, while I’ve not been able to check Mr Glen’s voting record on child poverty, I would respectfully point out that it is the Tories themselves who have massively increased poverty at all levels, but particularly among children. Perhaps he now feels they should do something about this, but I’d say it’s a bit late for that. In any event, the Chancellor knows full well that children don’t vote, so no Tory has much incentive to take money away from the people most likely to vote for them, then hand it to people who have no vote.

As for using money paid to pensioners, even Mr Glen admits that it would be difficult to decide which pensioners should miss out by virtue of being well off. HMRC don’t carry records on household wealth, so deciding who should miss out could be problematic. Besides, as has been demonstrated by things like free NHS prescriptions in Scotland and the payments made to the self-employed during Covid, it is usually cheaper to provide a universal benefit than it is to introduce and maintain a system of means testing.

And why can’t the Tories do both things? Why not alleviate poverty while also paying pensioners a bit extra to help with the enormous energy bills they face? We keep hearing that there is no money, but this mindset, largely driven by outdated views in the money markets, doesn’t seem to apply when the Bank of England needs to create billions of pounds in order to bail out banks. Modern Monetary Theory says that, if you have a magic money tree like, say, a central bank, then you can spend as much as you like. Taxation should then be used to rein in the inflationary pressures created by that extra cash. Taxing the wealthiest in society would certainly help that, but again, no Tory Chancellor is likely to do that. And let us not forget that the vast majority of people who receive either the Winter Fuel payment or who might benefit from additional funds to alleviate child poverty, are actually going to spend that money. They aren’t going to hoard it in offshore trust funds. So pumping extra money into the economy to help both pensioners and children will actually stimulate spending and help boost the economy.

As for those wealthy pensioners who don’t need the money, they are under no obligation to do so. They can always donate it to their local food bank or to a children’s charity. But how many of them will actually do that? Not many, I’d guess.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

It has been an interesting week in the House of Commons, a place which masquerades as the home of democracy.

First of all, we had the Supreme Court ruling that the Tory Government’s Rwanda scheme was illegal, immediately followed by the Tories insisting they would amend the law to make it legal. It will be interesting to see how they do that, considering that once UK law has been changed, international treaties and the ECHR need to be altered. Given that the ECHR is a fundamental part of the Good Friday Agreement, I wonder whether the Tories will be prepared to sacrifice peace in Northern Ireland for the sake of deporting a couple of hundred asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Another alleged Tory achievement was to bring inflation down to less than half of what it was earlier. Rishi Sunak is claiming that he has achieved one of his five key pledges, apparently hoping that the majority of the UK population is so ill-informed or stupid that they don’t realise that he achieved this by doing nothing proactive, but simply waiting until the huge price rises in energy costs were dropped from the annual inflation calculation by virtue of taking place 13 months ago. Now we hear that energy prices are likely to increase significantly again in 2024. Will Rishi Sunak accept responsibility when inflation leaps up again? Somehow, I doubt it.

But the big news of the week, unless you are part of the Scottish media which is obsessed with a bill run up on an iPad by a Scottish Government Minister, is that nearly 60 Labour MPs defied Sir Kid Starver and voted to call for a cease fire in Gaza.

Now, it must be said that the vote really didn’t matter in the overall scheme of things because neither Hamas nor the Israeli Government was ever going to pay much attention to what was voted for in the House of Commons. It must also be acknowledged that Hamas, who have vowed to destroy Israel, are unlikely to observe a cease fire even if the whole of the world agrees that it is necessary. However, the vote was symbolically important in setting out the stance of the UK Parliament, and anyone who argues against stopping the slaughter of innocent civilians, including women and children, really needs to take a good look in the mirror. Whether those civilians are Palestinians or Israelis is beside the point. Anyone with a modicum of humanity must want the killing to stop.

As is becoming normal these days, Sir Kid Starver decided to side with the Tories. Some of his MPs showed a bit of backbone and voted with their conscience, earning them the sack if they were on the front bench. It may have been a symbolic vote, but Starmer has symbolically demonstrated his lack of humanity. He may be trying to present himself as a statesman, but even he must have known that the result of the vote would make no difference to what is happening on the ground in Gaza, so why not vote to call for a cease fire? Instead, he’d rather align himself with the USA and the Tories. That, in my view, was reprehensible.

Naturally, the media in Scotland was happy to headline the result as a defeat for the SNP, and it was interesting to note that even the Newsagents Podcast kept referring to the call for a cease fire to be the SNP amendment. That was technically correct, but the media do love to portray things as being SNP this or that, and to claim that the rebel Labour MPs were voting with the SNP as if that was a bad thing. It really shouldn’t have mattered which Party called for a vote supporting a cease fire, wanting to stop innocent people dying should surely be the most important issue. Sadly, as so often, the UK media managed to drag it down to a Party political level as they tried to portray the SNP’s call as somehow being less than humanitarian. And don’t get me started on Jackie Baillie’s claim that, by calling for a cease fire, the SNP were playing Punch & Judy politics. I’m not even sure what that means except that it shows Jackie Baillie is happy for people to die if it means she can score a cheap point against the SNP. Since when was wanting to prevent people dying a sign that you are playing at politics? Quite frankly, I found her comments extremely distasteful.

Finally, I must mention MP Michael Shanks, recent victor in the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election. He made a great play during his election campaign of being a new voice for Scotland, who would not kow-tow to Westminster Labour. Yet, at this first opportunity to demonstrate that his thinking is in line with the majority of Scots, he immediately followed the official Party line and refused to vote for a cease fire. I do hope the voters of Rutherglen & Hamilton West were paying attention to his decision. Labour’s Scottish Branch Office Manager, Anas Sarwar, was almost certainly paying attention. You’d think by now he would have realised that his views are unimportant to Westminster Labour, yet still he clings to the ridiculous claim that he runs an independent Party.

So there we are. The Tories can get away with callously deciding to change the law as long as it allows them to persecute helpless refugees; Labour can refuse to do the right thing from a humanitarian perspective; but it’s the SNP who are bad for wanting to stop innocent people being massacred. The UK really is a weird place. It’s long past time that Scotland left this Ruritania and became a normal country.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Rishi Sunak certainly caught everyone by surprise by bringing back David Cameron as Foreign Secretary. It changed all the headlines, partially obscuring the news that Suella Braverman had at last been sacked. Whether any of this will change Rishi Sunak’s standing is doubtful. Cameron is tainted by Brexit, Austerity and, in Scotland, by introducing EVEL the day after the IndyRef, thus shattering all the earlier promises. As for his ability to deal with foreign Governments, he didn’t do too well when he was PM, so it’s doubtful he’ll do anything more than spout platitudes for the TV cameras. At least he’ll do it in a smooth, smarmy way, with all the confidence of a fraudster, so he might give us plenty of quotes to save for posterity.

And what of Suella Braverman’s replacement, James Cleverly? Well, he’s apparently a loyal Tory, always prepared to regurgitate the Party line on anything. Whether he’s competent enough to hold down such a senior role remains to be seen. If he is, he will prove to be the exception in this appallingly incompetent Government. One thing you can be sure of is that, even if he presents a less vicious and inhumane face to the public, he’ll carry on with the vicious and inhumane policies the Tories love so much. Still, he might settle things down a little after the havoc of Suella Braverman, just as Rishi Sunak has, on the face of things, settled matters down after the chaos of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. Except, as we all know, the chaos, greed and incompetence continue, just with a better public image.

As for Suella Braverman herself, no doubt she will soon stir things up as she attempts to put herself at the head of the fascist wing of the Tory Party. Of course, she’ll have some competition because Liz Truss won’t fade quietly into the background, and if Nigel Farage does decide to rejoin the Party, Suella Braverman’s chances of becoming leader will be severely diminished as the rabid Brexiteers line up behind Farage.

It would be nice to think that this sort of in-fighting will spell the end of the Tory Party, but it’s been going on for a long time already in one shape or form, and they are still clinging desperately to power.

There’s an old Chinese curse which says, "May you live in interesting times". At the moment, it feels like someone has cursed the entire UK with that fate. If only Scotland had a way to escape the madness.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

In my last blog post, I pointed out that the UK Government is behaving just like a fascist Government. I suppose that now makes me an extremists. According to media reports, the UK Government now plans to introduce legislation to expand the definition of extremist so that anyone who criticises the UK or its institutions and values can be termed as an extremist.

The conclusion we must draw from this is that anyone who supports Scottish or Welsh independence, or who would like to see a united Ireland, will be classified as an extremist.

Many people on social media seem to be of the opinion that nothing will come of this because the Tories will be voted out of power at the next General Election, but I would not put it past them to push this through using their much-vaunted Henry VII powers via a Statutory Instrument. Failing that, they will rely on Keir Starmer’s Labour Party adopting this policy, just as he has adopted most other Tory policies. And if you think that is far-fetched, consider just how much of a British Nationalist Starmer is. He has declared this many times, and he loves to be seen surrounded by union flags. Why would he not want to reinforce the strength of the union by clamping down on any dissent? He’s already doing that within his own Party.

If this sort of thing was happening elsewhere, we would see media stories about how other countries are controlled by authoritarian Governments, yet the UK’s march towards fascism goes mostly unremarked.

I made a comment on Mastodon that I fear this proposed legislation is only one step away from declaring political Parties who seek the breakup of the UK as illegal organisations. Whether the UK Government would actually go that far is debatable, and many will be of the opinion that my fear is completely unfounded. I really hope it is, and it would certainly be a massive step for the UK Government to take. For one thing, it would completely demolish any claims that the UK is a democracy. That reassures me that such overt action is probably unlikely, but then I look at some of the things the UK Government has done over the past few years. Ten years ago, most people would have thought it unthinkable that any form of protest would render people liable to arrest, or that all legal routes to immigration would be closed down, or that food banks would become a normal part of society. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the UK is creeping towards fascism rather than marching towards it, and I don’t think we should rule anything out when it comes to Westminster exerting its authority, especially if Nigel Farage becomes leader of the Tory Party.

Whether my fears are valid or not, this latest proposal shows that the lurch to the Right continues unabated. Humza Yousaf had better get his finger out with his plans to release us from the autocratic UK.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Actor Steve Coogan recently upset many on the Right Wing by claiming that people who support the Royal family are flag-waving idiots. What he actually said on the Off Menu Podcast was:

"Most people who are into [the royal family] are flag-waving people who, I think, are kind of idiots because they support a power structure that keeps a foot on the throat of working-class people."

I think it is very fair to say that I agree with his comment, and I believe that this unthinking behaviour on the part of flag-waving monarchists is a testament to the power and influence of the UK media and the class structure which is still inherent in UK society and which manages to persuade people to support a system which is designed to keep the power structure in place.

But the monarchy is not the topic I wish to talk about in this piece. That’s because some of the outraged responses from Tories were interesting in their own right. The main thrust of their complaints, once you set aside their defence of the Royal family, was to question Steve Coogan’s working class credentials, and to demand to know why he felt he could speak for the working class.

That in itself is quite laughable coming from Tories. For one thing, nobody needs to be born into a working class family to be able to speak for the poorer people in society. Anyone with a modicum of compassion can do that.

Secondly, how often have you heard a Tory MP, Minister or Prime Minister tell an interviewer what it is that people want the Government to concentrate on? They are always at it; constantly telling us what our priorities are even though very few of them ever seem to have bothered to check with ordinary people. It never seems to strike them as unusual that what they claim the people want happens to tally precisely with the things they themselves have decided are their priorities.

Politicians of all Parties are very fond of telling us what we think and want, yet it seems that Steve Coogan cannot even make a comment on behalf of working class people without being derided by those same politicians.

As usual, those who benefit from the class structure are have been quick to jump on any criticism of that structure. It is yet another sign of how dysfunctional the UK is at its core.

As further evidence for the bizarrely skewed thinking of those in power, we only need to look at Home Secretary Suella Braverman who has announced that she wants Councils to clamp down on homeless people who live in tents on the streets. She has no thought of actually doing anything to reduce homelessness, she just wants to further punish the poor souls who have nowhere else to go. And, to add insult to injury, she subsequently claimed that living in tents was a lifestyle choice. Quite frankly, I find that sort of mentality absolutely sickening.

I feel so sorry for the people of England who, I’m afraid, have only themselves to blame for electing extremist politicians. George Orwell was right when he said that fascism would not come to Britain by marching down the High Street in jackboots. He saw clearly enough that the UK operates using a gradual approach to things, insinuating new ideas and ways of thinking so that nothing appears too extreme when taken in isolation. However, most of the pronouncements coming out of the UK Government are exactly what you would expect from a fascist Government, it’s just that most people don’t seem to have realised it yet.

As ever, Scotland needs to escape this madness before it is too late.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

The news that Ash Regan MSP has decided to leave the SNP and join Alba has once again brought to light the split in the Yes movement. SNP supporters are outraged, and many are calling for her to stand down so that a By-election can be held. Personally, I think that a By -election should always be held when any politician declares that they wish to leave the Party they were a member of. However, that never happens because the UK has this absurd idea that politicians are elected because of their individual merits. Scotland seems to have adopted this stance as well, although most members of the public vote for a Party because of its leader, and many have no idea who their own MP or MSP is. However, while I support the idea of always holding a By-election, it is not going to happen unless Parliamentary rules are re-written.

Ash Regans’ defection comes on the heels of Dr Lisa Cameron moving to the Tories, and in some ways these two defections are similar. It seems fairly clear that Dr Cameron always held Tory views because a move to that Party is unthinkable unless you believe in their selfish, cruel policies.

As for Ash Regan, she stood in the SNP leadership campaign on a platform of putting independence above all else. She was unsuccessful partly because she did not seem to possess the gravitas of the other contenders, and she was viewed by many as an outlier. However, in moving to Alba she has, I believe, followed her conscience. She is clearly of the opinion that the SNP are not doing nearly enough to move Scotland towards being a normal, self-governing country, and she has decided that, if she cannot change that from within, she might as well move to a Party whose avowed intention is to push for independence far more aggressively. Whether that will prove successful will only be known at the next Holyrood election. If the SNP continue to produce soundbites and slogans but very little real action, then perhaps voters will look for an alternative. Up until now, very few have put their faith in Alba, so Ash Regan’s move may well signal the end of her political career. Time will tell.

As for the SNP, Humza Yousaf has had a lot of personal issues to contend with recently, but he continues to act with dignity. That is all well and good as far as it goes, but we need more than dignity if we are to progress the cause of independence. We really need to see a lot more fire and action rather than words. I do hope that will change very soon, but I’ve been let down before, and the signs are not good so far. For example, what has the much-vaunted Rebuttal Unit been doing since it was relaunched? I’ll admit that I am not on the social platform X very much these days, but I don’t recall seeing anything from them in the past couple of weeks. Is their relaunch going to be another damp squib? If so, that is simply not good enough.

Returning to the defections, I’m not sure the two recent departures will make very much difference to the SNP. But now that Lisa Cameron and Ash Regan have set a precedent, the big question for me is whether any others will follow them? I cannot see many defecting to the Tories, but Alba might not remain on the fringes if a few more MSPs and / or MPs decide to switch allegiance. Whether that would signal a unification within the Yes movement is doubtful, but it might stir the SNP up a bit. As ever, we can only wait and see.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I’ve been accused of bashing Labour when they are, according to many, the only hope of getting rid of the Tories. I suppose that is an understandable view if you live in England, but Scots do have other choices, and I remain disappointed that any Yesser can contemplate voting for a British Nationalist Party whose leader is adopting as many Tory policies as he can, and who seems to be supporting war crimes.

Having said that, I am not going to stop bashing the Tories, and they’ve given us quite a lot to bash them over the heads with recently.

Let’s start with Education Minister Gillian Keegan who insists there is no cultural problem within the Tory Party after yet another Tory MP was arrested on suspicion of rape and possessing illegal drugs. Following on from the Peter Bone scandal, the Pincher scandal and another unnamed MP also being investigated for rape, one must commend Gillian Keegan for her blind loyalty to the Party. Not that she’s averse to creating problems of her own after her recent sweary complaints about not being congratulated for doing what she believes was a good job over the RAAC issue. And don’t forget the PPE corruption issues, nor the utter disgrace of Partygate, and the horror of the Care Home deaths during the Covid pandemic.

To go off on a slight tangent, Rishi Sunak’s billionaire father-in-law, Narayana Murthy, has displayed some very Tory ideals by stating that young workers in India ought to be working 70 hours per week for the glory of their country. I do hope PM Sunak doesn’t adopt that as a new policy, but it’s the sort of thing we might expect now that it has been voiced.

Back in the UK, even some Tory Councillors, MPs and lords have been begging the UK Government to allow disabled councillors to attend meetings via online platforms. Needless to say, the Government has refused, a bizarre decision which is in keeping with their attitude towards disabled people. What really strikes me about this is that some of the disabled Councillors were Tories. I can’t help thinking they are in the wrong Party. Surely they must have recognised just how badly the UK Government treats disabled people?

And on the topic of work, the UK Government have also demanded that English Councils abandon all experiments in moving to a four day working week. Apparently, they believe that this change will not provide value for money. It’s not quite the same as Sunak’s father-in-law demanding a 70 hour working week, but the thinking is along the same lines.

The thing is that every trial of a 4 day working week has shown increased productivity, better retention of staff, improvements in staff wellbeing, and a better working environment. It says quite a lot that the Tories are prepared to ignore the evidence, and to push back against such reform. Given the evidence that a 4 day week produces such results, I can only conclude that the real reason for refusal is that Tories are very firmly wedded to the idea of management control. They detest the idea of working from home because it means managers can’t keep a close eye on their staff. One could suggest that this is a very Victorian attitude, but I actually think it says more about the work ethic of Tories themselves. Remember that Boris Johnson revealed this when he said that working from home consisted mainly of visiting the fridge to get snacks. He clearly believed that his own lazy attitude to work was shared by everyone else, and it seems many Tory politicians share his view because that is the main reason I can think of which would make them object to people working from home. There is, of course, the side issue that they will believe people are getting money for nothing if their working hours are cut while their pay remains the same. Imagine MPs being upset at people receiving what is effectively a pay rise!

The Tories really do seem to live in a different world to the rest of us, as evidenced by Environment Secretary Therese Coffey making the absurd claim that the devastating floods caused by Storm Babet were because the rain came from the wrong direction. I do hope she is cringing over that one, although I doubt it since most Tory Ministers seem prepared to spout any old nonsense with conviction. What I haven’t been able to find is any comment on what would have been different if the storm had come from the west. Given the scale of the deluge, I can’t see that it made any difference at all which direction it came from . The important thing is that flood defences proved useless, and that this sort of event is going to keep happening. Indeed, it is coming back, perhaps not quite so strongly but seriously enough, this weekend. And Italy is also suffering from severe floods, only a few months after their last inundations. Given the scientific evidence that these weather events are symptoms of climate change, you’d think any sensible Government would push ahead with environmental policies as quickly as possible, but this is the Tory Party we are talking about, so they are doing the precise opposite because that’s where the money is.

Of course, it is not all doom and gloom. If you happen to be a ludicrously wealthy London banker, you’ll soon be even more ludicrously wealthy because the cap on bonuses has been lifted. It doesn’t take a seer like Nostradamus to predict that allowing bankers to take risks with other people’s money in order to make short term gains which earn them a bigger bonus is only going to end in another financial calamity.

There are so many issues with the Tories, including their unequivocal support for Israel despite the evident war crimes, the running down of the NHS, and the constant anti-immigrant rhetoric that this article could go on for a very long time. However, I’ll leave it there for the moment. NO doubt I’ll be back with more before too long.

What a mad place the UK is. If only there was some way Scotland could become a normal, self-governing country and escape the insanity.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

There are a few political commentators whose opinion I respect because of their past track record of being correct in their predictions, and who have derided the SNP’s latest plan for progressing Scotland towards becoming a normal, self-governing country. Given their expertise, it is difficult to argue against their opinions, and I will admit to having been very guilty of constantly hoping the SNP will come up with some clever plan, and being constantly disappointed.

However, some time ago, I myself advocated using Westminster’s First Past The Post voting system against them on the basis that we should use the number of seats won as our benchmark. In light of that, it is hard for me to disagree with the SNP’s latest proposal for moving us forward. My concern though, is that the timing could have been a lot better. If we’d used that benchmark a few years ago, I’d like to think that we’d be in a very different place to where we are now. The obvious concern is that Labour might actually recover a lot of seats on the basis that some voters will decide that the SNP has no chance of gaining independence, so they might as well vote to get the Tories out. While I can understand that thinking, I do believe it is the wrong path to follow. Labour are as Unionist as the Tories, and unless sir Keir (Knight of the Realm) Starmer does another U-turn, we won’t be any closer to becoming a normal country with a Labour Government in charge, especially since Labour have more or less adopted every policy the Tories come up with.

The other problem with voting Labour MPs into power is that the UK media will proclaim that independence is dead, and you can bet everything you own that the Scotland Office will be given even greater powers under a Labour Government. The Tories have laid the groundwork for undermining the Scottish Government, and I have no doubt that, egged on by the Unionist media, Labour will follow their lead on that, just as they are doing on so many other issues.

So I retain some concerns over the SNP’s chances of success, but after hearing Tommy Shepherd MP on the excellent Lesley Riddoch Podcast, it seems that the SNP do have a plan for what to do if they win a majority of seats and are still denied. That is encouraging, but the biggest problem will be winning the required number of seats, especially since the media will be advocating loudly for a Labour Government.

As for the plan itself, I was a little concerned that proposals to count votes for any pro-Indy Party have been knocked back, but if we are in a First Past The Post election, then votes for other Parties won’t count anyway. The cynical will undoubtedly say that this is merely another ploy by the SNP to retain seats at Westminster, but I honestly believe we need to give them the benefit of the doubt – again. A lot will depend, however, on what we see over the coming months in terms of leadership. On that point, the buck stops with Humza Yousaf, and I must say that, until now, I’ve been less than inspired by what I’ve heard from him. However, his speech to the SNP Conference was excellent, and I am hoping that we will genuinely see the beginnings of a strong campaign making the case for independence. We need a vision, not a whole load of detailed processes, and perhaps Humza Yousaf will actually follow through on those promises. Time will tell, and I will keep my fingers firmly crossed, not because I am necessarily a supporter of the SNP, nor because I think they have better domestic policies than other pro-Indy Parties, but because the reality is that they remain, at present, the best political vehicle for bringing about the change we so desperately need. If this promised campaign falls flat, though, I suspect I won’t be the only one looking for an alternative choice.

As for Humza Yousaf’s speech, the media are concentrating on his promise of a Council Tax freeze. While that is important, it is noticeable that few outlets of the UK media in Scotland have bothered to mention the compassion and humanitarianism Humza Yousaf displayed, especially when talking about the crisis in Israel and Gaza. This is probably because his heartfelt words on this and on other social issues are in stark contrast to the cruel racism of the Tories, as well as to the awkward, insincere mumblings from Keir Starmer who seems to have offered support for war crimes as a reasonable response to terrorist attacks.

What is happening in Gaza is a humanitarian crisis. Advocating for innocent civilians to be protected is not the same as supporting terrorism. Yes, Israel is in a very difficult position, and any person with an ounce of humanity will understand the horror and grief Israelis must be suffering after the Hamas’ atrocity. But committing atrocities of their own is not the way forward. So far, Humza Yousaf is the only leading UK politician to have the courage to say this, so he deserves immense credit for that. I sincerely hope that he continues to demonstrate the same leadership qualities when it comes to making the case for Scotland to become a normal, self-governing country. Above all, we need strong leadership now.

This will be a real test for Humza Yousaf, and he cannot afford to delay, but let’s give him a chance to prove that he’s got what it takes. After all, if the SNP fail dramatically at the next General Election, he'll be out of a job, so it is in his interests to drive a strong campaign. After so many disappointments, I’m wary of being too optimistic, but we must all retain some hope and, quite frankly, the SNP remains the only game in town at the moment for those of us who want Scotland to become a normal country.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I have absolute sympathy with anyone who suffers from being bullied. Workplace bullying simply should not happen, although it does with dreadful frequency. So I fully understand why Dr Lisa Cameron has decided to quit the SNP Westminster group if she has been bullied. It is always better to remove yourself from any toxic culture.

What is most bizarre about her defection, though, is that she has switched to join the Tories. I’d have thought she has been at Westminster long enough to know that empathy and understanding of others is not exactly high on the list of Tory attributes. The move seems especially bizarre since she claims it will help her speak out for the disabled and vulnerable. Again, has she not noticed that the Tories make a particular point of picking on the disabled and vulnerable in society?

She has claimed that she still supports Scottish independence, yet has moved to an Ultra Unionist Party because she thinks that the SNP need to focus more on helping people cope with immediate problems. This is a typical Tory line because they know most people want everyday issues attended to by their Government, but it misses the fundamental point that becoming a normal, self-governing country would put us in a much better position to be able to tackle those important issues like the cost of living.

I am not here to defend the SNP. Indeed, I believe they have shown a distinct lack of leadership over the past few years, and there is little sign of that changing in the immediate future, but I do find Dr Cameron’s decision baffling to say the least. But perhaps her decision has something to do with the fact that her local Party were refusing to back her as their candidate in the next General Election. If that came on top of a sustained period of bullying, her decision may have been designed to cause the maximum damage to the SNP.

Whatever her motivation, the UK media has adopted its usual stance, loudly proclaiming the end of the SNP and the cause of Scottish independence. In fact, the BBC managed to find a few voters who supported Dr Cameron’s decision, confirming that the SNP were indeed very bad. Oddly, this did not tally with the same research undertaken by The National which actually provided a more balanced and impartial view than the BBC. Quelle surprise!

More worryingly, nobody in the media appears to be asking questions about the bullying. If there is a culture like that in the SNP Westminster group, it really must be stopped. The SNP leadership should step in without delay and get to the root of the problem. The fact that they seem content to do nothing does not reflect well on them. But, oddly, the media are not pursuing this as an attack line. It seems such an obvious target that I’d have thought they would have jumped on it with the aim of revealing who the bullies are. So far, though, we’ve heard nothing about that. I am probably being too cynical, but perhaps there is more to this story than we have been told so far.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

This article is a couple of days late due to technical problems with the blog site which are hopefully now resolved.

So Labour, as expected, won the Rutherglen & Hamilton West By-election. Also as expected, the UK media are crowing about the severe blow to the cause of Scottish independence, apparently unaware that there is a big difference between support for the SNP and support for independence. It is not at all unusual for a governing Party to lose a By-election, especially when that Party has displayed levels of incompetence and disarray in the way the SNP has done recently. I sincerely hope that this will be the kick up the backside that the Party needs in order to re-focus its priorities and to up their game on domestic policies. I suspect I am likely to be disappointed in that, but that won’t stop me hoping.

As for the result itself, there are several things I take from it. First, as mentioned above, the SNP got a deserved kicking for messing things up. Yes, they’ve done a lot of good work, and things like our NHS, while far from perfect, still perform better than the Health Services in other UK countries, but that’s a pretty low bar anyway. Of course, if we were a normal country in full charge of our own economy, we would hope to do a lot better, but that is precisely why the SNP need to get their act together and really come up with some strong pushes towards independence. They could do a lot worse than read Robin McAlpine’s proposals for the way ahead.

But there are other points to be gleaned from the By-election result. The most obvious is the low turnout which is, once again, traditional in By-elections. Voters, for whatever reason, seem reluctant to turn out for these elections. If only they would realise the glee they are causing for the UK media by not supporting a pro-Indy Party. But that is how By-elections have nearly always gone.

The other point which has caused some merriment among Yessers is that the Tories lost their deposit. Funny as that is, I strongly suspect that a major factor in that is that Tory voters switched to Labour with the sole intention of kicking the SNP out. The Tory vote collapsed, but Labour’s went up considerably, so tactical voting, a ridiculous aspect of First Past The Post, probably played a big role, and that is a major danger for Yes Parties in future elections. Yessers may be split, but Unionists rarely are, and FPTP gives Unionist voters a huge advantage if they vote tactically. Pro-Indy Parties need to learn from that.

Another issue was Voter ID. So far, reports are only anecdotal, but it seems that a not inconsiderable number of people were turned away because of lack of acceptable ID. This really should not have happened, and the SNP must take a portion of blame for not getting the message out. Generally speaking, people in lower income brackets are more likely to be Yessers, while also being less likely to have documents like passports or Driving Licences. The SNP really should have worked harder at telling people about the Tory disenfranchisement policy, and helped them to obtain suitable ID. It would not have made a difference to the overall result because Labour’s majority was considerable, but it is a lesson that needs to be learned for future elections which are run under UK laws.

I must say that I am disappointed, although not surprised, by the result of this vote. My main hope now is that the SNP pay attention. They really need to display some very strong leadership, and get their message out far more clearly than they have done so far. It is vital that we become a normal country as soon as possible, and anyone who does not believe there is urgency about this should refer back to the recent Tory Party Conference where all sorts of fascist views were on display for the world to see. It will be little comfort if Labour win the next UK General election because they have promised to maintain Tory policies as far as possible. And even if they do several U-turns and actually try to help the majority of people rather than big business, history shows us that English voters will soon elect a Tory Government again. Scotland needs to become a normal country before that happens.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

It’s been hard to know what to make of the Tory conference. These people seem convinced that their way of governing is the right way despite 13 years of evidence to the contrary. Rishi Sunak’s only chance is to paint himself as somehow different to all the many Prime Ministers who have preceded him since the Tories came to power, yet he is as culpable as any of them when it comes to telling blatant lies. His speech listing all the things that he wasn’t going to do anyway but which he claims he had cancelled was almost unbelievable, yet he was outdone by other speakers who made outrageous claims based on conspiracy theories or stoked culture wars and ramped up the hatred of foreigners and immigrants.

The fact that Liz Truss can gain ecstatic applause or that Nigel Farage walked around with a huge entourage of admirers seems so far out of kilter with what most UK citizens (sorry, subjects) actually want. Or perhaps it is me who is wrong and what UK subjects want is to demonise foreigners, promote cars over public transport, continue to contribute to climate change and unhealthy air. That certainly seems to be what Tory voters want. And even if the Tories are trailing in the polls, it’s not as if Labour are any better since all they’ve done is U-turn on every promise and simply adopt whichever policy the Tories come up with.

Watching all of this unfold, I couldn’t help but feel that it was like watching events in a foreign country. Sadly, it seems we are stuck being attached to that country for the foreseeable future. What a chance we missed in 2014.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I’ve just returned from a short break in Germany where I visited the Munich Oktoberfest. Copious amounts of beer were drunk, and I ate far too much schnitzel, but thanks to my sighted friends, I survived the event. It was a magnificent party.

What this trip also gave me were a few interesting insights. When we arrived in Munich, there was a queue for passport control. A man in the queue behind us was complaining that he did not see why he could not go through the EU channel since he still had a red EU passport. I refrained from making any comments, but it does show how little some people understand about the effects of Brexit.

When we handed over our passports, the German official knew we were Scottish because the plane had come in from Edinburgh. Also, I have covered my new UK passport with a Saltire cover just to be sure they know I’m not claiming to be part of Brexitania. The official chatted to us briefly in perfect English. He was no doubt doing his job by asking us why we had travelled to Munich but when we told him we would be visiting Oktoberfest, he laughingly asked us if we knew that they only sell beer by the litre. It was all very sociable, and we passed through without a hitch.

I’ll skip ahead to our return journey where we had a very brief stopover in Brussels to transfer flights. Here, the passport control insisted that my Saltire cover be removed and there was no banter at all. On arrival back in Edinburgh, the welcome was more friendly, but again the Saltire cover had to be removed before they would examine the passport. I really don’t know why this is because the cover does not in any way conceal anything except the black outer cover, but perhaps I am missing something. It certainly didn’t bother the German passport check.

However, the main thing I want to mention about this trip is just how much Scotland is loved in Europe. I made a point of wearing Saltire sunglasses instead of my usual Bluetooth audio sunglasses. The latter would have been useless anyway because the noise inside the beer tents is phenomenal. One of my companions also sported a Scotland hat, and these to items attracted a huge amount of attention. We were stopped or spoken to by people from Switzerland, New Zealand, Italy, USA, France and Germany, including some of the serving staff, all of whom told us how much they loved Scotland. It really was wonderful to hear such affection for our people and nation from citizens of normal countries.

The other thing about Oktoberfest is that, despite the vast amount of beer being drunk, it really is a party. I’ve been to the Edinburgh version and it is not a patch on the real thing. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine an event on the Oktoberfest scale taking place in the UK without there being some serious crowd trouble. And yet we only witnessed one act of violence which took place outside the complex, when two guys got into an argument and began swapping punches. Other than that, the whole event, with tens of thousands of well-lubricated people from all over the world, was like a huge friendly gathering where everyone just wanted to have fun and meet new friends.

That’s not to say the Germans don’t take security seriously, but their security staff maintain a low profile, only appearing when there is any trouble. And they do take a zero tolerance approach. One of our group was in a long queue for the toilets when a young Englishman jumped the queue, laughingly barging into one of the cubicles. Security must have spotted him because they were waiting as soon as he emerged. He was ejected from the tent for anti-social behaviour.

All in all, Oktoberfest is a cultural experience unlike any other. I can’t wait to go back again, even if only to hear so many people who have a positive view of Scotland which is so at odds with the way our own media portrays our country.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

There can be no doubt that there is a split in the Yes movement. While I can understand why people may hold different views, I can only reiterate my disappointment that this is playing into the hands of the Unionists. The UK has always operated on a divide and conquer basis, and I fear it is proving successful for them.

I must also express my severe disappointment that those who said that Nicola Sturgeon never had any clever plan for turning Scotland into a normal, self-governing country have been proved correct. It wasn’t that I didn’t believe them, because her actions, or lack of them, were fairly clear to see, but I retained the hope that the SNP might still prove to be the political vehicle which would gain us independence. Increasingly, this looks unlikely, although it must be said that no other political Party has yet shown itself capable of replacing the SNP in the eyes of the majority of voters who, let’s face it, do not keep fully up to date with the details of daily politics.

However, some who claim to be Yes supporters do seem to be taking a very short-sighted view of things. A recent article on the Wings Over Scotland website went into great detail about Rev Campbell’s reasons for feeling abandoned by the SNP. While it was difficult to disagree with much of the detail in the piece, I was extremely disappointed in the response of some readers who claimed that if there was another IndyRef, they either wouldn’t vote or would actually vote No simply out of dislike of the SNP and the current crop of Scottish Government Ministers.

Now, whether these accounts on social media are genuine or whether they were pro-Union accounts masquerading as Yessers, I cannot say. But the sentiment is typical of the short-sighted view that so many people take when it comes to voting. Whether in an election or a referendum, people really need to look at the bigger picture. Voting because of personal circumstances is understandable if selfish, but when it comes to a referendum on independence, what people really need to understand is that the whole point is to turn Scotland into a country where we can vote out unpopular politicians. Some may say that this is the reason the SNP is not moving us towards independence because it would spell the end of that Party’s core reason for existing. I’m not so sure about that, but it would certainly remove the constitutional question which overrides every election in Scotland. If we did somehow manage to become a normal country, then the SNP would need to justify itself to Scottish voters. Given that most of their opposing political Parties are merely branded versions of English Parties, whether the SNP would face much opposition is a moot point. But the overriding principle is that the main reason to become a normal country is so that you can choose your own Government and not be ruled from the country next door. If you make the wrong choice, then you vote them out at the next election. At the moment, the only election choices are essentially between the SNP and a Unionist Party. That is an awful situation which needs to change.

So, however much you may disagree with the SNP, to say that you would either abstain or vote No in any future IndyRef is, quite frankly, a ludicrous position to adopt. If we get the chance, we must vote to become a normal country. Failure to do so would condemn future generations of Scots to even more exploitation by Westminster, and those future generations might never get another chance. And if you hate the SNP so much, then you can vote against them in an independent Scotland in the same way as every voter in a normal country can do. As I’ve said before, independence will be around a lot longer than any individual politician, and just because you dislike the current SNP politicians should not undermine the fundamental cause of independence which is greater than any Party.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I will admit that I have not read a great deal about the trial of former Nurse Lucy Letby. That anyone could consider harming a child, let alone killing several, is so appalling that I could not bring myself to read any of the horrendous details. I can only imagine the heartache and grief experienced by those families whose lives she wrecked by ending the lives of so many newborn infants.

But there is more controversy surrounding her because she did not attend her sentencing at Court, and the UK Government intends to change the law so that, in future, nobody can refuse to be present when being sentenced.

While this feeling is understandable, I’m not sure that the reaction has been helpful. As was discussed in an episode of the excellent Newsagents podcast, it is not impossible that some accused could turn their appearance in the dock into a farce through their behaviour. And when someone has been sentenced to a life in prison, what further punishments could a judge hand down?

As with so many things in life, this matter is more complex than it first appears, but what is worse is that some people do have suggestions for how to treat uncooperative prisoners. None other than TV "personality" Richard Madeley does have a suggestion for how to add further punishment to force people to attend their own sentencing. He is advocating the use of Tasers and truncheons to disable, bludgeon and perhaps seriously injure anyone who is uncooperative. That such medieval ideas can be promulgated to a wide audience is yet another symptom of the lurch to the Right in UK society. It may be idealistic to insist that even despicable murderers should be treated as human beings, and I do appreciate that there can be situations within some institutions where violence needs to be met with an appropriate measure of force, but if someone is simply refusing to cooperate, do they really deserve to be physically assaulted? We often hear complaints about Police brutality, and yet now we have influential people calling for violence as a first resort to punish people even when they are offering no violence themselves. I find that a very disturbing train of thinking, but it is sadly indicative of the suggestions and comments being made by some people about anyone else they consider undesirable. We’ve even had people calling in to radio stations to advocate using military forces to turn back refugee boats even if it means that it will result in deaths. This is sadly reminiscent of a scene in the early pages of George Orwell’s prescient novel, "1984" in which a cinema shows scenes of helicopter gunships massacring refugees in boats for the entertainment of the crowd.

We often wonder how the Nazis came to power in Germany. It is through the normalisation of brutality that these things come about, and that begins with the normalisation of brutal words and thoughts. Richard MadeLey’s comments were perhaps intended to be provocative, but the very fact that he can feel empowered to suggest such things on television shows just how far towards depravity the UK is sinking.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

So the Tories managed to cling on to the Uxbridge constituency in the By-election, and most commentators seem to think it is because they turned it into a single issue campaign, with voters urged to show their displeasure at the proposed expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone. Since many Tories are motivated by self-interest rather than what is good for society, the tactic seems to have worked, but this really is an extreme example of Nimbyism. Reducing air pollution improves the environment and health, and it can reduce deaths. Yet, for some people it seems that being allowed to drive polluting cars is more important.

This sort of thinking is not confined to the UK, and it is impossible to introduce any policy which will not find someone opposing it, but the benefits of cleaner air must surely be visible to everyone. Everyone with the exception of Tories in Uxbridge, that is.

In a wider context, this result may be a harbinger of what to expect in the next UK General Election. Along with all the lies and obfuscation the Tories will employ, focusing on narrow self-interest may well attract voters. The only thing that might work against that idea is that the Tories have introduced so many harmful policies, and some voters may feel that a change is needed. Given that Sir Keir Starmer, aka Sir Kids Starver, offers a party which is so close to the Tories in its political ideology, even proclaiming that Greed is Good may not be enough to save the Tories from electoral disaster.

From a Scottish perspective, there is probably not much we can take from this. Scotland is very different in outlook, and we can expect both Tories and Labour to bang on about SNP incompetence and alleged corruption, while also playing the Union card at every opportunity. But perhaps the SNP can take a leaf out of the Tory playbook and focus on a self-interest campaign. Quite simply, if you don’t want Tory policies inflicted on you by Westminster, vote for independence.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

The other week, I was discussing the shocking state of the mainstream media with an English relative of mine. We were both bemoaning the biases, and he has even come to agree that the BBC are not impartial as he had once believed. I managed to recommend some alternative news websites and podcasts, so hopefully he’ll be able to find views not available from the mainstream media.

This did make me wonder about the general view that English people have about Scottish politics, and an article in today’s Guardian brought this home. The article featured research by a Think Tank called More IN Common UK, an organisation which, according to its website, was founded in the aftermath of the tragic murder of Jo Cox MP, with the intention of carrying out research in areas of the UK outside London and the South East of England to find out what people are thinking.

What caught my eye was the headline, which read, "Get a ‘Grip and Listen’. Scottish voters share views as Yousaf reaches 100 days in office".

On reading the article, it was clear that the research had produced a wide range of views from people who had all voted SNP in the past, and all of whom resided in the Westminster constituency of Lanark and Hamilton East, traditionally a Labour stronghold, which perhaps reveals the bias inherent in More In Common UK’s attitude. It was also revealing that the quote in the headline was not attributed to any individual although many comments were cited. These ranged from admiration of Anas Sarwar, through disappointment with Nicola Sturgeon, the usual stuff about there being more important things for politicians to deal with than a referendum, and the view that independence was the best way to resolve those problems. Views on Humza Yousaf were equally mixed.

So, an English-based reader of the article might well have come away with the view that there was a fairly even split, although the unattributed headline quote suggests that Scottish voters are not impressed with our new First Minister.

But what was most revealing was that there was no background on More In Common UK, nor was there any caution about using research which focused on a single constituency, yet is implied to be relevant to the whole of Scotland by the headline. Nor, I noted, was any information given about how many people were interviewed, nor any percentage record of whether they still intended to vote SNP at the next General Election. In essence, then, the article is pretty meaningless in its attempt to ascertain what the voting public is thinking. The quotes were so wide-ranging that you could pick and choose to find the opinion you want. And, as so often with Anglo-centric media, they chose a negative one for the headline, even though the article did not confirm that anyone had actually said it.

Next time I’m chatting to my English relative, I think I’ll use this article as an example of how the media distorts views of Scotland. For myself, I’d have focused on the quote about the way to tackle our problems is to become independent. But then, I’m biased.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I’m old enough to remember the days of Margaret Thatcher’s Government. I was a young lad in a decent job, and I do recall that the Tories were swept in on a wave of expectation after the many disasters of the 1970s. Three day working weeks, regular power cuts and endless strikes had left the UK in a sorry state, and because there was no media other than the newspapers, TV and radio, most people’s thoughts were shaped by what they were told to think, with any protest voices being labelled as part of the "Loony Left". I’m sure that sounds familiar to many readers because the media still plays those same cards when any threat to the established order presents itself.

Looking back, I’m embarrassed to admit that I initially fell for some of the Tory slogans. Trickle Down economics sounded quite sensible to a teenage lad trying to work his way up the employment ladder. I know I was not alone in this, but I would add in my defence that I was far more interested in beer, sports and girls, with politics being a long way down my list of concerns.

One other thing I do remember, though, is that, for all the many faults of Thatcher’s Government, most of the politicians seemed competent, and most displayed some gravitas even when they were spouting Tory rhetoric. Recently, I’ve begun to wonder whether that was my memory playing tricks, because we all know the damage the Tories did to so many aspects of our lives. Indeed, the legacy of those days is still with us in far too many ways.

Recently, however, I was listening to The News Agents podcast. It’s very Anglo-centric, but since England controls Scotland on an ever-tightening leash, I find it can help to keep tabs on what is going on at Westminster without the BBC bias getting in the way. Last week, one of their features was an interview with Lord Deben, better known to my generation as John Selwyn Gumer, once a member of Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet. He has recently retired from his role on the Climate Change advisory Group, and it was a fascinating listen. Compared to today’s Tories, he sounded like a Leftie snowflake in his thinking. He was, though, articulate, sensible and made a number of very good points, most of which were critical of the current UK Government. I could not help thinking that Gummer, who was often viewed as a bit of a buffoon back in the 80s, would run rings around any member of the current UK Cabinet in a one on one debate.

Now, he is a Lord, so he is fundamentally part of the problem in the undemocratic way the UK functions – or, as most of us have realised, does not function. Even so, it was a reminder to me of how far to the extreme right UK politics has shifted. When a man who was part of the Government which killed off Scotland’s heavy industry, which introduced the poll tax and began the privatisation move, and which encouraged the greedy, "Me first!" society, can sound reasonable and sensible, it shows how far towards fascism the UK has degenerated. And Margaret Thatcher still lies at the heart of this problem because she helped create the environment in which today’s authoritarians have been able to flourish. As a result, the UK is a broken state. Even Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party is further to the right than Thatcher’s Government ever was, and that is quite an achievement.

As ever, Scotland’s only hope is to become a normal, self-governing country. My hopes for this are actually encouraged because, thanks to greater political awareness and the advent of social media, today’s young people are far more aware of current affairs than my generation ever was.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I’m glad I wasn’t the only person who was a bit confused by Humza Yousaf’s speech about the way forward for turning Scotland into a normal, self-governing country. Although there is some debate over his plan, it seems that the bar he is setting is quite low, simply requiring a majority of Westminster seats at the next UK General election. Now, I’ve been an advocate of this approach for a long time because it uses Westminster’s own archaic electoral system against the UK Parliament. However, I’m honestly not sure it will work now. I fear we have missed our chance for using this measure as evidence that the people of Scotland want to live in a normal country. It should have been done back in 2015, and I’m afraid that, with polls looking the way they are, the chances of winning a significant majority of seats are slim. That would give Westminster the ideal chance to portray any claims of wanting independence as ridiculous.

The really big problem, though, arises whichever measure of electoral success is used. It is that, quite simply, Westminster will say "No" whether the Government is formed by corrupt Tories or promise-breaking Labour. And what does Humza Yousaf intend to do then? There doesn’t seem to be a plan for dealing with that inevitable situation.

But what choice do Scots have? If we want to become a normal country, the SNP is still the only viable political party we can look to. That may change, of course, but I don’t think it will be happening any time soon.

So I’m not overly impressed with this latest iteration of the SNP plan, although I must give credit to Humza Yousaf for raising the issue of independence so frequently. If nothing else, he is gradually bringing it back to the forefront of politics. In itself, this may seem no big deal, but it may be the first step in his strategy of building up support. I wish him luck in that, and I welcome his announcement that he’ll be at the pro-Indy rally in September. I also like the way he is politely correcting English interviewers and pointing out the democratic deficit we are faced with. On that front, he needs to keep going. Whether it will change minds, we can only wait and see, but at least he is actively raising the profile of the Yes cause.

Unfortunately, unless there is some seismic shift in Scottish politics, I don’t think we are very much closer to independence than we were in 2015. Let’s hope that changes soon, although it is difficult to see how that’s going to happen. I fear we need some more radical plans than the one Humza Yousaf has put forward.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

It was nice to hear Humza Yousaf state his determination to see Scotland become a normal, self-governing country within the next five years. I really hope he is able to deliver because some of the recent pronouncements from other SNP politicians on the topic of independence have been worrying to say the least. It seemed to me that they were setting up a scenario where they’ll admit that independence is not an option, but that we might be able to obtain some sort of Devo max which, while not ideal, could be the best option available. Of course, they framed this carefully so as not to give the impression that they have given up on independence, but the fact that they are clearly considering Devo Max is very concerning, and I’d like Humza Yousaf to come out and dispel any such notions as soon as possible because Devo Max should never be an option in a future referendum.

The reason for this should be plain enough. Devo Max has been promised before in the shape of Gordon Brown’s "Nearest thing to federalism" promise in 2014, and we all know how that worked out. Would any Westminster Government actually deliver Devo max? I very much doubt it. They’d say all the right things, then backtrack on promises as soon as they could. Nobody in Scotland should trust any Westminster Government to keep its promises.

And even if, by some miracle, a Labour UK Government did deliver, we must not forget that power devolved is power retained. That has been said so often in recent years that everyone should be sick of hearing it by now, but that does not make it any less true. So, even assuming a Labour UK Government scrapped the Internal Markets Act and granted (because they would be in control, so they would need to graciously permit us to behave like an almost-normal country), then what do you think would happen as soon as the English electorate voted in yet another tory Government? Yes, they’d soon find ways to reclaim all those powers that their Labour predecessors had granted.

But I doubt we’ll ever get that far. Sir Keir (Knight of the Realm) Starmer is an out and out Unionist. He loves standing in front of as many Butcher’s Aprons as he can, and his politics are so far to the right that only the neo-fascist Tories can outmatch him. Whatever he may say, and no matter how many times Gordon brown produces lengthy documents spelling out proposals for reform of the constitution, there is no way Starmer will contemplate allowing Scotland any more autonomy. He may promise much, but he’ll not keep his promises. Just look at all the things he said he’d do when he was running to be Labour leader. He’s dropped just about every pledge he made. Why would anyone think he’d behave differently towards Scotland?

So, while I’ve supported the SNP for years in their quest for independence, I strongly disagree with any plans to consider Devo Max. They may claim that they need to deal with the realities of politics, but playing the UK political game by the UK’s rules has got us nowhere in the past eight and a bit years. That is not going to change whoever is in power at Westminster.

I know many Yessers are becoming increasingly convinced that the SNP don’t actually want independence. I’m more of the view that they do want it, but they don’t want to face the hassle and risk of taking dramatic action in order to achieve the goal for which most of their supporters elected them. Because it would be risky, and they would face enormous backlash from the media and the hardened Unionists in Scotland. But the SNP’s support is largely due to a desire for our nation to become like every other normal, self-governing country, and if they don’t produce some clear plan soon, they will find that more and more of their support will drift away.

We should know by now that Westminster always operates on a delaying basis. They pontificate and talk, and they make many promises, but they wear down their opponents by placing so many obstacles in their way that people get fed up. That is precisely what they have been doing to Scotland since 2014. This is why some in the SNP are now openly talking about Devo Max as possibly the best we can hope for. I’m sorry, but it’s not nearly good enough. What we need is strong leadership providing a clear plan for how to gain independence. Humza Yousaf has said the right things. Now he needs to turn words into action.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

So the SNP have decided not to decide anything for a few more months. It’s not an entirely unsurprising move since many in the Yes community are convinced that the SNP have no real intentions of ever attempting to make Scotland a normal, self-governing country. I’m not entirely convinced by those who argue that, but I must say that the SNP continually provide ammunition for those who believe they are far more interested in simply remaining in power in a devolved Government than in pursuing the purpose for which the Party was founded. After all, we’ve had nine years to figure out a strategy, and the options are fairly limited to say the least, especially when an emboldened Westminster knows it can get away with refusing a Section 30 Order indefinitely. Some other tactic is required, and the only real choice is which of the few available routes to pursue.

It is reasonable to argue that, with no UK or Scottish elections likely to take place this year, there is no harm in delaying any decision, especially when the new First Minister is still finding his feet in the role. But, as with so many things, politics is almost as much about the optics as it is about actions, and the optics of this decision are not good. For one thing, it will reassure Westminster that the SNP are in a mess and don’t know what to do; for another, it will send a signal to the Scottish public that there is unlikely to be another IndyRef any time soon. Some will be pleased about that, but Yessers will be disappointed to say the least. I wonder how many disgruntled SNP supporters will decide to switch to Alba or ISP? Or will they stick with the SNP, giving them yet another chance to actually do something?

To be honest, it is no wonder that the SNP leadership are reluctant to make that important decision because it carries a great deal of risk. I would argue, though, that remaining tied to Westminster carries even more risk. The UK Government is ramping up its process of undermining the Scottish Government at every opportunity, and the longer we delay, the more difficult it will be to break free of their neo-colonial grip.

What really puzzles me about this decision is that part of the reasoning seems to be that the summer will be spent campaigning. Campaigning for what, precisely? With no stated goal in mind, the public will be entitled to ask what the SNP proposes doing to turn us into a normal country. If that decision hasn’t been made, then any campaign is going to be fairly pointless.

On the other hand, Scots who are not obsessed with politics and are simply doing their best to cope with the stresses of daily life may go along with things for a while yet. But you can only kick the can down the road so many times before people start to ask why they should continue to back you. Actions speak louder than words, but if your principal course of action is to delay, prevaricate and procrastinate, then you are playing into your opponents’ hands. Sooner or later, Humza Yousaf is going to have to stand up and be counted. I sincerely hope it is sooner.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Unsurprisingly, the House of Commons voted to suspend Margaret Ferrier MP for 30 days, thus almost certainly triggering a by-election in the constituency of Rutherglen & Hamilton West. I can’t say I have a great deal of sympathy for her, but it is interesting to note who voted in the decision. Barely a third of the total number of MPs took part, suggesting either that the majority didn’t care very much, or that they cared a great deal not to be seen to be passing judgement on such a highly charged case. And the reason it is highly charged has little to do with Margaret Ferrier’s blunder, and everything to do with the precedent this vote has created. It can be inferred from the fact that 40 Tory MPs voted against her suspension. This is because they know only too well that Boris Johnson broke lock down rules in an even more outrageous way than Margaret Ferrier did. These Tories actually seem to have developed a tiny bit of self-awareness, and realised that they could hardly vote against her when they fully intend to back Boris Johnson to the hilt despite his flagrant breaches of his own Covid rules.

So self-interest was at play in that vote, although the outcome was inevitable despite Tory attempts to fudge things. And self-interest also seems to be at play in the furore over Scotland’s Deposit Return Scheme. We know that the Tory Government has completely switched its position on the inclusion of glass in any such scheme, but the reasons for that switch are only now becoming apparent. Of course, it may be complete coincidence that Tory politicians have received hospitality from drinks’ companies who oppose the inclusion of glass, or own very large shareholdings in companies who oppose the inclusion of glass, or that a lobby group representing companies who oppose the inclusion of glass has made a large donation to the Tory Party. But it is a hell of a coincidence. There may be perfectly valid reasons for excluding glass, especially when we already have a system of bottle banks, but I can’t help thinking that the Tory reasons are mostly inspired by self-interest. But then, that lies at the heart of Tory philosophy, and the only way Scotland can ever escape being controlled by people who hold that attitude is to become a normal, self-governing country.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

It’s been yet another Brownhog Day, with Gordon Brown once again promising us something or other which he isn’t able to deliver. Not only is Labour not in power, but even if they do form the next UK Government, Sir Keir (Knight of the Realm) starmer has already said that reform of the House of Lords may not be the priority Gordon Brown thinks it should be. So it’s yet more nonsense from the Broon.

One of the attendees at this talking shop was Mark Drapeford, First Minister of Wales. I like a lot of the things he has to say, and I can’t help feeling he is in the wrong Party. But as well as joining the Labour pontificators, he also backed Humza Yousaf in calling for Westminster to respect Devolution. Now, I know they need to say things like that, but they must know themselves that it is a total waste of breath. Westminster will never respect Devolution, and we are seeing that yet again in their ludicrous stance over Scotland’s Deposit Return Scheme. Westminster was apparently quite happy for Wales to design a scheme which included glass bottles, even signing a joint document to that effect. But, buoyed by their successful blocking of the Gender reform Bill, the Tories are really going on the offensive now, using their internal Markets Act as a sledgehammer to squash pretty much anything the Scottish Parliament tries to do. After insisting that glass should be included in the DRS, they have now decided that they can block Scotland’s new legislation by changing their minds and insisting that glass be excluded. This will not only create havoc with the scheme, costing many retailers a lot of money, it allows the Tories to chip away at Holyrood’s decision-making powers. They will not stop here, but will use the IMA to block as much Scottish legislation as they can. Those who were jubilant when the Gender Reform Bill was blocked really should have tempered their feelings because, whether you agreed with that Bill or not, blocking it was an act of deep significance. Having succeeded, the Tories are now emboldened.

Of course, their hypocrisy over the inclusion of glass in the DRS, while evident for all to see, does not embarrass them in the slightest. Having demanded that Scotland’s plans be scrapped, they have now completely swivelled on their agreement with Wales, and are now telling Mark Drapeford that his plans will need to change. So far, he is digging his heels in, but it remains to be seen how far he will push things.

There’s no way yet of telling what will happen here, but one possible outcome is that both Scotland and Wales will either scrap their plans entirely or will go ahead without the inclusion of glass. But whichever way they go, it will cause much confusion and financial cost. It will also allow the BBC to mock the Scottish Government. And, once all of that has been achieved, just watch what happens when Westminster devises its own DRS. I’m not a betting man, but I’m fairly confident that their scheme will include glass, because that will allow them to point the finger at both Wales and Scotland, telling them they are out of step and had better improve their own schemes.

As ever, the only way to escape this madness is to become a normal, self-governing country. The same goes for Wales, and the sooner Humza Yousaf and Mark Drapeford get on with making this a reality, the better.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Do you remember how, back in 2014, author J K Rowling, a Labour diehard supporter, assured Scots that, if we voted No in the IndyRef, we would be in a very strong position and could ask for virtually anything we wanted from the UK Government? How did that turn out, I wonder?

Another author, Alan Bisset, made an impassioned speech around the same time, and he gave precisely the opposite view, insisting that Westminster would trample on Scotland, knowing that they could get away with pretty much anything because we had given away our sovereignty. And not just given a little bit away as happens to member countries of the EU, but we’d have given everything up.

Needless to say, the media at the time promoted J K Rowling’s views heavily, while Alan Bisset’s claims were barely covered. But that’s the UK media in Scotland for you. But, as we know only too well, Alan Bisset was correct.

As usual, Westminster has adopted a gradualist approach, but it has reached the stage now where they feel no compunction about overriding legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. Whether or not you agree with the gender Recognition Reform Bill or the Deposit Return Scheme, Westminster has decided to squash our new laws, using the flimsiest of excuses. Be in no doubt that they will continue to do this sort of thing on a regular basis, and no amount of complaining by the Scottish Government will make any difference. The Tories intend to reduce Holyrood to little more than a talking shop, and will use their Internal Markets Law to prevent us doing pretty much anything.

And for anyone who thinks that a Labour victory at the next UK General Election will change things, then I’m afraid you are very mistaken. Labour now is to the right of what the Tories used to be, and they will revel in the chance to keep Scotland subservient to their own desires. That’s because every UK Government knows that England is reliant on Scotland’s resources. They will never agree to a situation where they might have to pay for things that they can exploit for free, so they’ll fight Scotland’s independence every step of the way.

We need some radical ideas on how to escape the Union because Westminster will never grant another Section 30 Order no matter how many times we beg for one. They came too close to losing last time, and they will not take that risk again, especially since there is so much evidence that every promise they made has been broken.

I appreciate that things have been bad for the SNP recently, but Humza Yousaf and his team really need to get the finger out before Westminster’s frog-boiling tactics leave us with no route to becoming a normal, self-governing country. We’ve had plenty of talking, but we need to see some action soon. And the SNP should not fear taking bold action, because the Yes movement is ready and willing. All we need is a clear route. Let’s get moving.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

There’s a great article in The National today about GDP and how ineffective it is at providing any detail on the health and wellbeing of an economy. It reminded me that the UK boosted its own GDP recently by including an estimate of the amount of money spent on prostitution and illegal drugs. With this help, the UK maintained its position as one of the largest economies in the world.

If you were in any doubt at all as to why GDP is such a poor measurement, take a look at the current UK. The levels of wealth inequality, poverty and destitution are at their worst for a century, yet the UK is still viewed as a major economy. Obsession with GDP places focus on the wrong things. If we want a healthy society, we need to use other principal measurements such as employment, wealth inequality, poverty levels, life expectancy and so on. Yes, these are measured, but they are not the principal focus of either the UK or the Scottish Governments. If we are to become a richer society in terms of mental wellbeing and happiness, that needs to change.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I managed not to see a single moment of the coronation yesterday but, while social media was full of comments on how ridiculous the pageantry was, my newsfeeds were full of headlines proclaiming what a superb spectacle the event was, what a wonderful, benevolent, caring person Charles is, and how we are all celebrating with street parties and celebratory meals. All I can say is that this is very different to my experience of what is going on.

With any luck, the thing most people will take away from the flummery is that peaceful protesters were arrested before they had even begun their protest. This was despite being given Police permission beforehand. But, of course, the UK Government rushed through legislation which essentially allows the Police to arrest people for Thought Crime. It seems George Orwell was right; he just got the year wrong.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

A lot has been written and said about the farce of the upcoming coronation of King Charles III, so I thought I might as well get in on the act.

One interesting poll suggested that a majority of Scots view the monarchy as very much an English institution, and the reaction to the event in Scotland certainly suggests that there is little interest in it. I dare say a lot of people will watch out of curiosity or simply because it is, allegedly, a historic occasion, but I’ll certainly find something else to do with my time.

I’ve heard some claims that the cost of this day will now be in the region of £250 million, which is a disgrace when so many of the new King’s subjects are living in dire poverty. I’d have a lot more respect for him if he met the cost from his own immense wealth and even donated some of the cash he’ll never find enough things to spend his money on, to helping the poor. But he won’t. The monarchy is an institution at the very heart of UK society because it establishes the social class system. Adulation of the royal family is encouraged by the bulk of the media, and the King’s subjects are even taught to celebrate their inferiority by singing a national anthem which, unique in the world as far as I know, celebrates the personage of a single person whom we are supposed to treat with reverence. Perhaps North Korea has a similar national anthem, but I doubt many other countries celebrate their subservience the way UK subjects are taught to do.

As for the ludicrous attempt to persuade people to speak an oath of allegiance while watching on TV, I really don’t know where to start with that. It is so medieval that it has been rightly mocked. Sadly, I know at least one person who will probably dutifully recite it while standing to attention in his living room. Such is the power of indoctrination, although I’m thankful that it doesn’t seem to have affected most of my friends and family, all of whom expressed disgust at the very idea of stating their allegiance to an English king.

The other aspect which is gaining some publicity is the prospect of protests. Apparently, known members of republican organisations have been warned that they will be targeted by the Police. Now, I can understand that the authorities must be concerned about the prospect of some idiot with a home-made bomb making an attack, but peaceful protest used to be one of the British values we hear so much about. But even that is too much for the Tories who are almost on the verge of passing Thought Crime laws. If you even look as if you might be considering joining a protest, you could find yourself with a criminal record. Any resemblance to 1930s Germany seems to be quite deliberate.

There is no way I am going to London to watch this ludicrous spectacle, but I do think that a way of protesting which would have an international impact would be for people to join the crowd of spectators lining the route, but to turn their backs as soon as the royal carriage puts in an appearance. There would be no need for banners, shouted slogans or anything else, just the sight of hundreds of people turning their backs. I doubt that will happen, but it’s nice to dream.

The bizarre thing is that people living outwith the UK seem to have a far greater fascination with our royal family and this ridiculous pageant. Of course, they don’t need to live in a society which is directly impacted by having such a wealthy family lording it over them. Or maybe those citizens who are fortunate enough to live elsewhere and not be subjects are simply laughing at the pomposity of it all. For those of us living in the UK, the effect is quite different in that the existence and enormous wealth of the royal family is used as a media tool to maintain the vast social inequalities in our society. It is, quite frankly, disgraceful, and it is noticeable that, while other European countries have royalty, none of them pursue this constant adulation of monarchy the way the UK does. It’s as if they need to keep reminding us to know our place. Sadly, it works, although probably not on as many people as it used to.

As far as I am concerned, there really is no defence for maintaining a monarchy. Some people claim that the royals do so much for us, but what, exactly, do they do? Very little that is of any use. And even that old claim that they bring tourists is nonsense. Tourists come to visit interesting historical sites, but the presence of actual royals has nothing to do with that, as the Tower Of London and the Palace of Versailles constantly prove. And, of course, Brexit is putting many tourists off visiting a place which is portrayed in the international media as cruel and unfriendly, a far more influential factor than the presence of a royal family.

I only wish the Scottish Government would find some route to turning us into a normal, self-governing country sooner rather than later. Then we could take the sensible step of becoming a Republic.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

The UK media in Scotland are certainly ramping up the pressure on the SNP, with more and more revelations about murky goings on being reported every day. It will be interesting to see whether any of these propaganda outlets are prosecuted for contempt of Court, but I suspect they’ll get away with it because that’s how the UK operates.

As for the stories themselves, some people will say, "We told you so", others will be dismayed, and some will insist that none of this will harm the underlying cause of independence. That may be true, although the SNP is, at the moment, the only viable political vehicle for us to become a normal country. The UK media is desperate to bring about its demise, which is why they are working so hard to stir things up.

Now, I must say that if anyone within the SNP is found guilty of wrongdoing, then they deserve whatever punishment the Court decides. Actually, hang on a moment. The Court will probably impose a very tough sentence should anyone ever be convicted of wrongdoing because that is also how the UK operates.

I do hope that the Yes cause will remain strong in the face of these attacks. We need a political Party, and the SNP is still best placed to be that Party. If it does fail, then we will need to look elsewhere. Some people have already done so. What I find most disappointing about that is the vitriol being exchanged between supporters of the SNP and Alba. There may well be valid reasons for disagreement, but arguing amongst ourselves is playing into Unionist hands. We all want Scotland to become a normal country, and that must be our priority aim. We can argue about policies afterwards. Please, let’s stop the in-fighting.

With all that said, I do hope that everyone will be noticing the difference in media coverage regarding alleged misdemeanours within the SNP and the evident corruption within the Tory UK Government. If you ever had any doubts about whose side the media is on, those should have been dispelled by now.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

To the surprise of nobody at all, Humza yousaf’s decision to challenge the use of a section 35 Order by the UK Government has stoked up all the debate about Trans rights once again. It is, unfortunately, the role of the UK media in Scotland to bash the SNP as often and as hard as possible, and by conflating concepts and ideas, they are using this as a very large stick.

There are a couple of aspects to this. As regards trans rights, I don’t believe anyone has a genuine problem with trans people being afforded as much assistance as possible to lead their chosen lives. What most people who object to the legislation are concerned about is predatory males using the legislation for their own ends. Those are two very separate concepts, but the media has done a good job of stoking up argument and confrontation. This is made easy for them because there are genuine concerns on both sides. We have seen time and time again that predatory males will take any opportunity to gain access to vulnerable people. Whether it be in care homes, in youth sports teams or in religious organisations, stories of abuse have been all too common. Establishing protections while also improving the lot of trans people is a delicate balancing act and the whole thing needs rather more sensible debate than it is currently receiving.

The main issue, though, does not rely on this particular piece of legislation. The issue is that Westminster has blocked Scottish democracy in an autocratic and high-handed manner, offering no real justification, and certainly not offering any tangible solutions. For this reason, I think the Scottish Government is right in its decision to challenge the use of Section 35. I am sure the Supreme Court will find against them, ruling in favour of Westminster as it usually does in such cases. In legal terms, the Scottish Government does not seem to have much in its favour in this situation, and many will argue that pursuing Court action is a waste of money.

However, I think it is a necessary action because when the Supreme Court inevitably rules against the Scottish Parliament’s ability to pass laws, then the world will see once again that Scotland does not have the most powerful devolved Government in the world. We will see Westminster over-ruling our Parliament on a whim, using this legislation because it is high profile. But the blocking is purely political and we should be outraged no matter what the subject of the legislation is. Westminster is simply showing Scots that the UK is in charge. Let’s hope that the reaction of most in Scotland will be to appreciate just what that tells us about the current constitutional situation. The balance is heavily weighted against Scotland, and once a successful Section 35 enforcement has been made, you can be sure they will do it again and again. We are often told that we need to stand up to bullies, and I applaud Humza Yousaf for taking this stance. As I said, I don’t think he will succeed, but that is not the point. If Westminster can use this proposed legislation to make a political point, then the Scottish Government, on behalf of our Parliament which passed the legislation with the approval of MSPs from all Parties, can surely do the same.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

I have not written anything much about the SNP leadership contest because I’m not a member of the Party, so had no input to the contest. I do feel that it was an unedifying spectacle seeing the contenders gift arguments to the unionists by slating each other rather than promoting themselves, and I must admit I was not overly enthralled by the prospect of any of them becoming First Minister. However, we now have Humza Yousaf, and I do hope he will do a lot more than create headlines by making meaningless statements or gestures about independence without actually doing anything to further the cause. For a start, I’d love to see him attend the All Under One Banner march on 6^th May. Some might consider that a meaningless gesture, but the Yes movement is sorely in need of some positive action, and it would be a statement of intent.

Quite how any FM can bring us closer to becoming a normal, self-governing country, I am not sure, but I think we should all give Humza Yousaf the benefit of the doubt for a little while yet.

As for the wider Yes movement, it is disheartening to see supporters of both SNP and Alba slagging each other. I know there are some fundamental disagreements on policies, but if we all genuinely want Scotland to become a normal country, that must be the priority aim. Fighting amongst ourselves only helps the Unionists. As we know only too well, they have no qualms about joining together to maintain the Union, and the chances are that they will do so again. Already we hear stories of a proposed pact for the two main Unionist Parties to urge their voters to vote for the other Party solely in order to block the SNP at the next election. Since there is very little between the two Parties in terms of policies, I suspect this proposal may well turn into reality despite Labour’s Scottish branch office issuing denials. After all, they insisted they would not enter in to coalitions in local Councils, but have done so quite willingly in several areas. The Tory proposal to stand only one Unionist candidate in any area may seem far-fetched, but let’s not dismiss it out of hand.

As for Yes, where do we go from here? A recent poll suggests that Alba might be on track to gain some Holyrood seats, but since the next Holyrood election is years away unless Humza Yousaf calls a snap election, I think we need to reserve judgement on that one. At the moment, I’m not sure what the impact would be if Alba did gain seats. I think the hostility between them and the SNP needs to settle down or we will see yet more unedifying squabbles which would only help the Unionists. On the other hand, some would argue that the SNP need another Party to prod them along because the Greens, while expressing support for independence, don’t seem to have it as a priority.

As for all the polls which can suggest several things depending on how you read them, what strikes me is a point I have been trying to make for ages. Far too many Scots are falling for the Unionist trap of focusing too much either on individual politicians or on domestic policy issues. Yes, the energy bills crisis and cost of living, not to mention health and education, are important, but they will be important whether we are a self-governing country or remain under Westminster rule. Becoming a normal country will not solve those issues overnight, but it would give us a chance to address them as every other country does without having the Westminster Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, ready to cut our funding or strike down our laws on a whim. The cause of independence is fundamental, and nobody should be lulled into changing their minds on it because of any individual politician or domestic policy. The whole point would be to elect politicians who promise to enact policies we want, and to have the ability to remove them from office if they fail to deliver. At the moment, the SNP gather so many votes because they are the recognised Party of independence. This is not healthy for our democracy no matter how effective they might be in Government.

We need change, and we need political leadership. At the moment, that means relying on Humza Yousaf to deliver on his promises. But whether you are a member of the SNP, or of Alba, or of some other or no Party at all, please let’s stop the in-fighting.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

As I am not a member of the SNP, I haven’t spent a great deal of time watching the leadership debates. From what I can gather, the Hustings have been well received, with sensible debate and answers to audience questions. It has, though, been a very different affair on the televised debates.

I must say that I feel the SNP were in a no-win situation here. If they had stuck to their original decision of not allowing the media access to the debates, they would have been accused of trying to hide. But agreeing has left all three candidates open to the media hostility we all know exists. The TV format is designed to encourage argument and create an aggressive interaction, and I’m afraid the three candidates seem to have fallen into the trap of going along with this. The insults they have been throwing at each other have been a godsend to the Unionist Parties, which is precisely what the media wanted, and I am disappointed that the candidates did not agree beforehand to keep things civil while still promoting themselves as the best candidate. That sort of approach was perfectly possible, but it seems they have blown it.

From all accounts, the BBC did their usual trick of packing the audience with Unionist supporters. Now, I do understand the argument that whoever wins is going to become First Minister, so it is right that non-SNP members should be able to see what they are going to get, but I don’t recall the same thing happening with the Tory leadership debates where the audience was, as I recall, full of Tory Party members. Whether it was right to confine the audience to Party members, or fill it with opponents is something that can be debated. What is not in doubt is that the BBC did their best to give the Tory candidates a much easier ride than the SNP. That’s BBC impartiality in action once again.

As for who will become our next First Minister, I’m not enamoured of any of the candidates. All have points in their favour, but all have points against. Since my main concern is that Scotland should become a normal country, Ash Regan seemed positioned to be my preferred choice, but the truth is that she does not seem to have performed well when it comes to detail on her other policies. Both of the other candidates have said things which have slightly alarmed me, and I’m not convinced that either of them would be the leader we need if we are to gain independence. As always, I hope that I am wrong on that, but so far, I’ve not seen any signs of the sort of determination we need.

The one good thing about this contest is that it will be over fairly soon.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Like most Yessers, I am fully aware of the BBC’s bias when it comes to reporting news and current affairs. The latest furore over a tweet sent out by Gary Lineker has, however, reinforced my views even further. In the aftermath, with huge amounts of BBC airtime being given over to this Tweet, the BBC are now doing their level best to promote the UK Government’s reaction to it. Apparently, Gary Lineker’s Tweet has diminished the horror of the Holocaust if we are to believe Home Secretary Suella Braverman. Naturally, the BBC are highlighting this, as well as having promised to have a strong word with Mr Lineker.

But, of course, the Tory response is intended to misdirect attention. The Tweet in question did not mention the Holocaust; what he said was that the language being used around immigration was similar to that used in 1930s Germany. The point being that rhetoric aimed against minorities which encourages hatred and violence can be a precursor to much more horrible events further down the line. In this, Mr Lineker’s sentiments are matched by comments from some German commentators, and indeed echo the angry speech by a Holocaust survivor who challenged Suella Braverman only a few weeks ago, accusing her of precisely the same thing that Gary Lineker has done.

As if this were not bad enough, readers should note that the BBC happily condones Right Wing extremist language, and actively promotes Right Wing views on the truly awful Question Time programme which is largely responsible for promoting Nigel Farage and UKIP. And when you have the new Deputy Chair of the Tory Party joining GB News and being happy to be photographed with members of Far Right organisations, then I think it is fairly obvious which way the Tories have been heading for some time now. Anything like the Holocaust is unthinkable, but we’ve already seen riots outside hotels housing immigrants, which is precisely the sort of thing hate speech encourages.

There is very little chance that the Tories will change. They are too focussed on garnering votes from the most Right Wing elements of the electorate, but what is just as bad is that the BBC seems intent on silencing or at least distancing itself from any criticism of this hatred of foreigners. It seems that being impartial only works in one direction.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

As I’m not a member of any political Party, the current SNP leadership contest interests me only in so far as I want to know that whoever gets the job will pursue the cause of independence as a priority. We all know that the Unionist Parties will bang on about the Scottish Government needing to get on with the day to day issues, but that is a deflection tactic. Yes, things like the economy, Health service, education and so on are important, but the fact is that the Scottish Government is always dealing with these things with one hand tied behind its back because Scotland is not a normal, self-governing country. That is not to say that all social issues will miraculously be resolved once we do become a normal country, but it would mean that the Scottish Government would at last have all the tools available to normal countries. Most importantly, it would mean we could vote them out if they don’t use those powers to benefit our people. At the moment, the SNP receive a lot of votes simply because they are seen by the electorate as the pro-Indy Party with the best credentials. That in itself is an unhealthy situation since it means many people will vote for them even if they disagree with their other policies. That is a situation which is likely to continue until the constitutional question is resolved.

It's been no real surprise that Humza Yousaf is seen as the continuity candidate. Of the three, he is most likely to maintain the direction the SNP has taken under Nicola Sturgeon, and that, I think, is the problem as far as a great many Yessers are concerned. While there is no doubt that Nicola Sturgeon is a highly capable politician who has consistently shown her Unionist opponents to be second-rate, she really has not advanced the cause of independence very much at all. In fact, the encouraging recent polls have largely been due to the authoritarian attitude of the Westminster Government which has been behaving pretty much as most Yessers have predicted it could and would behave if given the chance.

As for who I’d vote for, I honestly don’t know. All three candidates have strong points, and all three have weaknesses. All I would say is that the Yes movement needs some strong leadership in the coming months, and the new SNP leader will need to provide that in spades.

In the meantime, of course, the Unionist media will keep churning out articles about how bad everything is in Scotland, and will continue to dig dirt on all of the leadership hopefuls. I hope the SNP members remain mindful that the media is not our friend.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Not being a member of any political Party, my interest in the SNP leadership contest is based solely on whether the new leader will provide the leadership that the wider Yes movement needs. Which of them will actually deliver on turning Scotland into a normal, self-governing country? That’s my overriding concern.

From what little I’ve gleaned in the past couple of days, I’d say that all three candidates have strengths, and all have weaknesses. It’s rather a pity they couldn’t act as joint leaders in a triumvirate, but that didn’t work out too well for Republican Rome, and I doubt it would work in the modern political environment, although the Scottish greens seem to be able to cope with joint leaders.

My main concern is actually for the mental wellbeing of whoever does become the next SNP leader and First Minister. Both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon had the mental strength to withstand the hostility of the UK media in Scotland, and whoever takes over will need that same mental strength. The fact that the media are already making a huge issue out of Kate Forbes’ religious beliefs seems to have scuppered her chances, although it is noticeable that they never apply the same scrutiny to the religious beliefs of other political leaders in Scotland. Of course, the media will focus on anything at all which gives them a chance to bash the SNP, so I suppose this is only to be expected, especially as Kate Forbes has shown herself to be a talented Government Minister. But, rightly or wrongly, I suspect it is a step too far for a Party to elect a leader whose fundamental beliefs on social issues is so far out of alignment with the Scottish public.

I’m sure we can expect media hatchet jobs on the other two candidates before long. NO doubt journalists are already digging deep into social media profiles and chasing anyone who might have some negative comments on any of the leadership hopefuls. It is, sadly, a sign of the times that the entire media has fallen to this tabloid level of journalism, but I suppose they need to do their masters’ bidding.

As for the candidates, it’s still early days to make any assessment, but I must admit that I do like some of the comments on bringing the wider Yes movement together and working with other parties, but I fear the SNP’s Sturgeon loyalists won’t go for that at all. Some of them seem to detest Alba more than they hate the Tories. And before anyone gets upset at that remark, I know that the same holds true in the opposite direction. Still, it would be nice to see every Yes Party working towards the same goal and putting their differences aside until we achieve that goal. As ever, though, the media will be the greatest opponent in that as well. You can be sure they’ll focus on splits and division, both within Yes and within the SNP. Divide and conquer has always been the British way.

Whoever does become SNP leader, I wish them well, and I sincerely hope they can take us beyond the current constitutional roadblock. Now, more than ever, we need strong leadership.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Nicola Sturgeon’s surprise resignation has met with varying responses within the Yes community. I would like to reaffirm that I think she is one of the most capable politicians in the UK, and has demonstrated time and time again that she is a superb communicator and is never afraid to take questions. She can think on her feet, and has always shown herself better able to debate than any of her rivals in other Parties.

Of course, there are those who have wanted her to go for a long time, and her critics can point to the total lack of progress on achieving independence despite several mandates, and also to policy choices and competence in carrying them out. Yes, the UK media in Scotland will always pounce on any mistake to hammer the SNP, but there have been rather too many mistakes recently.

All that is, though, in the past. The main thing now is what happens next. Who will replace her? We need someone more than just a highly competent politician. We need someone with a bit of fire and energy who will take us to independence. Being a good politician is simply not enough. My big fear is that nobody of that calibre is likely to be available. I do hope I’m wrong on that.

My other fear is that the SNP could dissolve into factions. This would set the cause of independence back yet again, and we cannot afford that.

And then there is Alba. Tainted as Alex Salmond is in the eyes of many, I am curious to see how he will respond. His fallout with Nicola Sturgeon has been one of the big problems faced by the Yes community, resulting in followers of both taking aggressive stances against the other. As I’ve said before, becoming a normal country is far more important than individuals, Parties or policies. Whoever becomes the next SNP leader and First Minister, I hope they will find a way to work together with all other pro-Yes Parties for the common good. By all means disagree on domestic policies, but we all need to focus on the real target.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

It was interesting to listen to Nicola Sturgeon’s recent media interview where she fielded questions on a range of topics. The hostility of most journalists was fairly evident, and most of them focused their attention on the recent GRR controversy.

I must admit my admiration for the way Nicola Sturgeon did not lose the rag at some of the questions. One, in particular, struck me as quite lacking in self-awareness on the part of the journalist posing the question. He wanted to know how the FM thought that people outside of Scotland would view the GRR furore.

The FM did not retort with the obvious remark that the uproar is largely of the media’s making. She did, quite rightly, point out that other countries have passed similar legislation without there being such opposition. She did, though, refrain from pointing a finger at the main culprits in Scotland even though they were all sitting in front of her.

Now, wherever you stand on the GRR, the one thing you can be sure of in Scotland is that the media, which is almost exclusively pro-Union, is going to seize on any opportunity to bash the SNP. Look at things like NHS waiting times which are pounced upon every time they are poor; look at the reporting of the delays in building ferries; look at the howls of outrage over the minimum pricing of alcohol. They even ran many articles critical of the building of the Queensferry Crossing, and are always delighted when there are traffic problems on that new bridge. With that sort of track record, it was inevitable that the media would use the GRR as a stick to bash the Scottish Government.

This is where I think the FM has got things seriously wrong. Much of the criticism over ferries is justified, so it serves no purpose to provide the media with yet more ammunition to bash the SNP. The GRR was always going to be controversial, and pushing it through has given the media a field day. Nicola Sturgeon would probably claim that the legislation is the right thing to do to help a stigmatised minority, and that politics should focus on what is the right thing to do. She may have a point, but public opinion, in part stoked by the negative media coverage, is not with her on this topic. Many people have serious misgivings about the potential loopholes in the proposed law which could give predatory males access to female spaces. In light of historic cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and youth sports coaches, those fears are understandable even if the Scottish Parliament believes they are unfounded.

My main point here is not about the various opinions on the gRR Bill, but on why it was wrong to bring the legislation forward at this time. Given Scotland’s ridiculous constitutional situation, it is foolish to give the media such an opportunity to create an uproar with which to bash the Scottish Government and, by extension, to turn people against the idea of independence. The latest poll shows support for becoming a normal country has fallen, with the blame being placed on reaction to the GRR.

Now, this reaction may or may not be the real reason. Opinion polls are notoriously capable of producing the result desired by whoever commissions them. However, if there has been a fall in support for Scottish independence, then there are two things we can take from this.

First, it is confirmation that the media can influence people’s views by seizing on any news event which allows them to bash the SNP. Since the SNP is synonymous with the desire to become a normal country in the eyes of the UK media and many Unionists, it is something of a political blunder to provide them with what they are looking for.

Secondly, and the part which really bugs me, is that the electorate are influenced on independence by policy issues or personalities. Becoming a normal country should not depend on who is in power or whether you agree with any of their policies. Scotland as a nation has been around for centuries, and will be around long after the current crop of politicians have gone. If current politicians do something you dislike, that really should not alter your views on independence. Indeed, even the current crop of proto-fascists who form the UK Government should not really influence views on independence except in so far as they are extreme examples of the fundamental problem. The English electorate seems to like right wing extremists, and Scotland has no power to vote them out. But these extremists are symptoms of the problem, not the cause, and we should only point to their behaviour to provide examples of why Scotland must become a normal country.

That recent poll has rather depressed me as it confirms that far too many people are missing the point entirely. Let’s hope they soon appreciate the real constitutional issue, and are not distracted and misdirected by the media whose job it is to keep them in ignorance of the real problem. On this point, I do wish Nicola Sturgeon, when responding to questions about teachers’ pay from those Unionist journalists, had made far more of the fundamental problem being that Scotland’s budget is set by Westminster. She alluded to it in a vague way, but she really ought to hammer the point home. Some may see that as playing the grievance card, but it is factually correct, and failing to mention it allows the media to point the finger of blame at the Scottish Government for not agreeing a pay deal. Public sympathy may well be with the public service workers who are taking industrial action, but as we’ve seen with the GRR, the media are capable of influencing that opinion. By always avoiding the central issue of who controls Scotland’s purse strings, the media are able to create the #SNPBad headlines they crave. Many Scots are immune to this now, but clearly, a great many are not, so the FM needs to do a lot more to highlight the problem. And she certainly needs to stop giving them ammunition by supporting unpopular policies.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

It is notoriously difficult to make accurate predictions. In any given situation, you can usually find people who hold diametrically opposing views on what will happen next. This is why I have an issue with Unionists and their media who constantly demand predictions from the Yes movement on what will happen in an independent Scotland. We can have ideas about what we want to achieve, and proposals for how we want to achieve those goals, but it is impossible to predict everything to the level demanded by the unionists.

Of course, Unionists are not so great at predictions either. Look at all the benefits we were promised in the sunlit uplands of Brexit. I don’t think I’ve seen a single prediction come true except that we would get blue passports again. Come to think of it, even that wasn’t strictly accurate as the old passports in the pre-Eu days were black, not blue, and I’m told the new ones are similar.

But as I look around at the utter mess the UK is in at the moment, I could not help recalling two people who did give predictions about what the result of the 2014 IndyRef would bring. By coincidence, both were writers. First, J K rowling, these days more famous for her stance in the gRR debate, was an ardent supporter of Labour, and willingly sat beside Alistair Darling at media events promoting Better Together. She went so far as to assure us that if we voted No, Scotland would find it had more influence within the UK than ever. As usual with such pro-UK announcements, she received a lot of media coverage over this. And her prediction lasted right up until the morning after the vote, when David Cameron announced English Votes for English Laws. Since then, things have developed pretty much as Scots writer Alan Bissett predicted. He insisted that a No vote would give Westminster free rein to do as it liked with Scotland and that, far from having greater influence, we would see ourselves seriously weakened.

Naturally, Alan Bissett’s predictions were not as highly publicised at the time because he was on the Yes side, but you can still find them on Youtube if you can bear to listen to just how cannily accurate he was.

As we now know, pretty much everything Better Together told us was a lie. I’m sure some of them actually believed it at the time, but they have all been proven disastrously wrong. We now find ourselves out of the EU, and shackled to a UK whose Government has veered so far towards the right that it now, by my count, meets at least 10 of the 14 traits of fascism listed by Umberto Eco. Google that list and make your own count. You could argue the UK’s score is even higher.

We’ve seen the sewell Convention broken, we’ve seen the Supreme Court rule against our right to hold another referendum, we’ve got an ongoing Power Grab, and we’ve got a Tory Government who are intent on keeping Scotland subservient to its own rule. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m getting heartily sick of this.

As to how we escape and become a normal, self-governing country, I honestly don’t know what the best route is. This is another situation where you can drop in on social media and find a wide range of views and predictions. For my part, the only prediction I will make is that, whichever route the Scottish Government does decide to follow, the whole Yes movement needs to be united. Arguing among ourselves will only result in us remaining trapped in the Union. That may well require some pro-Yes Parties to stand aside in some constituencies, but if that is what it takes, then egos and arguments over policies need to be forgotten. The time to bring those out is once we are independent. After all, the whole point of being a normal country is that you can elect a Government which represents the people, preferably in a PR voting system which will hopefully bring us into line with other modern democracies. We have seen only too vividly the mess that First Past The Post creates. Some may claim it produces a strong Government, but it should be clear to everyone that it actually results in an authoritarian Government. We need an electoral system where the resulting Parliament is dominated by the need for compromise and discussion.

Will we ever reach that goal? You can make as many predictions as you like, but the only way we’ll ever achieve it is if everyone campaigns hard and makes sure as many Yessers as possible get out and vote when given the opportunity. If we win, then I think I can confidently predict it will not be a land of sunshine, milk and honey. There will be problems and difficulties; mistakes and successes. But that’s what being a normal country is all about, and I’d like to think that most people can now see that we could do an awful lot better than the posh elite in Westminster who have been running our nation for over three centuries and still insist we are an economic basket case.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Whether Yessers like it or not, the SNP is still the de facto political arm of the Yes movement. Some might argue that we aren’t going to become a normal, self-governing country as long as Nicola Sturgeon is First Minister, but as things stand, we certainly aren’t going to get independence without the SNP in power.

So the recent announcement about the options now being suggested for the March convention are interesting and important. At the moment, it seems SNP members will be given a choice of whether to stick with the next UK General Election as the de facto Referendum, or whether to wait until the next Scottish elections.

I will make no secret of the fact that I think using the General Election is not the way to go. The only way I would support that is if the SNP decided that a simple majority of elected MPs would be sufficient mandate. I know they are not even considering that, but I still think it could work because it uses Westminster’s own unfair electoral system against it. After all, we’ve had three centuries of Governments elected by a minority of the electorate imposed on us by the First Past The Post system, so why not let Westminster know that we will play by their rules?

But that is, I admit, irrelevant because the SNP seem to have no intention of doing it, sticking instead to the idea that they need to gain over 50% of the popular vote to grant yet another mandate. This, in my view, is very risky. It is almost unheard of for any Party to attain that level of vote in a UK General Election, and the UK voting system means that we will be automatically disenfranchising a large number of people who are likely to vote Yes. EU citizens and anyone in the 16-17 age group is not allowed to vote in a UK General Election. So to use this as your route to independence is, I fear, risking failure.

Which leaves a Scottish election where far more residents of our country are eligible to vote. I think this is still the safest route, as long as the choice of Yes supporting votes is not restricted to the SNP. Votes for the greens or any other explicitly pro-Indy Party must also be counted. If the SNP stick to their stance of saying that only votes for them will count, then they will again be leading us on the road to failure.

The big problem with using the Scottish elections is that they are still a few years away. That gives the Tories far more time to ruin Scotland and destroy our democracy completely. For those hoping Labour will get in at the next UK General Election, I’m afraid I don’t see that making much difference. Sir Keir (Knight of the Realm) Starmer is an ardent Unionist and Brexiteer, so he’s not going to change much at all.

So can we afford to wait until 2026? I don’t think we can, especially as actual independence will not be for another couple of years after that. I honestly don’t think our NHS and other public services can survive that long under Tory aggression.

I do hope the SNP decide to use the Scottish elections as that will provide a far clearer view of the will of the Scottish people, but if they do go for that, then Nicola Sturgeon needs to call an election this year. I’m afraid to say that I don’t think she will do that because, fine politician as she is, she seems determined to postpone our chances of becoming a normal country whenever she can. To say I am dismayed to have reached that conclusion is an understatement, but she has done very little to demonstrate that she is prepared to push really hard for independence sooner rather than later. You can, of course, argue that using the UK General Election would show that she does want an early resolution, but as I mentioned, that is only an early way to losing the vote because of all the restrictions. If she sticks to that, she may kill our chances completely.

I will watch the Convention with interest because whatever they decide could seal the fate of our nation. That’s how critical this is, and I hope that the SNP will create conditions which give us the best possible chance of winning. We’ve tried playing by Westminster rules, and it has got us nowhere. It’s time to change the rules.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

For the past few years, I’ve been posting out on social media how pleased I am not to have been named in the New Year’s Honours Lists. Of course, the chances of me ever being named are so negligible as to be almost non-existent, but I do sometimes have a hankering to be approached by the Honours Committee just so that I could tell them where to stick their award.

This year, I got to thinking about why the Honours system is still so prevalent in the UK, and why so many people still seem to be impressed by the awards handed out.

To begin with, I know that almost everyone wants to feel appreciated, and sometimes it is nice to receive a reward for a job well done. The Honours system plays on this natural human reaction by handing out awards to people who have allegedly done something to make UK society better. This does include sports personalities, actors, charity workers and other campaigners, but the principal recipients tend to be people who have provided services to the people who run the UK. These awards are, I believe, a way to draw those people ever closer to the Establishment, and to make them part of the governmental system.

"Back the status quo and you’ll be rewarded with titles and a chance to earn more money," seems to be the way that operates.

As for those more ordinary people who are given awards, I must admit to a feeling of disappointment that they accept such baubles and trinkets which are designed only to make them feel grateful to the UK state. Much like military medals which are handed out to members of the armed forces who display bravery, these awards are designed just as much to reinforce loyalty as to show genuine appreciation. Indeed, the awarding of military honours was initially to encourage soldiers to try to outdo one another in their efforts to achieve the aims of their commanders. The Romans, for example, used to award prizes to the first man to reach the top of the wall of a city that was under attack. If that man survived, he could then strut around to show off his prowess to his comrades.

These days, a lot of people do seem almost as proud to display their awards. Perhaps I am in a minority, but I’ve never felt the need to show off the few awards I’ve ever received. Most of them have been for academic achievements rather than anything more unusual, but I’ve still never felt the need to put such things on display. I know of a couple of people who achieved those same qualifications and had the certificates framed and hung on their walls. Quite honestly, I have no idea where any of mine are. Probably at the bottom of a drawer or stuck up in the attic. For me, the achievement was the thing, not the reward.

But an awful lot of people do seem to feel that being given an award in the Honours List is in some way special. Perhaps it is, and I realise that my own objections to this system stem from the way it is implemented and controlled by those in power within the UK.

If Scotland ever does become a normal, self-governing country, I expect some similar sort of Awards system will be implemented. If it is, it would be a much better idea for it to be controlled by an independent review body rather than being left to the whims of whichever politicians happen to be in power. Perhaps a People’s Assembly could be convened once a year to propose and consider candidates, then convey their decision. Any such awards could then be physically handed out by an elected Head of state on behalf of the Republic of Scotland. Even I might consider accepting an award issued under such a system. As long as I have space left in the bottom of a drawer to store it.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

While there have been lots of public complaints about Jeremy Clarkson’s misogynistic comments, the media outrage seems to me to have been rather less than the outpourings of fury over Nicola Sturgeon saying that she detests the Tories. Perhaps my own confirmation bias is at work here, but I haven’t seen nearly as many furious articles about Clarkson. His comments have been reported, but usually in bland terms, while there were huge debates about whether Nicola Sturgeon should have said anything so detestable as expressing her detestation. Tory politicians, in particular, seem to be maintaining a much lower profile this time around. Since Mr Clarkson compared his hatred of Nicola Sturgeon as being comparable to his hatred of a mass murderer, I’d venture to suggest that his words were far more detestable than anything Nicola Sturgeon said.

Most of the focus about his remarks has been on his use of a scene from Game of Thrones to express his hatred of Meghan Markle. He has apologised for any offence and promised to be more careful in future, but, as with most such comments, the damage has been done. Quite why he thought that using a Game of Thrones analogy was appropriate is beyond me since George R R Martin, the author of the Game of Thrones series, often goes out of his way to shock readers with such scenes.

The media, of course, is funded by wealthy people whose aim is to maintain the status quo because a Tory regime (or even a Tory-light Labour one) suits them perfectly. This is why The Sun newspaper is still churning out its propaganda despite eye-watering financial losses. It is in the interest of the Establishment to have a means of distributing its view of how the UK should operate. This is the reason why The Sun published Mr Clarkson’s outrageous comments; it is the reason that the Michelle Mone PPE scandal was largely ignored by the media until the outcry became too loud, and even then the reporting was often superficial. It is the same with the rapid and highly persuasive debunking of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s claim that giving nurses a pay rise would cost every household £1,000. Anyone who does not rely on the mainstream media for their news will know this is a highly inaccurate and misleading claim, yet the debunking gets barely a mention, while the lie has been repeated so often that many people will have fallen for it.

Which is, of course, the whole point of repeating lies in the media. Since hardly any TV interviewer challenges such assertions, the lies are able to sink into the consciousness of those who lap up such short, punchy phrases even if they have the same relationship with the truth as the claims about NHS funding which the Leave campaign put on the side of a bus.

I’ve also seen some criticism of our new Queen Consort for hosting a dinner at which Jeremy Clarkson and Piers Morgan were present. It should be pointed out that plenty of other, less controversial "celebrities" were there as well, but the presence of these two arch Meghan Markle haters has been pounced upon as yet another sign of poor judgement on the part of the royal family. Social media has gone into overdrive about this sorry affair, and I've seen some people state that they believe the past week signals both the end of Jeremy Clarkson’s career, and the beginning of the end for the royal family. Perhaps I am too cynical, but I doubt it is the end for either of them. The royal family is at the very heart of the Establishment, and even though it sometimes suffers criticism, the media is generally very supportive no matter what the royals do. This may change slightly with a new King on the throne, but I doubt it. The Establishment needs the royal family as a figurehead and a distraction from daily life. Republicanism is frowned upon to such an extent that it barely gets a chance to make its case to the public. Adulation of the royal family is a cornerstone of Britishness, so I doubt that simply inviting a couple of misogynistic right wing celebrities is going to make much of an impact. As for Mr Clarkson himself, as long as he keeps saying things which align with the interests of the royal family, I’m sure his career will be just fine. It may take a slightly different path if the public refuses to engage with him, but he’ll still be around to dispense his particular brand of unpleasantness.

As ever, people need to realise that the media is not our friend. Demonisation of striking workers is already in full swing but, as I mentioned in an earlier blog post, the media are currently out of step with public opinion. This may change if the constant barrage of anti-Union propaganda continues, but I doubt it. Everyone can see what 12 years of Tory rule have brought. Some may revel in this because they believe that keeping foreigners out is more important than anything else, but more and more people are able to recognise where the root of the UK’s problem lies. The media will continue to try to persuade people to act against their own best interests by portraying anyone who seeks to disrupt the status quo as dangerous. Remember how they treated Alex Salmond and Jeremy Corbyn? Meghan Markle and Nicola Sturgeon face the same treatment, as does Mick Lynch. There is a reason for this, and I’m pretty sure you know what it is.

Thanks for reading, and if I don’t publish another blog before Christmas, then here’s wishing you as happy a time as you can manage in the current circumstances.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

News has recently broken that the UK Government might attempt to block the impact of the Scottish Government’s Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Their reasoning is that the Bill introduces things which are important for reserved matters such as pensions and benefits, or the issuing of official documents such as passports. If someone has their Birth Certificate altered, the UK Government may not recognise that change.

Wherever you stand on the GRA reform, this episode demonstrates once again the craziness of Scotland’s Government being effectively over-ruled by Westminster. I can fully understand the reasoning behind this because the current constitutional arrangement creates many such farcical situations, and it is, quite frankly, absurd that we should be in this situation at all, no matter which piece of legislation is the subject of the problem.

The constitutional divide also present Scottish voters with a very difficult problem. If you are desperate to see Scotland become a normal, self-governing country, but fundamentally disagree with the GRA, how do you vote? If you refuse to back the SNP in the next General Election, you may harm our chances of becoming a normal country simply because you disagree with the Scottish Government on one (or possibly more) elements of their policies. That’s a tough call to make.

That situation, of course, gives the SNP free rein to do pretty much as it pleases because it knows it can rely on the support of many people who simply want independence from Westminster control, and who see the SNP as the main vehicle for achieving that. Yes, I know there are other parties out there, but none of them have yet made much impression on the electorate, largely due to a virtual media blackout of their policies. In itself, this situation where the SNP know they will have huge support because of one over-arching policy is not good for democracy either. What we need is a situation where we could vote out a Government which introduces unpopular legislation if that is what we want. At the moment, every election is fundamentally founded on the constitutional issue, an issue which is so important that it creates this difficult situation for many voters. Because we know full well that any diminution of the SNP vote in any election will be loudly proclaimed by the Unionist politicians and media as proving that the desire for independence is lessening. Again, this is an unwelcome feature of the current state of Scottish politics. None of this: Westminster’s ability to over-rule the Scottish Government, the SNP’s ability to push through legislation in the knowledge that they will have a great deal of support no matter what they do, nor the predictable responses of the Unionist politicians and their media pals, is good for democracy.

As ever, there is an easy solution. If Scotland becomes a normal country, we can vote for any Party we like, basing our decision on their policies, not on the matter of their stance on the constitution. And every day that passes seems to throw up a situation which makes this more and more obvious. Perhaps that is why polling now shows a majority for Yes. Let’s hope we can turn that into some positive action before much longer.

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

While I prefer not to give too much credence to articles produced in the Unionist press, I do have an RSS app which provides newsfeeds from a number of sources. I think it is important to try to keep abreast of what both sides are saying on the political front. The downside to that is that, every so often, you come across an article that is so barking mad it leaves you shaking your head in wonder. Just such an article appeared on the City AM site recently. It was so full of inaccuracies and wild statements that I really didn’t want to share it. For the curious, you can read it in its full glory at the link below. Be warned. Your blood pressure may be affected by the craziness.

Scotland needs to abandon its dream world and realise what independence truly means (cityam.com)

It is, of course, important that we should try to see ourselves as others see us, but that piece is so bereft of facts, and so full of unfounded opinions, it really must rank as one of the most ridiculous yet. I rather hoped it was a spoof, but I fear it is genuine. Yes, some English commentators actually do believe that nonsense. Or, being charitable, they don’t believe it at all but know they must churn out that sort of drivel in order to persuade their readers that Scotland should remain shackled to Westminster in this not-so-voluntary Union of Equals.

It's hard to know where to begin countering that stream of nonsense. The unnamed writer clearly believes all the BBC propaganda about the ineptitude of the Scottish Government.

But it gets worse as it goes on. To say that Scotland acquires its wealth from England is just plain wrong. In fact, as statistics have demonstrated for years, it is England that benefits from the plundering of Scotland’s wealth and resources. Our oil, gas, electricity, whisky, salmon, farm produce, and so many other things should make us a wealthy nation, yet we allegedly remain an economic basket case after more than 3 centuries of Westminster rule. And yet, the writer of that piece seems to think that this is the best we can hope for because we would be so poor without the beneficence of our English neighbours.

This is, apparently, due to geography. England is closer to Europe and so has better trade links. This is an utterly bizarre statement when you consider that Brexit has severed those ties. It completely ignores Ireland, whose people are significantly better off than their counterparts in the UK; it ignores that Iceland seems to be managing perfectly well despite being even more remote, and it does not even consider the fact that the UK controls our exports as being in any way part of our problem. Our ports are not controlled by our Government, so creating links to other countries direct from Scotland relies largely on private business, few of whom have any great incentives to establish those links. Ireland, on the other hand, has created a fast ferry link direct to the continent in order to by-pass England when sending goods for export. An independent Scotland could, and should, do the same. Links to Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands should be a priority for us But to say that geography makes this impossible is, quite frankly, weird..

Geography may have an impact, but it is certainly not the barrier that this article seems to believe. After all, hasn’t the UK recently agreed world-beating trade deals with Australia and New Zealand? You can’t get much further away than that, and geographical distance doesn’t seem to have had any effect on the UK’s ability to agree deals which add to the damage Brexit is causing.

As I say, it’s incredible that anyone should come out with such utter nonsense, and it is baffling to me that so many people in England actually believe this sort of thing. It’s almost as if England is a foreign country.

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon. Scot

Nobody needs telling that the UK is in turmoil. It seems, though, that some people still don’t get who is to blame for this mess. I was appalled to see a Tweet by Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of The Sun, in which he referred to ambulance drivers as "Creeps" for announcing that they intend to take strike action. Not only is it almost laughable that a person like Kelvin MacKenzie can refer to anyone as a creep with no apparent trace of irony, he seems oblivious to why the men and women in this difficult occupation have taken the desperate decision to withhold their labour. The Tory government has sent the UK into a spiral of poverty and hardship for so many of its citizens that workers in far too many occupations are really struggling. It is not just ambulance drivers, but pretty much anyone who is paid by the UK state who is feeling the pinch, which is why we see nurses, teachers and others taking strike action. Yet the response of those on the extreme right is to blame the workers.

Similar things are happening in other occupations. The ongoing rail and postal strikes are taking place in privatised businesses where the management has adopted Tory philosophy by enriching themselves and their shareholders at the expense of their workers.

I am old enough to remember the many strikes of the 1970s and 1980s. But I sense a real difference between the current industrial disputes and those which helped give the UK the reputation of being the Sick Man of Europe. You see, back then, strikers were vilified by the media, and public opinion was at best ambivalent, and often hostile, towards the strikers. But people are no longer so reliant on the mainstream media for their news, and this time around I sense a very different attitude. Far more people realise that it is Government decisions which have created this utter shambles, and I detect a lot more sympathy for the workers than for the bosses or the UK Government. The premiership of Boris Johnson has shone a light on the greed and corruption at the heart of the Tory Party, and Brexit is so obviously the root of many social as well as economic problems that even the best efforts of the television and newspaper media cannot fool people into blaming the workers.

We have seen with recent announcements of thousands of job losses in the major tech companies that billionaire owners treat their employees as disposable items. On top of that, the huge inequalities in society both in the UK and USA are now so apparent that it is not jealousy which is driving protests, it is a deep sense of injustice.

Where will this end? I don’t think many people would venture to offer a prediction on that, but the way things are going, it’s not going to be a happy ending for many people at all.

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Twitter: @RabBrucesSpider

Mastodon: @RabBrucesSpider1@Mastodon.Scot

So the Supreme Court has given a definitive decision on whether Scotland is a colony or not. Legally, they are probably correct, but I thought it worth noting down a few thoughts on this question because, while Scotland may not legally be viewed as a colony, it has rather a lot in common with most colonies. Definitions vary, but there are some things that colonies have in common, so I’d like to take a look at them.

Military occupation or control by a foreign country.

The military occupation of Scotland was an established fact in the 18^th Century but is no longer a feature. One could argue that British Armed Forces are based in Scotland, and that they owe allegiance to the monarch, who in turn identifies more with England than Scotland, but I think that’s stretching things a bit. However, there is no doubt that military occupation was very much a thing in the early days of the Union. As for control, that’s pretty clearly the case in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, our exit from the EU and the various Power Grab Acts of UK Parliament. Devolution may have lessened this aspect recently, but the UK Government is now hell bent on re-establishing control. In that respect, while Scotland may not feel like a colony to many, it does have something in common with traditional colonies.

Exploitation of resources.

Oil, Gas, electricity, whisky. Need I say more?

Suppression of culture and language.

The Highland Clearances play a part here, although their purpose was more to benefit greedy landowners than to deliberately suppress Scottish culture. They did, though, clearly play a part because many people who were a major part of maintaining Scottish culture were forcibly evicted and sent overseas.

Scottish culture used to be tolerated on BBC TV with shows like the White Heather Club, although these generally served to portray our customs as quaint and parochial. In my view, this situation has not changed very much, although I’ll admit I don’t watch TV very often these days, so I might be wrong. But how many of us were taught at school that we must speak proper English? And in recent years, things like Gaelic road signs have come in for a disproportionate amount of vilification from Anglophiles. Back in the 18^th Century, kilts were banned, and if that’s not suppression, I don’t know what is. Since then, the methods of keeping Scottish culture as very much a minority aspect have been less overt, and Scottish language is certainly undergoing something of a rebirth. It could be argued that Scottish culture is reacting against centuries of direct or subliminal suppression, but I think there is little doubt that Scots are encouraged via the media to behave in a more British way rather than an outwardly Scottish one. And I don’t think I need to say very much at all about the BBC’s attitude towards Scotland becoming a normal, self-governing country. Most of the mainstream news is more than happy to talk Scotland down at any opportunity.

In these respects, then, Scotland has a lot in common with colonies of the British Empire. It does, though, differ in a couple of major respects. First, Scots were always free to rise to the top of British society provided they adopted British ways of thinking and acting. In regard to this, I think it is fair to say that for "British", read "English". But Scots were prominent in the empire building, and that’s something we cannot overlook.

Secondly, colonies are not usually given political representation, and Scottish MPs have featured since the Union of Parliaments. They have always been outnumbered, and we know that they are currently despised unless they, like their ancestors who helped build the empire, are prepared to conform to British behaviour. Indeed, we have seen Scots become Prime Minister, although moves have been taken to prevent this happening in future. Is that suppression? If not, what is it?

So is Scotland a colony? Technically, probably not, although it does have many things in common with a colony. The greatest irony of yesterday’s ruling was that the Supreme Court specifically declared that Scotland is not a colony because it has a measure of political representation, then promptly ruled that our political representation counts for nothing because Westminster is in control of our political future. I don’t know about anyone else, but that strikes me as contradictory at best.

The main thing is, though, that the entire world can now see that Scotland is most certainly not an equal partner in a voluntary union. That particular lie has been well and truly buried.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

In one way, Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn Statement was reasonably benign in that it was not as harsh as many had feared. And yet he has followed the usual Tory policy of hammering ordinary citizens while letting the wealthy go relatively unharmed. Yes, more people will fall into the 45% tax bracket, but I’d venture to suggest that most of them will be able to cope given the income level required to fall into that bracket. Increases in pensions and benefits may appear generous, but those won’t kick in until next year, so many people will need to suffer through the winter.

He's also performed that Tory trick of delaying some of the worst increases for a couple of years, meaning that if Labour do manage to win the next election, they’ll be faced with either scrapping the changes and incurring the wrath of the money markets, or sticking with them and incurring the wrath of ordinary workers.

But even if this Statement wasn’t called a Budget, it was still a typical tory Budget. Taxes imposed on renewable energy providers, while the taxes on fossil fuel extractors still have the loophole that they can avoid tax if they keep finding new places to drill for yet more fossil fuels. Tories may claim to be going Green, but their actions defy those words they spout so easily.

There were, as expected, no attempts to curb money going to offshore tax havens, nor to make the giant multi-national companies actually pay any tax in the UK. Instead, the burden has fallen on the citizens, with a few of them being given meagre handouts as a token gesture to make it look as if Jeremy Hunt cares. He doesn’t. He doesn’t need to worry as he’s a multi-millionaire. That’s not jealousy speaking, it’s a comment on the fact that the very wealthy have done very nicely under the Tories. As usual, everyone else is being hit, and we now face the prospect of a very significant fall in our standard of living. And with energy prices authorised to increase again in April, that situation is only going to get worse.

A lot of commentators are insisting that the Tories know they will lose the next UK General Election, and Jeremy Hunt’s budgetary decisions certainly suggest that he’s aware that is a distinct possibility, but I’m not so sure. By the time the next GE comes around, you can bet that the media will be portraying Messrs Sunak and Hunt as the sensible guys, the ones who calmed the markets and steered the UK through difficult times which had nothing at all to do with Brexit. It’s all the fault of that horrible man Putin and those disgusting illegal immigrants. Smear campaigns will be launched against all other Party leaders, including Sir Keir (Knight of the Realm) Starmer, and I’m very concerned that the English electorate will fall for it again. They usually do.

As always, Scotland needs to take another path as soon as possible to escape this nightmare.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

There are lots of enjoyable things about Mastodon, where a lively community is springing up on Mastodon.Scot. The culture there is a lot more welcoming than Twitter ever was, and one of the reasons I find it especially enjoyable is that the custom is for people to add image descriptions to the photos they post. This is not compulsory, but it is very much part of the culture on Mastodon, and I have been very impressed with both the number of people doing this, and the quality of some of the descriptions. My thanks to all who do this, and it is no wonder there are so many visually impaired people on Mastodon if adding image descriptions is the default behaviour. I’m sure I’ve come across more image descriptions in one week than I have in the past year on Twitter, and that is not an exaggeration.

Unfortunately, some new arrivals are sticking with their lazy Twitter habit of posting pictures without descriptions. I do hope they will soon adopt the Mastodon custom.

But one thing some people seem to worry about is what to say in an image description, so I thought I’d provide a few pointers.

The main thing is to mention what it is that makes your picture important. For example:

who is in it?

If they are doing something relevant to the message you are trying to send, explain what it is they are doing.

If the location is important to the picture, say where it is.

If what they are wearing is important to the message, describe what makes it important.

If it has text, it is possible on some apps to copy that text into the image description. If not, either copy and paste or at the very least explain what is important about the text.

If it’s a cartoon or some other joke, explain what the joke is, and what makes it funny.

If it’s simply a nice photo of a landscape, explain what it shows. Are there trees? Buildings? Water? Is the light important to the image? Be as descriptive as you like. I’ve already found some photographers who must spend as much time describing their pictures as taking them, and it really makes a huge difference to the level of my engagement with the picture.

If it’s a photo of your cat, say whatever you like because I’ll skip past it pretty quickly. (Sorry cat lovers). Seriously, there are plenty of visually impaired cat lovers, so be gushing in the description of your pet. What colour? What is he/she doing?

There are a lot of visually impaired people on Mastodon, and now I know why, but we could ruin this wonderful environment if we don’t adopt the Mastodon culture. It’s a friendly, inclusive place, and I’d like to think that most people will want to keep it that way.

And I really don’t want to hear people coming up with the excuse that they don’t have time to add descriptions. Mastodon allows users to type up to 500 characters rather than Twitter’s 280, and I bet nobody will complain that this means it takes too long to type a message. Mastodon doesn’t have the same pressures as twitter, so take your time when posting, and take a little extra to prove that you are willing to be inclusive. And have fun doing it. It’s not a chore if you enjoy it.

Thanks very much for reading, and I hope to come across some of your descriptions soon. Please don’t worry that you are making a mess of it. Any description is better than none. As they say on that silly TV show, "Just say what you see".

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Plenty of UK media outlets, and the usual pro-Union trolls, have been demanding to know why Nicola Sturgeon had the temerity to attend the COP27 conference in Egypt. Now, I have little time for these grotesque events which create far more CO2 than necessary and which tend to be talking shops where politicians say a lot of good things before returning home and doing either nothing or, as will no doubt be the case with Rishi Sunak, the precise opposite.

But, while I can be critical of Nicola Sturgeon for some things, I think the protests and questions about her attending this event were completely over the top. For one thing, Glasgow hosted COP26, so it was only good etiquette for her to attend the subsequent meeting, if only to symbolically hand over the baton. More importantly, though, Scotland has huge renewable energy potential and, if it were not for the UK Government insisting on sticking with fossil fuels and nuclear power, Scotland could be a world leader. It is quite right that Nicola Sturgeon should let other world leaders know this, and that Scotland could be a beacon to follow if it became a normal, self—governing country.

It is also worth noting that, until Rishi Sunak decided he needed to be there in order to prevent Boris Johnson hogging all the limelight, Nicola Sturgeon would have been the only UK political leader to attend.

Of course, no matter what Nicola Sturgeon does, she will be criticised. I’m fairly sure that, had she stayed at home, the media would have pointed to her lack of enthusiasm for the battle against climate change. But then, that is how the UK media operates.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Unionist journalists are gleefully reporting that Scotland would need to adopt the Euro if it wants to become a member of the EU. This, to judge from the framing of the headlines, is apparently a bad thing.

Of course, what those screaming headlines don’t tell you is that every country which joins the EU must make a commitment to adopt the Euro as its currency. This commitment is, however, left open-ended, and several countries have still not got around to using the Euro. Sweden, for example, joined the EU in 1995 but still uses its own currency, as does Poland which joined in 2004.

So giving the commitment is one thing, but actually switching to the Euro is quite another, and this is not a new EU regulation, it has been around ever since the Euro became the currency of Europe.

What we are seeing here is another attempt at Project Fear. The big question is why this should strike fear into people. It harkens back to the standard UK tactic of abhorring anything foreign. The Euro is a foreign currency, therefore using it is a bad thing. Yet, over the decades since its introduction, the strength of the Euro has steadily improved against sterling which, as recent events have shown, is far from the stable currency British Nationalists like to think it is.

So would using the Euro be a bad thing? Well, to begin with, an independent Scotland would need its own currency for at least three years before it could even attempt to use the Euro. Having our own currency is vital if we wish to re-join the EU, despite what the Scottish Government seems to think with its bizarre pronouncements that Scotland would re-join the EU while retaining the use of sterling. As many have argued, our own currency is also vital to help us break the shackles of UK economic policies.

Of course there are risks to having your own currency, not least of which is that it could be targeted by speculators. However, given the strength of Scotland’s position regarding the potential to export oil, gas, whisky, salmon and renewable electricity among many others, demand for a Scottish Pound is likely to be high. Would there, then, be any need to move to the Euro after three years? It carries the hallmarks of the disadvantages of using sterling in that it is controlled by the European Central Bank, and some people point to Greece as an example of what can go wrong. This is fair enough except that Greece should never have been allowed to join the Euro currencies in any case since its economic books were doctored to make it appear that it met the criteria. I’d like to think Scotland would go about the change properly.

As far as Scotland is concerned, the Euro should present few problems since our economy would be strong. Ireland manages just fine with the Euro despite not having the many advantages that Scotland possesses.

Personally, switching to the Euro would not bother me overly much. The argument that it means dealing in a different currency to our main export market is not sustainable since we’d have a different currency if we adopted our own Pound. Also, once back in the EU, England would quickly fall away as our main export market, as amply demonstrated by Ireland who now deal mostly with the EU rather than the UK. If Scotland did adopt the Euro, our trading with major exporters like Germany and Netherlands would be much easier, and our exports of food and drink would also find a very large and willing market.

Then there is the spurious argument that people who cross the border regularly would need to use two currencies. As usual, this is portrayed as a problem for Scots even though it is not a problem for people in Ireland or Switzerland who need to use two currencies. Besides, many transactions are electronic nowadays, so carrying cash is not as vital as it used to be.

My only real objection to switching to the Euro after three years is that it would mean two changes of currency within a very short time, and I don’t think that is a great idea politically. But if the EU were to make an exception and let us move from using sterling to using the Euro, then the only reason to fear this is because the Euro is foreign, and foreign things are bad because UK culture says so.

As ever, if it’s in the newspapers and it proclaims some disadvantage to Scotland, it’s probably not worth worrying about.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

so that’s another Tory Prime Minister gone, or at least going. This has resulted in many people calling for a General Election and, while that is understandable, it’s almost certainly not going to happen. Quite apart from the fact that the Tories can’t afford to hold a GE now because they’d certainly lose, the UK system is that voters elect a Party to govern, and each political Party chooses its own leader. Nicola Sturgeon, in particular, seems to have forgotten that she was elected as First Minister without being elected by the public. In fairness, the Scottish system is slightly different to the UK one in that she had to be elected as leader by her Party, then as First Minister by the Parliament, but since the SNP had a majority, that wasn’t much of an issue for her. But let’s not forget that Gordon Brown and Theresa May were also elected as Prime Ministers by their Party, not through a General Election. Every time this happens, opposition Parties demand a General Election and the governing Party refuses because that’s not how the UK system operates. And, in fairness, the current farce is not caused so much by this system as by the chaos within the Tory Party.

But would it make much difference in any case? Even if there was a General Election and Labour were to win, the UK would still be governed by a Pro-Brexit Party which is vehemently opposed to Scottish independence, and determined not to undo the various right wing policies the Tories have introduced. They might re-impose a ban on fracking, but don’t expect them to do much about the energy crisis, the cost of living crisis or very much else. Sir Keir (Knight of the Realm) Starmer is probably the most right wing leader Labour have ever had, and he only looks moderate in comparison to the fanatics who run the Tory Party.

So I can’t get too excited about Liz Truss resigning. Whoever the Tories inflict on us next probably won’t be any better. They will continue to treat the people of the UK as expendable and exploitable.

As has been the case for many years now, Scotland’s only hope of improving things lies with becoming a normal, self-governing country.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

So the Scottish Government have published their long-awaited paper on the economic case for Scotland becoming a normal country. I’ve waded my way through it and managed to stay more or less awake most of the time. There were, though, only a couple of points which really interested me.

In terms of background, the paper contained some interesting facts on comparisons with other EU nations, and plenty about the damage being part of Brexit UK is causing, but we all know that Unionists are impervious to facts, so I doubt this paper will cause many of them to change their minds.

I was pleased to see a commitment to rejoining the EU, but this was countered by an insistence on retaining the use of sterling for an unspecified time before switching to our own currency. These two things are mutually incompatible as the EU requires member states to have their own currency, yet this was not mentioned at all as far as I could see. I’m still not clear on how the Scottish Government intends to reconcile these two diametrically opposed plans, but I’ll return to that in a moment.

Some people, notably the estimable Richard J Murphy, have condemned this paper in the strongest terms. I find it hard to argue with someone with Mr Murphy’s expertise and knowledge, but I’m not sure I would go quite as far as he has in his comments. One thing I do agree with him about is that the audience for this paper is probably not the ordinary Scot. Indeed, how many people will read through a 110 page document? No, this paper is designed to reassure the money markets and present Scotland as a sensible member of the global economy. After all, if the Liz Truss misgovernment has shown us anything, it is that the markets need to be satisfied that you know what you are doing.

One thing many Yessers are upset about is the commitment to accept part of the UK’s national debt from the outset. This is not a legal or internationally recognised route to follow, but I think Nicola Sturgeon is trying to present herself as being reasonable when it comes to negotiations with Westminster. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad idea. If she began negotiations with all guns blazing, refusing to budge on this issue, she might not be able to wring other concessions from the sociopaths who run the UK. And if she insisted Scotland would not contribute towards the UK debt but then had to concede it in order to gain some other important point, she would be open to even harsher criticism. So, whether Scotland will actually end up taking on this unnecessary burden remains to be seen. I hope we don’t, but I’m prepared to accept the need to put on a show of willingness at this stage.

Of course, we need to win IndyRef2 before any of this can be put into practice. I’m not convinced that this paper helps in any way, but not producing it would only have handed ammunition to the Unionist media, so it was a necessary publication even though it does contain some things which disturb a lot of Yessers. Producing the paper was more of a political manoeuvre than a genuine attempt to convince anyone of the merits of becoming a normal country.

Of course, the Unionist media have pounced upon certain aspects of the paper. They are gleefully reporting that goods traveling between Scotland and England would be subject to Customs checks. What none of them are too keen to highlight is that this would be solely because England voted to leave the EU and is determined to abandon equivalence in standards so that it can import food produced to lower quality levels in order to … well, I’m not quite sure what they are aiming for, but the effect will be to totally undermine the UK farming sector. That’s another reason Scotland needs to go its own way. But, as for those border checks, it is England’s doing. They want checks with every EU nation. Scotland, as part of the EU, will have open borders with 27 other EU nations, and we are surely capable of re-aligning our trade to take advantage of this. Ireland has done it, so why can’t Scotland? You won’t find a Unionist journo telling you that.

The other thing the media have leaped on is the commitment (albeit a rather half-hearted one) to adopt a new currency. I think this may be why the paper makes such great play of only adopting a new currency when the time is right. We all know that far too many people in Scotland have been conditioned to fear change, so insisting on a new currency straight away, while the obvious and sensible thing to do, is likely to terrify those people who would rather stick with a sinking ship than risk swimming towards a lifeboat. This is why some media outlets are loudly proclaiming the intention to adopt a Scottish Pound without headlining all the caveats the Scottish Government has placed on this move.

Personally, I remain concerned at the SNP’s apparent willingness to remain shackled to sterling, but I remain hopeful that reality will force their hand on this when the EU insists on us having our own currency before we can re-join. That’s when the frightened voters will come to realise the necessity of ditching a failing sterling.

As for the rest of the document, I really didn’t take too much from it. It was, I’m afraid, an exercise in PR. Of course, that is what much of politics is about, so I can understand why it took this format. And it might yet prove to be a minor blessing that the publication was largely overshadowed by the continuing farce of Westminster politics. Then again, the timing might prove to be beneficial in another way. Those international money markets might look at the Tory mess that is the UK, then compare it to the rather bland and less than radical proposals from the Scottish Government and decide that they know who is more worthy of backing.

In essence, then, I am neither inspired nor dismayed by this paper. I am mildly disappointed in the currency angle, but sooner or later, even the SNP are going to face the fact that their currency plan is going to need to be revised. By that time, I sincerely hope we have voted to become a normal, self-governing country.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Once again, the Tories and their media allies are using the tax trap to point a finger at the Scottish Government. The argument they are putting forward is that the UK Chancellor’s cutting of higher rate tax puts pressure on the Scottish Government to match it or face a loss of income because of all the Scottish millionaires who will flee to England to avoid our punitive rates of tax. Some media outlets have even gone so far as to track down wealthy people who claim they are considering moving to England. However, what none of these stories ever mention is the collapse in the value of the pound as a result of the UK Chancellor’s ideologically-driven tax cuts. What the British media in Scotland are hoping is that nobody will notice the looming disaster and will instead focus on the dastardly Scottish Government who are unwilling to adopt the same demonstrably disastrous tax cuts. It really is a superb bit of journalism because the Scottish Government could be attacked for adopting harmful policies if it does copy the Westminster model. In other words, the media will attack them whatever they do.

But why do they focus on the tax cuts when the arguments against it are so evident? Quite apart from the fact that the British media in Scotland is always desperate to find any angle which can be used to criticise the Scottish Government, another reason they do this is because they know it works on some people who are fully indoctrinated in the UK system. I have a relative who has already complained to me about living in the UK’s highest tax area. He’s certainly not a millionaire, but compared to many he’s pretty well off with a nice house and car, and is able to support his family. Obviously, with the current cost of living crisis, he is affected as all of us are, but he’s not on the poverty line by any means. However, he is very unhappy at paying more tax than people who live in England.

When I pointed out that there are other benefits to living in Scotland, he was very dismissive. He has no need of medical prescriptions except on a rare occasion of illness, so he does not regard that as important. It is, after all, the sort of benefit which is aimed at scroungers.

As for free university education, his kids aren’t old enough to go to university yet, so that hasn’t even crossed his mind, and he simply shrugged it off when I mentioned it.

When I then pointed out that he could move to England but would find that house prices would more than wipe out any tax benefit, that his Council Tax would be much higher and that the public services he takes for granted would be of much lower standard, he was not convinced. After all, he has no plans to move to England, so none of those things will affect him. His only concern is that he will be paying more tax than English residents. He will not be paying more tax than he is at the moment, of course, but that is not the point. His comparison is with other people who he perceives as being better off than he is thanks to the Scottish Government’s apparently punitive tax rates.

This is a very weird sort of logic, but I was unable to convince him that paying taxes to help other members of society might actually be viewed as a good thing by many. Sadly, Tory ideology is so ingrained in his thinking that his only concern is with himself and how unfairly he is being treated.

Naturally, we must still try to persuade people that the tax trap argument is deeply flawed because of its focus on a single aspect of taxation, but I think we should always bear in mind that some people will never be convinced. That is why the UK media in Scotland is pushing this line of argument. They are providing comfort for those who seek any justification for sticking to their Tory values.

As far as I am concerned, the media, notably including the BBC, is not providing news, it is promoting Tory propaganda. They are going out of their way to push this story despite the very obvious economic calamity the Tories are inflicting on the UK. The sooner we escape the madness, become a normal country and establish a normal media, the better.

by Rab Bruce’s spider

Just when you think the flag-waving British Nationalists can’t get any more ridiculous in their worship of the monarchy, they come up with yet another bizarre idea to promote adulation of the late Queen. Apparently, there are now calls for her to be declared a saint. And yes, that is as daft as it sounds because there are a couple of reasons why it shouldn’t happen. I won’t say it can’t happen because the extremes to which the UK will go to further its royal fetish should not be underestimated, but I’d like to take a look at the arguments against this outlandish proposal.

First of all, the idea of sainthood is that it is earned through selfless acts which benefit either other individuals or the Church. There is a caveat to that idea which I’ll address shortly, but I think it fair to say that those criteria would be generally accepted by most people as being required before sainthood can be awarded.

So what selfless acts did the late Queen exhibit during her long life? She certainly had a lot of hospitals and schools, not to mention bridges and other public constructions, named in her honour, but as far as I know, she did not use even a tiny portion of her massive wealth to pay for any hospitals, schools or even food banks. In fact, as recent revelations have shown, she often went out of her way to ensure that her wealth was protected from any of the laws which affect her subjects. I’m afraid that simply being polite and dignified while remaining silent on social issues isn’t my idea of what would qualify one for sainthood. As far as I’m concerned, I can’t think of any act the Queen undertook in her long reign which would come close to being a saintly act. Perhaps those advocating her canonisation can come up with some examples, but I’m stuck at a count of zero.

There is, though, another very good reason why this almost certainly can’t happen. First, though, that caveat I mentioned. I’ll admit that I’m no expert on religion as it has no bearing on my life, but my understanding of the Protestant faith is that it regards every Christian as a saint by default. That means the Queen is already a saint in the eyes of the Protestant religion, but so is every other Christian. However, the Protestant version of Christianity is generally confined to Scotland and Northern Ireland as far as the UK is concerned. As with most things in this so-called union of equals, it can therefore be discounted for the purposes of this argument because it is Anglicanism which is the version of Christianity most relevant to the idea.

A wee bit of history first. When King Henry VIII of England was awarded the title, "Defender of the Faith", the faith in question was Roman Catholicism. Henry retained the title even after he ditched Catholicism and transformed England into a Protestant state because he didn’t like the Pope’s views on divorce. UK monarchs retain the title, but the faith they are defending is never really explained. Is it Christianity as a whole? Probably not, considering that Catholics are not permitted to become part of the royal family. So is it only Protestant versions of Christianity? Or is it only Anglicanism? I’m not sure at all.

As for Anglicanism, it is often viewed as a half-way house between Protestantism and Catholicism. It does retain some features of Catholicism but, importantly, it does not canonise new saints. That is still the preserve of the Pope of Rome. This presents something of a problem for the idea of sainthood for the late queen. The royal family’s highly sectarian stance on Catholics is, like most things monarchical in the UK, rooted in history, but nobody seems inclined to modernise it at all. Unlike railway workers, it seems the monarchy has no need to modernise. But what this means is that an institution which specifically bans an entire religious sect from participation now needs to ask the Pope, as leader of that sect, for permission to allow its former head to become a member of the Catholic Church’s most exclusive club. If the Pope spoke Scots, I can imagine his response being, "Aye, right!".

Despite this rather obvious reason why queen Elizabeth II is very unlikely to be canonised, it is always possible if sufficient influence and inducements are offered to the Vatican, but I think it unlikely.

Anglicanism, though, does recognise saints who feature from the early centuries of Christianity, and does have a sort of quasi-sainthood for important members of (normally English) society who are held in high regard. It’s not sainthood as such, but it is an elevated status which allows those individuals to be revered if not actually worshipped. Perhaps, in the Alice through the Looking Glass world of the UK media, according this status on the Queen will be sufficient to begin referring to her as a saint. If that’s what they want to do, good for them. Personally, it won’t alter my opinion of the monarchy in general or Queen Elizabeth in particular, although I dare say it might reinforce my opinion of the extremists who are promoting this bizarre idea.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

The odd thing about Liz Truss’s admission that a trade deal with the USA is not on the immediate horizon is that this is simultaneously good news and bad news. On one hand, any deal with the USA would inevitably have been agreed on even worse terms than the trade deals the Brexit Tories have agreed with Australia and New Zealand, and would have led to an influx of food produced to much lower standards than those currently required in the UK. Cheap imports of things like chlorinated chicken would have been commonplace, and these and similar cheap imports would be yet another disastrous blow to the already struggling UK agricultural sector, much of which is based in Scotland. So hearing that the deal is not imminent is good news.

On the other hand, it leaves the UK having left the EU and having no major trade deals to replace everything we have lost. It really is the worst of both worlds. Or possibly not if you feel some relief that we aren’t going to be flooded with cheap US imports. It’s all really very confusing.

Let’s not forget that this USA trade deal was touted as being the easiest deal ever, but that was when Donald Trump was President, and he was very keen on a deal because it would have allowed US healthcare and pharmaceutical companies to take over the NHS in its entirety. President Biden has a very different outlook, and his insistence that the Good Friday Agreement is respected is a deal breaker. That’s because the Tories have no intentions of respecting the GFA, and they seem quite prepared to abandon their ideas of a US trade deal in order to separate Northern Ireland from the EU. Once again, we have both good and bad news.

Then again, having the Tories decide our futures is bad news all round. Whatever they turn their hands to, the vast majority of UK citizens (sorry, subjects) will see no benefit at all.

On the whole, though, I think this admission that no US deal is imminent is probably good news for Scotland in the long run. That’s because it leaves the UK floundering in a Brexit mess of its own making, and the worse things become, the more likely the clamour for Scotland to leave the dysfunctional UK will grow. However, considering the pain we will go through because of Brexit, that’s no more than a silver lining on a very dark cloud.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

There is no doubt that the death of Queen Elizabeth II is a historic event, and the first thing I must say is that the death of any individual is a tragic and emotional event for anyone who knew them closely. We have all lost loved ones, and it often takes a long time to get over such loss. From a personal perspective, therefore, I have sympathy with the members of the royal family at this sad time.

It must also be said that Queen Elizabeth II carried out her public role with an extraordinary degree of duty, diligence, commitment, grace and dignity. From anecdotes of people who met her, she does seem to have had a sense of humour and a level of empathy with individuals she encountered at close quarters.

Having said all that, though, I think it is important to differentiate between the person and the position of monarch. While I can fully understand that the Queen’s death will have had a significant impact on those who knew her well, I am struggling to empathise with those members of the general public who never met her and yet who seem afflicted by grief. Yes, it is sad, but the reaction, undoubtedly encouraged by the UK’s sycophantic media, is out of all proportion to the actual impact the Queen had on these people.

I am not going to dwell on some of the more sordid revelations about the royal family as readers can find those elsewhere, but I want to consider why the UK’s response to this event is so extreme.

I don’t wish to sound too callous, but I must say that the Queen’s passing has had no emotional impact on me at all. I feel neither joy nor sorrow, only the same level of sympathy I would feel about the death of anyone I did not know personally. I never met the Queen, and her only influence on my life in a personal way was when my entire Primary School class was bussed out to stand at a roadside waving small Union flags while the Queen was driven past us at high speed. It was a bizarre event, and even back in those tender years of my childhood, I struggled to appreciate what all the fuss was about. Personally, I’d have preferred to be out playing football with my pals.

I think the main thing which irritates or even annoys those of a republican persuasion in the UK is the over-the-top reaction of our media, particularly the BBC where presenter Clive Myrie went so far as to tell his viewers that the new Prime Minister’s speech about the cost of living crisis was insignificant compared to the news coming from Balmoral. I do hope Mr Myrie will take some time to reflect on that, because the current crisis is going to result in the deaths of many more elderly people, and a lot of those deaths are avoidable. When millions of people don’t have enough money to heat their homes or cook hot food, that is not insignificant.

This adulation of the monarchy actually goes back a long way. It really began in England in the 11^th Century when William the Bastard, having defeated Harold II at the Battle of Hastings, found that his position as King of England was not as secure as he would have liked. He therefore began calling meetings of his nobles where he would make a point of parading around in expensive robes, wearing a crown and insisting on being title, "Your Majesty". This was the beginning of the move by the ruling family to instil an aura of mystique around their position.

Of course, this has not always worked too well. Under Richard II, the people revolted until they were mercilessly slaughtered. King John famously had to make concessions to his Barons, while Edward II and Charles I met violent ends. Over the centuries, though, and especially since the restoration of Charles II, the process of elevating the monarch to a status far above that of mere mortals has continued. The English (now the UK) national anthem is, I believe, unique in the world in that it does not celebrate the nation, but instead celebrates the person of the monarch, with the singers revelling in their inferior status. This was an important tool in reinforcing the social order during the 18^th and 19^th centuries, but the advent of television has greatly helped convince the British public of the value of the royal family in general and the monarch in particular. The Divine Right of Kings may have been abolished by Cromwell, but the royals are still regarded by many as being somehow inherently superior, and so are worthy of reverence. It is a testament to the power of this indoctrination that many people I would regard as sensible are going out of their way to express grief over the death of the Queen. This unthinking adulation of a Head of State is the sort of thing we would expect from North Korea and I find the obsession rather unhealthy. It seems to me that a large part of the official promotion of national grief is designed to remind people of their place in UK society.

My gripes about the institution of monarchy are many, although it must be said that other European nations do seem able to handle it in a far less extreme way. The UK, though, turns all royal events into enormous, expensive pageants, and the media do their best to shame people into joining in the show. This has led to the ludicrous cancellation of some, but not all, sporting events which means that people are still expected to work during the long mourning period yet are denied opportunities to find some enjoyment. And, having cancelled all senior football this weekend, it seems likely that the same will happen next weekend because the official mourning period will still be in progress, and having set a precedent, the sporting authorities will find it difficult to justify restarting their competitions. But cricket and rugby, sports generally not associated with the working class, are going ahead, and I will be interested to discover what happens in horse racing.

As for the oft-repeated claim that the royal family generate tourism, this is largely nonsense. I’m sure retailers of royal memorabilia can make some money from it, but it is worth noting that the UK’s largest visitor attraction is the Tower of London, where no royals have lived for centuries.

My greatest feelings, however, come from the vast accumulation of wealth acquired by the monarch. When her subjects are struggling to afford to live, the Queen did nothing to help, and we know from recent media exposures that her lawyers went out of their way to ensure that she was not affected by laws which everyone else needs to comply with. I’m afraid that the whole institution of monarchy in the UK is an affront to a modern state. Yes, it is sad that the Queen has died, but I find it even sadder that so many people who never came closer to her than handling a bank note with her picture on it, are now going out of their way to show how upset they are. Whether this is genuine grief or mere virtue signalling, it shows how ingrained the idea of adulation of the monarchy has become. People are conditioned to view themselves as inferior thanks to a simple accident of birth. For me, that just doesn’t sit right.

Will things change with the accession of Charles III? Some people think it presages the break-up of the union, but I have my doubts that it will have that much impact. It may be a small factor if the political process goes the way I hope it does, but I don’t believe that having a new monarch essentially alters the proposition for Scottish independence. Charles himself has clearly indicated that he intends that things should carry on by proclaiming his elder son as Prince of Wales without apparently giving any thought to how the people of Wales might feel about this.

I think things will carry on as before because it remains in the interests of the ruling Establishment in Westminster, along with their corporate and media allies, to maintain the status quo. We can therefore expect the media to continue to churn out eulogies for a long time yet. Continuity will, I believe, become a strong theme in the coming weeks and months.

In the short term, we will no doubt see a continuation of the barrage of programmes designed to maintain a feeling of loss and mourning. Whether even the BBC will be able to keep it up for ten days remains to be seen, but I’m sure they will have a damned good try. After all, their role is to persuade people how special the monarchy is, and it’s a message they will hammer home because they know that a great many people will believe it.

But it is not only ordinary citizens (sorry, subjects) who are subjected to this conditioning. The royals, too, are products of their environment. They have been brought up to regard themselves as special, and they will inevitably expect deference and obedience from their subjects. They are, after all, only human, and they, too, have been conditioned to believe that the UK’s monarchical system is, like most things British, the best in the world.

For me, all I can say is thank goodness for Podcasts and Netflix.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Last week, I heard a video clip of what sounded like a gentleman of senior years asking a question on what sounded like a panel show. If I had to guess, I’d say it was probably on the BBC’s extreme Right Wing propaganda show, Question Time. That’s not really important except to give a flavour of the question and the audience reaction. To cheers and applause, this gentleman made the point that the next UK Prime Minister must treat the preservation of the Union as of primary importance, and he asked what steps should be taken to suppress Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP.

This sorry episode raises several points. First of all, whatever some pro-Indy Scots may think of the SNP’s efforts to turn Scotland into a normal, self-governing country, many people in England still perceive them as a serious threat to the preservation of the UK in its current form. This preservation seems very important to many in England, but while Unionist politicians may appreciate the truth that England needs free access to Scotland’s resources, the majority of ordinary English citizens (sorry, subjects) seem to view retaining Scotland under Westminster control is simply a matter of faith. They never seem to articulate any reason except their usual historical fantasy of winning a couple of wars together, and it is probably not too unfair to state that, if any of them actually came to Scotland, they would spend most of their time complaining that it is not sufficiently like England. That may sound over the top, but I’ve certainly come across English visitors like that. Effectively, though, this absolute conviction that Scotland must not be permitted to leave the UK is essentially a colonialist attitude. In the minds of people like that, the British Empire is still a fond memory, and the very thought that anyone in Scotland might want to leave the UK is a genuine puzzle for them. They simply cannot get their heads around it. Worse, they don’t even want to try.

Then there is the use of the word, "Suppress". Unconsciously or not, the questioner used a word which any fascist would be proud of, and he probably didn’t even understand why it might be offensive. The very fact that a member of the public can go on UK-wide TV and say such a thing is ample evidence that Right Wing extremism is now the norm in Unionist politics. People now feel free to express abhorrent ideas as if they were perfectly normal. Suppression is a term with violent overtones and from the audience reaction to the question, far too many people agree with Lisa Nandy MP that the UK should employ violence against anyone supporting Scottish independence.

The UK Government will, of course, officially decry such a reaction, but that does not mean they are above using underhand tactics to prevent Scotland from becoming a normal country. On Sunday, we heard that they intend to introduce a law which would require over 50% of the Scottish electorate to vote Yes before the result would be recognised. This is pretty much what they did in 1979, and it means that anyone who does not vote, for whatever reason, is deemed to have voted against. This goes against all idea of modern democracy, and I don’t think any other democracy has ever decided anything using this ridiculous method. The whole idea is to ensure that, even if the UK Government does reluctantly accede to the democratic demands of the Scottish electorate, the result will be heavily skewed in favour of the Union. When you consider that, under UK rules, 16 and 17 year olds will not be permitted to vote, nor will EU citizens living in Scotland, then the chances of us ever winning are remote.

More than ever, this convinces me that we must not play by Westminster rules. Nicola Sturgeon really needs to change her own requirements and declare independence on winning a simple majority in a referendum, or winning a majority of seats in a UK General Election. Any other way of doing it simply plays into the hands of people who will have applauded the anti-democratic question asked by that gentleman on TV.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

Now is not the time! We’ve heard it before, and we hear it constantly from Unionist politicians and journalists. There was the Covid crisis, then the war in Ukraine, and now the cost of living crisis. For those who are fortunate enough to survive these various crises, the only thing you can be sure of is that there will be another crisis along very soon.

Unionists will seize on every one of these crises to insist that holding a referendum is the wrong thing to do because the Scottish Government should be concentrating on other, more important, things.

So when would the right time be? If we lurch from crisis to crisis, we will never be able to hold an IndyRef. Yet UK General Elections take place, Scottish Parliament and Council elections take place, but holding an IndyRef is deemed somehow wrong?

As with most big decisions in life, there is rarely a good time to take a major step. Anyone who wants to postpone a big decision can always find excuses. That’s all the Unionists are doing; finding excuses.

The whole point of becoming a normal country is so that we can tackle crises in our own way. Let’s face it, even an inept Scottish Government could probably still deal with things a whole lot better than the self-serving proto-fascists who currently run the UK. Most importantly, if the Government of an independent Scotland did make a mess of things the way the UK Government is currently doing, at least we would be able to vote them out, something we cannot do to the UK Government no matter how we vote. It is English voters who decide who runs the UK, and they almost always vote Tory.

And yet we will continue to hear the same old story from Unionists about now not being the right time because of some perceived crisis or other. On the contrary, now is definitely the right time. Independence is normal. Let’s get it done sooner rather than later.

by Rab Bruce’s Spider

There has been a lot of grumbling in some sections of the Yes community about the SNP’s commitment, or lack thereof, to turning Scotland into a normal, self-governing country. Wherever you stand on this point, there have certainly been some very worrying comments coming from senior members of the SNP.

In any field of work, managers soon learn the expression, "Managing expectations". In general, this is a phrase used to describe how to impart bad news to junior members of staff or, indeed, customers. I can’t shake off the feeling that some of the comments we have heard recently fall into this category.

It began a while ago with Pete Wishart putting himself forward for the position of Speaker of the House of Commons. Mr Wishart hasn’t earned the nickname of "Comfy Pete" for nothing, and this was perhaps the greatest signal yet that he feels he is at Westminster to settle down rather than settle up. Since then, he has directed most of his Twitter ire at supporters of the Alba Party rather than at the Tories which is another disappointment.

Then we’ve had Ian Blackford declare that he enjoys working at Westminster and is pals with a Tory peer. Considering that most Tories walk out of the House whenever Mr Blackford stands up to speak, I’d have thought he’d be far more angry with the place than he clearly is. Has he, too, settled down? I sincerely hope not.

And then there is Nicola Sturgeon telling us that she feels British. Now, everyone is entitled to feel how they like, but identity is a very important part of the Yes movement. I have actually been trying to put into words my own feelings on identity which I will readily admit have swung very much towards Scottishness rather than the Britishness I, and many others of my generation, were brought up with. The 2014 IndyRef certainly has a big part to play in this, but I think it is the rise in English nationalism since then which has done more than anything else to make me identify ever more strongly with my Scottish roots. And, if statistics are to be believed, over 60% of Scottish residents feel the same, now identifying as solely Scottish rather than British. Personally, I find it a little disappointing that the leader of the SNP still feels British in spite of the way the British political and constitutional arrangements have treated Scotland.

I really hope all of this is not the SNP attempting to manage our expectations. You can argue that Nicola Sturgeon’s decision to treat the next UK General Election as a plebiscite election shows that she is prepared for the inevitable ruling of the Supreme Court in favour of Westminster, but I am very worried that she is playing right into the Unionists’ hands. Getting a majority of seats should pose no problem, but setting the benchmark as a majority of votes, which is virtually impossible, and then using the UK’s electoral rules of disenfranchising 16 and 17 year olds, EU citizens and anyone without photo ID is simply giving all the advantages to Westminster. I know people would argue that declaring independence on less than 50% of the popular vote would be undemocratic, but the entire Westminster voting system is undemocratic and we have had to live with its consequences for over three hundred years. How can they complain if we use their own rules against them?

But whichever rules we decide to play by, we really need to see some more impassioned statements on why Scotland must become a normal country. It’s all very well publishing a series of documents, but these need to be followed up, and followed up with outspoken passion and conviction. I’m afraid that, so far, all I’m hearing is some managementspeak which seems designed to manage my expectations, and that’s never a good thing.

By Rab Bruce’s Spider

Well, it’s been an interesting holiday season. The farce of the Tory leadership election continues, with each of the main contenders doing their best to prove how much they hate the poor, the Scots, the Welsh, refugees, or anyone struggling to pay their energy bills. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has been jetting off on holiday while he holds the fort for his successor. His only recent contribution seems to have been an announcement that he will set up talks with the devolved Governments of the UK to discuss the energy crisis. I suspect these will be as productive as the talks he held with the energy companies, the talks about Covid strategies and the talks about Brexit. As usual with Boris Johnson, the announcement is almost certainly a publicity stunt to make it look as if he cares and is doing something. The reality will be a waste of time, with no tangible results.

And those sunlit uplands of Brexit seem as far away as ever, with the UK now recording the worst trade deficit since records began in the 1950s. The most remarkable thing about that is that the Brexiteers will continue to deny that this dismal economic outcome has anything to do with their precious project.

As for the value of sterling, it continues to fall against the US dollar, and its value has declined by far more than the allegedly catastrophic fall of 10% which was predicted if Scotland voted to leave the UK. Isn’t it funny how most of the media is silent on this?

And then there is the contentious issue of the proposed new freeports, although some of them now seem to be going under a different name in an attempt to convince us that they are something new and shiny. The most disappointing thing about this is the Scottish Government’s support for these Tory-inspired projects whose only benefit for ordinary people is that they may provide some low-income jobs with few workers’ rights attached. Any money being earned will, as usual in Tory Britain, flow upwards. In my view, the Scottish Government should be arguing against these Freeports which will become beacons of exploitation. Instead of proclaiming the imagined benefits of establishing Freeports, the Scottish Government really ought to be loudly proclaiming the case for Scotland becoming a normal country, and the creation of freeports could be used as an example of how the Tories intend to enrich their pals at the expense of working people who are desperate for even the lowest paid jobs.

Amidst all this nonsense, I’m told that nearly every item of food available in the majority of supermarkets is now emblazoned with a Union Jack even if it is produced in Scotland. This is offensive no matter which way you look at it, and it reminds me chillingly of those newsreels you see of Nazi Germany where everything had a swastika on it. This is one of the few things which makes me almost glad I can’t see, because the sight of so many Union Jacks would probably make me boak.

Related to that, I recently discovered that one of the backpacks I regularly use had a Union Jack stitched to it. It wasn’t visible when I was wearing the rucksack, but was there for all to see when I took it off. I was appalled when I heard this, but the problem has been resolved thanks to the judicious use of a pair of scissors to remove the offending (or is that offensive?) decoration. I’m now looking for a small Saltire sticker I can put on in its place.

All in all, the past few weeks have simply confirmed that the UK is a political and economic basket case, and the sooner Scotland becomes a normal country, the better.